Until now, historians have put forward various theories about the emergence of Kievan Rus as a state. For a long time now, the official version has been taken as a basis, according to which the date of origin is called 862. But the state does not appear out of nowhere! It is impossible to imagine that before this date, in the territory inhabited by the Slavs there were only savages who, without help from “outside”, could not create their own power. After all, as we know, history moves along an evolutionary path. For the emergence of a state there must be certain prerequisites. Let's try to understand the history of Kievan Rus. How was this state created? Why did it fall into disrepair?
The emergence of Kievan Rus
IN this moment domestic historians adhere to 2 main versions of the emergence of Kievan Rus.
- Norman. It is based on one significant historical document, namely the Tale of Bygone Years. According to this theory, the ancient tribes called on the Varangians (Rurik, Sineus and Truvor) to create and manage their state. Thus, they could not create their own state entity on their own. They needed outside help.
- Russian (anti-Norman). The rudiments of the theory were first formulated by the famous Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. He argued that the entire history of the ancient Russian state was written by foreigners. Lomonosov was sure that there was no logic in this story, it was not revealed important question about the nationality of the Varangians.
Unfortunately, until the end of the 9th century there are no mentions of the Slavs in the chronicles. It is suspicious that Rurik “came to rule the Russian state” when it already had its own traditions, customs, its own language, cities and ships. That is, Rus' did not arise on empty space. Old Russian cities were very well developed (including from a military point of view).
According to generally accepted sources, the founding date of the ancient Russian state is considered to be 862. It was then that Rurik began to rule in Novgorod. In 864, his associates Askold and Dir seized princely power in Kyiv. Eighteen years later, in 882, Oleg, commonly called the Prophetic, captured Kyiv and became the Grand Duke. He managed to unite the scattered Slavic lands, and it was during his reign that the campaign against Byzantium was launched. More and more territories and cities were annexed to the grand ducal lands. During Oleg's reign, there were no major clashes between Novgorod and Kiev. This was largely due to blood ties and kinship.
Formation and flourishing of Kievan Rus
Kievan Rus was a powerful and developed state. Its capital was a fortified outpost located on the banks of the Dnieper. Taking power in Kyiv meant becoming the head of vast territories. It was Kyiv that was compared to the “mother of Russian cities” (although Novgorod, from where Askold and Dir arrived in Kyiv, was also quite worthy of such a title). The city retained its status as the capital of ancient Russian lands until the period of the Tatar-Mongol invasion.
- Among the key events of the heyday of Kievan Rus can be called the Epiphany in 988, when the country abandoned idolatry in favor of Christianity.
- The reign of Prince Yaroslav the Wise led to the appearance of the first Russian code of laws (code of laws) called “Russian Truth” at the beginning of the 11th century.
- The Kiev prince became related to many famous ruling European dynasties. Also, under Yaroslav the Wise, the raids of the Pechenegs, which brought much trouble and suffering to Kievan Rus, became permanent.
- Also, from the end of the 10th century, its own coin production began on the territory of Kievan Rus. Silver and gold coins appeared.
The period of civil strife and collapse of Kievan Rus
Unfortunately, a clear and uniform system of succession to the throne was not developed in Kievan Rus. Various grand ducal lands were distributed to warriors for military and other merits.
Only after the end of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise was a principle of inheritance established, which involved the transfer of power over Kiev to the eldest in the clan. All other lands were divided between members of the Rurik family in accordance with the principle of seniority (but this could not remove all the contradictions and problems). After the death of the ruler, there were dozens of heirs laying claim to the “throne” (from brothers, sons, and ending with nephews). Despite certain rules of inheritance, supreme power was often asserted through force: through bloody clashes and wars. Only a few independently refused to rule Kievan Rus.
The contenders for the title of Grand Duke of Kyiv did not shy away from the most terrible deeds. Literature and history describe the terrible example of Svyatopolk the Accursed. He committed fratricide only in order to gain power over Kiev.
Many historians come to the conclusion that it was internecine wars that became the factor that led to the collapse of Kievan Rus. The situation was also complicated by the fact that the Tatar-Mongols began to actively attack in the 13th century. “Petty rulers with big ambitions” could have united against the enemy, but no. The princes dealt with internal problems “in their own area”, did not compromise and desperately defended their own interests to the detriment of others. As a result, Rus' became completely dependent on the Golden Horde for a couple of centuries, and the rulers were forced to pay tribute to the Tatar-Mongols.
