Introduction. From the beginning of the XIV century. the fragmentation of the Russian principalities stops, giving way to their unification. The creation of the Russian centralized state was caused primarily by the strengthening of economic ties between the Russian lands, which was a consequence of the overall economic development of the country.
The starting point in the development of the feudal economy was the progress of agriculture. Agricultural production is characterized in this period by the increasing spread of the arable system, which becomes the predominant method of cultivating the land in the central regions of the country. The arable system noticeably replaces the slashing system, which is widespread mainly in the northern forest areas, and the fallow, which still dominates in the south.
The arable system requires constant cultivation of the land. Since here the peasant always deals with one plot, which rests from sowing only after a year or two, the need arises to fertilize the fields. All this requires more advanced tools of production.
The growing need for agricultural implements necessitates the development of handicrafts. As a result, the process of separation of handicraft from agriculture goes deeper and deeper.
The separation of handicraft from agriculture entails the need for exchange between the peasant and the artisan. This exchange takes place in the form of trade, which in this period increases accordingly. Markets are created on the basis of such exchange. The natural division of labor between individual regions of the country, due to their natural characteristics, forms economic ties on the scale of the whole of Rus'. The development of foreign trade also contributed to the establishment of internal economic ties.
All this urgently demanded the political unification of the Russian lands, i.e. creation of a centralized state.
Another prerequisite for the unification of the Russian lands was the intensification of the class struggle, the strengthening of the class resistance of the peasantry. The rise of the economy, the possibility of obtaining ever greater surplus product induces the feudal lords to intensify the exploitation of the peasants. Moreover, the feudal lords strive not only economically, but also legally to secure the peasants to their estates and estates, to enserf them. Such a policy evokes natural resistance from the peasantry, which assumes various forms. Under such conditions, the feudal class was faced with the task of keeping the peasantry in check and bringing its enslavement to the end. This task could only be accomplished by a powerful centralized state capable of fulfilling the main function of an exploiting state - suppressing the resistance of the exploited masses.
These two reasons played a leading role in the unification of Rus'. Without them, the process of centralization could not have achieved significant success. However, in itself, the economic and social development of the country in the XIV - XVI centuries. could not yet lead to the formation of a centralized state.
The factor that accelerated the centralization of the Russian state was the threat of attack, which forced the Russian lands to rally in the face of a common enemy.
It is known that only a powerful centralized state can cope with an external enemy. Therefore, rather broad masses of the people were also interested in his education.
Formation of the Russian centralized state. The Russian centralized state was formed around Moscow, which was destined to eventually become the capital of a great power. This role of Moscow, a relatively young city, was due primarily to its economic and geographical position. Moscow arose in the then center of the Russian lands, due to which it was better than other principalities, covered from external enemies. It stood at the crossroads of river and land trade routes.
Having emerged as a city in the 12th century, Moscow was not originally the center of a separate principality. Only from time to time it was given to the younger sons of the Rostov-Suzdal princes. Only from the end of the XIII century. Moscow becomes the capital city of an independent principality with a permanent prince. The first such prince was the son of the famous hero of the Russian land Alexander Nevsky - Daniel. Under him in the late XIII - early XIV centuries. the unification of the Russian lands began, successfully continued by his successors. Pursuing a line towards the unification of the Russian principalities, the Muscovite princes bought up the lands of neighboring principalities, seized them at an opportunity by armed force, often using the Golden Horde for this, annexed them diplomatically, concluded agreements with the weakened specific princes, making them their vassals. The territory of the Moscow Principality also expanded due to the settlement of the Upper Trans-Volga region.
The foundation of Moscow's power was laid under Daniel's second son, Ivan Kalita (1325-1340). Under him, the collection of Russian lands continued. Ivan Kalita managed to get a label from the Tatars for a great reign, acquired the right to collect tribute for the Tatars from all or almost all Russian principalities that retained their independence. This position was used by the Moscow princes in order to gradually subjugate these principalities. Thanks to the flexible foreign policy Moscow princes managed to ensure peace in Rus' for several decades. Moscow also became the center of the Orthodox Church; in 1326, the metropolitan see was transferred to it from Vladimir. Expanding the territory of the Muscovite state, the Grand Dukes turned the destinies into simple estates. The appanage princes ceased to be sovereigns in their appanages and were equated with the boyars, i.e. became subjects of the Grand Duke of Moscow. They could no longer pursue an independent domestic and foreign policy.
By the end of the XIV century. The Moscow principality became so strong that it was able to start a struggle for liberation from the Mongol Tatar yoke. The first crushing blows were dealt to the Horde, the most significant of which was the victory of the Russian troops under the command of Prince Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo field. Under Ivan III, the unification of Russian lands entered a completed phase. The most important lands were annexed to Moscow - Novgorod the Great, Tver, part of the Ryazan principality, Russian lands along the Desna. In 1480, after the well-known "standing on the Ugra", Rus' finally freed itself from the Tatar yoke. The process of unification of Russian lands was completed at the beginning of the 16th century. Prince Vasily III annexed to Moscow the second half of the Ryazan principality, Pskov, liberated Smolensk from Lithuanian domination.
Together with the unification of the Russian lands, the power of the great princes over them also grew. The Moscow principality ceased to be a collection of more or less independent states. The division into appanages was replaced by division into administrative-territorial units headed by governors and volosts.
Along with the unification of Russian lands, some neighboring peoples also joined. Together with Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Perm and other lands, the Moscow state also included small non-Russian peoples who inhabited them: Meshchers, Karelians, Saami, Nenets, Udmurts, etc. Some of them assimilated, dissolved into the Great Russian people, but most retained their originality. The Russian state, like Kyiv, became multinational. Chistyakov O.I. History of domestic state and law. Part 1: Textbook / Ed. O.I. Chistyakov. - M. Publishing house BEK, 1996. - 368 p.
Thus, the process of formation of a single Russian state was expressed, firstly, in the unification of the territories of previously independent states-principalities into one - the Grand Duchy of Moscow; and secondly, in changing the very nature of statehood, in transforming the political organization of society. Titov Yu.P. History of the state and law of Russia. Textbook / Ed. Yu.P. Titova - M .: "Prospect", 1999. - 544 p.
social order and legal status of the population. During the period under review, quite significant changes took place in Rus' in the forms of feudal ownership of land and in the legal status of the main groupings of the ruling class of feudal lords. The nature of the relationship between them became different.
The class of feudal lords was divided into several categories. At the head of the hierarchical ladder was the Grand Duke - the largest feudal lord, who owned the palace and black-moss lands. The palace lands belonged directly to the prince and his family and were often distributed to close associates for service. The peasants of the palace lands carried dues or corvee and were ruled by palace servants. Chernososhnye lands belonged to the prince as head of state. The peasants of these lands bore taxes, duties in favor of the grand duke's power and were ruled by his governors. Black lands also often passed into the private possession of feudal lords - boyars, monasteries, nobility. The serving princes turned into large estate owners, first vassals, and then subjects of the Grand Duke, who were obliged to serve him. Boyars - large landowners, estates, were also vassals of the Grand Duke, and then - his subjects. The patrimonial boyars became the main category of the ruling class of feudal lords during the period of feudal fragmentation. They had great rights to the land and the peasants who lived on it: they transferred the land by inheritance, alienated it, changed it, etc.; in their hands were the court, administration, collection of taxes, etc. in addition, the boyars had the “right to leave” from one prince to another, which did not entail the liquidation of the estate. An important institution of patrimonial landownership was the right of tribal redemption of alienated lands, according to which the relatives of the votchinnik had the opportunity to acquire them in the first place. This right was exercised regardless of the vassal ties of the boyars. Boyar land ownership already by the 15th century. did not coincide with the borders of specific principalities remaining from political fragmentation. Vassal relations with specific princes were destroyed and replaced by service to the Grand Duke. With the unification of the lands and the strengthening of the grand ducal power, the legal status of the boyars-patrimonials changed significantly: the “right to leave” was limited and then canceled; estates began to acquire the character of conditional land ownership; their immunity privileges were reduced. These changes led to some limitation of the power of the boyars, which did not mean the loss of their privileged position. The boyars were still large landowners, they exploited peasants, bonded people, and serfs. They were free from taxes and duties, judged their peasants and ruled over them. The boyars were part of the feudal council under the prince, occupied the most important positions in the state administration and in the armed forces, and had privileges in court.
The boyar title could previously only be obtained by inheritance. With the change of the old feudal nobility, the title of boyars became a court rank, favored by the Grand Duke. Appeared "introduced" boyars, roundabouts, whose belonging to the top of the feudal nobility was established by the prince. Other layers of feudal lords had the ranks of duma nobles, duma clerks, stewards, Moscow and city nobles, etc.
The feudal hierarchy of that time was characterized by a system of parochialism, in which representatives of princely or feudal families occupied a certain place at the prince's court and in the sovereign's service according to their generosity. The broad privileges of the old feudal nobility and the system of parochialism were a serious brake on the process of centralization and the strengthening of political unity. Titov Yu.P. History of the state and law of Russia. Textbook / Ed. Yu.P. Titova - M .: "Prospect", 1999. - 544 p.
Serving people - noblemen - owned the land on the so-called local right, i.e. conditionally, for service and for the duration of service. The owners of local lands could not alienate them and pass them on by inheritance, were not included in the Boyar Duma, could not receive the highest ranks in the palace administration and be governors.
The nobility became an increasingly numerous group of the ruling class, and a group closely associated with the grand ducal power and becoming its important political pillar. The nobility was extremely interested in strengthening the power of a single sovereign, since they could not cope with either internal or external enemies on their own. It was interested in capturing new lands and expanding the "dachas" provided to it, in intensifying the development of trade, the emergence of new trade routes, since the economy of an average and small feudal lord could be effective only in conditions of relations with the market, the development of lordly plowing, and an increase in duties. Subsequently, the rights of the nobles to land were significantly expanded.
The middle and small feudal lords included free servants and boyar children. The middle and small noble landownership was more progressive and viable than the boyar-princely patrimony, as evidenced by the numerous facts of the ruin of the former princes and boyars, their debts, mortgages of land, and sale to their new owners.
