Fight of Russian horsemen with Tatars. 1916. Hood. S. Arkhipov. Militaryhistorical museum of artillery, engineering and signal troops. Saint Petersburg. Photo of the author.
Continuation of the review of modern scientific views on the history of Rus'-Russia.
Entry
A huge number of works have been written: scientific and artistic, that “if all Russian lands were united, they would be able to resist” the Tatar-Mongols. It is difficult to argue with this "if only". The Russian land in the XNUMXth century was, in modern terms, a country of sovereign city-states with its own political ambitions, grievances, struggle with neighbors, clashes between “old” cities and “younger ones”, a struggle with Kiev. Therefore, they could not unite in any way. In such conditions, Rus' turned out to be a tributary of a stronger rival.
Who was that?
The nomadic society of the Mongols of the XNUMXth century, as the latest research shows, was potestar and exopolitan, that is, it was a nomadic society with a “consensual” structure in relation to the leader, where there was social inequality, but there were no state mechanisms of coercion and repression. In relation to the outside world, this society appears as aggressive and predatory, because it can exist only through the exploitation of societies standing outside it.
Under the conditions of the production structure of nomadic pastoralism, the appropriating mode of production based on war comes to the fore. They waged wars against communities that were not able to mobilize at lightning speed, and all sedentary and agricultural ethnic groups and states can be classified as such. The nomads did not set out to seize the lands if they were not in the steppe territory. They carried out exo-exploitation in relation to them, which was a combination of receiving tributes, periodic raids and collecting simultaneous indemnities (commemoration).
Of course, the Mongols could completely destroy the captured state. So, for irrational reasons, but completely in the spirit of the ideas of the Mongols, the Tangut state Xi Xia was destroyed in the north-west of modern China. At the same time, the Mongols had little influence on the internal structure of the subordinate countries that were outside the territory of the great steppe.
The “nomadic Mongol empire”, from Rus' to the borders of the Chinese Sun empire, existed as a single structure for no more than 20 years and collapsed in 1259. When China was finally conquered, the lands of Central and Western Asia, the Golden Horde was no longer part of the same state with the Yuan empire, which united Mongolia and China.
The Short Age of the Mongolian World-System. One of the maps that can be found on the Internet. It depicts the countries into which the short-lived "nomadic empire" of the Mongols broke up.
Some of the conquered territories that fell under the control of the Genghisids outside the Far East, for some time continued to formally submit to the Karakorum, even sent contingents of troops to conquer the Chinese empire of the Southern Sun. So in Khanbalik (Beijing), the capital of the Yuan, a detachment of the Russian Guard appeared along with other foreign guards. But from 1265, the Mongols of Central Asia began constant wars with the great and Mongol Khan and the Yuan Emperor. This ended the "nomadic Mongol empire" from the last to the first sea. This was written in detail on VO in a cycle dedicated to the war of the Mongols against the Chinese states.
Therefore, Rus' could not be part of the Mongol Empire on the territory of China, Yuan (1271-1369). She was not part of the nomadic horde of Eastern Europe, called the Golden.
Did Rus' turn off the European path?
This dispute is over two hundred years old. The idea that “the Mongols hid Europe from us” belongs to the first Russian historiographer N.M. Karamzin, which was quite consistent with the level of historical analysis of the early XNUMXth century, his arguments were criticized in the XNUMXth century, their groundlessness was shown by S.M. Solovyov, V. O. Klyuchevsky, A. E. Preselkov, etc. These conclusions were not confirmed in further historiography. In the XNUMXst century, from a professional point of view, they are the property of historical thought, and nothing more, as discussed below.
Nevertheless, there continues to be an opinion that if it were not for the Mongol invasion, then the development of Rus' would have led to a “certain European model”, and not to an “Asiatic satrapy”. This conjecture is not confirmed by anything in historical monuments. Again, the Eastern Slavs follow the same organic European path as the whole of Europe. The so-called lag is connected primarily and only with the fact that the Slavs entered the historical path much later than their kindred Western ethnic groups. In the following articles, we will see how these structures developed in our country and in Western Europe.
Immediately after the Mongol invasion, which passed like a terrible tornado through the lands of the north-east of Rus', no visible political changes occurred. All the old relationships, accounts and resentments continued to exist. On the eve of the attack on Kyiv by the Mongols for its "golden table", as if nothing had happened, the struggle of the Russian princes continues. Of course, the devastated and border volosts had no time for this.
