The supreme power in Ancient Russia bore successively the following titles: prince, grand prince, prince-sovereign and sovereign - tsar and grand prince of all Russia.

Prince.

I do not decide whether the word "prince" is borrowed by our language from German, and not preserved in it from the original Indo-European vocabulary common to all Indo-Europeans, like, for example, the word "mother". Borrowing time is determined differently. Some think that this word could enter the Slavic languages ​​​​and the language of the Eastern Slavs as early as the 3rd, 4th centuries. from the Gothic language, when the Slavs were in close contact with the power of the Goths, which stretched across Southern Russia and further west, beyond the Carpathians; this word was then borrowed together with others, such as penyaz, glass, bread. Others think that this word is of a later origin, entered our language at the time when the Varangian-Scandinavian princes with their squads entered the Russian society. Knyaz is the Russian, East Slavic form of the German "Konung", or more correctly, "Kuning". The prince was the name of the bearer of supreme power in Russia in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries, as this power was then understood.

Grand Duke.

From the middle of the XI century. the bearer of supreme power, the prince of Kyiv, was called the "great prince." Great means senior; By this term, the prince of Kyiv differed from his younger brethren - the regional princes.

The prince is the sovereign.

In specific centuries, in the XIII and XIV centuries, the term that expressed the essence of state power was the “sovereign”, which, like the territorial term, corresponded in the sense of appanage. This word is borrowed from private life; the word "sovereign" has a parallel form in the word "sovereign". It seems that together with the latter, the first word came from the word "gentlemen" (in the collective sense); Church Slavonic monuments do not know the word "sovereign", replacing it with the words "lord", "lord" or "master". "Lords" had a double meaning: the first - collective - this is an assembly of gentlemen; hence, in the annals, the expression with which the posadnik or someone else addresses the eve: “Lord brothers” (call. fall.); "gentlemen" is a collective term, parallel to the word "foreman" - a meeting of elders. The second meaning - abstract - is dominion and, as an object of possession, economy; masters - masters, and then economy, domination. So, in one manuscript of the Pilot's Book, we read about people who entered monasticism with certain property, that this property, with which one enters the monastery, "let the lords of the monastery be," i.e., should belong to the economy of the monastery. In connection with this last meaning, the word "lords" also had a single meaning - master, householder, οτκοδεσπο της. In the monuments of Russian origin, instead of "sovereign" is usually found "sovereign"; however, in Ancient Russia, the "sovereign" was distinguished from the "master" (a parallel form of the "master"). There is a well-known dispute between Ivan III and the Novgorodians over the title; Ivan got angry when the Novgorodians, calling him master, then began to call him master as before. This means that in the sovereign a higher power was understood than in the master. “Master” is only a ruler with the right to manage, and not an owner with the right to dispose, alienate, destroy. "Sovereign" - the owner, owner; in this sense, princes of appanages were called sovereigns - dominus - this is the owner of the inheritance, the owner of his territory on patrimonial law.

Sovereign - king and great and prince of all Russia.

Sovereign - Tsar and Grand Duke of All Russia - a title that was adopted in parts by Moscow sovereigns approximately from the middle of the 15th century. As part of this title, a new term is “king”; Tsar is the Russian shortened form of the word "Caesar". The origin of this abbreviated form is easily explained by the ancient inscription of the word. In the monuments of the XI and XII centuries. - in the Ostromir Gospel, in fragments of the Four Gospels, in the Tale of Princes Boris and Gleb mnicha Jacob - this word is depicted as follows: tssr - Caesar; subsequently with under the title disappeared and came out: tsr - king. As is known, the Ostromir gospel is still dominated by the form "the king's kingdom" and not "the kingdom of the heavens." In “The Tale of Mnich Jacob” we come across the following expression (in a eulogy to the holy princes, according to the list of the 12th century): “Truly,” the author addresses the princes, “you are a Caesar (dual number) a Caesar and a prince a prince”; it is written like this: Caesar, tssrem - "king" in Ancient Russia since the 11th century. sometimes our prince was also called, but in the form of a special honorary distinction; it was not the official title of all Kyiv princes. Under the king they meant power, higher than the power of local tribal or national sovereigns; the king, or caesar, is, in fact, the Roman emperor. When Russia was subsequently conquered by the Tatar horde, the khan of this horde began to be called the king. When the power of the khan over Russia fell, and the Byzantine, Eastern Roman, empire was destroyed by the Turks, the Moscow sovereigns, the great princes of all Russia, considering themselves the successors of the fallen Roman emperors, officially assumed this title for themselves. Under the king they meant an independent, independent sovereign, who did not pay tribute to anyone, who did not give anyone an account of anything. The same concept of a sovereign, not dependent on alien power, was combined with another term "autocrat"; this term is an unsatisfactory translation of the Greek "αυτχρατορ". The title of autocrat was also sometimes given as an honorary distinction or as a sign of special respect for the ancient Russian princes. So they call him in the lives and laudatory words of Prince Vladimir the Holy; that was the name of the contemporaries of Vladimir Monomakh. The same imaginary Jacob says at the beginning of his story about Boris and Gleb: “Sitsa, therefore, be small before these (shortly before this) in the summer of the self-ruler of the Russian land, Volodimer, the son of Svyatoslav.” Along with the title of tsar, the Muscovite sovereigns adopted for themselves the title of autocrat, understanding it in the sense of external independence, and not internal sovereignty. The word "autocrat" in the XV and XVI centuries. meant that the Moscow sovereign did not pay tribute to anyone, but depended on another sovereign, but then this was not understood as the fullness of political power, state powers that did not allow the sovereign to share power with any other internal political forces. This means that the autocrat was opposed to the sovereign, dependent on another sovereign, and not to the sovereign, limited in his internal political relations, that is, constitutional. That is why Tsar Vasily Shuisky, whose power was limited by a formal act, continued to title himself autocrat in letters.