Monasteries and the church - the largest landowners - estates - had up to a third of all privately owned lands in the Russian state. Church and monastic landownership continued to develop intensively during the XIV - XV centuries. It, as a rule, did not coincide with the borders of individual principalities. The clergy linked their policy with the Grand Duke, supported his desire for the political unification of Rus', strengthening the state apparatus. Only the power of the grand dukes could help the clergy cope with the peasant movement. The peasants more and more often rose up to fight, seized the lands of the feudal lords, and fled to the outskirts of the country. Only a strong government could protect the interests of the clergy, create the necessary conditions for the intensified exploitation of direct producers. But at the same time, the broad privileges and immunities of church feudal lords prevented the centralization of the state. At the beginning of the XVI century. there was a tendency to some change, limitation: the lands of monasteries and churches were no longer exempt from paying state taxes, cases of the most serious crimes were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the court of the clergy.
Church feudal lords had a number of personal privileges - they did not pay sovereign taxes, they were subject only to the court of the clergy, their lives, honor, property were protected by increased penalties. Titov Yu.P. History of the state and law of Russia. Textbook / Ed. Yu.P. Titova - M .: "Prospect", 1999. - 544 p.
Urban population. Cities were usually divided into two parts: the city itself, i.e. a place enclosed by a wall, a fortress and a trade and craft settlement surrounding the city walls. Accordingly, the population was divided. In the fortress - detinets lived in peacetime mainly representatives of the princely government, the garrison and servants of local feudal lords. Craftsmen and merchants settled in the settlement. The first part of the population was free from taxes and state duties, the second belonged to the tax "black" people.
The intermediate category was made up of the population of settlements and households belonging to individual feudal lords and located within the city limits. These people, economically connected with the settlement, were nevertheless free from the city tax and carried duties only in favor of their master. The economic upsurge in the 15th century, the development of handicrafts and trade strengthened the economic position of the cities, and, consequently, raised the importance of the townspeople. In the cities, the most wealthy circles of merchants stand out - guests leading foreign trade. Chistyakov O.I. History of domestic state and law. Part 1: Textbook / Ed. O.I. Chistyakov. - M. Publishing house BEK, 1996. - 368 p.
The peasants were divided into several main groups: sovereign, palace and private property.
The black-taxed peasants paid taxes and carried other natural duties to the Grand Duke-Sovereign. Their number was constantly and significantly reduced, as they were transferred along with the land, complained to the feudal lords. Privately owned peasants lived on the land of individual feudal lords, having land plots from them, for which land owners received rent, either dues or corvée. The position of the palace peasants was similar. During the period under review, there is an increase in the exploitation of the peasants, an increase in the size of quitrent, corvee. The feudal lords could ensure the fulfillment of these duties only by strengthening non-economic coercion and strengthening the state apparatus. With his help from the middle of the XV century. began the process of general enslavement of the peasants. At first, the right to move certain groups of old-time peasants, silversmiths, was limited, then in special letters granted by the Grand Dukes, the general period for the transition of peasants was determined - St. George's Day. When leaving, the peasant had to pay a certain amount - the elderly. At that time, the institution of servility was preserved, but a new group appeared - bonded people. Yu.P. Titov. History of the state and law of Russia. Textbook / Ed. Yu.P. Titova - M .: "Prospect", 1999. - 544 p. The bondage arose out of debt bondage. The person who borrowed had to work off the interest. Most often, bondage became lifelong.
Kholops were divided into several groups. There were large, full and reporting slaves. Big serfs are the pinnacle of servility, princely and boyar servants, who sometimes held high positions. Full and reporting serfs worked in the household of the feudal lord as servants, artisans, and farmers. The economic unprofitability of servile labor is becoming more and more obvious. Therefore, there is a tendency towards a relative reduction in servility.
At the same time, self-sale into slaves became widespread. The impoverished peasants were sold into slaves. The number of serfs was also reduced due to their release into the wild. Most often, serfs were released under a will. Monasteries also released their serfs.
During this period, the process of gradual blurring of the line between serfs and peasants, which began in ancient Rus', is developing. Serfs receive some property and personal rights, and enslaved peasants are losing them more and more. Chistyakov O.I. History of domestic state and law. Part 1: Textbook / Ed. O.I. Chistyakov. - M. Publishing house BEK, 1996. - 368 p.
Conclusion Thus, in the second half of the XIV century. in northeastern Rus', the tendency to unite the lands intensified. The center of the association was the Moscow principality, separated from Vladimir-Suzdal in the 12th century.
The weakening and disintegration of the Golden Horde, the development of economic inter-princely ties and trade, the formation of new cities and the strengthening of the nobility as a social stratum played the role of unifying factors. In the Moscow principality, the system of local relations was intensively developing: the nobles received land from the Grand Duke for their service and for the duration of their service. This made them dependent on the prince and strengthened his power.
Speaking of centralization, two processes should be kept in mind: the unification of Russian lands around a new center - Moscow and the creation of a centralized state apparatus, a new power structure in the Muscovite state.
In the course of centralization, the entire political system. In place of many independent principalities, a single state is formed. The whole system of suzerain-vassal relations is changing: the former grand dukes themselves become vassals of the Grand Duke of Moscow, a complex hierarchy of feudal ranks is taking shape. The strengthening service nobility becomes a support for the Grand Duke in the fight against the feudal aristocracy, which does not want to sacrifice its independence. In the economic field, a struggle is unfolding between the patrimonial and local types of land tenure.
The church became a serious political force, concentrating in its hands significant land holdings and values and basically determining the ideology of the emerging autocratic state.
The elite of the urban population waged a continuous struggle against the feudal aristocracy and actively supported the policy of centralization. She formed her corporate bodies, insisted on exemption from heavy taxation and the elimination of privileged feudal trades and trades in the cities.
Thus, in the emerging political situation, all three social forces - the feudal (secular and spiritual) aristocracy, the serving nobility and the top tenants - formed the basis of the estate-representative system of government.
Groups of prerequisites for the formation of a Russian centralized state.
1. Economic background: to the beginning of the XIV century. in Rus', after the Tatar-Mongol invasion, economic life gradually revived and developed, which was the economic basis for the struggle for unification and independence. Cities were also restored, residents returned to their native places, cultivated the land, were engaged in crafts, and trade relations were established. Novgorod contributed a lot to this.
2. Social background: by the end of the XIV century. the economic situation in Rus' has already completely stabilized. Against this background, later feudal features are developing, and the dependence of the peasants on large landowners is growing more and more. At the same time, the resistance of the peasants also increases, which reveals the need for a strong centralized government.
3. Political background, which in turn are subdivided into internal and external ones:
1) domestic: in the XIV-XVI centuries. significantly increases and expands the power of the Moscow principality. His princes are building a state apparatus to strengthen their power;
2) foreign policy: the main foreign policy task of Rus' was the need to overthrow the Tatar-Mongol yoke, which hampered the development of the Russian state. The restoration of the independence of Rus' required a general unification against a single enemy: the Mongols - from the south, Lithuania and the Swedes - from the west.
One of the political prerequisites for the formation of a unified Russian state was Union of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Western Church, signed by the Byzantine-Constantinople Patriarch. Russia became the only Orthodox state uniting all the principalities of Rus' at the same time.
The unification of Rus' took place around Moscow.
The reasons for the rise of Moscow are:
1) good geographical and economic position;
2) Moscow was independent in foreign policy, it did not gravitate towards either Lithuania or the Horde, therefore it became the center of the national liberation struggle;
3) Moscow's support from the largest Russian cities (Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod, etc.);
4) Moscow - the center of Orthodoxy in Rus';
5) the absence of internal enmity among the princes of the Moscow house.
Merging Features:
1) the unification of Russian lands took place not in the conditions of late feudalism, as in Europe, but in the conditions of its heyday;
2) the basis for unification in Rus' was the union of Moscow princes, and in Europe - the urban bourgeoisie;
3) Rus' united initially for political reasons, and then for economic ones, while the European states - primarily for economic ones.
The unification of Russian lands took place under the leadership of the prince of Moscow. He was the first to become the king of all Rus'. IN 1478 after the unification of Novgorod and Moscow, Rus' finally freed itself from the yoke. In 1485, Tver, Ryazan, etc., joined the Muscovite state.
Now the specific princes were controlled by proteges from Moscow. The Moscow prince becomes the supreme judge, he considers especially important cases.
The Moscow principality creates a new class for the first time nobles(service people), they were soldiers of the Grand Duke, who were awarded land on the terms of service.
Historians about the emergence of the Russian state. Reasons and features
formation of a single centralized Russian state. Social system. State mechanism of a single centralized state.
The formation of all-Russian feudal law
Historians about the emergence of the Russian state. The topic of the formation of a unified Russian state was given attention by many stories. She was the subject of special studies by A.M. Sakharova, A.A. Zimina, V.B. Kobrina, Yu.A. Limonova, M.N. Tikhomirova, Yu.G. Alekseev and others. Of considerable interest is the historical novel by V.N. Yazvitsky "Ivan III - Sovereign of All Rus'".
The concept of the historical process of birth from Rus' great Russia suggested one of the prominent scientists, historian, philosopher and theologian G.P. Fedotov. In the article “Russia and Freedom”, he tries to prove that Moscow owed its rise to the Tatarophile, treacherous actions of its first princes, that the reunification of Rus', the creation of a single state was carried out through violent seizures of territory, treacherous arrests of rival princes.
G.P. Fedotov does not deny the need to unite the lands under the hand of Moscow, but emphasizes the "eastern methods" of unification.
N.M. Karamzin, on the contrary, focuses on the progressive Russian character of the very fact of the unification of Rus'. He wrote: “It seemed that after centuries of slavery, the Russian land, intoxicated with blood, strewn with ashes, would not rise, would not straighten up, which had become the dwelling of the Khan’s slaves.” But “a miracle happened. The town, hardly known until the XIV century from contempt for its unimportance, long called the village of Kuchkov, exalted the head and saved the Fatherland.
CM. Solovyov believed that the formation of the Russian centralized state was a historically prepared, objectively conditioned phenomenon.
Interesting studies on this issue were carried out in Soviet times by historians L.V. Cherepnin and A.A. Zimin.
Causes and features of the formation of a single centralized Russian state . On the verge of the XIV century, the fragmentation of the Russian principalities stops, giving way to their unification.
