The course of feudal fragmentation in the leading countries of Europe. Feudal fragmentation in Europe (IX-XI centuries)

Feudal fragmentation in Europe occurred during the early Middle Ages. The king's power became formal; he retained it only within his domain.

1. Internecine wars of feudal lords
2. What have we learned?
3. Evaluation of the report

Bonus

• Test on the topic

Relations between the king and the feudal lords during the period of fragmentation

The duties of feudal lords included military service for the benefit of the king and the state, payment of monetary contributions in a number of cases, as well as submission to the decisions of the king. However, from the 9th century onwards, the performance of these duties came to depend solely on good will vassals who often did not show it.

Causes of feudal fragmentation

The prerequisites for this process were the death of Charlemagne and the division of the possessions under his hand between his sons, who were unable to retain power.

As for the reasons feudal fragmentation countries of Europe, they consisted of weak trade ties between the lands - they could not develop in a subsistence economy. Each estate, owned by a feudal lord, fully provided itself with everything necessary - there was simply no need to go to neighbors for anything. Gradually, the estates became more and more isolated, so that each fief became almost a state.

Rice. 1. Feudal estate.

Gradually, large feudal lords, dukes and counts, ceased to reckon with the king, who often had less land and property. An expression appears that states that the king is only the first among equals.

TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this

The second reason was that each feudal lord had his own army, which meant that he did not need the king's protection. Moreover, this king called vassals under his banners when he needed protection.

Internecine wars of feudal lords

The formation of feudal relations took place in the conditions of constant wars between nobles, because whoever had the land had more power. In an effort to take away both land and peasants from each other in order to become stronger and richer, the feudal lords were in a state of permanent war. Its essence was to capture as much territory as possible and at the same time prevent another feudal lord from capturing his own.

Rice. 2. Capture of a medieval castle.

Gradually, this led to the fact that there were more and more small feudal estates - even a comic expression about land-poor nobles appeared. It was said that such a feudal lord, when he goes to bed, touches the borders of his possessions with his head and feet. And if it turns over, it could end up with a neighbor.

The results of feudal fragmentation

This was a difficult period in the history of Western Europe. On the one hand, thanks to the weakening of the power of the center, all lands began to develop, on the other hand, there were numerous negative consequences.

Thus, wanting to weaken their neighbor, each feudal lord who started an internecine war first of all burned crops and killed peasants, which did not contribute to economic growth - the estates gradually fell into disrepair. Even more sad results of feudal fragmentation in Europe were observed from the point of view of the state: the endless fragmentation of lands and civil strife weakened the country as a whole and made it easy prey.

Rice. 3. Map of Europe during the period of feudal fragmentation.

It is impossible to name the exact year when this period of European history ended, but around the 12th-13th centuries the process of centralization of states began again.

What have we learned?

What were the reasons for feudal fragmentation and what results did it lead to? What was the essence of this phenomenon, what kind of relationships connected the king and the feudal lords during this period, as well as the reasons for which internecine wars were constantly waged. The main results of this period were the economic decline of feudal estates and the weakening European countries generally.

Test on the topic

Evaluation of the report

Average rating: 4.7. Total ratings received: 165.

Ministry of Sports of the Russian Federation Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Povolzhskaya GAFKSIT"

ABSTRACT

in history

SUBJECT:Feudal fragmentation in Western

Europe

Completed:

Abdullin Nurzat Almazovich, student 4213z

Accepted:

Shabalina Yulia Vladimirovna

Kazan

1) Feudal fragmentation is a natural process.

2) Feudal fragmentation in Western Europe

a) Feudal fragmentation in England

b) Development of medieval Germany

c) The growth of Byzantine cities

d) Predatory campaign in Italy

e) Reasons for the fragmentation of Western Europe

f) War between feudal lords

g) Feudal ladder

h) Result

Introduction

As the ruling dynasty in early feudal states branched out, their territory expanded and the administrative apparatus, whose representatives exercised the power of the monarch over the local population, collecting tribute and troops, the number of contenders for central power increased, peripheral military resources increased, and the control capabilities of the center weakened. The supreme power becomes nominal, and the monarch begins to be elected by large feudal lords from among themselves, while the resources of the elected monarch, as a rule, are limited to the resources of his original principality, and he cannot pass on the supreme power by inheritance. In this situation, the rule “my vassal’s vassal is not my vassal” applies.

The first exceptions are England in the north-west of Europe (the Salisbury Oath of 1085, all feudal lords are direct vassals of the king) and Byzantium in its south-east (around the same time, Emperor Alexius I Komnenos forced the crusaders, who captured lands in the Middle East during the first crusade East, recognize vassal dependence on the empire, thereby including these lands into the empire and maintaining its unity). In these cases, all the lands of the state are divided into the domain of the monarch and the lands of his vassals, as in the next historical stage, when the supreme power is assigned to one of the princes, again begins to be inherited and the process of centralization begins (this stage is often called patrimonial monarchy).

The full development of feudalism became a prerequisite for the end of feudal fragmentation, since the overwhelming majority of the feudal stratum, its ordinary representatives, were objectively interested in having a single spokesman for their interests:

Feudal fragmentation is natural

process

In the history of the early feudal states of Europe in the X-XII centuries. are the period political fragmentation. By this time, the feudal nobility had already become a privileged group, membership to which was determined by birth. The established monopoly ownership of land by feudal lords was reflected in the rules of law. “There is no land without a lord.” The majority of peasants found themselves in personal and land dependence on the feudal lords. Having received a monopoly on land, the feudal lords also acquired significant political power: transferring part of their land to vassals, the right of legal proceedings and minting money, maintaining their own military force, etc. In accordance with the new realities, a different hierarchy of feudal society is now taking shape, which has a legal basis: “My vassal’s vassal is not my vassal.” In this way, the internal cohesion of the feudal nobility was achieved, its privileges were protected from attacks by the central government, which by this time was weakening. For example, in France until the beginning of the 12th century. the king's real power did not extend beyond the domain, which was inferior in size to the possessions of many large feudal lords. The king, in relation to his direct vassals, had only formal suzerainty, and the major lords behaved completely independently. This is how the foundations of feudal fragmentation began to take shape. It is known that in the territory that collapsed in the middle of the 9th century. During the empire of Charlemagne, three new states arose: French, German and Italian (Northern Italy), each of which became the basis of an emerging territorial-ethnic community - a nationality. Then a process of political disintegration engulfed each of these new formations. So, on the territory of the French kingdom at the end of the 9th century. there were 29 possessions, and at the end of the 10th century. - about 50. But now these were mostly not ethnic, but patrimonial-seigneurial formations