These are the terms that the supreme state power was designated in Ancient Russia: these are “prince”, “grand prince”, “prince-sovereign” and “sovereign-king and grand prince of all Russia”. All these terms expressed various types of supreme power, which changed in the history of our state law until Peter the Great. You can stop at these types.

Scheme of the development of supreme power in Ancient Russia.

Finishing the exposition of the foundations of the methodology, I remarked that in studying the terms of this or that order, we will try to draw up diagrams that would represent the process of development of phenomena of this order, thus applying one of the requirements of the historical method to the study of our history. For the sake of memory, I will try to bring you a scheme for the development of supreme power in Russia. This scheme will absorb only the terms of supreme power that I have explained. We have not explained the last title that our supreme power has assumed: emperor; but this title is not a question of political archeology, but a phenomenon of our present reality, and our scheme will not be extended to this last type known to us in the history of Russian law. To derive this scheme, it is necessary to accurately characterize all the types of supreme power that have changed in our ancient history.
The prince is the leader of an armed squad, a fighting company, guarding the Russian land and for that receiving a certain reward from it - food. The exact formula of this type is given to us by the Pskov chronicler of the 15th century, calling one Pskov prince "voivode, fed prince", about whom he (Pskovians) had to "stand and fight." So, the prince is a fodder, that is, a hired guardian of the borders of the earth. The elements of supreme power are not disclosed, all are contained in his meaning of the leader of the armed forces, defending the country, supporting one of the foundations of the state order - external security.

The Grand Duke is the head of the princely family, which owns the Russian land protected by him. He is important not in himself, not as a lone person, but as a senior representative of a sovereign princely family, jointly owning, that is, ruling the Russian land as his fatherland and grandfather.

The prince - the sovereign of specific centuries - the land owner of the inheritance on the patrimonial, that is, hereditary, right. He owns the territory of the appanage with slaves, serfs, servants attached to it, but his property rights do not extend to the free population of the appanage, which can leave this territory and move to the territory of another appanage.

Finally, the Sovereign Tsar and the Grand Duke of All Russia is the hereditary ruler of the Russian land, not only as a territory, but also as a national union. Just as the title by which this last type of supreme power was designated is a set of previous titles, so in the political content of this type the features of the previous types of the same power are reduced. He is both the territorial master of the Russian land, and the senior representative of all the current sovereigns of Russia, but he is also the supreme ruler of the Russian land as a national whole.
In order to outline the course of the historical development of supreme power in Ancient Russia by these types, which successively changed, it is necessary to recall the main features that characterize the concept of supreme power in state law. The content of this concept includes three elements: 1) the space of action of the supreme power, that is, the territory; 2) the tasks of the supreme power, i.e., the protection of the common interests of the population occupying the territory; 3) the means of action of power, i.e., the supreme rights over the subjects that make up this population. The first element gives the supreme power a territorial significance, the third a political one, and the second serves as the basis of both and at the same time the connection between them: the territory is determined by the limits in which these common interests operate; the rights of the supreme power are determined by the nature of the tasks that are assigned to it. Taking these three elements as a basis, we will restore the course of development of the supreme power in Ancient Russia.

In the first type, neither territorial nor political significance is clear. The property of the relationship of the bearer of supreme power - the prince - to the territory is not defined; for example, it is not precisely defined what is the difference in the attitude towards this territory of the prince himself and the local rulers subordinate to him: posadniks, governors or local princes - sons and other relatives of the prince. Only one of the tasks of the supreme power is clear - protecting the borders of the earth from external enemies, but the political content of power is unclear, it is not defined what the prince should do in relation to the internal order itself, how much he should only maintain this order and how much he can change it. In a word, the prince of the IX, X centuries. - the guardian of the borders of the Russian land with an indefinite territorial and political significance.

