Rus (Russian land) is the name of the state-political formation of the Eastern Slavs of the 9th – 13th centuries. who created the ancient Russian state. Then, the concept of “Rus” referred not so much to the name of the people, but to the designation of territories - lands and principalities. The term “Rus” was firmly established in the northeastern territories of the former ancient Russian state and became the basis of the concept “Russians”. Already at the beginning of the 12th century. the term “Russian land” meant all Slavic tribes, inhabited Eastern Europe.

According to data from the 11th-12th centuries, the Russian land, except major cities Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl, included Vyshgorod, Belgorod, Torchesk, Trepol, Boguslavl, Korsun, Kanev, Shumsk, Tihoml, Vygoshev, Gnoynitsa, Buzhsk. These were the ancestral tribal territories of the Polyans, parts of the territories of the Northerners and Radimichi, and perhaps this included some lands of the Streets and Vyatichi.

At the beginning of the 13th century. the name Rus, Russian land began to be applied to the northeastern lands of the Old Russian state: Rostov-Suzdal and Novgorod. After the Mongol-Tatar conquest of 1237-41, the term “Rus” was assigned to this territory, although in the monuments of the 13-14th centuries. it meets with a broader meaning, meaning all the lands inhabited by the Eastern Slavs.

In the 13th century and later, when the connection between the various territories of the Old Russian state was greatly weakened, new names appeared: White Rus', Little Rus', Black Rus', Red Rus'.

The origin of the word Rus, which gave the name to one of ancient states, is still discussed and has a number of scientifically based versions. One of the versions says that Rus' is the name of the Varangian tribe, from which came the most ancient Russian princes (Rurik and Oleg the Prophet). Another version indicates that the word “Rus” is of Slavic origin and means a hollow, a river bed, depth, vir.

The most ancient settlements of the Eastern Slavs, from which the first Russian cities were later formed, all, without a single exception, settled on rivers. The river largely ensured the livelihoods of our ancestors: it provided water for cooking and housekeeping, supplied fish and water birds, provided an easy, perfectly smooth path on water in summer, on ice in winter; the river also formed a natural defense on the steep banks, indented by tributaries...

Our distant ancestors deified the river, and the first evidence of the Slavs’ veneration of rivers and water deities was recorded by the Byzantine Procopius in the 6th century AD. Nestor also wrote that in the pagan era, instead of gods, we worshiped rivers, lakes, and springs. The Slovak linguist and ethnographer Pavel Safranek (1795-1860) noted in his writings that in the Proto-Slavic language the river was called rusa. He wrote: “This is the root Slavic word, as a common noun, has already remained in use only among Russians in the word ruslo, meaning hollow, river bed, depth, vir; but how given name rivers, cities and villages lying more or less near them, is used by almost all Slavs.”

The famous Russian historian of the last century, D.I. Ilovaisky, wrote: The popular name Ros or Rus, like many other names, is in direct connection with the names of rivers. Eastern Europe is replete with rivers that bear or once bore this name. This is how the Neman was called Ros in the old days; one of its branches retained the name Rus; and the bay into which it flows was called Rusna. This is followed by: Ros or Rusa, a river in the Novgorod province, Rus, a tributary of the Narev; Ros, a famous tributary of the Dnieper in Ukraine; Rusa, a tributary of the Semi; Ros-Embach; Ros-Oskol; Porusye, a tributary of the Polist and others. But most importantly, the name Ros or Ras belonged to our Volga.” The word mermaid is derived from the same Proto-Slavic root “rus”; many pagan beliefs are associated with her ancient cult.

V.I. Dal recorded in his dictionary many dialectal Russian words derived from the same original root “rus”: ruslen - a shelf over the side, to which the shrouds are attached; ruslina - rapids, rod; rust - “water flows rustically”, this means it flows in a stream, a stream; proper name Rus - “fairy-tale monster of the Dnieper rapids”; male name Ruslan, memorable from Pushkin's poem.

The main guiding word for us remains “channel”, inherent only in the Russian language and formed from the root “rus” with the final Russian inflection, very common in our language: ves-lo, vetri-lo, ty-lo, sus-lo, we -lo, oil, rocker, sharpener and so on.

A great many tribes and peoples on earth were named according to their place of primary residence. The self-name of the coastal Chukchi is an kalyn (“sea inhabitants”), the Bedouins are “desert dwellers,” the Selkups are shesh kul (“taiga man”), the Seneca Indians are nunda-ve-o-no (“ great people hills").

Let's get to the main conclusion: If “Rusa” is a “river” - the eternal place of settlement of our ancestors, with which their way of life and beliefs were always so closely connected, “Rus” is a Proto-Slavic root that formed a large nest of words only in the Russian language, “Rus” is already a half-forgotten mythical Dnieper deity, then the generalized ethnonym “Rus” or “Russians” - from ancient times meant “living on the rivers”, “river inhabitants”, “river people”.

The Avesta, the sacred book of the ancient Persians, speaks of the Ranha River, where people live without leaders, where winter reigns and the earth is covered with snow; later among the Persians it is the Raha River, separating Europe from Asia. With a meticulous philological analysis, F. Knauer proves the etymological identity of these names with the ancient name of the Volga - Ra, which later acquired such forms as Ros among the Greeks and Arabs, Ros, Rus, Rosa, Rusa among the Slavs. Thus, F. Knauer believes that “...the name of the people Rus is of purely Slavic-Russian origin” and in the exact rendering of the word means nothing more than the Volga people.

Russian land. Between paganism and Christianity. From Prince Igor to his son Svyatoslav Tsvetkov Sergei Eduardovich

The concept of “Russian land”

Acquired by Kiev in the late 30s - early 40s. X century political independence was immediately reflected in the content of the term Russian land. Now, along with the narrow significance of the tribal region of Middle Dnieper Rus', it received the broader significance of state territory. In the latter meaning, the term Russian Land covered the entire Igor's Empire, that is, a significant region of Eastern Europe inhabited by Slavic-Finno-Baltic tribes and subject to the Kievan Rus.

In the middle of the 10th century. this broad interpretation was used mainly at the level of interstate relations, denoting the sovereign territory over which the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv extended. For Byzantine diplomats, the Russian land in this sense was “Russia”, “the country of Russia”, “Russian land” or, in the terminology of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, “external Russia”, in contrast to “inner Russia”, Tauride Rus'. Rus' has a similar meaning in the message of Ibrahim ibn Yaqub (about 966): “Rus' neighbors Mieszko [the country of Prince Mieszko - Poland] in the east,” in the Latin document Dagome iudex (about 991): “The region of the Prussians, as they say , extends all the way to the place called Russia, and the region of Russy extends all the way to Krakow,” in the news of the Quedlinburg Annals about the death of St. Bruno in 1009 at the hands of the pagans “on the borderland of Russia and Lithuania” and in many other sources of that time.