The collapse of the early feudal territorial organization of state power and the triumph of feudal fragmentation represented the completion of the process

formation of feudal relations and the flourishing of feudalism in Western Europe . In its content, this was a natural and progressive process, due to the rise of internal colonization and the expansion of the area of ​​cultivated land. Thanks to the improvement of tools, the use of animal draft power and the transition to three-field farming, land cultivation improved, industrial crops began to be cultivated - flax, hemp; new branches of agriculture appeared - viticulture, etc. As a result, peasants began to have surplus products that they could exchange for handicraft products, rather than making them themselves. The labor productivity of artisans increased, the equipment and technology of handicraft production improved. The artisan turned into a small commodity producer working for trade exchange. Ultimately, these circumstances led to the separation of crafts from agriculture, the development of commodity-money relations, trade and the emergence of a medieval city. They became centers of crafts and trade. As a rule, cities in Western Europe arose on the land of the feudal lord and therefore inevitably obeyed him. The townspeople, the majority of whom were mainly former peasants, remained in the land or personal dependence of the feudal lord. The desire of the townspeople to free themselves from such dependence led to a struggle between cities and lords for their rights and independence. This is a movement widely developed in Western Europe in the 10th-13th centuries. went down in history under the name of the “communal movement.” All rights and privileges won or acquired through ransom were included in the charter. By the end of the 13th century. many cities achieved self-government and became city-communes. Thus, about 50% of English cities had their own self-government, city council, mayor and their own court. Residents of such cities in England, Italy, France, etc. became free from feudal dependence. A runaway peasant who lived in the cities of these countries for a year and one day became free. Thus, in the 13th century. a new class appeared - the townspeople - as an independent political force with its own status, privileges and liberties: personal freedom, jurisdiction of the city court, participation in the city militia. The emergence of estates that achieved significant political and legal rights was an important step towards the formation of estate-representative monarchies in the countries of Western Europe. This became possible thanks to the strengthening of central power, first in England, then in France. The development of commodity-money relations and the involvement of the countryside in this process undermined subsistence farming and created conditions for the development of the domestic market. The feudal lords, in an effort to increase their incomes, began to transfer lands to the peasants as hereditary holdings, reduced lordly plowing, encouraged internal colonization, willingly accepted runaway peasants, settled uncultivated lands with them, and provided them with personal freedom. The estates of feudal lords were also drawn into market relations. These circumstances led to a change in the forms of feudal rent, weakening, and then the complete elimination of personal feudal dependence. This process happened quite quickly in England, France, and Italy. .

Feudal fragmentation in Western Europe

Feudal fragmentation in England

The process of feudal fragmentation in the X-XII centuries. began to develop in England. This was facilitated by the transfer by royal power to the nobility of the right to collect feudal duties from peasants and their lands. As a result of this, the feudal lord (secular or ecclesiastical) who received such a grant becomes the full owner of the land occupied by the peasants and their personal master. The feudal lords' private property grew, they became economically stronger and sought greater independence from the king. The situation changed after England was conquered by the Norman Duke William the Conqueror in 1066. As a result, the country, which was heading towards feudal fragmentation, turned into a united state with a strong monarchical power. On the European continent in this period this is the only example.

The point was that the conquerors deprived many representatives of the former nobility of their possessions, carrying out a massive confiscation of land property. The actual owner of the land became the king, who transferred part of it as fiefs to his warriors and part of the local feudal lords who expressed their readiness to serve him. But these possessions were now in different parts England. The only exceptions were a few counties, which were located on the outskirts of the country and were intended for the defense of border areas. The scattered nature of feudal estates (130 large vassals had land in 2-5 counties, 29 in 6-10 counties, 12 in 10-21 counties), their private return to the king served as an obstacle to the transformation of barons into independent landowners, as it was, for example in France

Development of medieval Germany

The development of medieval Germany was characterized by a certain originality. Until the 13th century. it was one of the most powerful states in Europe. And then the process of internal political fragmentation begins to rapidly develop here, the country breaks up into a number of independent associations, while other Western European countries embarked on the path of state unity. The fact is that the German emperors, in order to maintain their power over dependent countries, needed military assistance princes and were forced to make concessions to them. Thus, if in other European countries the royal power deprived the feudal nobility of its political privileges, then in Germany the process of legislative consolidation of the highest state rights for the princes. As a result, imperial power gradually lost its position and became dependent on large secular and church feudal lords. . Moreover, in Germany, despite the rapid development already in the 10th century. cities (the result of the separation of crafts from agriculture), an alliance between royal power and cities did not develop, as was the case in England, France and other countries. Therefore, German cities were unable to play an active role in the political centralization of the country. And finally, in Germany, like England or France, a single economic center that could become the core of a political unification was not formed. Each principality lived separately. As the princely power strengthened, the political and economic fragmentation of Germany intensified.

Growth of Byzantine cities

In Byzantium by the beginning of the 12th century. The formation of the main institutions of feudal society was completed, a feudal estate was formed, and the bulk of the peasants were already in land or personal dependence. The imperial power, granting broad privileges to secular and ecclesiastical feudal lords, contributed to their transformation into all-powerful fiefs who had an apparatus of judicial-administrative power and armed squads. This was the payment of the emperors to the feudal lords for their support and service. The development of crafts and trade led to the beginning of the 12th century. to the fairly rapid growth of Byzantine cities. But unlike Western Europe, they did not belong to individual feudal lords, but were under the authority of the state, which did not seek an alliance with the townspeople. Byzantine cities did not achieve self-government, like Western European ones. The townspeople, subjected to cruel fiscal exploitation, were thus forced to fight not with the feudal lords, but with the state. Strengthening the positions of feudal lords in the cities, establishing their control over trade and sales of manufactured products, undermined the well-being of merchants and artisans. With the weakening of imperial power, feudal lords became absolute rulers in the cities. . Increased tax oppression led to frequent uprisings that weakened the state. At the end of the 12th century. the empire began to fall apart. This process accelerated after the capture of Constantinople in 1204 by the Crusaders. The empire fell, and on its ruins the Latin Empire and several other states were formed. And although in 1261 the Byzantine state was restored again (this happened after the fall of the Latin Empire), its former power was no longer there. This continued until the fall of Byzantium under the attacks of the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

