How the state began in Rus'

White-stone Moscow of Dmitry Donskoy. Hood. A. Vasnetsov. 1922

After the military-political catastrophe of the XNUMXth century, the question arose of who would have the supreme power in the Russian lands? Or who will lead the forces to overcome the situation that has developed after the Mongol invasion? The choice was made by an external force standing outside the structure of the country. The Mongol-Tatars, based on their understanding of the world order, saw in the Russian princes who came to the Horde, not representatives, but rulers of the "Lands".

This made it possible for the princes to behave in a completely different way with the zemstvo or volost.

Previously, it was the “Earth”, in the face of direct “primitive democracy”, that dominated or stood next to the power of the prince. Now, with the shift of the center of power, the “king” of the Horde, and not the community of the “Earth” becomes the source of power for the prince: Whoever has the power has the power. Therefore, within a short period, the "executive" princely power turns into the supreme. On the one hand, such a situation can be regarded as a usurpation, but on the other hand, it was historically natural.

Rus' could get rid of the yoke only with military forces no less than those of the Horde, the land or city-state with its divergent interests and city militia would never be able to unite. To solve this problem, it was necessary to concentrate all the forces of the so far sovereign Russian "Lands", without which the existence of Rus' as an independent subject stories it would be impossible. And the collection of forces capable of resisting the steppe Horde could only go through the capture or unification of these "Lands".

This is not the way to create a centralized state, as many have read about in textbooks and books. It was just a way to create a state or an early state, in the truest sense of the word, which did not yet exist in Rus' in the XNUMXth century: there was not even a term that defined it.

The weakening and then the fall of direct democracy and people's rule in Rus' was associated with the defeat of the city as an economic and political center by the Tatar-Mongols. The Horde undermined the economic foundations of the fragile agrarian economy of Rus', levying an inadequate, economically unjustified tribute - "an inevitable tribute." Undermined the economic foundations of the country, located in the zone of risky agriculture.

I would like to emphasize that more than one "Earth" alone could not resist the constant military threat from the Horde in military-technical terms.

Otherwise, all citizens had to be engaged not in economic activities (tillage, crafts and trade), but to be a permanent garrison, which is impossible to imagine in an agrarian society. Because of these reasons and under such conditions, there was an organic transfer of the functions of defense and diplomatic settlements to the princely power, which, in the process of solving these problems, became the supreme power.

In the Frankish state in the VIII-IX centuries. the free Franks who settled on the ground did not want, and could not, participate because of the increasing role of the warrior-rider in endless external wars. What caused the need to change the military structure, the basis of which was not a foot soldier-militia, but a warrior-rider, who was provided by his master. Which in turn led to a change in the entire structure of society, where the former leaders of the tribes, the dukes, passed into the category of service people of the king and his deputies in the field. Such changes generally led to the formation of an early, service state among the Franks, the pinnacle of which was the "empire" of Charlemagne (742-814).

Transition to a new management system

A natural process is taking place when the old form of social management dies out, unable to cope with external challenges. And the transition from city-states to a united military-service state is being carried out. And all this, within the framework of the communal-territorial structure both in northeastern Rus' and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Until the XNUMXth century in Rus' there was neither a professional proto-bureaucracy, nor a systemic written fixation of managerial actions, that is, attributes of the beginning of the development of the state.

The princely court as a state model

But at the end of the XNUMXth century, the question was about an adequate system of government that could cope with current problems. Naturally, there were no algorithms for its construction on hand, the whole process took place by trial and error, but all the states of Europe that arose on the site of the “barbarian kingdoms” were formed in the same way. Except for the details, the whole process was similar.

Instead of a spontaneous assembly-veche, the princely court became the basis of this system. Moscow began as this same courtyard.

At the head of a house or court in Rus' was the owner - the sovereign or ruler. "The Lord of All Rus'", as they wrote on the coins of the Grand Dukes. And the princely court differed from the court of any wealthy husband only in scale and rich decoration, but its system was completely similar.

On the one hand, it's just a yard with a house, in the most ordinary sense of the word. The state is built like a house, wrote Hobbes.

On the other hand, the “yard” is the palace army or the army of the prince himself, any prince or boyar, the former squad.

The sovereign's court was mentioned for the first time in the annals in 1405, and the actual term "principality" in the sense of "state" first appeared in the annals in the XNUMXth century in the west of Rus', and in the northeast - only in the XNUMXth century.

If earlier the prince, a certain nomadic leader, could withdraw and leave the volost, in 1224 Prince Vsevolod leaves Novgorod “with all his court”, Alexander Nevsky in 1241 “with his mother, wife and with his whole court”, now the rooting of the prince on earth takes place.

The court or “state” became the basis of the emerging system of governing the country, and this system itself received the name of the owner of this court - the sovereign, the ruler. She bears this name to this day.

The system of the court-state of the Grand Duke gradually spread over the course of almost three centuries to all subject communities or cities-“lands”, devoid of a political component, but having self-government. Power in this period is not power over territories, but power over people.

We observe absolutely the same evolution in management in Western Europe, which is at the pre-feudal stage of development, the period of the neighboring community. Like the court of the Moscow prince of the XIV-XV centuries, the court (curtis) of the Frankish kings in the VIII-IX centuries, including Charlemagne (742-814), looked like. Majordom (major domus), the eldest in the house - an analogue of the Russian butler, who was in charge of the estates and the house. The constable is the head of the stables, the head of the marshals (grooms), the seneschal (senexscalcus) is literally the senior slave responsible for the entire economy, the Old Russian key keeper, also of slave status. Falconarius - falconer, responsible for hunting. The cameraman was responsible for the treasury and wardrobe. It was from the positions of the court that the “state” positions that have survived to this day grew, their similar names were used throughout Rus': equestrian, bed attendant, steward.

All the inhabitants of the court were servants of the master, both "military personnel" and "service personnel", relationships were built solely on the principle of personal devotion. Within the lack of clear divisions of administration, interchangeability was present.

The "state" or earlier the state, the proto-state in medieval Europe, in contrast to Antiquity, arises where the service arises, and nothing else.

Gradually, with the spread of the court system to all Russian volosts, all the people were considered servants (subjects) of the prince, both under the Lithuanian and under the Tver, Yaroslavl, Moscow grand dukes.

All local management issues in the XIV and XV centuries. carried out by communities, princely power, having no bureaucratic apparatus, had nothing to do with them, with the exception of the highest court and criminal cases. At this time, the Russian prince was not yet the undivided ruler-monarch, but the sovereign-ruler.

So, Ivan Kalita (1288-1340) in his spiritual charter bequeathed to his sons only the cities he personally conquered. Vladimir, Pereyaslavl, Rostov, Uglich, Galich, Beloozero are not mentioned in the will.

In such conditions, the princes seek support in the best people of their court and city, known collectively as the boyars.

Boyars

In the pre-Mongol period, the princes entrusted the boyars with important tasks in the war and in government, the same thing happens in the XIV-XV centuries. Only, firstly, the range of tasks has grown significantly. Secondly, the prince becomes the supreme ruler, the source of power, and he wants to see servants in the boyars, as in all others in the "court", and not friends and comrades from the squad, as before. The boyars remain senior service people and “managers of all trades”: in war, in the princely palace, at feeding, in embassies, etc.

The institution of the boyars in different periods of history had different meanings: the boyars of the 1350th century are seriously different from the boyars of the 1389th century, although they had a common name. On his deathbed, Dmitry Donskoy (XNUMX–XNUMX) reproached the boyars:

“You are not called boyars by me, but princes of my land.”

In fact, the boyar administration was in his infancy, will be in the infancy of his grandson, Vasily II the Dark, etc.

Many princes, passing under the sovereignty of the Grand Duke of Rus', remain on their table, in their land, continuing to rule as sovereigns. However, the number of boyars, which included both princes and princes, relatives of the Grand Duke, was not large throughout the XNUMXth century, but with the growth of the lands of Moscow, it increased sharply by the end of the XNUMXth century.

At the beginning of the 1th century, only three boyars passed to Ivan Kalita, one of whom, who came from Kyiv, brought 700 people with him. On the Kulikovo field in 1380, 700 boyars and boyar children (the name of the future nobles) died from all Russian cities participating in the battle.

patrimony and land

As long as the ruling stratum in Kievan Rus received income from campaigns, tributes, duties and penalties, there was no need for landed property. Princely and boyar villages were a rare occurrence, islands in a sea of ​​communities. In them, the slaves were not engaged in cultivating the land, but in the production of important attributes of prestige and war, breeding horses, hunting birds, etc. Boyar families only appear in the XNUMXth century, and their land holdings do not arise until the XNUMXth century.

Initially, a fiefdom is a movable and immovable inheritance from the father. Later - specific land ownership with the right to dispose of those living on the territory of the estate and receive income or rent from them. The patrimony arises only with the beginning of the disintegration of the community, when the land became the object of sale, which was furnished with a huge number of conventions. Estates appear in Rus' only at the end of the XIV century. The bulk of the land continued to belong to the community, which bore both the tax (internal taxes) and payments of Horde payments (indemnity).

And the first estate owners, both in Rus' and in Europe, were monasteries, which for a long time received "contributions for the rest of the soul" with lands and allotments. As part of the spiritual upsurge in Rus' in the XNUMXth century, after the crisis caused by the Mongol invasion, many monasteries arose in different principalities. Fear for one's soul forced, as documents show us, to give all their property to monasteries.

Ancient Russian monastery. Hood. A. Vasnetsov. End of the XNUMXth century

In the XNUMXth century, the process of granting and donating lands went more intensively, primarily due to wastelands, lands requiring development.

Secular estates were formed in different ways.

Firstly, these were the lands of specific princes, relatives of the Grand Duke.

Secondly, these are the lands of the princes who went into the service or fell under the authority of the Grand Dukes of Moscow. In order to destroy separatism, or for other reasons, the Grand Duke moved princes or boyars, for example Novgorod, from one land to another.

Thirdly, these were the lands that were received by the boyars and other courtyards - "nobles" who served the Grand Duke.

In Rus', it was not land that was given, but the rights that the Grand Duke himself possessed in relation to persons in the transferred territory were transferred. The land remained in the ownership of the community and community members, i.e., zemstvos. And the votchinnik received for himself what the Grand Duke or another previous owner of the land had previously received, nothing more.

Medieval Western European pre-feudal and feudal society did not know, unlike Rome, private property. Throughout this period, the farmer maintained a close, “intimate connection of the family group” with the land, the land was a continuation of the family, clan and farmer, and was not an object of sale: “The land feeds a person, but does not enrich him.”

In such a society, accumulation was condemned and condemned in every possible way. This does not mean that it did not exist, but the farmer was limited to satisfying physiological needs for procreation, to know - to acquire attributes of prestige. Not a single social group and class had full and undivided ownership of land, since land becomes a commodity only under capitalist relations.

It is characteristic that the purchase of a village or land in the Muscovite state was not yet a full-fledged act of sale and purchase and had signs of a pre-class system. The seller had the right to redeem the land after 40 years, and sometimes even after 100 years, at the sale price. Buying or receiving land for service with farmers, as in the XNUMXth century, was impossible.

Money of the specific prince Vladimir Serpukhov, a participant in the battle on the Kulikovo field.

All lands, whether owned or communal, were cultivated personally by free peasants. There was very little land that was cultivated by slaves.

In Rus', as earlier in Europe, the presence of wastelands and castles, "villages", encouraged votchinniki to attract farmers to their lands.

Personally free "black people" fell under the patronage of the patrimony, the church or a noble person. The peasant, who received protection from his "senior", the estate owner, was freed from the burdens placed on the volost or his churchyard, which his community actively opposed, bringing disputes to the court of the Grand Duke, about which we have many petitions.

