The influence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke on the development of Rus'. The influence of the Mongols on Rus': pros and cons

The problem of the role of the Mongols in Russian history has been discussed by many historians over the past two centuries, but no agreement was reached 965. Of the older generation historians, N.M. attached great importance to the Mongol influence on Rus'. Karamzin, N.I. Kostomarov and F.I. Leontovich. Karamzin is the author of the phrase: " Moscow owes its greatness to the khans"he also noted the suppression of political freedoms and the hardening of morals, which he considered the result of Mongol oppression 966. Kostomarov emphasized the role of khan's labels in strengthening the power of the Moscow Grand Duke within his state 967. Leontovich conducted a special study of the Oirat (Kalmyk) codes of laws in order to demonstrate the influence of Mongolian law on Russian 968. On the contrary, S.M. Solovyov denied the importance of Mongolian influence on the internal development of Rus' and in his “History of Rus'” practically ignored the Mongolian element, except for its destructive aspects - raids and wars, although he briefly mentioned the dependence of the Russians. princes from khan's labels and tax collection, Soloviev expressed the opinion that "at there is no reason for us to admit any significant influence (Mongols)on (Russian)internal administration, since we see no trace of him"969. A former student of Solovyov and his successor at the Department of Russian History at Moscow University, V.O. Klyuchevsky, made small general remarks about the importance of the policies of the khans in the unification of Rus', but in other respects paid little attention to the Mongols 970. Among historians of Russian law and state, Solovyov's ideas followed by M.A. Dyakonov, although he expressed his views more carefully 971. M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov allowed only a slight influence of Mongolian law on Russian 972. On the other hand, V.I. to a certain extent, P.N. Milyukov 973.

A quarter of a century ago, the role of the Mongols in Russian history was once again examined by the philologist Prince Nikolai Trubetskoy 974; he concluded that the origins of the Muscovite state could not be properly understood without taking into account the political and moral principles on which the Mongol Empire was built. E. Khara-Davan, the author of a deep biography of Genghis Khan, made Trubetskoy’s point of view even more categorical 975. On the other hand, V.A. Ryazanovsky and B.D. The Greeks returned to Solovyov’s position. V.A. Ryazanovsky, like Leontovich, carefully studied Mongolian law, but minimized its significance for Rus' 976. Grekov formulated his point of view as follows: " The Russian state, led by Moscow, was created not with the help of the Tatars, but in the process of the difficult struggle of the Russian people against the yoke of the Golden Hordes" 977. Obviously, we have here a slightly different aspect of this problem. Logically, one can deny any positive influence of Mongolian institutions on Russian ones and, nevertheless, recognize the significance of the Mongolian influence on the development of Rus', even if it was purely negative.

The problem of Mongolian influence on Rus' is, of course, multicomponent. We are faced here with a complex of important problems rather than with just one issue. First of all we must consider the immediate effect Mongol invasion– real destruction of cities and populations; then the consequences of the conscious policies of the Mongol rulers for various aspects of Russian life. In addition, certain important changes in Rus' were unforeseen results of one or another turn in Mongolian politics. Thus, the inability of the khans to stop the Polish and Lithuanian offensives was certainly a factor in the division of Eastern and Western Rus'. Further, the influence of the Mongol model on Muscovy gave its full effect only after the latter was liberated from the Mongols. This can be called the delayed action effect. Moreover, in some respects, direct Tatar influence on Russian life increased rather than decreased after the liberation of Rus'. It was after the fall of the Golden Horde that a host of Tatars went to serve the Moscow rulers. Finally, the Tatar threat did not disappear with the liberation from the Golden Horde under Ivan III. For almost three more centuries, Rus' was forced every year to send a significant part of its army to the southern and southeastern borders; this affected the entire political and social system of Muscovy.

A convenient method of measuring the extent of the Mongol influence on Rus' is to compare the Russian state and society of the pre-Mongol period and the post-Mongol era, and, in particular, to compare the spirit and institutions of Muscovite Rus' and the Rus of the Kievan period.

Let us recall that the political life of the Russian federation of the Kyiv period was built on freedom. The three elements of power - monarchical, aristocratic and democratic - balanced each other, and the people had a voice in government throughout the country 978. Even in Suzdal land, where the monarchical element was the strongest and the boyars and the city assembly, or veche, had the right to speak in matters. A typical prince of the Kyiv period, even Grand Duke Suzdal, was simply the head of the executive branch of the government, and not an autocrat.

The picture changed completely after the Mongol period. First of all, in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, instead of a pan-Russian federation, all members of which had similar constitutions, we find a sharp division between Eastern Russia (Muscovy) and Western Russia (included in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth); In addition, on the southern outskirts of each of the two parts of Rus', military states of a new type appeared - Cossack settlements. They represented the ancient Russian democratic tradition, although it now took a specific form, that of military brotherhoods. The aristocratic element of power in Western Rus' not only survived, but even strengthened under the influence of Poland and became the basis of the political life of Western Rus' (Ukraine and Belarus). In Eastern Rus', the monarchical element was supported and developed to a high level. To say, however, that the Muscovite kingdom simply followed the tradition of Andrei Bogolyubsky and some other Suzdal princes would be to underestimate the significance of the change. With all their monarchical tendencies, the Suzdal princes never managed to become the absolute rulers of their land.

The power of the Moscow Tsar, both ideological and actual, was immeasurably greater than the power of his Suzdal predecessors. Although the sixteenth century saw the growth of monarchical institutions throughout the European continent, nowhere did this process proceed as quickly and as deeply as in Eastern Rus'. When the ambassador of the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian baron Sigismund von Herberstein, arrived in Moscow in 1517, he felt that he had entered another world in a political sense. He noted that Grand Duke Vasily III surpassed all other monarchs in the degree of power over his subjects 979. The Englishman Giles Fletcher, who visited Moscow seventy years after Herberstein, came to the conclusion that " the state and its form of government are purely tyrannical, since everything proceeds from the interests of the prince, and in a completely frank and barbaric manner " 980 .

The contrast between the pre- and post-Mongol periods in the field of social relations is no less sharp. The very foundations of Moscow society were not the same as in the Kiev period.

Society Kievan Rus can, with certain reservations, be called a free society. Slaves existed, but they were considered a separate group from outside the nation. The situation was similar to that in ancient Greece: slavery coexisted with the freedom of most of society. The government functioned on the basis of cooperation between free social classes: boyars, townspeople and "people" in rural areas. True, there was a group of peasants, the so-called stinkers, which was in the sphere of special princely jurisdiction, but even they were free. There was also a group of semi-free people (the so-called purchases), whose condition eventually became similar to that of slaves, but their enslavement was the result of debt, that is, the unregulated interaction of economic forces, and not the action of government 981.