The prerequisites for the coming collapse of Kievan Rus were formed under Vladimir the Great, who decided to give each of his 12 sons his own city. The beginning of the collapse of Kievan Rus is called 1132, when Mstislav the Great died. Then 2 powerful centers at once refused to recognize the grand ducal power in Kyiv (Polotsk and Novgorod).
In the 12th century. There was rivalry between 4 main lands: Volyn, Suzdal, Chernigov and Smolensk. As a result of internecine clashes, Kyiv was periodically plundered and churches burned. In 1240 the city was burned by the Tatar-Mongols. The influence gradually weakened; in 1299, the residence of the metropolitan was moved to Vladimir. To manage Russian lands it was no longer necessary to occupy Kyiv
Why the term “Kievan Rus” cannot be misunderstood
In contact with
Classmates
Ilya Nosyrev
Painting “Varangians”, Artist Viktor Vasnetsov
Over the past two years, discussions about the antiquity of Ukrainian statehood in comparison with Russian ones have become an important part of Ukrainian political discourse. Famous saying Petro Poroshenko: “When Peter I cut windows to Europe for Russia, Ukraine during Mazepa’s time was already entering Europe through the door” - not the best example alternative history: the president can no longer keep up with what his compatriots are writing in in social networks and Internet forums. The most common myth was brilliantly formulated by a reader of one of the Ukrainian news media: “In Ancient Kievan Rus they spoke a language that was much closer to the modern Ukrainian language than to Russian. In this regard, perhaps it would be more correct to call it ancient Ukrainian, and not ancient Russian... Kievan Rus dates back more than a millennium, and Moscow - a few centuries. Half a millennium of slavery and continuous whippings have created this nation, the tenacious heir of the barbarian horde.”
Many Maidan supporters believe that Ukrainians are real Slavs, and Russians are glorified Finno-Ugric peoples. Moreover, both in Ukraine and in Russia: Ukrainian-born Russians never tire of quoting Alexei Tolstoy: “There are two Rus’. The first Kiev culture has its roots in world, and at least in European culture. The ideas of goodness, honor, freedom, justice were understood by this Rus' as the entire Western world understood it. And there is also a second Rus' - Moscow. This is the Rus' of the Taiga, Mongolian, wild, bestial. This Rus' has made bloody despotism and savage bitterness its national ideal. This Muscovite Rus', from ancient times, was, is, and will be a complete denial of everything European and a bitter enemy of Europe.” And the fact that Tolstoy obviously contrasts two different periods of Russian history with each other does not bother them: well, obviously Soviet classic I wrote about today’s Ukraine and Russia, isn’t it clear?
Who is closer to the ancestors of mammals - a dog or a horse? Who came down from the tree first - a man or a chimpanzee? Who is closer to the first organism that arose in the primordial broth of the ancient Earth - Russians or Ukrainians? From a historical point of view, these kinds of questions are absurd. Let's find out why.
Where did Rurik sit?
There are two main theories regarding the origin of statehood among the Eastern Slavs. According to the Norman theory, based on Russian chronicles, the state of the ancestors of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians arose thanks to the Varangians - the Normans, whose princes the Slavs themselves invited to reign in Rus'. According to a more patriotic version, which was considered the only correct one in Soviet textbooks, the Eastern Slavs created the state themselves, and the calling of the Varangians is nothing more than a fiction. Now historians recognize that a compromise is quite possible between these two points of view - political formations arose among the Slavs themselves, and the fact that the Normans later became their princes is not surprising: the norm for medieval Europe a situation was considered when power in the kingdoms belonged to alien dynasties, ethnically different from the bulk of their subjects. England, for example, spent most of the 11th century trying to fight off the same Varangian Vikings - as a result, the Anglo-Saxon kings were never able to defend the independence of the island.