But within the country, the Russian land was still understood as the Middle Dnieper region itself, with a narrow strip along the right bank of the Dnieper to the south of Kyiv, stretching almost to the Black Sea coast. These ancient geographical boundaries The Russian land in its narrow meaning is attested to by several chronicle articles. In 1170, two Polovtsian hordes invaded the Kyiv and Pereyaslav principalities. The chronicler calls the horde that marched to Kyiv along the right bank of the Dnieper, along the Russian land, the Russian Polovtsians, while the other horde, moving towards Pereyaslavl along the Dnieper left bank, is called the Pereyaslav Polovtsians. In 1193, the son of the Kyiv prince Rurik, Rostislav, went on a campaign against the Polovtsians. He crossed the southern border of the Kyiv principality - the Ros River - and went deep into the steppe along the right bank of the Dnieper. The entire steppe space he traversed was called the Russian Land in the chronicle. At the same time, stepping out of the Kyiv land a little further north, into the territory of the Pripyat Basin, already meant leaving the borders of Rus'. In the same 1193, one prince, alarmed that the Kiev prince Rurik Rostislavich stayed too long in the city of Ovruch (on the Uzhe River, a tributary of the Pripyat), reproached him: “Why did you leave your land? Go to Rus' and guard it." “I’m going to Rus',” says the Novgorod I Chronicle about the Novgorod archbishop, when he happened to go to Kyiv. In such a narrow sense, the Russian land corresponded to the tribal territory of “Polyansky Rus'”, which from the second third of the 9th century. made military campaigns along the Dnieper and trade trips to the Black Sea.

Old Russian people often put into the concept of Russian land, along with geographical and political, also an ethnographic meaning, meaning by it Rus' itself, an armed crowd of Russian warriors under the command of a Russian prince. This is exactly the meaning that Prince Svyatoslav attached to the Russian land when, before the battle with the Greeks, he addressed his soldiers with the words: “Let us not disgrace the Russian land, but let us lie down with that bone, for we are dead because we have no rubbish; If we run away, then shame on us.” Here, the Russian land turns out to be equivalent to “us,” that is, the entire Russian army, and not at all the territory of the Middle Dnieper region, which, by the way, could not be put to shame when fighting the Greeks in the Balkans. In the same way, according to the subtle observation of V.O. Klyuchevsky, “the singer of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” a monument of the late 12th or the very beginning of the 13th century, notes: “O Russian land! You are already behind the Shelomyan”; this expression means that the Russian land had already gone beyond the rows of steppe trenches that stretched along the southern borders of the principalities of Chernigov and Pereyaslavl. By the Russian land, the singer of “The Lay” means the squad that went on a campaign against the Polovtsians with his hero, Prince Igor, therefore, he understood the term geographical in the ethnographic sense.” The orientation system of the Middle Ages was built on the principle “from near to distant,” “from one’s own.” - to a stranger." The author of the Word looked at the movement of Igor's squad towards the Don from the side of Rus', and not through the eyes of the Russians themselves, who had gone deep into the steppe. Therefore, his sorrowful exclamation “O Russian land! You are already behind the hill" refers to the retreating Russian army.

This text is an introductory fragment.

From the book Russian History. 800 rare illustrations author

From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures I-XXXII) author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

Russian land in the half of the 15th century Almost the entire north of our plain with its northwestern corner to the Gulf of Finland constituted the region of the free Novgorod the Great, to which in the southwest, on the side of Livonia, was adjacent the small region of another free city, Pskov. All Western

From the book Russian Roots. We Hold the Sky [Three bestsellers in one volume] author Prozorov Lev Rudolfovich

CAUCASIAN Rus' Where Russian blood is shed, there is Russian land. The Caucasian issue has always been one of the main trump cards in the propaganda arsenal of Russia’s enemies - for two centuries now the West has been accusing our country of “colonialism”, “imperial expansion” and “conquest”

From the book Rurik. Lost story author Zadornov Mikhail Nikolaevich

Where the Russian land is not and did not come from So, the world famous detective Holmes, filled with pride for the discovery he made, hurries to tell his friend Watson about it: - You see, Watson, the first thing I don’t understand is how the Russians could believe that their first prince,

From the book Unknown Russia. A story that will surprise you author Uskov Nikolay

And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed the Russian people - this is not blood and not faith. The entire history of our state is the history not of a biological or confessional, but of a political community, which cannot even be called purely Slavic. Among the peoples who spoke

From the book Rus'. Other story author Goldenkov Mikhail Anatolievich

Where does the Russian land come from? V-IX centuries Whose descendants are we? It is no secret that the Slavs moved from west to east. But when and where? This question has always worried historians, since the era of the chronicle “where does the Russian land come from?” However, the school and university history of Belarus,

From the book Muscovy. Legends and myths. A New Look on the history of the state author Bychkov Alexey Alexandrovich

Where are you, native Russian land? L.V. Alekseev in the book “Polotsk Land” (1966) writes: “Modern archaeological and toponymic data show that in the Early Iron Age, Eastern Europe was inhabited by three large groups of tribes. The first, Iranian-speaking, occupied the Crimean peninsula,

From the book Russian History. 800 rare illustrations [no illustrations] author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

RUSSIAN LAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 11TH CENTURY Population and limits. Having described the activities of the first Kyiv princes, let us summarize their results and take a quick look at the state of Rus' around the half of the 11th century. With their sword, the first Kyiv princes outlined a fairly wide circle of lands, political

From the book Mysterious Pages of Russian History author Bondarenko Alexander Yulievich

Where did the Russian Land come from? Adherents of the most ancient faith of our ancestors are representatives of the “Old Russian Inglistic Church of Orthodox Old Believers-Yinglings”, living in Omsk region and some other regions of Russia - have, according to them,

From the book How Grandma Ladoga and Father Veliky Novgorod forced the Khazar maiden Kyiv to be the mother of Russian cities author Averkov Stanislav Ivanovich

4 Where did the Russian land come from? Each of us is interested in where the Russian land came from? Historians have created many hypotheses about its origin. If we summarize (INTERNET EDITION “Lingvoforus”) all existing hypotheses about the origin of statehood among the Eastern Slavs and

From the book At the Origins of the Old Russian Nationality author Tretyakov Petr Nikolaevich

“Russian land” and “antiquities of the Rus” 1 Numerous discoveries in the field of Slavic-Russian antiquities of the 6th–8th centuries, made in the Dnieper region over the past two decades, persistently call once again to return to one of the darkest and most confusing questions of history

From the book Sacred Rivers of Russia author Bazhanov Evgeniy Alexandrovich

Chapter 2 WHERE THE RUSSIAN LAND WAS Before turning to the sacred rivers of Russia, it is important to clarify where the Russians lived, where the distinctive Russian culture matured. Without this, it is difficult to understand the significance of a particular river. Turning to any facet of Russian culture:

From the book What happened before Rurik author Pleshanov-Ostaya A. V.