Creation Russian centralized state was called in the first place strengthening economic ties between Russian lands resulting from the overall economic development of the country.
There was an active process of destruction of the subsistence economy, caused by the growth in the productivity of agriculture and handicrafts. All this objectively put on the agenda the question of the formation of a single economic space of the Russian lands in the interests of selling the excess product.
In addition, the concentration of property in the hands of the grand ducal authorities and the Moscow bureaucracy predetermined their desire for a strong statehood that controlled all Russian lands.
By the middle of the 16th century, 2/3 of all landed property was concentrated in the hands of the state. The prospect of creating a single strong state also corresponded to the social interests of the majority of the population of the Russian lands. The peasants sought protection from him from oppression by the princely and boyar nobility, from external enemies. Craftsmen, merchants and other townspeople were interested in state security of trade routes. Service people saw in a single state the power that could give them a livelihood in exchange for public and military service.
The most important political prerequisite was the need for liberation from Mongol rule and the protection of the country's western borders. From the middle of the XII century, North-Eastern Rus' endured, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, 160 wars and raids of the Mongols, Lithuanians, Swedes and other foreigners.
The growing resistance of the smerds to increased exploitation, accompanied by the assertion of the power of property, also encouraged the ruling class to unite their efforts within the framework of a single state mechanism.
By 1380 the situation in the country was changing not in favor of the Russian Orthodox Church. Islam is established in the Golden Horde. Great Yasa has already ceased to play an important role in the establishment of religious tolerance. When Tokhtamysh followed Mamai to Moscow, he was already robbing churches and monasteries, killing priests. Therefore, the majority of the clergy began to support Prince Dmitry Ivanovich in his struggle against the Tatar-Mongols. The church no longer called for tolerance towards the Mongol conquerors, but almost declared a holy war on them, blessing the prince for military deeds. The fight against the Mongols, as the bearers of Islam, as "filthy, infidels" has become a cult. In the East, the era of the "new crusades" was just beginning. After the fall of Constantinople, the Russian Church became a stronghold of struggle against the infidels in this direction.
The process of transforming the complex of independent Russian principalities into a single state took almost two centuries.
Tendencies of the political unification of the lands were outlined as early as the 14th century. The most important phase of the unification movement - the annexation of Yaroslavl (1463), Rostov (1474), Tver (1485) principalities, Novgorod the Great (1478) mainly falls on the 60-80s of the XV century.
The Grand Duchy of Moscow turns into the Russian (Moscow) state, and its Grand Duke becomes the Sovereign of All Rus'. It happened during the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505). The territorial unification of the Russian lands was completed under the son of Ivan III, Vasily III (1505-1533), when Pskov (1510) and Ryazan (1521) were annexed. The territory of the Muscovite state in the first quarter of the 16th century was about 2.8 million square meters. km, population - 6.5 million people.
It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the concepts of "single" and "centralized" state are ambiguous. A single state is a territorial formation of the state, and centralization is the formation of unified authorities throughout the country and the formation of a stable form of government. This is a longer process. The centralization of the apparatus continued in the 16th century and during the period of the estate-representative monarchy.
The formation of the Russian single centralized state had a number of features compared to a similar process in Western Europe.
1) Unified centralized states in Western Europe, as a rule, were already formed when capitalist relations were progressively developing. The social basis of association there was the third estate. As for Rus', here the capitalist structure had not yet begun to take shape, so the grand ducal power relied primarily on the emerging nobility.
2) A feature of the formation of a single centralized state in Rus' was the fact that it immediately took shape as a multinational one.
3) Foreign policy facts played a significant role in the political unification of the Russian lands, and above all, the long-term struggle against the Mongols-Tatars.
Social system. During the formation of a single centralized state, changes in the social system take place.
They were most noticeable in the social composition and legal status of the feudal lords. In particular, the social and legal situation has changed former grand and specific princes, and boyars former independent feudal states-principalities.
Having become subjects of the Grand Duke of Moscow, in one case they turned into ordinary boyars of landowners, in another case, many former grand and appanage princes, voluntarily or under duress, together with their boyars, retinue and court, came to the service of the Moscow Grand Duke.
In this regard, the semantic content of the concept " boyar". If earlier it meant only belonging to a certain social group - large feudal lords, now, along with the previous meaning, it began to be used to designate a court rank ( boyars introduced), or state rank ( worthy boyars) service people.
The change in the social nature of the boyars influenced his attitude towards grand duke. Yesterday's appanage princes and the boyars close to them, personifying the feudal aristocracy, who did not want to lose their privileges, are very opposed to the Grand Duke of Moscow.
Therefore, the grand dukes begin to form for themselves a new social group feudal lords, which was called nobles. They endow people who have expressed cooperation with him with courts, estates (hence the name "landlords"), provided that they perform military or public service.
The main sources of the formation of the Russian nobility:
1) petty servants of the grand dukes, the so-called "servants under the court (keykeepers, psari, etc.)", who were often recruited from princely serfs before;
2) offspring of old boyar families whose property status has been shaken;
3) Ivan III gave land on the rights of an estate to many free people, subject to their entry into public service.
The nobility was entirely dependent on the Grand Duke, and therefore was his faithful support.
The growth of the role and importance of the nobility went simultaneously with the decline in the influence of the boyars, whose economic and political positions began to decline in the second half of the 15th century.
State mechanism of a single centralized state. Head of the Russian state was Grand Duke with a wide range of rights. He issued laws, exercised state leadership, had judicial powers. Beginning with Ivan III, the Grand Dukes of Moscow called themselves "sovereigns of all Rus'."
An important body of the state was Boyar Duma. It grew out of the Council under the prince, which existed in the Old Russian state.
The Boyar Duma differed from the previous Council in its greater legal and organizational formality. It was a permanent body, had a relatively stable composition. The Duma included the so-called Duma ranks - introduced boyars and roundabouts.
The competence of the Duma coincided with the powers of the Grand Duke, although this was not formally recorded anywhere. The Grand Duke was not legally obliged to reckon with the opinion of the Duma, but in fact he could not act arbitrarily, because any decision of his was not put into practice if it was not approved by the boyars.
Through the Duma, the boyars pursued a policy that was pleasing and beneficial to them. True, over time, the Grand Dukes increasingly subordinate the Boyar Duma to themselves, which was associated with the general process of centralization of power.
The significant role of the Boyar Duma in the system of state bodies and the dominance of large feudal lords in it are characteristic features early feudal monarchy. The feudal congresses had the same character as in the times of Ancient Rus', but as the centralization strengthened, the states gradually withered away.
By the 13th century, many historians attribute the emergence customs in Rus'. The first contractual relations on trade and customs duties are formed.
Administrative-territorial division. The Russian state was divided into counties- the largest administrative-territorial units. The counties were divided into countries, mills - on volosts. However, complete uniformity and clarity in the administrative-territorial division has not yet been developed.
At the head of individual administrative units were officials - representatives of the center. The counties were headed governors, parishes - volostels.
These officials were kept at the expense of the local population - they received from him " feed”, that is, they carried out natural and monetary requisitions, collected court and other fees in their favor (“horse spot”, “half spot”, “turning”, etc.).
The feeders were obliged to manage the respective counties and volosts on their own, i.e. maintain their own administrative apparatus (tiuns, closers, etc.) and have their own military detachments to ensure the internal and external functions of the feudal state. Sent from the center, they were not personally interested in the affairs of the counties or volosts they ruled, especially since their appointment was usually relatively short-term - for a year or two.
Local authorities and administrations did not extend their competence to the territory of the boyar estates. The princes and boyars, as before, kept in their estates immunity rights. They were not just landowners, but also administrators and judges in their villages and villages.
Cities during this period they did not have self-government. In the specific principalities, the management of cities was carried out on a par with the countryside.
With the annexation of the appanage principalities to Moscow, the grand dukes, keeping all the lands of appanages usually for their former owners, always seized cities from the jurisdiction of the former appanage princes, and extended their power directly to them.
This was done proceeding from the importance of cities not only as economic centers, but primarily for military reasons. The cities were fortresses. The possession of them provided the grand dukes with both the retention of the former inheritance in their hands and defense against external enemies.
Initially, the great princes ruled the cities in the same way as before the specific princes, that is, without separating them from their other lands. Governors and volosts, managing their county or volost, also ruled the cities located on their territory to the same extent.
Later there are some special city government. Their emergence is associated with the development of cities, primarily as fortresses.
In the middle of the XV century. there was a position gorodchik- a kind of military commandant of the city. He was obliged to monitor the condition of the city fortifications, the performance of duties related to defense by the local population.
Already in the XV century. gorodchiki were also used for other grand-ducal affairs, in particular land. At first temporarily, and then permanently, broad powers were assigned to them in the land, financial and other branches of government, and not only within the city, but also within the adjacent county.
In accordance with the expansion of functions, the name of these officials has also changed. They are starting to be named city clerks. Knowing a number of questions of a military-economic and simply economic order, the city clerks were subordinate to the grand ducal treasurers. In the person of city clerks, the nobles and boyar children received their local government, and the Grand Duke - reliable conductors of the policy of centralization.
Formation of all-Russian feudal law. "Sudebnik" of 1497. As the main legislative act of the Muscovite state of the XIV - XV centuries. continued to operate Russian Truth. A new version of this law was created, the so-called abbreviated from Spacious, adapting Old Russian law to Moscow conditions.
In order to centralize the state, more and more subjugation of the places of power of the Moscow prince, charter letters vicegerent administration, which regulated the activities of feeders, limited to some extent their arbitrariness. The Muscovite state moved from issuing individual charters to codification activities, i.e. to compiling collections of laws.
The first experience of codification was Sudebnik of Ivan III of 1497. That was the era of the establishment of Moscow autocracy.
Along with the political unification, a legal unification is taking place, a general collection of legal norms for the entire Muscovite state is being compiled. The collection was compiled by deacon Vladimir Gusev and sanctioned by the tsar and the Boyar Duma.
The main content of the Sudebnik- procedural rulings. They are borrowed from the statutes. There is nothing new here, but it is important that the procedural decrees scattered in different princely charters were combined into one act.
