Middle - end of the XII century. in Russia there are 3 main centers:
— Novgorod land

- Galicia-Volyn principality

- Vladimir-Suzdal principality

The prerequisites for the development of large political centers of Russia and the principalities are similar:

• Fertile lands or communal land ownership made it possible to engage in crafts
• Principalities are at the crossroads of trade routes
• remoteness from steppes -> from nomads
• advantageous geographical position-> development economy -> economic independence
• rivalry for the throne of Kyiv

Novgorod Boyar Republic (Novgorod land) - the main political center of Russia

In 1136 The Novgorodians began to invite the princes to rule over their lands -> from that time the Novgorod land was a feudal republic.

The main features of the Novgorod Republic:

1. Occupied a huge territory

2. Large shopping center "from the Varangians to the Greeks"

3. away from nomads

4. management: veche (general assembly)

Veche elects:

1 - bishop (responsible for the treasury, international relations)

2- mayor - was elected from the boyars - (responsible for the court, land management)

3000th (responsible for trade disputes and militia)

Galicia-Volyn principality - the main political center of Russia

Geographical position - between the rivers Dniester and Prut.

Princes: Yaroslav Osmomysl, Roman Mstislavovich (United the Galician and Volyn principalities), Daniil Romanovich (in 1240 he united the lands by annexing the Kiev land, Southwestern Russia, took Kyiv, but at the same time the Mongol-Tatars captured Kyiv).

Main features:

• fertile lands
• salt deposits
• Foreign trade in salt
• Favorable geographical position
• Distance from nomads

Vladimir-Suzdal principality - the main political center of Russia

Princes: Yuri Dolgoruky (1132-1157) - Founded Moscow, captured Kyiv;

Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174) - Captured Kyiv, robs it, moves to Suzdal, conflict with the boyars, killed as a result;

Vsevolod Big Nest(1176 - 1212) - expands the lands at the expense of the lands of Volga Bulgaria, the white-stone construction of Moscow, the annexation of the lands of the Ryazan, Chernigov, Smolensk principalities.

Main features:

1. Soil fertility - agriculture

2. Remoteness from nomads

3. Population growth (influx of new people from the south)

4. Volga trade route

5. The form of government is closest to the monarchy.

But, unfortunately, the development of many principalities was interrupted by the Mongol invasion.

Cities of North-Eastern Russia of the XIV-XV centuries Sakharov Anatoly Mikhailovich

3. CITY - CENTER OF FEUDAL DOMINATION

As noted above, the concentration of handicrafts and trade, commodity production and commodity circulation in the cities was the most important, but not the only socio-economic function of the feudal cities. Developing in close connection with the feudal system, cities were also centers of feudal power, centers of judicial, administrative and military organization.

Therefore, the feudal lords were interested in the growth of cities not only in terms of satisfying their fiscal interests. The city was needed by the feudal lords as a stronghold in the system of possessions, as an organizing center of feudal domination. This side of the matter is very important for explaining the great participation that the princely power took in the construction and development of cities. It is no coincidence that the duty of the “city affairs” was widespread, which the princes imposed on the entire subject population, making an exception only in relation to immune possessions. The attention with which the chronicles noted the facts of the construction of cities is also characteristic - it points to great importance given to urban planning by princely power. It is understandable why the merits of the Tver prince in the construction of cities are so emphasized in the “Laudatory Word of Monk Thomas to the Grand Duke Boris Alexandrovich”. As Monk Foma says, Prince Boris Alexandrovich not only founded monasteries, but “and higher than that - the cities of the creation of a certain”; he is "the forefathers and fatherly cities all over again." Just like in the 15th century. Boris Alexandrovich Tverskoy "updated" Kashin and Klin, so in the XIV century. Prince of Murom Yuri Yaroslavich "renew the city of your fatherland Murom, having long been deserted from the first princes, and set up your court in the city." Such evidence can be multiplied.

The attention of the princely authorities to the cities was not limited to the construction of cities. The princes were also interested in attracting the population to the city, and in this regard, it is necessary to consider not only the provision of temporary benefits and “weakening” of people coming to the city, but also the expansion of city fortifications into the territory of the settlements (for example, the construction in Moscow in 1394 . a large moat that covered the settlement, the creation of fortifications around the settlements of the Tver cities of Kashin, Staritsa, Mikulin, etc.).