Biarmy. Unknown Russian land In the Middle Ages, Norwegians traveling to the northeast mentioned a rich country - Biarmia, where there was plenty of everything, and people knew how to cast magic. Information about it is also found in other sources, which placed it in different parts

If I were asked to summarize the idea of the book in one sentence, it would be this: “The history of the Russians is the history of a successful people who have done enormous civilizational work on one-sixth of the earth’s land and created their own world.”

We will talk about the Russian world, because Russians have the same sacred right to comprehend their history as Georgians, Mongols, etc. And the space for comprehension is as huge as the space that the Russian people were able to master. We have watched so many good and bad films about the American frontier. What was filmed about how the Russians conquered space and created a country? Silence in response. This topic has never been particularly favored by popularizers of historical information. Looking for information on the Internet about some ancient Russian city, we are more likely to learn about which “fighter against the autocracy” drove tea there in exile than about those who built it, plowed the land around it and defended it from enemies.

The history of the conquest and development of spaces that created the largest country in the world,- this, paradoxically, is a silent story. Well, let's try to break the silence.

Two worlds, two colonies

Large-scale colonization, carried out in the interests of the Russian people by the Russian state, began in the middle of the 16th century.

This century (often extended to the "long 16th century" - from the middle of the 15th to mid-17th century c.) was marked by a sharp global transition from the “golden autumn” of the late Middle Ages to the aggressive, caustic New Age.

Capital enters the world stage, invades societies that lead a subsistence economy, rapes and destroys them, erases, like an eraser, peoples who are late in their development. Tens of millions of Native Americans were doomed to extinction, even in the most developed regions of the New World, where complex intensive farming technologies were used, such as chinampas (artificial islands).

In Europe, this was the time of the offensive against the peasants, which occurred with the confiscation of communal and small peasant land property. Property becomes sacred only when it falls into the hands of the powerful. The lords take away land from the peasants, the city capitalists buy up land from the lords. Masses of people are deprived of their own means of production and subsistence. The elites decide in their own way the issue of surplus rural population. Courts burn witches, send landless peasants who have become vagabonds to the gallows or into slavery on overseas plantations. Cities are flooded with hungry proletariat, forced to give their labor to the first employer they come across at any (that is, minimum) price. The proletarian has a “big choice” between the scaffold, the prison-workhouse, and such “free labor.”

“Free labor” is in fact the slavery of the robbed worker to the collective capitalist. The dictatorship of capital operates through the anti-worker “Workmen’s Statute,” the super-repressive “Vagabond Laws,” and the ruthless workhouse acts. Researchers indicate a sharp decline since the second half of the 16th century. standard of living in Europe, which was recently still littered with hams and sausages.

Even where the power of the lords (lords, barons) has been preserved, the peasants begin to work under pressure for the needs of the world market - the “second edition of serfdom” according to Marx, or “secondary serfdom” according to Braudel’s terminology, comes. Peanish corvee in Poland, Livonia, Hungary reaches six, then seven days a week. The peasant no longer has time to work on his plot and receives a monthly ration as a camp inmate. The lord, who sells raw materials to Hanseatic and Dutch wholesalers, is increasingly interested in the lands and serfs in the east, and the Polish-Lithuanian lordly community is conducting its “Drang nach Osten”, the colonization of Russian lands. Swallows Galicia-Volyn Rus', Polotsk land, the Dnieper region, jumps over the Dnieper, sneaks along the Smolensk-Moscow upland to Mozhaisk. The Russian peasant must ensure that the master of raw materials supplies the rapidly growing European market.

European religious wars, the hunt for “heretics”, “witches” and “tramps” (essentially, the robbed common people) - all this masks the advance of capital and claims millions of lives...

The death of the mass of the indigenous population in the colonies was largely a consequence of the destruction of public agricultural systems there, which was typical of the “wild” phase of the formation of capital...

The Russians could share the fate of the American Indians. And only its own colonization of new lands, service and peasant, which began on a large scale in the era of Ivan the Terrible, saved Russia from the invasion of Western capital. Made it the largest in the world in size and third in population (until 1991), brought it relatively fertile lands and mineral deposits, which are practically non-existent in the historical center of the country.

As M. Lyubavsky, the largest researcher of Russian colonization, pointed out, only 12% of its area was the result of conquest.

“In the history of the territorial formation of Russia, the home-building people should be in the foreground... and not the conquering people, not loud victories and treatises, but the seizure of lands and their settlement, the emergence of villages and cities.”

From the end of the 15th century to late XVI V. The territory of Muscovite Rus' quadrupled. Equally rapid growth continued into the next century.

The explosive territorial growth of Russia in the 16th–17th centuries. is explained not by the conquest of other cultures and civilizations, but by the spread of civilization and culture to those regions where previously savagery and emptiness reigned. Sometimes it was the return of civilization to where it had once been swept away by nomadic barbarians.

The expansion of Russian land was, in essence, the realization of a popular need. After the Kipchaks captured the Black Sea region and lost most of the lands south of the Oka in the 12th–14th centuries. The Russians were left with podzolic loams and sandy loams of the cold northeast and north of the East European Plain.

Short growing season in this region was aggravated by the low amount of accumulated temperatures. In the middle of the 16th century. Summer in the Moscow region began in mid-June, and at the end of September the first frosts already arrived. There were about 110 frost-free days here; temperatures above 15 °C lasted 59–67 days. In Vologda there were 60 warm days, in Ustyug - 48.

“The main feature of the territory of the historical core of the Russian state from the point of view of agricultural development is the extremely limited period for field work. The so-called “no-till period” is about seven months. For many centuries, the Russian peasant had approximately 130 days for agricultural work (taking into account the ban on work on Sundays). Of these, it took about 30 days to make hay,” writes academician L.V. Milov. IN Western Europe Only December and January were outside the working season. Even in northern Germany, England, and the Netherlands, the growing season was 9-10 months - thanks to the Gulf Stream and Atlantic cyclones. The European peasant had approximately twice as much time for cultivating crops and making hay as the Russian one. The long duration of the agricultural period gave Europeans the opportunity for uniform constant work, better tillage of the soil and, consequently, to increase productivity.

The short season of agricultural work determined the yields in Rus' on average sam-2, sam-3 for the most common crop - unpretentious rye. For one grain sown - 2–3 harvested; approximately 3 times less than in England at that time. This meant a very small surplus product, which, rather, went not to the market, but to the maintenance of warrior-defenders. Low marketability Agriculture determined the slow development of cities.

