Mongols and Russ discuss the consequences of Mongol rule. Lesson-discussion on the history of Russia on the topic "Consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia. Negative consequences and positive factors." Battle on the Kalka
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Northeastern State University
"Discussions about the influence of the Tatar-Mongol yoke on Russian history".
Completed by a student
Faculty of Philology
group I-11
Vechtomova Tatiana
Checked by Associate Professor of the Department of VIiIR
Pustovoit G.A.
Magadan 2011
In the XIII century. the peoples of our country had to endure a hard struggle against foreign invaders. From the east, hordes of Mongol-Tatar conquerors attacked Russia, the peoples of Central Asia and the Caucasus. From the west, the Russian lands and the lands of the peoples of the Eastern Baltic were subjected to aggression by German, Swedish and Danish crusader knights, as well as Hungarian and Polish feudal lords.
The period of Mongol-Tatar rule in Russia lasted about two and a half centuries, from 1238 to 1480. In this era, Ancient Russia finally disintegrated and the formation of the Muscovite state began.
Before the invasion of the Tatar-Mongol hordes on the Russian lands, the Russian state consisted of several large principalities that constantly competed with each other, but did not have one large army capable of resisting the armada of nomads.
The Problem of Influence Tatar-Mongol yoke on the formation of Russian statehood in Russian historiography is expressed by two extreme positions:
1. The Mongol-Tatar yoke brought ruin, death of people, delayed development, but did not significantly affect the life and life of Russians and their statehood. This position was defended by S. Solovyov, V. Klyuchevsky, S. Platonov, M. Pokrovsky. It has been traditional for Soviet historiography for 75 years. The main idea was that Russia developed during the Mongol-Tatar invasion along the European path, but began to lag behind due to large-scale destruction and human losses, the need to pay tribute.
2. The Mongol-Tatars had a great influence on the social and social organization of the Russians, on the formation and development of the Muscovite state. This idea was first expressed by L.N. Gumilyov, N.M. Karamzin, and then it was developed by N.I. Kostomarov, N.P. Zagoskin and others. In the 20th century, these ideas were developed by the Eurasians, who considered the Moscow State a part of the Great Mongolian State. There are authors who claimed that serfdom was borrowed by Russia from the Mongols
The position of L.N. Gumlev.
A feature of the concept of Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov is the assertion that Russia and the Golden Horde until the XIII century. not only were they not enemies, but even were in some allied relations. In his opinion, the overly active expansionist actions of the Livonian Order in the Baltics became the prerequisites for such an alliance. Moreover, the union for the most part had a military rather than a political character. This union was expressed in the form of defense of Russian cities by Mongolian detachments for a certain fee: “...Alexander was interested in the prospect of receiving military assistance from the Mongols to resist the onslaught of the West and internal opposition. It was for this help that Alexander Yaroslavovich was ready to pay, and pay dearly ”(Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. - M .: Progress. p. 132). So, according to Gumilyov, with the help of the Mongols, cities such as Novgorod, Pskov in 1268, and Smolensk in 1274 escaped capture: “But here, in accordance with an agreement with the Horde, a Tatar detachment of 500 horsemen appeared in Novgorod ... Novgorod and Pskov survived” (Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. - M .: Progress. p. 134). In addition, the Russian princes themselves helped the Tatars: “The Russians were the first to provide military assistance to the Tatars, taking part in the campaign against the Alans” (Gumilyov L.N. From Rus to Russia. - M .: Progress. p. 133). Lev Nikolaevich saw only positive aspects in such an alliance: “Thus, for the tax that Alexander Nevsky undertook to pay to Saray, Russia received a reliable strong army that defended not only Novgorod and Pskov ... Moreover, the Russian principalities that accepted the alliance with the Horde completely retained their ideological independence and political independence ... This alone shows that Russia was not a province of the Mongol ulus, but a country allied to the Great Khan, paying some tax on the maintenance of the troops that she herself needed ”(Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia - M.: Progress, p. 134). He also believed that this alliance led to an improvement in the internal situation of the country: “The alliance with the Tatars turned out to be a boon for Russia in terms of establishing internal order” (Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. - M .: Progress. p. 133).
In arguing his idea, LN Gumilyov cites the following facts. Firstly, Tatar-Mongol detachments were not constantly in Russia: “The Mongols did not leave garrisons, they did not think to establish their permanent power” (Gumilyov L.N. From Rus to Russia. - M .: Progress. p. 122). Secondly, it is known from many sources that Prince Alexander Nevsky often went to Khan Batu. Gumilyov connects this fact with the organization of the union: “In 1251, Alexander came to the Horde of Batu, made friends, and then fraternized with his son Sartak, as a result of which he became the adopted son of the khan. The union of the Horde and Russia was realized ... ”(Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. - M .: Progress. p. 127). Thirdly, as mentioned above, Gumilyov cites the fact that the Mongols defended Novgorod in 1268. Fourthly, in his books, Gumilyov mentions the opening of an Orthodox bishopric in the Golden Horde, which, in his opinion, would hardly be possible in the event of enmity between these countries: open courtyard of an Orthodox bishop. He was not subjected to any persecution; it was believed that the Bishop of Sarsky is the representative of the interests of Russia and all Russian people at the court of the Great Khan ”(Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. - M .: Progress. p. 133). Fifthly, after Berke came to power in the Horde, who established Islam as the state religion, religious persecution of the Orthodox Church did not begin in Russia: “... After the victory in the Horde of the Muslim party in the person of Berke, no one demanded that the Russians convert to Islam” ( Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. - M .: Progress. p. 134). It seems to me that it is on the basis of these, and perhaps some other facts, that he concludes that there are allied relations between Russia and the Horde.
Other approaches to the problem.
In addition to the concept of L.N. Gumilyov, there is another “original” concept of Nosovsky G.V. and Fomenko A.T., which does not coincide with the traditional history at all. Its essence lies in the fact that, in their opinion, the Horde and Russia are practically one and the same state. They believed that the Horde was not a foreign entity that captured Russia, but simply an eastern Russian regular army, which was an integral part of the ancient Russian state. From the point of view of this concept, the “Tatar-Mongol yoke” is simply a period of military administration of the state, when the commander-khan was the supreme ruler, and civil princes sat in the cities, who were obliged to collect tribute in favor of this army, for its maintenance: “Thus the ancient Russian state seems to be a single empire, within which there was a class of professional military (Horde) and a civilian part that did not have its own regular troops, since such troops were already part of the Horde ”(Nosovsky G.V., Fomenko A.T. New chronology and concept ancient Russia , England and Rome. M.: Publishing house. Department of the UC DO MSU, 1996. p.25). In the light of this concept, the frequent Tatar-Mongol raids were nothing more than a forcible collection of tribute from those areas that did not want to pay: “The so-called“ Tatar raids ”, in our opinion, were simply punitive expeditions to those Russian regions that, according to what they refused to pay tribute to considerations ”(Nosovsky G.V., Fomenko A.T. New chronology and the concept of ancient Russia, England and Rome. M .: Publishing house of the UNC DO MGU, 1996. p.26). Nosovsky and Fomenko argue their version of events as follows. Firstly, they share the opinion of some historians that as early as the 13th century Cossacks lived on the borders of Russia. However, there is no mention of clashes between the Mongols and the Cossacks. From here they conclude that the Cossacks and the Horde are Russian troops: “The Horde, wherever it comes from, .. would inevitably have to come into conflict with the Cossack states. However, this was not noted. The only hypothesis is that the Horde did not fight the Cossacks because the Cossacks were an integral part of the Horde. This is the version: the Cossack troops were not just part of the Horde, they were also regular troops of the Russian state. In other words, the Horde was Russian from the very beginning ”(Nosovsky G.V., Fomenko A.T. New chronology and the concept of ancient Russia, England and Rome. M .: Publishing Department of the UC DO MSU, 1996. pp. 24-25 ). Secondly, they point out the absurdity of the use of Russian troops by the Mongols in their campaigns; after all, they could rebel and go over to the side of the Mongol enemies: “Let's stop for a moment and imagine the absurdity of the situation: the victorious Mongols for some reason transfer weapons to the “Russian slaves” they conquered, and they calmly serve in the troops of the conquerors, making up the “main mass” there “!.. Even in traditional history, Ancient Rome never armed newly conquered slaves” (Nosovsky G.V., Fomenko A.T. New chronology and the concept of ancient Russia, England and Rome. M .: Publishing Department of the UNC DO MSU , 1996. p. 122). Karamzin wrote in his writings that most of the current temples were built during the period of the yoke. This fact also confirms the basis of the concept of Nosovsky and Fomenko: “Almost all Russian monasteries were founded under the “Tatar-Mongols”. And it's clear why. Many of the Cossacks, leaving military service in the Horde, went to monasteries” (Nosovsky G.V., Fomenko A.T. New chronology and the concept of ancient Russia, England and Rome. M .: Publishing Department of the UNC DO MGU, 1996. ss .127-128). Thus, they write, “The Mongol conquerors turn into some kind of invisible people, whom for some reason no one sees” (Nosovsky G. V., Fomenko A.T. New chronology and concept of ancient Russia, England and Rome. M.: Publishing house. Department of the UC DO MSU, 1996. p.124).
Almost all other well-known historians believe that the relationship of the Golden Horde to Russia cannot be called allied. In their opinion, the reasons for establishing the yoke are:
1. Conquests of the Tatar-Mongols,
2. The superiority of the Mongols in the art of war, the presence of an experienced and numerous army;
3. Feudal fragmentation and strife between the princes.
The Tatar-Mongol invasion is precisely an “invasion”, and not a “walk” in Russia, as L. Gumilyov claims and the establishment of the most severe yoke, i.e. the dominion of the Tatar-Mongol with all the hardships of the dependent existence of Russia.
The consequences of the Tatar-Mongol invasion are as follows: as a result of more than 2.5 centuries of yoke, Russia was thrown back in its development for 500 years, and this is the reason for Russia's lagging behind Western civilizations at the present time. As a result of the Tatar-Mongol invasion, Russian lands and cities were devastated, entire principalities were destroyed, enormous damage was caused to the development of the economy and culture, but the struggle against the Tatar-Mongol yoke helped unite the Russian people and form a centralized state.
Therefore, the Horde still had power over Russia, and the word “yoke” characterizes this power most accurately. The great khans treated Russia as a vassal state, whose helplessness was supported by large tributes and recruitment kits. They justify their position with the following facts. Firstly, for the great khans, the Russian princes were like a cross between vassals and slaves. So, every time after the change of khan, they went to bow to him and ask for a label for reigning: “Back in 1242, the Grand Duke of Vladimir Yaroslav I went to Batu’s headquarters, where he was confirmed in office. His son Konstantin was sent to Mongolia to assure the regent of his and his father's commitment ”(Vernadsky V.G. History of Russia: Mongols and Russia. - M .: Tver: Agraf: Lean, 2000. p. 149). This is also confirmed by the facts of the execution of Russian princes by the Mongol khans, for example, the execution of Mikhail Chernigovsky: “... He was executed together with one of the boyars loyal to him, who accompanied him to the khan's head ...” (Vernadsky V.G. History of Russia: Mongols and Russia. - M .: Tver: Agraf: Lean, 2000. p. 151). Secondly, history knows that for all the time of ruling, the Golden Horde sent many punitive detachments to Russia, which fought against non-payment of tribute, as well as uprisings of princes or ordinary people. The clearest example of this is the “Nevryu’s army”, sent against Grand Duke Andrei Yaroslavich, and which, according to many historians, caused Russia more harm than Batu’s campaign: Tatar tumens under the command of the commander Nevruy. The regiments of Andrei Yaroslavich and his brother Yaroslav were defeated in a fierce battle near Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, and the Grand Duke himself fled to Sweden, from where he returned only a few years later ”(Encyclopedia for children. V.5. History of Russia and its closest neighbors. - M .: Avanta+, 1998. p.229). Also, one cannot ignore the frequent censuses of the population of Russia conducted by the khans. Their results were used to collect taxes, as well as to recruit warriors. This version of events is also supported by the fact that in Russia there was a decline in culture: some crafts were lost, many books were burned.
Conclusion.
It is very difficult to draw a definitive conclusion on this issue. None of the above versions of the presentation of events can be true.