The princes invested large material resources in the construction of cities. It was they who, along with the church, were the organizers of the complex stone construction that played such a big role in the development of cities. N. N. Voronin rightly pointed out this organizing role of the princes and the church in stone construction.

Such attention of the princely power to the cities and its organizing role in their development in themselves indicate the great importance of the cities for the feudal power.

Features of the princely estate, the center of the princely economy, in the Russian city of the XIV-XV centuries. were traced by S. V. Bakhrushin back in 1909 in his famous work on the princely economy of the 15th century. S. V. Bakhrushin then wrote that “the residence of the prince in the 15th century, whether it was Moscow, Pereyaslavl Ryazansky, Mozhaisk or Galich, was not only the political center of the state, but also the center of an extensive princely economy, the same as in a private estate is the master's yard, the master's estate. In the spiritual letters of the Moscow princes, Moscow-estate often even overshadows Moscow-the capital of the principality. The same thoughts, with minor reservations, S. V. Bakhrushin, as was canceled above, developed in his later works devoted to general characteristics cities and the question of the so-called "prerequisites for the formation of the" all-Russian market "in the 16th century.

In itself, the importance of cities as feudal centers was correctly indicated by S. V. Bakhrushin. Sources give a lot of evidence for this. The very fact of the concentration of large feudal lords in the cities is very indicative.

Many specific princes lived in Moscow, who had one of the shares in the so-called "third" ownership of Moscow. According to your spiritual knowledge Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich bequeathed to his heirs numerous courtyards and courtyard places in Moscow, as did his wife, Grand Duchess Sofia Vitovtovna. Mansions in Moscow belonged to the family of Prince Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovsky, and their yard place on Podil was inherited on the basis of patrimonial rights. Yards in Moscow were also owned by Prince Yuri Dimitrievich Galitsky, who handed them over to his children. Dmitrovsky Prince Yuri Vasilyevich also had in the 15th century. courtyards in Moscow. The sources mention princely vestibules and chambers in Tver, set on fire during the uprising of 1327 ... There were many boyars in the cities. Courtyards "princely and boyar" burned down in Rostov in 1408 ... We know from the text of many inter-princely agreements that the boyars (except for the "introduced" and "travelers") were obliged to sit in the so-called. "city siege" and that this rule usually applied to all boyars on a territorial basis. Many boyars did not permanently live in the city, but could have their own yards and houses on patrimonial rights. If they did not stay in the city permanently, being in their estates, then they had “siege yards” in the cities, where their serfs and serfs lived.

A considerable place in the city belonged to the spiritual feudal lords. The metropolitan house with its "kliros and with all his life" was located in Vladimir from 1300, and from 1326 - in Moscow. In a number of large cities there were centers of dioceses. Not only city monasteries, but also many others, sometimes very remote, also had their courtyards in the cities where monastic people lived. Monasteries bought yards on taxed, "black" land, and these yards became the patrimonial property of the monastery - feudal landownership cut into city land like wedges. For example, in the charter of Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in 1432-1443. it was said: “... I granted Igumen Zinovy ​​Sergius Monastery ... I freed him to buy a court in the city in Pereyaslavl with a tax service or a black one, whoever sells them. And they will buy for themselves for the future without a ransom, but the votchich of that yard cannot be redeemed. And it’s not necessary for them to pull from that yard either with servants, or with black people, or to fishermen, or to the Sotsky, or to the court, do not pull with some duties. Thus, the monastery courtyard was immediately covered by immunity rights and excluded from the city tax system. The monastic yards, as already mentioned, conducted economic activities in the cities, organizing mainly trade and fishing operations of the monasteries in the cities. The inhabitants of these courtyards - monastic people - were outside the jurisdiction of the grand duke's administration, did not pay the duties established for other trade matters and others in accordance with the benefits that were provided to the monasteries. For example, in a letter of commendation Nizhny Novgorod prince Alexander Ivanovich to the Annunciation Monastery 1410–1417 it was said: “... that the people of the monasteries are vulgar in the city and in the villages, if my tribute comes and the abbot pays for it according to his strength, and besides, they don’t need to wash, nor tamga, nor coastal, The drivers won't pay anything."