Among the norms of procedural law there are criminal decisions. There are few of them. Some, obviously, were the result of the legislative activity of Ivan III - “on extortion”, “on denial of justice”, “on perjury”, etc. The second, smaller part
The code of law consists of norms of civil law - “on limitation”, “on inheritance”, “on sale and purchase”, “on a loan”, “on servitude”, etc.
The development of land relations was characterized by the complete or almost complete disappearance of independent communal ownership of land. The lands of the communities passed into the hands of the patrimonials and landlords, and were included in the princely domain.
At the same time, patrimonial and local land tenure was becoming more and more clearly defined. Votchina differed in that the owner possessed an almost unlimited disposition to her. He could not only own and use his land, but also dispose of it: sell, donate, transfer by inheritance. At the same time, the patrimony is feudal land tenure, therefore it is conditional. For example, the prince could take away the estate from the departed vassal,
An even more conditional form of land ownership - estate. It was given by the lord to his vassals only for the duration of the service as a reward for it. Therefore, the landowner could not dispose of the land.
The Grand Duke's domain was divided into black and palace lands. They differed only in the form of exploitation of the peasants inhabiting these lands and in the organization of their management.
The palace peasants had corvée or quitrent in kind and were ruled by representatives of the palace authorities. The black tax paid a cash rent and submitted to state officials. The lands of the domain were gradually distributed by the grand dukes into estates and estates.
Obligations from contracts The Sudebnik of 1497 paid less attention than Russkaya Pravda. Only one article (Article 55) spoke about the loan, which provided for liability for the insolvency of the debtor. There were references to contracts of sale and personal employment. The Sudebnik provided that a hireling who did not serve his term or who did not complete the stipulated task was deprived of payment.
The Sudebnik of 1497 clearly singled out obligations from causing harm, though only in one case: Art. 61 provided for property liability for injury.
Customs law. Customs legislation is gradually taking shape in the state, legal norms regulating the sale and movement of goods are being improved, and financial fees are being tightened.
The procedure for collecting duties was regulated on the basis of treaty charter Grand Duke Dmitry Ioannovich with Prince Mikhail of Tver in 1368, treaty charter Grand Dukes Boris Alexandrovich and Vasily Vasilyevich in 1451 and others.
For the most part, these letters were a contract, on the basis of which the tax-farmers assumed the obligation to collect customs duties along with the obligation to pay a certain amount to the treasury. They listed the fees to be collected, indicated their sizes, established the procedure for collection, defined penalties for evasion of payment. The size of the duties varied depending on who had to pay them - local residents, merchants or foreigners.
Little has changed and inheritance law. The Sudebnik, however, established a general and clear rule on inheritance. When inheriting by law, the inheritance was received by the son, in the absence of sons - by the daughter. The daughter received not only movable property, but also land. In the absence of daughters, the inheritance passed to the nearest of relatives.
Criminal law in this period has undergone significant changes, reflecting the aggravation of the contradictions of feudal society and the intensification of the class struggle. The development of criminal law is connected mainly with the publication of the Sudebnik of 1497.
A crime is understood to mean any action that in one way or another threatens the state or the ruling class as a whole and is therefore prohibited by law.
Unlike the Pskov Judicial Charter, Sudebnik gives a term for designations of a crime. It is now called " dashing business».
In accordance with the change in the concept of crime, the system of crimes became more complicated. The Sudebnik introduces crimes that are not known to Russian Pravda and are only outlined in the Pskov Judicial Charter - state crimes. The Sudebnik noted two such crimes - sedition and rise (Article 9). Under sedition understood as an act committed mainly by representatives of the ruling class. It was precisely as sedition that the great princes began to consider the departure of the boyars to another prince.
The concept of " rise' is debatable. It can be assumed that the people who raised the people to revolt were called risers.
The death penalty was established as a measure of punishment for state crimes.
The law provided for an advanced system property crimes. These include robbery, tatba, destruction and damage to another's property. All these crimes, which undermined the basis of the well-being of feudal society - property, were also severely punished.
The judge knew and crimes against the person: murder (murder), insult by action and word.
IN punishment in the first place came the goal of intimidating both the criminal himself, and mainly other people. Sudebnik introduced merchant execution. The commercial execution consisted of beating with a whip on the marketplace and often entailed the death of the punished.
Process was characterized by the development of the old form, the so-called court, i.e. adversarial process, and the emergence of a new form of legal proceedings - search.
In an adversarial process, the case began on the plaintiff's complaint, which was called a petition. It was usually given orally. Upon receipt of the petition, the judicial authority took measures to bring the defendant to court.
The defendant's attendance was secured by guarantors. If the defendant evaded the trial in any way, he lost the case even without trial. In such a case, the plaintiff was issued a so-called non-judicial letter. The plaintiff's failure to appear in court resulted in the dismissal of the case.
The search was used in the consideration of the most serious criminal cases, including political crimes. Its introduction was due to the desire not so much to find the truth, but to quickly and harshly crack down on "dashing" people. The search differed from the adversarial process in that the court itself initiated, conducted and completed the case on its own initiative and solely at its own discretion. The defendant was rather the object of the process. Torture was the main method of "finding out the truth" during the search.
Thus, during the period of centralization, a new system of state administration and law was created, aimed at ensuring the unity of the Russian state.
the definition of one of the most important stages in the formation of the Russian state that has developed in Russian historiography (the works of S. V. Bakhrushin, K. V. Bazilevich, L. V. Cherepnin, and others). The name of the united Russian state is also used (A.M. Sakharov, A.A. Zimin). According to a number of scholars, it developed in the late 14th - mid-16th centuries. in the process of strengthening the Grand Duchy of Moscow and uniting Russian lands around it. By the middle of the 16th century. took the form of an estate-representative monarchy. The transition to absolute monarchy (see Autocracy) was basically completed in the first quarter of the 18th century.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
RUSSIAN CENTRALIZED STATE
feud. multinational state-in, united to the con. 15 - beg. 16th centuries around the Moscow Grand Duchy of the territory of the lands and the prince-in the North-East. Rus'. State-political. build R. c. g., taking shape to ser. 16th century, was a feud. monarchy with estate representation. Some socio-economic. prerequisites for overcoming the feud. fragmentation began to take shape in the Southwest. and North-East. Russ in con. 12 - beg. 13th centuries But this process was interrupted by the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars and the establishment of Mong.-Tat. yoke. Prerequisites for centralization in the North-East. Rus' reappeared in the 14th century, when a new economic system began here. climb. Deserted lands were restored and new ones were developed (colonization in the 14th and 15th centuries swept the north, northeast, and east of the country). In most state formations North-East. Rus' gradually developed a stable complex of cultivated old arable lands (village and "pulling" villages and repairs to it) - permanent centers of agricultural production. pro-va with a relatively stable composition of the working population. The volume of produced societies has increased. product, there was a well-known generality of conditions agr. production On this basis, the growth of feudalism took place. land ownership. In the lands and princes of the North-East. Rus' developed a stable system of all types of feuds. land property. There was a process of concentration and mobilization of land, accelerated by the increase in commodity-den. appeals. As a result of this process, the established political system was disrupted. borders. Feudal growth. land tenure required the unification of the conditions for the functioning of the feud. land property throughout the country. The vast majority of feudal lords became interested in the success of centralization. Exacerbation of the class. the struggle of the peasants in response to the offensive of the feudal lords on the economic. and legal the interests of the peasantry also increased the interest of the feudal lords. owners in strengthening the state. apparatus of coercion and violence and the creation of its other forms. The church grew especially intensively. land ownership, which was attributed to the privileged. position of spiritual corporations. Church. landownership developed primarily at the expense of the "black" cross. lands, in the colonized districts and partly at the expense of secular fiefdoms. Spiritual corporations (metropolitan and episcopal departments, Trinity-Sergius, Kirillo-Velozersky, Simonov and other monasteries) turned into owners on the scale of the entire North-East. Rus', in an economically powerful and politically influential. part of the feudal class. Hence the kind of support, to-ruyu in a certain way. stage was rendered by the grand duke. the power of the earth the claims of the church, and the strong interest of the spiritual feudal lords in the success of the association. On the basis of the development of new and abandoned lands, secular patrimonial land tenure also developed. With the growth of large-scale property due to the concentration and mobilization of land, the possessions of some feudal lords violated the boundaries of the political. formations. Legal changed. the status of a patrimony, it gradually acquired a service character. In the 14-15 centuries. there was a sharp increase in the layer of medium and small feudal lords who owned land on a conditional right and were directly interested in strengthening the central state. authorities. The development of various types of conditional land tenure was explained by its special mobility. It spread to the "black" and palace lands, as well as to the lands of the church. and secular feudal lords. In con. 15th c. a manor system arose - a kind of conditional land tenure, adapted to the economy. and political R.'s needs of c. g. The objective interest of the vast majority of the feudal lords of the North-East. Rus' in the unification of the country was realized in the contradictory struggle of various groups of the ruling class for specific ways and methods of centralization, for ensuring their economic. and political goals. The material prerequisites for unification in the sphere of crafts and trade took shape as the destroyed cities were restored and new cities appeared. Craft differentiation. production, the beginning of the transition of a number of its industries into small-scale production led to the expansion of commodity circulation in the country. There was a folding of local markets; gradually arose common Russian. market connections. The development of the latter took place on the basis of natural geographic. division of labor and stimulated by the expansion of external. trade and concentration of crafts. production in large cities (Moscow, Tver, Novgorod, etc.). As a result, most of the trade.