In the Muscovite kingdom of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries we discover a completely new concept of society and its relationship to the state. All classes of the nation, from the highest to the lowest, with the exception of slaves, were attached to the public service. Strangely enough, slaves were the only group exempt from government regulation. Kirill Zaitsev aptly called this Moscow system of universal state conscription serf charter(compulsory service law) 982. Both former appanage princes and boyars now became permanent servants of the tsar, as did lower strata, such as boyar children And nobles(courtiers). Attempts to resist the new order on the part of princes and boyars were crushed by Tsar Ivan IV during the reign of terror oprichnina 983. Through the military institute estates The kings controlled both the land holdings of the service people and the army. The need to provide estates with labor led to the establishment of serfdom, at first only temporary (1581). This serfdom of peasants was made permanent and legalized by the Code of Laws in 1649. It is precisely under the articles of this Code that city residents ( townspeople) were eventually organized into numerous closed communities, all members of which were bound by mutual responsibility for paying taxes and fulfilling special duties imposed on them. Both free peasants on state lands and serfs, as well as townspeople, were considered a lower class of royal subjects, free from military or court service, but obliged to pay heavy taxes and, in some cases, perform compulsory labor ( tax). Thus, there was a difference between service people(people performing “service” in the literal sense of military or court service) and taxing people(people bearing the burden). “Service” (in the above sense) eventually became a characteristic of a person of noble birth, and “duty” - a commoner. This difference became a fundamental feature of the social structure of the Muscovite kingdom in the seventeenth century and took on even more acute forms in the St. Petersburg Empire of the eighteenth century.

From this brief comparative analysis of the characteristic features of the state and society of Kievan and Muscovite Rus', it becomes clear that the gulf between these two regimes was truly bottomless. It is clear that such a change could not happen overnight. Indeed, the process of transforming a free society into a compulsory society began during the Mongol period and continued until the mid-seventeenth century.

The issue we now need to discuss is the role of the Mongols in this process. To find out, we must briefly consider the changes that took place in the Russian national economy, politics and social organization during the Mongol period.

Historians still argue even about whether there was a Mongol-Tatar yoke. There is also debate about how it affected Russian state. What consequences did this almost three-hundred-year period of Russian history have?

Ruin of cities

A direct consequence of the Mongol-Tatar invasion was the loss of many Russian cities and villages. The devastation was colossal in scale. 14 cities were never restored. Thus, Old Ryazan, the capital of the Great Ryazan Principality, one of the oldest and largest Russian cities, was destroyed in 1237. All its buildings, including temples, were razed to the ground by Batu's troops. Today, Old Ryazan, also called “Russian Troy,” is the largest archaeological site in Russia. Its area is more than 60 hectares.

A blow to the crafts

The Mongol-Tatar invasion brought serious damage to Russian crafts. Historian Boris Rybakov wrote: “Rus was thrown back several centuries, and in those centuries when the guild industry of the West was moving to the era of primitive accumulation, the Russian handicraft industry had to re-travel part of the historical path that had been made before Batu.”

Russian artisans were taken to Karokorum and Sarai, while the Horde screened out “personnel” - they took the best - gunsmiths, jewelers, potters, glassmakers. Rus' was thrown back in its socio-economic development. The population migrated to the northeast, to the area between the Oka and Northern Volga rivers, while all trade routes were controlled by the Horde.

The Rise of Moscow

In the middle of the 13th century, Moscow and Tver moved out of the vast Pereslavl region into independent possessions, and in early XIV centuries, these cities already acted as the main political and economic force of northeastern Rus'. With the death of Grand Duke Andrei Alexandrovich (1304), a protracted and stubborn struggle began between Moscow and Tver.

They used different methods- from direct military to diplomatic. The third force in the confrontation between cities was the Horde. Finally,
On August 15, 1327, an anti-Horde uprising broke out in Tver. Chol Khan was burned alive along with the palace, and all the Tatars in Tver, including Horde merchants, were killed.

The response to the uprising was a punitive expedition led by five Horde temniks, in which the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita, a longtime rival of Tver in the struggle for the Vladimir grand-ducal table, also took part. The situation could not have been better suited for Moscow to assert its dominance in Rus'. It was then, according to some researchers, that the new Grand Duke Ivan Kalita received the famous Monomakh cap from the hands of Uzbek, as a symbol of the union of Moscow and the Horde.

Change of elites

According to some historians, in particular Igor Danilevsky, one of the most important consequences of the Mongol-Tatar yoke was the “change of elites.” The senior squad, which was essentially the boyars of that time, suffered from the invasion. It was replaced by a small squad, people who were not boyars by origin, but were serfs, alms-givers, that is, people who moved up the “career ladder” thanks to the prince’s favor. Danilevsky notes that in the 15th-16th centuries there was not a single boyar family that could be traced back to earlier boyars. That is, it was a new boyars, with a different mentality. Besides the Rurik-Gediminovich line, all genealogies were artificial.

Answer to the West

In addition to the negative and tragic consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, it can be noted that at certain historical moments the Horde helped the Russian princes. Thus, Alexander Nevsky, having secured the support of the Mongols and insured his rear, was able to expel the Swedes and Germans from northwestern Rus'. Most likely, the Horde also took part in the Battle of the Ice. The Polish historian of German origin, Reinhold Heidenstein (1556-1620), wrote that Alexander Nevsky was pushed into battle by the Mongol Khan Batu (Batu) and sent his detachment to help him. In 1241, Batu's troops also defeated the Teutonic knights at the Battle of Legnica, and in 1269, Mongol troops helped the Novgorodians defend the city walls from the invasion of the crusaders. The Horde sided with Nevsky in his conflict with the Russian nobility, and he, in turn, helped resolve inter-dynastic disputes.

Changing the psychology of power

According to Igor Danilevsky, the most important consequence of the yoke was a change in the psychology of power. The change in social structures during the years of the Horde protectorate made it possible to continue the process begun by Andrei Bogolyubsky, whom the historian Klyuchevsky called “the first Great Russian” - the process of establishing individual power, a despotic type of monarchy. This political system, which developed in the northeast of Rus', fit well into the system that existed in the Mongol Empire.

Introduction

1.1 Rus' on the eve of the invasion

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Since the 40s. XIII century The rule of the Golden Horde, which in historiography is called the Mongol-Tatar yoke, is established in Rus', lasting almost two and a half centuries.

Disputes about how this phenomenon influenced the historical fate of Russia continue to this day. There are many positions, the supporters of which, in different ways, assess the significance of the influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on the development of Russia, as well as the nature of this influence. The solution to these issues is of key importance for understanding many phenomena in the life of the Russian people, including their mentality. For example, if we accept as true the statement about the absence of any influence of the Mongols on the fate of Russia, then we can conclude that the Russians are genetically attached to the despotic form of government, serfdom and other similar phenomena that have dominated post-Mongol Russia for centuries, and vice versa is true the assertion that the Russian state was formed under the influence of the Golden Horde allows us to speak about the absence in the minds of representatives of the Russian ethnic group of initial attitudes towards a slave state and behavior. In addition, resolving the issue of the significance of Horde rule for Russia plays an important role in establishing its geopolitical affiliation. After all, if the Mongols did not have any influence on Rus' at all, or if such an influence was insignificant, then today’s Russia can be considered as a European power, which, despite all its national characteristics, still belongs to the West, and if Russia was formed directly under the Mongol influence, then this state turns out to be part of Asia or a “Eurasian” power, instinctively rejecting the values ​​of the Western world.