We also note the presence in many cities of various governing bodies of the palace and patrimonial economy of the princes. For example, it is mentioned that in Kolomna there was Ostey, "the nurse of the great prince." In Yuriev was the village of Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich. Numerous princely servants, palace artisans of various specialties, and so on lived in the city courtyards of the princes.

In addition to courtyards and courtyard places that belonged to various representatives of secular and spiritual feudal lords, there were entire settlements in the cities, which were also in the patrimonial possession of feudal lords and later called "whites". Some of these settlements are known to us from sources. For example, in the charter of the Tver Grand Duke Boris Alexandrovich to the Sretensky Convent in Kashin in 1437–1461. it is said about the release from the grand ducal tax and the court of the monastery "orphans" who live on the monastery lands "or in the city of the settlement of Yerusalim", which therefore belonged to this monastery. In the charter of the princes of Tver to the Tver Otroch Monastery (1361) it is said: “And to whom else the archimandrite will call the archimandrite from abroad to our fatherland, to the land of the Holy Mother of God, or whom he will plant in Tfer and Kashin in the city, and for that but they don’t take anything for them ”- an indication of the monastic settlements in these cities. Probably, in most cities there were princely settlements.

P. P. Smirnov rightly wrote that “the princely city of the XIV-XV centuries, like lace, was cut by the immunities of native landowners, who owned courtyards, streets, settlements, etc. in it.” Some possessions of feudal lords in the cities "pulled" to rural patrimonial and palace centers. For example, Grand Duke Vasily Vasilievich bequeathed to his heirs “the village of Babyshevo near the city near Kolomna ... from the courtyards of the city, which attracted him”, in Pereyaslavl “the village of Ryuminskoye from the courtyards of the city”, “the village of Dobroe and from the courtyards of the city, which pulled to the traveler ", etc..

The large share of feudal landownership is a characteristic and important feature of the medieval cities of the XIV-XV centuries. However, it is impossible not to see that, in addition to feudal landownership in cities, especially in the settlements and settlements, which were integral part cities, there were "black" lands. Only by artificially excluding the settlement from the concept of "city" P. P. Smirnov substantiated the thesis about the "patrimonial" character of the cities of the XIV-XV centuries. In addition, we cannot be sure that within the "princely city" itself, fortifications, the Kremlin, the entire territory was in patrimonial possession.

The importance of the city as the center of the princely economy was a feature of the feudal cities but cannot be considered as their main and defining feature. Being the center of commodity production and exchange and including "black people" in the settlements, the settlement-city in its socio-economic structure differed from the feudal patrimony. From the legal point of view, despite the absence of a special legal status of the townspeople, the city also cannot be identified with the patrimony, although the sources call the cities the “fatherland” of this or that prince.

If you look closely at the evidence of sources about the ownership of cities, it is easy to see that it was understood and carried out as the possession of the right to collect and use income combined with the performance of judicial and administrative functions. In the sources there are references to the transfer of the city to one or another prince "with everything", including "with earthen and standing bread." Prince of Serpukhov and Borovsky Vladimir Andreevich according to his spiritual diploma of 1401–1402. gave to his sons Semyon and Yaroslav Gorodets on the Volga “they washed and tamga, and I gave my wife and tamga to my wife, Princess Olena, on the old duty, as it was before this. And the city will become my children in half, and with all the duties. It is not accidental that in the spiritual testaments of the princes, after certain cities were transferred to the heirs “to the patrimony and inheritance”, the text specifically stipulated the transfer of patrimonial possessions in these same cities - courtyards, courtyard places, settlements, etc., which were real estates. The amount of income from the cities, which should go to pay for the Horde "exit", was especially indicated. Finally, the widespread practice of the so-called "mixed ownership" of cities speaks of the fact that the cities were far from being the patrimonial possessions of princes. So, Rostov in the middle of the XIV century. was divided into two parts, one of which, Borisoglebskaya, went to Prince Konstantin Vsevolodovich, and the other, Sretenskaya, to his brother Fyodor Vsevolodovich. This division of the city was stable, the city also passed into the possession of the Moscow princes in parts. The city of Rzhev (Rzhava Volodimerova) was also in "mixed" ownership. These examples could be multiplied, but it suffices to confine ourselves to pointing out the joint ownership of Moscow and its character, well studied by M. N. Tikhomirov. The “third” possession of Moscow did not at all bear a “patrimonial” character. "Thirds" represented only parts of judicial and other incomes that went in favor of the princes, and already in the second half of the 14th century. definitely established the unconditional primacy of the Grand Duke in all court cases, and then, in the course of the centralization of the Russian state, the “third” ownership was finally eliminated. But even existing in the XIV century. (we find the first evidence of its establishment in the spiritual writing of Ivan Danilovich Kalita), it could in no way be the result of “patrimonial” ownership of parts of cities, because it was not associated with the territorial division of the city into parts, but very often wore the form of weather ownership.

