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 royalty know the right to collect feudal duties from the peasants and their lands. As a result of this, the feudal lord (secular or ecclesiastical), who received such an award, becomes the full owner of the land occupied by the peasants and their personal master. The private property of the feudal lords grew, they became economically stronger and sought greater independence from the king.
The situation changed after England in 1066 was conquered by the Duke of Normandy William the Conqueror. As a result, the country, moving towards feudal fragmentation, turned into a cohesive state with strong monarchical power. This is the only example on the European continent in this period.

The point was that the conquerors deprived many representatives of the former nobility of their possessions, carrying out mass confiscation of landed property. The king became the actual owner of the land, 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 the border areas. The dispersion 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 turning the 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, the country is disintegrating into a number of independent associations, while other Western European countries have embarked on the path of state consolidation. The fact is that the German emperors, in order to maintain their power over dependent countries, needed the military assistance of the princes and were forced to make concessions to them. Thus, if in other countries of Europe the royal power deprived the feudal nobility of its political privileges, then in Germany a process was developing legislative consolidation the highest state rights for the princes. As a result, the imperial power gradually lost its positions and became dependent on large secular and church feudal lords. .
In addition, in Germany, despite the rapid development already in the tenth century. cities (the result of the separation of craft from agriculture), did not develop, as was the case in England, France and other countries, an alliance between the royal power and the cities. Therefore, the German cities were unable to play an active role in the political centralization of the country. And, finally, Germany has not formed, like England or France, a single economic center that could become the core of political unification. Each principality lived separately. As the princely power strengthened, the political and economic fragmentation of Germany intensified.

Growth of Byzantine cities

In Byzantium at the beginning of the XII 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, presenting wide privileges to secular and church feudal lords, contributed to their transformation into all-powerful patrimonials, who had an apparatus of judicial and administrative power and armed squads. It was the payment of the emperors to the feudal lords for their support and service.
The development of crafts and trade led at the beginning of the XII 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 rule of the state, which did not seek an alliance with the townspeople. Byzantine cities did not achieve self-government, like Western European cities. 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 marketing of their products, undermined the well-being of merchants and artisans. With the weakening of imperial power, the feudal lords became sovereign masters in the cities. .
Increasing tax oppression led to frequent uprisings that weakened the state. At the end of the XII century. the empire began to fall apart. This process accelerated after the capture of Constantinople in 1204 by the crusaders. The empire fell, and the Latin Empire and several other states were formed on its ruins. And although in 1261 the Byzantine state was restored again (it happened after the fall of the Latin Empire), but the former power was no longer there. This continued until the fall of Byzantium under the blows of the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

Feudal fragmentation is natural historical process. Western Europe and Kievan Rus during the period of feudal fragmentation

In the history of the early feudal states of Europe in the X-XII centuries. are a period of political fragmentation. By this time, the feudal nobility had already turned into a privileged group, belonging to which was determined by birth. The existing monopoly property of the feudal lords on land was reflected in the rules of law. "There is no land without a lord." The peasants found themselves for the most part in personal and land dependence on the feudal lords.

Having received a monopoly on land, the feudal lords also acquired a significant political power: transfer of part of their land to vassals, the right to legal proceedings and the minting of money, the maintenance of 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: "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal." Thus, the internal cohesion of the feudal nobility was achieved, its privileges were protected from encroachments by the central government, which was weakening by this time. For example, in France before the beginning of the XII century. the real power of the king 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 immediate vassals, had only formal suzerainty, and the big lords behaved completely independently. Thus began to take shape the foundations of feudal fragmentation.

It is known that on the territory that collapsed in the middle of the 9th century. Three new states arose in the empire of Charlemagne: French, German and Italian (Northern Italy), each of which became the base of the emerging territorial-ethnic community - nationality. Then the process of political disintegration embraced each of these new formations. So, in the territory of the French kingdom at the end of the 9th century. there were 29 possessions, and at the end of the tenth century. - about 50. But now they were for the most part not ethnic, but patrimonial-seigneurial formations.

The process of feudal fragmentation in the X-XII centuries. began to develop in England. This was facilitated by the transfer by the royal power to the nobility of the right to collect feudal duties from the peasants and their lands. As a result of this, the feudal lord (secular or ecclesiastical), who received such an award, becomes the full owner of the land occupied by the peasants and their personal master. The private property of the feudal lords grew, they became economically stronger and sought greater independence from the king.

The situation changed after England in 1066 was conquered by the Duke of Normandy William the Conqueror. As a result, the country, moving towards feudal fragmentation, turned into a cohesive state with strong monarchical power. This is the only example on the European continent in this period.

The point was that the conquerors deprived many representatives of the former nobility of their possessions, carrying out mass confiscation of landed property. The king became the actual owner of the land, 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 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 the border areas. The dispersion 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 turning the barons into independent landowners, as it was, for example, in France.

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 develop rapidly here, the country breaks up into a number of independent associations, while other Western European countries embarked on the path of state consolidation. The fact is that the German emperors, in order to maintain their power over dependent countries, needed the military assistance of the princes and were forced to make concessions to them. Thus, if in other countries of Europe 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 developed. As a result, the imperial power gradually lost its positions and became dependent on large secular and church feudal lords.

In addition, in Germany, despite the rapid development already in the tenth century. cities (the result of the separation of craft from agriculture), did not develop, as was the case in England, France and other countries, an alliance between the royal power and the cities. Therefore, the German cities were unable to play an active role in the political centralization of the country. And, finally, Germany has not formed, like England or France, a single economic center that could become the core of political unification. Each principality lived separately. As the princely power strengthened, the political and economic fragmentation of Germany intensified.

In Byzantium at the beginning of the XII 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, presenting wide privileges to secular and church feudal lords, contributed to their transformation into all-powerful patrimonials, who had an apparatus of judicial and administrative power and armed squads. It was the payment of the emperors to the feudal lords for their support and service.

The development of crafts and trade led at the beginning of the XII 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 rule of the state, which did not seek an alliance with the townspeople. Byzantine cities did not achieve self-government, like Western European cities. 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 marketing of their products, undermined the well-being of merchants and artisans. With the weakening of imperial power, the feudal lords became sovereign masters in the cities.

Increasing tax oppression led to frequent uprisings that weakened the state. At the end of the XII century. the empire began to fall apart. This process accelerated after the capture of Constantinople in 1204 by the crusaders. The empire fell, and the Latin Empire and several other states were formed on its ruins. And although in 1261 the Byzantine state was restored again (it happened after the fall of the Latin Empire), but the former power was no longer there. This continued until the fall of Byzantium under the blows of the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

The collapse of the early feudal territorial organization of state power and the triumph of feudal fragmentation represented the completion of the formation of feudal relations and the flourishing of feudalism in Western Europe. In its content, it was a natural and progressive process, due to the rise of internal colonization, the expansion of the area of ​​cultivated land. Thanks to the improvement of labor tools, the use of animal draft power and the transition to three-field cultivation, land cultivation has improved, they began to breed industrial crops- flax, hemp; new branches of agriculture appeared - viticulture, etc. As a result, the peasants began to have surplus products that they could exchange for handicrafts, and not make them themselves.