If you believe the Tale of Bygone Years, the Varangians established statehood not in Kiev, but in Novgorod: “And three brothers were chosen with their clans, and took all of Rus' with them, and they came and the eldest, Rurik, sat in Novgorod, and the other, Sineus , - on Beloozero, and the third, Truvor, - in Izborsk. And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed.” In the middle of the 9th century, Kyiv was not part of the Old Russian state, the largest cities of which were Novgorod, Beloozero, Rostov, Murom, etc. Varangian commanders captured Kyiv at least twice: first, Rurik’s warriors Askold and Dir subjugated it on the way to Constantinople, and in 882 the Kyiv rulers were killed by Rurik’s relative, Prince Oleg. It was Oleg who made Kyiv - an important point on the way from the Varangians to the Greeks - his capital. Oleg's great-grandson was Prince Vladimir, with whom most modern people associated with the rise of Kievan Rus. If Norman theory is true, then the question of who gained the state first - the Russians or the Ukrainians - is absurd: both of them “received it as a gift” from the conquerors, and the Varangians made Novgorod happy before Kyiv.
By the way, where did the term Kievan Rus come from? It is not in the chronicles: it first appears among historians of the 19th century as a narrow designation for the Principality of Kyiv. As a designation of the historical period in the formation of East Slavic statehood, this term takes root in Stalin years– in particular, thanks to the work of the same name by academician Boris Grekov - the monograph “Kievan Rus” published in 1939. The adoption of this term did not occur without ideological reasons - in the 1930s, official propaganda strongly supported the idea of the unity of the East Slavic peoples. If the Norman theory is erroneous and statehood among the Slavs arose independently, this means that it crystallized around several centers, the largest of which were Novgorod and Kyiv, and not just Kyiv. And already from the beginning of the 12th century, Kyiv gradually lost its role as the political center of Rus' - in 1169, the pogrom of the city, carried out by the troops of the Vladimir prince Andrei Bogolyubsky, opened an era when the “mother of Russian cities” was fearlessly smashed by Russian princes fighting among themselves.
Capture of Kyiv in 1169
Capture of Kyiv in 1169. Miniature from the Radziwill Chronicle, Library of the Academy of Sciences
But still, which of the nations has more right to be called Russian? Ukrainian publicists (if we don’t even take into account the science fiction writers from history) admit that the name “Ukraine” is later, and the ancestors of Ukrainians called themselves Russians. Historians are still arguing about where the terms “Rus” and “Russian” came from. “Normanists” most often consider the word “Rus” to be an ethnonym for the Varangians themselves - that’s what they were called by the peoples from whom they collected tribute. Finns and Estonians still call the Swedes by the word Ruotsi (Rootsi), and this name could have arisen from the distorted Scandinavian drots - “squad”. “From those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed,” wrote the legendary chronicler Nestor. Soviet historians - and again not without ideological considerations - were generally of the opinion that the word was of purely Slavic origin and was almost connected with the designation of the hair color “blond”: the fair-haired Slavs seemed to contrast themselves with the peoples of the steppe. There are also more exotic versions - for example, the Iranian one, according to which this name, meaning “light,” was given to the Slavs by the northern Iranians who once neighbored them. But be that as it may, the name takes root precisely as a designation of the ancestors of all the current East Slavic peoples - Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians. Subsequently, when the “Russians” find themselves divided between several states (Kiev itself, from the second half of the 14th century, became part of first the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and then the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), this name is preserved as an ethnonym - Lithuanian Rus and Muscovite Rus appear. We owe it to the perspicacious and active Moscow princes that the East Slavic peoples were again connected politically - that the term did not disappear, was not lost in the roar of ethnic construction that was going on in other states, but gave the name to a power that would eventually become the largest in the world .
Language or language?
An important argument in kitchen disputes about the antiquity of peoples is Ukrainian language. Militant Ukrainians, trying to prove that Ukrainians are real Slavs, and Russians are just Slavicized Mordovians, will certainly point out that grammatically, and sometimes lexically, the modern Ukrainian language is closer to Old Russian than Russian. For example, in modern Ukrainian the vocative case has been preserved, but in Russian it has disappeared - wipe yourself, Muscovites, who have lost the forms “older” and “friend” commanded by their ancestors.
Perhaps, in this sense, Ukrainian is indeed closer to Old Russian than Russian. But does this have anything to do with the question of the antiquity and originality of peoples? Here good example: modern Moldovan is more reminiscent of Latin than French, and some of its forms are closer to Latin than even modern forms Italian. Are Moldovans real Romans? Of course not: Moldavian-Romanian, which was folk Latin learned by the local residents of these places from Roman legionaries, retained closeness to the original simply because there were no such rapid migrations of peoples who quickly barbarized the original Latin. On the outskirts of Europe, Latin was conserved and preserved better than in the center of European events.