List of used literature
- Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. –M.: Progress.
- Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State: Book. 2. - Rostov-on-Don, 1994.
- Nosovsky G.V., Fomenko A.T. New chronology and the concept of ancient Russia: V.1. - M: Publishing house. Department of the UC DO MSU, 1996.
9. Discussions about the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Russia and its consequences
Main dates and events: 1237-1240 p. - Batu campaigns on
Rus; 1380 - Battle of Kulikovo; 1480 - standing on the Ugra River, the liquidation of the Horde domination in Russia.
Basic terms and concepts: yoke; label; baskak.
historical figures: Batu; Ivan Kalita; Dmitry Donskoy; Mamai; Tokhtamysh; Ivan IP.
Working with the map: show the territories of Russian lands that were part of the Golden Horde or paid tribute to it.
Answer plan: one). main points of view on the nature of the relationship between Russia and the Horde in the XIlI-XV centuries; 2) features of the economic development of Russian lands under the rule of the Mongol-Tatars; 3) changes in the organization of power in Russia; 4) Russian Orthodox church under the conditions of the Horde dominion; 5) the consequences of the domination of the Golden Horde in the Russian lands.
Reply material: The problems of the Horde dominion caused and continue to cause different assessments and points of view in the national historical literature.
Even N. M. Karamzin noted that the Mongol-Tatar domination in Russia had one important positive effect.
vie - it accelerated the unification of the Russian principalities and the revival of a single Russian state. This gave grounds to some later historians to speak of the positive influence of the Mongols.
Another point of view is that the Mongol-Tatar domination had extremely difficult consequences for Russia, as it threw back its development 250 years ago. This approach allows us to explain all subsequent problems in the history of Russia precisely by the long dominance of the Horde.
The third point of view is presented in the works of some modern historians, who believe that there was no Mongol-Tatar yoke at all. The interaction of the Russian principalities with the Golden Horde was more like an allied relationship: Russia paid tribute (and its size was not so great), and the Horde in return ensured the security of the borders of the weakened and scattered Russian principalities.
It seems that each of these points of view covers only part of the problem. It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of "invasion" and "yoke":
In the first case, we are talking about the Batu invasion that ruined Russia, and about the measures that the Mongol khans took from time to time in relation to the recalcitrant princes; in the second - about the very system of relations between the Russian and Horde authorities and territories.
The Russian lands were considered in the Horde as a part of its own territory that had a certain degree of independence. The principalities were obliged to pay a rather significant tribute to the Horde (even those lands that were not captured by the Horde paid it); in preparation for new campaigns, the khans demanded from the Russian princes not only money, but also soldiers; finally, "F!FOY goods" from the Russian lands were highly valued in the slave markets of the Horde.
Russia was deprived of its former independence. The princes of MOI "do not rule, only having received a label for reigning. The Mongol khans encouraged numerous conflicts and strife between the princes. Therefore, in an effort to obtain labels, the princes were ready to take any steps, which gradually changed the very nature of princely power in the Russian lands.
At the same time, the khans did not encroach on the positions of the Russian Orthodox Church - they, unlike the German knights in the Baltic states, did not prevent the population subject to them from believing in their own God. This, despite the most difficult conditions of foreign domination, made it possible to preserve national customs, traditions, and mentality.
The economy of the Russian principalities after a period of complete ruin was restored quite quickly, and from the beginning of the XIV century. began to develop rapidly. Since that time, stone construction has been revived in the cities, and the restoration of temples and fortresses destroyed during the invasion began. An established and fixed tribute was soon no longer considered a heavy burden. And since the time of Ivan Kali-you, a significant part of the funds raised has been directed to the internal needs of the Russian lands themselves.
10. Moscow - the center of the unification of Russian lands
Main dates and events: 1276 - formation of the Moscow principality; 1325-1340 - reign of Ivan Kalita; 1359-1389 P. - reign of Dmitry Donskoy; September 8, 1380 - Battle of Kulikovo.
Historical figures: Daniel Alexandrovich; Ivan Kalita; Dmitry Donskoy; Ivan IP; Vasily IP.
Basic terms and concepts: political center; label to reign; liberty.
Working with the map: show the boundaries of the Moscow principality at the time of its creation and the territory of the expansion of the principality in the XIV-XV centuries.
Answer plan: 1) political and socio-economic prerequisites for the rise of Moscow; 2) the main stages of development of the Moscow principality; 3) the significance of the rise of Moscow and the unification of BOKpyr over Russian lands.
Reply material: The Moscow principality became independent under the son of Alexander Nevsky Daniel in 1276. At that time, no one could imagine that it was Moscow that would become the center of the collection of Russian lands. More real candidates for this role were Tver, Ryazan, Novgorod. However, already during the reign of Ivan Kalita, the importance of the young Moscow principality increased immeasurably.
The main reasons for the rise of Moscow were: its relative remoteness from the Horde; the skillful policy of the Moscow princes; transfer to Moscow of the right to collect tribute; patronage of the Horde khans; the intersection of trade routes in CebePO-Eastern Russia, 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.
There are several main stages in the collection of Russian lands by Moscow. On the first (from the formation of the Moscow principality to the beginning of the reign Ivan Kalyu]>l and his new sons Semyon Proud and Ivan the Red) were pledged ene05-new economical and political power of the principality. on the SECOND (the reign of Dmitry Donskoy and his son Vasily 1) a fairly successful military P. Qot willow confrontation between Russia and the Horde. The largest 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 Moscow state is expanding significantly. The international authority of the Moscow princes is growing (for example, Vasily 1 was married to the daughter of the Grand Duke of Lithuania Vitovt). The third stage (1425-1462) is characterized by a long feudal war between Grand Duke Vasily 11 and his relatives. The main goal of this struggle was no longer upholding the leading position of Moscow, but the desire to seize power in the Muscovite state, which was gaining strength and weight. Of great importance was the transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church into the world center of pra-
Orthodoxy after the fall of Byzantium (1453). The final one.
pom was the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505) and Vasily and I(1505-1533), when the main Russian principalities united under the rule of Moscow. A unified code of laws was adopted, bodies were created government controlled, economic orders have been established, etc.
The formation of a unified Russian state was of great historical significance. It contributed to the liberation of Russia from the Horde dominion. 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 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.
11. Golden Horde in XIII-XV centuries
Main dates and events: the beginning of the 1240s - the formation of the Golden Horde; first half of the 14th century - the heyday of the Golden Horde under the khans Uzbek and Dzhanibek, the adoption of Islam; 15th century - disintegration of the Golden Horde.
Historical figures: Batu; Menry- Timur; Nogay; Uzbek; Janibek; Mamai; Tokhtamysh; EdigeY.
Basic terms and concepts: khan; kurultai; baskak; sofa; Murza.
Working with the map: show the territory of the Golden Horde, its capital, the territories of the khanates formed on its lands.
Answer plan: 1) the reasons for the formation of the Golden Horde; 2) social and economic system; 3) political system; 4) the rise of the Golden Horde; 5) causes and consequences of the disintegration of the Golden Horde.
Reply material: As a result of the Mongol invasion, one of the largest states of that time, the Golden Horde, was formed in the conquered territories. It stretched from the Balkans in the west to central Siberia in the east; from Russian lands in the north to Transcaucasia and Turkestan in the south. The hundred-lyceum of the Horde was the city of Sarai-Batu, founded in the lower reaches of the Volga. At the beginning of the XIV century. The capital was the city of Novy Sarai, which arose to the north of the former, on the banks of the Akhtuba River.
The basis of the economy of the Horde was nomadic cattle breeding (mainly horses, sheep, and camels were bred). Crafts were highly developed in the cities, focused mainly on the production of horse harness, weapons, and jewelry. The population of the Volga region, which became part of the state, was engaged in agriculture, fishing, the Siberian peoples - in their traditional hunting, the inhabitants of Central Asia wove carpets. The major cities of the country were Bakhchisaray, Azba (Azov), Khadzhitarkhan (Astrakhan), Kazan, Isker (Siberia), Turkestan, Urgench, Khiva.
The head of state was a khan from the Genghis clan. Supreme Council under him (kurultai) included the closest relatives of the khan, governors of subject lands, military leaders (temniks). The central institutions of the Horde were sofas, which were led by secretaries. The collection of tribute from subordinate territories was carried out by the Baskaks. The basis of the ruling class was the beks, who owned pastures and herds.
The Golden Horde was a multinational state in which the Mongols constituted the minority of the population. Under Khan Uzbek, Islam became the state religion.
The Golden Horde had lively trade relations not only with Asian states, but. also with Europe. After the adoption of Islam, ties with the countries of the Middle East became closer.
The Russian lands were not included in the Horde, but were considered semi-independent "Russian ulus". Russian princes had to receive a label to reign from the khan, pay an annual tribute, provide soldiers for the khan's army, and participate in their military campaigns.
The Horde reached its heyday under the khans Uzbek and Dzhani-bek in the first half of the 14th century, when its influence and international authority, economic power and strength of the khan's power reached its apogee. However, later the Golden Horde entered a period of feudal fragmentation, the main reasons for which were the increased level economic development subjugated territories and intensified struggle for power. The beginning of the collapse of a great power fell on the 15th century. The Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey was the first to receive independence from the Horde Khan. He created the Crimean Khanate, which included the territories of the Crimea and the steppe regions of the Northern Black Sea region. In 1438, the most economically and militarily developed Kazan Khanate was formed in the middle reaches of the Volga. On the Lower Volga, the Bollyaya Horde Khanate arose, and in the interfluve of the Tobol and Ob rivers, the Siberian Khanate. The steppe regions of the northern Caspian (up to the Irtysh) became part of the Nogai Horde. Between former units Golden Horde, there were numerous contradictions that resulted in military clashes.
The collapse of the Golden Horde accelerated the liberation of the Russian lands from the Mongol "adychism" and their unification within the framework of a single state.
12. Russia and Lithuania
Main dates and events: 1385 - Union of Kreva; 1410 - Battle of Grunwald.
Historical figures: Mindovg; Gediminas; Olgerd; Jagiello; Vitovt.
Basic terms and concepts: union; dialect.
Working with the map: show the boundaries of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and their expansion in the XHI-XV centuries.
Answer plan: 1) prerequisites for the formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; 2) Lithuania as one of the centers of the unification of Russian
Sky lands; 3) the economic and social structure of the Lithuanian state; 4) political system; 5) Kreva union; 6) Battle of Grunwald.
Reply material: The collapse of tribal communities and the expansion of economic ties between various Lithuanian tribes created the prerequisites for the formation in the XHI century. Lithuanian state. The first prince was Mindovg, who managed in a short time to include lands in the young principality.
Whether Lithuanians, Zhmud, Yotvingians, as well as part of the Polotsk, Vitebsk, Smolensk lands. When creating the State of Lithuania, the state traditions of the Russian principalities were used. Representatives of the Russian nobility had strong positions in Lithuania. Their greatest influence on princely power was achieved under Prince Gediminas (1316-1341), who was married to a Russian princess. At this time, the Russian nobility formed the basis of the army, led the embassies, ruled the Lithuanian cities. It is not surprising that many Russian principalities presented Lithuania as a force capable of reviving Russian statehood. The annexation of Russian territories to Lithuania began, the official name of which was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia. The gathering of the western and southern Russian territories continued under the sons of Gediminas - Olgerd and Keistut. In addition, they managed to stop the advance of the Germans into the Lithuanian lands. Lithuania has become a strong center for the unification of Russian lands, which did not cause protest among the Russian population, perceiving-. which this process is like the revival of the Old Russian state. Unsuccessful were only schshytki to annex Novgorod and Pskov to Lithuania.
After the death of Olgerd, his son Jagiello married the Polish queen Jadwiga and in 1385 concluded a state-religious union with Poland - the Union of Krevo. According to the treaty, Jagiello became both the Polish king (under the name of Vladislav) and the Grand Duke of Lithuania. He converted to Catholicism and began to convert the entire Lithuanian nobility to the Catholic faith, and then the population of his country. Lithuanian lands were transferred to Poland "for all eternity". Vitovt, the son of Keistut, who was killed on the orders of Yagailo, began to fight against the subjugation of Poland. He sought to break the Kreva Union
And declare himself the Lithuanian king.