Because the formation of patrimonial land ownership leads to the disintegration of the territorial community. The emergence and development of new forms of land use leads to an increase in the productivity of agricultural and commercial labor, and its early specialization and intensification takes place.

And this led to the strengthening of opportunities associated with the growth of the combat capability of the Russian army, a key element in the emergence of an independent state. The votchinniks were service people, therefore they were obliged to put up soldiers from the estates, while troops were not put up from the communal lands.

But ecclesiastical and secular estates had nothing to do with the feudal system. The votchina opposed the feudal estate and was liquidated in the process of feudalization. Because the estate was issued forever, and the estate - only for the period of service.

The beginning of the "estates"

The Russian population of the pre-Mongolian period was divided into free (the bulk) and not free. In the period under review, a division began along the socio-professional principle. There is a further division of labor, caused by the needs of the development of the economy, but above all military affairs.

Due to the Horde tribute and the loss of external income (tributes), ordinary community members began to pay more attention to agricultural labor, crafts and the development of handicrafts. More and more moving away from participation in the city army, they began to have fewer opportunities, and even less desire to participate in the direct management of the volost.

The same period was in Norway, during the time of the neighboring community and the formation of the state in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, when the power in the person of the king forced the bonds (free community members) to participate in the naval militia, forced them to participate in the tings (meetings of the free). Prior to this, both were the right and the will of a free bond. In conditions when the bond turned into an agricultural producer - a peasant, participation in direct management became a burdensome duty for him, distracting from economic concerns.

This process was natural, and under the conditions of the Tatar-Mongol yoke acquired some specific features. Under the pressure of nomad raids, migration and displacement of the population took place, which increased the category of semi-free people. The economic class of peasants is being formed, on the basis of free (black people) and semi-free (purchases, smerds).

In the XNUMXth century, Russian farmers, in the face of the weakening of the Tatar threat and the absence of pressure from the state, began intensive internal colonization and land development for agriculture.

Formation of the service structure

With the advent of a large military estate, there is no need for relationships with the people (townspeople) as a source of military strength, and an increase in the size of the state led to the fall of direct democracy, when everyone's participation in solving political issues became technically impossible. A citizen or community member could not combine labor and combat activities, and both labor required professionalism and concentration. Metropolitan Photius in 1425 ironically called the militias of the city of Galich people in "sheep's wool."

This is what Russian princes looked like in the XNUMXth century. Icon of St. Boris and Gleb. Second floor. XNUMXth century GTG. Photo of the author.

The constant military threat gives the right to the prince, both in the Grand Duchy of Rus' and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, now as supreme leader of the community, impute service to all personally free community members. They carry out auxiliary services, such as the construction and repair of fortifications and bridges, transport, support of the Yamskaya mail, escort of embassies, especially from the Horde. They fight in the militia, staff, as the forces of the "court" against numerous enemies were not enough. Now it is not independent townspeople who decide whether to convene the militia or not, now they are simply mobilized, as, for example, the forced conscription of ordinary citizens, the mob, in Novgorod during the outbreak of war with Moscow in 1471.

The entire population, and personally free in the first place, becomes conditionally serving, which, of course, was not in Rus' before the Mongol invasion: the prince of the community or city was not served. Due to the absence of a state apparatus, the communities of cities and volosts themselves lay out taxes, administer court and pay princely tiuns. That is, the territorial-communal system is preserved, but the "city-states" are being replaced by a military service state. This is not yet a class state, but its forerunner - the proto-state.

It was a transitional form that existed in Rus' from the XNUMXth century until about the beginning of the XNUMXth century. With the beginning of the genesis of feudalism in Russia-Rus, the military service state is transformed into a feudal state.

To be continued ...

Comments

[parusnik]

Good morning Edward! They wrote too much "it was not", they will begin to prove that it was ..

[3x3zsave]

let's start proving what happened..
It's just the way it is.

[Richard]

They wrote too much "it wasn't", they will start to prove that it was

It's just the way it is.

Eternal theme, eternal question. The great Olga Voronets sang about this back in the 70s:
..... The past is lost like a leaf in the snow.
Was or was not, tell me, answer.
There was or was not something to regret. (C)

[Fat]

Greetings, Alexey. Be that as it may, the version presented by Eduard looks much more reasonable than the hypothesis of the "Russian Superethnos" with a certain "special path" of historical development.

[Korsar4]

Thanks Edward!

Particularly pleasing in the article are some turns and aphorisms, such as: "tribute is inevitable", "The earth feeds a person, and does not enrich him."

[3x3zsave]

"The earth feeds man, but does not enrich him."
Seryozha, will I really surprise you if I say that the denial of this postulate is the basis of European civilization?

[Korsar4]

No, Anton. It's hard to be surprised. Especially when a fair number of years ago I received from Tyutchev "A thought uttered is a lie."

But the question of rent is really more than interesting.

[3x3zsave]

Rent is a key condition for understanding the emergence and development of European civilization. Including the notorious "ownership of the means of production."

[3x3zsave]

Hello Edward!
If I understand this material correctly, the formation of a feudal proto-state requires the main stimulus factor, the presence of an external threat. What factor contributed to the emergence of the Carolingian state, references to which are seen as a "red thread" in the text?
Thank you for the article!

[Edward Vashchenko]

If I understand this material correctly, the formation of a feudal proto-state requires the main stimulus factor, the presence of an external threat. What factor contributed to the emergence of the Carolingian state, references to which are seen as a "red thread" in the text?

Anton,
Glad to hear, thanks for the question!
I’ll share a little: under Charles, feudalism had not yet begun to take shape, well, or there were rudiments, but there is no data. This, I repeat, looks like a military service state, the key word seems to be. Because European historians have just begun to study this topic here and there. For example, there is work on the Spanish border, it directly says not feudalism, but the service is in full swing. And about Charles, a couple of quotes from the Collection dedicated to the 1200th anniversary of the wedding of Charles in Rome, the emperor. Crown: Charlemagne and his time, M.M. Gorelov:
Charlemagne

“In the very first year of his reign, he faced a separatist rebellion in Aquitaine (led by Duke Hunald, whose possessions were divided in two between the lands of Charles and Carloman) and the formation of a Lombard-Bavarian coalition led by the Lombard king Desiderius and Duke Tasillon of Bavaria. The roots of these events went back to the recent past, and it is necessary to pay attention to them. As for Aquitaine, which was semi-dependent on the Frankish kings, its final conquest was carried out by the father of Charles Pepin the Short during the long and bloody war of 759-768.

“The Franks first encountered the Avar threat at the end of the 780s, when various opponents of the Franks - the Lombards, Bavaria, the Saxons - all as one appealed to the Avars for help. This circumstance put Karl before the need to take adequate measures. In addition, the Slavic provinces on the eastern borders of the expanded state of Charles suffered from the raids of the Avars ... "

After the death of Charles, they began as clashes between parts of the empire, and then, Arabs, restless Saxons, then Hungarians and Vikings ...
But the fact that the free Franks did not want to serve from the XNUMXth century is a commonplace.
Not as critical as the Horde and Lithuania in relation to Rus', all the same, everything here is more extraordinary, nevertheless ...

[Luminman]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

For example, there is work on the Spanish border, it directly says not feudalism, but the service is in full swing

The Spanish borderlands are stamps and their main task is to serve. They didn't do anything else...

[Edward Vashchenko]

The Spanish borderlands are stamps and their main task is to serve. They didn't do anything else...

Good afternoon, absolutely right!
And Rus' was all solid mark from the middle of the XIII century: the Order, Lithuania ... and the Horde.

[Engineer]

But the fact that the free Franks did not want to serve from the XNUMXth century is a commonplace.

Under Poitiers, as far as I remember, the infantry of the free Franks was still the basis of the army and the "guarantor of stability."
It is more legitimate to talk about strengthening the role of cavalry and good equipment inaccessible to ordinary peasants. And the desire to have as many of these warriors at hand as possible.
To do this, we squeeze the juice out of the peasants, who are less and less suitable for service in the militia. What I wrote below.

[3x3zsave]

Under Poitiers, as far as I remember, the infantry from the free Franks was still the basis of the army
In my opinion, not "yet", but "already".

[Engineer]

Why already?
Military service is compulsory for all free people in the barbarian kingdoms. There were very heavy fines for evasion. In the event of an enemy invasion, death was due for evasion.
It is clear that such a militia numerically consists primarily of infantry. However, until the 14th century, the infantry was losing ground. The rulers tried their best to get as many cavalry as possible. This is a general trend that correlates well with the development of feudalism. In my opinion.
In the era of Poitiers, the Frankish infantry is still quite a cake. Far from the decline of the 10th century

[3x3zsave]

Crap! I keep forgetting that there was more than one battle at Poitiers...

[Engineer]

Crap! I keep forgetting that there was more than one battle at Poitiers...

I'm talking about the second

[Luminman]

Quote: Engineer

I'm talking about the second

They smeared them with honey there at Poitiers?
There was also the first in 506 ...

[Trilobite Master]

We have a better place.
The town of Yuryev-Polsky. As many as four battles took place in its vicinity - 1097, 1176, 1177 and 1216. The first and third battles in historiography are called the battles on Koloksha, the second and fourth - the battles on Lipica.

[Korsar4]

Maybe because there is a forest around, and there is Opole?

[Trilobite Master]

By the way, there is an opinion that all four battles took place on the same field. And there are a bunch of versions as to where exactly this field is located.

[Richard]

Yuriev-Polsky. Maybe because there is a forest around, and there is Opole?

Exactly, Sergey! Since the city stands on the Suzdal Opole, And the prefix appeared from 1224 to clarify the location due to the existence of other cities with the same name during this period: until 1224 Yuryev (Tartu), and from 1224 Yuryev-Povolsky (Yuryevets)
The historical document - the Nikon Chronicle - says: "... in the summer of 6660 (1152 AD), the great prince Yuri Dolgoruky on the Koloksha River, in his name, lay the city, called the Polish"

[Trilobite Master]

Quote from Korsar4

Maybe because there is a forest around, and there is Opole?

If you look at the map, this is the very center of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. Apparently, all paths converged there. Or maybe it was just a convenient place, like "Scream, don't scream" in St. Petersburg during the 90s. A large clearing and approaches from all sides are convenient.

[sergej_84]

I’ll share a little: under Charles, feudalism had not yet begun to take shape, well, or there were rudiments, but there is no data. This, I repeat, looks like a military service state, the key word seems to be. Because European historians have just begun to study this topic here and there.

Here I didn’t understand you, do you think that European historians have only begun to study their own history in some places?

[Edward Vashchenko]

Do you think that European historians have only begun to study their own history here and there?

Everyone has the right to thoughts and conclusions.
No, it just didn't exist before.
If we take the development (very very very) schematically, the historiography of feudalism.
Until the 40s. XX. was the study of institutions by region.
From about 40, under the influence of the Annales school, "the attitude towards feudalism began as one annoying, epistemological phenomenon."
From the 8st century concrete studies on regions and zones began again, as a result, a clearer detailing began, the general view of feudalism was shifted, more attention was paid to regional features and specifics, and then the "discovery" began that it was not quite feudalism in the 9th-XNUMXth centuries. , but ... something similar to the service, but without the "mail fieva", speaking like Georges Duby.

It seems to me that the studies of the Soviet, and then the Russian school, especially with details and attention to agrarian history, are seriously ahead of the study of feudalism in Europe. Moreover, the medievalist's view of the Russianists from above has not been relevant for a long time. Many details and patterns of feudalism on the material of Rus' revealed more fully and better... because there are practically no materials for this period in Europe, in Russia there are few, but still seriously more. And their extrapolation will help to reveal more fully the genesis of feudalism in Europe.
Best regards,

[sergej_84]

Until the 40s. XX. was the study of institutions by region.
From about 40, under the influence of the Annales school, "the attitude towards feudalism began as one annoying, epistemological phenomenon."
From the XNUMXst century started again specific studies on regions and zones

Somehow, some figures, the same Tilly, do not fit into your concept.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Somehow, some figures, the same Tilly, do not fit into your concept.