Thus, without having a clearly established idea of ​​the processes that took place in Rus' during the Mongol-Tatar yoke, it is impossible to understand many aspects of its historical development and current state.

The purpose of this work is to characterize changes in the historical development of the state and law of Russia after the establishment of the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

To achieve this goal, the following tasks are expected to be solved:

.Research and characterization of the state of the main Russian lands in the last decades before the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

2.Research and characterization of the consequences of the political fragmentation of Rus'.

.Research and characterization of the consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion of the Russian principalities, and the establishment of Horde rule on their territory.

.Research and characterization of assessments of the influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on Russian statehood and law.

1. The influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on the statehood of Rus'

1.1 Rus' on the eve of the invasion

One of the main prerequisites for the process of isolating appanage principalities, which began during the heyday of the Old Russian state, is the increase, by the beginning of the 12th century. independence of local princes. It was at this time that many of them acquired the ability to do without the help of the Grand Duke in the fight against neighbors and solving internal problems. In addition, due to the expansion of the country's expanses, the Grand Duke did not always have the opportunity to help his outlying vassals. In addition, the dominant natural economy at that time gave even small principalities the opportunity to provide themselves with everything they needed. All these factors were the reason that, around the end of the 12th century, the Old Russian state broke up into a dozen independent principalities.

Of these, three principalities, differing in their political and socio-economic structure, had the greatest influence.

The Vladimir-Suzdal land occupied the territory between the Oka and Volga rivers. The factors that ensured its rapid development were natural protection from external invasions, the presence of profitable trade routes, and also intensified in the 11th century. influx of population from the south. This principality was an early feudal monarchy with the strong power of the Grand Duke, who relied on his squad. It was here that a new category of feudal lords appeared - boyar children, and in the 12th century, a new term appeared - “nobles”.

The lands of the principality gained independence from Kyiv under Yuri (1125-1157), who received the nickname “Dolgoruky” for his constant desire to expand his territory and subjugate Kyiv. Yuri Dolgoruky did not consider the Vladimir-Suzdal principality as his main possession. His goal remained Kyiv, and, in the end, he became the prince of Kyiv. Under Yuri, a number of new cities were founded on the territory of the principality: Yuryev, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Zvenigorod. Moscow was first mentioned in the chronicle in 1147. Yuri's eldest son, Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174), was born and raised in the northeast and, unlike his father, considered his native lands to be his main support. Having received control of Vyshgorod (near Kyiv) from his father, he left it and, together with his entourage, went to Rostov. After the death of his father, Andrei did not occupy the Kiev throne, but began to strengthen his principality. The capital was moved from Rostov to Vladimir, not far from which a country residence was founded - Bogolyubovo (hence the prince's nickname - "Bogolyubsky"). Andrei Yuryevich pursued an energetic policy of strengthening princely power and oppressing the boyars. It is no coincidence that he is considered the founder of the despotic tradition of power in Rus'. His harsh and often autocratic actions displeased the major boyars and, as a result, led to the death of the prince. The policy of Andrei Bogolyubsky was continued by his half-brother Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212). He brutally dealt with the boyars who killed his brother. Power in the principality was finally established in the form of a monarchy. Under Vsevolod, the Vladimir-Suzdal land reaches its maximum expansion due to the fact that the Ryazan and Murom princes declare themselves dependent on Vsevolod. After the death of Vsevolod, the Vladimir-Suzdal land split into seven principalities, and then reunited under the leadership of the Vladimir prince. In the northeast, the strong princely power, which subjugated the boyars, was increasingly acquiring despotic features, and it was this political model that would become dominant in Muscovite Rus'.

The Galician-Volyn principality occupied the northeastern slopes of the Carpathians and captured the flows of the Dniester and Prut rivers. It was a territory of highly developed agriculture, cattle breeding and crafts, with rapidly growing cities in which foreign trade was actively developing.

In the Galicia-Volyn principality, almost all land holdings, and therefore power, were in the hands of the large boyars, within which there was a constant struggle. The princes had only certain administrative, military, judicial and legislative powers.

In the first years after separation from Kyiv, the Galician and Volyn principalities existed as two independent ones. The rise of the Galician principality began under Yaroslav Osmomysl of Galicia (1153-1187). The unification of the Galician and Volyn principalities occurred in 1199 under the Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich (1170-1205). In 1203 he captured Kyiv and took the title of Grand Duke. Roman Mstislavich's eldest son, Daniil (1221-1264), was only four years old when his father died. Daniel had to endure a long struggle for the throne with both Hungarian, Polish, and Russian princes. Only in 1238 Daniil Romanovich asserted his power over the Galicia-Volyn principality. In 1240, having occupied Kyiv, Daniel managed to unite southwestern Rus' and the Kyiv land. However, in the same year, the Galician-Volyn principality was devastated by the Mongol-Tatars, and 100 years later these lands became part of Lithuania and Poland. The southwestern alternative (Daniil Galitsky) showed a tendency to move towards Western civilization, but ultimately led to the loss of national independence.

The Novgorod boyar republic occupied the territory between lakes Ilmen and Chudskoye, along the banks of the Volkhov, Lovat, and Velikaya rivers. The territory of the Novgorod land was divided into Pyatina, which in turn were divided into hundreds and graveyards.

Acquired at the beginning of the 12th century. the status of a center of trade with Western Europe, as well as the concentration of enormous wealth in the hands of the local nobility, gradually made Novgorod economically and politically independent from Kyiv. In these lands it was formed political system, which received the name Novgorod Republic in science. The highest authority in this republic was the meeting of its residents - the veche, in which the main role was played by the Novgorod boyars and the church. The actual owners of the veche were the “300 golden belts” - the largest boyars of Novgorod. The prince, invited by agreement, stood at the head of administration and court, acting under the control of the mayor.

During its independent existence (1136-1478), the Novgorod lands more than once had to repel external aggression. Residents Novgorod land managed to repel the onslaught of German-Swedish aggression in the 40s of the 13th century, however, they could not avoid establishing dependence on the Golden Horde, which adversely affected the development of this region.

The Novgorod version of political development turned out to be ineffective due to too high contrasts between power and anarchy, poverty and wealth. Due to the peculiarities of economic and political development and geographical location, Novgorod could hardly become the nucleus of the emergence of a national state.

Thus, with the advent of a period of political fragmentation, Rus' turned into a kind of federation of principalities and lands, relations between the rulers of which were regulated by agreements and customs. The tasks solved by the princes during feudal strife also changed: now they became the development and strengthening of their principality, as well as the expansion of its territory at the expense of their neighbors.

At this time, a clear system of feudal hierarchy was taking shape, at the top of which were appanage princes who had the rights of independent sovereigns within their domains. Subordinate to them were the service princes who owned land on the terms of service and the boyars - the owners of estates, members of advisory councils under the appanage princes.