In the second type - the Grand Duke - both meanings are already indicated - both territorial and political, but this meaning does not belong to a person, but to a whole princely family, the head of which is the Grand Duke. The entire princely family owns the entire Russian land and rules it as their own patrimony and grandfather; but each individual prince, a member of this family, has neither a permanent territorial nor a definite political significance: he owns a certain volost only temporarily, he rules it only by agreement with his relatives. In a word, the supreme power receives a certain and permanent territorial and political significance, but it is not individual, but collective.

In the prince-sovereign is the sole power, but it has only a territorial significance. The prince-sovereign of appanage centuries is the land owner of the appanage, but his circle of power does not include permanent rights over the free inhabitants of the appanage, because these inhabitants are not attached to the territory, they can come and go. All their relations with the prince are land relations, that is, they follow from a private, civil contract with him: a free inhabitant of the inheritance recognizes the power of the prince over himself while he serves him or uses his land, urban or rural. The prince, therefore, has no political significance, is not a sovereign with definite, permanent rights over his subjects; he practices certain supreme rights - he judges, legislates, governs, but these rights are only the consequences of his civil contract with free inhabitants: he legislates among them, judges them, generally rules them while they are in contractual relations with him - serve him or use his land; consequently, the prince's political rights are only the consequences of his civil relations with the free inhabitants. So, in the prince-sovereign is the sole power, but only with a territorial significance without a political one.

In the Sovereign-Tsar and the Grand Duke of All Russia, there is a sole power with territorial and political significance; he is the hereditary owner of the entire territory, he is the ruler, the ruler of the population living on it; his power is determined by the goals of the common good, and not by civil transactions, not by contractual service or land relations to him by his subjects. The common basis for both meanings, territorial and political, is nationality: the sovereign-tsar and the great prince of all Russia is the owner and ruler of the territory on which the Great Russian population lives; this national meaning is indicated in the title by the term "all Russia". The term is broader than reality, it also includes a political program, a political claim to parts of the Russian land that were still outside the power of the "all-Russian" sovereign, but the real meaning of this term indicates the dominant part of the Russian people - the Great Russian tribe.

So, the prince of the 9th - 10th centuries, a hired guardian of the borders, is replaced by the princely family that descended from him, jointly owning the Russian land, which in the 13th - 14th centuries. disintegrates into many appanage princes, civil owners of their appanage territories, but not political rulers of appanage societies, and one of these appanage owners with a territorial significance, but without a political one, turns into a territorial and political ruler, as soon as the boundaries of his appanage are combined with the boundaries of the Great Russian nationality.

Such is the scheme by which one can designate the course of development of the supreme power in Ancient Russia. From how we deduced it, you can see what such schemes are for. They reduce certain homogeneous phenomena into a formula that indicates the internal connection of these phenomena, separating the necessary from the accidental in them, that is, eliminating the phenomena determined only by a sufficient cause, and leaving the necessary phenomena. A historical scheme or formula expressing a known process is necessary to understand the meaning of this process, to find its causes and indicate its consequences. A fact not shown in a diagram is a vague notion from which no scientific use can be made.

Rulers of Mesopotamia

The following is a summary of the most significant rulers of Mesopotamia.

Urukagina(c. 2500 BC), ruler of the Sumerian city-state of Lagash. Before he reigned in Lagash, the people suffered from excessive taxes levied by greedy palace officials. The practice included illegal confiscations of private property. The reform of Urukagina was to abolish all these abuses, to restore justice and grant freedom to the people of Lagash.

Lugalzagesi (c. 2500 BC), son of the ruler of the Sumerian city-state of Umma, who created the short-lived empire of the Sumerians. He defeated the Lagash ruler Urukagina and subjugated the rest of the Sumerian city-states. In the campaigns he conquered the lands north and west of Sumer and reached the coast of Syria. The reign of Lugalzagesi lasted 25 years, his capital was the Sumerian city-state of Uruk. He was eventually defeated by Sargon I of Akkad. The Sumerians regained political power over their country only two centuries later, under the 3rd Dynasty of Ur.

Sargon I (c. 2400 BC), creator of the first lasting empire known in world history, which he himself ruled for 56 years. Semites and Sumerians lived side by side for a long time, but political hegemony belonged mainly to the Sumerians. The accession of Sargon marked the first major breakthrough of the Akkadians into the political arena of Mesopotamia. Sargon, a court official in Kish, first became the ruler of this city, then conquered the south of Mesopotamia and defeated Lugalzagesi. Sargon united the city-states of Sumer, after which he turned his eyes to the east and captured Elam. In addition, he carried out aggressive campaigns in the country of the Amorites (Northern Syria), Asia Minor and, possibly, Cyprus.