Of course, there is a difference between the "main road!" in historiography and specific works.

[sergej_84]

Of course, there is a difference between the "main road!" in historiography and specific works.

I wouldn't say that Tilly is from the country road.

[Edward Vashchenko]

the presence of an external threat. What factor contributed to the emergence of the Carolingian state, references to which are seen as a "red thread" in the text?

Anton, in pursuit. Followed the links in this article:
In work: Verhulst A. La construction carolingienne VIII siècle - 840// Histoir de France. Des origins a nos jours. Sous la direction Georges Duby. l'Académie française. P., 1999. P.169. :
1. Arabs
2. Lombards as heretics and a threat to Rome
3. Falling away and raids of the Frisians
4. fight with Aquitaine
5. "Opposition" of the Bavarians
I repeat, not as significant as the Horde and Lithuania for Rus' ... but like Charlemagne, as soon as it became possible, Muscovite Rus' immediately switched to attacks, both against the Tatars and Lithuania, already in the XIV century.

[Engineer]

If I understand this material correctly, the formation of a feudal proto-state requires the main stimulus factor, the presence of an external threat.

There is another factor. The strengthening of royal power meant an increase in taxes and requisitions. Don't forget about church tithes. As a result, the tortured peasant was thinking more and more about how to fulfill his duties, and not about military exploits.
This process is well analyzed in the Scandinavian countries. With the adoption of Christianity, the burden of duties increased so much that the peasants began to avoid even participating in Things.
This process caused a steady decline in the combat effectiveness of the bonds, who stopped replenishing the Viking squads and asking for the royal squad. Instead, I had to work and work.
A transitional period began that almost destroyed Denmark, when yesterday's tributary Slavs began a century-long era of massacre and robbery of the Danish regions.

[paul3390]

What factor contributed to the emergence of the Carolingian state

Yes, the same - external enemies around the entire perimeter .. And if under the Merovingians the enemies were of about the same class, then the Carolingians had to deal with extremely mobile enemies, Vikings and all kinds of nomads. As a result, the usual foot militia of the free simply did not have time to arrive at the right place. It required an army that was equestrian. And this is a very expensive business. Otkel pennies in general, not very rich in money francs? How to pay for the content of the rider? So we had to give what we have - land. And feudalism began to take shape.

[Richard]

Initially, a fiefdom is a movable and immovable inheritance from the father. Later - specific land ownership with the right to dispose of those living on the territory of the estate and receive income or rent from them. The patrimony arises only with the beginning of the collapse of the community, when the land became the object of purchase and sale

Estates were of different categories: acquired, donated, ancestral. Until the XNUMXth century According to the Russkaya Pravda code of laws, the owners could dispose of the lands: sell, divide, exchange or lease the land, but only between relatives. Without the consent of the members of a kind of votchinnik could not sell or exchange it. This suggests that the patrimony, although it was private property, was not yet equated with the right of unconditional ownership of it.

[Richard]

And the first estates in Rus' became monasteries

The so-called church-patrimonial land tenure

[3x3zsave]

So it was everywhere, not only in Rus'. The church played a huge role in the formation of the European bourgeoisie.

[Richard]

In the times of Kievan Rus, the votchina was one of the forms of feudal land ownership. The owner of the patrimony had the right to pass it on by inheritance (hence the origin of the name from the Old Russian word "fatherland", that is, paternal property),
During the fragmentation of Rus', the votchina became the predominant form of land ownership, displacing the state form of ownership.
By the end of the XNUMXth century, the estate developed along with the estate.
From the beginning of the XNUMXth century, patrimonial land ownership increased again. The government rewarded the nobles for their service by giving them the lands of the old estates. The legal rights of estate owners were expanded, and the distinction between estates and patrimonies was being blurred. At the end of the XNUMXth century, in the central regions of the country, hereditary (patrimonial) land ownership prevailed over the local (service).
By the beginning of the 23th century, it was ordered to call estates and estates equally immovable estates or estates. By the XVIII century, the owners of estates and estates became equal in rights. And from the end of the 1714th century, a new law was introduced, according to which the estate could be inherited, but the new owner had to also serve the state, like the previous one. In the XNUMXth century, by the Decree of March XNUMX, XNUMX, on the uniform inheritance, the estates were legally equated with estates and merged into one type of landed property - the estate.

[Fat]

Greetings, Dmitry.

Quote: Richard

displacing state ownership.

Where could state property come from, if the state is only in the process of formation? It may be communal, if communal ownership of land as a means of production took place.

[Richard]

Greetings Andrew
I don’t know how to correctly call it, the meaning is that during the period of fragmentation of Rus' into princely destinies, the specific patrimony again becomes the predominant form, displacing the grand ducal

[Richard]

Princely estates began to form literally from the beginning of ancient Russian statehood. Yes, the princes did not forget about themselves! For example, it is known that in 863 Rurik was already handing out villages and villages to his combatants with might and main, as the Ustyug Chronicle reports. And since he was handing out, it means he could dispose of them as his own property. Moreover, Russkaya Pravda jealously defended the princely possessions. Thus, according to Article 32, a severe fine was provided for the burning of princely beekeeping lands, and for plowing princely land.
Subsequently, the Pskov and Novgorod judicial charters provided for more detailed and serious sanctions against violators of land property rights. In particular, such acts as “hitting” on the land of another, violation of boundaries (boundary boundaries), robbery, etc. were subjected to fines. The punishment depended on the social status of a person. (Eh… nothing changes in Rus'!)

[Richard]

The princely patrimony itself consisted of three components: palace, black and boyar lands. Yards are those from which taxes were received for the maintenance of the prince, his court. Such land was cultivated mainly by serfs, sufferers. Strada is work on earth for supplying various products in kind to the prince.
The Black Lands did not belong to anyone - they were not part of anyone's estates. They were usually rented out to different communities. The boyar estates were obliged to supply the prince with military men: each boyar brought with him soldiers, fully armed and equipped. In short, something like this!
Thanks for the article Edward

[Richard]

The patrimony (dedina) in Ancient Rus' is buildings, arable land, forests, meadows, livestock, inventory, and most importantly, peasants living on patrimonial land. In those days, serfdom as such did not exist, and peasants could freely move from the land allotments of one patrimony to another.

[3x3zsave]

Peasants could freely move from the land plots of one votchinnik to another.
Could not. For some reason, no one takes into account the factor of the peasant mentality.

[Richard]

With all due respect to the peasant mentality, they definitely could

St. George's Day means December 9 (November 26, old style) - the day of the year during which, in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, peasants could move from one land owner to another. This phenomenon in historical science is also called the "peasant exit". It is associated with the Orthodox holiday of the same name, the day of veneration of St. George the Great Martyr, the patron saint of farmers.

Greetings Anton

[3x3zsave]

With all due respect to the peasant mentality, they definitely could
Opportunity does not condition desire.
My compliments, Dmitry!

[Fat]

Hello Anton. It becomes interesting what part of the "planted on the ground" workers were slaves and purchases. Very often, raids on neighbors were aimed at capturing people working for a neighbor.
To swoop in, rob a neighbor, "slander" the peasants and plant them on their hereditary lands, and put the captured masters in their own business ...

[Edward Vashchenko]

It becomes interesting what part of the "planted on the ground" workers were slaves and purchases.

Good afternoon,
it's not quite right here.
While the land was only becoming a "value", no one acted by force, this is the end of the XIV - XV centuries, maybe the beginning of the XVI century: only serfs could buy, and the bulk were free peasants.
The patrimony was formed "peacefully", there were seizures of land, not people. There are a lot of petitions in the Courts about this. As soon as the use or distribution of estates for service began, i.e. the genesis of feudalism. Of course, the land was distributed with the peasants sitting there. The capture of the peasants began, of course, whoever is stronger and more powerful took the peasants, more often by "bribery": they left on their own, benefits, etc.
And then by force. During the Livonian War, the capture and removal of peasants from the border area became commonplace.
From the middle of the XVI century. the capture began in full and the struggle of the landowners with the estates, and after its destruction, during the Oprichnina, with the boyars. Which resulted in the first Russian civil war - the Time of Troubles.

[Fat]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

While the land was only becoming a "value" no one acted by the method of force

The fact is that this thesis is controversial. Land in the sense of "territory" has always been of sufficient value to resolve the issue by force. Hmm... Even for a pack of wolves.
IMHO, the land can be regarded as a "means of production" since the days of "hunting and gathering"

[Edward Vashchenko]

The fact is that this thesis is controversial. Land in the sense of "territory"

Not debatable ... but undeniably.
Territory of a tribe or pack, not land for cultivation.
Until this value comes to the fore, the land is worth nothing.
In Ancient Rus', the tribes, and then the cities, did not protect the land, so its value was very relative.
But after the Mongol invasion, the land becomes an object of desire and a source of wealth.
So a fiefdom appears, which destroys the system of owners of the "territory" - the land of the community, and which the estates are completely finishing off, though for one thing, the estate owners are also finishing off.

[Richard]

Opportunity does not condition desire.
My compliments, Dmitry!

Just like in that joke:

I have a desire to secretary Zinochka, but I don’t have the opportunity
I have the opportunity of chief accountant Rosa Lvovna, but I have no desire

My respect, Anton!

[Richard]

An estate and an estate are two forms of land ownership in Muscovy in the 14th-16th centuries. Both acquired and inherited lands gradually lost their differences - after all, the same duties were imposed on landowners of both forms of ownership. Large landowners, who received land as a reward for their service, gradually won the right to transfer estates by inheritance. In the minds of many land owners, the rights of votchinniks and service people were often intertwined; there are cases when people tried to pass on estate lands by inheritance. These court incidents led to the fact that the state was seriously concerned about the problem of land ownership. Legal confusion with the order of inheritance of estates and patrimonies forced the tsarist authorities to adopt laws equalizing both of these types of land tenure.
The most complete new rules for land tenure were set forth in the royal decrees of 1562 and 1572. Both of these laws limited the rights of the owners of princely and boyar estates. In private, cases of selling patrimonial plots were allowed, but the number was not more than half, and then only to blood relatives. This rule was already spelled out in the Sudebnik of Tsar Ivan and reinforced by numerous decrees that were issued later. The votchinnik could bequeath part of his lands to his wife, but only in temporary possession - "for a living". A woman could not dispose of the given land. After the termination of ownership, such patrimonial land was transferred to the sovereign.
For peasants, both types of property were equally difficult - both the owners of the patrimony and the owners of estates had the right to collect taxes, administer justice, and take people into the army.

[Edward Vashchenko]

An estate and an estate are two forms of land ownership in Muscovy in the 14th-16th centuries.

Good afternoon Dmitry,
there were no estates before 1471.

Like estates, in the sense of "senoria" there was no pre-Mongolian period in Ancient Rus'.

[Richard]

Good afternoon, edward

there were no estates before 1471.

Did I write somewhere that before 1471. they were?
EMNIP, they appeared after the confiscation by Ivan III, the estates of the Novgorod boyars, on which he "placed" Moscow service people, from where the words estate and landowner actually appeared in our language.

[Edward Vashchenko]

they appeared after the confiscation by Ivan III, the estates of the Novgorod boyars, on which he "placed" Moscow service people, from where the words estate and landowner actually appeared in our language.

I will add, and the boyars were allocated lands in central Rus'.

[Richard]

Thanks for the interesting addition, I did not know

[sergo1914]

. The Horde undermined the economic foundations of the fragile agrarian economy of Rus', levying an inadequate, economically unjustified tribute - "an inevitable tribute." Undermined the economic foundations of the country, located in the zone of risky agriculture.