The labor productivity of artisans increased, and the technique and technology of handicraft production improved. The craftsman turned into a small commodity producer working for trade. Ultimately, these circumstances led to the separation of craft 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 submitted to him. The townspeople, most 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 movement, widely developed in Western Europe in the X-XIII centuries. went down in history under the name of "communal movement". All rights and privileges won or acquired for a ransom were recorded in the charter. By the end of the XIII century. many cities achieved self-government, became commune cities. So, about 50% of English cities had their own self-government, city council, mayor and court. The inhabitants of such cities in England, Italy, France, etc. became free from feudal dependence. A fugitive peasant who lived in the cities of these countries for a year and one day became free. Thus, in the XIII century. a new estate 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 important step on the way to the formation of class-representative monarchies in the countries of Western Europe. This became possible thanks to the strengthening of the central government, first in England, then in France.

The development of commodity-money relations and the involvement of the countryside in this process undermined the subsistence economy and created conditions for the development of the domestic market. The feudal lords, seeking to increase their incomes, began to transfer land to the peasants for hereditary holding, reduced the lord's plowing, encouraged internal colonization, willingly accepted fugitive peasants, settled uncultivated lands with them and provided them with personal freedom. The estates of the feudal lords were also drawn into market relations. These circumstances led to a change in the forms of feudal rent, the weakening, and then the complete elimination of personal feudal dependence. Quite quickly this process took place in England, France, Italy.

The development of social relations in Kievan Rus is probably following the same scenario. The onset of a period of feudal fragmentation fits into the framework of the all-European process. As in Western Europe, tendencies towards political fragmentation in Russia appeared early. Already in the tenth century after the death of Prince Vladimir in 1015, a struggle for power breaks out between his children. However, a single ancient Russian state lasted until the death of Prince Mstislav (1132). Since that time, historical science has been counting down the feudal fragmentation in Russia.

What are the reasons for this phenomenon? What contributed to the fact that the unified state of the Rurikovich quickly disintegrated into many large and small principalities? There are many such reasons.

Let's highlight the most important of them.

The main reason is the change in the nature of relations between the Grand Duke and his warriors as a result of the settlement of warriors on the ground. In the first century and a half of the existence of Kievan Rus, the squad was completely supported by the prince. The prince, as well as his state apparatus, collected tribute and other requisitions. As the combatants received land and received from the prince the right to collect taxes and duties themselves, they came to the conclusion that the income from military robbery booty is less reliable than fees from peasants and townspeople. In the XI century. the process of "settlement" of the squad on the ground intensified. And from the first half of the XII century. in Kievan Rus, the votchina becomes the predominant form of ownership, the owner of which could dispose of it at his own discretion. And although the possession of a patrimony imposed on the feudal lord the obligation to bear military service, his economic dependence on the Grand Duke significantly weakened. The incomes of the former feudal combatants no longer depended on the mercy of the prince. They made their own existence. With the weakening of economic dependence on the Grand Duke, political dependence also weakens.

A significant role in the process of feudal fragmentation in Russia was played by the developing institution feudal immunity, providing for a certain level of sovereignty of the feudal lord within the boundaries of his fiefdom. In this territory, the feudal lord had the rights of the head of state. The Grand Duke and his authorities did not have the right to act in this territory. The feudal lord himself collected taxes, duties, and administered court. As a result, a state apparatus, a squad, courts, prisons, etc., are formed in independent principalities-patrimonies, and specific princes begin to dispose of communal lands, transfer them on their own behalf to boyars and monasteries. Thus, local princely dynasties are formed, and local feudal lords make up the court and squad of this dynasty. Of great importance in this process was the introduction of the institution of heredity on the earth and the people inhabiting it. Under the influence of all these processes, the nature of relations between the local principalities and Kyiv changed. Service dependence is being replaced by relations of political partners, sometimes in the form of equal allies, sometimes suzerain and vassal.

All these economic and political processes politically meant fragmentation of power, the collapse of the former centralized statehood of Kievan Rus. This disintegration, as it was in Western Europe, was accompanied by internecine wars. Three most influential states were formed on the territory of Kievan Rus: Vladimir-Suzdal principality (North-Eastern Rus), Galicia-Volyn principality (South-Western Rus) and Novgorod land (North-Western Rus). Both within these principalities and between them, fierce clashes and destructive wars took place for a long time, which weakened the power of Russia, led to the destruction of cities and villages.

Foreign conquerors did not fail to take advantage of this circumstance. The uncoordinated actions of the Russian princes, the desire to achieve victory over the enemy at the expense of others, while maintaining their own army, the lack of a unified command led to the first defeat of the Russian army in the battle with the Tatar-Mongols on the Kalka River on May 31, 1223. Serious disagreements between the princes, which did not allow them to act as a united front in the face of the Tatar-Mongol aggression, led to the capture and destruction of Ryazan (1237). In February 1238, the Russian militia on the Sit River was defeated, Vladimir and Suzdal were captured. In October 1239, Chernigov was besieged and taken; in the fall of 1240, Kyiv was captured. Thus, from the beginning of the 40s. 13th century the period of Russian history begins, which is usually called the Tatar-Mongol yoke, which lasted until the second half of the 15th century.

It should be noted that the Tatar-Mongols did not occupy Russian lands during this period, since this territory was of little use for the economic activity of nomadic peoples. But this yoke was very real. Russia found itself in vassal dependence on the Tatar-Mongol khans. Each prince, including the Grand Duke, had to receive permission from the khan to rule the "table", the khan's label. The population of the Russian lands was subject to heavy tribute in favor of the Mongols, there were constant raids of the conquerors, which led to the devastation of the lands and the destruction of the population.

At the same time, a new dangerous enemy appeared on the northwestern borders of Russia - in 1240 the Swedes, and then in 1240-1242. German crusaders. It turned out that the Novgorod land had to defend its independence and its type of development under pressure from both the East and the West. The fight for independence Novgorod land headed by the young prince Alexander Yaroslavich. His tactics were based on the struggle against the Catholic West and concession to the East (Golden Horde). As a result, the Swedish troops that landed in July 1240 at the mouth of the Neva were defeated by the retinue of the Novgorod prince, who received the honorary nickname "Nevsky" for this victory.

Following the Swedes, German knights attacked the Novgorod land, which at the beginning of the 13th century. settled in the Baltics. In 1240 they captured Izborsk, then Pskov. Alexander Nevsky, who led the fight against the crusaders, managed to liberate Pskov in the winter of 1242, and then on the ice of Lake Peipsi in the famous battle on the ice (April 5, 1242) inflicted a decisive defeat on the German knights. After that, they no longer made serious attempts to seize Russian lands.