Naram-Suen (c. 2320 BC), grandson of Sargon I of Akkad, who gained almost the same fame as his famous grandfather. Ruled the empire for 37 years. At the beginning of his reign, he suppressed a powerful uprising, the center of which was in Kish. Naram-Suen led military campaigns in Syria, Upper Mesopotamia, Assyria, the Zagros mountains northeast of Babylonia (the famous stele of Naram-Suen glorifies his victory over the local inhabitants of the mountains), in Elam. Perhaps he fought with one of the Egyptian pharaohs of the VI dynasty.

Gudea (c. 2200 BC), ruler of the Sumerian city-state of Lagash, a contemporary of Ur-Nammu and Shulgi, the first two kings of the III dynasty of Ur. Gudea, one of the most famous Sumerian rulers, left behind numerous texts. The most interesting of them is the hymn, which describes the construction of the temple of the god Ningirsu. For this major construction, Gudea brought materials from Syria and Anatolia. Numerous sculptures depict him seated with a plan of the temple on his knees. Under the successors of Gudea, power over Lagash passed to Ur.

Rim-Sin (ruled c. 1878–1817 BC), king of the South Babylonian city of Larsa, one of the strongest opponents of Hammurabi. The Elamite Rim-Sin subjugated the cities of southern Babylonia, including Issin, the seat of a rival dynasty. After 61 years of reign, he was defeated and captured by Hammurabi, who by this time had been on the throne for 31 years.

Shamshi-Adad I (reigned c. 1868–1836 BC), king of Assyria, older contemporary of Hammurabi Information about this king is drawn mainly from the royal archives in Mari, a provincial center on the Euphrates, which was subordinate to the Assyrians. The death of Shamshi-Adad, one of the main rivals of Hammurabi in the struggle for power in Mesopotamia, greatly facilitated the expansion of Babylonian power to the northern regions.

Hammurabi (reigned 1848-1806 BC, according to one system of chronology), the most famous of the kings of the 1st Babylonian dynasty. In addition to the famous code of laws, many private and official letters, as well as business and legal documents, have been preserved. The inscriptions contain information about political events and military actions. From them we learn that in the seventh year of Hammurabi's reign, Uruk and Issin were taken from Rim-Sin, his main rival and ruler of the powerful city of Lars. Between the eleventh and thirteenth years of Hammurabi's reign, the power of Hammurabi was finally strengthened. In the future, he made aggressive campaigns to the east, west, north and south and defeated all opponents. As a result, by the fortieth year of his reign, he led an empire that stretched from the Persian Gulf to the upper Euphrates.

Tukulti-Ninurta I (reigned 1243–1207 BC), king of Assyria, conqueror of Babylon. Around 1350 BC Assyria was liberated from Mitanni rule by Ashshuruballit and began to gain more and more political and military power. Tukulti-Ninurta was the last of the kings (including Ireba-Adad, Ashshuruballit, Adadnerari I, Salmanasar I), under whom the power of Assyria continued to grow. Tukulti-Ninurta defeated the Kassite ruler of Babylon, Kashtilash IV, for the first time subjugating the ancient center of Sumero-Babylonian culture to Assyria. When trying to capture Mitanni, a state located between the eastern mountains and the Upper Euphrates, met with opposition from the Hittites.

Tiglath-pileser I (reigned 1112–1074 BC), Assyrian king who tried to restore the power of the country, which it had enjoyed during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta and his predecessors. During his reign, the main threat to Assyria was the Arameans, who invaded the territories in the upper Euphrates. Tiglathpalasar also undertook several campaigns against the country of Nairi, located north of Assyria, in the vicinity of Lake Van. In the south, he defeated Babylon, the traditional rival of Assyria.

Ashurnasirpal II (reigned 883–859 BC), energetic and cruel king who restored the power of Assyria. He delivered devastating blows to the Aramaic states located in the area between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Ashurnasirpal became the next Assyrian king after Tiglathpalasar I, who went to the Mediterranean coast. Under him, the Assyrian Empire began to take shape. The conquered territories were divided into provinces, and those into smaller administrative units. Ashurnasirpal moved the capital from Ashur to the north, to Kalakh (Nimrud).

Shalmaneser III (reigned 858-824 BC; 858 was considered the year of the beginning of his reign, although in reality he could ascend the throne a few days or months before the new year. These days or months were considered the time of the reign of his predecessor). Shalmaneser III, son of Ashurnasirpal II, continued to subdue the Aramaic tribes to the west of Assyria, in particular, the warlike tribe of Bit-Adini. Using their captured capital, Til-Barsib, as a stronghold, Shalmaneser pushed west into northern Syria and Cilicia and attempted to conquer them several times. In 854 BC at Karakar on the Oronte River, the combined forces of twelve leaders, among whom were Benhadad of Damascus and Ahab of Israel, repelled the attack of the troops of Shalmaneser III. The strengthening of the kingdom of Urartu to the north of Assyria, near Lake Van, made it impossible to continue expansion in this direction.