Predatory expedition to Italy

In the 10th century, German feudal lords, led by their king, began to carry out predatory campaigns in Italy. Having captured part of Italy with the city of Rome, the German king declared himself Roman emperor. The new state later became known as the “Holy Roman Empire.” But it was a very weak state. The large feudal lords of Germany did not obey the emperor. The population of Italy did not stop fighting the invaders. Each new German king had to make a campaign beyond the Alps in order to re-conquer the country. For several centuries in a row, German feudal lords plundered and ravaged Italy.

The states of Western Europe were not united. Each of them broke up into large feudal estates, which were split into many small ones. In Germany, for example, there were about 200 small states. Some of them were so small that they jokingly said: “The head of the ruler, when he goes to bed, lies on his land, and his legs have to be stretched into the possessions of his neighbor.” This was a time of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe

Reasons for the fragmentation of Western Europe

Why were the states of Western Europe fragmented? With a subsistence economy, there were and could not be strong trade ties between individual parts of the country; there were no ties even between individual estates. In each estate, the population lived its own isolated life and had little contact with people from other places. People spent almost their entire lives in their village. And there was no need for them to go anywhere: after all, everything they needed was produced locally.

Each fief was almost an independent state. The feudal lord had a detachment of soldiers, collected taxes from the population, carried out trials and reprisals against them. He could himself declare war on other feudal lords and make peace with them. Whoever owned the land had power.

Large feudal lords - dukes and counts - had little regard for the king. They argued that the king was only “first among equals,” that is, they considered themselves no less noble than the king. Many large feudal lords themselves were not averse to seizing the royal throne.

The dominance of subsistence farming led to the fragmentation of the states of Western Europe. Royal power in the 9th - 10th centuries. was very weak.

War between feudal lords

During times of fragmentation, the feudal lords continuously fought among themselves. These wars were called internecine warriors
.

Why did internecine wars break out? The feudal lords sought to take away each other's land along with the peasants who lived on it. The more serfs the feudal lord had, the stronger and richer he was, since serfs bore duties for the use of the land.

Wanting to undermine the strength of his enemy, the feudal lord ruined his peasants: he burned down villages, stole livestock, and trampled down crops.

The peasants suffered the most from internecine wars; The feudal lords could sit behind the strong walls of their castles.

Feudal staircase

In order to have his own military detachment, each feudal lord distributed part of the land with serfs to smaller feudal lords. The owner of the land was a seigneur (“senior”) in relation to these feudal lords, and those who received land from him were his vassals, that is, military servants. Taking possession of the fief, the vassal knelt before the lord and swore an oath of allegiance to him. As a sign of transfer, the feudal lord handed the vassal a handful of earth and a tree branch.

The king was considered the head of all feudal lords in the country. He was a lord for dukes and counts.

There were usually hundreds of villages in their domains, and they commanded large detachments of warriors.

One step below were barons - vassals of dukes and counts. Usually they owned two to three dozen villages and could field a detachment of warriors.

Barons were lords of small feudal lords - knights.

Thus, the same feudal lord was the lord of a smaller feudal lord and the vassal of a larger one. Vassals were supposed to obey only their lords. If they were not vassals of the king, they were not obliged to carry out his orders. This order was fixed by the rule: “ My vassal's vassal is not my vassal».

The relationship between feudal lords resembles a ladder, on the upper steps of which stand the largest feudal lords, and on the lower steps the small ones. This relationship is called feudal ladder

Peasants were not included in the feudal ladder. And the lords and vassals were feudal lords. All of them - from the petty knight to the king - lived by the labor of serfs.

The vassal was obliged, by order of his lord, to go on a campaign with him and bring a detachment of warriors. In addition, he was supposed to help the lord with advice and ransom him from captivity.

The lord defended his vassals from attacks by other feudal lords and from rebel peasants. If peasants rebelled in a knight’s village, he would send a messenger to the lord, and he and his squad would rush to his aid.

When a war with another state began, the entire feudal ladder seemed to come into motion. The king called on dukes and counts to go on a campaign, they turned to the barons, who brought detachments of knights. This is how the feudal army was created. But the vassals often did not carry out the orders of their lords. In such cases, only force could force them to submit.

During the period of fragmentation, the feudal ladder was the organization of the feudal class. With its help, feudal lords fought wars and helped each other to keep the peasants subjugated.

Conclusion

Feudal fragmentation is a progressive phenomenon in the development of feudal relations. The collapse of early feudal empires into independent principalities-kingdoms was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society, whether it concerned Rus' in Eastern Europe, France in Western Europe or the Golden Horde in the East. Feudal fragmentation was progressive because it was a consequence of the development of feudal relations, the deepening of the social division of labor, which resulted in the rise of agriculture, the flourishing of crafts, and the growth of cities. For the development of feudalism, a different scale and structure of the state was needed, adapted to the needs and aspirations of the feudal lords

Bibliography

Textbook. History of the Middle Ages. V.A. Vedyushkin. M "Enlightenment" 2009

2.History of the Middle Ages. M. Boytsov, R Shukurov. M.

"Miros", 1995

3.R.Yu.Viller A brief textbook on the history of the Middle Ages

Parts 1-2 M. School - Press, 1993

The states of Western Europe in the Middle Ages were not integral. Each consisted of several large feudal estates, which, in turn, were divided into smaller ones. For example, in Germany there were about two hundred small states. Most of them were too small, and it was said jokingly that the head of a sleeping ruler was on his land, and his outstretched legs were in the domain of his neighbor. It was an era of feudal fragmentation that captured

This topic will be of great interest not only to students, for whom it is briefly outlined in the textbook “ General history. 6th grade”, as well as adults who may have forgotten their schoolwork a little.