In the sense of the transfer of income from cities, one should also understand the reports of sources about the award of cities “for ham”, for example, Volok was granted “with everything” to Prince Fyodor Svyatoslavovich, who left Lithuania to serve the Grand Duke Semyon Ivanovich, or a number of cities granted by Vasily Dimitrievich Svetrigailu in 1408 "with all the volosts, and with duties, and from the village, and from the bread," and other similar evidence.

What has been said above does not mean, of course, that there could not be patrimonial cities in the true sense of the word. The point is that it is impossible in general to all the cities of North-Eastern Russia of the XIV-XV centuries. be regarded as patrimonial. We know the cities that were the property of individual feudal lords. Such is Aleksin, who was in the possession of the metropolitan house before his exchange for the Karash volost; the spiritual feudal lords owned Gorokhovets, Klin; also known are such possessing towns as Fedos'in Gorodok, Tushnov, Vyshgorod and others, which A. V. Artsikhovsky rightly attributed to feudal castles. Probably, such was Klichen in the Tver principality and many others mentioned in the sources under the term "city". But with regard to the named settlements we do not now have firm data on the development of handicrafts and trade in them. We have the right to assume the existence of commodity production and commodity circulation in patrimonial cities, since commodity-money relations, at least in the 15th century, were definitely noted in feudal farms. However, the lack of data makes us refrain from trying to present the socio-economic nature of the patrimonial cities of the 14th–15th centuries.

In any case, all the more or less developed cities of North-Eastern Russia, despite the significant proportion of feudal landownership in them, cannot be classified as patrimonial cities. But all these cities were of great importance in the system of feudal estates, and this importance was not limited to the concentration in the cities of centers of princely, palace and other types of feudal economy.

It was noted above that the construction of city fortifications was organized by the feudal lords. These fortifications were intended not only to defend against external enemies, but also from anti-feudal uprisings.

As evidenced by archaeological data and some other sources, the size of the territory covered by fortifications was usually very small. Such is the small territory of the ancient Moscow Kremlin, Zvenigorod, Vereya and other cities. The shaft of the ancient Gorodets had a length of 2200-2300 steps. Opok fortifications covered an area of ​​150 x 80 sazhens. The fortifications of Kashin covered the territory on a small cape formed by a loop of the river. Kashinki. The shaft in Mikulin stretched for 280 fathoms, in Dmitrov - for 520 fathoms, Volokolamsk - 490 fathoms, Ruza - 468 fathoms, Vereya - 470 fathoms.

The small size of the area covered by the fortifications suggests that they were intended primarily to protect the princely residence. This is evidenced by the location of the city fortifications. For example, during excavations in Zvenigorod, B.A. Rybakov established the presence of a massive solid fence inside the city fortifications, more solid than fences on the shaft. B. A. Rybakov is inclined to conclude that these powerful internal fortifications were erected around the princely palace complex.

This was also the case in ancient Vladimir, where, according to the observations of N. N. Voronin, the fortifications of Andrei Bogolyubsky “encircle, first of all, the western princely section of the city, the main gate, the Golden Gate, is introduced into this part.” After the city uprisings of 1175, 1177 and 1186, when the oppositional old boyars were defeated, the princely residence was moved to another place, to the so-called. “middle city”, “but even here the princely area is strengthened: the princely and episcopal courtyards are protected by a citadel wall. Detinets occupies the southwestern corner of the middle city. To prevent new actions of the townspeople, the princely government in Vladimir took the same measure as in Kyiv after the city uprising of 1068, the transfer of bargaining from the Klyazma “hem” to the “princely mountain” of the middle city, carried out by Vsevolod the Big Nest.