Tiglath-Pileser III (reigned c. 745–727 BC), one of the greatest Assyrian kings and the true builder of the Assyrian Empire. He removed three obstacles that stood in the way of establishing Assyrian dominance in the region. Firstly, he defeated Sarduri II and annexed most of the territory of Urartu; secondly, he proclaimed himself king of Babylon (under the name of Pulu), subjugating the Aramaic leaders, who actually ruled Babylon; finally, he decisively crushed the resistance of the Syrian and Palestinian states and reduced most of them to the level of a province or tributaries. As a method of management, he widely used the deportation of peoples.

Sargon II (reigned 721–705 BC), king of Assyria Although Sargon did not belong to the royal family, he became a worthy successor to the great Tiglath-pileser III (Salmaneser V, his son, ruled for a very short time, in 726-722 BC). The problems that Sargon had to solve were basically the same that faced Tiglath-Pileser: a strong Urartu in the north, an independent spirit that reigned in the Syrian states in the west, the unwillingness of Aramaic Babylon to submit to the Assyrians. Sargon began to solve these problems with the capture of the capital of Urartu Tushpa in 714 BC. Then in 721 BC. he conquered the fortified Syrian city of Samaria and deported its population. In 717 BC he took possession of another Syrian outpost, Karchemysh. In 709 BC, after a short stay in the captivity of Marduk-apal-iddina, Sargon proclaimed himself king of Babylon. During the reign of Sargon II, the Cimmerians and Medes appeared on the arena of the history of the Near East.

Sennacherib (reigned 704–681 BC), son of Sargon II, king of Assyria who destroyed Babylon. His military campaigns were aimed at the conquest of Syria and Palestine, as well as the conquest of Babylon. He was a contemporary of the Jewish king Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah. Besieged Jerusalem, but could not take it. After several trips to Babylon and Elam, and most importantly, after the murder of one of his sons, whom he appointed ruler of Babylon, Sennacherib destroyed this city and took the statue of its main god Marduk to Assyria.

Esarhaddon (reigned 680–669 BC), son of Sennacherib, king of Assyria He did not share his father's hatred of Babylon and rebuilt the city and even the temple of Marduk. The main act of Esarhaddon was the conquest of Egypt. In 671 BC he defeated the Nubian pharaoh of Egypt, Taharqa, and destroyed Memphis. However, the main danger came from the northeast, where the Medes were intensifying, and the Cimmerians and Scythians could break through the territory of the weakening Urartu into Assyria. Esarhaddon was unable to resist this onslaught, which soon changed the entire face of the Middle East.

Ashurbanipal (reigned 668–626 BC), son of Esarhaddon and last great king of Assyria. Despite the success of military campaigns against Egypt, Babylon and Elam, he was unable to resist the growing power of the Persian state. The entire northern border of the Assyrian Empire was under the rule of the Cimmerians, Medes and Persians. Perhaps Ashurbanipal's most significant contribution to history was the creation of a library in which he collected priceless documents from all periods of Mesopotamian history. In 614 BC Ashur was captured and plundered by the Medes, and in 612 BC. The Medes and Babylonians destroyed Nineveh.

Nabopolassar (reigned 625–605 BC), the first king of the Neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) dynasty. In alliance with the Median king Cyaxares, he participated in the destruction of the Assyrian Empire. One of his main deeds is the restoration of the Babylonian temples and the cult of the main god of Babylon, Marduk.

Nebuchadnezzar II (reigned 604–562 BC), second king of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. He became famous for his victory over the Egyptians at the Battle of Karchemysh (in the south of modern Turkey) in the last year of his father's reign. In 596 BC captured Jerusalem and captured the Jewish king Hezekiah. In 586 BC recaptured Jerusalem and put an end to the existence of an independent kingdom of Judah. Unlike the Assyrian kings, the rulers of the Neo-Babylonian Empire left few documents testifying to political events and military enterprises. Their texts are mostly about construction activities or glorify deities.

Nabonidus (reigned 555–538 BC), last king of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom Perhaps, in order to create an alliance against the Persians with the Aramaic tribes, he moved his capital to the Arabian desert, to Tayma. He left his son Belshazzar to rule Babylon. The veneration of the moon god Sin by Nabonidus caused opposition from the priests of Marduk in Babylon. In 538 BC Cyrus II occupied Babylon. Nabonidus surrendered to him in the city of Borsippa near Babylon.