While the regions not affected or only slightly affected by the Mongol invasion continued to fight for tribute on the borders (Smolensk, Novgorod, Polotsk, etc.), entering into a struggle between themselves and with new applicants for border tribute (German knightly orders, Lithuania). Rostov, which surrendered to the Mongols and thus preserved its community, and hence the militia, in the 40-60s. XIII century becomes the oldest city in the northeast.
Soon the princes, as representatives of Russian volosts, were forced to go to the Horde to determine the conditions of submission. It is noteworthy that the conquerors, based on their mental representations, saw in Rus' exclusively the defeated and tributaries-"slaves". And in the Russian princes they saw the same authoritarian rulers as they themselves.
The reverse side of these "journeys" was the fact that the Mongols unwittingly strengthened the power of the princes in the volosts, and the princes could now dispose of the principalities in a way that they had not previously risked and thought. This increase in the power of the princes was directly related to the tribute, which had no economic justification, but was appointed completely arbitrarily and in no way correlated with the economic capabilities of the tributaries.
Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (1191–1246), who received a label or the right to rule Russia, allocated the Kievan table to his eldest son Alexander Nevsky, and to the youngest - the real, richest part of Rus', the northeast. Alexander, not interested in sitting in the ruined city, sent his governor there. Former Kiev prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich (1186-1246), who fled from Kyiv during its capture by the Mongols, settled in Chernigov. During a trip to the Horde, he, refusing to perform pagan rites, despite persuasion from the Mongols, was executed.
Even such a harsh warrior and clever politician as Daniil Romanovich of Galicia (1201-1264) was forced to personally resolve issues with the Horde. He, who had been trying to find help in the West for a long time, decided that he himself could fight the Horde, began to strengthen the Russian cities of Galich, Volyn, Kholm. But the Baskaks, who went to these lands for tribute in 1250, 1252, 1260, demanded that the fortifications of Russian cities be destroyed. Daniel's new appeal to his western neighbors ended with symbolic help, the Pope of Rome honored him with a coronation in the city of Drogichin, and he himself, albeit formally, received suzerainty over the Russian prince.
Daniel's brother, Prince Vasilko Romanovich (1203-1267) was forced to destroy the fortifications of Vladimir-Volynsky at the request of the Mongols. The prince personally burned the walls, and the townspeople dug a moat. By cunning, he was able to save the walls at Holm, deceiving the Baskak Burundai. The princes of Western Rus', who defeated the Lithuanians, Germans and imposed tribute on the Lithuanian tribes, did not have any military capabilities against the superior forces of the Tatar-Mongols. And they continued their raids for new robberies and securing the relationship they needed: receiving tribute.
In 1252, the "Nevryuev's army" defeated the Vladimir land, although this may have been a continuation of the strife between the volosts and the Russian princes at the table in Vladimir. But an attempt to count tributaries by Tatar scribes caused an uprising in Novgorod in 1257-1259, Alexander Nevsky, fearing the wrath of the Mongols, himself suppressed the rebellion.
In 1262, in the cities of Vladimir-Suzdal, Muslim tax-farmers were killed, authorized, as in Central Asia, to collect tribute. The collection of tribute entrusted to the Muslims was seen by the Russians as a desire to destroy their faith. In 1270, Novgorod not only refused to pay tribute, but expelled the collectors Yaroslav Yaroslavovich (1230–1271).
At the same time, the Mongols continued their devastating campaigns against Rus', using any excuse for this, including the traditional strife between the lands for Russians; in 1292, the so-called. "Dudenev's army". The nomads captured Suzdal, Vladimir, Yuryev, Pereslavl-Zaleski, 14 cities in total.
During the second half of the XIII century between the victorious Mongols and the defeated Russia, as we see, relations begin to build. The key in these relations was the “tribute”, this is not a tax, but a payment similar to an indemnity, but not a lump sum, but a constant one, until the tributary recognizes the power of the winner over himself.
Helmet from a Mongolian grave. Late XNUMXth–XNUMXth centuries With. Nikolaev, Oryol region GE. Saint Petersburg. Photo of the author.
There has never been any inclusion of the lands of Rus', except for a small territory near Kyiv, into the structures or system of the "nomadic empire" or "ulus of Dzhuchev", as many publicists and historians assure us! Even the borders between the "nomadic empire" and the Russian lands were clearly delineated.
How has the system of Ancient Rus' changed?