Definition of the term

Feudalism is politic system, which arose in the Middle Ages and operated on the territory of the then European states. Countries under this order of government were divided into sections called fiefs. These lands were distributed by overlord monarchs for long-term use to noble subjects - vassals. The owners, under whose control the territories fell, were obliged to pay tribute to the state treasury every year, as well as send a certain number of knights and other armed warriors to the ruler’s army. And for this, the vassals, in turn, not only received all the rights to use the land, but also could control the labor and destinies of the people who were considered their subjects.

Collapse of the Empire

After the death of Charlemagne in 814, his successors failed to save the state he created from collapse. And all the prerequisites and reasons for feudal fragmentation began to appear precisely from the very moment when the Frankish nobles, or rather, the counts, who were officials empires began to seize lands. At the same time, they turned the free population living there into their vassals and forced peasants.

The feudal lords owned estates called seigneuries, which were actually closed farms. On their territories, all the goods necessary for life were produced, from food to materials for the construction of castles - well-fortified structures where the owners of these lands themselves lived. We can say that feudal fragmentation in Europe also arose thanks to such a natural economy, which contributed to the complete independence of the nobles.

Over time, the position of count began to be inherited and assigned to the largest landowners. They ceased to obey the emperor, and turned medium and small feudal lords into their vassals.

Treaty of Verdun

With the death of Charlemagne, quarrels begin in his family, which lead to real wars. At that time largest feudal lords begin to support them. But, finally tired of constant hostilities, in 843 the grandchildren of Charlemagne decided to meet in the city of Verdun, where they signed an agreement according to which the empire was divided into three parts.

In accordance with the agreement, one part of the land passed into the possession of Louis the German. He began to rule the territory located north of the Alps and east of the Rhine. This state was called East Frankish. Here they spoke German dialects.

The second part was taken over by Karl, who bore the nickname Bald. These were lands located west of the Rhone, Scheldt and Meuse rivers. They became known as the West Frankish Kingdom. Here they spoke languages ​​that later formed the basis of modern French.

The third part of the lands, along with the title of emperor, went to the eldest of the brothers, Lothair. He owned territory located along Italy. But soon the brothers quarreled, and war broke out between them again. Louis and Charles united against Lothair, took away his lands and divided them among themselves. At this time, the title of emperor no longer meant anything.

It was after the separation former state Charlemagne in Western Europe began a period of feudal fragmentation. Subsequently, the possessions of the three brothers turned into countries that exist to this day - these are Italy, Germany and France.

Medieval European states

In addition to the empire of Charlemagne, there was another large European state. In 1066, the Duke of Normandy (a region located in northern France), having subjugated the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, united them and became king of England. His name was William the Conqueror.

To the east of the German lands, such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Kievan Rus. And where the nomads who came here dominated, over time the Hungarian Kingdom appeared. In addition, Sweden, Denmark and Norway arose in the northern part of Europe. All of these states were united for some time.

Collapse of medieval states

So what were the reasons for feudal fragmentation here? The reason for the collapse of the empires of that time was not only the civil strife of the rulers. As you know, the lands that were part of the state of Charlemagne were united through force of arms. Therefore, the reasons for feudal fragmentation also lie in the fact that there was an attempt to bring together completely different peoples who did not want to live together within the framework of one empire. For example, the population of the West Frankish kingdom was called the French, the East Frankish kingdom was called the Germans, and the peoples living in Italy were called Italians. An interesting fact is that the very first documents compiled in the languages ​​of the peoples living here appeared precisely during the struggle for power of the grandchildren of Emperor Charlemagne. So, Louis the German signed a treaty, which stated that they swear together to resist their older brother Lothair. These papers were compiled in French and German.

Power of the nobles

The causes of feudal fragmentation in Europe largely depended on the actions of counts and dukes, who were a kind of governors in various parts countries. But over time, when they began to feel almost unlimited power, the feudal lords ceased to obey the main ruler. Now they served only the owners of the lands on whose territory their estates were located. At the same time, they were directly subordinate to the duke or count, and even then only during military operations, when they went on a campaign at the head of their own army. When peace came, they were completely independent and ruled their lands and the people who inhabited them as they saw fit.

Feudal staircase

In order to create their army, dukes and counts gave part of their territories to smaller landowners. Thus, some became lords (chiefs), while others became their vassals (military servants). Upon taking possession of the fief, the vassal knelt before his lord and swore allegiance to him. In return, the master handed his subject a tree branch and a handful of earth.

The main feudal lord in the state was the king. He was considered a lord for counts and dukes. Their possessions included hundreds of villages and a large number of military detachments. One step lower were the barons, who were vassals of counts and dukes. They usually owned no more than three dozen villages and a detachment of warriors. Small feudal knights were subordinate to the barons.

As a result of the resulting hierarchy, a feudal lord with average income was a lord for a small noble, but at the same time he himself was a vassal for a larger nobleman. Therefore, a rather interesting situation developed. Those nobles who were not vassals of the king were not obliged to obey him and carry out his orders. There was even a special rule. It read: “My vassal’s vassal is not my vassal.”

The relationship between the classes resembled a ladder, where small feudal lords were on the lower steps, and larger ones led by the king were on the upper steps. It was this division that later became known as the feudal ladder. The peasants were not included in it, since all the lords and vassals lived off their labor.

Natural economy

The reasons for the feudal fragmentation of Western Europe also lay in the fact that the inhabitants of not only individual regions, but also villages practically did not need any connections with others settlements. They could make all the necessary things, food and tools themselves or simply barter with their neighbors. At this time, the natural economy was flourishing, when trade itself ceased to exist.

Military policy

Feudal fragmentation, the causes and consequences of which had a significant impact on military power the royal army itself could not contribute not only to its strengthening, but also to the increase in the authority of the central government in the eyes of large landowners. By the tenth century the feudal lords had already acquired their own squads. Therefore, the king’s personal army could not fully resist such vassals. In those days, the ruler of the state was only the conditional head of the entire hierarchical system of that time. In fact, the country was under the rule of nobles - dukes, barons and princes.

Reasons for the collapse of European states

So, all the main reasons for feudal fragmentation were identified in the process of studying the cultural and socio-economic development of Western European countries in the Middle Ages. Such a political system led to an upsurge in material well-being, as well as a flourishing in the spiritual direction. Historians have come to the conclusion that feudal fragmentation was a completely natural and objective process. But this only applies to European countries.