Thanks to the efforts of Alexander Nevsky and his descendants in the Novgorod land, despite the dependence on the Golden Horde, the traditions of Western orientation were preserved and features of subjection began to form.

However, in general, by the end of the XIII century. North-Eastern and Southern Russia fell under the influence of the Golden Horde, lost ties with the West and the previously established features of progressive development. It is difficult to overestimate the negative consequences that the Tatar-Mongol yoke had for Russia. Most historians agree that the Tatar-Mongol yoke significantly delayed the socio-economic, political and spiritual development Russian state, changed the nature of statehood, giving it the form of relations characteristic of the nomadic peoples of Asia.

It is known that in the fight against the Tatar-Mongols, the princely squads took the first blow. The vast majority of them died. Together with the old nobility, the traditions of vassal-druzhina relations left. Now, with the formation of the new nobility, the relationship of allegiance was established.

Relations between princes and cities changed. Veche (with the exception of the Novgorod land) has lost its significance. The prince in such conditions acted as the only protector and master.

Thus, Russian statehood begins to acquire the features of oriental despotism with its cruelty, arbitrariness, complete disregard for the people and the individual. As a result, a peculiar type of feudalism was formed in Russia, in which the “Asian element” is quite strongly represented. The formation of this peculiar type of feudalism was facilitated by the fact that, as a result of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, Russia developed for 240 years in isolation from Europe.

topic 5 The formation of the Muscovite state in the XIV-XVI centuries

1 / Unification of Russian lands around Moscow and the formation of a single Russian state

2/ The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the formation and strengthening of the Russian state

3/ Formation of a centralized Russian state

4 / XVII century - the crisis of the Moscow kingdom

About the Verdun division of 843, when the empire of Charlemagne was divided among his grandsons, however, the title of emperor was preserved.

Compare the first and second information: what question do you have? Compare with the authors' version (p. 273).

Question: Why is the time from the 9th century called the period of fragmentation, if the empire was restored in the 10th century?

Answer: Formally, the empire was restored, but the feudal lords gained more and more power and ceased to obey their lords. At first, this happened with large feudal lords, and then even with many middlemen. Kings and emperors actually controlled only small territories, the rest of the lands were divided among smaller lords who constantly fought with each other.

Prove that a period of state fragmentation has begun in Western Europe. Have there been changes in other areas of society?

In 843, at Verdun, the empire was divided between the grandsons of Charlemagne into three parts. But the new rulers tried to leave the management system and other aspects of life unchanged. All these features of the state underwent changes slowly, being separated by state borders over the centuries of history.

Starting with the grandchildren of Charlemagne, his empire begins to disintegrate. But it was still a division into rather large parts, because it is not quite fragmentation. In addition, the owners of the beneficiaries had not yet turned into feudal lords - the kings or the emperor could still take away their lands for improper service.

What parts did the empire of Charlemagne break up into?

The empire broke up into the possessions of Lothair I, Louis (Ludwig) II of Germany and Charles II the Bald.

Compare with the map on p. 37, what states were formed on the site of the empire?

Considering that Lothair's possessions were soon divided between two other kingdoms, the West Frankish kingdom (the future France) and the East Frankish kingdom (the future Holy Roman Empire) arose on the site of the empire of Charlemagne.

Prove that a period of feudal fragmentation has begun in Western Europe.

The feudal lords received full power in their possessions: to judge subject people, to transfer land by inheritance, to transfer it to their own vassals. The right of kings and emperors to take land was usually only a sham. Most importantly, the feudal lords did not openly obey the monarchs and even went to war against them and against each other. In these wars, feudal fragmentation is most manifest.

Name her reasons.

Wars between pretenders to the throne. For example, in the West Frankish kingdom, there was a long struggle between two dynasties that claimed the royal title - the Carolingians and the Capetians. At the same time, the applicants bought the help of the feudal lords with more and more privileges.

Viking and Hungarian raids. The royal army often did not have time to come to repel the raid (and sometimes it was simply not up to the pretenders to the throne). Troops were needed on the ground, which could gather quickly and repel the attack. Gradually more and more rights flowed into the hands of those who could organize such a defense.

Make a conclusion about the problem of the lesson.

The combination of wars for the throne and barbarian raids strengthened the feudal lords so much that they were able to go against the power of the monarchs.

Try to find a European country where you could live safely from the raids of barbarian tribes.

Only the Caliphate of Cordoba was safe. The Vikings sometimes attacked its coasts, but received a worthy rebuff, therefore they rarely attacked and did not go deep into the mainland. The lands from which the raids came were not attacked - Scandinavia and Hungary. The map shows that no one attacked Poland, Croatia and Serbia, but information about these countries in the 10th century is so scarce that, perhaps, information about such raids has not been preserved. Otherwise, there is no reason why the Vikings and Hungarians could avoid them. All other countries were subjected to raids, and even conquests, either by the Vikings, or their descendants (I remember, first of all, the campaign of Svyatoslav Igorevich against Bulgaria), or by the Hungarians.

Which parts of Charlemagne's empire became an empire again in 962?

The empire united the lands of many Germanic tribes, as well as the kingdoms of Burgundy and Lombard.

Can the formation of the Holy Roman Empire be considered the re-creation of a single imperial state of the West?

You can't count like that. Firstly, it did not unite all the territories that were part of the empire of Charlemagne. Secondly, it pretty quickly actually broke up into the possessions of large feudal lords, the power of the emperor was weak and weakened even more by rivalry with the popes.

Make a conclusion about the problem of the lesson.

The proclamation of the restoration of the empire did not stop feudal fragmentation even in the empire itself.

Try to describe a dispute between an approximate king and a count - a large landowner, in which one will prove the need for a single state, and the other will object to him.

Such a dispute could be started by a supporter of the king with accusations against the count, who violated the feudal oath. To this, the supporter of the count would begin to say that the king was the first to violate the duties of a sovereign and therefore lost the right to the allegiance of his vassal.

After this, an argument from a supporter of the king about the raids of the Vikings and Hungarians could follow. In his opinion, as long as the kingdom was united, there were no such raids. A supporter of the count could cite many examples of this, when the royal troops went too slowly and it was the local counts who had to repel the raids.

A weak argument for a supporter of the king could be the benefits for trade, which was difficult to conduct when new borders had to be crossed every few kilometers. But he himself had to understand that a truly noble person, as participants in this dispute, did not care about trade, he cared about feats of arms and glory.

At that time, only the first pair of arguments were truly worthwhile. Because feudal law was relevant then. It painted when a vassal has the right to consider himself free from the oath, and when for its violation he is worthy of losing his fief.