-crafts. population of the North-East. Rus' became interested in the creation of the R. c. However, his position was contradictory, since the formation of R. c. d. happened in means. least at the expense of economic robbery and politics subjugation of cities. Dep. layers of trade-crafts. the population of some cities (Tver, Galich, etc.) supported the separatist aspirations of their princes or, as in Novgorod, the church. and the boyar elite. Preservation of the yoke of the Golden Horde, expansionist policy Vel. the princes of the Lithuanian, Livonian Order and Sweden stimulated the interest of the population of the North-East. Rus', above all the ruling class, in accelerating centralization. Education R. c. city was inextricably linked with the success of the national-liberate. fight. But constant distraction means. funds for foreign policy. goal slowed down the pace of unification of the country. As a result of the sharp struggle between the two strongest princes - Tver and Moscow - the latter won and Moscow became the center of the emerging R. c. city (from the 2nd half of the 14th century). Under Dmitry Donskoy (1359-89), she became the head of the liberation. Struggle North-East. Rus' against Mong.-Tat. yoke. Under Vasily I Dmitrievich (1389-1425), the Nizhny Novgorod princedom was annexed and foreign policy was strengthened. north-east position Russian lands: During the reign of Vasily II Vasilyevich (1425-1462), the struggle for centralization unfolded within Moscow itself. led. prince-va and resulted in a feud. war 2nd quarter. 15th c. At the last stage, it covered all state. Education North-East. Rus'. The defeat of the Galician princes Moscow. home and their allies led to a sharp change in the balance of power in favor of the grand dukes. authorities. During the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505), the formation of a single territory. R. c. was actually completed. It included Tver, Yaroslavl, Rostov and other principalities, as well as Novgorod land. The rights of specific princes of Moscow. houses were limited. In 1480 Mong.-Tat. was overthrown. yoke, and as a result of Rus.-Lit. war con. 15 - beg. 16th centuries Vyazma, Bryansk, the destinies of the "Verkhovsky" princes, Novgorod-Seversky and Starodubsky principalities were annexed. In the 1st floor. 16th century the folding of the territory was completed. R. c. BC: the independence of Pskov was liquidated (1510), the Ryazan prince-in was annexed (1521) and as a result of the war with the Polish-Lithuanians. Smolensk was returned to the state (1514). In 1552-56, with the annexation of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, the rapid growth of the territory began. R. c. city in the east. During the reign of Vasily III (1505-33) and the regency of Elena Glinskaya (1533-38), the inheritances of the princes of Moscow were liquidated. at home (later only the inheritance of the princes Staritsky was restored, the inheritances of the service princes Vorotynsky, Odoevsky, Mstislavsky and others were also partially preserved). Completion of registration of social and state-political. R.'s structures of c. happened to ser. 16th century The multi-stage vassal relations within the class of feudal lords were replaced by relations of allegiance led. prince (from 1547 - the king). The class of feudal lords has become a mean. measure into a closed estate. A system of ranks of the ruling class developed. All secular feudal lords were divided into the ranks of "duma", "Moscow" and "city" (see Service people). In accordance with the rank, the official appointments of the feudal lords were determined, their den was established. and earth. salary ("local salaries"). The tribal composition of the first two ranks was enshrined in the Sovereign Genealogy (c. 1555). The relationship of the feudal lords within these groups, their career advancement was determined by the norms of parochialism. These families owned most of the secular patrimonial land ownership. "City" ranks, subdivided into a number of articles, made up the ordinary mass of the class of feudal lords and were divided into terr. corporations, the numerical and family composition of which was recorded in "tens". The peculiarities of the position of each corporation were ultimately determined by the East. conditions for the development of a particular area. This group was characterized by medium and small estate and patrimonial land tenure. The Code of Service (c. 1556) determined the types and sizes of the military. services of all secular feudal lords. An influential part of the ruling class was the church. corporations. A common legal privilege of the feudal class. Intermediate layer R. c. g., the design of which is associated with the military. reforms ser. 16th century and governments. colonization of the south. areas, there were service people "according to the instrument". They included archers, gunners and zatinshchiks (rank and file of marching and fortress artillery), collars, watchmen, "stern", "city" and "local" Cossacks. They were personally free people, obliged to the state-woo determined. type of service, for which they received a salary. The status of trade-crafts is being developed. mountain layers. population. All land in the cities, with the exception of the "white" settlements and courtyards, was considered sovereign, and the townspeople were a taxable population, obliged to bear duties and pay taxes. The privileged part of the township class were guests and clothiers. The population of "white" settlements and yards, as well as private owners. cities were operated by their fiefs. owners. The most oppressed estate R. c. was the peasantry. Education R. c. city not only consolidated the previously developed serfs. trends, but mean. least predetermined the constant strengthening of serfdom. The peasantry, depending on the legal. status of the land, to which it was attached, was divided into black-lined, palace and privately owned. There was an eradication of various forms of "whitewash" servility, the rapid growth of bonded servitude, the rapprochement of real economic. position of the peasantry and the vast majority of serfs. Head of R. c. Mr. was leading. prince (from 1547 - tsar), who formally possessed all the fullness of the highest legislation., court. and perform. authorities. Legislative Council, Court. and perform. the institute was the Boyar Duma, class-represented. organ of the entire secular part of the feud. class and above all his aristocratic. tops. Boyar Duma means. degree limited the power of the monarch. K ser. 16th century the Zemsky Sobor, the supreme legislative council, arose. a body consisting of the Boyar Duma, the "Consecrated Cathedral" (the highest hierarchs of the Russian church), representatives of the "Moscow" and "city" ranks, as well as the townspeople. For consideration by the Zemsky Sobors, convened on the initiative of the pr-va, the most important issues of external. and ext. politicians. In con. 15 - 1st floor. 16th centuries center. executive bodies. and court. the authorities were grand dukes. Treasury, Palace (Big and regional) and permanent commissions under the Boyar Duma. By the 50s. 16th century there were orders. The emergence and strengthening of the order system meant the birth of bureaucratic. machines R. c. d. To replace the vicegerent system local authorities power, which played put. role during the formation of R. c. g., estate-representative institutions of local self-government (labial and zemstvo huts) came, which were under the control of the central authorities. They were headed by representatives of the local nobility, the prosperous part of the townspeople and the black-haired peasantry. Part of the functions of local government was transferred directly to the hands. agents of the pr-va (city clerks, etc.). Reforms of the 50s 16th century unified the financial tax system R. c. g. and consolidated a single community. law (Sudebnik 1497 and 1550). Terr. R. c. in the 50s. 16th century (excluding the districts of the Middle and Lower Volga regions) was approx. 3 million km2. In the north, it extended to the Barents and White Seas, capturing in the north-east. Sev area. Ural. On S.-W. R. c. The city bordered on Norway, Sweden and the Livonian Order. Zap. and southwest. neighbor R. c. was Vel. prince of Lithuania. South the border was indefinite. K ser. 16th century Russian colonization spread to the districts of the upper reaches of pp. Oskol, Don, Voronezh. Vost. The border ran along the foothills of the Middle Urals. To the south-east was terr. the nomadic Great Nogai Horde, which gradually fell into vassal dependence on the R. c. d. Number. population of R. c. in ser. 16th century - approximately 7-9 million hours. Ethnic. the basis was the Great Russian. (Russian) nationality. In addition, it included the Lapps, Khanty, Mansi, Komi, Udmurts, Tatars, Mari, Chuvash, Mordovians, Karelians and other peoples and tribes. The inclusion of these peoples in the R. c. there was progress. factor of their further ist. development, but it was carried out primarily in the interests of the ruling class and carried out with the help of methods of violence. Christianization and Russification. Education R. c. g. - the most important stage in the East. development of our country. Despite all the inconsistency and complexity, the process of unification of Russian. and other peoples into a single state-in was generally progressive value. Its completion led to the creation of new, more favorable conditions for the development of the country's economy, the culture of its peoples and for solving internal political issues. and foreign policy tasks. Historiography. The problem of education R. c. was one of the most important research topics in Russian. prerevolutionary historiography. But its representatives were far from truly scientific. posing the problem and solving it. The merit of historians of the state. school, especially O. M. Solovyov, was an attempt to reveal the patterns that led to the formation of a single Rus. state-va. In the works of bourgeois historians collected valuable facts. material and interesting concrete observations were made (especially in the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky, A. E. Presnyakov). In the owls historiography, the first steps in the study of the problem were made in the 20-30s. The successes of these years are associated with the name of M. H. Pokrovsky, who, however, made serious mistakes (the theory of "commercial capital", which he later abandoned, the concept of "struggle for markets" and the collapse of feudal orders with the formation of R. c. etc.). The turning point in the study of folding R. c. was the end of the 30s. The questions of this problem were then most fully posed in the articles by S.V. Bakhrushin and K.V. Bazilevich, who criticized the concept of M.N. Against the historical concept of M. N. Pokrovsky", part 1, M.-L., 1939, K. V. Bazilevich, "Trading capitalism" and the genesis of Moscow autocracy in the works of M. N. Pokrovsky, ibid.). They first used the term "R. ts. g." Methodological the basics and techniques for solving the problem were clarified and developed during the discussion held by J. "Questions of History" (in 1946 - on the formation of the R. Ts. G., in 1949-51 - on the periodization of the history of the USSR). During the 40-60s. there was a broad study of socio-economic. and political problems of development North-East. Rus' in 14 - 1st floor. 16th centuries All this made it possible to create generalizing studies on the history of the formation of R. c. d. However, a number of essential issues of the problem are interpreted differently by scientists. The majority of their beginning of formation of R. of c. The city is attributed to the 14th century. (K.V. Bazilevich - by the 80s of the 15th century), but they will finish. registration of R. c. dated differently: con. 15th c. (V. V. Mavrodin), 1st half. 16th century (I. I. Smirnov), 16th century, including the oprichnina (S. V. Yushkov, P. P. Smirnov), and ser. 17th century (K. V. Bazilevich). L. V. Cherepnin believes that the formation of R. c. the city ends mainly in con. 15 - beg. 16 centuries, and finished. registration of R. c. refers to the middle. 16th century Various opinions have been expressed about the social exponents of the centralization process: the nobility and townspeople (K. V. Bazilevich, S. V. Bakhrushin, P. P. Smirnov), church. feudal lords and Muscovites boyars (S. V. Yushkov), large "multi-patrimonial landowners" (S. B. Veselovsky), various circles of the ruling class (A. M. Sakharov), various sections of the ruling class of feudal lords and various sections of townspeople (L. V. Cherepnin) . These differences are associated with a different understanding of the course of political. struggle during the formation of R. c. d. Widespread is the point of view that the nature of the political. wrestling in the 1st floor. 