Here are the reasons for feudal fragmentation common to all states without exception, briefly formulated in two points:

● Availability of subsistence farming. It, on the one hand, ensured a rather sharp rise in prosperity and trade, as well as the rapid development of land ownership, and on the other, a complete absence of any specialization of individual areas and extremely limited economic ties with other lands.

● Sedentary image life of the squad. In other words, the transformation of its members into feudal lords, whose privilege was the right to own land. In addition, their power over the peasant class was unlimited. They had the opportunity to judge people and punish them for various offenses. This caused some weakening of the influence of the policy of the central government on separate territories. Prerequisites also appeared for the successful solution of military tasks by the local population.

Feudal fragmentation of Russian lands

The processes taking place in Western Europe since the 10th century could not ignore the principalities where they lived East Slavs. But it should be noted that the reasons for feudal fragmentation in Rus' were of a special nature. This can be explained by other socio-economic trends, as well as local customs of succession to the throne.

The division of the state into principalities was due to the great influence enjoyed by the local nobility, called boyars. In addition, they owned huge plots of land and supported the local princes. And instead of submitting to the Kyiv authorities, they agreed among themselves.

Succession to thrones

As in Europe, feudal fragmentation began with the fact that the numerous heirs of the rulers could not share power. If in Western countries While the Salic right of succession to the throne was in force, which required the transfer of the throne from father to eldest son, the Latrative right was in effect on Russian lands. It provided for the transfer of power from the older brother to the younger, etc.

Numerous offspring of all the brothers grew up, and each of them wanted to rule. Over time, the situation became more complicated, and the contenders for the throne constantly and tirelessly weaved intrigues against each other.

The first serious discord was the military conflict between the heirs of Prince Svyatoslav, who died in 972. The winner was his son Vladimir, who later baptized Rus'. The collapse of the state began after the reign of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich, who died in 1132. After this, feudal fragmentation continued until the lands began to be united around Moscow.

Reasons for the fragmentation of Russian lands

The process of fragmentation of Kievan Rus covers the period from the 12th to the beginning of the 14th century. During this era, the princes waged long and bloody internecine wars to expand land holdings.

Here are the most important reasons feudal fragmentation, briefly and clearly formulated in four points, valid only in Rus':

● Intensification of internecine struggle due to two trends that existed in the rules of succession to the Kyiv throne. One of them is Byzantine law, which allows the transfer of power from father to eldest son, the second is Russian custom, according to which the eldest in the family should become the heir.

● Significant weakening of the role of Kyiv as the central government. This happened due to the raids of the Polovtsians, who made travel along the Dnieper dangerous, as a result of which an outflow of the population from Kyiv to the north-west began.

● Significantly weakening the threat from the Pechenegs and Varangians, as well as the defeat and improvement of relations with the rulers of the Byzantine Empire.

● Creation of the appanage system by Yaroslav the Wise. After his death in 1054, the Russian lands were swallowed up by a whole series of internecine wars. The ancient Russian integral state was transformed from a single monarchy into a federal one, which was headed by several authoritative Yaroslavich princes.

We hope that this article helped to supplement the knowledge not only of schoolchildren who are now studying the topic “Causes of feudal fragmentation” using the textbook “General History. 6th grade". It will refresh the memory of university students about the events that happened in the Middle Ages. Still, such a topic as feudal fragmentation, the causes and consequences of which we have described in sufficient detail, you will agree, is quite interesting.

Feudal fragmentation in England

The process of feudal fragmentation in the X-XII centuries. began to develop in England. This was facilitated by the transfer by royal power to the nobility of the right to collect feudal duties from peasants and their lands. As a result of this, the feudal lord (secular or ecclesiastical) who received such a grant becomes the full owner of the land occupied by the peasants and their personal master. The feudal lords' private property grew, they became economically stronger and sought greater independence from the king.
The situation changed after England was conquered by the Norman Duke William the Conqueror in 1066. As a result, the country, which was heading towards feudal fragmentation, turned into a united state with a strong monarchical power. This is the only example on the European continent at this time.

The point was that the conquerors deprived many representatives of the former nobility of their possessions, carrying out a massive confiscation of land property. The actual owner of the land became the king, who transferred part of it as fiefs to his warriors and part of the local feudal lords who expressed their readiness to serve him. But these possessions were now located in different parts of England. The only exceptions were a few counties, which were located on the outskirts of the country and were intended for the defense of border areas. The scattered nature of feudal estates (130 large vassals had land in 2-5 counties, 29 in 6-10 counties, 12 in 10-21 counties), their private return to the king served as an obstacle to the transformation of barons into independent landowners, as it was, for example in France

Development of medieval Germany

The development of medieval Germany was characterized by a certain originality. Until the 13th century. it was one of the most powerful states in Europe. And then the process of internal political fragmentation begins to rapidly develop here, the country breaks up into a number of independent associations, while other Western European countries embarked on the path of state unity. The fact is that the German emperors, in order to maintain their power over their dependent countries, needed the military assistance of the princes and were forced to make concessions to them. Thus, if in other European countries the royal power deprived the feudal nobility of its political privileges, then in Germany the process of legislatively securing the highest state rights for the princes developed. As a result, imperial power gradually lost its position and became dependent on large secular and church feudal lords. .
Moreover, in Germany, despite the rapid development already in the 10th century. cities (the result of the separation of crafts from agriculture), an alliance between royal power and cities did not develop, as was the case in England, France and other countries. Therefore, German cities were unable to play an active role in the political centralization of the country. And finally, in Germany, like England or France, a single economic center that could become the core of a political unification was not formed. Each principality lived separately. As the princely power strengthened, the political and economic fragmentation of Germany intensified.