Try to explain the difference in the concepts of state and feudal fragmentation. Check yourself in a dictionary.

With state fragmentation, a single state is divided into several, the ruler of each of them becomes a monarch. With feudal fragmentation, the state formally remains united, the feudal lords recognize the power of the monarch over themselves, again, formally, but in reality they do not obey him and even fight against him.

2.1. The period of feudal fragmentation in Western Europe and in Russia: the essence and causes

2.2. Mongol-Tatars and Russia

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

Even in the IV century. (395) The Roman Empire broke up into two independent parts - Western and Eastern. The capital of the Eastern part was 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 "empire of the Romans." In the VI century. Byzantium occupied vast territories of the European continent (even Italy was conquered for a short time). 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 Mongol tribes. The latter included the Mongols proper, to which Temujin belonged, the Merkits, Keraits, Oira-ty, Naimans, Tatars. The largest and most warlike of the Mongol tribes was the Tatar tribe. Tanguts, Jurchens, Chinese, who bordered on the Mongols, often transferred the name "Tatars" in general 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, the grandson Yesugei Bagatur, who was at enmity with the Tatars, 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 the real power that Temujin gained thanks to his abilities. Representatives of the Mongolian steppe aristocracy, having elected Temujin Khan, gave him the title of 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 utterly defeated the Tatars. All captured Tatar men were killed, and women and children were distributed among different tribes. The khan himself took two Tatars as his wife.

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

In 1206, at a congress (kurultai) of the Mongol nobility in the upper reaches of the Onon River, Genghis Khan was again proclaimed khan, but already of a single Mongol state.

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

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

Having created a strong state, 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 northeast of Russia about the defeat and capture by the Mongol-Tatars of the largest states of Asia, the devastation of vast territories with flourishing cities and populous villages served as a terrible warning.

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

Apparently, in Russia they also knew about Mongolian campaign 1219-1224 to Central Asia, about its huge devastating 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, the devastation of entire regions and the extermination of the civilian population were used. Has developed whole system mass organized terror, 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, intimidating civilians.

During the siege of the city, residents received mercy only on condition of immediate surrender, although this rule was sometimes not respected if it seemed unprofitable to the Mongols. If the city surrendered only after a 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 the Mongol warriors. After the robbery of the city and the division of the booty, they were mistaken for the townspeople. Soldiers were killed, their families were turned into slavery. 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 among the warriors by order of Genghis Khan. According to Ibn al-Asir, 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 between the Mongol princes and the nobility, 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 the battles, the “crowd people” were in front of the troops, serving as a target for shots by their compatriots. The rest of the inhabitants were allowed to return to their ruined dwellings.

If the 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 inhabitants, who were previously expelled into the field, were distributed among the soldiers, who were to kill the survivors. Sometimes, along with the cities, their rural districts were also 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, Russia 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 Saksins and Eastern Polovtsy in 1229, about the wintering of the Mongol-Tatars near the borders of the Volga Bulgaria in 1232. Under 1236, the chronicle contains a message about the conquest of the Volga Bulgaria by the Mongols . The chronicler describes the defeat of the capital of Bulgaria - the Great City. This message of the Vladimir chronicler carried a frank warning of impending catastrophe. She broke out a year later.

It should be noted that in 1235 a decision was made at the kurultai on a general Mongol campaign to the West. According to the Persian author Juvayni (died in 1283), at the kurultai of 1235, “a decision was made to take possession of the countries of Bulgar, Ases and Rus, which were in the neighborhood of the Batu camp, but were not yet completely conquered and were proud of their large numbers.”

Having defeated the Volga Bulgaria in 1236, and in 1237 launched a broad offensive against the Polovtsians in the Caspian steppes, in the North Caucasus, by the autumn of 1237 the Mongol-Tatars concentrated their forces near the borders of North-Eastern Russia. The Ryazan Principality was the first to experience the strength of the Mongol-Tatar army. Having taken Ryazan in December 1237, Batu set off on the ice of the Oka towards Kolomna. Near Kolomna, the Mongol-Tatars were waiting for the Vladimir-Suzdal regiments, led by the son of the great Vladimir prince Vsevolod. The battle that took place in January 1238 near Kolomna was distinguished by stubbornness 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 grounds to conclude that the battle was of an exceptionally tense character (like all Chinggisids, the youngest son of Chinggis 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 "strongly fought" near Kolomna, they failed to stop the Mongol-Tatars. Having crushed Moscow in January 1238, the Mongols approached Vladimir in early February. In view of the 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, wall-beating weapons, only for a few days, until February 8th. And then followed the horrific defeat of the capital of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir. On March 4, 1238, the Mongol commander Burundai surprised Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, who was encamped on the City River. Together with the Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich, many Russian waves died. Mongolian detachments captured Tver, appeared within the Novgorod land. Before reaching 100 versts to Novgorod, the Mongol-Tatars turned south and, having passed the "raid" 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 autumn. In 1239, the main blow of the Mongols-Tatars fell on the southern Russian lands. In the spring of 1239, the Principality of Pereyaslavl was defeated, in the autumn it was the turn of Chernigov, which was besieged on October 18, 1239. The city was defended to the last opportunity. Many of its defenders perished on the walls. At the end of 1240 Kyiv fell. In 1241, Batu invaded the Galicia-Volyn principality.

Reporting on the Mongol invasion, the chronicler noted that the Tatars appeared innumerable, "like a pruzi, eating grass." The question of the number of Batu's troops has attracted the attention of historians for about 200 years. Starting from 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 400, 500, and even 600 thousand army.

Such figures are, of course, a clear exaggeration, because it is much more than there were men in Mongolia in the thirteenth century.

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

After all, each Mongol warrior needed to have at least three horses: riding, pack and fighting, which was not loaded, so that she retained her strength by 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, went to the food of the soldiers. It is no coincidence that the Mongols demanded fresh horses from all the cities that entered into negotiations with them.

The well-known researcher N. Veselovsky determined the number of the Mongolian army at 30 thousand people. L.N. adhered to the same assessment. Gumilev. A similar position (the number of Batu's army is 30-40 thousand people) is characteristic of historians

According to the most recent estimates, which can be considered quite convincing, the number of Mongol troops proper, which were at the disposal of Batu, was 50-60 thousand people.

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

An opinion is expressed that in addition to the Mongol troops proper, 50-60 thousand people, Batu's army included auxiliary corps from the conquered peoples. However, in reality, Batu did not have such corps. Usually the Mongols did this. Prisoners captured in battle and civilians were herded into an assault crowd, which was driven into battle in front of the Mongol units. Detachments of allies and vassals were also used. Behind this "assault crowd", doomed to die in the vanguard battle, the Mongolian barrage detachments were placed.