Prior to the conclusion of the Union of Kreva, the state system of Lithuania was similar to the ancient Russian one: the local princes, who had their own squads, were subordinate to the Grand Duke. In the cities, there was a veche administration, which extended to the rural territories subordinate to the cities (populated by free farmers - smerds). The Lithuanian prince exercised control, OPIJ), relying on the support of the clan nobility, united in the Rada. However, after the Union of Kreva, only Catholics could be members of the Rada, it received the right to make any decisions in the absence of the prince. Thus, the power of the prince became less and less significant (following the example of the Polish kings, who depended on the opinion of the pans). After the conclusion of the union, the cities were deprived of veche management, in the countryside the dependence of smerds on the owners of the land was introduced. A new estate was formed that served the prince for land grants - the gentry (nobility). They had the right to convene gentry diets locally, which resolved issues of local importance. The upper class in the state were pans (princes), who had huge territorial divisions and elected kings.
The joint struggle of Russians, Lithuanians and Poles against the strengthening of German influence led to the defeat of the Germans during the Battle of Grunwald (1410), which marked the beginning of the decline of the Teutonic Order and its dominance in the Baltic states.
The heyday of the Lithuanian state was associated with the powerful influence of Russian state and cultural traditions. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia became the real center of the unification of Russian lands. However, its merger with Poland and the beginning of catholization did not allow the Lithuanian princes to win in the struggle for the creation of a unified Russian state. The process of dividing the ancient Russian people into Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians began.
14. Features of the cultural development of Russian lands in the XIII-XVcenturies
Main dates and events: 1479 - completion of the construction of the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.
Historical figures: Aristotle Fioravanti; Theophanes the Greek; Andrey Rublev; Daniel Black; Dionysius; Prokhor from Gorodets.
Basic terms and concepts: Novgorod style in architecture; epic; historical song.
Answer plan: 1) historical conditions for the development of culture rus- ski lands in the XIII-XV centuries; 2) the main achievements of the kulylu-
Ry: folklore, literature, architecture, painting; 3) the significance of Russian culture of this period.
Reply material: The main events that determined the development of the culture of the Russian lands in the Xllf-XV centuries were the Batu invasion and the establishment of Mongol-Tatar rule. The largest monuments of Kulylur were destroyed or lost - cathedrals and monasteries, frescoes and mosaics, handicrafts. The artisans and craftsmen themselves were killed or driven into Horde slavery. The stone building has stopped.
The formation of the Russian people and a single state, the struggle for liberation from the Mongols, the creation of a single language became important factors in the development of the culture of the Russian lands in the 13th-15th centuries.
main theme oral folk art was the struggle with the Horde domination. Legends about the battle on Kal-ka, 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 make up the heroic epic epic. In the XIV century. were created about Vasily Buslaev, Sadko, reflecting the freedom-loving character of the Novgorodians, the wealth and strength of their land. A new type of oral folk art appeared - a historical song that described in detail the events of which the author was a contemporary.
In works of literature, the theme of the fight against invaders was also central. At the end of the XIV century. the general Russian chronicle is resumed.
From the end of the XIII century. the revival of stone construction began. It developed more actively in the lands that suffered the least from the invasion. Novgorod became one of the centers of culture in these years, the architects of which built the Church of St. Nicholas on Lipna and the Church of Fyodor Stratilat. These temples marked the emergence of a special architectural style, characterized by a combination of simplicity and majesty, relatively small sizes of structures, more modest wall decoration, and the use of limestone slabs and boulders along with brick. 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 Russia. At the same time, the Annunciation Cathedral (which became the palace church of the Grand Dukes) and the Archangel Cathedral (the tomb of Moscow rulers) were created. The Faceted Chamber of the Novgorod Kremlin was built. The stone Kremlin, built in 1367, testified to the growth of the political power of Moscow.
Political motives were also present in church painting - icon painting. A vivid example of this was the icon "King of Kings", on which Jesus Christ was depicted with a crown on his head. This expressed the non-recognition of the power of the Horde khans (who called themselves "kings of kings") and showed the priority of the Christian faith and the power of Orthodox rulers. It is no coincidence that this icon was installed in the Assumption Cathedral after the Battle of Kulikovo.
Along with local masters, foreign painters, mainly from Byzantium, also worked in Russia at that time. Among them was Theophanes the Greek, who managed to connect the classical Byzantine style of icon painting with the traditions of Russian masters. Feofan, who worked in Novgorod and Moscow at the end of the 14th century, painted the icons of Our Lady of the Don, Saints Peter and Paul, and the Assumption of Our Lady. Some of his works were decorated with the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Theophan's disciple and follower was the Russian artist Andrei Rublev (1360-1430) - a monk of the Trinity-Sergius, and then the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery. Together with Daniil Cherny, he painted frescoes on the walls of the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir, and then the Trinity Cathedral in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The most famous of his works was the "Trinity", written for the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathedral.
Having suffered during the period of the Mongol invasion, Russian culture began its revival already at the end of XIII century. Literature, architecture, art of this time were permeated with the desire of the authors for high spiritual ideals, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe struggle to overthrow the Horde dominion, and the formation of the foundations of an all-Russian culture.
15. Termination of Russia's dependence on the Horde. IvanIII
Main dates and events: 1462-1505 P. - reign of Ivan III; 1478 - annexation of Novgorod the Great to Moscow; 1480 - the liquidation of the Horde dominion.
historical figures; Ivan III; Akhmat.
Basic terms and concepts:“standing on the Ugra,>; centralized state.
Working with the map: show the expansion of the boundaries of the Moscow state, the place of "standing on the Ugra,>.
Answer plan: 1) the prerequisites for the overthrow of the Horde domination; 2) Ivan IJI; 3) standing on the river Ugra; 4) the significance of the liquidation of the Horde dominion.
Reply material: The main prerequisite for the overthrow of the Horde domination was the desire of the Russian people for independence, which was expressed in the policy of the Moscow princes, who united the Russian lands under their rule.
No less important were the formed economic conditions: the transition to a two- and three-field crop rotation system, the use of a plow with an iron plowshare, natural
rhenium - all this led to a significant economic upsurge and the formation of the material base for liberation from foreign domination. The growth of cities, the development of handicraft production in them contributed to the strengthening of the power of the Russian lands, made more effective fight with the invader. (Since 1382, Russia had its own artillery.) Russian cities, unlike cities Western Europe, were not economic centers for the unification of lands - this was hindered by the weak development of commodity-money relations. However, the cities "were important strategic centers in which forces were concentrated to fight the Horde.
An important factor to overthrow the Horde domination was the support of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Not the last role "was also played by the fact that the Golden Horde itself entered a period of political fragmentation and disintegrated into a number of khanates.
In the process of overthrowing the Horde domination, several milestone events in Russian history can be distinguished. In 1327, the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita received the right to independently collect tribute to the D1IYA Horde. In 1380, with the support of the boyars and Metropolitan Alexei, Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich for the first time gathered an army from all Russian lands to fight Mamai and on September 8, using the tactics of an ambush regiment, utterly defeated the Horde. This victory did not lead to deliverance from Mongol rule, but it showed that the united army of all Russian principalities could defeat the enemy.
It is important to note that the fight against the Mongols and the formation of a unified Russian state were closely interconnected. these processes reached a result under the Grand Duke Ivan 111, who managed to turn the Moscow principality into the largest European state. Since 1476, he stopped paying tribute to the Horde. Khan Akhmat, who marched against Moscow in the autumn of 1480, met the army of Ivan 111 on the banks of the Ugra River, but did not dare to openly clash and, after a week of standing, turned back. Horde domination was over.
The overthrow of the yoke was of great importance for the D1IYA of Russia. It led to the completion of the formation of a unified Russian state. In 1485, Ivan 111 declared himself "sovereign of all Russia." Income from economic activity was now fully directed to the development of a single state. Urban growth accelerated. A new stage was marked in the development of the national artistic culture. It was the beginning of the formation of a multinational Russian
centralized state, which already then included representatives of a number of peoples of the Volga region,
The study in Russian historiography of the problem of Russian-Mongolian relations of the XIII-XV centuries. repeatedly became the subject of consideration by many scientists, mainly of the Soviet period, when a sufficient number of opinions and points of view were accumulated both on individual periods and problems, and on the generalizing conclusions of the conceptual plan. Historiographic reviews of different goals and objectives are contained in the works of B.D. Grekov and A.Yu. Yakubovsky, A.N. Nasonova, M.G. Safargalieva, L.V. Cherepnina, V.V. Kargalova, N.S. Borisova, G.A. Fedorova-Davydova, I.B. Grekova, D.Yu. Arapova, A.A. Arslanova, P.P. Tolochko, A.A. Gorsky, V.A. Chukaeva. A distinctive feature of these historiographic excursions is that they are mostly devoted to the historiography of the 19th - early 20th centuries, and speak very sparingly of later works. In addition, in this historiographic series there are no works of recent times. Thus, the author sees one of his tasks in supplementing the historiography of the "Mongolian question" with an analysis of the latest literature.
At the same time, we do not pursue the goal of listing all the works of the past and present years, in which certain collisions of Russian-Mongolian relations are mentioned and / or an assessment is made of them. Historiographic discrepancies on certain specific issues will, of necessity, be set forth in the relevant chapters. We consider the following as our main task: to trace the most important directions of Russian historical thought on this one of the most significant and defining problems of Russian history, which, in turn, allows (together with source observations and analysis) to develop the basis for the author's study of the topic "Russia and the Mongols ".
1
There are a number of rather highly politicized subjects in Russian historiography. So, in the field of early Russian history, this is the “Norman problem”. This also includes the question of the Mongol-Tatar invasion and yoke. The vast majority of domestic historians have considered and are considering them mainly from the point of view of political content, for example, the subordination of the institution of princely power to the Mongols, as well as the “fall” for the same reason of other ancient Russian power structures. Such a one-sided approach entails a certain modernization of the relationship between the ethno-state structures of the Middle Ages, the interpolation of interstate relations of the new and modern times on them, and ultimately, as we see it, a certain discrepancy in understanding the situation as a whole.
The origins of this kind of perception can already be seen in the reports of the chroniclers, who also added a strong emotional coloring. The latter, of course, is understandable, because the original records were made either by eyewitnesses who survived the tragedy of the invasion, or from their words.
In fact, in Russian historiography, the isolation of the problem of "Tatars and Rus" goes back to late XVIII- the beginning of the XIX century. Its understanding and interpretation must be associated with the “process of self-affirmation of the Russian mentality”, “expression intensive growth national consciousness"and" an unprecedentedly high patriotic upsurge. These socio-psychological foundations for the formation of the Russian national culture of modern times directly influenced the formation of Russian national historiography, its initial "romantic" period. Hence the highly emotional and dramatic, even tragic perception of the events of ancient Russian history, especially such as the Mongol-Tatar invasion and the yoke.
N.M. succumbed to the charm of Russian chronicles, tragically vividly depicting the Batu invasion and its consequences. Karamzin. His perception of the events of distant times is no less emotional than contemporaries or eyewitnesses of the events themselves. Russia is "a vast corpse after Batyev's invasion" - this is how he defines the immediate results of the Mongol campaigns. But the state of the country and the people under the yoke: it, “having exhausted the State, having swallowed up its civil well-being, humiliated humanity itself in our ancestors, and left deep, indelible marks for several hundred centuries, irrigated with the blood and tears of many generations.” The stamp of sentimentality is present even when N.M. Karamzin turns to sociological generalizations and conclusions. “The shadow of barbarism,” he writes, “clouding the horizon of Russia, hid Europe from us...”, “Russia, tormented by the Moghuls, strained its strength only in order not to disappear: we had no time for enlightenment!” The Horde yoke as the reason for Russia's lagging behind the "European states" - this is the first main conclusion of N.M. Karamzin. The second conclusion of the historiographer relates to the internal development of Russia in the "Mongolian centuries". It does not correspond to what was said before, does not follow from it and, moreover, contradicts it, because, it turns out, the Mongols brought to Russia not only “blood and tears”, but also good: thanks to them, internecine strife was eliminated and “autocracy was restored”, Moscow itself was "owed its greatness to the khans." "Karamzin was the first historian to single out the influence of the Mongol invasion on the development of Russia as a large independent problem of domestic science."