A language and the anthropological type of people who speak it are not directly related: a people can assimilate by adopting a completely new language. Some modern historians even express the opinion that the real Greeks, the descendants of the Hellenes, were wiped out by the Plague of Justinian, which raged in the Balkans in the 6th century, and that today's Greeks are the descendants of the Slavs, who eventually settled the peninsula and adopted the language and some elements of culture from the few surviving aborigines . The modern descendants of the New World aborigines who switched to English and Spanish, of course, did not become English and Spanish.
Moreover, the Old Russian language was not united - Academician Zaliznyak, for example, identifies at least two dialect zones on the territory of the Old Russian state - one type of dialect was characteristic of the future Ukraine, the other - for the center and east of the European part of Russia. Both the language of Muscovite Rus' and the language that would later be called Ukrainian developed over time. At the same time, Russian faced the fate of all languages of large nations living in a strong power; starting from the 17th century, it increasingly needed borrowings, as Russia began to turn into a European state. Thanks to the reforms of Peter the Great, Dutch naval vocabulary, German designations for government posts and military ranks, and Polish everyday terms settled in the Russian language.
Reforms of Peter I
Reforms of Peter I. Engraving from a painting by N.N. Karazin
If Archpriest Avvakum writes in the beautiful, living Russian language of the seventeenth century, then less than a century later, under Peter the Great, translators of Moliere’s comedies will find themselves in a dilemma: what is Russian? literary language? How should you write on it? And they will write like this, interfering with the forms Church Slavonic language with Polish words: “You need dates, so big money for your faces. Tell me something you have done little to these wicked gentlemen whom I showed you and whom I wait for to come out of my yard with such great shame.” And only Pushkin will be able to finally reverse the gravity of the literary Russian language towards the inanimate, artificial.
The Ukrainian language, as a language without a state in the 17th-19th centuries, remained far from all these philological battles. But to imagine it as a pristinely pure language, not clouded by borrowings, would be naive - it’s just that its turn came later, already in the 20th century. In the 19th century, the Ukrainian language did not have time to develop a developed literary tradition - for example, the famous arrangement of “The Aeneid” made by Kotlyarevsky was printed with “yat”, although “yat” in Russian denotes the sound “e”, and here it denotes the sound “i” . The “Little Russian language” is considered something secondary in relation to Russian; it was forced to play by the rules already established in Russian. And the question of what should be the rules of the Ukrainian language itself and its vocabulary first becomes a political issue only after February Revolution. Where do they speak and write correct Ukrainian? In Kyiv? Or maybe in Galicia, whose residents blame the people of Kiev for “surzhik”? But Hetman Skoropadsky, who can hardly be accused of dislike for Ukrainian statehood, writes in his memoirs that Galician nationalism, the claim of Galicians to be exemplary Ukrainians speaking the only possible “real Ukrainian”, was consciously nurtured and promoted by the authorities of Austria-Hungary, to plant the seeds of discord between Ukrainians and Russians. This constructed “language” with a lot of borrowed words cannot claim the right to be considered a real Ukrainian language: “After all, Galicians live on scraps from the German and Polish table. Their language alone clearly reflects this, where out of five words there are 4 of Polish or German origin.”
According to Skoropadsky, for the Galicians “it was important to present a false picture of the Ukraine that really exists, that is, it has a sharp line between Galician Ukraine and ours. In reality there are two different countries. The entire culture, religion, worldview of their inhabitants is different. The Galicians want to present a picture of a united Ukraine, which is all extremely hostile to the idea of Russia, and in this Ukraine the Galicians themselves would play the most important role.” The Hetman warned his country against narrow-minded nationalism and believed that the future of Ukrainian culture lies in collaboration with Russian culture: “The truly cultural class of Ukrainians is very small. This is a misfortune for the Ukrainian people. There are many people who passionately love Ukraine and wish it cultural development, but these people themselves Russian culture, and they, caring about Ukrainian culture, will not change Russian culture at all. This narrow Ukrainianness is exclusively a product brought to us from Galicia, whose culture does not make any sense for us to completely transplant: there are no prerequisites for success and it is simply a crime, since there, in fact, there is no culture there.”