The creation of powerful city fortifications was inextricably linked with the strengthening of the political power of the feudal lords. This is clearly seen in the words of the Rogozhsky chronicler under 1367: “The same summer in Moscow they began to build a city of stones, hoping for their great strength, the prince of Russia began to bring to his will, and who began to disobey their will, they began to encroach on them with malice ". The stone walls of the Moscow Kremlin allowed Dimitry Donskoy to boldly pursue his policy of combating the separatist aspirations of the Tver and other princes, which caused an irritated reaction from the Tver author.

A certain territory “pulled” to the fortified city - the center of feudal possessions. In the texts of spiritual and contractual letters of the great and specific princes of the XIV-XVI centuries. the composition of the possessions of one or another prince is listed in detail. The formulas in which this enumeration is clothed are very indicative. Their development is also indicative. For example, in the spiritual letter of Ivan Danilovich Kalita (c. 1339) we find the following text: “Behold, I gave my son to my great Semyon Mozhaesk with all volosts, Kolomna with all Kolomna volosts ...”. In Semyon Ivanovich's clerical letter (1353), the formula is already more detailed: "Kolomna with volosts and villages and borders, Mozhayesk with volosts and villages and borders." In the spiritual charter of Ivan Ivanovich (c. 1358) we find further development formulas: “Mozhayesk with all the volosts and from the village, and from the board, and with the tamga, and with all the duties ... Kolomna with all the volosts, with the tamga, and with the wash, and from the village, and from the board, with the quitrents, and with the duties ". In the same charter, in addition to Mozhaisk and Kolomna, such a detailed formula was also applied to Zvenigorod, which until now has been mentioned only in the order of a general enumeration of the names of possessions. In the spiritual charter (second) of Dimitri Ivanovich (1359), when naming Mozhaisk, “both from myty and from outgoing volosts” is added, a detailed formula is applied to Dmitrov, a detailed enumeration of the volosts of each city is introduced. In subsequent letters of the XIV-XV centuries. we see how the formula “with all the volosts and from the village, and from the tamga and from the myta” is applied to the name of an increasing number of cities, and so on.

How to extend this formula to all large quantity cities, and the enrichment of its content by including new elements in it cannot be considered accidental. This reflects certain processes that took place during the time under study. Therefore, Moscow closely followed the correctness of the formulas in the texts of the treaties. L. V. Cherepnin for the first time published a significant number of draft versions of spiritual and contractual letters. Comparing them with white texts, we find a number of interesting changes there. For example, the text of the end of the Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich with Prince Andrei Vasilyevich of Uglich was edited, it included the “grant” of the Grand Duke of Kaluga “with volosts”, etc. ... The original text was: “... what a language, the prince is great, you Koluga with volosts, from the villages, from the path ... ". During the secondary editing, instead of the word “Kaluga”, “Mozhaisk” was put and the formula was changed accordingly: the words “and with the paths” were crossed out. Until 1473, the words "and with the paths" in relation to Mozhaisk were found in letters - for the last time in the spiritual letter of Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich of 1451–1452. But in the 70s and subsequent years, these words do not exist: in the ending of Ivan Vasilyevich with Andrei Vasilyevich of February 2, 1481, it says: “Mozhaysk me volosts and from the village”, in the new ending of November 30, 1486, the same formula is used again . And only in the spiritual letter of Ivan Vasilievich of 1504 we meet "the city of Mozhaesk with volosts, and with roads and from villages, and with all duties." The removal of the mention of "paths" for a certain period is quite understandable: "path" is a certain economic complex in the system of the palace grand ducal economy, which cannot be transferred to the specific prince along with the city. In 1493, Andrei Vasilievich was deprived of his rights for participating in a group directed against the Grand Duke, and the cities, including Mozhaisk, returned to the direct possession of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, who handed Mozhaisk to his eldest son Vasily Ivanovich, naturally, with " ways."

This example suggests that the composition of the formula when mentioning cities in charters is by no means accidental, but allows us to clarify certain aspects of the significance of a particular city as a feudal center.