Historical site of Bagheera - secrets of history, mysteries of the universe. Secrets of great empires and ancient civilizations, the fate of lost treasures and biographies of people who changed the world, the secrets of special services. Chronicle of the war, description of battles and battles, reconnaissance operations of the past and present. World traditions, modern life in Russia, the unknown USSR, the main directions of culture and other related topics - all that official science is silent about.

Learn the secrets of history - it's interesting ...

Reading now

Exactly 40 years ago, in April 1970, all Soviet media reported that the Volga Automobile Plant in Togliatti, which had been under construction for a little over three years, had released its first products. The new car at the same time received the trade name "Zhiguli". However, this purely Russian word turned out to be unacceptable for foreign countries, since in a number of countries it sounded, to put it mildly, ambiguous. Therefore, in the export version, the VAZ-2101 and other models of the plant began to be called Lada.

Which of us in adolescence or youth did not read the story of Alexei Nikolayevich Tolstoy "Nikita's Childhood"! But few people know that the writer depicted his own childhood in it. He lived on a farm with his mother, Alexandra Turgeneva, and stepfather. But behind this outwardly prosperous life of people who love each other, there was a drama. However, we will tell everything in order.

The Mamluks are a military class in medieval Egypt. They were recruited mainly from young slaves of Turkic and Caucasian origin. Translated from Arabic, the word means "belonging to." Mamluk warriors were distinguished by excellent training, stamina, dedication and courage in battle.

Nearly 120 years ago, on the territory of present-day Southern Zimbabwe, a treasure was buried in a dense forest: boxes full of gold and diamonds, ivory, expensive jewelry and much more. All these treasures belonged to King Lobengula, the ruler of the African empire Matabele.

The chariot can be safely called the first type of military equipment created by man, the prototype of an infantry fighting vehicle and a tank, as well as the oldest way to use horses in war.

In June 2019, epoch-making changes took place in the life of the military department and special services of Russia. After almost seven decades of continuous operation, officers began a phased change of personal weapons from the famous PM (Makarov pistol) to a pistol complex with the intriguing name "Boa". The event is extraordinary, given the difficult history of the evolution of the weapons of the officers of the Russian army.

Every year the slopes of these mountains are stormed by thousands of people. Someone lacks adrenaline, someone - fresh air. To a person of the 21st century, the Alps seem harmless and almost homely. Meanwhile, their temper is harsh, thicknesses of snow and ice easily become sarcophagi and obelisks, and scary finds here are not uncommon ...

In 1917, the Bolsheviks who came to power, along with the main slogans "All power to the Soviets!" and "Down with the war!" There was another one that they later tried to forget about. It sounded like this: "Let's free women from family slavery." Well, I mean… make them free for free love.

New articles and journals

• Historical sketch and description of Kronstadt (Michman Dorogov)

Sovereign

according to ancient Russian terminology, this word meant, first of all, a person of power, but only in the sphere of private relations, and not public ones. It was the master, the master (dominus), whose rights extended to things and people. The terms "lord", "ruler" and "sovereign" in the oldest written monuments are used indifferently, meaning, in particular, the slave owner and the landowner. In Russian Pravda, he is called Mr. the owner of the stolen thing, the owner of the chorus, the slave owner and the owner of the role purchase. In the monuments of church writing of the XI-XIV centuries. the owner of the field and the owner of the servants. ruler or G. From the XIV century. and the official monuments of secular law assimilate this terminology. According to Novgorod law, it was not allowed to judge a serf and a slave without a ruler; according to Pskov law, G. is called the owner and landowner, who is served by hirelings and from whom mischievous people, gardeners, and nomads rent land. These terms retain this meaning for a very long time and during the Moscow period. A serf who killed his master is called in Sudebniki a state murderer; the slave owner is always called G., and even the owner of the harvest is called the married G. Official monuments of the 17th century. avoid this term, replacing it with the term "boyar"; so, in the Code, the owners of ancient and indentured serfs are called their boyars. But in the unofficial language, the term G. for a long time retained its former meaning and, having lost its meaning, has survived to this day in the usual formula: "dear sir." From the middle of the XIV century. the term G. begins to penetrate into political spheres, to designate representatives of the supreme power. Such an application happened completely imperceptibly and naturally, since the grand dukes were big owners, landowners and slave owners, and in this capacity they were G. Serving them on a private, economic right could not be distinguished from state service: such a distinction did not yet exist. Therefore, free servants and even serving princes begin to title rulers and sovereigns of those sovereign princes whom they served. "Lord of the Russian land" and "many lands sovereign" was sometimes called in the second half of the XIV century. Polish kings. At the beginning of the XV century. Jagiello titles himself "sovereign of many lands", and Vitovt was titled "sovereign of many Russian lands" even by the grand dukes of Tver and Ryazan. The adoption of this title by the Grand Dukes of Moscow coincided with the moment of the revival of national-religious self-consciousness, when, after the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, the Moscow princes turned out to be the only representatives and guardians of Orthodoxy, and the halo of power of the Byzantine emperors began to be transferred to them. Vel. book. Representatives of the clergy called Vasily the Dark at the same time the great G., the sovereign of the Zemstvo, the autocrat and the king. Ivan III ordered that the title of G. of all Russia be minted both on seals and on coins, and used this title even in relations with Lithuania. But even under him, the title G. still does not enjoy general recognition and comes into use only gradually. Before the conquest of Novgorod, Novgorodians called the Grand Duke of Moscow "master", and erroneous the nickname of Ivan III as sovereign in 1477 served as a pretext for the final conquest of Novgorod. Simultaneously with the strengthening of this title, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe unlimited power of G. begins to connect with it. Already Ivan III was a supporter of this idea, demanding from the Novgorodians in 1478 the same states in Novgorod, which he has in Moscow. In the terms of subordination proposed by the Novgorodians, he saw a desire to "teach a lesson to our state of being", that is, to limit its power. “What kind of state is this?” he objected and explained what kind of state in Moscow: the state keeps us all". In this sense, the concept of "sovereign" is opposed to the concept of "sergeant." Such an understanding of the term G. is in the closest connection with the political efforts of Moscow G. to consolidate the international significance of the Byzantine emperors, to put themselves at the head, or at least along with the most In this struggle for international supremacy, the Moscow government also created a peculiar assessment of the honor of G. on the basis of two signs: pedigree and completeness of power.Moscow G. considered themselves G. pedigrees and autocrats who are "not obsessed" by anyone and rule their own kingdom only at the direction of divine decrees.These claims found their legal expression only under Peter the Great, and even then under the influence of foreign (Swedish) models.

Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - St. Petersburg: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907 .

See what "Sovereign" is in other dictionaries:

Husband. every secular ruler, the supreme head of the country, a sovereign person: emperor, king, king, sovereign duke or prince, etc. We honor all members of the royal family as sovereigns, placing this honor before the dignity, where to the dignity or title ... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

See ruler... Dictionary of Russian synonyms and expressions similar in meaning. under. ed. N. Abramova, M .: Russian dictionaries, 1999. sovereign lord, ruler, monarch, autocrat, tsar, king; the highest person, padishah, emperor, porphyry-bearer, ... ... Synonym dictionary

- “The Sovereign” (“II Principe”) is a work of the Italian political writer and historian ff. Machiavelli, which brought him worldwide fame. Consists of a dedication to Lorenzo de' Medici, nephew of Pope Leo XII and ruler of Florence, and 26 small ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

- ("Il Principe") - the work of the Italian political writer and historian N. Machiavelli, which brought him worldwide fame. Consists of a dedication to Lorenzo de' Medici, nephew of Pope Leo XII and ruler of Florence, and 26 short chapters. Created in… … Philosophical Encyclopedia

Sovereign, sovereign, husband. (pre-rev. official). Monarch, head of state. || In pre-revolutionary Russia, the word attached to the title of the persons of the imperial house. Sovereign Emperor. ❖ Gracious Sovereign (Dev.) formula of polite address. Explanatory ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

LORD, I am a husband. 1. In Ancient Russia: prince ruler. Kievan sovereigns. The sovereign's squad. 2. Sovereign ruler, king. G. emperor. Sovereign decree. G. and his entourage. Gracious sir or my sir (obsolete) polite address. | … Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

sovereign- SOVEREIGN, architect, historian. 1. Supreme owner, sovereign. Matvey Mikhailovich received an angry message from the sovereign, in which he scolded him as the last serf (3. 385). 2. The accepted appeal to a man, as a rule, of a higher social ... Dictionary of the trilogy "The Sovereign's Estate"

See King (

400 years ago, the Romanov dynasty ascended the Russian throne. Against the background of this memorable date, discussions flare up about how the royal power influenced our past and whether it has a place in our future. But for these discussions to make sense, you need to understand how the rulers of Russia got the royal title and what role the Church played in this.

The royal title is not only a verbal expression of a very high degree of power, but also a complex philosophy. For Russia, this philosophy was created mainly by the Russian Church. She, in turn, inherited the rich heritage of the Greek churches, whose fate flowed on the lands of the Byzantine Empire. The royal title was officially assigned to the rulers of Moscow in the 16th century. But no one, not a single person thought at that time: "We created the royal power." No, no, our sovereigns themselves, and their nobles, and church hierarchs adhered to a completely different way of thinking: “The royal power has passed to us from Constantinople. We are the heirs."

Symbols of royal power: Monomakh's hat and orb

ancient prophecies

In the second half of the 15th century, events took place that were stunning both for the Russian Church, and for all the “bookish” people of our fatherland, and for the political elite of Russia.