Growth of Byzantine cities

In Byzantium by the beginning of the 12th century. The formation of the main institutions of feudal society was completed, a feudal estate was formed, and the bulk of the peasants were already in land or personal dependence. The imperial power, granting broad privileges to secular and ecclesiastical feudal lords, contributed to their transformation into all-powerful fiefs who had an apparatus of judicial-administrative power and armed squads. This was the payment of the emperors to the feudal lords for their support and service.
The development of crafts and trade led to the beginning of the 12th century. to the fairly rapid growth of Byzantine cities. But unlike Western Europe, they did not belong to individual feudal lords, but were under the authority of the state, which did not seek an alliance with the townspeople. Byzantine cities did not achieve self-government, like Western European ones. The townspeople, subjected to cruel fiscal exploitation, were thus forced to fight not with the feudal lords, but with the state. Strengthening the positions of feudal lords in the cities, establishing their control over trade and sales of manufactured products, undermined the well-being of merchants and artisans. With the weakening of imperial power, feudal lords became absolute rulers in the cities. .
Increased tax oppression led to frequent uprisings that weakened the state. At the end of the 12th century. the empire began to fall apart. This process accelerated after the capture of Constantinople in 1204 by the Crusaders. The empire fell, and on its ruins the Latin Empire and several other states were formed. And although in 1261 the Byzantine state was restored again (this happened after the fall of the Latin Empire), its former power was no longer there. This continued until the fall of Byzantium under the attacks of the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

2.1.The period of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe and Rus': essence and causes

2.2. Mongol-Tatars and Rus'

The period of feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in progressive development feudalism. The division of the early feudal grandiose empires (Kievan Rus or the Carolingian Empire in Central Europe) into a number of factually (and sometimes legally) sovereign states was an inevitable stage in the development of feudal society.

Back in the 4th century. (395) The Roman Empire broke up into two independent parts - Western and Eastern. The capital of the Eastern part became Constantinople, founded by Emperor Constantine on the site of the former Greek colony Byzantium. Byzantium was able to withstand the storms of the so-called “great migration of peoples” and survived after the fall of Rome (in 1410 the Visigoths took Rome after a long siege) as the “Roman Empire.” In the VI century. Byzantium occupied vast territories of the European continent (even Italy was briefly conquered). Throughout the Middle Ages, Byzantium maintained a strong centralized state.

The Mongolian state arose thanks to the military and diplomatic activities of Temujin, in the future Genghis Khan, aimed at uniting the Mongolian tribes. The latter included the Mongols themselves, to which Temujin belonged, Merkits, Keraits, Oirat, Naimans, and Tatars. The largest and most warlike of the Mongol tribes was the Tatar tribe. The Tanguts, Jurhens, and Chinese, who bordered the Mongols, often transferred the name “Tatars” to all Mongolian tribes of the 11th-12th centuries.

The future Genghis Khan was born, according to some sources, in 1162, according to others - in 1155. He received the name Temujin at birth because his father, grandson Yesugei-Bagatur, who was at enmity with the Tatars, had captured the Tatar leader the day before

In his struggle for power over other tribes, Temujin achieved significant success. Around 1180 he was elected khan of the Mongol proper tribal union. The decisive factor was real strength, which Temujin acquired thanks to his abilities. Representatives of the Mongolian steppe aristocracy, having elected Temujin khan, gave him the title Chiigis Khan.

In 1185 Temujin, in alliance with the head of the Kereit tribe, Van Khan, defeated the Merkit union of tribes. This victory strengthened his position.

In the spring of 1202, Genghis Khan completely defeated the Tatars. All captured Tatar men were killed, and the women and children were distributed among different tribes. The khan himself took two Tatar women as his wives.

Sooner or later, the logic of the struggle was bound to lead Chiigis Khan to a clash with the Kereit Van Khan, from which he ultimately emerged victorious. Having crushed Tayan Khan's last strong rival, the head of the Naiman tribal union, in 1204, Genghis Khan became the only powerful leader in the Mongolian steppes.

In 1206, at a congress (kurultai) of the Mongolian nobility in the upper reaches of the Onon River, Chinggis Khan was again proclaimed khan, but this time of a unified Mongolian state.

The Mongolian state was built on a military model. The entire territory and population were divided into three parts: center, right and left wing. Each part, in turn, was divided into “thousands” (10 thousand people), “thousands”, “hundreds”, “tens”, headed by temniks, thousanders, centurions, tens. At the head of these military-administrative formations were associates Genghis Khan - his noyons and nukers.

Each military-administrative unit, starting from the lowest level, had to not only field a set number of soldiers with horses, equipment, and provisions, but also bear various feudal duties.

Having created a strong power, the structure of which contributed to the rapid deployment of military forces, Genghis Khan began to implement plans to conquer neighboring states.

The news that reached the north-east of Rus' about the defeat and capture by the Mongol-Tatars served as a terrible warning. largest states Asia, the devastation of vast territories with flourishing cities and populous villages.

It is quite acceptable to assume that Vladimir and the Vladimir-Suzdal principality were one of the most informed regions of Europe. The proximity and constant connection with the Volga made it possible to obtain reliable and varied information about the East, Asia, and the Tatars.

Apparently, in Rus' they also knew about the Mongol campaign of 1219-1224. to Central Asia, about its enormous destructive consequences for agricultural areas and urban life Central Asia. They knew what the civilian population expected in the event of an invasion by nomadic conquerors.

It should be noted that under Genghis Khan, organized robbery and division of military booty, devastation of entire regions and extermination of civilians were used. A whole system of mass organized terror emerged, which was carried out from above (and not from below, by ordinary soldiers, as before, during the invasions of nomads), aimed at destroying elements of the population capable of resistance and intimidating civilians.

During the siege of the city, residents received mercy only on condition of immediate surrender, although this rule sometimes it was not observed if it seemed unprofitable to the Mongols. If a city surrendered only after long resistance, its inhabitants were driven out into the field, where they were left for five to ten days or more under the supervision of Mongol warriors. After robbing the city and dividing the loot, they were taken for the townspeople. The military were killed, their families were enslaved. Girls and young women also became slaves and were divided between the nobility and warriors. According to a contemporary, the Arab historian Ibn al-Asir, after the capture of Bukhara, the inhabitants were driven out into the field and then were divided by order of Genghis Khan among the soldiers. According to Ibn al-Athir, the Tatars raped the women they inherited right there in front of the townspeople, who “looked and cried,” unable to do anything.