Occurring in the XI-XII centuries. the process of political fragmentation of Rus' had both positive and negative results. Among the first are the following: fast growth cities and development in them various forms culture, the rapid development of agriculture and crafts in certain regions, the establishment of close ties between individual regions and European countries. In addition, political fragmentation in Rus' did not reach its apogee, since there were obstacles to final disintegration, such as the activity of the all-Russian church and the presence of external danger. At the same time, fragmentation contributed to the decline of the military power of the Russian lands. This had the most painful effect during the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

1.2 Invasion and establishment of certain relations between Rus' and the Horde and the format of these relations

At the turn of the 12th-13th centuries, from the tribes roaming the vast expanses of Mongolia, during civil strife, a number of strong and influential tribes and clans, and their leaders, leaders emerged, among whom Temujin was the most powerful. In 1206, he was elected all-Mongolian ruler and received the name Genghis Khan. During 1215-1223 Genghis Khan's hordes gradually defeated China, Khorezm, Afghanistan, and carried out a campaign through Persia to the Caucasus. In 1223, the Mongols first met the Russian army at the Battle of the Kalka River. During 1237-1241 Under Genghis Khan's successors Batu (Batu) and Berke, the Mongols carried out the conquest of the Russian principalities.

After the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the Mongol-Tatar yoke was established in Rus'.

The vassalage relationship between the Russian principalities and the Golden Horde was not secured by treaty, but was simply dictated by the Mongols. The dependence of the Russian principalities was expressed, first of all, in the need for Russian princes to receive from the khan a label for reign, payment of tribute to the Horde in the form of a tenth of all income from the population of the principality, as well as in the provision by the population of horses, carts and food for Mongol officials visiting the Russian principalities .

Over time, labels for reign turned into an object of rivalry between the rulers of the Russian principalities, used by the Golden Horde khans as a pretext for predatory raids on Rus', and also as a means to prevent too much strengthening of its individual territories.

The annual tribute sent to the Horde was first collected in kind, and then transferred to money. The units of taxation were urban and Agriculture. The collection of tribute was left to the Muslim merchants - the Besermen, who often introduced additional arbitrary taxes. Later, the collection of tribute was transferred to the Russian princes, which, along with the recall of officials - the Baskaks, was one of the concessions made by the Golden Horde khans as a reward for the participation of individual Russian princes in the suppression of anti-Horde protests that took place in Rus' at the end of the 13th - first quarter of the 14th century.

Thus, the Mongols refused to include the territories of the Russian principalities into the Golden Horde and create an extensive administrative apparatus in these lands. However, having retained power in the hands of the Russian princes, the khans established control over their activities by sending their representatives, the Baskaks, for these purposes, based on whose denunciations the guilty princes were summoned to the Horde or a punitive army was sent to Rus'.

Since 1249, Prince Alexander Nevsky, who received power over Kiev from the Horde, was recognized as the “oldest,” that is, the main one in Rus'. However, he preferred Vladimir as his capital and united the Novgorod and the great reign of Vladimir under his rule.

This prince pursued a very wise and flexible policy, maintaining peaceful relations with the Horde, restoring the economy in the territories under his control and giving the Russian lands the opportunity for survival and development. This political course subsequently became decisive for the Vladimir and then Moscow princes.

After the Mongol-Tatar invasion, there was a gradual divergence in the fate of the lands that were part of the former Kievan Rus. So its western and southern principalities were included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland, and North-Eastern Rus' became the center of the formation of a new unified state. In addition, three independent nationalities are being formed in these territories: Great Russian - in the North-East of Rus', as well as Ukrainian and Belarusian in the lands that became part of Lithuania and Poland. At the same time, these ethnic groups were united by their origin from a common “ancestor” - the Old Russian people, which emerged with the formation of the Kyiv state.

After the establishment of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, the process of development of feudalism slowed down in Rus', which followed the pan-European pattern: from the predominance of state forms of land tenure to the strengthening of patrimonial ones. There is a conservation of state forms caused by the need to find funds to pay tribute to the Horde.

And finally, the entry of the southwestern lands of the former Kievan Rus into Lithuania and Poland cut off North-Eastern Rus from Western Europe, where in the period of the XIII-XV centuries. There was a transition to the dominance of seigneurial (patrimonial) land ownership, the personal dependence of the peasants was weakened, the cities and the third estate were strengthened. This was precisely one of the reasons that on the territory of post-Mongol Rus' long time State-feudal forms prevailed, and the development of relations between peasants and feudal lords lagged behind similar relations in some countries of Western Europe for centuries.

In addition to all this, the Mongol-Tatar yoke led to a reduction in the number of slaves in Rus'. Serfs were divided into several groups: large serfs (princely and boyar servants, sometimes holding high positions), full and reporting serfs (workers in the feudal lord's household as servants, artisans, and cultivators). The lines between serfs and peasants gradually blurred, serfs received some property and personal rights, and enslaved peasants increasingly lost them.

After the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the center of economic and political life moved to the northeast of the former Kyiv state, and the Vladimir principality received a dominant position among the Russian lands. From the beginning of the 14th century. The struggle for the great reign of Vladimir was waged by Tver and Moscow, trying to seize political supremacy in Rus'.

The year 1147 is considered to be the year when Moscow was founded. This year, Prince Yuri Dolgoruky, who reigned in the Rostov-Suzdal land, which included Moscow, sent an invitation to the Chernigov prince: Come to me in the city of Moscow . This is the first mention in the chronicles of Moscow.

Moscow became the capital city of an independent principality from the end of the 13th century. The first Moscow appanage prince became in 1276 the son of Alexander Nevsky, Daniil Alexandrovich (1276-1303). Under him, the rapid expansion of the Moscow principality began. In 1301-1303 Kolomna, the Principality of Pereyaslavl, and Mozhaisk were annexed to Moscow. Subsequently, the new Moscow prince Yuri Danilovich (1303-1325) entered the struggle for the great reign of Vladimir, despite the fact that the Horde supported the Tver prince until 1317.

At the beginning of the 14th century. The Moscow principality became one of the largest in North-Eastern Rus' and experienced economic growth, which was facilitated by a rapid increase in population due to the influx of peasants and artisans from other principalities, more accessible to the predatory raids of the Mongol-Tatars.

Tver became the center of the principality in 1247, and in 1304 Prince Mikhail Tverskoy received the label for the great reign.

However, this fact could not stop Yuri Danilovich, who wisely used the tense relations of the Tver prince with Novgorod and Metropolitan Peter, as well as his marriage to the sister of the Golden Horde khan in order to obtain a label for the reign of Vladimir, and eliminate his main competitor - Mikhail Tverskoy, who was killed by the Horde in 1318. Yuri Daniilovich himself died in 1325 at the hands of one of the sons of Mikhail Tver, who avenged the death of his father.