The social system of Rus' did not change, but was weakened. With the death of cities, howls, free citizens of the volost, who form the basis of the inhabitants of the lands, also perished. This led to a significant weakening of the city or volost community, and the remaining population tried to leave for places that were safer from their point of view: from the south of Rus' to the northeast, from more significant cities, more often attacked by the Tatars, to less significant ones. After the XIII, with the beginning of the XIV century, it became obvious that the cities of Rus' were already physically unable to deal with an external threat.
The conquerors needed to establish a constant flow of income from the conquered lands with as little effort as possible. The Russian lands also needed to build relationships, protecting them from endless military raids from the steppes. To this end, the defeated representatives of the Russian lands, the Russian princes went to the Horde. Many of which die there, defending Russian interests.
Both sides, firstly, are trying to “grope” for acceptable relations, which does not change the actual state of affairs, where there are winners and losers. In this regard, it is completely untenable to talk about some kind of symbiosis between Rus' and the Horde.
Secondly, throughout the entire Tatar-Mongol yoke, these relations changed and evolved, the Horde was an unstable "steppe empire", in which its own unrest and "zamyatny" often arose.
Tribute or Horde exit was an extremely heavy and constant economic burden, assigned arbitrarily. It was accompanied by raids, emergency collections, "gifts" and lodging.
An attempt to apply in relation to Rus' the system of collecting tribute or "numbers", borrowed in Central Asia, failed.
Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the formation of a systemic collection of fees from captured or conquered agricultural societies, the collapse of the short-lived "Empire of the Mongols" began: there were no opportunities in the Middle Ages to manage such a vast territory. The Han Empire of the Southern Song (that is, China proper) was captured by the Mongols only in 1279.
Mongols on the march. A shot from the Genghis Khan TV series produced in Mongolia and China.
The urban armed movement in Suzdal, Novgorod and other cities did not make it possible to collect the "number" through external collectors: first the Baskak governors, then Muslim merchants-farmers, representatives not of the Golden Horde, but of the Karakorum. Despite the repressions by the Tatars, with the forced participation of the Russian princes, these two systems could not hold out in Rus'. Thanks to the active resistance of the volosts, the collection of the Horde "exit" goes to the "local administration". The transfer of tribute collection to the Russian princes from the beginning of the XNUMXth century provided them with a financial resource. This will give them the opportunity to defend the independence of Rus' and their estates.
The Tatar-Mongol rout dealt a blow to the democratic structure of Russian cities, but did not cancel it. Throughout the XNUMXth century, veche operated in the cities, which spontaneously resolved various key issues in the life of the community and volost. The volost continues to be a single whole organism without division into town and village. When we say townspeople, people, community members (modern term) - we mean all the inhabitants of the volost, without separation. The struggle continues between the volosts - city-states for seniority in the region or for getting out of subordination.
In Rus' there were not yet antagonistic classes sharply opposed to each other: feudal lords and serfs, towns and villages. The city remains a "large village" where most of the inhabitants are related to agriculture, even if they are artisans.
But what has changed?
Firstly, the Horde collection and the raids that accompanied it seriously undermined the country's primitive agrarian economy in a difficult climatic region.
As a result of the establishment of tributary relations, the Mongol-Tatars did business with the princes and tried to determine for them the places that they were supposed to occupy in Rus', but they could not even neglect the established traditional relations, when other princes or even cities could actually challenge this appointment on the spot . However, it was more important for the Mongols to receive tribute than to change something from the northern tributaries.
It is no coincidence that the Horde khans were called "kings", by analogy with the Byzantine "kings" external to Rus' ("Caesar" until the XNUMXth century).
The fact that the Russian lands, under the pressure of an irresistible force, were forced to pay tribute to them, did not make these lands part of the "nomadic empire." It is significant that Epiphanius the Wise (d. 1420) objectively called the Khan of the Horde "an imaginary king."
The Russian princes were forced to accept certain rules of the game imposed from outside, especially those that were beneficial to them. Now it was less and less possible to reckon with the volost community, but simply “to stand on the city” with the help of the khan's label. The city community (volost) could no longer show the prince the “clear path” (expel him), and having a khan’s label, the princes could now act by force with greater confidence, including involving the Tatar-Mongol cavalry. This tactic, in a historical perspective, proved to be justified: as soon as the Russian princes built up their forces, they immediately began an open struggle with the nomads.
The khans closely watched their tributaries, tried to prevent anyone from gaining strength, played on the contradictions of the Russian princes, skillfully playing them off. And only internal strife, the struggle for power in the steppe, could distract them from control over Russia, as Prince Dmitry Donskoy wrote:
“And God will change the Horde…”
To be continued ...