The views of N.M. Karamzin were widely used among contemporaries, which will be discussed below. For now, we are interested in their ideological origins. We have already pointed out one: it is the elevated socio-psychological and ideological atmosphere in Russia. early XIX in. But there was another.
When analyzing the literature used by N.M. Karamzin in the III and IV volumes of the "History of the Russian State", a fairly frequent mention of the work of the French Orientalist historian of the 18th century is striking. J. De Guignes "General history of the Huns, Turks, Mongols and other Western Tatars in antiquity and from Jesus Christ to the present", published in 4 volumes in 1756-1758. (volume 5 appeared in 1824). J. De Guignes defines the Mongols and their place in world history as follows: “The people who caused a great upheaval and who then formed an empire, the most extensive of all that we know, were not at all a civilized people, nor did they seek to spread the wisdom of their laws . This was a barbarian people who went to the most distant countries only to seize all the wealth, enslave the peoples, return them to a barbaric state and make their name awesome.
The work of J. De Guignes was the most significant and popular study of Mongolian history in Europe in the 18th century. As you can see, N.M. Karamzin, not a stranger to European enlightenment, fully accepted the latest Western European scientific developments in ancient history East.
But Europe influenced the study of Russian history not only from the outside, but also from the inside. We have in mind the activity in the first decades of the 19th century. Russian Academy of Sciences. Historical science in the first quarter of the 19th century. was in the Academy in obvious decline. Scholars of German origin, who were part of the department of history, were mainly engaged in auxiliary historical disciplines (numismatics, genealogy, chronology), and their works on Russian history were published in German. Elected in 1817 by Academician Kh.D. Fren was also a numismatist, a specialist in Oriental (Juchid) coins. But he caught, so to speak, the spirit of the times. The fact is that “it was in the first decades of the 19th century. in France, England, Germany, the first oriental scientific societies arise, special oriental journals begin to be published, etc.” H.D. Fren was able to look more broadly than his predecessors at the problems facing Russian historical science. He became the founder of the Russian school of Oriental studies, and his previous studies of Mongolian problems determined the top priorities of Russian Oriental studies. X. Fren was aware of all the oriental literature of his time and, as the largest historian of the Golden Horde, had firm views on the role of the Mongol conquest in the history of Russia,” noted A.Yu. Yakubovsky. In 1826, the Academy of Sciences announced a competition on the topic “What were the consequences of the domination of the Mongols in Russia, and exactly what effect did it have on the political relations of the state, on the form of government and on its internal administration, as well as on the enlightenment and education of the people?” The task was followed by recommendations. “For a proper answer to this question, it is required that it be preceded by Full description external relations and the internal situation of Russia before the first invasion of it by the Mongols, and so that later it would be shown exactly what changes were made by the rule of the Mongols in the state of the people, and it would be desirable that, in addition to the scattered testimony contained in the Russian chronicles, a comparison of everything that can be gleaned from eastern and western sources regarding the then state of the Mongols and their treatment of the conquered peoples.
Undoubtedly, a grandiose prospect opened up before the researchers. Actually, the very formulation of the problem and explanations to it remain relevant to this day almost unchanged. Their scientific literacy is undeniable. But already in this initial task there was a certain predestination: the installation on the "domination" of the Mongols in Russia is determined in advance, although it was precisely the proof or refutation of this that should have become the main task of stimulated research.
This trend became more pronounced later on. The competition of 1826, as is known, did not lead to the desired result and was resumed at the suggestion of H.D. Frena in 1832. The Academy of Sciences again presented the work written by H.D. Fren "Program of the task", more extensive than in the first case. The introduction was also longer. “The dominion of the Mongol dynasty, known to us under the name of the Golden Horde, among the Mohammedans under the name of Ulus Juchi, or the Genghis Khanate of Deshtkipchak, and among the Mongols themselves under the name of Togmak, which was once for almost two and a half centuries the horror and scourge of Russia, which kept it in bonds of unconditional enslavement and willfully disposed of the crown and life of its Princes, this dominion should have more or less influence on the fate, structure, decrees, education, customs and language of our fatherland. The history of this dynasty forms a necessary link Russian history, and it goes without saying that the closest knowledge of the first not only serves to the most accurate understanding of the latter, in this memorable and ill-fated period, but also contributes a lot to clarifying our concepts of the influence that the Mongol dominion had on the decrees and the people's life in Russia.
Comparing the "tasks" of 1826 and 1832, one can note a certain shift in emphasis. Firstly, much more space is now given to the need to study the actual history of the Golden Horde; secondly, only the previously outlined focus on the “dominion” of the Mongols in Russia is now developing into a whole concept. It is said (in the spirit of the “Norman problem”) about the “Mongolian dynasty”, which forms “an essential link in Russian history”. The "horror and scourge" of Russia - the Mongol khans - kept it "in the bonds of unconditional enslavement", and "wilfulness" disposed of the "crown and life" of the princes. In addition, attention is also drawn to the transition, so to speak, to the Karamzin style of presentation (which is worth the same "horror and scourge", etc.).
Thus, the foundation was laid for the future - not only in the 19th, but also in the 20th century. - research on the Russian-Horde problems. The views of N.M. Karamzin, set forth by him in the IV and V volumes of the "History of the Russian State", and the academic competitions of 1826 and 1832 gave a strong impetus to the study of the topic "Russia and the Mongols". Already in the 1920s and 1940s, many works appeared that directly or indirectly developed certain judgments of scientific authorities. In 1822, the first book on this topic was published. Bringing to the point of absurdity the thought of N.M. Karamzin about the slowdown in the course of the historical development of Russia due to the Mongol yoke, the author writes that the influence of the Mongols affected all levels public life and contributed to the transformation of the Russians into the "people of Asia". The same topic becomes relevant on the pages of the periodical press (moreover, the most popular magazines), asserting itself, therefore, as a socially significant one.
However, in a number of works of the same time, a different direction is seen than that of N.M. Karamzin and Kh.D. Fren. Thus, denying any benefit from the “Tatar dominion”, M. Gastev further writes: “The autocracy itself, recognized by many as the fruit of their dominion, is not the fruit of their dominion, if even in the 15th century the princes divided their possessions. You might as well call it a fruit. specific system, and most likely - the fruit of the duration of civil life. Thus, M. Gastev was one of the first to question Karamzin's "concept of slowing down" the natural course of the social development of Russia, due to the intervention of the Mongols. Objections and one's own vision of the Mongol period in Russia can also be seen in the works of N.A. Polevoy and N.G. Ustryalova.
Considerations of a similar nature were put forward by S.M. Solovyov as the basis of his understanding of the time of the Russian Middle Ages. It is difficult to say how much the historiographical situation influenced him. Obviously, he proceeded primarily from his own concept of the historical development of Russia. “Since for us the subject of first importance was the change of the old order of things with a new one, the transition of tribal princely relations into state relations, on which the unity, power of Russia and the change in the internal order depended, and since we notice the beginning of a new order of things in the north before the Tatars, then Mongolian relations should be important to us insofar as they helped or hindered the establishment of this new order of things. We notice, - he continued, - that the influence of the Tatars was not the main and decisive one here. The Tatars remained to live far away, cared only about the collection of tribute, not interfering in any way with internal relations, leaving everything as it was, therefore, leaving those new relations that began in the north before them in complete freedom to operate. Even more clearly, his position as a scientist on the “Mongolian question” was formulated in the following words: “... a historian has no right to interrupt the natural thread of events from the second half of the 13th century - namely, the gradual transition of tribal princely relations into state ones - and insert the Tatar period, to bring to the fore the Tatars, Tatar relations, as a result of which the main phenomena, the main causes of these phenomena, must be closed. In his "History of Russia from Ancient Times" the great historian concretizes and details these general provisions.
With regard to S.M. Solovyov is attracted to the Russian-Mongolian theme by the balanced and conceptual approach. This was expressed accordingly in the absence of emotional assessments, which, as we have seen, was filled with previous historiography, and in an attentive attitude to the development of precisely internal “original” (as his Slavophil contemporaries would say) processes. A look at the historical development of Mongolian Rus S.M. Solovyov, thus, was a new scientific concept of this period and became an alternative to the previously prevailing point of view of Karamzin-Fren. However, this line did not die either. This is due to the extremely successful development of Russian oriental studies. Moreover, Russia is becoming the only country where Mongolian studies are taking shape as an independent scientific discipline. In the middle - second half of the XIX century. it was represented by such names as N.Ya. Bichurin, V.V. Grigoriev, V.P. Vasiliev, I.N. Berezin, P.I. Kafarov, V.G. Tizenhausen.
V.G. Tizenhausen in 1884 noted that “the study of the Mongol-Tatar period since then (since academic competitions. - Yu.K.) has managed to move forward in many ways ... ". But at the same time, “the absence of a solid, perhaps complete and critically processed history of the Golden Horde, or the Jochid ulus ... constitutes one of the most important and sensitive gaps in our everyday life, depriving us of the opportunity not only to get acquainted with the course of affairs and the entire structure of this vast and a kind of semi-steppe power that controlled the fate of Russia for more than 2 centuries, but also to correctly assess the degree of its influence on Russia, determining with certainty what exactly this Mongol-Tatar rule reflected in us and how much it actually slowed down the natural development of Russian people."
How to comment on the presented by V.G. Tiesenhausen the historiographical situation? Of course, firstly, despite the “advancement” of the problem, the awareness of the unsatisfactory scientific level of previous studies (primarily due to the unusedness of the entire known fund of sources), and, secondly, the author clearly has “old prejudices”, because “the ideological platform ” remains basically the same - at the level of Karamzin and Fren.
Actually, the Karamzinskaya line found the most prominent representative in the person of N.I. Kostomarov. Exploring the "Mongolian problem", he approaches it, as it was inherent in him, on a large scale - against the backdrop of the history of all Slavs. “Wherever the Slavs were left to their own devices, there they remained with their primitive qualities and did not develop any stable social system suitable for internal order and external protection. Only a strong conquest or the influence of foreign elements could lead them to this,” he wrote in one of his seminal works. These provisions even A.N. Nasonov called "fantastic theory". But, based on them, N.I. Kostomarov, inheriting N.M. Karamzin, explained the origin of autocratic power in Russia by the Tatar conquest. The legacy of N.M. Karamzin is felt in another passage: under the Mongols, “the sense of freedom, honor, consciousness of personal dignity disappeared; servility to the higher, despotism over the lower became the qualities of the Russian soul”, there was a “fall of the free spirit and the stupefaction of the people”. In general, for N.I. Kostomarov, with the conquest of the Mongols, "the great upheaval of Russian history began."
So, from the middle of the XIX century. The "Mongolian question" becomes one of the most important topics in Oriental and Russian medieval studies. In the second half of the century, two main ways of its study were formed. The first, going back to the traditions laid down by N.M. Karamzin and Kh.D. Fren, and presented by a number of prominent Mongol scholars of that time, proceeds from the significant, and at times decisive and all-encompassing role of the Mongols in medieval Russian history. The second is associated with the name, first of all, S.M. Solovyov, as well as his successors, among whom the names of V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov, and in the first third of the XX century. M.N. Pokrovsky and A.E. Presnyakov. For these scientists, the main thing remains the natural course of the inner life of medieval Russia, which was not subject, at least in a cardinal way, to changes. So S.F. Platonov considered the Mongol yoke only "an accident in our history"; therefore, he wrote, “we can consider the inner life of Russian society in the thirteenth century. not paying attention to the fact of the Tatar yoke.
In a word, there was no unambiguity in the Mongolian question either in general or in specific subjects. This gave rise to one of the Orientalists of the early 20th century. to sum it up like this: “It is hardly possible to point to any other issue in Russian history that has been so little developed as the question of the Tatars.”