“Russian land” - Kiev state of the 9th-12th centuries

In chronicle sources, the terms “Russian land”, “Rus” in relation to the 9th-11th centuries usually designate all the lands of the Kievan state. In the X-XI centuries, “Rus” in the chronicles occupies a vast territorial space from the Carpathians to the Don and from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, and as an ethnos, as a country, it is opposed to the “Varangians”, “Greeks”, “Lyash Land”, “Polovtsian Land” and other peoples and countries. At the same time, historians note - in the sources X-early XII centuries, “Russian Land” also stands out as the territorial and political core of the Kyiv state. Thus, Konstantin Porphyrogenitus in his essay “De administrando imperio” writes about Novgorod as “external Rus'”, and also contrasts Rus' with countries that “pay tribute to the Russian land”. In the “Tale of Bygone Years” in the 10th century, “Rus” is contrasted with the Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribal unions of the emerging Kievan state; as an exception - the tribal union “Polyane”, which is identified with “Rus”. In the first articles of the short edition of Russkaya Pravda, “Rusin” and “Slovenian” appear simultaneously. In addition, researchers point to the fact that until the end of the 11th century the Kyiv princes sought to preserve the unity of the lands of the Middle Dnieper region (that is, the Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl lands), thereby discovering in the lands of the Middle Dnieper region “inner Rus'” of the 9th-11th centuries.

“Russian land” in the XII-XIII centuries

In the 12th century, with the collapse of the Kyiv state into separate principalities-semi-states, the tradition of using the term “Russian land” in chronicles also changed. In the 12th-13th centuries, chroniclers, as a rule, designated “Russian land” as either the lands of the Middle Dnieper region (that is, the lands of the Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl principalities), or the lands of the Kyiv principality. It should be noted that in the 12th century the chronicler once contrasted the city of Vruchiy with its surroundings (Northwestern Polesie of the Kyiv principality) to the “Russian land”, and from the “Russian land” Principality of Chernigov chroniclers exclude all the lands of this principality to the north and northeast of the cities of Starodub, Trubchevsk and Kursk. However, in the 12th-13th centuries the terms “Rus” and “Russian land” in chronicle sources often denoted all the lands of Southern Rus'. At this time, the long-standing chronicle significance of the “Russian Land” as all Eastern European lands controlled by the princes of the Rurik dynasty was also preserved.

Literature

Chronicles of Ipat., Laurus. lists; Novg. I chronicle of the older and younger editions
Nasonov A.N. “Russian land” and the formation of the territory of the ancient Russian state” - Moscow, 1951
Rybakov B. A. “Kievan Rus and Russians Principalities XII-XIII centuries." - Moscow, 1982

Notes

Russian lands in relation to the Juchi ulus (Horde):
Is this a vassal state or part of the Horde state?

I.I. Nazipov

Senior Lecturer at the Department of Legal Disciplines
Perm Institute of Economics and Finance
614068, Perm, st. Bolshevikskaya, 141
Email: This address Email protected from spam bots. You must have JavaScript enabled to view it.

The article examines one of the most controversial issues in historical science: the state ownership of Russian lands of the 13th–15th centuries. ulus Jochi. So far, scientists have not used scientific and legal methods to solve it. The legal approach (within the framework of the theory of the state) allows us to identify a number of basic features of the state that can be considered generally recognized. The study of the connections between the Russian lands and the Jochi ulus, within the framework of these characteristics, adjusted for the realities of the 13th–15th centuries, gives the following answer to the research question: the Russian lands were not always part of the Horde state. Identified periods of Russian lands belonging to the statehood of the Horde and periods of sovereign status of Russian lands in the 13th–15th centuries. indicated in the article.

Key words: signs of the state; ulus Jochi; state affiliation of Russian lands

Domestic historical and historical-legal science gives three options for answering the question about the belonging of Russian lands to Horde statehood. However, each of the options is not supported by a special in-depth study of the signs of the state that appear in the Russian lands as evidence of the functioning of the Horde state or states - Russian principalities. These answers are only a short passing statement in the presentation and study of other aspects of Russian-Horde relations - a retelling of the events of Russian-Horde relations, identifying the consequences of the Horde’s influence on historical development Rus'. 

The first position in historiography: complete ignorance of the issue. The phrase “under Mongol power” replaces the answer to the question of what this power was, replaces the identification of this power. Scientists within the framework of this approach qualitatively describe the events of Russian-Horde relations, characterize their forms, the severity of the Horde’s impact on Rus', use the term “yoke,” but do not touch upon the issue of state ownership of Russian lands. Probably, at the same time, they understand that the problem exists, but are not ready to solve it and therefore “do not notice.” To solve this problem, it is not enough to be a historian (even an outstanding one), you must simultaneously be a specialist in political science and legal sciences. Perhaps it is precisely the insufficient development of the theory of the state, before the twentieth century, that explains this position in historiography, because it was represented by scientists who lived and worked before the twentieth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century.

I will quote the most famous representatives of this group of scientists, selecting quotes so that they reflect their way of circumventing this issue while getting as close to the problem as possible.

N.M. Karamzin:“The princes, humbly groveling in the Horde, returned from there as formidable rulers: for they commanded in the name of the supreme king.” “If the Mongols did the same with us as they did in China, in India, or what the Turks did in Greece; If, having left the steppe and nomadism, they had returned to our cities, they could have existed to this day in the form of a state. Fortunately, the harsh climate of Russia removed this thought from them. The khans only wanted to be our masters “from afar”, without interfering in civil affairs, they demanded only silver and obedience from the princes.”

CM. Soloviev:“The Mongols remained to live far away, caring only about collecting tribute, without interfering at all in internal relations, leaving everything as it was.”

IN. Klyuchevsky: “The Horde khans did not impose any order on Rus', being content with tribute, they even poorly delved into the order that operated there.”

S.F Platonov:“The Tatars called Rus' their “ulus,” that is, their volost or possession; but they left its old structure in this ulus.”

The second position in historiography: Russian lands (North-Eastern, Southern Rus') belonged to the Horde state, being part of it. Mostly representatives of this position are scientists of the early twentieth century. These are the so-called “Eurasians”. This point of view was shared by N.I. Kostomarov. Below are quotes characterizing the position of these scientists.

G.V. Vernadsky:“...the Golden Horde Khan was the supreme ruler of Rus' - its “king,” as Russian chronicles call him”; “As long as Western and Eastern Rus' were under the control of the khan, both were parts of one political entity, the Golden Horde.”

N.S. Trubetskoy:“Russia was at that time a province of a large state. It is reliably known that Russia was also drawn into the general financial system of the Mongolian state.”