I read that yasak is 10% of income. After the departure of the Mongols, the princes began to take the money for themselves. Well, the amount of taxation ... can the yoke be returned?

[Richard]

I read that yasak is 10% of income

This is a common misconception. Oddly enough, history has preserved something for us from the Horde "accounting"
The tribute to the Mongol-Tatars consisted of two taxes: yasak and tamga. . The conquerors organized 43 tax districts in Rus' and conducted censuses three times. As the Novgorod chronicler complained: "And counted in number, and began to pay tribute to imati." Only the clergy and church property were exempted from paying tribute to the Horde.
The main direct tax - "yasak" was collected from the rural population. According to the results of the last Horde census in the north-east of Rus', which took place in 1275, the yasyk for Rus' was established:

"for half a hryvnia from a plow".

For example, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus had to pay about one and a half tons of silver to the Horde. The amounts of tribute from various destinies of North-Eastern Rus' during the reign of Dmitry Donskoy are known in relatively detail. The tribute from the Grand Duchy of Vladimir was 5000 rubles. The Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal principality paid 1500 rubles. The tribute from the territories of the Moscow principality was 1280 rubles. For comparison: only one city of Khadzhitarkhan (Astrakhan), through which in those centuries there was a large transit trade, gave 60 thousand altyns (1800 rubles) of taxes to the treasury of the Golden Horde annually. The small Serpukhov principality paid 320 rubles, and the very small Gorodetsky - 160 rubles.
tribute.
The tax from the cities was called "tamga", it was paid by merchants and merchants annually, either on the amount of capital or on turnover. In the first case, the tax rate was approximately 0,4% of capital. In the case of payment of "tamga" from turnover, the amount of tax in different cities varied from 3% to 5%. The city of Kolomna paid 342 rubles, Zvenigorod - 272 rubles, Mozhaisk - 167 rubles. The city of Serpukhov, the city of Dmitrov gave 111 rubles, and Vyatka "from cities and volosts" - 128 rubles.
In modern Russian, the term "customs" comes from the word "tamga".
According to historians, the entire North-Eastern Rus' during this period paid about 12-14 thousand rubles to the Horde. Most historians believe that the silver ruble was then equal to half the "Novgorod hryvnia" and contained 100 grams of silver. In general, all the same one and a half tons of precious metal are obtained.

[Edward Vashchenko]

I read that yasak is 10% of income. After the departure of the Mongols, the princes began to take the money for themselves. Well, the amount of taxation ... can the yoke be returned?

Good afternoon,
about 10% is guesswork, there is no data. Judging by the crisis in the "economy" from the end of the XIII century. tribute was much higher.

can I return the yoke?

Or maybe choose those who guarantee tax cuts?

[Korsar4]

- Looks like there is oil here. There are some signs, but I cannot give you guarantees.
- And it is not necessary! Keep the guarantees for yourself, but give me the oil.

[Richard]

"Did I pay you $20 for the land? Now that you've found the oil, is it enough for you? Do you still want it? N-na! Here's an extra payment for you! Here's your oil! Here's some more oil for you! Get your oil! hat, wipe your nose and get out of here.

My compliments, Sergei

[Korsar4]

Greetings, Dmitry!

Money, money is rubbish
Forgetting peace and laziness.
(Make money)
Make money!
And the rest is all rubbish.

[ee2100]

About 10% is in the Novgorod chronicle. This is the demand of the Tatar ambassadors to Ryazan.

[Richard]

About 10% is in the Novgorod chronicle. This is the demand of the Tatar ambassadors to Ryazan.

Sasha, If you carefully read the chronicle, you will understand that this has nothing to do with tribute. This is Batu's mocking condition to the prince's request not to storm the city in December 1237:

“And (Batu) sent ambassadors to Ryazan to the Grand Duke Yuri Ingvarevich Ryazansky, demanding from him a tenth share in everything: in lands, in princes, in all sorts of people and in the rest. And the Grand Duke sent his son Prince Fyodor Yurievich of Ryazan to the godless Tsar Batu with great gifts and prayers so that he would not go to war on the Ryazan land. Batu accepted the gifts and began to ask the princes of Ryazan daughters and sisters to come to his bed. And he said to Prince Fyodor Yuryevich: “Give me, prince, to taste the beauty of your wife.” The noble prince Fyodor Yuryevich Ryazansky laughed and answered the tsar: “It is not good for us Christians to lead our wives to you, the impious tsar, for fornication. When you overcome us, then you will rule over our wives.” The godless Tsar Batu was offended and furious and immediately ordered to kill the noble Prince Fedor Yuryevich, and ordered his body to be torn to pieces by animals and birds, and killed other princes and best warriors. And he laid siege to the city, and fought for five days relentlessly. Batu's army changed, and the townspeople fought incessantly. And many citizens were killed, and others were wounded, and others were exhausted from great labors and wounds. And they took the city of Ryazan in the month of December on the 21st day. And they came to the cathedral church of the Most Holy Theotokos, and the Grand Duchess Agrippina, the mother of the Grand Duke, with her daughters-in-law, and other princesses, they cut them with swords, and they betrayed the bishop and priests to fire - they burned them in the holy church. And in the city many people and wives and children were flogged with swords, and others were drowned in the river, and priests and monks were flogged without a trace, and the whole city was burned. And there was not a single living thing left in the city: they still died and drank a single cup of death.

[ee2100]

I understood it this way. How are you, well, you can call this requirement mocking

[sergo1914]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

Or maybe choose those who guarantee tax cuts?

Can you offer yourself?

[depressant]

Dear Edward!
Thank you so much for the article! )))
I didn't know any of this. It has always been a mystery how it is so - the princes became the supreme rulers. They were hired with their own army, and then - once and already the top ones. I will read and reread the article for a long time, it is like a textbook.
The only thing I guessed myself was the current indirect so-called "democracy". All 10 thousand Athenians could gather on the Agora, except that someone is sick, drunk, overslept, someone is too lazy - so they could get together and jointly resolve the issue. If there are 100 thousand people in the city, then they all say: "Let's go without me, I'm busy at work that no one has canceled."
This is the only thing that came to me on my own, which I once noted on some topic. In the formation of princes as the main rulers, I will deal with close attention to detail.

To all present - good morning today! May our day be good! )))

[Illanatol]

The constant military threat gives the prince the right, both in the Grand Duchy of Rus' and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, now as the supreme head of the community, to impute service to all personally free community members. They carry out auxiliary services, such as the construction and repair of fortifications and bridges, transport, support of the Yamskaya mail, escort of embassies, especially from the Horde. They fight in the militia, staff, as the forces of the "court" against numerous enemies were not enough. Now it is not independent townspeople who decide whether to convene the militia or not, now they are simply mobilized, as, for example, the forced conscription of ordinary citizens, the mob, in Novgorod during the outbreak of war with Moscow in 1471.

Wonderful.
The author kept stressing the role of the Horde in the formation of "serving statehood". And then he draws an analogy and puts Rus' conquered by the Tatars, the Principality of Lithuania and Novgorod on a par.
But wait, the Lithuanians were not under the "Yoke", and the Novgorodians did not particularly feel it ... how did they come to such "lack of independence"? To coercion by the authorities instead of the former free "people's rule"?

Gentlemen, the liberals have always presented Novogorod as a "democratic alternative" to the Moscow Horde with its servile spirit, and here you are ... forced mobilization for war.
Not very liberal and democratic, yeah

Maybe the Tatars with their "Yoke" have nothing to do with it? And the strengthening of "authoritarianism" is caused primarily by internal reasons, and not by external subordination to anyone?
Perhaps even due to the progress of technology, including the military, which required changes in the structure of power and relations within society?

There would have been "Yoke", there would have been no "Yoke" ... the result would have been the same, just the timing of implementation would have changed.
Solonevich wrote well about this, albeit a White Guard, correctly pointing out the objective prerequisites for the eternal "Russian lack of freedom."

Russia is not a thousand-year-old "prison of peoples", Russia is a thousand-year-old "barracks of peoples".
It’s not very pleasant to live in the barracks, I readily admit, but what can we do ... we won’t be able to exist otherwise.
Even now, that hard reality and shows quite clearly.

[Edward Vashchenko]

But wait, the Lithuanians were not under the "Yoke"

Lithuania regularly paid tribute to the Horde, and then to the Crimea.
In the XV century, when Rus' got rid of the Horde dependence, from the lands that were conquered / moved away from Lithuania: Seversky and Chernigov, Rus' paid tribute "for Lithuania", because such a custom.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

Lithuania regularly paid tribute to the Horde, and then to the Crimea.
In the XV century, when Rus' got rid of the Horde dependence, from the lands that were conquered / moved away from Lithuania: Seversky and Chernigov, Rus' paid tribute "for Lithuania", because such a custom.

Debatable. It was not a tribute, but a ransom. It was easier to pay to not be disturbed by raids than to spend more on defensive measures.
The Rzeczpospolita paid the Krymchaks the same payoff, and Russia was the same, right up to imperial times. Well, it turns out that "Yoke" existed with us until the 18th century?
And even in later times, already in the Russian Empire, a tax was collected in order to redeem slaves from Bukhara and Khiva.
Also, why not a tribute?
Just to unfasten money is one thing. But the real Yoke, when your master determines how you live, what to do, with whom to fight, and with whom not - this is still different.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Russia is the same, up to imperial times.

And can you link to documents when Russia paid there before imperial times?
Best regards,

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Illanatol

It was not a tribute, but a ransom

It's a tribute.
Lithuania occupied territories from which Rus' paid tribute to the Horde, or which were controlled by Tatar nobles vassal to the khan (Kyiv, for example) and continued to pay tribute from these lands in the same volume.

[kor1vet1974]

Many princes, passing under the sovereignty of the Grand Duke of Rus', remain on their table, in their land, continuing to rule as sovereigns.

It was not always so. renamed Kasimov), around which the Kasimov Khanate began to form.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Many princes, passing under the sovereignty of the Grand Duke of Rus', remain on their table, in their land, continuing to rule as sovereigns.
It wasn't always like this.

Good morning!!!
I am talking here about those who crossed over with the lands. There is no question of those who are without land, like the Shuiskys, but I repeat, most likely it was a transfer of rights, and not a fiefdom. Like destinies, not quite a fiefdom. Kasimov lands also fall under vassalage, and not as a fiefdom. There is a fine line here: of course, all this was called a fiefdom, a fatherland, but technologically they were different. The struggle of Grozny was not with abstract estates, but with appanages ... and with estates, as a non-feudal form of land ownership.

[kor1vet1974]

It is very interesting with the Kasimov Khanate. The Kasimov Khanate was paid tribute, the so-called "exit" from the Russian lands, for a certain time, which, by the way, is mentioned in the contract between Vasily II and Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of Suzdal. Of course, the Kasimov Khanate was not completely independent of Moscow. And after the capture of Kazan by Ivan Terrible, Kasimov Khanate stopped paying "output". The khanate itself lasted until 1681.

[ee2100]

Good morning!
I love the author's illustrations!
What's in the last article, what's now
"Money of the specific prince Vladimir Serpukhov" (c)
The Arabic script is clearly visible on the coin. Is this the second official language? Or is it the official language of the mythical Mongols?

[Edward Vashchenko]

Alexander,
good morning.
Before Peter I, when modern mints were built, all the money in Rus'-Rus-Russia was minted from foreign coins.
The very word "money" speaks of this, and therefore the Arabic script.
The dispute about which side the coinage of the Horde, and from which Lithuania or Rus' was the subject of constant diplomatic skirmishes.

[ee2100]

Right! But at first, wire was made from imported coins, then it was chopped, and only then minted.
Scales. So the Arabic text was specially applied on the stamp.