By the way, approaching the real figure of the number of Mongolian troops helps to understand the nature of hostilities in 1237-1238. Having suffered significant losses in battles with the Ryazan and Vladimir residents, the Mongols then hardly 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. Military equipment Mongol-Tatars surpassed the European one. They did not wear heavy armor, but robes with several layers of felt protected them better than iron from arrows. The range of the arrow for the English archers, the best in Europe, was 450 m, and for the Mongols - up to 700 m. This advantage was achieved due to the complex design of their bow, the fact that certain muscle groups were trained in the Mongolian archers from childhood. Mongolian boys, from the age of six, mounting a horse and taking up arms, growing up, became a kind of perfect war machines.

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

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

It would be unreasonable to reduce the essence of the problem to this particular figure. It can be assumed that all the Russian principalities could potentially put together an army of similar numbers. But the whole point is that the Russian princes were unable to unite their efforts even in the hour of formidable danger.

Unsuccessfully, the Ryazan prince Yuri Igorevich turned to Vladimir and Chernigov for help. Why did the Grand Duke of Vladimir and the supreme overlord of the Ryazan princes Yuri Vsevolodovich not send help? It is even difficult to assume that Yuri Vsevolodovich wanted to defeat 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, which the Grand Duke was aware of, left no doubt that there would be a life-and-death struggle.

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 Yury himself does not go, he does not listen to the prayers of the princes of Ryazan, but he wants to create abuse himself ...”. That is, in essence, the same situation arose as in the battle on the Kalka in 1223. Each prince wanted to fight alone, without allies.

Is it just a simple desire for individual action? It seems that we are faced with the manifestation of one of the features of 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 not at all taking into account common actions, which predetermined the unfavorable outcome of the battle . So it was in the West, so it happened in Russia.

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 Chernigov was located, 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 vacated Kyiv throne was hurried to take the Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich, but he was soon expelled by Daniel of Galicia, who did not prepare the city for defense.

According to the Mongolian rules of war, those cities that submitted voluntarily were called "gobalyk" - a good city. From such cities, a moderate contribution was taken in horses for the cavalry and food supplies. But after all, 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 rejected the idea of ​​capitulation. Evidence of this, for example, is the prolonged 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 point to the heroic defense of these centers. Archaeologists have discovered thick layers of conflagrations, hundreds of human skeletons have been found under burnt houses, fortress walls, in the streets and squares.

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

The Mongol army needed to be replenished, so the Mongols offered those captured to buy freedom at the price of joining their army. In the chronicle of Matthew of Paris, there is a letter from two monks, in which it was reported that there were “many Cumans and pseudo-Christians” (i.e., Orthodox) in the Mongol army. The first recruitment among Russians was made in 1238-1241. Note that in this case we are again talking, apparently, about the "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 the cities that took the blow of the Mongol-Tatars, layers of continuous conflagrations and hundreds of skeletons with traces of wounds were found. There was no one to collect and bury the bodies of the dead. When Daniil Romanovich returned to Vladimir-Volynsky, a terrible sight appeared before his eyes. In the deserted city, as noted by N.I. Kostomarov, the churches were filled with piles of corpses. In church buildings, residents sought refuge and died there.

The Italian monk Plano Carpini, who visited Russia in 1246, wrote that “when we rode through their land, we found countless heads and bones dead people lying on the field." In Kyiv, according to Plano Carpini, there are only 200 houses left.

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

Despite the dire consequences of the Mongol-Tatar campaign against 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 ruined homes and cities. Survived such large centers as Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk, Smolensk. Often, when the Tatars approached, the population went into the forest. Forests, ravines, rivers, swamps sheltered both villages and people from the Tatar cavalry. Ukrainian archaeologist

In the IX-XI centuries. states are also being formed in other parts of Europe, where the process of the formation of new ethnic groups and nationalities is underway. In the northern mountainous regions of the Iberian Peninsula, from the 8th century, after the conquest of Visigothic Spain by the Arabs (Moors), Asturias retained its independence, which became a kingdom in 718. In the ninth century the kingdom of Navarre was formed, separated from the Spanish brand founded by Charlemagne. The county of Barcelona, ​​which temporarily became part of France, also stood out from it. Asturias was the forerunner of the future unified Spanish state, the territory of which had yet to be conquered over the centuries from the Arabs. In most of the rest of Spain, the Arab state continued to exist - the Emirate of Cordoba, which arose in the middle of the 8th century. and turned into the Caliphate of Cordoba in 929, which in the first half of the 11th century. broke up into a number of small independent emirates.

Formation of the state among the Anglo-Saxons

The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Britain united in 829 into one kingdom, England. In the north of Britain there was an independent kingdom of Scotland, and in the west - the Celtic principalities of Wales. The independent Celtic tribes that inhabited Ireland were in the process of uniting clans and forming the supreme royal power.

In the north of Europe in the IX-XI centuries. the Scandinavian countries - Denmark, Norway, Sweden - entered the path of development of the formation of states. In the 8th century the Danish kingdom was formed, at the end of the 9th century. the united Norwegian kingdom began to take shape, and from the 11th century. the Kingdom of Sweden.

In the 9th century, priests throughout Europe offered prayers: “Lord, protect us from the fury of the Normans!”. The Normans are the ancient Scandinavians, the ancestors of modern Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Icelanders. Normans - "northern people" - they were called by the inhabitants of Western Europe, in Russia they were known as the Vikings. Scandinavia, where they live, has a rather harsh climate. There are few lands suitable for cultivation, so the sea played a huge role in the life of the Scandinavians. The sea provided food, the sea was a road that allowed you to quickly get to other countries.

In the VIII-X centuries in Scandinavia, the influence of leaders increased, strong squads were formed, striving for glory and prey. And as a result - attacks, conquests and resettlement to new lands. The daredevils who dared to risk their lives on long voyages and robberies were called Vikings in Scandinavia. From the end of the 8th century and for almost three centuries, the attacks of the Normans followed one after another. They devastated the coast, penetrated deep into any country along the rivers, ravaged London, Paris, Aachen. Their attacks were so sudden that by the time the army of the local ruler opposed them, they managed to sail back with rich booty, leaving smoking ruins behind them. Where the Normans did not count on an easy victory, they were careful: putting their swords aside, they pretended to be merchants and began to profitably engage in trade.

Over time, the Normans began to seize the coastal regions of other countries and establish their own states there. So it was in Scotland, Ireland, England. In the 10th century, the French king was forced to cede vast lands in the north of the country to the Normans. Thus the Duchy of Normandy was born. The Scandinavians who settled there adopted Christianity, adopted the local language and customs.