2
Soviet historiography, thus, found the "Mongolian question" unresolved unambiguously, moreover, solved in a diametrically opposite way. For some time, the Mongolian period did not attract much attention of Soviet historians, and the works published in the late 1920s and early 1930s were mainly based on the widespread (and not yet debunked) theory of M.N. Pokrovsky. The situation began to change by the end of the 1930s, after the most important discussions on a number of problems in the history of Russia had already taken place, class-harmful bourgeois concepts of Russian history were thrown off the “steamer of modernity”, and the Marxist doctrine was strengthened. After the approval of the concept of B.D. Grekov about the class feudal nature of ancient Russian society, the turn has come for the next - medieval - period in the history of Russia. It was then that the first Marxist works appeared, devoted to the period of the thirteenth and subsequent centuries. In 1937, a thematically special, but popular science work by B.D. Grekov and A.Yu. Yakubovsky "Golden Horde", consisting of two parts: "Golden Horde" and "Golden Horde and Russia".
The book was destined to give an answer to the question - how should one understand, study and present the problem of "Russia and the Mongols" in Soviet historical science. In this regard, the authors followed the path that has already become traditional for Marxist historiography. They turned to the classics of Marxist thought, specifically to the statements of K. Marx, as well as I.V. Stalin. “We have the opportunity to make sure more than once,” writes B.D. Grekov, - how Marx regarded the influence of the Golden Horde authorities on the history of the Russian people. In his remarks, we do not see even a hint of the progressive nature of this phenomenon. On the contrary, Marx sharply emphasizes the deeply negative influence of the Golden Horde power on the history of Russia. Marx also quotes that the yoke “lasted from 1257 to 1462, i.e., more than 2 centuries; this yoke not only crushed, it insulted and withered the very soul of the people who became its victim. I.V. spoke even more clearly and definitely. Stalin (this was done in connection with the Austro-German invasion of Ukraine in 1918): "The imperialists of Austria and Germany ... carry on their bayonets a new, shameful yoke, which is no better than the old, Tatar one ...".
This approach and the assessment by the classics of Marxism-Leninism of medieval Russian-Mongolian relations had a direct impact on all subsequent Soviet historiography. But was there anything fundamentally new in the judgments of the ideologists and politicians of the 19th and 20th centuries? on the problem we are considering? Apparently not. In fact, with the exception of the "Karamzin" thesis about some positive features of the development of Russian statehood, in general, in the perception of the "Mongolian question" by the classics, the provisions of Karamzin - Kostomarov are repeated. It also speaks of the negative impact of the yoke on the social and spiritual life of medieval Russia, and rather emotionally.
So, the already tested path was "offered" to Soviet historical science. However, unlike the previous historiographical period, there was no alternative to this path. The rigid framework of possible interpretations of Russian-Horde relations should not have allowed any radically different understanding of them.
However, returning to the work of B.D. Grekov and A.Yu. Yakubovsky, it should be said that they themselves are not inclined to exaggerate the influence of the Mongols on either the economic, political or cultural development of Russia. So, A.Yu. Yakubovsky, criticizing H.D. Fren for his interpretation of the influence of the Golden Horde period on the course of Russian history, writes the following: “For all the merits that Fren has to science, it cannot be overlooked that for his historical consciousness the question was not posed differently ... For Fren, the Golden Horde remains only "ill-fated period", and only from this side is of scientific interest. “No matter how heavy the power of the Golden Horde Mongol khans in feudal Russia,” the scientist continues, “now it is impossible to study the history of the Golden Horde only from the point of view of the extent to which it was a “horror and scourge” for the history of Russia.” At the same time, B.D. Grekov writes: “In the process of the hard struggle of the Russian people against the oppression of the Golden Horde, the Muscovite state was created. It was not the Golden Horde that created it, but it was born against the will of the Tatar Khan, against the interests of his power.” These two theses about the struggle of the Russian people and about the creation of a unified Russian state against the will of the Mongols, in fact, contained a specific program for the upcoming scientific research.
Portion of criticism of "Mongolian views" M.N. Pokrovsky was also in the article by A.N. Nasonov “The Tatar yoke in the coverage of M.N. Pokrovsky” in the well-known collection “Against the anti-Marxist concept of M.N. Pokrovsky. True, the author used this "tribune" to a greater extent to present his own concept of Russian-Horde relations. This was also emphasized by A.N. Nasonov. “Turning to the criticism of the views of M.N. Pokrovsky,” he wrote, “let us note that our task will be not so much to evaluate the works of Pokrovsky in order to determine the place he occupies in our historiography, but to test his views on concrete historical material.”
A little later, the concept of A.N. Nasonov will be issued already in the form of the book "Mongols and Russia". The work of A.N. Nasonov will become a milestone for the Soviet historiography of the "Mongolian question".
Anticipating his own formulation of the question, he not only criticizes, but, based on the socio-political conditions of his time, explains the reasons for the "general assessment of the significance of the Tatar yoke in Russia" of his predecessors. “Apparently,” he believes, “in the pre-revolutionary situation, the idea of the active policy of the Russian princes in the Horde was more easily perceived than the idea of the active policy of the Tatars in Russia, even by those historians who attached great importance to the Tatar yoke. Modern historians XIX - early XX century. Russia was a state with the class of the Great Russian center dominating over other peoples of the East European Plain. To a certain extent, they unwittingly transferred the idea of contemporary Russia to the old days. They willingly discussed the results of the policy of the Russian princes in the Horde, but the question of the Tatars in Russia was not studied or touched upon in passing. In most cases, they were of the opinion that the passive behavior of the Mongols contributed to the process of the state unification of Russia.
His reasoning about the influence of social conditions on the formation of "pre-revolutionary" concepts of Russian-Horde relations can be fully applied to the ideological origin of his own concept. Firstly, despite the fact that “the problem of studying the history of the Tatar policy in Russia is posed” by him “for the first time”, “the formulation of such a problem follows from the indications of the “traditional policy of the Tatars”” given by K. Marx in the book “The Secret History of Diplomacy XVIII century". This is the first impetus for subsequent constructions. Secondly, the ideological essence of A.N. Nasonov is explained by the social conditions of the time, of which he was a contemporary. “We prove,” he says, “that the Mongols pursued an active policy and the main line of this policy was expressed not in the desire to create a single state from a politically fragmented society, but in the desire to prevent consolidation in every possible way, to support the mutual strife of individual political groups and principalities. Such a conclusion suggests that a single "Great Russian" state, as we see it in the 17th century, was formed in the process of fighting the Tatars, that is, in the 15th-16th centuries, partly in the second half of the 16th century, when the struggle was possible according to the state of the Golden Horde itself. Consequently, “the formation of a centralized state was, therefore, by no means as a result of the peaceful activities of the Mongols-conquerors, but as a result of the struggle against the Mongols, when the struggle became possible, when the Golden Horde began to weaken and decay, and a popular movement arose in the Russian Northeast for the unification of Russia and for the overthrow of the Tatar rule.
Having analyzed a large number of Russian (mainly annals) and eastern (in translation) sources, A.N. Nasonov came to the following specific conclusions: 1) the internal political life of Russia in the second half of the 13th - early 15th centuries. decisively depended on the state of affairs in the Horde; the changes that took place in the Horde certainly entailed a new situation in Russia; 2) the Mongol khans constantly manipulated the Russian princes; 3) popular uprisings took place against the Mongols, but they were suppressed.
Book by A.N. Nasonova became the first monograph in Russian historiography entirely devoted to the topic "Russia and the Mongols", and most of her conclusions became the basis for the subsequent development of the problem. Moreover, it can be said that it still remains in this “role”: many (if not most) of its provisions are accepted as axioms in modern historiography. Therefore, thanks to the work of B.D. Grekov and A.Yu. Yakubovsky and the monograph by A.N. Nasonova, first of all, "Soviet historiography of the 30s - early 40s developed ... a unified scientifically based view of the consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion as a terrible disaster for the Russian people, which for a long time delayed the economic, political and cultural development of Russia" ; this was also due to the fact that for many decades a regime of “systematic terror” was established in Russia, wrote A.A. Zimin, fully accepting the scheme of A.N. Nasonov. Thus, as A.A. Zimin, "the study of the struggle of the Russian people against the Tatar-Mongolian enslavers is one of the important tasks of Soviet historical science."
An example of solving this problem is the fundamental work of L.V. Tcherepnin, Formation of the Russian Centralized State. In the chapters on social political history medieval Russia, its history is closely intertwined with the Horde theme. Peru L.V. Cherepnin also wrote an article about the initial period (XIII century) of Mongol dependence in Russia.
“Having suppressed the courageous and stubborn resistance of the peoples, the Mongol-Tatar invaders established their dominance over the Russian land, which had a detrimental effect on its further destinies". AT general view the researcher formulates the question of this “perniciousness” as follows: “the Mongol invasion of Russia is not a single fact, but a continuous long process that led the country to exhaustion, causing it to lag behind a number of other European countries that developed in more favorable conditions.” Already in the XIII century. the "Russian" policy of the Mongol khans is revealed, "aimed at inciting inter-princely strife, strife, internal wars." Although the Horde did not break (“could not break”) the “political orders” that existed in Russia, it sought to put them “at its service, using the Russian princes, who seemed reliable to them, exterminating the unreliable and all the time pushing the princes against each other to prevent anyone from gaining strength and to keep everyone in fear.
However, “the Horde khans acted not only in intimidation. They tried to rely on certain social forces; gifts, benefits, privileges to attract a part of the princes, boyars, clergy. This, according to L.V. Cherepnin, played a certain role: “some representatives of the ruling class went over to the service of the conquerors, helping to strengthen their dominion. But not everyone did so. And among the feudal elite - princes, boyars, clerics - there were enough people who resisted the foreign yoke. But they did not determine the "mode" of the fight against the enemy. “The active force in the fight against the Mongol-Tatar oppression was the masses. Throughout the thirteenth century there was a national liberation movement, anti-Tatar uprisings broke out, ”representing, however, not“ organized armed resistance ”(which will happen only by the end of the 14th century), but“ separate spontaneous disparate performances ”.
This is how an authoritative researcher of the 13th century sees it. How much has changed in the XIV century.? The events of the century in relation to Russian-Mongolian relations are presented (and rightly so!) by L.V. Cherepnin is ambiguous. Before us is a detailed picture of that complex and dramatic era.
However, the first decades of the XIV century. not much different from the last 13th century. The scientist writes: “In the first quarter of the XIV century. the Tatar-Mongolian yoke weighed heavily on Russia. Fighting for political primacy in Russia, individual Russian princes did not oppose the Golden Horde, but acted as executors of the Khan's will. As soon as they stopped doing this, the Horde dealt with them. The struggle against the Horde was waged by the people themselves in the form of spontaneous uprisings, which arose mainly in the cities. The princes had not yet tried to lead the liberation movement of the townspeople. For this, they did not yet have the proper material prerequisites and forces. But the support of the cities to a large extent determined the success of certain princes in the political struggle with each other.
The same processes remained dominant during the time of Ivan Kalita. So, the uprising in Tver in 1327 was raised "by the people themselves, contrary to the instructions of the prince of Tver ...". In general, “under Kalita, the Russian feudal lords not only made no attempt to overthrow the Tatar-Mongol yoke (the time had not yet come for this), but this prince brutally suppressed those spontaneous popular movements that undermined the foundations of the Horde’s rule over Russia.”
Some changes are observed in the following decades. In the 1940s and 1950s, while still recognizing the supreme power and regularly paying the “exit”, the princes achieved “non-interference of the Horde Khan in the internal affairs of their possessions”. Thanks to this, these years become a time of "a certain strengthening of the independence of a number of Russian lands." This, as well as the internal struggle in the Golden Horde itself, lead to the fact that in the 60-70s of the XIV century. there is a "gradual weakening of the power of the Golden Horde over Russia." However, since the turn of the 60-70s of the XIV century. in connection with the intensified Tatar raids, “the resistance of the Russian people to the Horde invaders also intensified”, and the “Nizhny Novgorod Principality” becomes the “center of the national liberation struggle”. Ultimately, this "rise" led to "a decisive battle" on the Kulikovo field. Assessing the reign of Dmitry Donskoy L.V. Cherepnin writes about the "significant activation foreign policy Russia": if earlier the Russian princes ensured the security of their possessions by paying tribute to the khans, then "now they are already organizing a military rebuff to the Horde force." Dmitry Donskoy "tried to achieve" silence "for Russia, not only with the people's ruble, but also with the sword." Having “elevated” this prince in this way, L.V. Cherepnin hurries to make a reservation right there: “However, before Dm. Donskoy raised this sword, the Russian people have already risen to fight the Tatar yoke. And yet, "Prince Dmitry more consistently than his predecessors supported an alliance with the townspeople", which was due to the growth of their importance, primarily in socio-economic development. Dmitry Donskoy "objectively", thus, contributed to the rise of the people's liberation movement.