Mentions of volosts, villages, ways, tamgas, myty, duties draw before us the city, which is the central link in the system of feudal estates, to which a certain territory “pulls”. Together, this territory forms a city county, which, however, was not integral in territorial, geographical and administrative terms.

Grand princely or princely volosts did not necessarily lie in a continuous array around the cities. They were scattered over a considerable distance. Letters mention "departure places", for example, in relation to the same Mozhaisk in the 30-40s. XV century ... Further, around the cities and among the volosts, "pulling" to the city in general, there were many possessions of monasteries and large feudal lords, covered with immunities.

However, in relation to such immune possessions, the city did not cease to be a judicial and administrative center. The transfer of judicial and administrative rights to the feudal owner was not always complete and final. As the immunity rights of feudal lords were reduced and limited in the process of centralization of state power, the importance of cities as judicial and administrative centers of the territory surrounding them increased more and more. This is also evidenced by the widespread practice of "mixed courts" in cities between princely and monastic people, as well as those dependent on other feudal lords, with the obligatory participation of the princely governor and with the final decision belonging to the Grand Duke himself.

The territory that "pulled" to the city developed historically, and its borders were quite stable. In the end of Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich with Prince Boris Alexandrovich of Tver in 1439, in an article on the frontiers, it says: “And the frontier of Tver and Kashin, as was the case with my ancestor, Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich ... which was close to Tferi and Kashin.” In the end of Grand Duke Dimitri Ivanovich with Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov and Borovsky, it is said: “And those who have long been drawn to the city by the courts, are now to the city.” When cities were transferred into possession by spiritual or contractual letters, the territory of the county was also necessarily transferred. For example, when agreeing on the independence of Kashin from Tver in 1375, Dimitri Ivanovich wrote in his final letter to the prince of Tver: “But do not enter Kashin, and what attracted Kashin, the votchich prince Vasily knows.” The position of the city as a judicial-administrative center was preserved even in the event that any possession in the county left the hands of the prince who owned the city. For example, in the end of the Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich with Dimitri Yuryevich in 1441-1442. it is said that Zvenigorod "with volosts, and with ways, and from the village, and from myta, and with all the duties and with everything that attracted him," which Vasily Vasilyevich took away in his favor from Prince. Vasily Yuryevich, enters the possession of the Grand Duke "of that village, which you took from Semyon from Aminov's stepson in Trostno in your name." Regarding this village, Vasily Vasilyevich's letter to Dimitri Yuryevich says this: "... and that village of yours with everything, and the court and tribute are drawn to Zvenigorod in the old days." Consequently, the village passed to another owner, but from the judicial and administrative point of view, it continues to be subordinate to the Zvenigorod governors of the Grand Duke.

A similar practice is observed at the end of the Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich with the prince of Serpukhov and Borovsky Vasily Yaroslavich 1451-1456. This charter mentions the “Ershovsky village”, “what I exchanged for Princess Kiyazhe Andreev Ivanovich and their son Prince Dimitri, and then the village of Ershovskoye by court and tribute, according to how Zvenigorod was behind me, for the Grand Duke.” And here Zvenigorod retains its importance as an administrative and judicial center in relation to the possessions of another prince.

One might think that here we are dealing with a certain centralization policy of the Moscow princes, who are striving to keep administrative and judicial administration in their hands.

However, in the sources we find an indication that the princely villages were not always "pulled" to the cities. In this charter of Princess Maria, the wife of the Nizhny Novgorod prince Daniil Borisovich, 1425 to the Spaso-Evfimyev monastery in the village of Omutskoye, it is said that “that village of Omutskoye did not attract anything to the city, no duties and murder.”

Numerous references to “myty”, “tamgas” and any other “city duties” not only testify to the development of trade and market relations and the place of cities in this development, but also indicate the use of cities by the feudal state in its fiscal interests.