Unfortunately, these undoubtedly fair words were not heard. It is unfortunate that the Ukrainian language - expressive, lively, beautiful - has turned into a bargaining chip in political battles. Just like our - yes, complex, but at the same time glorious - common history.
Kievan Rus (Old Russian state, Kievan state, Russian state)- the name of the early feudal ancient Russian state centered in Kyiv, which arose at the turn of the 7th-9th centuries. as a result of a long process of economic, political and cultural consolidation of the East Slavic tribal unions and existed in various forms until the middle of the 13th century.
1. Kievan Rus. general characteristics . During the reign of Vladimir the Great (980-1015), the formation of the territory of Kievan Rus was completed. It occupied the territory from Lakes Peipus, Ladoga and Onega in the north to the rivers Don, Ros, Sula, Southern Bug in the south, from the Dniester, Carpathians, Neman, Western Dvina in the west to the interfluve of the Volga and Oka in the east; its area was about 800 thousand sq. km.In the history of Kievan Rus we can highlight three consecutive periods:
The period of emergence, formation, and evolution of state structures chronologically covers the end of the 9th - the end of the 10th century;
The period of greatest rise and development of Kievan Rus (end of the 10th - mid-11th century)
The period of political fragmentation of Kievan Rus (late 11th - mid-13th centuries).
2 Origin of the names “Kievan Rus” and “Rus-Ukraine”. The state of the Eastern Slavs was called “Kievan Rus”, or “Rus-Ukraine”. Researchers do not have a consensus on the origin and definition of the name “Rus”. There are several versions:
The tribes of the Normans (Varangians) were called Rus - they founded the state of the Slavs and from them came the name “Russian Land”; This theory originated in the 18th century. in Germany and received the name “Norman”, its authors are historians G. Bayer and G. Miller, their followers and like-minded people are called Normanists;
Rus - Slavic tribes who lived in the middle reaches of the Dnieper;
Rus is an ancient Slavic deity from which the name of the state came;
Rusa - in the Proto-Slavic language “river” (hence the name “bed”).
Ukrainian historians generally adhere to anti-Norman views, although they do not deny the significant contribution of the Varangian princes and troops to the formation of the state system of Kievan Rus.
Rus', Russian land in their opinion:
The name of the territory of the Kiev region, Chernigov region, Pereyaslav region (land of the glades, northerners, Drevlyans);
The name of the tribes that lived on the banks of the rivers Ros, Rosava, Rostavitsya, Roska, etc.;
The name of the Kyiv state since the 9th century.
The name “Ukraine” (edge, region) means the territory that was the basis of Kievan Rus in the 11th-12th centuries. This term was first used in the Kyiv Chronicle in 1187 regarding the lands of the Southern Kiev region and Pereyaslav region.
3. The emergence of Kievan Rus. Before the formation of the state, the following people lived on the territory of the future Kievan Rus:
a) East Slavic tribes- ancestors of Ukrainians- Drevlyans, Polyans, Northerners, Volynians (Dulibs), Tivertsy, White Croats;
b) East Slavic tribes - ancestors of Belarusians- Dregovichi, Polochans;
c) East Slavic tribes - ancestors of Russians - Krivichi, Radimichi, Slovene, Vyatichi.
Basic Prerequisites formation of East Slavic statehood:
At the beginning of the 8th century. in general, the process of settlement of the Slavs and the creation of territorially defined large and small tribal unions was completed;
The presence in the East Slavic tribal unions of certain local differences in culture and way of life;
The gradual development of tribal unions into tribal principalities - pre-state associations of more high level, which preceded the emergence of the East Slavic state;
Formation at the turn of the VIII-IX centuries. around Kyiv the first East Slavic state, which experts conditionally call the Kyiv Principality of Askold.
The following can be distinguished main stages the process of uniting the Eastern Slavs into one state:
a) creation of a principality (state) with its capital in Kyiv; this state included Polyans, Rus, Northerners, Dregovichi, Polochans;
b) the seizure of power in Kyiv by the Novgorod prince Oleg (882), under whose rule some of the Slavic tribes had previously been;
c) the unification of almost all East Slavic tribes into single state Kievan Rus.