Artisans and skilled craftsmen were distributed as slaves among the Mongol princes and nobles, but their fate was somewhat better, since they were often not separated from their families. Healthy male youth climbed into the “crowd”, i.e. it was used for heavy siege work and convoy service, and during battles the “people of the crowd” were in front of the troops, serving as a target for shots from their own compatriots. The remaining residents were allowed to return to their ruined homes.

If a city was taken only by storm after stubborn resistance, or if an uprising began in an already conquered city, the Mongols carried out a general massacre. The surviving residents, who had previously been driven out into the field, were distributed among the soldiers, who were to kill those still alive. Sometimes, along with the cities, their rural districts were cut out. After the massacre, the captured scribes were forced to count the number of those killed.

After the defeat on the Kalka River in 1223, Rus' began to closely monitor the actions of the Mongol-Tatars. Let us pay attention to the fact that the chronicle of the Vladimir principality contains records of the victory of the Mongols over the Saxons and Eastern Cumans in 1229, and of the wintering of the Mongol-Tatars near the borders of Volga Bulgaria in 1232. Under 1236, the chronicle contains a message about the conquest of Volga Bulgaria by the Mongols . The chronicler describes the defeat of the capital of Bulgaria - the Great City. This message from the Vladimir chronicler carried a frank warning about the impending catastrophe. A year later it broke out.

Let us note that in 1235, at the kurultai, a decision was made on an all-Mongol campaign to the West. As the Persian author Juvaini (died in 1283) reports, at the kurultai of 1235 “a decision was made to take possession of the countries of the Bulgars, Ases and Rus, which were located in the neighborhood of the Batu camp, but were not yet completely conquered and were proud of their numbers.”

Having defeated the Volga Bulgaria in 1236 and launched a broad offensive against the Polovtsians in the Caspian steppes and North Caucasus in 1237, by the fall of 1237 the Mongol-Tatars concentrated their forces near the borders of North-Eastern Rus'. The Ryazan principality was the first to experience the power of the Mongol-Tatar army. Having taken Ryazan in December 1237, Batu headed across the ice of the Oka to Kolomna. Near Kolomna, the Vladimir-Suzdal regiments, led by the son of the Grand Duke of Vladimir Vsevolod, were waiting for the Mongol-Tatars. The battle at Kolomna, which took place in January 1238, was distinguished by its tenacity and bitterness. It is known that Prince Kulkan (the only prince who died during the western campaign of the Mongols) was mortally wounded in the battle. This gives reason to conclude that the battle was extremely intense (like all Chinggisids, younger son Genghis Khan Kulkan, in accordance with the Mongol rules of war, was located in the rear of the troops). Despite the fact that, according to the chronicler, the Vladimir-Suzdal and Ryazan warriors were “fighting hard” near Kolomna, it was not possible to stop the Mongol-Tatars. Having defeated Moscow in January 1238, the Mongols approached Vladimir in early February. Due to significant losses suffered by the Vladimir-Suzdal army near Kolomna, Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich went north to gather forces, leaving his sons Vsevolod and Mstislav in Vladimir. Despite the fact that the city had quite powerful fortifications, the defenders of Vladimir, with all their heroism and courage, were able to resist the Mongols, who used siege and battering weapons, only for several days, until February 8. And then followed the horrific defeat of the capital of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir. On March 4, 1238, the Mongol commander Burundai took Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, who was camped on the City River, by surprise. Together with Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, many Russian waves died. Mongol troops captured Tver and appeared within the Novgorod land. Not reaching 100 versts to Novgorod, the Mongol-Tatars turned south and, having conducted a “round-up” through the Russian lands (including the outskirts of the Smolensk and Chernigov principalities), returned to the steppe.

After spending the summer of 1238 in the Don steppes, Batu again invaded the Ryazan land in the fall. In 1239, the main attack of the Mongol-Tatars fell on the southern Russian lands. In the spring of 1239, the Pereyaslavl principality was defeated; in the fall, it was the turn of Chernigov, which was besieged on October 18, 1239. The city defended itself to the last opportunity. Many of its defenders died on the walls. At the end of 1240, Kyiv fell. In 1241 Batu invaded the Galicia-Volyn principality.

Reporting Mongol invasion, the chronicler noted that countless numbers of Tatars appeared, “like prizi, eating grass.” The question of the number of Batu’s troops has attracted the attention of historians for about 200 years. Starting with N.M. Karamzin, most pre-revolutionary researchers (D.I. Ilovaisky and others) arbitrarily estimated the size of the Mongol army at 300 thousand people or, uncritically using the data of chroniclers, wrote about an army of 400, 500, and even 600 thousand.

Such figures are, of course, a clear exaggeration, for this is significantly more than there were men in Mongolia in the 13th century.

Historian V.V. Kargalov, as a result of studying the problem, came to the conclusion that the size of Batu’s army was 120-140 thousand people. However, this figure should also be considered overestimated.

After all, every Mongol warrior needed to have at least three horses: riding, pack and fighting, which were not loaded, so that it would retain strength for the decisive moment of the battle. Providing food for half a million horses concentrated in one place is an extremely difficult task. The horses died and were used as food for the soldiers. It is no coincidence that the Mongols demanded fresh horses from all cities that entered into negotiations with them.

The famous researcher N. Veselovsky estimated the number of Mongol troops at 30 thousand people. L.N. adhered to the same assessment. Gumilev. A similar position (the size of Batu’s army is 30-40 thousand people) is characteristic of historians

According to the most recent calculations, which can be considered quite convincing, the number of actual Mongol troops at Batu’s disposal was 50-60 thousand people.

The widespread belief that every Mongol was a warrior cannot be considered reliable. How was the Mongol army recruited? A certain number of tents provided one or two warriors and supplied them with everything necessary for the campaign.

It is suggested that in addition to the Mongol troops themselves, 50-60 thousand people, Batu’s army included auxiliary corps from conquered peoples. However, in reality, Batu did not have such corps. This is what the Mongols usually did. Prisoners captured in battle and civilians were herded into an assault crowd, which was driven into battle in front of the Mongol units. Units of allies and vassals were also used. Behind this “assault crowd”, doomed to death in the vanguard battle, Mongol barrage detachments were placed.

By the way, approaching the real figure of the number of Mongol troops helps to understand the nature of military operations in 1237-1238. Having suffered significant losses in battles with the Ryazan and Vladimir people, the Mongols then with difficulty took the small cities of Torzhok and Kozelsk and were forced to abandon the campaign against the populous (about 30 thousand inhabitants) Novgorod.