In the studies of L.V. Cherepnin devoted to the period of Horde dependence, a number of thoughts are clearly visible that develop the views of his predecessors. The first is princely-khan relations, mainly dependent on the khan's will and, in general, on the events taking place in the Horde. The second is an emphasis in relation to the Mongols of a deep class abyss between the princes (and other feudal lords) and the people. At the same time, certain successes in the inter-princely struggle depended on the latter, mainly on the townspeople. Of course, specific situations in one way or another changed the alignment of the noted parties, but always, according to L.V. Cherepnin, their original opposition was preserved: the prince - the khans, the feudal lords - the people (townspeople) and, of course, Russia - the Horde. At the same time, it is necessary to note a certain research flexibility, which allows the scientist in his conceptual scheme of events to take into account data that, at first glance, contradict the main trend of research (which, however, remains unchanged).
This distinguishes the works of L.V. Cherepnin from the somewhat straightforward conclusions of other Russian historians, whose works were contemporary with them or were published in subsequent years. So, I.U. Budovnits wrote the following very emotionally: “... In the most terrible decades of the Tatar yoke, which came after the bloody pogrom of Batu, the preaching of servitude, servility and groveling before the carriers of foreign oppression emanating from the clergy and the ruling feudal class, the people managed to oppose their fighting ideology based on intransigence towards the invaders, on contempt for death, on the readiness to sacrifice one's life in order to free the country from the foreign yoke.
Having considered the historiographical situation in the “Mongolian question” that had developed by the mid-1960s, V.V. Kargalov came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a "special study" specifically about the period of the Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia. These were the chapters of thematically and chronologically more general of his work.
The main goal of V.V. Kargalov is to maximize the "field" of the problem within the 13th century: chronologically, territorially, and finally, socially. As for the first task, “the consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia are considered not as the result of Batu’s campaign alone, but as a consequence of a whole series of Tatar invasions that lasted several decades (starting with the Batu pogrom).” In general, it seems that it is true and justified: the Mongol detachments still repeatedly appear in Russia. But V.V. Kargalov is a priori interested in only one aspect: "This formulation of the question makes it possible to more fully imagine the devastating consequences of the Mongol-Tatar conquest."
Expanding the "territorial field", V.V. Kargalov also contributes. If “the question of the consequences of the invasion for the Russian city,” he believes, “is well developed by Soviet historians,” then “the situation is somewhat worse with the study of the consequences of the invasion for the rural areas of feudal Russia. Having studied the written and archaeological data, V.V. Kargalov came to the conclusion that both the cities and the "productive forces of the Russian feudal village" were "dealt a terrible blow" by the Mongol invasion.
How did the population of the Russian lands react to these disasters: the nobility and the people? V.V. Kargalov continues the practice of their "bifurcation", outlined in previous works. The “policy of agreement” of the Tatars with the “local feudal lords”, “cooperation of the Tatar feudal lords”, their “union” among themselves, at best, “a certain compromise” - such is the picture of Russian-Mongolian relations in the second half of the 13th century. at the level of "feudalism" of two ethnic groups.
But unlike his predecessors, V.V. Kargalov proposes to consider this “compromising policy” of the Russian princes not locally (both in relation to individual princes and other “feudal lords” of certain Russian lands), but extends such conclusions to “Russian spiritual and secular feudal lords” as a whole. “The Russian feudal lords,” he concludes, “quickly came to an agreement with the Horde khans and, recognizing the supreme power of the khan, retained their “tables” and power over the oppressed classes.”
The attitude towards the Horde people was different. “The policy of cooperation with the Mongol-Tatar conquerors, which was pursued by a significant part of the Russian feudal lords, was opposed by the masses with an irreconcilable attitude towards the rapists. Despite the terrible consequences of the "Batu pogrom" and the policy of their own feudal lords, who conspired with the Horde khans, the Russian people continued to fight against the foreign yoke.
This alignment of social forces has led to at least two consequences. The first was that "anti-Tatar and anti-feudal motives were closely intertwined in the speeches of the lower classes." The second is that it is precisely “the struggle of the Russian people against the foreign yoke ... North-Eastern Russia owes its special position in relation to the Horde Khan. Not the "wise policy" of the Russian princes, but the struggle of the masses against the Mongol conquerors, led to the elimination of "besermenstvo" and "Basqueism", to the expulsion of numerous "tsarist ambassadors" from Russian cities, to the fact that Russia did not turn into a simple "ulus" of Golden Hordes. Under the oppressive foreign yoke, the Russian people managed to preserve the conditions for their independent national development. This is one main conclusion of the work of V.V. Kargalov. Another sums up the invasion. “The study of the history of Russia after the Mongol-Tatar invasion inevitably leads to the conclusion about the negative, deeply regressive influence of foreign conquest on the economic, political and cultural development of the country. The consequences of the Mongol-Tatar yoke were felt for several centuries. It was this that was the main reason for Russia's lagging behind the developed European countries, the elimination of which required the titanic efforts of the industrious and talented Russian people.
The work of V.V. Kargalov is a new milestone in the development of the national historiography of the "Mongolian question". She very clearly pointed out the main plots of Russian-Horde relations in the 13th century. and their perspective. Between Russia and the Horde there was an armed tough confrontation, between the princes (and other "feudal lords") and the people - irreconcilable class contradictions. At the same time, another aspect of the problem is the preservation of a certain (within the framework of feudal development) political independence of the Russian lands.
We see the development of this kind of research trends in the monograph by V.L. Egorova. Its main task is to study the historical geography of the Golden Horde in the XIII-XIV centuries. - is closely linked, in particular, with the military-political relations of Russia and the Horde. Along with the confirmation of a number of provisions already established in Russian historiography, for example, about “the undivided power of the Mongols and the absence of active resistance from the Russian princes” in the period up to 1312 or that the period of 1359-1380. "characterized by a steady increase in the military and economic power of the Russian lands", the author puts some questions in a new way or emphasizes well-known ones more.
First, we see a clear division of "the main stages of the Mongolian policy in Russia." Secondly, it seems important to us the assertion that this policy "was not connected with the seizure and exclusion of new land territories." The Russian lands, therefore, according to the reasonable opinion of the researcher, were not included in the actual territory of the Golden Horde. And in the same connection is the concept of "buffer zones" introduced by him into scientific circulation, "limiting the Russian borders from the south." Finally, thirdly, emphasizing that the main goal of the Horde's policy "was to obtain the greatest possible tribute", and the Russian lands were "in the position of semi-dependent territories subject to tribute." At the same time, this status not only did not interfere, but, on the contrary, stimulated the military dictate of the Mongol khans over Russia. Therefore, "throughout the entire existence of the Golden Horde, the Russian principalities were forcibly drawn into the orbit of the political and economic interests of the Mongols."
The results of the consideration in the latest domestic historiography of the "Mongolian question" were summed up in the article by A.L. Khoroshkevich and A.I. Pliguzov, anticipating the book of J. Fennel about Russia 1200-1304. “The question of the impact of the Mongol invasion on the development of Russian society is one of the most difficult in the history of Russia. The extreme lack of sources makes it difficult to answer it, so it becomes quite possible for the appearance of such works in which any impact of the invasion on the development of Russia is denied. Most historians, however, are of the opinion that the foreign yoke delayed the economic, social and political development of Russia, the completion of the formation of feudalism, reviving the archaic forms of exploitation.
Along with such a conclusion, which, however, does not contain any innovations, the authors propose the formulation of some relevant problems that they consider to be relevant. Without a doubt, they are such and are both for solving private and general issues Russian-Horde relations. But at the same time, we note that the “Mongolian question” as a whole is far from being resolved in principle. By no means do not seem frivolous and unscientific concepts, which before, having criticized, it was possible, simply speaking, to brush aside, citing their scientific inconsistency. In our historiography in such an unenviable role for a long time was the concept of L.N. Gumilyov.
The relationship between Russia and the Mongols is considered by L.N. Gumilyov against a broad background of foreign policy, largely based on the ethnic and confessional relations of that time. The invasion of Batu's troops for the scientist is not some kind of turning point in the history of Russia. It was a "Mongol raid", or "a big raid, not a planned conquest, for which the entire Mongol Empire would not have had enough people"; it "in terms of the scale of the destruction produced is comparable to the internecine war, common for that turbulent time." “The Grand Duchy of Vladimir, which let the Tatar army through its lands, retained its military potential,” and “the destruction caused by the war” is “exaggerated.”
Subsequently, "in Great Russia they agreed that the Russian land became the land of "Kanovi and Batyeva", that is, they recognized the suzerainty of the Mongol Khan." This situation suited both the Mongols and the Russians, since "it was justified by the foreign political situation." What was "suzerainty" for Russia? “... The Mongols, neither in Russia, nor in Poland, nor in Hungary, did not leave garrisons, did not impose a constant tax on the population, did not conclude unequal treaties with the princes. Therefore, the expression "a conquered but not conquered country" is completely wrong. The conquest did not take place, because it was not planned”; "Russia was neither subjugated nor conquered by the Mongols", and "Russian land became part of the Dzhuchiev ulus, without losing autonomy ...". “This system of Russian-Tatar relations that existed before 1312 should be called a symbiosis. And then everything changed ... ". The changes occurred as a result of the adoption of Islam by the Golden Horde, which L.N. Gumilyov calls "the victory of the neighboring Muslim super-ethnos, which in 1312 took possession of the Volga and Black Sea regions." “Great Russia, in order not to perish, was forced to become a military camp, and the former symbiosis with the Tatars turned into a military alliance with the Horde, which lasted more than half a century - from Uzbek to Mamai.” Its political essence was that the Russian princes “demanded and received military assistance against the West (Lithuania and the Germans. - for the tribute they paid) against the West (Lithuania and the Germans. - Yu.K.) and had a strong barrier that protected them from impending strikes from the East.
The subsequent confluence of circumstances (internal and external) has already made it possible to lay the "foundation of the future greatness of Russia."
The concept of "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe" L.N. Gumilyov in many ways goes back to the idea of "Eurasianism" and its specific historical development, primarily in the works of G.V. Vernadsky. (L.N. Gumilyov, as is well known, used to call himself “the last Eurasian”.) “Eurasianism” now, in contrast to past decades, is actively present in Russian social and scientific thought. He is "opposed" by the concept of Russian-Mongolian relations, formed by our historical science in the late 30s - 60s-70s. How significant are the differences between these concepts? If you pay attention to the details, then, of course, there will be a lot of inconsistencies and disagreements. And if you look more broadly and voluminously?
Both concepts recognize, to one degree or another, the dependence of Russia on the Mongols, which is obvious. But the "Eurasian" view assumes the status of Russian lands as a "Russian ulus", i.e. their entry into the main territory of the Golden Horde. However, no "stagnation" in the internal life of Russia came from this. Moreover, she enriched herself with many acquisitions in various fields social, political, cultural and even ethnic life.
Most domestic historians believed and still believe that Russia, as a territory and society, did not become the territory of the "Juchi Ulus". As noted by V.L. Egorov, between the "indigenous" lands of North-Eastern Russia and the Golden Horde, there were so-called "buffer zones", in fact delimiting the Russian and Mongolian areas. But at the same time, this did not alleviate the situation of Russia. Russia found itself under the heavy Horde "yoke", which lasted almost two and a half centuries. The "yoke" threw the country, which was in line with the all-European development, for several centuries, causing its backwardness and specificity in the future. These are the positions of the currently opposing historiographic parties in the "Mongolian question".