The first Slavic princes:
- Prince Kiy (semi-legendary) - leader of the union of the Polyan tribes, founder of the city of Kyiv (according to legend, together with the brothers Shchek, Khoriv and sister Lybid in the 5th-6th centuries);
Prince Rurik - a chronicle mention of him in the “Tale of Bygone Years”, says the calling of Rurik’s “Varangians” with an army in 862 by the Novgorodians ; .
Princes Askold and Dir conquered Kyiv in the second half of the 9th century; according to chronicles, Askold and Dir were boyars of Prince Rurik;
After the death of the Novgorod prince Rurik (879) until his son Igor came of age, Oleg became the de facto ruler of the Novgorod land;
In 882, Oleg captured Kyiv, and on his orders the Kyiv brothers Askold and Dir were killed; the beginning of the reign of the Rurik dynasty in Kyiv; Many researchers consider Prince Oleg to be the direct founder of Kievan Rus.
4. Economic development Kievan Rus. The leading place in the economy of the Kyiv state was occupied by Agriculture, which developed in accordance with natural conditions. In the forest-steppe zone of Kievan Rus, a fire-slashing system of land cultivation was used, and in the steppe zone, a shifting system was used. Farmers used advanced tools: plows, harrows, shovels, scythes, sickles; they sowed cereals and industrial crops. Significant development cattle breeding reached. Hunting, fishing, and beekeeping retained their importance.
Initially, land ownership of free community members prevailed in the Old Russian state, and from the 11th century. gradually forms and intensifies feudal land tenure - a fief that was passed down by inheritance. Important place The economy of Kievan Rus was dominated by crafts. Since that time, over 60 types of craft specialties have been known. Trade routes ran through the Old Russian state: for example, “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” connecting Rus' with Scandinavia and the countries of the Black Sea basin. In Kievan Rus, the minting of coins - silver coins and zlotniks - began. The number of cities in the Russian state grew - from 20 (9th-10th centuries), 32 (11th centuries) to 300 (13th centuries).
5. Political and administrative system of Kievan Rus. The political and administrative system of Kievan Rus was based on the princely-druzhina system for the long-term preservation of self-government bodies of urban and rural communities. Communities were united into volosts - administrative-territorial units that included cities and rural districts. Groups of volosts were united into lands. Kievan Rus was formed as a one-person monarchy. The head of state was Grand Duke Kiev, which concentrated in its hands all the legislative, executive, judicial and military powers. The prince’s advisers were “princely men” from the top of his squad, who received the title governors, and from the 11th century. they were called boyars. Over time, dynasties of boyars emerged who occupied important government positions.
The internal administration of the state was carried out by numerous princely rulers (mayors, thousanders, butlers, tiuns, etc.). The princely power relied on a permanent military organization - the squad. The guards-planters were entrusted with the management of individual volosts, cities and lands. Civil uprising was formed according to the decimal principle. At the head individual divisions there was a foreman, a sotsky, and a thousand. "Thousand" was a military-administrative unit. In the XII-XIII centuries. the form of the state has changed. Relations between individual principalities developed on the principles of a federation or confederation.
6. Social structure of Kievan Rus. The social structure of Kievan Rus responded to its economic system. The dominant position was occupied by governors (boyars), thousanders, sotskies, tiuns, firemen, village elders, and the city elite. The free category of rural producers was called smerds; the feudally dependent population in Kievan Rus were ryadovichi, purchasers and outcasts. Serfs and servants were in the position of slaves.
7. Political fragmentation of Kievan Rus and its consequences. Kievan Rus was one of the powerful states of its time, which significantly influenced the development of European civilization, but after the death of Vladimir Monomakh's son Mstislav Vladimirovich (1132), it began to lose its political unity and was divided into 15 principalities and lands. Among them, the largest and most influential were the Kiev, Chernigov, Vladimir-Suzdal, Novgorod, Smolensk, Polotsk and Galician principalities.
The political prerequisites for fragmentation were as follows:
The succession to the throne among the princes of Kievan Rus was different: in some lands power was passed from father to son, in others - from older brother to younger;
Political ties between individual feudal estates and individual lands were weakened; the development of individual lands led to the emergence of local separatism;
In some lands, the local boyars, in order to ensure the protection of their rights, demanded the strong power of the prince; on the other hand, the real power of appanage princes and boyars increased, the power of the Kyiv prince was weakened, many boyars put local interests above national interests;
The Principality of Kiev did not create its own dynasty, since representatives of all princely families fought for the possession of Kiev;
The expansion of nomads into Russian lands intensified.