After the death of Yuri Daniilovich, Prince Ivan I Danilovich (1325-1340), the fourth son of Prince Daniil Alexandrovich, who received the popular nickname Kalita, ascended the Moscow throne. It was under this prince that the foundation of the power of Moscow as the future capital of the new Russian state was laid. He continued to expand the territory of his principality, receiving labels from the khan for individual lands, maintained peaceful relations with the Golden Horde, which made it possible to protect the Moscow principality from destructive raids, established close contacts with the church, thanks to which in 1326 Metropolitan Peter moved his residence from Vladimir to Moscow. In 1328, in gratitude for his participation in the suppression of the anti-Horde uprising in Tver, Ivan Kalita received from the khan a label for the great reign and the right to collect Mongol tribute from all Russian lands. It was the collection of tribute by the Grand Duke that made regular connections between the principalities, which served as one of the foundations for the unification of Russian lands around Moscow.

The unification policy of Ivan Kalita was continued by his sons Semyon the Proud and Ivan II the Red, who retained the label for the great reign until 1359.

After the death of Ivan the Red in 1359, the label for the great reign was transferred to the Suzdal prince Dmitry Konstantinovich, but the Moscow boyars and Metropolitan Alexy, with the help of negotiations in the Horde and military pressure, forced the Suzdal prince to abandon the label transferred to the son of Ivan the Red Dmitry Ivanovich (1363-1389 ). It was this prince who was destined to become the one who would lead the Russian troops in their first major (after 1223) battle with the Mongol-Tatars.

Under Dmitry Ivanovich, a new stage of rivalry begins between Moscow and Tver, whose ally this time was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In the first half of the 1370s, Mikhail Tverskoy (? - 1399) three times received the label for the great reign, but could not subjugate Moscow. And after Dmitry Ivanovich organized a joint campaign of Russian princes against the capital of the Tver principality (1375), the Grand Duke's Vladimir table was recognized as the hereditary possession of the Moscow princes. Thus, Moscow, thanks to the skillful and flexible policy of its princes, emerged victorious from the 70-year struggle for the right to be called the center of the uniting Russian lands.

Another area of ​​Dmitry Ivanovich’s activity was active resistance to the Golden Horde rule in Rus'.

Occupied in the second half of the 14th century. Golden Horde throne Temnik Mamai, set himself the goal of defeating the Moscow principality and restoring the weakened power of the Golden Horde over the Russian lands. To achieve this goal, he began preparations for a campaign against Rus'.

horde russian statehood yoke

Moscow took over the unified leadership of the defensive actions of the Russian lands against the Mongol-Tatars. The first result of this leadership appeared in 1378, when Moscow troops defeated a strong Mongol army in the battle on the Vozha River, in Ryazan land.

After Mamai approached the borders of the Ryazan principality in 1380, regiments and militias from almost all Russian lands gathered in Moscow, except for Tver, Ryazan, Velikiy and Nizhny Novgorod.

During the bloody battle that took place in September 1380 on the Kulikovo field, near the confluence of the Nepryadva River with the Don, Russian regiments under the leadership of Dmitry Ivanovich and his governor completely defeated Mamaev’s army. This victory strengthened the importance of Moscow as the center of unification of Russian lands into a single state, and Dmitry Ivanovich from that time began to bear the nickname Donskoy.

But in those years, Rus' still did not have enough strength for the final liberation from the Horde yoke, so the new Golden Horde Khan Tokhtamysh, who made a campaign against Russian lands in 1382, managed to burn Moscow and restore the suzerainty of the Horde over North-Eastern Russia. At the same time, from the late 1380s. The Golden Horde rulers practically lost the ability to influence the internal life of Rus', and were forced to recognize the political supremacy of Moscow in the Russian lands.

And finally, the third area of ​​activity of Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy was the expansion of the territory under his control. Under him, Dmitrov, Kostroma and vast territories in the Volga region were annexed to Moscow.

The territorial growth of the Moscow Principality took on the significance and character of a state unification with the annexation of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir.

The son of Dmitry Donskoy, Vasily I (1389-1425), further strengthened the position of Moscow by annexing to it the lands of the Nizhny Novgorod, Murom and Tarusa principalities, as well as some possessions of Veliky Novgorod. The overwhelming majority of the rulers of the Russian lands, who still retained their sovereignty, were forced to one degree or another to submit to this prince, who acted in relations with the Horde and Lithuania on behalf of all North-Eastern Rus'.

However, the process of unification of the Russian lands was interrupted due to a brutal feudal war that began in 1425 after the death of Vasily I. It was caused by rivalry over the right to the throne between the ten-year-old son of Vasily I, Vasily II (1425-1462) and younger brother his father Yuri, and subsequently with Yuri’s sons, Vasily Kosy and Dmitry Shemyaka. During this clash, the question was decided on what basis the relations of the Moscow princes with other Russian princes would be built. As a result, the victory went to Vasily II, who managed to deal with the coalition of appanage princes who opposed the strengthening of grand-ducal power through the elimination of political independence and sovereign rights of princes in their domains. The consequences of this struggle were the devastation of lands, the decline of cities, and renewed raids by the Horde. At the same time, after it, the principle of inheriting power in a direct descending line, from father to son, was finally established, which in many ways allowed Vasily II to further strengthen his grand-ducal power.

Vasily II continued the policy of his predecessors to strengthen and develop the influence of Moscow princes in the lands of North-Eastern Rus'. Under him, the influence of Moscow in Pskov and the Ryazan principality increased, the first step was taken in subordinating the Novgorod Republic, and the independence of the Russian Church from the Patriarchate of Constantinople was formalized. Thus, during the reign of this Moscow prince, the foundations of a unified Russian state were finally laid.

The final stage of the creation of the state in North-Eastern Rus' occurred during the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505) and his son Vasily III (1505-1533).

Ivan III managed to finally subjugate the Novgorod Republic to the power of the Moscow prince, free North-Eastern Rus' from the Horde yoke that lasted 240 years, and annex the vast majority of the north-eastern Russian lands to his possessions. It was this ruler who began to call himself the sovereign of all Rus', adopting the Byzantine double-headed eagle as the state emblem.

At Vasily III The new Moscow state included Pskov, Ryazan, Smolensk and partly Chernigov land, and its border began to pass only 50-80 kilometers from Kyiv.

The result of almost two hundred years of activity of the Moscow princes was the formation of a state, the territory of which covered the eastern and northern parts of the lands of the former Kievan Rus. From the end of the 15th century. this state began to be called “Russia” - a name derived from the Greek name for Rus'.

The political system of the Russian state became an autocracy with a boyar aristocracy. The life of both secular and spiritual feudal lords in this state was almost completely subordinated to the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow, and then the Tsar of Moscow. The state apparatus initial stage of its existence, consisted of the Boyar Duma - the council of the nobility under the Grand Duke; The Sovereign's Palace - the body in charge of the sovereign's lands; and the Sovereign Treasury - in charge of the state press, finances, and foreign policy.

In 1497, the first set of Russian laws was adopted, which established uniform legal norms for the entire country - the Code of Laws of Ivan III. This document limited the right of peasants to change hands to two days a year, and also established the range of judicial powers of secular and spiritual authorities.