16th century was determined by the collision of economic. and political interests of the progressive landed nobility and the conservative princely-boyar layer. In recent works (L. V. Cherepnina, A. A. Zimina, S. M. Kashtanova, and others), the schematic nature of such a division of the class of feudal lords and the inaccuracy of characterizing the actions of departments are shown. its layers, found among the supporters of such a scheme. There is also no unity of views on the question of the level of development of small-scale production in the 14th-15th centuries. These and other questions of the history of R. c. g. need additional. study. Lit .: Presnyakov A.V., Education Velikorus. state-va, P., 1918; Mavrodin VV, The formation of a unified Rus. state-va, L., 1951; Cherepnin L.V., Education Rus. centralized state-va in XIV-XVBB., M., 1960; his, La réorganisation de l'appareil d'Etat durant la période de la centralization politique de la Russie. Fin du XVe et d?but du XVIe si?cle, "Annali delia Fondazione italiana per la storia amministrativa", 1964, No 1; his, To the question of the role of cities in the process of formation Rus. centralized state-va, in the book: Cities of the feud. Russia. Sat. Art., M., 1966; Lyubavsky M.K., Education osn. state terr. Great Russian nationalities, L., 1929; Veselovsky S.V., Feod. land ownership in the North-East. Rus', vol. 1, M.-L., 1947; Grekov B.D., Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the middle. XVII century., 2nd ed., book. 1-2, M.-L., 1952-54; Kopanev A.I., History of land ownership of the Belozersky region of the XV-XVI centuries, M.-L., 1951; Danilova L. V., Essays on the history of land ownership and households in the Novgorod land of the XIV-XV centuries, M., 1955; Vernadsky V.N., Novgorod and the Novgorod land in the 15th century, M.-L., 1961; Gorsky A.D., Essays on economics. position of the peasants North-East. Rus' XIV-XV centuries., M., 1960; Kochin G. E., Agriculture in Rus' in the period of formation Rus. centralized state-va, late XIII - early. XVI century., M.-L., 1965; Alekseev Yu. G., Agrarian and social history of the North-East. Rus' XV-XVI centuries. Pereyaslavsky district, M.-L., 1966; Rybakov B. A., Craft ancient Rus', (M.), 1948; Bakhrushin S.V., Nauch. works, vol. 1-2, M., 1952-54; Smirnov P.P., Posad people and their class. wrestling until ser. XVII century, vol. 1, M.-L., 1947; Tikhomirov M. H., Medieval. Moscow in the XIV-XV centuries, M., 1957; his own, Russia in the XVI century, M., 1962; Sakharov A. M., Cities of the North-East. Rus' XIV-XV centuries., M., 1959; his own, The problem of education Rus. centralized state-va in owls. historiography, "VI", 1961, No 9; Khoroshkevich A. L., Trade Vel. Novgorod with the Baltic and Western. Europe in the XIV-XV centuries, M., 1963; Nosov H. E., Essays on the history of local government Rus. state-va first floor. XVI century., M.-L., 1957; Smirnov I.I., Political Essays. history of Rus. state-va 30-50s. XVI century., M.-L., 1958; his, Notes on the feud. Rus' XIV-XV centuries, "ISSSR", 1962, No 2-3; Zimin A. A., Reforms of Ivan the Terrible, M., 1960; his own, O political. prerequisites for the emergence of Russian. Absolutism, in the book: Absolutism in Russia (XVII-XVIII centuries), Sat. Art., M., 1961; Leontiev A. K., Formation of the command system of management in Rus. state-ve, M., 1961; Bazilevich K. V., Vnesh. politics Rus. centralized state-va. Second floor. XV century., (M.), 1952; Maslennikova N. N., Accession of Pskov to Rus. centralized state, L., 1955. V. D. Nazarov. Moscow.
In the XIII-XIV centuries, the prerequisites for the formation of a Russian centralized state were formed - economic and political. The starting point in the development of the feudal economy was the rapid development of agriculture, the development of abandoned lands. More and more new, better tools became essential, leading to the separation of handicrafts from agriculture, and hence the growth of cities. There is a process of exchange in the form of trade between the artisan and the farmer, ᴛ.ᴇ. between city and countryside.
The division of labor between individual regions of the country required the political unification of the Russian lands. Nobles, merchants, artisans were especially interested in this. The strengthening of economic ties was one of the reasons for the formation of a single Russian state. During this period, the exploitation of the peasants intensifies, which leads to an aggravation of the class struggle. The feudal lords strive to legally subjugate the peasants to themselves, to secure them for their property. Only a centralized state can perform such a function. The threat of attack from outside accelerated the process of centralization of the Russian state, because. all sections of society were interested in the struggle against an external enemy.
In the process of formation of a unified Russian state, three stages can be distinguished.
Back in the XII century, there was a tendency to unite the lands under the rule of one prince in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality.
- The first stage (the end of the 13th century) is the rise of Moscow, the beginning of unification. Moscow becomes the main contender to be considered the center of Russian lands.
- The second stage (1389-1462) - the fight against the Mongols-Tatars. Strengthening Moscow.
- The third stage (1462-1505) is the completion of the formation of a unified Russian state. The Mongol-Tatar yoke was overthrown, the process of the unification of Rus' was completed.
Unlike the countries of Western Europe, the formation of the Russian centralized state had its own characteristics:
- The unification took place against the background of late feudalism, and not flourishing, as in Europe;
- The unification of the Russian lands was led by the princes of Moscow, and in Europe by the urban bourgeoisie;
- First of all, Rus' united for political reasons, and then for economic ones, while for European countries the main ones were economic reasons.
The first king of all Rus' and the highest judge was Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible, son Vasily 3. The specific princes were now under the control of proteges from Moscow.
The young centralized state in the XVI century. became known as Russia. The country has entered a new stage of its development.
Formation of the Russian centralized state
The period from the end of the XIII to the XV century inclusive was very difficult in the life of Rus'. The Tatar-Mongol yoke threw Rus' back and caused it to lag behind the countries of Western Europe, leaving it for a long time a feudal country. But the development of the country, slowed down by the invasion, continued: Rus' rose to its feet.
Agriculture developed most rapidly in the area between the Oka and the Volga, where the influx of population increased, the plowing of land grew, forests were cut down, cattle breeding and crafts developed.
Feudal landownership developed. The princes and boyars were large owners of the land, there was a struggle for land and the enslavement of the peasants. Handicraft production grew in the cities, especially in Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov and other cities of northeastern Rus', protected by dense forests and a dense network of rivers and lakes.
The rise of the economy, the development of cities, trade led to increased communication between the Russian lands, to their unification, which was also dictated by the struggle against external enemies, primarily against the Mongol-Tatars. For a successful struggle, a single state with strong power was required.
At the end of the 15th century, the concept of "Russia" (and before that - "Rus") appeared, uniting the Russian lands
The formation of the Russian centralized state was a long process that continued until the middle of the 16th century. Its territory consisted of the lands of Vladimir-Suzdal, Novgorod, Smolensk, Muromo-Ryazan principalities. And from the end of the XII century. there was a stubborn struggle for supremacy in these lands. Since XIII, the Moscow principality also entered this struggle. It was Moscow that became the center of the collection of Russian lands. In addition to Moscow, the real contenders for this role were Tver, Ryazan, Novgorod. However, already during the reign of Ivan Kalita (1325-1340), the importance of the young Moscow principality increased immeasurably.
The main reasons for the rise of Moscow were: its relative remoteness from the Golden Horde; patronage of the Horde khans; the intersection of trade routes in North-Eastern Rus', etc. However, there were two main prerequisites: the transformation of Moscow into the center of the struggle for liberation from the Horde domination and the transfer to Moscow under Ivan Kalita of the center of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Moscow took over the organization of the struggle against the yoke of the Mongol-Tatars. At the first stage of this struggle and the gathering of Russian lands by Moscow from the formation of the Moscow principality to the beginning of the reign of Ivan Kalita and his sons, the foundations of the economic and political power of the principality were laid. At the second stage (during the reign of Dmitry Donskoy and his son Vasily I), a rather successful military confrontation between Rus' and the Horde began. by the most major battles of this period were the battles on the Vozha River (1378) and on the Kulikovo field (1380). At the same time, the territory of the Muscovite state is expanding significantly, and the international authority of the Moscow princes is growing.
Along with the military and political processes that took place in the Russian lands during the XIV-XV centuries. and lasting until the middle of the 16th century, significant socio-economic processes took place in them, which largely determined the nature, pace and features of the formation of the Russian centralized state. The essence of these processes lies in the fact that, firstly, the catastrophic consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion and the 240th anniversary of gold Horde yoke delayed the economic development of the Russian lands. This contributed to the conservation of feudal fragmentation; secondly, this historical period can be characterized in general as a period of formation and strengthening of feudal-serf relations, which determined the system of the feudal hierarchy, political system and administration. The presence in Rus' of huge land and human resources also contributed to offensive development feudalism deep into breadth; Thirdly; political centralization in Rus' was to significantly determine the beginning of the process of overcoming the economic disunity of the country and was accelerated by the struggle for social independence.
An important prerequisite for the unification of the Russian lands was a toast of social forces interested in eliminating feudal fragmentation and creating a unified Russian state in the conditions of economic growth, the growth of the social development of labor, expressed in the separation of crafts from agriculture, in the development of trade.
One of these social forces was primarily the townspeople, since feudal fragmentation was a significant obstacle to the development of handicrafts and trade. The fact is that the numerous political partitions between the principalities with their outposts and trade duties made it much more difficult for the exchange and free distribution of goods. Feudal strife sharply undermined the economy of cities.
The main forces of the feudal lords were also interested in the creation of the Russian state. For the Moscow boyars, for example, the growth of the political power of the Moscow principality and the expansion of its territory meant the growth of its own power. The middle and small feudal lords, who were entirely dependent on the Grand Duke, were even more interested and fought for a single Russian state. The unifying tendencies were also supported by the Russian Church, which sought to consolidate its privileges throughout the country.
The tendencies towards overcoming the feudal fragmentation of Rus', which emerged in the 14th century, corresponded to the progressive course of historical development, since the political unification of Rus' was a necessary prerequisite for its further economic growth and the achievement of state independence.