N.I.. Kostomarov:“A number of princes and states are unconditionally dependent on the supreme sovereign, the Tatar Khan, the true owner of the Russian land”; “The supreme ruler, conqueror and owner of Rus', the khan, correctly called by the Russians, the tsar, distributed the lands to the princes as fiefs.”

The third position in historiography: the Russian lands retained their own statehood during the period of the “yoke.” It is represented by “Soviet historiography” (the idea that Rus' in relation to the Horde is a “vassal state”) and L. Gumilev (the idea of free Russian states and their union with the Horde).

This is how they most write about it famous representatives"Soviet historiography".

B.D. Grekov, A.Yu. Yakubovsky:“The Russian lands conquered by the Tatar army did not directly become part of the Golden Horde. The Golden Horde khans viewed the Russian lands as politically autonomous, having their own power, but being dependent on the khans and obligated to pay them tribute - a “way out”. Russian feudal principalities became vassal relations to the Khan."

V.V. Kargalov:“Unlike other countries conquered by the Mongol-Tatars, Rus' retained its political and social order. There has never been a Mongol administration on Russian soil. Even the Mongol-Tatars themselves did not call the Russian land an “ulus,” that is, part of the Golden Horde, completely subservient to the khan.”

V.V. Mavrodin:“Vassalage was expressed in the payment of tribute and in the fact that the Russian princes, in order to rule in their own principality, were obliged to receive special charters from the khan.”

I.B.Grekov, F.F. Shakhmagonov: “The occupation of North-Eastern Rus', as well as the Middle Dnieper region, was beyond the capabilities of the Horde and did not promise it, in essence, any benefits. The Horde needed these lands as a constant and reliable source of income in the form of tribute."

The author of the article is not clear how the state, i.e. an organization with sovereignty can be a vassal, i.e. a subject of social relations that does not have the attribute of sovereignty. Even if we accept the application of the term characterizing feudal relations within the class of feudal lords to interstate relations, we observe a contradiction.

L.N. Gumilev: “There was no talk of any Mongol conquest of Rus'. The Mongols did not leave garrisons and did not even think of establishing their permanent power. With the end of the campaign, Batu went to the Volga." "Alexander Yaroslavich...< >...went to Berke and agreed on a tribute to the Mongols in exchange for military assistance against the Lithuanians and Germans” (i.e., the tribute is just payment for a business deal for military assistance); “The Russian principalities that accepted an alliance with the Horde completely retained their ideological independence and political independence”; “The label is a pact of friendship and non-aggression.”

Below is a brief version of the study of the problem by the author of the article, using the methods of legal sciences.

The concept of “state” has many meanings. Here the state is defined as a political-territorial sovereign organization of public power, which has a special apparatus of management and coercion, capable of making its regulations binding on the population of the entire country. The state is revealed and characterized through a number of features: 1) the presence of public power, which has a special apparatus of management and state coercion and violence; 2) organization of government and population on a territorial basis; 3) state sovereignty, understood as the duality of the supremacy and unique power of the state in a certain territory in relation to individuals and communities within the country and independence in relations with other states; 4) comprehensive, generally binding nature of acts issued by the state; the prerogative (exclusive right) of the state to issue laws and other regulations containing generally binding rules of conduct for the population of the country; 5) taxation and collection of taxes, duties and other fees. Often the main features of a state in the literature are: 6) a single language of communication; 7) presence of an army; 8) a unified system of defense and foreign policy.

Let us characterize the above characteristics of the state, including those adjusted for the realities of the Russian lands and the Horde in the era of the 13th–15th centuries.

1. Public power. She “stands” above society, separated from it. Regardless of whether the execution of power is entrusted to an individual or to any body, they act on behalf of the state (in the Middle Ages on behalf of the monarch - the owner of the land, and, it is important here, on behalf of the prince, in Russian lands sometimes on behalf of the khan) and as government agencies(whose bodies are important here: khan’s, Horde or independent Russian, princely). This power is independent and independent in relation to other sources of power. Power in the state must be legal and legitimate. Legal power is power that acquires powers in accordance with the law and rules through laws. In the realities of the Middle Ages, in addition to laws, it was also in accordance with customs, orders of the monarch, and religious guidelines. In our research, we need to determine whether power over the Russian lands was based on the Horde customs of organizing governance, on the orders of the khan. The legitimacy of power characterizes the special relationship between the government and the population of a given state; legitimacy characterizes the degree of recognition of power by the population, the subordination of the population to government regulations. (It is important whether the population of the Russian lands obeyed the khan in the person of his officials and (or) through his orders, whether the Russians, from peasants to princes, recognized the power of the khan).

2. Territory. Includes the land and the people who lived on it, to whom the power of the state extends. The state determines its borders (it is important whether the borders of the Russian principalities changed by decision of the khan or the khan's administration) and protects its borders from invasions (it is important whether the Horde protects the Russian lands as its own or not).

3. State sovereignty. It includes the supremacy of state power within the country, i.e. independence in determining the content of its activities and policies. Includes full rights in determining the life of society within its territory (internal sovereignty) and independence in relations with other states in determining its foreign policy (external sovereignty). (For our research it is important: did the Russian lands and their public authorities have internal independence and external independence from the Horde). A number of important features of sovereignty duplicate other features of a state, which have been or will be discussed separately. For example, territorial supremacy (on the territory of a given state, only the laws of this state apply) or territorial integrity (the territory of a state cannot be changed, either downward or upward, without the consent of the higher authority of this state).

An important sign of sovereignty, both within a state and outside its borders, is formal independence from other states or monarchs. (For our research it is important: these were not Russian lands and their rulers were formally independent of the Horde and (or) the khan or recognized their supremacy and suzerainty).

External sovereignty presupposes, first of all, that another state and its ruler cannot exercise their power in relation to the given state and its ruler (par in paren non habet jmperium - an equal has no power over an equal). This is expressed, in particular, in disobedience to external and domestic policy state to another state. It is important for us whether there was such disobedience to the Horde of Russian lands. For example, did the Russian armies, at the behest of the khan, fight with other neighboring and non-neighboring states? For example, were new taxes established in Russian lands by order of the khan? This is expressed in disobedience at the level of foreign policy relations to the legislation (any regulations; here - labels) of another state. The immunity of a sovereign state also covers the non-jurisdiction of its judicial authorities of another state. (To determine the sovereignty of Russian lands, it is important: whether they and their rulers were subjected to trial in the Horde).

4. Comprehensive mandatory nature of state acts. This feature is determined by the exclusive powers of the state to carry out lawmaking, i.e. issue, amend or cancel generally binding acts for the entire population of the state and force their implementation. (The presence of acts issued in the Horde and which are mandatory for the population in Russian lands means the limitation or absence of this feature of the state in these lands. Which is important for our research). Acts are not only rules of conduct that are binding on everyone to whom they are addressed in their daily life, but also acts of “state law,” i.e. on succession to the throne, on the appointment of a specific person to the post of head of state.