Socio-economic prerequisites for fragmentation:
The subsistence nature of the economy of the Kyiv state led to a weakening of economic and trade ties between individual lands;
Cities developed rapidly, becoming political, economic and cultural centers principalities;
The transformation of the conditional land ownership of the appanage boyars into hereditary significantly strengthened the economic role of the local nobility, who did not want to share their power;
A change in the trade situation, as a result of which Kyiv lost its role as a center of trade, and Western Europe began to directly trade with a close convergence.
Modern research by scientists proves that feudal fragmentation is natural stage in the development of medieval society. This is evidenced by the fact that all the peoples and states of Europe survived it. Fragmentation was caused by the further feudalization of ancient Russian society and the spread of socio-economic development locally. If earlier Kyiv was the center of the entire socio-economic, political, cultural and ideological life of the country, then from the middle of the 12th century. other centers were already competing with it: old ones - Novgorod, Smolensk, Polotsk - and new ones - Vladimir-on-Klyazma and Galich.
Rus' was torn apart by princely feuds, large and small wars, and constant wars between feudal lords. However, contrary to popular belief, the Old Russian State did not collapse. It only changed its form: the one-person monarchy was replaced by federal monarchy, under which Russia was jointly ruled by a group of the most influential and powerful princes. Historians call this type of government “collective sovereignty.”
Fragmentation weakened the state politically, but contributed to local economic and cultural development. To a certain extent, she laid the foundations of three East Slavic nationalities: Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. The period of cessation of fragmentation in the East Slavic lands is considered to be last decades XV century, when the Russian centralized state was formed, and Ukrainian and Belarusian lands fell under the rule of Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and Moldova.
8. The meaning of Kievan Rus. The significance of Kievan Rus is as follows:
a) Kievan Rus became the first state of the Eastern Slavs, accelerated the development of the last stage of development of the primitive communal system into a more progressive feudal one; this process created favorable conditions for the development of economy and culture; M. Grushevsky argued: “Kievan Rus is the first form of Ukrainian statehood”;
b) the formation of Kievan Rus contributed to strengthening the defense capability of the East Slavic population, preventing its physical destruction by nomads (Pechenegs, Polovtsians, etc.);
c) the ancient Russian nationality was formed on the basis of a common territory, language, culture, mental makeup;
d) Kievan Rus raised the authority of the Eastern Slavs in Europe; The international significance of Kievan Rus is that it influenced political events and international relationships in Europe and Asia, the Middle East; Russian princes maintained political, economic, dynastic ties with France, Sweden, England, Poland, Hungary, Norway, Byzantium;
e) Kievan Rus laid the foundation for the statehood of not only Slavic, but also non-Slavic peoples (Finnish-Ugric population of the North, etc.);
f) Kievan Rus acted as an eastern outpost of the European Christian world; it restrained the advance of the hordes of steppe nomads, weakened their pressure on Byzantium and countries Central Europe.
During the historical period of Kievan Rus in the Dnieper region, in Galicia and Volyn, in the Black Sea region and the Azov region, traditions of independent statehood were laid on the territory of Ukraine. The historical center of the formation of the Ukrainian nationality was the territory of the Kiev region, Pereyaslav region, Chernigov-Siver region, Podolia, Galicia and Volyn. From the 12th century this territory is covered by the name "Ukraine". In the process of fragmentation of the Kievan state, the Ukrainian people became the ethnic basis of the principality lands of South-Western Rus' in the 12th-14th centuries: Kyiv, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Seversky, Galician, Volyn. Thus, Kievan Rus was a form of socio-economic and state development of the Ukrainian ethnic group. The immediate successor of Kievan Rus was the Principality of Galicia-Volyn.
In 2020 regular (65th anniversary) song contest Eurovision 2020 will be held in the Netherlands (Holland).
Chosen as the venue for the show multifunctional arena "Rotterdam Ahoy" with a capacity of more than 16 thousand spectators, located in Rotterdam, the country's second largest city after the capital Amsterdam.
The event format includes two semi-finals and one final, which are traditionally held on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday of the second full week of May.
In 2020, the dates for the Eurovision semi-finals and final will be as follows:
* 1st semi-final - May 12, 2020 (Tue).