A major role in the conditions of the Moscow principality, in the gathering of Russian lands around Moscow, was played by the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita - a tough and cunning, intelligent and stubborn ruler in achieving his goals. He used for this purpose the help of the Golden Horde, for which he collected a huge tribute from the population. He accumulated great wealth, for which he received the nickname "Kalita" (purse, "money bag"), and used this wealth to acquire land in foreign principalities and possessions, for which he was nicknamed "collector of Russian lands." Under Ivan Kalita, Moscow became the residence of the Metropolitan of "All Rus'", which was of great importance, since the church enjoyed great influence. The position of Kalita contributed to the fact that the foundation was laid for the political and economic power of Moscow and the economic rise of Rus' began.
At the third stage (1425-1462), the main goal of the struggle was the desire to seize power in the growing weight in the Muscovite state. The final stage in the struggle was the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505 and Vasily III (1505-1533), when the main Russian principalities were united under the rule of Moscow. A single code of laws was adopted, government bodies were created, economic orders were established, etc.
the Principality of Tver was annexed to the Moscow principality, in 1489 - the Vyatka land, in 1510 - the Pskov Republic, in 1521 - the Ryazan principality.
Under Ivan III, Moscow refused to pay tribute to the Horde, and the punitive campaign of Khan Akhmat was repulsed by the Russian army. So in 1480 the yoke of the Golden Horde ended.
The Russian state from the very beginning was formed as a multinational one.
With the unification of the lands, the task of creating a centralized control system was also solved: the significance of the Boyar Duma increased (it became a permanent supreme body under the Grand Duke). At the end of the 15th century, the first order appeared as a central institution; in 1497, the Code of Laws was compiled - a collection of laws that played a large role in the centralization of state administration. He initiated the creation of a nationwide system of serfdom.
The formation of the Russian centralized state was a natural and progressive process and had a great historical meaning. It contributed to the liberation of Rus' from the Horde yoke. The formation of the political center strengthened the position of the state in the international arena. On the Russian lands, the formation of a single economic space began. The national economy and culture began to develop faster, local isolation disappeared; better ensured the security of the country; the influence of the church expanded.
Awareness of the Russian people as a single whole now formed the basis of the spiritual life of the inhabitants of various regions of the state.
Moscow princes began to be called "the states of all Rus'" and to transfer power in the state by inheritance.
Thus was formed the largest country in Europe. From the end of the 15th century, its new name, Russia, began to be widely used. This meant that at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries a single Russian state was formed. But his education went only to a part of the ancient Russian lands, the part that consisted of principalities that became dependent on the Golden Horde. The process of uniting these lands around Moscow was at the same time a process of gradual, gradual liberation (struggle for independence) from the oppression of the Golden Horde. And the formation of a unified Russian state was based not so much on economic and cultural ties, but on the military power of the unifying force - the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
In the XIII-XV centuries, the main events that determined the development of the culture of the Russian lands were the Batu invasion and the establishment of Mongol-Tatar rule. The largest cultural monuments were destroyed or lost - cathedrals and monasteries, frescoes and mosaics, handicrafts. The craftsmen and craftsmen themselves were killed or driven into Horde slavery. The stone building has stopped.
The formation of the Russian people and a unified state, the struggle for liberation from the Mongols, the creation of a single language became important factors in the development of the culture of Russian lands in the 13th-15th centuries.
The main theme of oral folk art was the struggle against Horde domination. Legends about the battle on Kalka, about the devastation of Ryazan by Batu, about Yevpatiy Kolovrat, the exploits of Alexander Nevsky, the Battle of Kulikovo have survived or in a revised form have survived to this day. All of them made up the heroic epic epic. In the XIV century, epics and the power of their land were created. A new type of oral folk art appeared - a historical song that described in detail the events, the contemporary of which was the author.
In works of literature, the theme of the fight against invaders was also central. At the end of the XIV century, the all-Russian chronicle was resumed.
From the end of the XIII century, the revival of stone construction began. It developed more actively in the lands least affected by the invasion. Novgorod became one of the centers of culture during these years, the architects of which built the Church of St. Nicholas and the Church of Fyodor Stratilat. These temples marked the emergence of a particular architectural style, characterized by a combination of simplicity and majesty. In Moscow, stone construction began in the time of Ivan Kalita, when the Assumption Cathedral was laid in the Kremlin, which became the cathedral (main) temple of Rus'. At the same time, the Annunciation Cathedral and the Archangel Cathedral (the tomb of Moscow rulers) were created.
Russian culture, which suffered during the Mongol invasion, began its revival at the end of the 13th century. Literature, architecture and fine arts of that time were permeated with the idea of struggle for the overthrow of the Horde domination, the formation of the foundations of all-Russian culture.
The formation of the Russian state was an objective and natural process of further development of state forms on the territory of the East European Plain. The formation of Russian statehood had an important impact on the Mongol-Tatar invasion, which led, in particular, to changes in the authorities: the strengthening of monarchical, autocratic principles in the person of princes. Important reasons for the emergence and development of a new state form- a unified Russian state was economic and social changes, as well as a foreign policy factor: the need for constant defense from enemies. The chronological closeness of the formation of a single Russian state and centralized monarchies in Western Europe is often noted. Indeed, the formation of a single state in Rus', as in France and Spain, falls on the second half of the 15th century. However, in socio-economic terms, Rus' was at an earlier stage of development. In Western Europe in the 15th century, seigneurial relations dominated, and the personal dependence of the peasants weakened. In Rus', however, state-feudal forms still prevailed, the relationship of personal dependence of the peasants on the feudal lords was only taking shape. Unlike Western Europe, where cities played an active role in political life, in Rus' they were in a subordinate position in relation to the feudal nobility. Thus, in Rus' there were no sufficient socio-economic prerequisites for the formation of a single state.
The leading role in its formation was played by a foreign policy factor - the need to confront the Horde and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Such a “leading” (in relation to socio-economic development) nature of the process determined the features of the developed by the end of the 15th - 16th centuries. states: strong monarchical power, rigid dependence of the ruling class on it, a high degree of exploitation of direct producers.
Decisive steps in the creation of a unified Russian state were made by the son of Vasily the Dark, Ivan III. Ivan stayed on the throne for 43 years. The blind father early made Ivan a co-ruler and Grand Duke, and he quickly gained worldly experience and a habit of business. Ivan, who began as one of the specific princes, became in his life the sovereign of a single nation.
By the mid-70s, the Yaroslavl and Rostov principalities were finally annexed to Moscow. After 7 years of diplomatic and military struggle in 1478
Formation of the Russian centralized state
Ivan III managed to subjugate the vast Novgorod Republic. At the same time, the veche was liquidated, the symbol of Novgorod freedom - the veche bell was taken to Moscow. The confiscation of Novgorod lands, unprecedented in its scale, began. They were transferred into the possession of the servants of Ivan III. Finally, in 1485, as a result of a military campaign, the Tver principality was annexed to Moscow. From now on, the vast majority of the northeastern Russian lands were part of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Ivan III became known as the Sovereign of All Rus'. In general, a single state was created and finally approved its independence.
Already in 1476, Ivan III refused to go to the Horde and send money. In 1480, the Nogai Horde separated from the Great Horde. At the end of the first quarter of the 15th century, the Crimean Khanate was formed, in the second quarter - the Khanates of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia. Horde Khan Akhmat moved to Rus'. He entered into an alliance with the Lithuanian prince Casimir and gathered a 100,000-strong army. Ivan III hesitated for a long time, making a choice between an open struggle with the Mongols and accepting the humiliating terms of surrender proposed by Akhmat. But by the autumn of 1480, he managed to come to an agreement with his rebellious brothers, and even in the newly annexed Novgorod it became calmer. In early October, the rivals met on the banks of the Ugra River (a tributary of the Oka). Casimir did not appear on the battlefield, and Akhmat waited for him in vain. Meanwhile, early snow covered the grass, the cavalry became useless and the Tatars retreated. Khan Akhmat soon died in the Horde, and the Golden Horde finally ceased to exist. The 240-year-old Horde yoke fell.
The name "Russia" is the Greek, Byzantine name for Rus'. It came into use in Muscovite Rus' in the second half of the 15th century, when, after the fall of Constantinople and the liquidation of the Horde yoke, the Grand Duchy of Moscow, being the only independent Orthodox state, began to be regarded by its rulers as the ideological and political successor of the Byzantine Empire.
During the reign of the son of Ivan III - Vasily III, the Russian state continued to grow rapidly. In 1510, the Pskov land became part of it, and in 1521, the Ryazan principality. As a result of the wars with Lithuania at the end of the 15th - the first quarter of the 16th centuries. Smolensk and partially Chernihiv lands were annexed. Thus, in the first third of the 16th century, Russian lands, which were not part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, were annexed to Moscow.
Byzantium had a significant influence on the formation of autocracy and the formation of Russian political ideology. In 1472, Ivan III married the niece of the latter Byzantine emperor Sofia Paleolog. The double-headed eagle, a symbol widespread in Byzantium, becomes the state emblem of Russia. Even the appearance of the sovereign changed: in his hands appeared a scepter and an orb, on his head was a “cap of Monomakh”. The fall of Byzantium under the blows of the Ottoman Turks made Russia the last stronghold of Orthodoxy and contributed to a certain ideologization of the supreme state power. From the 16th century the idea of Moscow as a “third Rome” is spreading, in which religious and political motives are especially closely intertwined. The Pskov monk Philotheus, in a letter to Vasily III, argued that the "first Rome" fell because of heresies, the "second" - because of the union with Catholicism, the "third", truly Christian Rome, stands, "and there will not be a fourth." Thus, the preservation of Orthodoxy was seen as the most important condition for national independence, state power, and the Russian sovereigns acted as the guardians of the faith.
The system of central and state governing bodies was formed by: the advisory Boyar Duma, which combined the highest legislative, military-administrative and judicial functions, and two executive bodies - the Sovereign's Palace and the Sovereign's Treasury. There was no clear distribution of managerial functions. Basically, the Palace was in charge of the sovereign's lands. The treasury was in charge mainly of the state press, finances and foreign policy. The Judicial Code of Ivan III contributed to the formation of the state apparatus, its centralization, it was adopted in 1497 and was the first set of Russian laws.