5. Taxation. This feature includes the rule according to which only the state has the right to establish taxes and extend the obligation to pay them to absolutely everyone who is on its territory, or to exempt them from them separate categories people and organizations. (If the khans established taxes in Rus' and collected them, if they exempted certain categories of people and organizations from taxes, then this feature of the state will be absent in Rus' or will be severely limited. What we should note in our study.)

6. Common language of communication. Multinational states existed in ancient times, but a single language of communication (for communication at the highest state level, for the state of laws, leadership in the army, for legal proceedings) was usually the language of the people who, having subjugated others, created this state and are the main people in it . In the Hellenistic states and Byzantium, for example, this was Greek, in Ancient Rome- Latin. (If acts in Russian lands were written in Kipchak or Mongolian, then this indicates the limitation or absence of this feature of the state in Russian lands).

7. Availability of an army. The medieval state, unlike a number of modern ones, could not exist without an army. The absence of such (regular troops or squads plus militia) suggests that this territorial unit was not a state. But the presence does not at all mean that this territory was a sovereign state. In those days, the armed forces performed the functions of: police against internal enemies of the ruling force in the territory; protection from attacks by external land and water (sea, river) gangs of bandits; protection from aggression of other states in conditions when the main armed forces of the state have not yet come to the rescue or for some reason cannot come. Local feudal lords were required to have armed forces, regardless of whether the territory was a separate state (de jure or de facto, as was often the case during the period of medieval fragmentation) or was part of another state.

8. one system defense and foreign policy. In the Middle Ages, often the foreign and military policies of states did not express the interests of these states for the reason that they expressed the interests of their rulers, which often did not coincide with the interests of the states. What mattered then were dynastic politics, politics related to religion, the rulers’ need for glory, even the rulers’ desire to exchange their throne for a more prestigious and rich throne of another state. But when neither the interests of the state, nor the interests of the ruler, nor the aggression of another state prompt the state to hostile actions against this other state (its ruler), and these actions are actively being carried out, it can be concluded: this policy is part of the policy of another state, imposed given. For example, if Russian soldiers participated in military operations far beyond the borders of Rus' and not in the interests of their lands or rulers, then this means that they participated in the implementation of the foreign policy of the Horde. It is important for us to also study and take this into account when assessing Russian-Horde relations in terms of the inclusion or non-inclusion of Russian lands into the Horde as part of it.

If the above characteristics of a state in the study show themselves as evidence of Russian statehood, then we can conclude that the Russian lands were independent states. If these signs in relation to the Russian lands appear precisely as signs of the Horde state, then, consequently, the Russian lands in this period of history were part of the Horde. If a number of signs indicate that the Russian lands were independent, and a number of signs indicate that they were part of the Horde, then when drawing conclusions, one must focus on the most important ones in the context of these lands belonging to the Horde.

Power in the Russian lands was exercised in the name of the “tsar”, not the prince. And this indicates that the lands belong to the Horde state. This is also evidenced by Russian chronicles, which call the Khan of the Horde “tsar”, reporting the subordinate position of the Russian princes to the khan, the “secondary” nature of their power over the Russian lands, derived from the power and will of the khan. For example: “Batu almost gave Yaroslav great honor and men, and let him go, and said to him: Yaroslav, be the old prince of all in the Russian language.” “Olexander and Andrey arrived in Kanovich. And Oleksandrov ordered Kiev and the entire Russian land and Andrei to serve himself in Volodymeri. “Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Tversky, grandson of Yaroslavl, came from the Horde with a grant from Tsar Azbyak for the great reign of Volodymyr.”

The princes were “officials” of the khan, fulfilling the duties assigned to them by the khan in their lands. This indicates that Russian lands belong to the Horde state. Let us quote about the assigned duty to collect tribute for the khan, which Mikhail Tverskoy did not cope with sufficiently, in the opinion of the Uzbek khan who judged him: “... you did not give the king’s tribute.” Refusing to serve the khan meant not being a prince in one’s land, moreover, fleeing from it: “Andrei decided that Prince Yaroslavich and his boyars should flee rather than serve as the crown prince and flee to an unknown land.”

In the Russian lands, the Khan's administration operates from among the foreigners (foreigners for the population of these lands). This indicates that the Russian lands belonged to the Horde state. In the story of the torment of Mikhail of Chernigov, it is said that Batu installed governors and authorities in all Russian cities. The story about the Kursk Baskak Akhmat says that the Tatars kept the Baskachs in Russian cities throughout the Russian land. Under 1262, the chronicler speaks of the Russian council against the Tatars, whom Batu and Sartak planted in all cities of the Russian rulers. The chronicles describe both the administrative activities of these officials in the Russian lands and the structure of the staff of these officials: “The same winter, the number arrived, and counted the entire land of Suzhdl and Ryazan and Murom and installed foremen and centurions and thousanders and temniks.”

The territory of the principalities was changed by the decision of the khan. This indicates their belonging to the Horde state. This happened more than once when the khan wanted it: divisions of the Great Reign of Vladimir in 1328, 1341, in the 50s of the 14th century.

The princes and people of Rus' recognized the power of the khan (“tsar”) over the Russian lands as legitimate. This also speaks to the lack of formal sovereignty of the Russian lands governed by them. Below are quotes about the recognition by the princes of the supreme power of the “king” and the impossibility of fighting with him for this reason. Oleg Ryazansky says: “... it is not proper for a Russian prince to stand against an eastern king.” Opinion of Ivan III before standing on the Ugra: “Under the oath of Yesna from our ancestors, if you don’t raise your hand against the Tsar, then as soon as I can break the oath and stand against the Tsar.”

The formal recognition of the khan's power was accompanied by humiliating procedures for the Russian princes! For example, according to Herberstein, there was a ritual according to which the prince went out of the city on foot, met the Horde ambassadors who brought basma, bowed to them, brought a cup of kumis and listened to the khan’s letter on his knees. This is how, during a visit to the Horde in order to recognize the power of the khan, one of the most proud and famous Russian princes was humiliated: “Daniil Romanovich, the Grand Duke, owned, together with his brother, the Russian land, Vladimir and Galich; and now he sits on his knees and is called a slave, they want tribute, he is hungry, and thunderstorms come. Oh, evil Tatar honor!”

Russian people, especially princes and boyars, were put on trial in the Horde, and, moreover, they themselves (!) went to trial when summoned by the Khan (not as prisoners of war, for example, they were put on trial, but precisely as subjects, subordinates!). Also, individual Russian lands were subjected to the khan's condemnation and punitive military action. This indicates the degree of subordination of the Russian lands to the Horde, their corresponding affiliation with the Horde statehood. For example, Mikhail Tverskoy and his governor Fedor, Roman Ryazansky were convicted and executed in the Horde. How shining example punishment for the principality, one can recall the ruin of Tver, which showed disobedience, in 1328.