The city is the main center for collecting all kinds of duties and dues. True, the term "city duties" covers not only those duties that were levied in the city itself, but also those that were collected from it at a considerable distance. But they nevertheless "pulled" to the city. Known, for example, Voinichsky myt on the river. Similar at the village Spas near Moscow, which "in the old days" pulled to Volokolamsk, which was almost 100 kilometers away. For the most part, the collection of duties was concentrated in the cities. This is evidenced by numerous references to sources. When the Grand Dukes exempted monastic trade from duties, they directly indicated in their letters of exemption from duties “in all my cities”, “in all cities”. If the duties were collected outside the walls of the city, in the volosts, then all the same, their collection was organized by the princely governors and the duties came to the city, which is why letters and letters all the time talk about “duties to the city”, “city dues”, and so on. "Danytsiki" were sent "to the cities." When the Tver prince Mikhail Yaroslavich was tried in the Horde, he was charged with the fact that he "took a lot of tribute on our cities." The central position of the feudal city in the collection of duties and dues and, consequently, in the organization of the income of the grand ducal power is very clearly visible, and this is the specific feature of the feudal city.

Thus, the feudal city of the XIV-XV centuries. appears before us as the most important element in the system of the feudal system. The organization of power was carried out primarily through the cities, which were the centers of certain territories. The cities were in this sense the stronghold of the ruling class of feudal lords and were very important for the development of the feudal state apparatus. This applies to the area internal function feudal state power, and to external. Cities were the focus of the military organization of the feudal class. The boyars and princely servants, who lived in their patrimonial estates, were obliged, in the event of an attack from outside, to sit down in a “city siege”, and in the event of an offensive action by the prince, to gather under his banners in the city. L. V. Cherepnin traced those changes in the system of military organization that were introduced by Dimitry Donskoy, but did not survive under his successor. Under Demetrius of the Don, the boyars were supposed to go on a campaign on a territorial basis, that is, with the prince on whose territory their possessions are located, regardless of which prince they serve. Before and after the Donskoy, a different principle was in effect: the princes "observe" foreign boyars in their possessions, but in the event of a war, the boyar acts under the banner of his prince. As for the "urban" siege, it was always built according to the territorial principle. In treaty charters of the middle of the XV century. we find clear indications of the city as the center of the feudal military organization. In the end of Yuri Dimitrievich, who seized the great reign in 1434, with the princes of Mozhaisk and Vereisk, he says: “And whoever has to live with me in the great reign of our boyars and servants, and I should also observe them, as well as my own. And whoever serves the prince, wherever he lives, and go to him with the prince whom he serves. And the city siege, where someone lives, then sit down for him, otherwise good boyars. An exception is made only for the "worthy" boyars, who occupy the highest position on the hierarchical ladder, who do not sit down in the "city siege" on a territorial basis. The same principles are contained in the end of the Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich with Dimitri Shemyaka and Dimitri Yuryevich in the same 1434: “And the siege of the city, where someone lives, here he sits down, otherwise boyars introduced and travelers. And where our army will go and where someone lives in your community, someone who serves, he goes as his master. And where will I send my governor of which city, and which people of that city serve you, and those people go under your governor, and your governor go with my governor. And whoever serves me, the Grand Duke, but lives in your community, and where we send our governors, and those people go under my governor, and your governors go with my governors; And whoever serves me the Grand Duke, but live in your community, and you should watch over those people, as well as your own. The cities were the assembly points of the militias, where "the boyars with their troops" appeared.

The chronicles repeatedly point to the city as the center of a military organization when they talk about “rati from the cities”, about the dissolution of the rati “in the cities”, and so on.

Finally, the cities were the most important centers of political life. In the cities there were residences of secular and spiritual authorities, princely congresses took place, the most important political agreements were concluded, various state and political acts were carried out. The princely archives were kept in the cities, chronicles were kept, which had a very important political significance in the Middle Ages.

Cities were also centers of development of feudal culture. In all areas of social and economic relations of the feudal era, cities played an important role. Cities were an organic link in the feudal system, despite the fact that their socio-economic structure harbored elements of new social relations in the bud. But the degree of development of these elements depended on many specific historical conditions. For a long time, cities played an important role in the development and strengthening of feudalism, and it was precisely this role that Russian cities of the 14th–15th centuries played.

4. 2. 5. The “Chinese” city of Balasagun and the old Russian city of Balakhna Along with the “Imil river”, the “Chinese” chronicles call the city of Balasagun. Where was he? We were unable to find in the modern "Small Atlas of the World" (M., 1979) the city of Balasagun somewhere in the East, in China or