Gradually, the system was streamlined administratively - territorial division. Ivan III limited the rights of specific princes, and Vasily III reduced the number of appanages. By the end of the first third of the 16th century, there were only two of them left. Instead of the former independent principalities, counties appeared, ruled by the governors of the Grand Duke. Then the counties began to be subdivided into camps and volosts, which were headed by volosts. The governors and volostels received the territory in "feeding", i.e. took legal fees and part of the taxes collected in the territory. Feeding was a reward not for administrative activities, but for previous service in the army. Therefore, the governors had no incentives for active administrative work. Since they did not have experience in administrative work, they often delegated their powers to tiuns - assistants from serfs.
It should be emphasized that the Russian state from the very beginning of its existence demonstrated an unprecedented expansion of borders in terms of its scale and swiftness. With the accession to the throne of Ivan III and until the death of his son Vasily III, i.e. from 1462 to 1533, the territory of the state grew six and a half times - from 430,000 sq. kilometers to 2,800,000 sq. kilometers.
Thus, for all the chronological closeness of the periods of formation of centralized monarchies in Russia and Western Europe, the Russian state differed from the western ones in its colossal territory, which was constantly growing, multinationality and some features of the organization of power. These features of the Russian state were determined not only by its geopolitical position, but also by the specifics of its creation. Let us recall that a single state was formed in our country mainly thanks to foreign policy factors, and not to new elements in socio-economic development. Therefore, Russian sovereigns, unlike Western European monarchs, relied not on cities, not on contradictions between the feudal lords and the third estate, but on the military-bureaucratic apparatus and, to some extent, on the patriotic and religious feelings of the people.
In all of Russian history, there is no event or process comparable in its significance to the formation of the Muscovite state at the turn of the 15th - 16th centuries. These half a century are a pivotal time in the fate of the Russian people. The conditions under which and how the formation of the Muscovite state proceeded for five centuries predetermined the social, political and cultural history of not only the Russian, but in many respects all the peoples of Eastern Europe.
Features of formation
Russian centralized state
The formation of the Russian centralized state chronologically coincides with the formation of monarchies in a number of Western European countries. However, the content of this process had its own specifics.
On the European continent, as a result of a sharp political and religious struggle, national-territorial states of a secular type were formed with a rational worldview and individual autonomy. This was due to the formation of civil society and the limitation of the rights of power by law. This trend was personified by England, France, Sweden. In the first half of the 17th century, the Holy Roman Empire, a stronghold of the medieval type of development, collapsed, turning into a conglomerate of independent states.
In the same period, a special, different from the pan-European, type of feudal society was formed in Russia with autocracy at the head, rigid dependence on the monarchical power of the ruling class, and a high degree of exploitation of the peasantry.
As Klyuchevsky notes, the unification of Russian lands around Moscow led to a radical change in the political significance of this city and the great Moscow princes. They, the recent rulers of one of the Russian principalities, found themselves at the head of the vastest state in Europe. The emergence of a single state created favorable conditions for the development of the national economy and for repelling external enemies. The inclusion of a number of non-Russian nationalities in the unified state created conditions for the growth of ties between these nationalities and a higher level of the economy and culture of Russia.
So, what influenced the creation of a centralized state in Russia? Let's consider some points:
¨ Geographical position
In comparison with Tver, the Moscow principality occupied a more advantageous central position in relation to other Russian lands. The river and land routes passing through its territory gave Moscow the importance of the most important junction of trade and other ties between the Russian lands.
Moscow became in the fourteenth century. a large trade and craft center. Moscow craftsmen gained fame as skillful masters of foundry, blacksmithing and jewelry. It was in Moscow that Russian artillery was born and received its baptism of fire. Trade relations of Moscow merchants stretched far beyond the borders of Russian lands. Covered from the north-west of Lithuania by the Principality of Tver, and from the east and south-east of the Golden Horde by other Russian lands, the Moscow principality was to a lesser extent subjected to sudden devastating raids of the Golden Horde. This allowed the Moscow princes to gather and accumulate strength, to gradually create superiority in material and human resources, in order to act as organizers and leaders of the unification process and the liberation struggle. The geographical position of the Moscow Principality predetermined its role as the ethnic core of the emerging Great Russian people. All this, combined with the purposeful and flexible policy of the Moscow princes in relations with the Golden Horde and other Russian lands, ultimately led to Moscow's victory for the role of leader and political center for the formation of a unified Russian state.
¨ Economic situation
From the beginning of the XIV century. the fragmentation of Russian lands stops, giving way to their unification. This was caused primarily by the strengthening of economic ties between the Russian lands, which was a consequence of the overall economic development of the country.
At this time begins intensive development Agriculture. But the rise was due not so much to the development of tools as to the expansion of sown areas due to the development of new and previously abandoned lands. An increase in the surplus product in agriculture makes it possible to develop animal husbandry, as well as to sell grain to the side. The growing need for agricultural implements determines the necessary development of handicrafts. As a result, the process of separation of handicraft from agriculture is going deeper and deeper. It entails the need for exchange between the peasant and the artisan, that is, between town and country. This exchange takes the form of trade, which in the given period is correspondingly intensified and entails the creation of local markets. The natural division of labor between individual regions of the country, due to their natural features, forms economic ties throughout Rus'. The establishment of these ties also contributed to the development of foreign trade. All this urgently demanded the political unification of the Russian lands, that is, the creation of a centralized state.
¨ Political position
Another factor that led to the unification of the Russian lands was the intensification of the class struggle, the strengthening of the class resistance of the peasantry. The rise of the economy, the possibility of obtaining ever greater surplus product induce the feudal lords to intensify the exploitation of the peasants. Moreover, the feudal lords strive not only economically, but also legally to secure the peasants to their fiefdoms and estates, to enserf them.
Such a policy aroused the natural resistance of the peasantry, which took on various forms. Peasants kill feudal lords, seize their property, set fire to estates. Such a fate often befalls not only secular, but also spiritual feudal lords - monasteries. Sometimes a battle directed against the masters also acted as a form of class struggle. The flight of peasants takes a certain scale, especially to the south, to lands free from landlords. Under such conditions, the feudal lords are faced with the task of keeping the peasantry in check and bringing serfdom to an end. This task could only be accomplished by a powerful centralized state capable of performing the main function of an exploiting state—the suppression of the resistance of the exploited masses.
¨ Ideology
The Russian Church was the bearer of the national Orthodox ideology, which played an important role in the formation of powerful Rus'. In order to build an independent state and bring foreigners into the fence of the Christian church, Russian society needed to strengthen its moral strength. Sergius devoted his life to this. He is building a trinity temple, seeing in it a call to the unity of the Russian land, in the name of a higher reality. In a religious shell, heretical movements represented a peculiar form of protest. At a church council in 1490, the heretics were cursed and excommunicated.
In the very first years of his reign, Ivan Kalita gave Moscow a moral significance by transferring the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow. Back in 1299, Metropolitan Maxim of Kiev left Kyiv for Vladimir-on-Klyazma. The Metropolitan was supposed to visit the southern Russian dioceses from Vladimir from time to time.
The formation of a centralized state in Rus' briefly
On these trips, he stopped at a crossroads in Moscow. Metropolitan Maxim was succeeded by Peter (1308). A close friendship began between Metropolitan Peter and Ivan Kalita. Together they laid the stone Cathedral of the Assumption in Moscow. While in Moscow, Metropolitan Peter lived in his diocesan town in the ancient courtyard of Prince Yuri Dolgoruky, from where he later moved to the place where the Assumption Cathedral was soon laid. In this town he died in 1326. Peter's successor Theognost no longer wanted to live in Vladimir and settled in the new metropolitan courtyard in Moscow.
personality factor
V. O. Klyuchevsky notes that all Moscow princes before Ivan III, like two drops of water, are similar to each other. In their activities, some individual characteristics. However, following the successive change of Moscow princes, one can catch only typical family features in their appearance.
The founder of the dynasty of Moscow princes was the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky, Daniel. Under him, the rapid growth of the Moscow principality began. In 1301, Daniil Alexandrovich seized Kolomna from the Ryazan princes, and in 1302, the Pereslavl principality passed to him, according to the will of a childless prince of Pereslavl, who was at enmity with Tver. In 1303, Mozhaisk, which was part of the Smolensk principality, was annexed, as a result of which the Moskva River, which was then an important trade route, turned out to be within the Moscow principality from source to mouth. In three years, the Moscow principality almost doubled, became one of the largest and strongest principalities in North-Eastern Rus', and the Moscow prince Yuri Daniilovich considered himself strong enough to join the struggle for the great reign of Vladimir.
Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver, who in 1304 received a label for a great reign, strove for sovereign rule in "all Rus'", subjugation by force of Novgorod and other Russian lands. He was supported by the church and its head, Metropolitan Maxim, who in 1299 transferred his residence from devastated Kyiv to Vladimir. Mikhail Yaroslavich's attempt to take away Pereslavl from Yuri Danii-lovich led to a protracted and bloody struggle between Tver and Moscow, in which the question was already being decided not so much about Pereslavl, but about political supremacy in Rus'. In 1318, at the intrigues of Yuri Daniilovich, Mikhail Yaroslavich was killed in the Horde, and the label for the great reign was transferred to the Moscow prince. However, in 1325, Yuri Daniilovich was killed in the Horde by one of the sons of Mikhail Yaroslavich, who avenged the death of his father, and the label for a great reign again fell into the hands of the Tver princes.
During the reign of Kalita, the Moscow principality was finally defined as the largest and strongest in North-Eastern Rus'. Since the time of Kalita, there has been a close alliance between the Moscow grand ducal authorities and the church, which played a large role in the formation of a centralized state. Kalita's ally, Metropolitan Peter, moved his residence from Vladimir to Moscow (1326), which became the church center of all Rus', which further strengthened the political positions of the Moscow princes.
In relations with the Horde, Kalita continued the line outlined by Alexander Nevsky of external observance of vassal obedience to the khans, regular payment of tribute in order not to give them reasons for new invasions of Rus', which almost completely stopped during his reign. “And then the silence was great for 40 years and the trash ceased to fight the Russian land and slaughter the Christians, and the Christians rested and calmed down from the great languor and many hardships, about the violence of the Tatars…”, wrote the chronicler, evaluating the reign of Kalita.
The Russian lands received the respite they needed to restore and boost the economy, to accumulate strength for the upcoming struggle to overthrow the yoke.