[mihaylov]

Quote: ee2100

But at first, wire was made from imported coins, then it was chopped, and only then minted.

Not necessarily: later, a European thaler was taken, a stamp was applied to it, and in a simple way, a thaler, with a nominal value of 46 kopecks, stopped in efimok, worth 64 kopecks.

So the Arabic text was specially applied on the stamp.

According to a version that is now quite popular, coinage appeared at the end of the 14th century, initially as a fake (so that no one would guess), hence all these Arabic tests on coins.

[ee2100]

And this was, but later.
I won't look for a photo.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Scales. So the Arabic text was specially applied on the stamp.

Alexander,
not from wire, the coins were re-coined.

[ee2100]

The wire was cut into pieces of different weights and then minted. The weight of the Moscow scale was 2 times less than the Novgorod one.

[ee2100]

Below is a coin of Ivan Vasilyevich

You will also say that the Arabs were taken away and minted either the obverse or the reverse.
The text in Arabic confirms that this is the money of Ivan IV.

[Fat]

Greetings, Alexander.
It seems to me that such chasing of scales was in connection with the parable from the Gospel of Mark

They, having come, say to Him: Teacher! we know that you are just and do not care about pleasing anyone, for you do not look at any person, but you truly teach the way of God. Is it permissible to give tribute to Caesar or not? Should we give or not?
But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, Why are you tempting Me? bring me a denarius so that I can see it.
They brought. Then he said to them: Whose image and inscription is this? They said to Him: Caesareans.
Jesus answered and said to them: Give what is Caesar's to Caesar, and what is God's to God. And they marveled at him.

[ee2100]

Question to the audience.
Horde Exit.
At first, it was 1/2 hryvnia from a plow. Then 1 ruble from two dry.
It was devastating or completely normal.

[Richard]

It was on the very verge of tolerable and ruinous. The Mongolian tax system was very elaborate and varied. Above, I showed what came out for the principalities from tribute "half a hryvnia from a plow"
Greetings, Alexander

[ee2100]

Hello Dima!
I also read about 10%.
You write that on the verge of tolerable, some authors claim that it was quite normal.

[Richard]

some authors claim that it was quite normal .

Uh-huh. No wonder the Baskak Horde officials, who collect tribute, become the cause of numerous uprisings. For example, in 1262 there were uprisings against the payment of tribute in Suzdal, Yaroslavl and Rostov. In 1327, the Tver uprising took place.
a photo. Shchelkanovshchina. Popular uprising against the Baskaks in Tver. 1327. Miniature from the Illuminated Chronicle of the XNUMXth century.

[ee2100]

Translated into modern people against the Federal Tax Service?
About the Baskaks, yes, he always mentioned that they took more than they should

[Edward Vashchenko]

At first, it was 1/2 hryvnia from a plow. Then 1 ruble from two dry.
It was devastating or completely normal.

Under the conditions of subsistence economy and the practical absence of commodity-money relations, under the conditions of underdeveloped agriculture, and archeology shows that its formation took place at this time, in the zone of risky agriculture. Yes, and in the devastated territory, hence the wastelands and arable land overgrown with forests. Some decline in the economy and even the disappearance of some of the craft achievements of the previous era.
We do not have special data about this period, but for example, the period where we more or less have information is the 8th century. A peasant, on average, could earn from his activities, an average peasant, living starving, 10-31 rubles from the "market", with a need for money up to XNUMX rubles, at the very minimum, including taxes.
That is, all the money went to the poll tax (7 rubles per man's soul), in case of non-payment, the property was immediately sold under the hammer.
So you can compare

[mihaylov]

Quote: ee2100

Horde Exit.
At first, it was 1/2 hryvnia from a plow. Then 1 ruble from two dry.

Good afternoon, Alexander,
the message that in 1275 Prince Vasily Yaroslavovich brought tribute to the khan in the amount of half a hryvnia from a plow comes from Tatishchev, who took it from the CHRONICLE, which has not come down to us.
I would be very careful with this message.

[ee2100]

Good morning!
According to the annals, I don’t remember anyone writing that the people suffer terribly under the yoke.
Maybe Tatishchev was freaking out

[mihaylov]

Quote: ee2100

According to the annals, I don’t remember anyone writing that the people suffer terribly under the yoke.

Alexander can give you data on taxes for the 16th century - there is such data on the Novgorod scribe books (Agrarian history of the North-West of Russia of the 16th century):
Ivan 3 established obezhnaya tribute upon annexation of the Novgorod lands at 2.33 money of Novgorod from obzhi or 4,66 Moscow money (1/200 ruble or approximately 0,34 grams). This is a universal tax: everyone paid - from peasant, master and monastic obezh.
This is not all:
- "will accept" - allowances in case of emergency
- "pit money"
Probably together - 7,2 money (no exact information)
- Natural duties - the same Yamskaya. impossible to accurately express in terms of money, but apparently very burdensome.
In the 40s of the 16th century, most of the in-kind duties were apparently replaced by monetary ones, so the amounts increased greatly.
State taxes on patrimonial, local and monastic lands:
obedience tribute
tribute surcharge
pit money and will accept
white field fodder
for clerks, carpenters and blacksmiths
for bread and quitrent
writing
for helping Yamsk hunters
for the staff and the city business
for yamchuga (saltpeter)
children of the boyar polonyanniks at the mercy of
pit hunters for pits and runs
at the mercy of the Germans
Now the amounts (in Moscow money):
1501-1535: 4,7 or 11,9
1536-15456 8,7 or 15,9
1552-1556: 79,9
1561-1562: 99,5
1570-1572: 140
1583: 250,5
1586-1588: 389
1595-1597: 389

[Korsar4]

I met somewhere that the ruble of the end of the XIII - XIV centuries is from 50 to 200 pounds of rye.

It turns out that it depends on the yield.
And not so painless.

However, it was always a little easier for the “higher” ones.

[ee2100]

I would like to hear from the author the definition of the word "horde".
With all due respect to Edward

[Edward Vashchenko]

I would like to hear from the author the definition of the word "horde".

Alexander,
Sincerely thanks for the question!
I see it this way. The first - the Horde - a definition from the Chronicle. Second, I repeat, based on the modern view:
In modern studies, a nomadic society or Horde is defined as an exopolitan society. A society with a "consensual" structure in relation to the leader, in which there was social inequality, but there were no state mechanisms of coercion and repression. The balance of power or balance was determined by the "consensus" between the Horde tribes or the temporary superiority of one Horde tribe over another. But in relation to the outside world, this society acted as aggressive and predatory, because it can exist only through the exploitation of societies standing outside it.
Kradin also calls such a society - "nomadic tributary empire". A very good definition. All the "hordes" of the Tatar-Mongols had this structure: at first the so-called "Golden Horde", then the Great, then the Crimean.

[Lynx2000]

Quote: Edward Vashchenko

I would like to hear from the author the definition of the word "horde".

Alexander,
Sincerely thanks for the question!
I see it this way. The first - the Horde - a definition from the Chronicle. Second, I repeat, based on the modern view:
......
Kradin also calls such a society - "nomadic tributary empire". A very good definition. All the "hordes" of the Tatar-Mongols had this structure: at first the so-called "Golden Horde", then the Great, then the Crimean.

Do I understand correctly that originally the horde was understood as a nomad camp / camp of fellow tribesmen?
Then the Horde could be an inter-tribal union of nomads? Military association? State union? Is the Golden Horde originally in Mongolian the Ulus inherited by Jochi Khan?
Horde is a Turkic word? For example, I remember from childhood that Kyzyl-Orda is the first Red Capital of the formed Kazakh SSR.
Also from youth, that in Tuvan pioneer orduzu - the palace of pioneers.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Also from youth, that in Tuvan pioneer orduzu - the palace of pioneers.

Yes.
And I remember from childhood how disappointed I was when I saw the "barn", i.e. palace in Bakhchisarai. That's where the barn came from, I understand)))

[ee2100]

In short, where the main stake at the moment is the Horde.

And now the question. Where did Yaroslav Vsevolodich go?

[Edward Vashchenko]

Alexander,
judging by the photo It, which is in the upper left corner.

[ee2100]

Quite possible!
But for some reason they say about Karakorum.

[depressant]

Well, here colleagues have already gone far, they are already minting coins with might and main, and I am stuck in the concept of "patrimony".
Found a few:
"The peasants retained their communal organization (community, commune, almenda), which, along with the obligatory hereditary nature of ownership, distinguished the patrimony from the beneficiation, manor and estate."
So what did the estate give to the owner? Did you collect taxes?
And what duties did he have in relation to the patrimony? Or none, and he only knew "Give me, otherwise! ..." And the inhabitants of the patrimony did not resist?
What happened if the clan of the owner of the patrimony died out completely?

[Edward Vashchenko]

Lyudmila Yakovlevna, good afternoon!

So what did the estate give to the owner? Did you collect taxes?
And what duties did he have in relation to the patrimony?

The first estates were monasteries, in our country, and in Europe.
The first awards, and from ordinary landowners, and from the princes, if the monastery is on his land.
With the growth in the value of land, the process began as receiving land from the prince: served - receive. But in the beginning, not land, but income from it, for example, from beekeepers. In the same way, "patrimonies" were given to beekeepers and beavers, if you want to collect honey in this part of the forest - go ahead.
The purchase of "land" began - wastelands, "settlements", i.e. free land, no people. People were attracted by benefits: five years without duties and you can build a house.
Soon the process went like an avalanche, but what could be so?
and then it became clear that land is a value. It can and should be given, but not just like that, for past merits, but for current service, this is how feudalism began.
Something like this.

[Seal]

Due to the absence of a state apparatus, the communities of cities and volosts themselves lay out taxes, administer court and pay princely tiuns. That is, the territorial-communal system is preserved, but the "city-states" are being replaced by a military service state.

It was impossible to do without mentioning the "Mongol invasion"? Or is this reference still the same "sacred duty" as it used to be a sacred duty in any work to mention the leading role of the party? Even in such works as "On the improvement of the process of insemination of cows."

[Trilobite Master]

Wrote a long comment and apparently forgot to click the "send" button. Now I went to look, but my comment is not there. It's a shame...
The meaning of the comment was as follows.
In fact, land ownership in medieval realities is nothing more, nothing less than the right to collect taxes on this land. The prince did not own every tree in the forest, every blade of grass in the meadow, or every fish in the river. Moreover, he did not even own peasant huts, livestock and tools. He simply arrogated to himself the right to a part of the product produced by the peasants. Finished product - bread, meat, fish, honey, furs, etc.
Hence a simple conclusion: the owner of the land is the one who collects taxes on it and uses them. First of all, this is the Grand Duke, who received income from all over Rus'. Below him in this hierarchy are the rulers of individual lands (principalities) - brothers, sons and other relatives of the Grand Duke, who were specially planted on the land in order to more effectively collect taxes on behalf of the Grand Duke, and, accordingly, had their own share in these taxes. The principalities were divided into volosts, headed by princely people, natives of the princely squad, boyars, who were responsible for collecting tax in these volosts and, accordingly, also had their share.
This hierarchy was forced to take shape, replacing the institution of polyudya. And as soon as it took shape, a class of landowners formed - those who collected taxes from the land and distributed them among themselves.
From this point on, the process of state formation should be considered complete. Then there is only development, the evolution of state institutions and the system of collection and redistribution of material wealth. This, of course, is not the classic French type of feudalism, but, nevertheless, a fairly strict and distinct hierarchy based on land ownership.
If the land stopped paying tax (feed, output, call it what you want) to the center and it managed to defend this "innovation" of its own before the overlord, it became in fact a sovereign state.
By the time the Mongols arrived on the territory of Rus', there were at least seven such states, and at least three of them claimed to be the unifier of Russian lands or parts of them under their own auspices.
The article is interesting and competent, but, in my opinion, it is devoted not to the formation of the Old Russian state, but to the evolution of the Old Russian state apparatus.