It seems to us that, despite the external antagonism, there are no insurmountable obstacles between them. But for this it is necessary to somewhat soften their provisions regarding the internal state and development of Russia "under the yoke". There is no doubt that assessments of relations as “friendly” or “benevolent” did not correspond to reality. There was a confrontation between two ethno-social systems (although, perhaps, they were close in their basis), and the confrontation was tough. On the other hand, we believe that the view of Russian-Horde relations as a "total" subordination of Russia to the Horde, expressed in the form of constant "terror" in relation to the population and the prince, is at least somewhat exaggerated.
This is not about defending the Mongol-Tatar policy in Russia, we are not striving for any kind of apologetics for the Mongol-Tatars. (It seems that the history of any ethnic group does not need protection and patronage, because in the history of all peoples there is positive and negative, "black" and "white", if the question can be put that way at all.) We are talking about creating the most complete picture of Russian - Horde relations, complete and balanced, without ideological and other distortions in one direction or another. We are also talking about an attempt to explain some (all, apparently, fail) elements of relations (their origins, causes), which do not always fit into the rationalistic schemes that are familiar to us. Religious ideas, norms of customary law, everyday phenomena, rituals - all this (along with "classical" economic and political relations, of course) must be taken into account when studying Russian-Horde relations.
Not only economic, social and political systems, not only nomadic and sedentary worlds, but also worldview systems: ideological and mental. Without taking into account the latter, our perception of the events and phenomena of that time becomes impoverished and becomes inadequate to medieval realities.
Raids, assaults, violence clearly simplify Russian-Horde relations, as they generally simplify the internal development of Russia itself, in many ways reducing it only to the imposed influence of the Mongol-Tatar orders.
The essays proposed below are intended to show the common and the different, what connected or separated the two large social systems of the Eurasian Middle Ages. Ultimately, an attempt to move from the interpretation of Russian-Horde relations as a continuous struggle to an interpretation that involves multilateral and multi-level interaction.
Notes
. Grekov B.D., Yakubovsky A.Yu. 1) The Golden Horde (Essay on the history of the Ulus Ju-chi in the period of formation and prosperity in the XIII-XIV centuries). L., 1937. S. 3-10, 193-202; 2) The Golden Horde and its fall. M.; L., 1950. S. 5-12; Nasonov A.N. The Tatar yoke in the coverage of M.N. Pokrovsky // Against the anti-Marxist concept of M.N. Pokrovsky. Part 2. M.; L., 1940; Yakubovsky A.Yu. From the history of the study of the Mongols in Russia // Essays on the history of Russian oriental studies. M., 1953. S. 31-95; Safargaliev M.G. The collapse of the Golden Horde. Saransk, 1960. S. 3-18; Cherepnin L.V. Formation of the Russian centralized state in the XIV-XV centuries. Essays on the socio-economic and political history of Russia. M., 1960 (Chapter 1. Historiography of the issue of the formation of the Russian centralized state); Kargalov V.V. Foreign policy factors in the development of feudal Russia: Feudal Russia and nomads. M., 1967. S. 218-255; Fedorov-Davydov G.A. Social structure of the Golden Horde. M., 1973. S. 18-25; Borisov N.S. Domestic historiography on the impact of the Tatar-Mongol invasion on Russian culture // Problems of the history of the USSR. Issue. V. M., 1976. S. 129-148; Grekov I.B. Location of the Battle of Kulikovo political life Eastern Europe at the end of the 14th century. // Battle of Kulikovo. M., 1980. S. 113-118; Arapov D.Yu. Russian Oriental Studies and the Study of the History of the Golden Horde // Battle of Kulikovo in the history and culture of our Motherland. M., 1983. S. 70-77; Arslanova A.A. From the history of the study of the Golden Horde according to the data Persian sources XIII - the first half of the XV centuries. in Russian historiography // Problems of socio-economic development of the village of the Middle Volga region during the period of feudalism. Kazan, 1986. S. 11-130; Tolochko P.P. Ancient Russia. Essays on socio-political history. Kyiv, 1987. S. 165-167; Gorsky A.A. Russian lands in the XIII-XV centuries. Ways of political development. M., 1996. S. 56-57, 107-108; Chukaeea V.A. Russian principalities and the Golden Horde. 1243-1350 Dnepropetrovsk, 1998. S. 4-19.
Cm.: Borisov N.S. Domestic historiography ... S. 140-143; Kargalov V.V. Foreign Policy Factors... S. 253-255.
Cm.: Rudakov V.N. Perception of the Mongol-Tatars in the annalistic stories about the invasion of Batu // Hermeneutics of Old Russian Literature. Sat. 10. M., 2000, etc. Of course, it is necessary to take into account the later editorial processing of the “scribes” ( Prokhorov G.M. 1) Codicological analysis of the Laurentian Chronicle // VID. L., 1972; 2) The story of the Batu invasion in the Laurentian Chronicle // TODRL. T. 28. 1974).
. Stennik Yu.V. On the Origins of Slavophilism in Russian Literature of the 18th Century // Slavophilism and Modernity. SPb., 1994. S. 17, 19, 20; Poznansky V.V. Essay on the formation of Russian national culture: The first half of the 19th century. M., 1975. S. 8 and others.
. Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State in 12 volumes. T. V. M., 1992. S. 205.
There. T. II-III. M., 1991. S. 462.
There. T. V. C. 201, 202, 208. See also: Borisov N.S. Domestic historiography ... S. 130-132.
There. S. 132.
. Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State in 12 volumes. T. II-III. S. 751; T. IV. M., 1992. S. 423.
Cit. on: Golman M.I. Study of the history of Mongolia in the West (XIII - mid-XX centuries). M., 1988. S. 40.
There. - Another prominent French Orientalist of the early 19th century became his successor. D "Osson, who published in 1824 in 4 volumes "The History of the Mongols from Genghis Khan to Timur Bek." M.I. Golman believes that he "managed to recreate a broad picture of the Mongol conquests and, most importantly, correctly assess them devastating consequences for the peoples of Asia and Eastern Europe "; as de Guigne's work for the 18th century, the work of D" Osson was "the most significant in Western European historiography on the history of Mongolia in the 19th century. and has not lost its scientific significance in the 20th century. (Ibid., pp. 42-43). A look at the Mongols of the 13th century. as conquerors who caused enormous destruction in the countries they conquered, was accepted by bourgeois science when this science was on the rise "( Yakubovsky A.Yu. From the history of the study of the Mongols ... S. 33). Compare: "After D" Osson, historians, so to speak, vulgarized a negative attitude towards the Mongols and Genghisides "( Kozmin N.N. Preface // D "Osson K. History of the Mongols. T. 1. Genghis Khan. Irkutsk, 1937. C.XXVII-XXVIII).
History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. T. 2. 1803-1917. M.; L., 1964. S. 189.
About H.D. Frenet see: Saveliev P. On the life and scientific works of Fren. SPb., 1855.
. Golman M.I. Studying the history of Mongolia ... S. 143, approx. 57. - D.Yu. Arapov ( Arapov D.Yu. Russian oriental studies and the study of the history of the Golden Horde. S. 70). See also: Gumilyov L.N. Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe. M., 1989. S. 602-604; Kozhinov V.V. Mysterious pages of the history of the XX century. M., 1995. S. 229, 231-232.
. Yakubovsky A.Yu. From the history of the study of the Mongols ... S. 39.
Collection of acts of the solemn meeting of the Academy of Sciences, which was on the occasion of its 100th anniversary of its existence on December 29, 1826. St. Petersburg, 1827. S. 52-53. - About the prehistory of setting the task and the results of the competition, see: Tizengauzen V.G. Collection of materials relating to the history of the Golden Horde. SPb., 1884. T. 1. S. V-VI; Safargaliev M.G. The collapse of the Golden Horde. pp. 3-6.
. Tizengauzen V.G. Collection of materials relating to the history of the Golden Horde. T. 1. S. 555-563.
There. S. 555.
There. pp. 556-557.
. "The views of H. Fren were then dominant in historical science" ( Yakubovsky A.Yu. From the history of the study of the Mongols ... S. 39). - It is hardly appropriate to say that in the "Program" compiled by H.D. Fren, "did not take into account the problem of classes and the class struggle, did not attach paramount importance to the study of the socio-economic foundations of the Golden Horde state" ( Arapov D.Yu. Russian Oriental Studies ... S. 72).
. Richter A. Something about the influence of the Mongols and Tatars on Russia. SPb., 1822. See also: Naumov P. On the relationship of Russian princes to the Mongol and Tatar khans from 1224 to 1480. St. Petersburg, 1823; Bernhof A. Russia under the yoke of the Tatars. Riga, 1830; Kartamyshev A. On the significance of the Mongolian period in Russian history. Odessa, 1847.
. A.R. Research on the influence of the Mongol-Tatars on Russia // Otechestvennye zapiski. 1825, June; Prandunas G. The reasons for the fall of Russia under the yoke of the Tatars and the gradual restoration of autocracy in it // Bulletin of Europe. 1827. Ch. 155. No. 14; [N. W.] On the state of Russia before the invasion of the Mongols (excerpt) // Son of the Fatherland. 1831. V. 22. No. 33-34; [M.P.] Reasoning about the reasons that slowed down civil education in the Russian state to Peter the Great, essay by M. Gastev. M., 1832 // Telescope. 1832. No. 12; Fisher A. Speech delivered at the solemn meeting of St. Petersburg University by Ordinary Professor of Philosophy A. Fisher, September 20, 1834 // ZhMNP. 1835.4.5. No. 1.
. Gastev M. Reasoning about the reasons that slowed down civil education in the Russian state. M., 1832. S. 131.
. Polevoy N.A. History of the Russian people. SPb., 1833. T. 4. S. 9; T. 5. S. 22-23 and others; Ustryalov N.G. Russian history. Part 1. St. Petersburg, 1855. S. 185, 187-193.
Although it is possible to assume that his view was “a reaction to the exaggeration of the role of the Tatar yoke in Russian history” (Russian history in essays and articles / Edited by M.V. Dovnar-Zapolsky. T. I. B. m., 6. g. S. 589).
. Soloviev S.M. Op. in 18 books. Book. I. History of Russia since ancient times. T. 1-2.M., 1988. S. 53.
There. S. 54.
The concept of the "Mongolian question" S.M. Solovyov was not accepted by Soviet historical science and was sharply criticized. So, N.S. Borisov wrote that in his works “the significance of the Tatar invasion is extremely underestimated, even the very term “Mongolian period” is discarded. In his multi-volume "History of Russia" Batu's invasion occupies only four pages, and about the same - a description of the customs of the Tatars "( Borisov N.S. Domestic historiography ... S. 135).
. Kononov A.N. Some questions of studying the history of domestic oriental studies. M., 1960. S. 3; Golman M.I. The study of the history of Mongolia ... S. 54. - On the subsequent development of Mongolian studies in Russia, see p. 108-118.
. Tizengauzen V.G. Collection of materials relating to the history of the Golden Horde. T. 1. S. IX.
There. S. V. Cf.: “The merits of that generation of Orientalists to which Berezin belongs are determined not so much by the fulfillment as by the setting of scientific tasks, and in this regard, a scientist who understood that “Russian Orientalists have the duty of explaining” the Mongolian period of Russian history, and not only in word, but also in deed, he who has proved the consciousness of this duty ... has the full right to the gratitude of posterity ”( Bartold V.V. Op. T. IX. M., 1977. S. 756).
. Kostomarov N.I. The beginning of autocracy in ancient Russia // Kostomarov N.I. Sobr. op. Historical monographs and researches. Book. 5. T. XII-XIV. SPb., 1905. S. 5.
. Nasonov A.N. The Tatar yoke in the coverage of M.N. Pokrovsky. S. 61.
. Kostomarov N.I. The beginning of autocracy in ancient Russia. S. 47.
There. S. 43.
. Platonov S.F. Op. in 2 vols. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1993. S. 135-139. - A brief description of other points of view of Russian historiography of the second half of XIX- the beginning of the XX century. see: Russian history in essays and articles. pp. 589-590. - Reassessment of the "Mongolian heritage" at the end of the 19th century. took place in Western historiography. “In bourgeois historical science, at that time, a revision of views on the past began, including the question of the role of the Mongol conquest. More and more voices began to be heard that previous historians had incorrectly assessed the role of the Mongols and the Mongol conquest in the history of mankind, that it was high time to reassess the previous views in this area, that the Mongols were not at all such destroyers as they thought before, and that, on the contrary, , they brought a lot of positive things into the life of the conquered peoples and countries. This change of progressive views in the field of assessing the Mongol conquests by reactionary ones captured even the most serious representatives of bourgeois historiography. late XIX and XX centuries. ”, - this is how he described from the position of the beginning of the 50s of the XX century. a revolution in the views on the "Mongolian problem" A.Yu. Yakubovsky ( Yakubovsky A.Yu. From the history of the study of the Mongols ... S. 64. See also: Golman M.I. The study of the history of Mongolia ... S. 44, 52).