Thus, from the 14th century. The unification of Russian lands begins, caused by strengthening economic ties between them, the aggravation of class struggle and the presence of a constant threat of external attack, which necessitated the creation of a strong centralized state.

It was the foreign policy factor - the need to confront the Horde and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - that played a major role in the process of forming a new unified state in Rus'. Therefore, this state, formed towards the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century, had its own characteristics: strong monarchical power, with the ruling class strictly dependent on it, as well as a high degree of exploitation of direct producers. The consequences of the influence of the conquerors determined many features of the new state and its social system.

2. Assessing the influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on Russian statehood and law

2.1 Assessing positive impact

The question of the influence of the Mongol-Tatar invasion on the historical fate of Russia is still open. The opinions of researchers, in particular, were divided into supporters of the positive nature of this phenomenon and supporters of its negative nature.

For the first time, the problem of Tatar influence on Rus' was identified by Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766-1826), in his “Note on Ancient and New Russia”, as well as in the fourth chapter of the fifth volume of “History of the Russian State”. Without denying the negative nature of the consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russian lands, Karamzin argues that in the long term the effect of this phenomenon was positive. It was his results, as the scientist believed, that led to the end of civil strife that destroyed Kiev State, and helped Russia get back on its feet when the Mongol Empire fell. In addition, Orthodoxy and trade flourished in Rus' under the Mongols, and the contribution of the Mongols to the development of the Russian language is one of the most significant.

Another historian who sought to minimize the harmfulness of Mongol influence on Rus' was Mikhail Pokrovsky (1868-1932). In his opinion, the Mongols even contributed to the progress of the conquered territories by introducing key financial institutions into Russia: the Mongolian land cadastre - “soshnoe letter”, was used in Russia until the middle of the 17th century.

The famous Russian orientalist Vasily Bartold (1896-1930) also emphasized the positive aspects of the Mongol conquest, insisting, contrary to the prevailing belief, that the Mongols contributed to the Westernization of Russia:

“Despite the devastation caused by the Mongol troops, despite all the extortions of the Baskaks, during the period of Mongol rule the beginning was laid not only of the political revival of Russia, but also of further successes of Russian culture. Contrary to the often expressed opinion, even the influence of European culture, Russia in the Moscow period was subjected to to a much greater extent than in Kiev."

Perhaps no one defended the idea of ​​​​the positive influence of the Mongols on Rus' more consistently than the circle of emigrant publicists who called themselves “Eurasians” operating in the 1920s. Their leader was Prince Nikolai Trubetskoy (1890-1938), a descendant of an old noble family, who received a philological education and taught after emigrating at the universities of Sofia and Vienna.

According to Trubetskoy’s conviction, expressed in his works on Russian history, the Mongol conquest not only greatly influenced the evolution of the Muscovite kingdom and the Russian Empire, but also laid the very foundations of Russian statehood:

“Great is the happiness of Rus' that at the moment when, due to internal decay, it had to fall, it went to the Tatars and no one else. The Tatars are a “neutral” cultural environment that accepted “all sorts of gods” and tolerated “any cults.” , - fell on Rus' as God’s punishment, but did not muddy the purity of national creativity. If Rus' had fallen to the Turks, infected with “Iranian fanaticism and exaltation , her trial would be many times more difficult and her fate would be more bitter. If the West took her, he would take the soul out of her. The Tatars did not change the spiritual being of Russia; but in their distinctive capacity in this era as creators of states, a militaristic organizing force, they undoubtedly influenced Rus'."

A special look at the nature of Russian-Horde relations was formalized in the works of such researchers as G.V. Vernadsky, L.N. Gumilev, V.A. Kuchkin. In their opinion, the originality of Russian-Horde relations can only be understood in the context of that historical time when appanage Rus' was subjected to double aggression - from the east and from the west. At the same time, western expansion brought more severe consequences for Rus': the goal of the crusaders was territorial conquest and the destruction of Orthodoxy, while the Horde, after the initial blow, retreated back to the steppe, and in relation to Orthodoxy they showed not only tolerance, but even guaranteed the inviolability of the Orthodox faith, churches and church property. Choice foreign policy strategy, carried out by Alexander Nevsky, was associated with the defense of “the historical meaning of the uniqueness of Russian culture - Orthodoxy.” "...The Union with the Horde - not the yoke of the Horde, but the Military Alliance with it - predetermined the special path of Rus'."

Based on all of the above, we can conclude that the main arguments for most supporters of the positive Mongol-Tatar influence on Rus' are, firstly, individual elements heritage of the Golden Horde, which made a significant contribution to the development of Russian history, as well as the idea of ​​the Horde’s conquest of Rus' as a “lesser evil” compared to the aggression of the West.

2.2 Impact assessment

One of the main arguments of the majority of Russian scientists who support the negative characterization of the Mongol-Tatar influence on Rus' is the assertion of fundamental differences between the old Kievan Rus and the Moscow state formed after the fall of the yoke. For example, in the work of the Ukrainian historian Nikolai Kostomarov (1817-1885) entitled “The Beginning of Autocracy in Ancient Rus',” the difference between the democratic structure of Kievan Rus and the autocracy of Muscovy is emphasized. According to this scientist, if in the pre-Mongol period the Russian princes delimited state power and ownership, then under the Mongols the principalities became fiefdoms, that is, property: “Now the land has ceased to be an independent unit; it has descended to the meaning of material belonging. The sense of freedom, honor, and consciousness of the personal have disappeared dignity; servility before the higher, despotism over the lower became the qualities of the Russian soul."

Another scientist, Fyodor Leontovich (1833-1911), said in his studies that it was the Mongols who predetermined the absolutist nature of the Moscow monarchy:

“The Mongols introduced into the consciousness of their tributaries - the Russians - the idea of ​​​​the rights of their leader (khan) as the supreme owner (patrimonial owner) of all the land they occupied. The resulting deprivation of land (in the legal sense) of the population, the concentration of land rights in a few hands, is inextricably linked with the strengthening of service and tax people who held in their hands the "possession land only under the condition of proper performance of service and duties. Then, after the overthrow of the yoke, the princes could transfer the supreme power of the khan to themselves; why all the land began to be considered the property of princes"

In line with this same direction, the official position of Soviet historical science was formulated, set out in one of the articles of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

“The Mongol-Tatar yoke had negative, deeply regressive consequences for the economic, political and cultural development of the Russian lands, and was a brake on the growth of the productive forces of Rus', which were at a higher socio-economic level compared to the productive forces of the Mongol-Tatars. It artificially preserved for a long time, the purely feudal natural nature of the economy. Politically, the consequences of the Mongol-Tatar yoke were manifested in the disruption of the process of state consolidation of Russian lands, in the artificial maintenance feudal fragmentation. The Mongol-Tatar yoke led to increased feudal exploitation of the Russian people, who found themselves under double oppression - their own and the Mongol-Tatar feudal lords. The Mongol-Tatar yoke, which lasted 240 years, was one of the main reasons for Rus''s lag behind some Western European countries."