* 2nd semi-final - May 14, 2020 (Thu)
* Final - May 16, 2020 (Sat.).
Who will represent Russia at Eurovision 2020:
The musical group that will go from Russia to Eurovision 2020 was named on March 2, 2020 in live"Channel One", in the final story of the information program "Time".Will represent our country at Eurovision 2020 group "Little Big"(literal translation into Russian - “Little Big”).
The group's musical style is quite unusual. The musicians themselves call themselves a “satirical art collaboration” (a satirical art project), which combines music, images and spectacle. After watching several videos of the group, I am confident that the guys will definitely conquer the European podium of popular music. Or, at a minimum, they will make an unforgettable impression on the prim Western public.
Current lineup"Little Big" bands:
- Ilya "Ilyich" Prusikin.
- Sergei "Gokk" Makarov.
- Sofya Tayurskaya.
- Anton Lissov.
That is, when and where will Eurovision 2020 take place?who will travel from Russia:
* Dates: May 12, 14 and 16, 2020
* Place - The Netherlands, Rotterdam.
* Representative from Russia - "Little Big".
Everyone is primarily interested in the question, where did this beautiful and powerful power called Kievan Rus come from? Where did the Russians come from? Who are they and whose descendants are we? There are many theories on this topic, some popular and some not so popular. After all, the name “Rus” appears in foreign chronicles only in the 8th century. This is why the question arises about the origin of the name of the state... The first theory is called Varangian. She tells us that Rus' came from a tribe of Norman conquerors who incredibly often attacked European countries, traveling inland thanks to boats and the presence of rivers. They were extremely cruel and this cruelty was in their souls, they were real Viking warriors...
Researchers believe that the name “Rus” came from then. This theory was put forward by German scientists Bayer and Miller, who really believed that Kievan Rus was founded by the Normans (immigrants from Sweden). They refer to the fact that it was the Norman princes who helped the Russian people master the art of war. No matter what anyone says, the Normans played an incredible role in the creation of the state and gave rise to the Rurik dynasty.
The second most important theory of the origin of the name of the state and the Russians themselves is a theory that claims that the name comes from a river, a tributary of the Dnieper, called Ros. The tributary of the Rosi is in turn called the Rosava. On the territory of Volyn in Ukraine there is a river Roska... Therefore, Rus' could actually be named after rivers, although some believe that these rivers are named after the state...
It is worth mentioning that there is another theory of the origin of the state. A scientist from the United States named Pritsak put forward the theory that Kievan Rus was founded by the Khazars. But why then was it necessary to separate from the Russians? After all, the Khazar state was as big as Rus'. Moreover, in my opinion, the traditions of the Khazars and Russians are very different to enable us to call them one people with common roots. So, the history of Rus' is extremely rich even at the beginning, not that in further development...
The history of Kievan Rus has many facts that simply forced the Russians to create their own state. First of all, historians believe that it was the emergence of feudal relations that contributed to the creation of the state, as in all other European states. Then it should be said that our ancestors needed to defend themselves from enemies, the main of which were the Khazar Khaganate and Byzantium. Their common ethnic origin only united the Russians even more. The development of trade also forced the Russians to create a state. As for Kyiv, thanks to its economic and geographical location began to play a huge role in relations with other states.
Scientists say that Kievan Rus was formed around the 9th century AD. It was then that a state appeared with its center in Kyiv. The heyday of Rus' occurred in the period 978-1054, when Rus' significantly expanded its territories and achieved both political and cultural development. The third period is characterized by the disintegration of the state into separate principalities. We can say with all confidence that Yaroslav the Wise would never have divided the land between his sons if he had known what this would lead to...
It is worth remembering that Rus' was also developed in a cultural sense. It’s no joke to say that the children of the Kyiv prince knew several languages and were extremely educated, which cannot be said about the dynasty of other European states.
Militarily, Kievan Rus was a huge force. The best of the best of Russian warriors served with the Byzantine legions thousands of miles from their homeland. What is it worth to everyone? famous example about the defense of Sicily from the Arabs in 1038-1041. Thanks to the Russian corps, Byzantium was able to leave the island behind.
The authority of Kievan Rus in Europe was unconditional. Therefore, we can be truly proud of our ancestors, who even stopped the Mongol-Tatar invasion and saved all of Europe, weakened from ruin.