The khans received regular taxes and fees from Rus' and even instructed their officials to collect them. We see here the operation of the taxation system of the Horde state in the Russian lands. Developed system, with population censuses. Moreover, the khans (which suggests that tribute is taxes, and not reparations from a defeated enemy) exempted certain categories of the population and organizations from taxes - the church and its ministers.

Russian troops were forced to fight at the behest of the khans; Thus, in their foreign policy, the Russian lands were not sovereign, but were subordinate to the Horde. In these cases, the Russian lands often had to fight against their will: “But then the need is great from foreigners, and they drive away the Christians who command them to fight with them.” Russian troops often had to fight for interests that were alien to them and their nobility in distant countries: in China, in the Caucasus, in Central Asia.

All signs of the state, in part of the total duration of Russian-Horde political ties, appear in the Russian lands as signs of the Horde state and, therefore, as evidence of state ties between the Horde and the Russian lands. Accordingly, for such periods it is necessary to conclude that the lands of North-Eastern Rus' were not sovereign states, but part of the Horde state.

The above set of manifestations of signs of state ties in political ties between the Horde and the lands of North-Eastern Rus' did not always take place, for a duration of 261 calendar year of Russian-Horde relations. Or not always fully. In a number of periods, the nature of Russian-Horde relations, according to the analysis of the totality of the characteristics of the state, appears as evidence of the functioning of the statehood of Russian lands and, accordingly, the interstate type of Russian-Horde relations. The signs of the state must be studied separately, based on the totality of events and periods of Russian-Horde relations.

Period 1242-1362 characterized by pronounced Russian-Horde ties of a power-subordinate state nature. In 1243–1244 Russian princes come to the Horde, receive a label to reign from the khan, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich is appointed “Grand Duke”, and Vladimir is confirmed as the main city in Rus'. The payment of tribute to the Horde began. In 1252, the khan organized a punitive campaign against a number of princes who did not want to obey in North-Eastern Rus'. During this period, the khan's officials conducted two censuses of the population of North-Eastern Rus' (1257, 1275), a permanent institution of officials of non-Russian origin began to function in the Russian lands, and permanent Horde military garrisons were stationed. There is chronicle evidence of “tribute in blood” - the forced, judging by the nature of the chronicle reports, participation of Russian squads (1263, 1278) in military campaigns against other countries organized by the khan. The collection of tribute to the Horde during this period was regular, the khan in his labels exempted from tribute Russian clergy and from the duties of merchants, i.e. controls direct and indirect taxation. In a short period of time, in the late 50s - early 60s. In the 13th century, tribute was collected with particular cruelty by Muslim merchant farmers in Russian lands. After 1280, there were no permanent Horde administration and garrisons in Russian lands of non-Russian origin. There is no information about the “tribute of blood”. There were no censuses after 1275. Only Russian princes collected tribute and transported it to the Horde from Russian lands. The rest of the content of Russian-Horde ties is the same. During this time period, there are two groups of particularly brutal Horde military campaigns on Russian lands, organized by the ruler of the Horde, to punish lands and princes who did not submit to him and to confirm his decisions (first: 1281–1293; second: 1315–1327) . The Horde, in order to punish attacks on Russian lands and to protect them from expansion during this period, actively carried out campaigns against Lithuania and Poland, both independently and together with Russian troops. In order to protect Russian lands from the expansion of Lithuania and Poland in the 80s.

Period 1362-1427 characterized by the absence of a subordinate position of Russian lands to the Horde. In the context of the internecine war in the Horde, called the “Great Zamyatnya” in the chronicles, the power of the Horde and its rulers over the Russian lands was formal until 1372, and in 1372–1382. it no longer became formal. Since 1362, in North-Eastern Rus' all issues have been resolved by the balance of power of the local Russian principalities. The label for the reign of Vladimir, being given to a non-Moscow prince (1365 and 1371), did not give its owner the actual opportunity to receive the Vladimir lands for rule, due to opposition to the will of the khan from Moscow. The princes do not take tribute to the Horde; there is no “tribute in blood” to the Horde. In the 1370s, an anti-Lithuanian and anti-Horde coalition of princes led by the Moscow Prince was formed in North-Eastern Rus'. This coalition wages a war with the Horde and detachments of the Horde, isolated in the conditions of civil strife in the Horde, until 1382. In 1382, for 12 years, the complete dependence of the Russian lands on the Horde was restored: payment of tribute to the Horde, trips of princes to the Horde to the khan, receipt of labels for reign , the participation of Russian soldiers in distant Horde campaigns. In 1395, the dependence of the Russian lands on the Horde, defeated by Timur, led by a non-khan from the Jochi dynasty and engulfed in a civil war, ceased again. (The exception is 1412–1414, when power in the Horde belonged to the children of Tokhtamysh). During this period, Russian lands do not pay tribute to the Horde, princes do not receive labels. In December 1408, the Horde launched a campaign against Rus' with the goal of punishing disobedience and restoring dependence; it did not achieve its goal. The participation of the Horde in repelling Lithuanian aggression against Rus' took place in 1406 and 1408.

During the period 1428–1480, with actual independence from the Horde, the Russian lands recognize the formal sovereignty of the Horde “tsar”. In 1428–1437 In Rus' there is a confrontation between Vasily the Dark and Yuri Galitsky, they turn to the Khan of the Horde with a request to judge the dispute and issue a label to one of the contenders. The princes strive to use the Horde as a weapon in the internal struggle, and this was associated with obtaining a label, with paying tribute to the Horde. In 1437–1445 The confrontation continues in the Horde, with the complete advantage of Vasily the Dark and the children of Yuri Galitsky. Under these conditions, tribute is not paid; the khans of the Horde have no actual power over Russia. In 1445–1461, except for the period 02/12/1446 – 02/17/1447, there was a political dependence of the Russian lands on the Kazan Khanate. Rus' pays a ransom to Kazan in long-term payments for the captive Vasily the Dark, a system of Kazan officials operates in the Russian lands, Kazan military detachments on the side of Vasily the Dark participate in the suppression of the opposition of Dmitry Shemyaka, and also protect the borders of Rus' from attacks by the Horde troops. In short time intervals: April - May 1434 and 02/12/1446 - 02/17/1447. power in Rus' was seized by Yuri Galitsky and Dmitry Shemyaka. During these years, Rus' openly showed itself to be independent of the Horde and hostile to it. In 1461–1472, in the first decade of the reign of Ivan III, tribute was not paid to the Horde; the khan’s power over Russia was only formal. For the Horde, this is a time of constant wars with the Crimean Khanate. The Horde does not undertake military campaigns against Russian lands. In 1472–1480 there is a dependence of Russian lands on the Horde. The khan had formal power over Russia, and the Moscow prince calls himself his “ulusnik.” Until 1476, tribute was paid to the Horde, but in smaller amounts than in previous periods of dependence. There were two powerful campaigns of the Horde troops against Rus' - 1472, 1480.