Finally, many post-Soviet researchers, such as Igor Knyazky and Vadim Trepalov, saw a direct connection between the Mongol yoke and the establishment of Russian autocracy in the derogation of the importance of representative institutions such as veche:

“The Horde yoke radically changed the political system of Russia. The power of the Moscow kings, which originated dynastically from the Kyiv princes, essentially goes to the absolute power of the Mongol khans of the Golden Horde. And the great Moscow prince becomes king after the fallen power of the Golden Horde rulers. It is from them that the formidable sovereigns of Muscovy inherit the unconditional right execute any of his subjects at his own will, regardless of his actual guilt. Claiming that the kings of Moscow are “free to execute and pardon.” , Ivan the Terrible acts not as the heir of Monomakh, but as the successor of the Batyevs, for here neither the guilt nor the virtue of the subject are important to him - they are determined by the royal will itself. The most important circumstance noted by Klyuchevsky that the subjects of the Tsar of Moscow have no rights, but only responsibilities, is a direct legacy of the Horde tradition, which in Muscovy was not essentially changed even by the zemshchina of the 17th century, because during the Zemsky Sobors The rights of the Russian people did not increase, and the councils never acquired their voice.”

Another argument for supporters of a negative assessment of the Horde’s influence on Rus' was the individual consequences of the Mongol-Tatar conquest of Russian lands, which are important for the history of the development of the Great Russian people. So, according to the statement of N.M. Karamzin, the Russians, being under the rule of the Mongols, lost many civic virtues, in order to survive, they did not disdain deception, love of money, and cruelty: “Perhaps the very current character of the Russians still shows the stains placed on it by the barbarity of the Mughals,” the scientist wrote.

The essence of the third argument for a negative assessment of the Mongol-Tatar influence on Rus' is the assertion that after the establishment of Horde rule, the historical fate of the overwhelming majority of Russian lands for many times turned out to be divorced from many processes taking place in Europe. In this regard, the little-known views of Polish historians and publicists regarding the relationship between the Mongols and Russians are worthy of attention. One of the supporters of the view of post-Mongol Russia as a non-European country was Franciszek Duszynski (1817-1893), the main idea of ​​whose research work is the division of all human races into two main groups: “Aryan”, which included the Roman and Germanic peoples, as well as the Slavs, and “ Turanian", which included Russians, Mongols, Chinese, Jews, Mexicans. Most characteristic features"Turanians" Dushinsky called a predisposition to a nomadic lifestyle, disrespect for property and the rule of law, a predisposition to despotism.

Thus, the problem of characterizing the Mongol influence has caused and continues to cause heated controversy, both in Russian and foreign historical science. At the center of the discussion was the question of the nature of the Russian political regime and its origin. After all, the chances for positive changes in the country’s development largely depend on how the main reason for Russia’s commitment to autocratic power is explained.

In addition, the perception of Russia as a direct heir to the Mongol empire, or even simply as a country that experienced their strong influence, allows us to substantiate the legitimacy of the assertion of Russian power on huge territory from the Baltic and Black Sea to the Pacific Ocean and over the many peoples inhabiting it. This argument is critically important for modern Russian imperialists.

Conclusion

So, the degree of influence of the Mongol invasion and the Horde yoke on the historical fate of the Russian state is unconditional, great, but the nature of this influence is ambiguous in relation to various aspects of life in the Russian lands.

The invasion of the Mongol-Tatars and the establishment of Horde rule dealt a terrible blow to the economy, government system and social life of the Russian principalities, and to their human resources. During these processes, cities were destroyed, the population was exterminated, there were signs of a serious economic and cultural lag of the Russian territory from pan-European development, the state, under the influence of the political communication of the princes with the Tatar khans, gradually acquired features characteristic of Eastern despotism. Thus, the Mongol-Tatar yoke delayed the historical development of our country for a long time, separating it from the pan-European processes taking place at that time.

It is difficult to even imagine how dearly the campaigns of the Mongol khans cost humanity and how many more misfortunes, murders and destruction they could have caused if not for the heroic resistance of the Russian people, who exhausted the enemy’s forces and stopped them on the borders of Central Europe.

At the same time, one should not deny, although few, the positive results of the establishment of the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Rus'. One of these results is, in particular, the gradual transition of Russian lands from a state of political fragmentation to the creation of a single centralized state. It was the factor of the Horde yoke that served as one of the incentives for the Russian princes to stop internal strife and unite to expel the invaders from their lands. We must also not forget about the factor of cultural continuity. The Golden Horde heritage had a huge impact on the development of the culture of post-Mongol Rus', some elements of which can still be traced to this day in many aspects of the life of the peoples inhabiting the territory of the modern Russian state. For example, after the Mongol-Tatar rule, many words of Tatar origin entered the Russian language, and the borrowing of eastern customs became widespread in almost all layers Russian society. In addition, the very fact of the dominance of the Mongol-Tatars in the Russian lands and the associated consequences cannot be considered and assessed from the situation in which they were Russian lands second quarter of the 13th century. Specific Rus' at that time, was subject to aggression from both the East and the West. Therefore, it is difficult to say unambiguously what consequences the development of events could have had, when most of the Russian lands would have been under the rule not of the Mongol-Tatars, who showed a rather tolerant attitude towards the religion and culture of the conquered peoples, but of the Swedish-German knights, who sought to seize the territory of Russian principalities and eradicate Orthodoxy there.

And even such a result as the separation of Rus' from the pan-European civilization cannot be viewed only in a negative aspect. After all, if the Mongol yoke contributed to the rupture of Russian lands with Europe, then it also put Rus' in close connection with the steppe center and the Asian peripheries of the mainland. On this occasion, the famous scientist G.V. Vernadsky wrote: “Having submitted to the sovereigns from the house of Genghis Khan, the Russian land was politically included in a huge historical world, extending from Pacific Ocean before Mediterranean Sea".

Thus, we can make the assumption that the question of the degree and nature of Mongol influence on the historical fate of Russian lands will cause controversy for a long time both among Russians and among foreign researchers.

Bibliography

1.Vernadsky G.V. Mongols and Rus'. // G.V. Vernadsky - Tver, 1997, 189 p.

2.Grekov B.D., Yakubovsky A.Yu. The Golden Horde and its fall. // B.D. Grekov, A.Yu. Yakubovsky - M., 1998, 479 p.

.Grekov B.D. Mongols and Rus'. Experience of political history. // B.D. Grekov - M., 1979, 156 p.

.Gumilev L.N. Searches for a fictional kingdom. // L.N. Gumilev - M., 1970, 398 p.

.Ionov I.N. Russian Civilization of the 9th - early 20th centuries. // I.N. Ionov - M., 1985, 319 p.

.Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. T.1 // N.M. Karamzin - M., 1991, 316 p.

.Karamzin N.M. Note on ancient and new Russia. // N.M. Karamzin - St. Petersburg, 1914, 56 p.