When determining the real size of Batu's army, the following must be taken into account. The military equipment of the Mongol-Tatars was superior to that of Europe. They did not wear heavy armor, but robes with several layers of felt better than iron protected from arrows. The arrow range of the English archers, the best in Europe, was 450 m, and the Mongols - up to 700 m. This advantage was achieved thanks to complex design their bow, to the fact that Mongolian archers trained certain muscle groups from childhood. Mongolian boys, from the age of six, mounted a horse and picked up a weapon, growing up, became a kind of perfect military machines.

As a rule, Russian cities withstood no more than one or two weeks of siege, since the Mongols carried out continuous exhausting attacks, changing detachments. For example, Ryazan was subjected to a similar continuous assault from December 16 to 21, 1237, after which the city was plundered and burned, and the inhabitants were killed.

What military forces did Rus' have? Russian and Soviet historians since the time of S.M. Solovyov, following the chronicler’s report, believed that Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', together with Novgorod and Ryazan, could field 50 thousand people and Southern Rus' the same number. There are reasons to doubt the reality of such figures.

It would be unjustified to reduce the essence of the problem to consideration of this specific figure. It can be assumed that all the Russian principalities could potentially field together an army of similar size. But the whole point is that the Russian princes were unable to unite efforts even in the hour of terrible danger.

Unsuccessfully, the Ryazan prince Yuri Igorevich turned to Vladimir and Chernigov for help. Why didn’t the Grand Duke of Vladimir and the supreme overlord of the Ryazan princes Yuri Vsevolodovich send help? It is difficult to even imagine that Yuri Vsevolodovich wanted the defeat of the vassals, which deprived him of a buffer between the steppe and the borders of his own principality. The defeat of the Volga Bulgaria, the death of the population, of which the Grand Duke was aware, left no doubt that a life-and-death struggle was ahead.

Of course, the explanation can be sought in the fact that help did not have time to reach. However, this is what the chronicler writes: “Prince Yurya himself did not go, not listening to the prayers of the Ryazan princes, but wanted to start a fight himself...” That is, essentially the same situation arose as in the Battle of Kalka in 1223. Each prince wanted to fight alone, without allies.

Is it just a matter of a simple desire for individual action? It seems that we are faced with a manifestation of one of the traits social psychology, characteristic of chivalry during the period of feudal fragmentation, when every knight, every commander, every feudal army pursued the goal of their own personal participation in the battle, often completely disregarding the general actions, which predetermined the unfavorable outcome of the battle. This was the case in the West, and this was also the case in Rus'.

The strife continued. The chronicler, next to the story of the defeat of Pereyaslavl and Chernigov by the Mongols, calmly tells about the campaign of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, during which he took the city of Kamenets, in which the family of his rival Mikhail Vsevolodovich Chernigovsky was located, and captured many prisoners.

Discord over the Kyiv table did not stop. Occupying the reign of Kiev, Mikhail Vsevolodovich, not hoping to protect the city, fled to Hungary. The vacant Kiev throne was hurried to take the Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich, but he was soon expelled by Daniil of Galitsky, who had not prepared the city for defense. Having left Kyiv, Daniil left a thousand for himself

According to the Mongolian rules of war, those cities that submitted voluntarily were called “gobalyk” - good city. Such cities received a moderate contribution of horses for the cavalry and food supplies. But it is quite natural that the Russian people, in the face of ruthless conquerors, tried with all their might to defend their native land and discarded the thought of capitulation. Evidence of this, for example, is the long defense of Kyiv (according to the Pskov Third Chronicle, for 10 weeks and four days, from September 5 to November 19! 1240). Excavations of other cities of the Kyiv land (Vyshgorod, Belgorod, etc.) also indicate the heroic defense of these centers. Archaeologists have discovered thick layers of fires, hundreds of human skeletons were found under burnt houses, fortress walls, in streets and squares.

Yes, you can cite facts of open cooperation with the Tatars. Thus, the small princes of the Bolokhov land (Upper Bug region), who supported the Galician boyars in the fight against Daniil Romanovich, quickly came to an agreement with the Mongol-Tatars. The latter freed them from recruitment into their army on the condition that they would be supplied with wheat and millet.

The Mongol army needed replenishment, so the Mongols offered those captured to buy freedom at the cost of joining their army. The chronicle of Matthew of Paris contains a letter from two monks, in which it was reported that in the Mongol army there were “many Cumans and pseudo-Christians” (i.e. Orthodox). The first recruitment among Russians was made in 1238-1241. Note that in this case we are again talking, apparently, about an “assault crowd.”

This happened in real life, but the emphasis should be placed differently.

The consequences of the Mongol invasion were extremely severe. In the cultural deposits of cities that suffered the blow of the Mongol-Tatars, layers of continuous fires and hundreds of skeletons with traces of wounds were discovered. There was no one to collect and bury the bodies of the dead. When Daniil Romanovich returned to Vladimir-Volynsky, a terrible sight met his eyes. In the deserted city, as N.I. noted. Kostomarov, the churches were filled with piles of corpses. Residents sought refuge in church buildings and died there.

The Italian monk Plano Carpini, who visited Rus' in 1246, wrote that “as we rode through their land, we found countless heads and bones of dead people lying on the field.” In Kyiv, according to Plano Carpini, only 200 houses remain.

The border of agriculture moved to the north, the southern fertile lands were called “Wild Field”. Russian people who were driven into the Horde, partly remained there as servants and slaves, and partly were sold to other countries. In the slave trade of the Golden Horde with Egypt, Syria, France, and Italy, the main commodity was women. On the Western European market, the most significant amount (15 times the normal price) was paid for a seventeen-year-old Russian girl.

Despite the dire consequences of the Mongol-Tatar campaign on Russian lands, life went on. The Mongols did not leave garrisons anywhere, and after the departure of the Mongol army, the inhabitants returned to their devastated homes and cities. Those who survived major centers, like Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk, Smolensk. Often the population fled into the forest when the Tatars approached. Forests, ravines, rivers, and swamps sheltered both villages and people from the Tatar cavalry. Ukrainian archaeologist