The problems of the Tatar-Mongol yoke in Russian historical literature have caused and continue to cause different assessments and points of view.
Even N. M. Karamzin noted that the Tatar-Mongol domination in Russia had one important positive consequence - it accelerated the unification of Russian lands and the revival of a single Russian state. This gave reason to some later historians to speak of the positive meaning of the yoke.
Another point of view was that the Mongol-Tatar domination had extremely difficult consequences for Russia, as it threw it back in development to 250
years. This approach provided an explanation for all subsequent problems in the development of Russia.
The third point of view is presented in the works of some modern historians, who say that the Tatar-Mongol yoke did not exist at all. They believe that the relationship of the Russian principalities with the Golden Horde was more like an allied relationship: Russia paid tribute (and its size was not so great), and the Horde in return ensured the security of the borders of the weakened and scattered Russian principalities.
It seems that each of these points of view covers only part of the
Problems.
The concepts of “invasion” and “yoke” should be separated: in the first case, we are talking about the Batu invasion that ruined Russia, and those actions of intimidation that the khans from time to time undertook against recalcitrant princes; in the second - about the very system of relations between the Russian and Horde authorities and territories.
The Russian lands were considered in the Horde as part of their own territory, which had a certain degree of independence.
Russia was deprived of its former independence: the princes could rule only after receiving a "label" for reigning; the khans encouraged numerous conflicts and strife between the princes; in an effort to get these "labels", the princes were ready to take any steps, which gradually changed the very atmosphere in the power structures of the Russian lands (preserved even after the fall of the yoke); the principalities were obliged to pay a rather significant tribute to the Horde (even those lands that were not captured by the Horde paid it); many cities were ruined and no longer restored; in preparation for new campaigns, the khans demanded from the Russian princes not only new money, but also soldiers; finally, the "living goods" from the Russian lands were a valuable commodity in the slave markets of the Horde.
At the same time, the khans did not encroach on the position of the church - they, unlike the German order knights, did not prevent the subject population from believing in those gods to which they were accustomed. This made it possible to preserve, despite the most difficult conditions of foreign domination, national customs, traditions, and mentality.
The economic development of the Russian lands after the period of complete destruction of the middle of the century recovered quite quickly, and from the beginning XIV in. began to develop rapidly. From the same time, stone construction in cities was revived, and the restoration of temples and fortresses destroyed during the invasion began. An established and fixed tribute was soon no longer a heavy burden for the producer. And since the time of Ivan Kalita, a significant part of the collected funds began to be left for the internal needs of the Russian lands themselves.
After the first persecutions associated with resistance to the invaders, the Russian Orthodox Church was forced to act in the new conditions. Its shepherds strove to preserve among the people those traditional features, without which they would have lost their appearance. As the state accumulated strength, the voice of the church sounded more weighty. The transfer of the center of Russian Orthodoxy to Moscow in many ways made it the spiritual capital of all Russian lands.
Sections: History and social studies
Class - 10.
The duration of the lesson-game is 90 minutes.
Target: determine the consequences of the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars on the further development of Russia on the basis of historical facts and arguments independently identified by students.
- development of skills for conducting discussions and dialogues;
- improve skills independent work searching for additional information;
- formation of work skills in the form of interactive classes;
- stimulating the skills and abilities of the manifestation of creativity and creativity among students;
- develop the skills to apply knowledge in non-standard situations.
Advance task:
- Distribution of roles.
- Search for additional information on a given topic.
- Distribution of roles at the request of students.
Expected results:
- improving the quality of students' knowledge through non-traditional classes;
– increased interest in the study of activities historical events and personalities;
- manifestation individual abilities students.
- group of students № 1, determining the negative impact of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on the development of Russia.
- group of students № 2, determining the positive impact of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on the development of Russia.
- Group of Historians Experts № 3.
Equipment:
- Design of the board: the topic of the lesson, goals, sheets for generalization, criteria for evaluating the work of groups.
– Multimedia installation for electronic presentation.
There are tables in the classroom, chairs opposite each other, in the middle there is a table for experts (school teachers). Experts work according to the table for estimating the work of groups (see Appendix).
During the classes
1. opening speech teachers. - 3 minutes.
2. Email presentation on this topic - 10 minutes.
The floor is given to the group № 1 with arguments about negative consequences Mongol-Tatar yoke for Russia - 10 minutes.
Discussion of the presented material of the groups #1 and #2(with questions to opponents) - 20 minutes.
Experts' word 7 minutes.
3. Consolidation of the studied material – 7 minutes.
3.1. After the “hearings” procedure, the teacher TOGETHER with the students on the board draw up a table (cluster) to highlight the arguments on the problem raised - 5 minutes.
The consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion for Russia.
| Negative consequences. | positive factors. |
| The looting of Russian cities and towns. | They treated the Orthodox Church with respect. |
| Ties with Byzantium were destroyed. | There was a hemorrhage. |
| Huge number of human casualties. | They adopted some cultural achievements in the national culture. |
| The population was taken away in full, captivity. | Chronicles and epics were created - cultural continuity. |
| Russia significantly slowed down its development, for several decades thrown back. | Influenced the strengthening of Russian troops, squads. |
| “Conservation” of commodity-money relations. | Strengthened fortitude and Russian character. |
| There were constant pogroms, destruction, arson, there was a constant threat of attack. | Accelerated the process of unification of Russia. |
| A serious blow was dealt to cultural values, the heritage of Russian culture. | Enrichment of the Russian language - replenishment with new words. |
| Constant requisitions were made, the Russian principalities paid huge amounts of tribute. | The rise of the Moscow principality. |
| Reducing the population of the country. | |
| ADD (students). | ADD (students). |
After filling in the table and listening to all the arguments in favor of a conviction or acquittal, the “WINNING” TEAM (PARTY) receives a score of “5” (five).
Performance test items – 15 minutes.
A test to consolidate the studied material.
Option 1.
1. Which Mongol-Tatar Khan attacked Russia in 1237?
A. Mamai
B. Baty
V. Genghis Khan
G. Tokhtamysh
2. What city did the Mongol-Tatars call the "Evil City"?
A. Torzhok
B. Ryazan
V. Kozelsk
G. Vladimir
3. The main task of the Baskaks in Russia:
A. tribute collection
B. administration of Russian principalities
B. the spread of Islam in Russia
D. development of trade relations
4. The Mongol-Tatars in Russia exempted from taxes:
A. nobility
B. merchant class
V. kholopov
D. clergy
5. The collection of tribute passes to the Russian princes from:
A. 1327
B. 1374
B. 1380
G. 1241
6. In what year did Prince Dmitry stop paying tribute?
A. 1374
B. 1382
B. 1478
G. 1327
7. The battle on the Vozha River took place in:
A. 1380
B. 1377
B. 1378
G. 1365
8. Mamai's army ceased to exist on the river:
A. Drunker
B. Don
V. Vozhzhe
G. Ugre
9. The liberation of Russia from the Mongol-Tatar yoke took place under the prince:
A. Ivane III
B. Dmitry Donskoy
V. Ivan Danilovich
G. Alexandra Nevsky
10. What did the Moscow prince receive from Khan Uzbek as a reward for suppressing the uprising in Tver?
A. Tver and Novgorod
B. Mozhaisk and Kolomna
V. Mozhaisk and Pereyaslavl
Novgorod and Kostroma
11. To whom did Russia pay tribute as the successor to the Golden Horde from the 2nd quarter of the 15th century?
A. Kazan Khanate
B. Big Horde
V. Nogai Horde
G. Crimean Khanate
12. Who turned to the Russian princes for help in the fight against the Mongol-Tatars?
A. Cumans
B. pechenegs
V. Byzantines
G. Huns
13. Which khan led the Mongol-Tatar army during the “standing” on the Ugra River?
A. Uzbek
B. Mamai
W. Ahmed
G. Tokhtamysh
14. The Battle of Kulikovo took place:
A. October 8, 1380
B. September 8, 1380
B. September 8, 1480
G. 26 August 1380
==============================================================================
Option 2.
1. Which khan led the army of the Mongol-Tatars in the Battle of Kulikovo?
A. Uzbek
B. Baty
V. Mamai
G. Genghis Khan
2. Which city was saved from the Mongol-Tatar attack by the beginning of the spring thaw and heavy losses in the Khan's army?
A. Novgorod
B. Smolensk
V. Chernihiv
Moscow city
3. Yam is:
A. file from the plow
B. fee to maintain the postal service
B. collection to maintain the troops
G. file from the land allotment
4. The Mongol-Tatars began the census of the population of Russia with:
A. Novgorod land
B. Kyiv Principality
V. Suzdalsky
G. Ryazansky
5. The second wave of the Mongol-Tatar invasion of the southern principalities of Russia begins in:
A. 1237
B. 1241
B. 1223
G. 1239
6. In what year did Ivan III stop paying tribute to the Horde?
A. 1478
B. 1374
B. 1480
G. 1327
7. “Standing” on the Ugra River was in:
A. 1380
B. 1237
B. 1480
G. 1378
8 Serious clashes between the Mongol-Tatars and the Russian troops (for the first time in favor of Russia, the second time in favor of the Mongol-Tatars) took place on the river:
A. Nepryadva
B. drunk
V. Vozhzha
G. Ugra
9. The metropolitan see moved from the city of Vladimir to Moscow under the prince:
A. Ivan Danilovich
B. Dmitry Donskoy
V. Ivan III
G. Daniel Alexandrovich
10. Which Mongol-Tatar Khan captured and burned Moscow in 1382?
A. Mamai
B. Uzbek
W. Ahmed
G. Tokhtamysh
11. What was the signal for the start of the battle in the Battle of Kulikovo?
A. shot
B. beep
B. duel
12. The last Mongol-Tatar Khan who tried to conquer Russia:
A. Ahmed
B. Mamai
V. Tokhtamysh
G. Begich
13. The battle on the Kalka River took place:
A. May 31, 1322
B. September 8, 1237
B. September 1, 1322
D. May 1, 1223
14. From which city did the metropolitan see move to Moscow?
A. Tver
B. Novgorod
V. Vladimir
G. Ryazan
Test answers.
OPTION 1 - 1-C, 2-C, 3-A, 4-B, 5-C, 6-B, 7-C, 8-D, 9-B, 10-A, 11-C, 12-B , 13-B, 14-B
OPTION 2 - 1-C, 2-A, 3-B, 4-B, 5-A, 6-A, 7-C, 8-C, 9-A, 10-D, 11-C, 12-C , 13-G, 14-V
The final word of the teacher, the expression of students' opinions about the lesson - 2 minutes.
Reflection.
Job check:
During the test, students critically evaluate their knowledge, replenish it and set themselves the task of further knowledge of the issue under study.
1. What were you right about? Or what facts did you name correctly?
2. What mistakes did you make?
3. What information was new to you?
4. What in the text made you question, misunderstand, desire to learn more?
5. What facts known to you from other sources would you supplement the proposed text with?
6. What conclusion can be drawn based on the analysis of the issue under study?
Application No. 1.
| Criteria for evaluating the work of groups / points | 1 group
(negative consequences) |
2 group
(positive consequences) |
Note |
| Presenting persuasive arguments for one's position - 2 points. | |||
| Knowledge of historical facts 2 points. | |||
| Knowledge of chronology 2 points. | |||
| Knowledge of historical terms on the topic - 2 points. | |||
| Eloquence - 2 points. | |||
| Independent thinking - 2 points. | |||
| Ability to generalize and draw conclusions 2 points. | |||
| Creativity - 2 points. | |||
| activity, emotional 2 points. | |||
| Discipline - 1 point. | |||
| TOTAL points. |