.Kargalov V.V. Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus'. // V.V. Kargalov - M., 1966, 136 p.

.Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. Full course lectures: In 3 books. - Book 1. // V.O. Klyuchevsky - M., 1995, 572 p.

.Kostomarov N. The beginning of autocracy in Ancient Rus' // N. Kostomarov - St. Petersburg, 1872, 399 p.

.Kuchkin V.A. Rus' under the yoke: how it happened. // V.A. Kuchkin - M., 1990, 28 p.

.Leontovich F.I. On the history of the rights of Russian foreigners: the ancient Oirat statute of penalties. // F.I. Leontovich - Novorossiysk, 1879, 290 p.

.Pashchenko V.Ya. The ideology of Eurasianism. // V. Ya Pashchenko - M., 2000, 160 p.

.Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. // S.F. Platonov - Petrograd, 1915, 746 pp.

.Soloviev S.M. History of Rus'. // CM. Soloviev - M., 1966, 498 p.

.Trepavlov V.A. The political system of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century. The problem of state succession. // V.A. Trepavlov - M., 1987, 168 p.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Frequent raids on Rus' contributed to the creation of a unified state, as Karamzin said: “Moscow owes its greatness to the khans!” Kostomarov emphasized the role of the khan's labels in strengthening the power of the Grand Duke. At the same time, they did not deny the influence of the devastating campaigns of the Tatars - Mongolians on Russian lands, the collection of heavy tribute, etc. Gumilyov, in his research, painted a picture of good neighborly and allied relations between Rus' and the Horde. Soloviev (Klyuchevsky, Platonov) assessed the impact of the conquerors on the internal life of ancient Russian society as insignificant, with the exception of raids and wars. He believed that the processes of the 2nd half of the 13th-15th centuries either followed from the trends of the previous period, or arose independently of the Horde. Having briefly mentioned the dependence of the Russian princes on the khan's labels and the collection of taxes, Solovyov noted that there is no reason to recognize the significant influence of the Mongols on the Russian internal administration, since we do not see any traces of it. For many historians, there is an intermediate position - the influence of the conquerors is regarded as noticeable, but not determining the development and unification of Rus'. The creation of a unified state, according to Grekov, Nasonov and others, occurred not thanks to, but in spite of the Horde, from the point of view of the Mongol yoke in modern historical science: Traditional history views it as a disaster for the Russian lands. Another interprets Batu’s invasion as an ordinary raid of nomads. Supporters of the traditional point of view extremely negatively assess the impact of the yoke on various aspects of the life of Rus': there was a massive movement of the population, and with it the agricultural culture, to the west and north-west, to less convenient territories with a less favorable climate; the political and social role of cities is sharply declining; The power of the princes over the population increased. The invasion of nomads was accompanied by massive destruction of Russian cities, the inhabitants were mercilessly destroyed or taken prisoner. This led to a noticeable decline in Russian cities - the population decreased, the lives of city residents became poorer, and many crafts fell into disrepair. The Mongol-Tatar invasion dealt a heavy blow to the basis of urban culture - handicraft production. Since the destruction of cities was accompanied by massive removals of artisans to Mongolia and the Golden Horde. Together with the craft population of the Russian city, they lost centuries of production experience: the craftsmen took their professional secrets with them. Complex crafts have been disappearing for a long time; their revival began only 15 years later. The ancient skill of enamel has disappeared forever. The appearance of Russian cities has become poorer. The quality of construction subsequently also dropped significantly. The conquerors inflicted no less heavy damage on the Russian countryside and rural monasteries of Rus' where the majority of the country's population lived. The peasants were robbed by all the Horde officials, and numerous khan's ambassadors, and simply gangs of robbers. The damage caused by the Monolo-Tatars to the peasant economy was terrible. Dwellings and outbuildings were destroyed in the war. Draft cattle were captured and driven to the Horde. The damage caused to the national economy of Rus' by the Mongolo-Tatar conquerors was not limited to devastating looting during raids. After the establishment of the yoke, huge values ​​left the country in the form of “tribute” and “requests”. The constant leakage of silver and other metals had dire consequences for the economy. There was not enough silver for trade; there was even a “silver famine.” The Mongol-Tatar conquests led to a significant deterioration in the international position of the Russian principalities. Ancient trade and cultural ties with neighboring states were forcibly severed. Trade fell into decline. The invasion dealt a strong destructive blow to the culture of the Russian principalities. The conquests led to a long decline in Russian chronicle writing, which reached its peak at the beginning of Batu's invasion. The Mongol-Tatar conquests artificially delayed the spread of commodity-money relations, and subsistence farming did not develop.

Conclusion

Thus, the origin and development of the Golden Horde had a strong influence on the development of the Russian state, because for many years its history was tragically intertwined with the fate of the Russian lands and became an inseparable part of Russian history.

While the Western European states, which were not attacked, gradually moved from feudalism to capitalism, Rus', torn apart by the conquerors, retained the feudal economy. The invasion was the reason for the temporary backwardness of our country. Thus, the Mongol-Tatar invasion cannot be called a progressive phenomenon in the history of our country. After all, the rule of the nomads lasted for almost two and a half centuries, and during this time the yoke managed to put a significant imprint on the fate of the Russian people. This period in the history of our country is very important, since it predetermined the further development of Ancient Rus'.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Egorov V.L. " Golden Horde myths or reality" ed. knowledge Moscow 1990

Grekov B.I. World of history: Russian lands in the 13th-15th centuries. M., 1986

Kuchkin V.A. Alexander Nevsky - statesman and commander of medieval Rus' - National history. 1996

Ryazanovsky V.A. Questions of History 1993 No. 7

Skrynnikov R. G. Russian History 9-17 centuries M.; ed. The whole world 1997

Scientists have long differed in their interpretation of the influence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke on the history of Ancient Rus'. Some scientists sincerely believe that there was actually no invasion, and the Russian princes simply turned to the nomads for protection. At that time, the country was weak and not ready for serious wars with Lithuania or Sweden. The Tatar-Mongol yoke protected and protected Russian lands, preventing invasions of other nomads and the development of wars.

One way or another, in 1480 the Tatar-Mongol rule in Rus' came to an end. The most necessary in detail characterize the role of the yoke in the history of the state, paying attention to both positive and negative aspects.

Positive and negative influence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke

Conclusions on the topic

Of course, it was impossible to deny the impact of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. The Mongols were feared and hated by the people, largely due to the fact that representatives of the Tatar-Mongol yoke tried to change the state according to their own image. At that time, the Mongols even dreamed of imposing their religious system on the inhabitants of Ancient Rus', but they actively resisted this, giving preference only to Orthodoxy.

In addition, the influence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke also affected the establishment of the future system of power. Gradually, power in the country became centralized, and the beginnings of democracy were completely destroyed. Thus, the despotic, eastern model of government flourished on the territory of Rus'.

After liberation from the yoke in 1480, the country found itself in a deep economic crisis, from which it emerged only decades later. Ahead of the state lay Troubles, imposture, a change of the ruling dynasty and the rise of autocracy.