[mihaylov]

Hence a simple conclusion: the owner of the land is the one who collects taxes on it and uses them. First of all, this is the Grand Duke, who received income from all over Rus'.

Good afternoon, Michael!
we do not know anything about taxes in the pre-Mongolian period, we cannot even say whether there were any at all. (Polyudye, as an institution of a tribal society, does not belong to them.) Therefore, the thesis that the Grand Duke collected taxes from all over Rus' seems more than doubtful. It was about the tribute that the tribes, on the basis of military force, the Polan community with the center in Kyiv, for some time forced to pay and from the payment of which everyone was gradually freed.
The Kiev table was naturally of interest to the princes, as for some time the richest and most influential, until the center shifted to the northwest to the Suzdal-Vladimir land, and then to Moscow.
Let us recall the story of Alexander Nevsky, to whom the Mongols, not really understanding the situation, gave a label to Kyiv, where he did not even go and was "terribly offended."
The income of the prince was formed from:
- military booty (and why else fight so much?)
- personal economy
- feeding from the parish in various ways, most often these are incomes such as rent
- court fees
- gifts: the higher the rank - the more gifts
Maybe something else I forgot
In all this, land is usually available, but usually it is an extremely small component exclusively to meet the needs of the princely economy and is apparently cultivated mainly by non-free people.
And what kind of land in the conditions of constant moving.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Mihaylov

we know nothing about taxes in the pre-Mongolian period

But what about the statutory charter of Rostislav Smolensky?

... the Verzhavlyanehs at the Great 9 graveyards, and in those graveyards someone pays their tribute and the maiden died according to strength, who could do anything, and in those graveyards and some die, then tithes will decrease, and in those graveyards tribute converges in all osm hundreds of hryvnias, and a hundred hryvnias peredmera, and a hundred hryvnias on the women, then take one hundred hryvnias from that for the bishop to the holy Mother of God; and in Vrochnitsy ... hryvnias, then take the bishop 20 hryvnias from that; and in Toropchi tribute four hundred hryvnias, and take 40 hryvnias from that bishop; and in Zhizhtsi tribute 130 hryvnias, and from that to the bishop take 13 hryvnias; and in Kaspli 100 hryvnias, and from that to the bishop take 10 hryvnias; and in Khotshyn tribute 200 hryvnia, and from that to the bishop take 20 hryvnia; and in Zhabachev tribute 200 hryvnia, and from that to the bishop take 20 hryvnia; and in Votoovichi tribute 100 hryvnia ...

There were some other documents of similar content, I can’t remember now.
In my opinion, it is clearly indicated who pays how much, I arbitrarily chose a fragment, all the text is easy to find on the net.
The letter is dated 1150.

[mihaylov]

Quote: Trilobite Master

But what about the statutory charter of Rostislav Smolensky?

Establishes the sources of support for the newly established Smolensk bishopric, that is, the church tithe from the princely income itself (from part of the princely income, everything is specifically listed), that is, from those feedings and other sources of income that he listed above: what it actually says: some then specific graveyards from which "tributes" go to the prince and now the tithe will go to the church and some other income of the prince:

And now I give Is Toropcha from all the fish that come to me, the tithe of the holy Mother of God and the bishop.

Here is a perfect example: he has income from fishing in Toropets, pays a tithe from this church.
There is also honey, coons and more.
The church receives 2 villages from the personal possessions of the prince and several non-free people (cabbage, goshawk - apparently they supplied food to the prince's table)
And stuff like that.
Where are the taxes? Just here we perfectly see what the income of the princely economy was made up of.

[Trilobite Master]

This document shows that the prince knows where he has, what and how much, he knows from which graveyards how much he should receive, and he mentions crafts separately. Moreover, this document says that with a change in the taxable base, the amount of tax also changes.

and in those graveyards someone pays their tribute and the wives died in strength, who could do anything, and in those graveyards and some perish, then you and the tithes will decrease

that is, this very base is being controlled.
Based on this document alone, it can be concluded that there were taxes in pre-Mongolian Rus', bodies for their collection and control, that crafts were taxed separately, which means that the land was also taxed separately.
It is not clear, unfortunately, what percentage of the prince's share in all collections, but, it is clear that if he says "from my share", then these figures are clearly not all that the prince's apparatus received from these lands.
Moreover, this is all expressed in cash, and not in kind. Although, maybe it really turned out in kind - in grain, cape, as they say, "at the rate", but it was calculated, as we see, in money.
What is it, if not taxes, and levied clearly and regularly?
I remembered something similar from the Novgorod letters. It also lists how much from which village you need to receive, apparently, a letter to some kind of tyun. But I don’t remember what period this letter is dated to.

[mihaylov]

Quote: Trilobite Master

What is it, if not taxes, and levied clearly and regularly?

These are tributes, and in the truest sense of the word, the same that Novgorod took from the same Lithuania at one time, and at one time paid to Kyiv.
The list of graveyards mentioned in the charter has been studied a lot and with a high degree of probability it can be said that all the points that can be more / less accurately identified are the periphery of the Smolensk land. Smolensk itself is not mentioned.

[Edward Vashchenko]

The church receives 2 villages from the personal possessions of the prince and several non-free people (cabbage, goshawk - apparently they supplied food to the prince's table)

The village at that time was not a VILLAGE OF SOVIET UKRAINE or STAVROPOL TERRITORY, but where they settled, that's where one beekeeper lived, as in Gramota.

[sergej_84]

The village at that time was not a VILLAGE OF SOVIET UKRAINE or STAVROPOL REGION, but where they settled, there one beekeeper lived, as in Diploma

You are not right. Or you "Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI ~ XVII centuries." do you think it doesn't deserve attention?

[mihaylov]

Quote: sergej_84

You are not right. Or you "Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI ~ XVII centuries." do you think it doesn't deserve attention?

Actually what?
Opened this dictionary. issue 24, we read the word Village: "1 Dwelling, dwelling, abode."

[sergej_84]

Actually what?

In that read only "1". And if you read further, then this is not just "housing, dwelling, abode", but also "3. Estate; possession, estate (with land).

[mihaylov]

Quote: sergej_84

In that read only "1".

I have read all the points.

"3. Estate; possession, estate (with land).

What period is this for? For the XNUMXth century? XIII, XV, XVII or something else? Or were the villages the same at all times?
And the village is also "a large peasant village, economic and administrative center for nearby villages," and in the XNUMXth century large settlements began to be called villages.

[sergej_84]

What period is this for?

Judging by the dictionary, for the XI century.

[mihaylov]

Quote: sergej_84

Judging by the dictionary, for the XI century.

I didn’t quite understand why for the XI century?
Because some kind of church text of the XI century is given there?

[sergej_84]

Because some kind of church text of the XI century is given there?

Do you think that the compilers of the dictionary brought this text just like that, without any connection with the meaning of the word?

[mihaylov]

Quote: sergej_84

Do you think that the compilers of the dictionary brought this text just like that, without any connection with the meaning of the word?

I understand this phrase as follows:
"Speech balts ... but in the village the naimnik is rich of her husband (eus kgpr). Paterik Sin., 253. XI c"
Well, this is a question for the authors.
I don’t know what this phrase looks like completely, in this passage it is something like “to be a mercenary of a rich husband in the village”, if I understood it correctly, of course

[sergej_84]

Well, this is a question for the authors.

Given the purpose of the dictionary, I do not think that examples of the use of the word were given arbitrarily, and not in the context of the meaning in question.

[mihaylov]

Quote: sergej_84

Given the purpose of the dictionary, I do not think that examples of the use of the word were given arbitrarily, and not in the context of the meaning in question.

Of course, but to be honest, I did not understand in what context this phrase is given.
I have 2 versions:
1) is a translation of the Greek text, and was guided by the original phrase or word in the Greek text. It is clear that in Byzantium all concepts of land ownership, private right to land, etc. were an order of magnitude more developed: if there are no similar concepts in the language, it is translated than it is. In the modern language, it is now usually not translated, we use foreign words.
It is noteworthy that a little further down the text is a quote from the 16th century: "let their estates and possessions, villages and grapes be preserved" and it is indicated in brackets that in the Greek text - "real estate" Difficulties in translation so to speak!
2) the dictionary was compiled by philologists who are unlikely to understand the intricacies of land ownership in Rus'. Moreover, it used to be considered practically an axiom that feudal relations with all the estates, estates and other things dominated in Ancient Rus'.
We are now reviewing this issue and putting forward a version that all this arises much later.
3) Well, there are also banal mistakes and bold assumptions in dictionaries. However, I will not insist, because I did not understand why this phrase is given in this section. Perhaps there is a perfectly logical rationale for this.
PS The concept of the village was not static for a thousand years and changed its meaning, and by the way the word village is quite late, before that - the village.

[sergej_84]

the dictionary was compiled by philologists who hardly understood the intricacies of land ownership in Rus'.

There, among the philologists, among the compilers, there are three historians headed by Academician Yanin. And two of them are well-known experts in Ancient Rus'.

[mihaylov]

Quote: sergej_84

headed by Academician Yanin

Well, Yanin is known for his non-trivial concept of Novgorod as a UNIQUE FEUDAL REPUBLIC, for which he was subjected to quite fair criticism back in Soviet times. (I mean, that for this concept, and naturally not for all activities).

[Edward Vashchenko]

we do not know anything about taxes in the pre-Mongolian period, we cannot even say whether there were any at all. (Polyudye, as an institution of a tribal society, does not belong to them.) Therefore, the thesis that the Grand Duke collected taxes from all over Rus' seems more than doubtful.

Sergey greetings!
I will support
Yes, in addition to everything, there was no one great prince.
That is, there was no center of power to which everyone obeys. Everyone was on their own, in temporary alliances, and in struggle with each other.

[Trilobite Master]

Yes, at the time of the arrival of the Mongols, I already wrote, there were at least seven absolutely independent lands, each of which was quite comparable in size, for example, with Poland, Hungary or the same England. But what does this change in terms of the presence or absence of state institutions, classes and other signs by which we determine the presence or absence of the state?

[awdrgy]

Rus' could get rid of the yoke only with military forces no less than those of the Horde

Let me disagree completely. There are other ways, but it was not possible to implement them then for various reasons. And the main reason was the princes. If not for their ambitions, it would have gone according to the knurled scorched earth scenario with evacuation, but they could not or did not want to carry it out. They were afraid to lose power. In general, everything is as always. In Europe, this did not give victory due to small distances and high population density, but it helped the Slavs to survive. And in Rus', the supply shoulder is much larger, and even forests. The Horde could have been defeated.

[Illanatol]

Quote: sergo1914

I read that yasak is 10% of income. After the departure of the Mongols, the princes began to take the money for themselves. Well, the amount of taxation ... can the yoke be returned?

Yes. Moreover, in return, the Horde provided a "roof", protected from the claims of others.
How was it said in the once popular play / film?
"The only way to escape the Dragon is to have your own Dragon."

Imagine mentally that the Golden Horde suddenly disappeared along with its "Yoke" ... for example, by the beginning of the 14th century (the period of its heyday). It was and it wasn't.
What, would the era of "prosperity" come? "Russia has risen from sleep and..."
Yeah, right now ...
In the east of Rus', other barmaley would appear. The Kipchaks-Polovtsy would have revived their khanate, the horsemen from Central Asia and the Caucasus would have pulled themselves up.
In the west ... Lithuania, which is gaining power, would have bitten off even more Russian lands. Ryazan would even become Lithuanian, with Kolomna to boot.
Pskov and Novgorod would have gone under the Swedes or under the German emperor. Well, or under the Commonwealth later ...
And that's all ... Rus' ended. Since the specific princes with their small squads and not so small strife could not defend such a territory on their own. Previously, they were not very good at it, the Pechenegs and Polovtsians more than once reached the walls of Kyiv.
And even if they had achieved unity - not a fact. Since already in later times, when Rus' had already become united, the Krymchaks still managed to take Moscow by storm and burn it down. Alas, alas ... Russia is not very naturally adapted for defense.
Clever Russian people understood this, and therefore were in no hurry to get rid of the "yoke". Between the Kulikovo field and "standing on the Ugra" 100 years have passed. But there were enough moments when the Horde was weak during this period of time. The same Tokhtamysh, after another defeat by Tamerlane, was more concerned about preserving his carcass than about power over Russia. But the Russians did not even think about leaving the Yoke, knowing perfectly well that it is better to have even a leaky "roof" than not to have any when you are surrounded by such neighbors ...