Norman discoveries

The Normans were the best sailors of their time. Their fast ships moved easily along narrow rivers, but they also withstood ocean storms. At the end of the 9th century, the Normans discovered the island, which they called Iceland - "land of ice", and began to populate it. In the 10th century an Icelander Erich the Red discovered a large land northwest of Iceland, which he named Greenland - "green country". Around the year 1000, the son of Eirik the Red Leif, nicknamed the Happy, reached the coast of North America. Leif and his companions named this country Vinland - "country of grapes". They were the first Europeans to visit the New World 500 years before Columbus. Already in our time, archaeologists have unearthed a Norman settlement on the island of Newfoundland. True, the Normans failed to gain a foothold in America for a long time. Stories about the country of Vinland were passed down from generation to generation, but no one outside of Scandinavia ever knew about it.

For those whose lands were ravaged by the Normans, they were pagan barbarians who destroyed Christian culture. However, the Scandinavians have created their own, original culture. They used a special script - runes, passed on from generation to generation epic tales about gods and heroes. Their historical tales - sagas - told about bold voyages and fierce battles. It was from the sagas that historians learned about the voyages to Greenland and Vinland. When the Viking ships appeared off the coast of England at the end of the 8th century, there were several kingdoms founded back in V-VI centuries Germanic tribes of Angles and Saxons. In the 9th century, the attacks of the Vikings became more and more dangerous. Soon, most of the country was under their rule. It seemed impossible to stop them.

King Alfred the Great (871-900) managed to organize resistance to the Normans. He fortified the border with new fortresses and reformed the army. Previously, the basis of the army was civil uprising. The new army was much smaller than the previous one, because only every sixth Anglo-Saxon fit for service remained in it. But the other five fed and armed him, so that he could diligently engage in military affairs and fight with the Scandinavians on equal terms. Relying on a new army, Alfred achieved a turning point in the fight against the Normans, and his successors completely ousted the enemies from the country.

After the death of the English king Edward the Confessor, so called for his piety, one of the contenders for the throne was the Duke of Normandy William. The English nobility put forward their candidate - Harold. Army Wilhelm crossed the English Channel and in 1066 won the Battle of Hastings. Harold died in battle. The Duke of Normandy became King of England and was nicknamed the Conqueror. By the end of the 11th century, states were formed in Scandinavia, the population of which converted to Christianity. The Vikings, who settled in other countries, also created their own kingdoms. The era of invasions and long-distance voyages is over.

Feudal fragmentation

One of the reasons for the success of the Vikings was the military weakness of their opponents, especially France. There were reasons for that. The early Carolingians retained a certain amount of power over the lands that their ancestors had once granted as beneficiaries. But the owners of the latter, over time, began to freely pass them on by inheritance. These were no longer benefices, but fiefs. The owners of fiefs - the feudal lords - tried in every possible way to reduce the service in favor of the king. This was facilitated by the monarchs themselves, who, in an effort to attract the nobility to their side, granted her more and more privileges: to judge local population, punish criminals, collect taxes. Sometimes the representatives of the king could not even enter the feudal lord's possessions without his permission.

The continuous attacks of enemies also contributed to the further strengthening of the feudal lords. The weakened royal power did not have time to establish resistance, and the local population could only rely on the feudal lords, whose power increased accordingly. Since the weakening of royal power was closely connected with the transformation of beneficiaries into fiefs, the fragmentation that triumphed at that time in Western Europe is usually called feudal. In the 9th-10th centuries, the most rapid fragmentation of power occurred in the West Frankish kingdom, which just at that time began to be called France.

The last Carolingians did not have much power in France, and in 987 the feudal lords handed over the crown to the powerful Parisian count Hugh Capet, who became famous for his successful struggle against the Normans. His descendants - Capetians - ruled France until the XIV century, and the side branches of the dynasty (Valois and Bourbons), respectively, until the end of the XVI and until late XVIII century.

The king officially led the French army in big wars with neighbors, acted as an intermediary in disputes between the feudal lords, but otherwise had no power over the country and could only rely on the resources of his domain. This was the territory that belonged to him not as a king, but as the heir to the counts of Paris, a narrow strip of land from the Seine to the Loire with the cities of Paris and Orleans. But even there the king was not a complete master: the feudal lords, having strengthened themselves in the royal fortresses, felt the impotence of power and did not obey it.

The French kingdom was then divided into many large and small feudal estates. Some feudal lords - the dukes of Normandy, the counts of Champagne and others - had more land and wealth than the king himself, and felt independent of the monarch in their possessions, considering him only the first among equals. They collected taxes, minted coins, fought wars. But, having taken power from the king, they also lost it in favor of medium and small feudal lords.

The rise of Germany in the 10th century

The dukes, turning into large landowners, used their position as tribal leaders to strengthen their own power. This led to the preservation of tribal disunity, which hampered the development of Germany. In 911, after the Carolingian dynasty ended in Germany, one of the tribal dukes, Conrad I of Franconia, was elected king, during which an open conflict broke out between the royal power and the tribal dukes, ending in the defeat of the king. After the death of Conrad I, a struggle for power developed between the tribal dukes; as a result, in 919 two kings were elected at once - Henry of Saxony and Arnulf of Bavaria.

However, various social forces were interested in a strong royal power: medium and large landowners, monasteries and bishoprics. Moreover, the political unification of Germany at this time was necessary in the face of external danger; from the end of the ninth century Germany became the scene of Norman raids, and from the beginning of the 10th century. a new danger arose - the raids of the Hungarians who settled in Pannonia. Their cavalry detachments unexpectedly invaded Germany, devastating everything in their path, and just as suddenly disappeared. Attempts to organize an effective rebuff to the Hungarians by the foot militia of individual duchies turned out to be ineffective.

Henry of Saxony, by skillful policy, achieved recognition of his power by all the tribal dukes, including Arnulf of Bavaria , having received the title Henry I (919-936) and becoming the founder Saxon dynasty (919 - 1024). His activities, which consisted in the construction of castles (burghs) and the creation of heavily armed knightly cavalry, were successful in the fight against the Hungarian nomads. In 955 in decisive battle on the Lech River, near Augsburg, they suffered a crushing defeat. The raids on Germany stopped, and the Hungarians themselves switched to a settled life.

However, the tribal dukes were not inclined to lose their independence. They recognized the royal title of Henry I only after he refused to interfere in the internal affairs of the duchies. But when the son and successor of Henry I, Otto I (936-973), made an attempt to change the situation and suppress the independence of the dukes, this caused an uprising.

In the struggle to strengthen his power, the king began to pursue an active policy of supporting the church, turning it into an ally capable of pursuing the policy he needed on the ground. To do this, he generously endowed her with land holdings. These land holdings, together with the living population, were entirely controlled only by the church authorities. On the other hand, any appointment to the highest church posts could only happen with the approval of the king. The clergy only put forward candidates for these positions, but they were approved and appointed by the king. When the office of bishop or imperial (royal) abbot remained vacant, all income from their land went to the king, who was therefore in no hurry to replace them.