During the period 1481–1502. There were no manifestations of subordination to the Horde and its khan on the part of the Russian lands; Rus' was independent of the Horde in fact and formally.

In general, from 1242 to 1502, we observe in Russian-Horde political relations periods of pronounced power-subordinate ties, periods with formal power-subordinate ties with actually equal relations, periods of actually and formally equal relations. The nature of the connections reflected the relationship between the military potential of the Russian lands and the Horde, as well as the legitimacy of the ruler of the Horde, by origin from the khan’s family of the Juchids, who were recognized by Russia as the ruling dynasty of the supreme rulers in the feudal hierarchy.

The state-political status of the lands of North-Eastern Rus' as a territorial and political element of the statehood of the Horde was revealed in the periods: 1242–1361. (120 years), “September 1382 – April 1395.” (12.5 years), 1412–1414 (3 years), summer 1445–1461 (16.5). As an element of the statehood of the Kazan Khanate - in the period 1445–1461. The status of the lands of North-Eastern Rus' as sovereign states was revealed for the periods: 1362 - September 1382. (age 21), April 1395–1411 (16.5 years), 1415–1427 (age 13), 1481–1502 (22 years old). During the periods 1428 - summer 1445. (17.5 years) and 1461 – 1480. (19 years) - North-Eastern Rus' recognized the power of the Khan of the Horde over itself and was part of the Horde, only formally, in fact being sovereign.

Of the 261 years of Russian-Horde relations, the principalities of North-Eastern Rus' were independent in relation to the Horde for 89 years. But 16.5 of these years were subordination to the Kazan Khanate, which was positioned as the legal successor of the Horde. The state nature of political relations between North-Eastern Rus' and the Horde lasted a total of 172 years. Of these, for approximately 36-37 years, this involvement is only formal - in the form of formal recognition of the khan’s suzerainty over Russian lands and sending him gifts. The ownership of the Russian lands by the Horde statehood, not only formal, but also actual, lasted 135–136 years. In this period, there are 24 years when the forms of involvement of the Russian lands in the Horde state were especially strong: the functioning of permanent Horde officials and garrisons in the Russian lands, the implementation of censuses to streamline taxation.

Bibliography

Big Russian Encyclopedia: in 30 volumes. T. 7. M.: Bolshaya Ros. encycl., 2007. T. 7. 767 p.

Vernadsky G.V. Mongols and Rus' / trans. from English E. P. Berenstein. Tver: AGRAF; M.: LEAN, 1999. 480 p.

Voskresenskaya chronicle. T. VII. M.: Russian languages. culture, 2000. 345 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Gerbernestein S. Notes on Muscovy / trans. with him. A.I. Maleina, A.V. Nazarchenko. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1988. 430 p.

Grekov B.D.,Yakubovsky A.Yu. Golden Horde and her fall. M.; L.: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950. 478 p.

Grekov I.B.,Shakhmagonov F.F.World of History: Russian lands in X III –XV centuries. M.: Young Guard, 1986. 334 p.

Gumilev L.N. Ancient Rus' and the Great Steppe. M.: Mysl, 1989.764 p.

Gumilev L.N. From Rus' to Russia. M.: Bustard, 1996. 352 p.

Zadonshchina// Monuments of literature Ancient Rus': XIV – mid-XV centuries. M.: Artist. lit., 1981. 602 p.

Ipatievskaya chronicle. T. II. M.: Publishing house Vost. literature, 1962. 604 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Karamzin N.M.History of Russian Goverment. T. V –VIII . Kaluga: Golden Alley, 1993. 576 p.

Kargalov V.V. Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus'. XIII century. M.: Education, 1966. 135 p.

Klyuchevsky V.O.Works: in 9 volumes. T. II : Course of Russian history. Part 1. / sub. ed. V.L. Ioannina. M.: Mysl, 1987. 447 p.

Kostomarov N.I. Historical monographs and studies. T. 12. The beginning of autocracy in ancient Rus'. SPb.: Type. D. E. Kozhanchikova, 1863. 463 p.

Lavrentyevskaya chronicle. T.I.M.: Publishing House Vost. literature, 1926. 648 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Mavrodin V.V. People's movement against foreign invaders in Ancient Rus'. L.: Polit. lit., 1945. 52 p.

Nikonovskaya chronicle. T. X. M.: Russian languages. culture, 2000. 248 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Nikonovskaya chronicle. T. XII. M.: Russian languages. culture, 2000. 272 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Novgorodskaya I chronicle. T. III. M.: Russian languages. culture, 2000. 693 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Platonov S.F.Lectures on Russian history. St. Petersburg: Crystal, 1992. 838 p.

Tale about the life and courage of the blessed and Grand Duke Alexander // Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus': XIII century. M.: Artist. lit., 1981. S. 426 – 439.

Collection documents on the history of the USSR. M.: Higher. school, 1971. 238 p.

Soloviev S.M. Essays. T. 16. A look at the history of the establishment public order in Russia before Peter the Great / ed. I. Kovalchenko. M.: Mysl, 1995. P. 5–42.

Sofia the first chronicle of the older edition. T. VI, no. 1. M.: Russian languages. culture, 2000. 581 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).

Tizengauzen V.G. Collection of materials related to the history of the Golden Horde: in 2 vols. T 2. M.; L.: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1941. 275 p.

Trubetskoy N.S. Legacy of Genghis Khan. M.: AGRAF, 2000. 560 p.

What is Russian land? “Rus” and “Russian land” in the worldview of ancient Russian scribes of the 11th-15th centuries. Two worlds, two colonies

The concept of “Russian land”

“Russian land” - Kiev state of the 9th-12th centuries

“Russian land” in the XII-XIII centuries

Literature

Notes

see also

See what “Russian land” is in other dictionaries:

Books

Russian lands in relation to the Juchi ulus (Horde):
Is this a vassal state or part of the Horde state?

I.I. Nazipov

The concept of “Russian land”

“Russian land” - Kiev state of the 9th-12th centuries

“Russian land” in the XII-XIII centuries

Literature

Notes

see also

See what “Russian land” is in other dictionaries:

Books

Russian lands in relation to the Juchi ulus (Horde): Is this a vassal state or part of the Horde state?

I.I. Nazipov

Russian lands in relation to the Juchi ulus (Horde):
Is this a vassal state or part of the Horde state?