[Illanatol]

Quote: Trilobite Master

Hence a simple conclusion: the owner of the land is the one who collects taxes on it and uses them. First of all, this is the Grand Duke, who received income from all over Rus'. Below him in this hierarchy are the rulers of individual lands (principalities) - brothers, sons and other relatives of the Grand Duke, who were specially planted on the land in order to more effectively collect taxes on behalf of the Grand Duke, and, accordingly, had their own share in these taxes.

Family ties were relative. Since the Rurik clan grew greatly and divided into separate branches that were in conflict with each other. By the 13th century, they rarely remembered Rurik, calling themselves, for example, "Yaroslavichi" (like Alexander Nevsky).
Specific princes collected taxes primarily for themselves, and only then for the Grand Duke (with whom they might have forgotten to share). The Grand Duke in the pre-Horde period is only the first among equals, nothing more. Not a king and not a king, but so ...
The peculiarity of Rus', the difference from Europe was that in Europe the feudal lords squabbled over land (as the most valuable and scarce resource), and in our country - for subjects, labor and taxpayers.
Therefore, not "so many acres or versts" were given for feeding, but so many villages with so many households.
And when some prince inflicted a defeat on another prince, he, at times, did not take away his territory, but took the peasants away to himself, to his principality. Although chop off the city - this is the top of the hotel, of course.

[ee2100]

"After the military-political catastrophe of the XIII century" (c)
What disaster is the author talking about?
Yes, there were raids on the Ryazan, Vladimir-Suzdal principalities. The Tatar army headed towards Novgorod and Smolensk.
PNL describing the events of 1238 as a terrible raid on neighboring principalities. Identifies the faith of the attackers as Muslim (?!)
But 100 miles did not reach Novgorod. apparently agreed with the Tatars.
And the very next year (1239) the same PNL announces the marriage of Prince Alexander Yaroslavovich. About the Tatars - "zero".
Yes, the Russian principalities imposed tribute. A label was issued for reign.
The princes saw this as an opportunity to limit local zemstvo (veche) freedoms. The lower principalities did it better than Pskov and Novgorod.
Then the princes used the services of the Tatars to conduct internecine wars.
Further in the text of the article, I agree with the author.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Richard

Yes. lol No wonder the Horde officials Baskaks, collecting tribute, become the cause of numerous uprisings. For example, in 1262 there were uprisings against the payment of tribute in Suzdal, Yaroslavl and Rostov. In 1327, the Tver uprising took place.

But who knows because of what the uprisings broke out.
Like, cruel Baskaks traveled through cities and villages, personally collecting tribute.
All this is just nonsense. There was no need to do so, everything was better organized.
Why the question is, did the Horde carry out a census in Rus'? Namely, to calculate the exact number of taxpayers.
So everything is more prosaic. Baskak came to an audience with the prince: "You have so many subjects, each one has such and such a tax. The result is ... in general, be kind enough to pay the required amount within the specified time."
Well, the princes sometimes took too much, nodding at the Basques. And in general they loved to translate all their mistakes and jambs into "evil Tatars." As a result - another rebellion.
And the uprising in Tver - by chance not after the execution of Prince Mikhail by Khan Uzbek? Well then, taxes are the fifth thing.

As much as the Horde took, the Orthodox priests took the same amount for themselves: "church tithe."
But, of course, the Tatars are evil orcs, and the priests are white and fluffy...

[Richard]

But, of course, the Tatars are evil orcs.

No brainer that it’s not mimics, since they were extorting tribute

and the priests are white and fluffy

I heard about white priests, but not about fluffy ones.

As much as the Horde took, the Orthodox priests took the same amount for themselves: "church tithe."

The population of Rus' never paid "church tithe"
In Rus', Prince Vladimir introduced tithe, after baptism, but, according to Russkaya Pravda, it was paid only from princely income. It was canceled during the Tatar-Mongol yoke. Of course, the rulers and the common people continued to donate to the church, but it was not a fixed tax, but voluntary donations, whoever gives how much.

[Bayun]

There is no doubt that Rus' is the former proper name of the 2 ESTATES (!) Rulers and Servants. Russians used to be the essence, "whose will you be" - the serfs of this class. Such is the story.

In fact today: a Russian is a person akin to the northern Russian Spirit. Here are Pushkin, and Bagration, and many other Russians (who are Germans, and French, and many of us) of all faiths, nations, ideas, estates.

Let's leave the story to storytellers. And, here, to prescribe in the Primer who the Russian is today, I think it is necessary, as well as to determine the meaning (not to be confused with the idea) of Russian life-being. I do not pretend to be true, but I feel like this:

A. Russian - a person akin to the Northern Spirit of goodness. It can be of any good faith, idea and nationality.

B. Russian meaning: Live, live and make good. It is true both for the individual and for the family and the state as a whole, both in domestic and foreign policy.

C. The essence of governance in Rus' in "United and Rule!" (instead of the outdated divide-and-rule)

[Fat]

Andrey. On your list. Point A. contradicts point B.
Good must be separated from evil - this is the Christian method "ab haedis segregare oves (and separate the lambs from the goats)" EMNIP gospel of Matthew.
"Divide and Conquer" is not an obsolete management method. With these words, it was voiced by the heroes of literature of the 17th-19th centuries. Now it is called tolerantly: "the method of checks and balances"
PS You, for an hour, do not repeat Rodnoverie sermons? Terry idealism is very close to the Rodnovers and the writer Yuri Nikitin.

[Diverter]

In ancient times, such an animal () was very revered. In view of the fact that it gave healing milk, meat, wool, skins, glue.
In honor of this animal, cities and villages were called (for example, Michurinsk, Tambov region) And special people and surnames. Etc.
In some Slavic countries, he is still revered. (They better preserve the history of their people).
In the Czech Republic, by the way, they drink beer and do not worry, but respect.

[Diverter]

I suggest the author to communicate with the horsemen.
1. They will tell you that not a single horse will get from Mongolia to Ryazan off-road.
2. You can take a spare or even two. But! Then for each warrior there will be 5-6 horses. Because you still need to bring food for horses, food for people, equipment, etc., etc. with you.


I suggest the author to communicate with Mongolian archaeologists.
1. Not a single artifact of ancient Rus' has yet been found in Mongolia.
What about tribute? Trips to and fro? Hasn't anyone lost anything?
2. If Rus' has been a nightmare for 400 YEARS, then why do we look like Slavs? And why don't the Mongols have Russian traits?


I suggest that the author find a document - the Decree of the Tsar of Parsley on the introduction of a new calendar in Rus'. From this document you will understand that in Rus' there were SUMMER and the summer was 5508. But the king ordered to celebrate the new GOTT and the calendar from his birth. This is how the word YEAR (TT) and the date 1701 and later appeared in Russia.
It follows from this that ALL DATES indicated less than 1701 are fiction. DOCUMENTS having dates younger than 1701 in their description are fiction. Or, at best, rewritten after 1701. And everyone knows how we can rewrite documents.

I suggest the author to find the icon of the Battle of Kulikovo.
1. All participants in the battle are Slavs.
2. Mongols tama nema.

Answer. Under a fictitious yoke, the authorities and the church, which then had a colossal influence on the authorities, hid the planting of a foreign religion.
And she planted fire and sword, as well as deceit and theft.
Symbols, holidays, names that did not belong to it were appropriated / stolen by the church.
For example Maslenitsa has nothing to do with the church.
RIGHT (one of the three components of being RIGHT - GODS, NAV - the underworld and REAL - human world) glorifying or briefly ORTHODOX.
All over the world, by the way, representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate are called Orthodox Christians.
And also the coat of arms of Moscow became an icon. Meaning the Great Victory over the people of the dragon.

[Lynx2000]

Quote: Saboteur

I suggest the author to communicate with the horsemen.
1. They will tell you that not a single horse will get from Mongolia to Ryazan off-road.
2. You can take a spare or even two. But! Then for each warrior there will be 5-6 horses. Because you still need to bring food for horses, food for people, equipment, etc., etc. with you.

Nomad horses differ from horses that were bred in Europe and the Russian principalities in their unpretentiousness. Quietly do without grain feed (oats, barley), grass or dry grass.
If I'm not mistaken, a year ago a group of young people made a journey on horseback from Yakutia to Moscow.
At present, in Yakutia, horses spend the whole year on pastures, and in winter in the snow a person is waist-deep. In Mongolia, and in the south of Western Siberia, horses are also on year-round pastures - they feed on themselves (feed on their own). This is especially noticeable to autotourists traveling in the Altai Republic.
What off road are you referring to? They did not make their way through the Vasyugan swamps to Ryazan.

"In the winter of 1207, the troops of Jochi, the eldest son of Genghis Khan, having passed through the hard ice of the frozen Yenisei along the steep cliffs of the Sayan Mountains, invaded Southern Siberia and subjugated the Yenisei Kyrgyz, as well as all the "forest peoples" of the Sayano-Altai. From this moment, the Mongolian stage begins in the history of Siberia.When Genghis Khan, in 1224, divided the conquered lands between his sons, a huge territory, including the south of Siberia - Tuva, Minus, Gorny Altai, became the property of the Juchi ulus.

To all of the above, we should add the high speed of movement and maneuverability of the Mongol cavalry. In the campaign, each warrior was followed lightly by several horses. For all their unsightly appearance (which surprised Europeans so much), these short, stocky and large-headed horses were distinguished by their extraordinary agility and endurance. They say that the accustomed animals everywhere, like little dogs, cowardly behind the owners. They were unpretentious in food and could be content with a bunch of hard branches in times of famine. The Mongols themselves, according to Marco Polo, “when they go on a long journey, to war, they don’t take harness with them, but they take two leather furs with milk for drinking, and a clay pot to cook meat. They also bring a small tent to hide in case of rain,” Plano Carpini says.
Source:
"Siberian weapons: from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages". Author: Alexander Solovyov (Ph.D. in History, senior researcher at the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences); scientific editor: academician V.I. Molodin; artist: M.A. Lobyrev. Novosibirsk, 2003

[Edward Vashchenko]

I suggest the author to communicate with the horsemen.
1. They will tell you that not a single horse will get from Mongolia to Ryazan off-road.
2. You can take a spare or even two. But! Then for each warrior there will be 5-6 horses. Because you still need to bring food for horses, food for people, equipment, etc., etc. with you.

Nomad horses differ from horses that were bred in Europe and the Russian principalities in their unpretentiousness. Quietly do without grain feed (oats, barley), grass or dry grass.

I will support, they did not ride from Mongolia to Ryazan without stopping.
By the time they marched on Ryazan, they had long been in the steppes of Eastern Europe.

[Diverter]

Well, of course, they didn’t walk through the Vasyugan swamps. And the steppe horses did not go through the mountains. And through Siberia through the taiga, there are also no problems with a different diet of herbs. Yeah. They galloped along M5 at a quick trot and that was it. Delov then. But grass is grass everywhere, right?