The highest church dignitaries were attracted by the king to carry out administrative, diplomatic, military, and public service. Vassals of bishops and imperial abbots made up the bulk of the host; often at the head of its divisions was a militant bishop or abbot. Such a system of the imperial church arose even under the Carolingians. The church became the main means of governing Germany, which the rulers used to their advantage. The most important goal of royal policy now became to achieve the obedience of the Pope, as the head of the entire Catholic Church.

These plans are closely connected with attempts to reunify Europe, resurrect a semblance of Charlemagne's empire. The intentions of the royal power to expand the state by including new territories found the full support of the landowners. Even under Henry I, Lorraine was annexed, the conquest of the eastern Slavic lands began (the onslaught to the east - the policy of Drang nach Osten). Otto I, having influence in the West Frankish Empire, directed his claims towards Italy, beyond the Alps. His desire to be crowned in Rome is quite understandable.

In Italy, where there was no single center, and various forces fought among themselves, it was not possible to organize a rebuff to the German troops. In 951, as a result of the first campaign, Northern Italy (Lombardy) was captured. Otto I assumed the title of King of the Lombards. He married the heiress of the Italian kingdom, freeing her from imprisonment.

Rise of the Holy Roman Empire

After 10 years, taking advantage of another aggravation of the struggle between the pope and the Italian landowners, the king got his way. Early in 962, the pope crowned Otto I in Rome with the imperial crown. Prior to this, Otto I, under a special agreement, recognized the pope's claims to secular possessions in Italy, but the German emperor was proclaimed the supreme lord of these possessions. The obligatory oath of the pope to the emperor was introduced, which was an expression of the subordination of the papacy to the empire.

So in 962 the Holy Roman Empire arose headed by the German emperor, which included, in addition to Germany, Northern and a significant part of Central Italy, some Slavic lands, as well as part of the South in South-East France. In the first half of the XI century. the Kingdom of Burgundy (Arelat) was annexed to the empire.

An interesting page in the history of the early empire is connected with the grandson of Otto I the Great Otto III . His mother was the Byzantine princess Theophano, though she had no right to the throne. But her son, half Saxon, half Greek, considered himself the heir to both Charlemagne and the rulers of Constantinople. Otto III received a good education and considered it his historical mission to revive the ancient Roman Empire in all its splendor. He became king of Italy, and for the first time under him a German under the name of Gregory V was elevated to the papal throne, who immediately crowned the benefactor with the imperial crown. In his dreams, Otto saw himself as the ruler of a single world Christian power with capitals in Rome, Aachen, and possibly Constantinople. Otto III ordered to build a palace for himself on the site where the Roman emperors lived. He declared a fake document, according to which the popes claimed the rights to secular power, the so-called "Konstantin's gift."

However, the plans of the emperor did not find support either in Germany, which in this case was destined for the fate of a separate part of the general whole, or in Italy, both among the clergy and among the large landowners-nobiles. A revolt arose in Rome, Otto III fled the city and soon died at the age of 22, leaving no heir. Power in the empire passed to Henry II (1002-1024), who became the last representative of the Saxon dynasty.

The Holy Roman Empire of the German nation (this name will be established later) will exist in Europe until the conquests of Napoleon I at the beginning of the 19th century, when the Confederation of the Rhine will be formed in its place.

This artificial political formation, which had neither a common economic base nor ethnic unity, caused innumerable disasters for Italy throughout many centuries of its history. The German kings and emperors, considering themselves the masters of the Italian lands, constantly organized campaigns to plunder Italy and subjugate it to their power.

The emergence of the Holy Roman Empire, the confrontation with the papacy will have an impact on the further history of the development of Germany. The German emperors will waste their strength on futile attempts to conquer Italy, while their absence from the country will enable the great landowners, secular and spiritual, to gain strength, thereby contributing to the development of centrifugal tendencies.

After the suppression of the Saxon dynasty, representatives of Franconian dynasty (1024-1125). The first decades of their reign were not easy. In Italy, at that time, an alliance was finally formed between the papacy and the strong group of Italian large landowners that supported it and a number of Italian cities, on the one hand, and powerful German secular landowners, on the other, which was directed against the strengthening of the power of the emperor. under the emperor Henry IV (1056-1106) the conflict resulted in an open confrontation, called by historians fight for investment . Investiture is the act of taking possession of land, the transfer of a fief by a lord to his vassal. As applied to bishops and abbots, investiture included not only the introduction of a new bishop or abbot into the management of the lands and dependent people of the corresponding church institution (bishopric or abbey), but also confirmation in the clergy, as a sign of which a ring and a staff were presented. The right of investiture meant, in essence, the right to appoint and confirm bishops and abbots chosen by the clergy.

Beginning with Otto I, emperors carried out the investiture of bishops and abbots and saw this as one of the most important pillars of their power. The popes, who had previously put up with this order, in the second half of the 11th century, began to challenge the emperor's right to the investiture of higher clerics - bishops and abbots. This struggle engulfed all parts of the empire. During the confrontation, a whole range of important issues was resolved. For example, about the supremacy in church affairs of the emperor or pope, about the fate of the empire in Germany, about the foundations of further political development German society, on the relationship between Germany and the Italian regions of the empire, on the further development of the cities of Northern and Central Italy.

AT 1059 on the Lateran church cathedral(in Rome) A new order for the selection of popes was established. According to the decision of the council, the pope was to be elected without any outside interference by the cardinals - the highest dignitaries of the church, who received their title from the pope. This decision was directed against the desire of the emperor to interfere in the election of popes. The Lateran Council also spoke out against the secular investiture of bishops and abbots.

Cluniac movement

Having strengthened his possessions in Saxony and suppressed the uprising here (1070-1075), the emperor was ready to fight with the Pope. The papacy saw a way out in the rallying of church forces. It relied on supporting the movement, which originated in the 10th century. in the monastery of Cluny (French Burgundy). The purpose of this movement was the all-round strengthening of the church, raising its moral authority and eradicating all the negative aspects that were widespread in its environment by that time. This includes the sale of church positions, the “secularization” of churchmen, the submission to secular power, etc.

Principles Cluniac movement found a warm response in the monasteries of Germany, which contributed to the spread of centrifugal tendencies within the country. Fourteen years after the Council of the Lateran, in 1073, the monk Hildebrand, a zealous supporter of the demands of Cluniac, was elected pope under the name of Gregory VII and began to put into practice his program of strengthening the church, removing several German bishops, appointed, in his opinion, incorrectly.

Henry IV resolutely opposed the desire of Gregory VII to subjugate the German clergy and weaken their connection with the royal power. In 1076, at a meeting of the highest German clergy, he announced the deposition of Gregory VII. In response to this, the pope used an unprecedented means: he excommunicated Henry IV from the church and deprived him of his royal dignity, and freed the king's subjects from the oath to their sovereign. Immediately, the secular nobility, many bishops and abbots opposed the king.