Again! There was never a YEAR 1207 in Rus'!!!!!! Years appeared with parsley

[cat Rusich]

The state is taxes and the army - Taxes are needed to maintain the army - The army is needed to ensure tax collection.

[dfk-80]

Another storyteller/distorter is "the founder of states in Rus'". Where did Gardarika go? Cities are already a state: with power, laws, guards, territory. But then the Greeks and the rest of the planet. Kyiv and Novgorod look like just a fair in the field. The Khazars and the fight against them were led by an unknown tribe in animal skins?
Author - Rename the article.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Lynx2000

Nomad horses differ from horses that were bred in Europe and the Russian principalities in their unpretentiousness. Quietly do without grain feed (oats, barley), grass or dry grass.

The peasant horses of that time were also unpretentious and hardy, they were crossed with tarpans.
They didn’t eat grain either: the owners didn’t always have enough grain either.
But you can’t deceive physiology: a horse can be fed with hay alone, but performance drops sharply, there are not enough calories. Therefore, war horses need to be fed precisely with grain or other high-calorie food, as they did in Rus', and in all countries where cavalry was used.
Still, the unpretentiousness of Mongolian horses should not be exaggerated; they die from jute like pretty little ones.

[Lynx2000]

Quote: Illanatol

The peasant horses of that time were also unpretentious and hardy, they were crossed with tarpans.
They didn’t eat grain either: the owners didn’t always have enough grain either.
But you can’t deceive physiology: a horse can be fed with hay alone, but performance drops sharply, there are not enough calories. Therefore, war horses need to be fed precisely with grain or other high-calorie food, as they did in Rus', and in all countries where cavalry was used.
Still, the unpretentiousness of Mongolian horses should not be exaggerated; they die from jute like pretty little ones.

I probably didn’t study well in my youth, but I don’t remember that a plant grew in the steppes of Kazakhstan, Altai and Mongolia - jute, which is somewhat similar to mignonette, sedge or reeds, but you can’t force such plants on the vine or beveled cows to eat, especially horses.
Livestock cultures of nomads and farmers are different, if the latter, due to limited grazing areas and seasonality, when pastures are covered with snow for a significant part of the year, are forced to use some land for fodder for the winter for livestock. In addition, the number of horses among farmers is much less than that of nomads, and you can add grain.
The culture of nomads rarely provides for the preparation of fodder for the winter period; it is easier to drive cattle and horses to winter pastures where there is less snow.
Nomads without grain horses are quite hardy.
Currently, stud stallions and foal mares are usually kept on an enhanced diet.
Our brother and I, the foal "Altai" in terms of years - less than a year, the usual "Altai riding":

This five-year-old gelding "Son" was bought exhausted from the Kyrgyz, they were fed little, they stopped by,
healed wounds, knocked down back, hooves, fattened:

Once a day, a quarter of a bucket of oats or food with a vitamin mixture, the rest is roughage.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Richard

The population of Rus' has never paid "church tithe". yes
In Rus', Prince Vladimir introduced tithe after baptism, but, according to Russkaya Pravda, it was paid only from princely income. It was canceled during the Tatar-Mongol yoke. Of course, the rulers and the common people continued to donate to the church, but it was not a fixed tax, but voluntary donations, whoever gives how much.

Paid, paid...
From princely income ... and from whom did the prince have income? And since he had to share his income with the church, is this not a reason to increase taxes?
Ordinary men still remained extreme.

The church also collected a fee from the court cases in which the clergy dealt.
Cash payments were eventually replaced by grants of land...complete with serfs, of course.
Over time, the ROC became the largest owner and owner of the serfs.
Combining this with sermons of selflessness and non-acquisitiveness.
Church tithe in Russia was finally abolished only at the end of the 19th century.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Richard

No brainer that it’s not mimics, since they were extorting tribute

Do you think that when they stopped, the commoners grew fat?
There was someone besides the Tatars to extort money from the people.
Peter the Great would have given any Baskaks a head start.

[Illanatol]

Quote: awdrgy

And the main reason was the princes.

Alas, not only princes.
Let us mentally assume that by 1237 Rus' had become a single and centralized state. Separate squads are merged into a single army. According to estimates - 35-40 thousand professional soldiers.
And then came the hordes of Batu. 9 tumens... about 30 thousand warriors.
The Russians seem to have a good chance in this scenario.
But no.
After all, the Russian army is dispersed over a considerable territory. Road infrastructure... what is it? The Romans did not build roads in our country, as in Europe. On our rare country roads, carts are sinking; you can’t quickly assemble an army with such. You can, of course, use rivers where the ice is strong (like the Tatars came closer to winter). But the rivers flow like water conveniently, and not taking into account the interests of the governors. All the same, it will take weeks to unite forces, to coordinate them. Part of the army is still not to be used: the tasks of guarding the borders and garrison service (at least in large cities) have not been canceled. Well, about convening the militia and bringing it to combat readiness - I will keep silent, it will take months here.
And the enemy-adversary of time does not intend to give, tea is not a duel of noble gentlemen with curtsies. His army - in a single fist, mobility - high, and intelligence is well established. Obviously, it was not without the help of the locals, the Horde was painfully deftly laying routes to the cities (which the Russian princes themselves did not always succeed in).
So, alas... the aggressor gets a clear advantage. The army, in fact, is larger and more mobile.
Blitzkrieg is not blitzkrieg, but it looks like something.

[Danila Rastorguev]

How the state began in Rus'

What's the difference? What will this story tell us? In short:
1) gorillas did not allow the human ancestor to eat lush greenery on earth.
As a result, man was born an aggressive omnivorous predator.
2) a unipolar world in the absence of the Internet could not arise due to the low speed of communication from the Tsar to the local head of the internal troops.
As a result, in different empires, different tribes and peoples served as centers of crystallization of an ordered human society or state ...
...
Conclusion: one of these centers of crystallization was the state under the self-name - Rus' or Russia.

[Illanatol]

I probably didn’t study well in my youth, but I don’t remember that a plant grew in the steppes of Kazakhstan, Altai and Mongolia - jute, which is somewhat similar to mignonette, sedge or reed

"Jut" (zud, itching) - this is how the steppe people call winter and spring starvation.
For example, in spring the snow melts, pastures are flooded with water. The water freezes, last year's grass is covered with a crust of ice that cannot be broken by a hoof. Even today, jute is a problem for pastoralists.

[Lynx2000]

Quote: Illanatol

"Jut" (zud, itching) - this is how the steppe people call winter and spring starvation.
For example, in spring the snow melts, pastures are flooded with water. The water freezes, last year's grass is covered with a crust of ice that cannot be broken by a hoof. Even today, jute is a problem for pastoralists.

So they would say - beskormica. Jute did not hear to be called. Happens. Now in Mongolia there is a lot of snow since winter, they predict the loss of livestock from lack of food.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Lynx2000

Now in Mongolia since the winter there is a lot of snow, they predict the loss of livestock from lack of food.

According to L. Gumilyov, the Mongols should again switch to the practice of conquest campaigns in order to solve all their problems.
So what are the real chances?

There was a pepper about 100 years ago who imagined himself a new Genghis Khan, decided to repeat his exploits.
So to speak, the most mongolian Mongol. And yet, according to Hitler, the standard of the Aryan. Aryan-Norman-Varyag... Rurik 2.0.
As they say in advertisements: "two for the price of one." Hold on, Russia, a new dynasty is on the way - the Ungerovichs.
But, alas... as often happens, dreamers-wishlists could not stand the collision with rough reality. Several divisions of the Red Army were enough to multiply the "New Temuchin" by zero.
Because without a sufficient resource, you can’t even reach Baikal from Mongolia, let alone Ryazan.
True today, it was true in the 13th century.

[Lynx2000]

Quote: Illanatol

According to L. Gumilyov, the Mongols should again switch to the practice of conquest campaigns in order to solve all their problems.
So what are the real chances?

For what?! Does it need it?! There is a mining sector, minerals, coal, rare earths, etc. They even produce electric buses themselves.
They bring income.
Light industry, in Siberia and to the Far East, their leather and felt products are sold well.

Quote: Illanatol

There was a pepper about 100 years ago who imagined himself a new Genghis Khan, decided to repeat his exploits.
So to speak, the most mongolian Mongol. And yet, according to Hitler, the standard of the Aryan. Aryan-Norman-Varyag... Rurik 2.0.

Who, Choibalsan? He never claimed to be a foreman. Remember Khalkhin Gol. Moreover, Mongolia helped the USSR well in the Second World War with supplies. Considered not only as an ally, but also, so to speak, as the 16th republic, except for Bulgaria. My grandmother, as a teenager, drove cattle from the Mongolian border to the railway station in Biysk during the war.

Quote: Illanatol

As they say in advertisements: "two for the price of one." Hold on, Russia, a new dynasty is on the way - the Ungerovichs.
But, alas... as often happens, dreamers-wishlists could not stand the collision with rough reality. Several divisions of the Red Army were enough to multiply the "New Temuchin" by zero.
Because without a sufficient resource, you can’t even reach Baikal from Mongolia, let alone Ryazan.
True today, it was true in the 13th century.

On horseback from Mongolia, through the steppes of Kazakhstan, you can easily reach, unlike armored vehicles.
One question on behalf of the Mongols: why the hell is this necessary ?! So far, they are very good to us, to Russia. Although, in the 90s there was bitterness on their part - they say we abandoned them, however, our specialists worked there even then.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Lynx2000

For what?! Does it need it?! There is a mining sector, minerals, coal, rare earths, etc. They even produce electric buses themselves.

It was like a joke...
Mongols produce? Are you sure? Or is it still foreign firms (USA, China, and so on)?

Quote: Lynx2000

Who, Choibalsan? He never claimed the role of Forer. Remember Khalkhin Gol.

Well, if Baron von Ungern was called that, then yes.

Quote: Lynx2000

One question on behalf of the Mongols: why the hell is this necessary ?!

A logical question, seriously.
But the same could be asked by Temujin (the real one, and not the one who is depicted by official historians). Why does he need to go so far if he, after the conquest of China, is already covered in chocolate?
After all, his predecessors did not make transcontinental campaigns: the Manchus, Khitans and who else was there ... and he has no need.
In later times, one of the emperors of China became interested in maritime expansion: they built a fleet of huge junks, began to sail the Indian and Pacific Oceans. They didn’t meet much resistance anywhere, but they didn’t begin to conquer, establish colonies, or collect tribute. They considered that the game is not worth the candle, and the result is labor, and everything turned off.
Although sea expansion is much more profitable than land expansion, it is not in vain that England (later the United States) relied on it and sea power and that is why they are so successful in geopolitics.

China with neighboring countries is completely self-sufficient, like a separate planet. Therefore, there is no need for the rulers of this country (whoever they are) to conquer those who are many thousands of kilometers away from them. It was fair in the time of Temujin, and it is fair today.

[Forever so]

mdaa, dozens of researchers with documents in their hands show that the Tatar-Mongolian yoke is nothing more than a priestly notion. Doctors have been looking for traces of Mongols and Tatars in the genetic material of Russians for almost a hundred years, but they have not found, but there are some fans of fakes. Where is the tobacco in the joint from???

GARDARIKA is the land of cities. So the Vikings called Rus'. This name comes from the Old Russian word - Gard (City, City). One unknown Bavarian geographer of the XNUMXth century wrote about Rus' like this:
“Catch the numerous people, they have 318 cities, Buzhans have 231 cities, Volynians have 70 cities, Northerners have 325 ... and so on ... the list is long.”
The statements of this Western anonymous are in full agreement with the ancient chronicles, in which there are similar references to the Ulichi and the Tivertsy, there are special references to the “Many Gardars” in the Chernigov and Ryazan estates (Russian-Aryan lands), which is also confirmed by archeology.

That is, there were cities, but there was no statehood. Author go, go, go, go. Look at the Mercator map at least.