Henry IV was forced to capitulate to Gregory VII. In January 1077, with a small retinue, he went on a meeting with the pope to Italy. After a difficult passage through the Alps, Henry began to seek a meeting with Gregory VII, who was in the castle of Canossa (in Northern Italy). According to chroniclers, Henry IV, having removed all the signs of royal dignity, barefoot and hungry, stood for three days from morning to evening in front of the castle. Finally, he was admitted to the pope and on his knees begged his forgiveness.

However, Henry's obedience was only a maneuver. Having somewhat strengthened his position in Germany after the removal of the excommunication from him by the pope, he again opposed Gregory VII. The struggle between the empire and the papacy, which continued for a long time after that, with varying success, ended with the signing of the so-called Concordat of Worms (1122) - an agreement concluded by the son and successor of Henry IV, Henry V, and Pope Calixtus II of Rome. It regulated the procedure for the election of bishops, establishing a different system for the election of bishops in various fields empire.

In Germany, bishops were henceforth to be elected by the clergy in the presence of the emperor, who had the final say in the presence of several candidates. The emperor made a secular investiture - the transfer of a scepter, symbolizing power over the lands of the bishopric. After the secular investiture, the spiritual one, carried out by the pope or his legate, followed - the transfer of the ring and staff, symbolizing the spiritual authority of the bishop.

In Italy and in Burgundy, the election of bishops was to take place without the participation of the emperor or his representatives. Only six months after the election and confirmation of the new bishop by the pope, the emperor made an investiture with a scepter, which thus turned into a purely formal act.

The Concordat of Worms destroyed the system of the imperial church in Italy and Burgundy. In Germany, however, a compromise order was established, which was a violation of the fundamental principles of the Ottonian church policy. He strengthened the position of the German princes. And this reduced the possibilities of the central government.

In the XII century. central government weakens in Germany, begins a long period of political fragmentation.

Thus, over the course of several centuries, the most important processes took place in medieval Europe. Huge masses of Germanic, Slavic and nomadic tribes moved across its spaces, their placement further formed the boundaries of future state formations. These formations at first were fragile, short-lived in the period of existence. Under the blows of nomads, powerful neighbors, they went into oblivion.

The first to emerge were the Germanic barbarian kingdoms, created on the territory of Ancient Rome. By the end of the 1st millennium AD. states were formed among the Slavs, and in the north of Europe. They were cemented by the Christian religion. The strongest of the barbarian kingdoms had a historical perspective - the Frankish kingdom. It was here that the representative of the Carolingian dynasty, Charlemagne, was able to unite Europe almost within the borders of the Roman Empire by force of arms with the support of the Catholic Church in 800.

However, the empire of Charlemagne was an internally weak formation, uniting territories that were completely different in their level. If in the former Frankish kingdom the strengthening of feudal relations based on the ownership of landed property with a dependent population was in full swing, then in the east on the German and Slavic territories for a long time there was a powerful stratum of free farmers.

Results

The collapse of the empire of Charlemagne was a matter of time. Not even half a century has passed since its inception, as the descendants of the emperor divided it among themselves. The future France, Germany, Italy are formed on the ruins of the empire. But first, the kings of the East Frankish kingdom (Germany) made another attempt to unite Europe.

The Holy Roman Empire, which arose in 962 thanks to the efforts of Otto I, had a lot of problems. The Italian lands were eager to escape from the power of the emperor, and for many decades, to the detriment of strengthening the German territories, the ruler concentrated his attention on their subjugation. The German princes tried in every possible way to be independent. The powerful influence of the emperor on the papacy and the church was in conflict with their interests. The principle of the imperial church, which, as under the Carolingians, was used by the Saxon dynasty, interfered with the claims of the papacy to the exercise of secular power.

Using the Cluniac movement as a support, the papacy got its way. As a result of the measures of Pope Gregory VII and the further development of his policy in 1122 concluded between the emperor and the pope Concordat of Worms , which meant the destruction of the principles of the imperial church. In addition, it led to the strengthening of the power of the German princes and the weakening of the power of the emperor.

References:

1. Agibalova E.V., Donskoy G.M. General history. History of the Middle Ages: a textbook for the 6th grade of educational institutions. 14th ed. M.: Education, 2012.
2. Aleksashkina L.N. General history. History of the Middle Ages. (any edition).
3. Boytsov M.A., Shukurov R.M. History of the Middle Ages. Textbook for grade VII secondary educational institutions. - 4th ed. - Moscow: MIROS; KD "University", 1998.
4. Boytsov M.A., Shukurov R.M. General history. History of the Middle Ages: a textbook for the 6th grade of educational institutions. 15th ed. M.: Russian word, 2012. Brandt M.Yu. General history. History of the Middle Ages. Textbook for grade 6 educational institutions. 8th ed., revised. M.: Bustard, 2008.
5. Bolshakov O. G. History of the Caliphate. M., 2000.
6. World history in six volumes / Ch. ed. A.O. Chubaryan. T. 2. Medieval civilizations of the West and East / Ed. ed. Volumes P. Yu. Uvarov. Moscow, 2012.
7. Vedyushkin V.A. General history. History of the Middle Ages. Textbook for grade 6 educational institutions. 9th ed. M.: Education, 2012.
8. Vedyushkin V.A., Ukolova V.I. Story. Middle Ages. M.: Education, 2011.
9. Danilov D.D., Sizova E.V., Kuznetsov A.V. etc. General history. History of the Middle Ages. 6 cells M.: Balass, 2011.
10. Devyataikina N. I. History of the Middle Ages. Textbook for the 6th grade of a comprehensive school. M., 2002.
11. Dmitrieva O.V. General history. History of the New Age. M.: Russian Word,
12. 2012.
13. Iskrovskaya L.V., Fedorov S.E., Guryanova Yu.V. / Ed. Myasnikova B.C. History of the Middle Ages. 6 cells M.: Ventana-Graf, 2011.
14. History of the East. In 6 volumes. Volume 2. East in the Middle Ages / Ed. L.B. Alaeva, K.Z. Ashrafyan. M., 2002.
15. History of the East. In 6 volumes. Volume 3. East at the turn of the Middle Ages and modern times, XVI - XVIII centuries. / Ed. L.B. Alaeva, K.Z. Ashrafyan, N.I. Ivanova. M., 2002.
16. History of Europe: in 8 volumes. T. 2. Medieval Europe. M., 1992.
17. Le Goff J. Civilization of the Medieval West. Various editions.
18. Ponomarev M.V., Abramov A.V., Tyrin S.V. General history. History of the Middle Ages. 6 cells M.: Drofa, 2013.
19. Sukhov V.V., Morozov A.Yu., Abdulaev E.N. General history. History of the Middle Ages. 6 cells Moscow: Mnemosyne, 2012.
20. Khachaturyan V.M. The history of world civilizations from ancient times to the end of the 20th century. – M.: Bustard, 1999.