Firstly, the pious Greeks were “dishonored”! They agreed with the papacy on a union in exchange for military assistance against the Turks. Metropolitan Isidore, a Greek who came to the Moscow cathedra, an active supporter of the union, tried to change the religious life of Russia, found himself under arrest, and then barely took his feet out of the country.

Secondly, the Russian Church became autocephalous, that is, independent of Byzantium. Greek metropolitans were no longer called here, they began to appoint the heads of the Russian Church conciliarly, from their own bishops.

Thirdly, in 1453, Constantinople fell, which seemed to be the unshakable center of the Orthodox-glorious civilization.

And all this - for some one and a half decades. And then, before the beginning of the 16th century, Tsar Ivan III turned the crumbling specific Russia into the Muscovite state - huge, strong, unprecedented in its structure. In 1480, the country finally freed itself from the Horde's claims to power over it.

After the fall of Constantinople in Moscow, albeit not immediately, they remembered the mysterious predictions that had long been attributed to two great people - Methodius, Bishop of Patara, as well as the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI the Wise, philosopher and legislator. The first died a martyr's death in the 4th century, the second reigned at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th century. Tradition put gloomy prophecies into their mouths. Christianity, "pious Israel", shortly before the arrival of the Antichrist, will be defeated in the fight against the "kind of Ishmael." The tribes of the Ishmaelites will prevail and take over the land of the Christians. Then lawlessness will reign. However, later a certain pious king will appear who will defeat the Ishmaelites, and the faith of Christ will shine again.
With special attention, our scribes peered into the words, where the future triumph was attributed not to someone, but to the “Russian family”.

After 1453, Moscow church intellectuals gradually came to the conclusion: Constantinople fell - part of the ancient prophecies came true; but the second part will also come true: “The Russian family with allies (participants) ... will defeat all of Ishmael and the seven-hill [city] will accept him with his former laws and reign in him.” This means that someday Moscow will come with its Orthodox regiments to the Turks, break them, liberate Constantinople from the "Ismailites".

From the slow but inevitable realization of some high role of Moscow in the crippled, bleeding world of Eastern Christianity, from the fascination with exciting revelations of a thousand years ago, a whole “fan” of ideas was born explaining the meaning of the existence of the newborn power and its capital city. Not in vain - they thought at that time - the dear forest savage Moscow turned out to be in the role of a sovereign mistress! It was not in vain that she emerged from under the yoke of the Gentiles just at the moment when other Orthodox peoples fell into it!

Traditions about the familyMoscow sovereigns

When Moscow turned out to be the capital of a united Russia, its sovereigns began to look at the main city of their state, and at themselves in a completely different way. Ivan III styled himself "sovereign of all Russia", which was not previously found in the fragmented Russian lands. Under him, magnificent Byzantine rituals were introduced into palace use: together with Sophia Paleolog, noble people came to the Moscow state, who remembered the sunset Roman splendor and taught it to the subjects of Ivan III. The Grand Duke started a seal with a crowned double-headed eagle and a horseman striking a snake.

At the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, the “Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” appeared - praise and justification for the autocratic rule of the great princes of Moscow. The "Tale" entered the Russian chronicles and gained great popularity in the Muscovite state. In it, the history of the Moscow princely house is connected with the Roman emperor Augustus: a certain legendary relative of Augustus, Prus, was sent to rule the northern lands of the Empire - on the banks of the Vistula. Later, a descendant of Prus, Rurik, was invited by the Novgorodians to reign, and from him the ruling family of princes of the Russian land had already gone. Consequently, the Muscovite Rurikovichs, the same Ivan III and his son Vasily III, are distant descendants of the Roman emperors, and their power is consecrated by the ancient tradition of succession to the throne.

Simplicity real? Yes. Incredible? Yes. But exactly the same simplicity, exactly the same improbability, which many dynasties of Europe bowed to. The Scandinavians derived their royal family from the pagan gods! Compared to them, our Russian Prus is a model of modesty and sanity. In those days, kinship from Augustus was an ideologically strong construction. Albeit brazenly, defiantly fabulous.

Further, according to the "Tale", the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX sent the royal regalia to the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vladimir Monomakh: a diadem, a crown, a gold chain, a carnelian casket (cup?) of Emperor Augustus himself, the "cross of the Life-Giving Tree" and the "royal border" (barmas ). From this the conclusion was drawn: “To such a talent, not from man, but to God’s ineffable destinies, translating and translating the glory of the Greek kingdom to the Russian Tsar. Then, in Kyiv, he was crowned with that royal crown in the holy great cathedral and apostolic church from the most holy Neophyte, Metropolitan of Ephesus ... And henceforth the divinely crowned tsar was crowned in the Russian kingdom. In the years when Kievan Rus was at the hands of Prince Vladimir, Byzantium was ruled by Alexei I Komnenos, and Konstantin Monomakh died in the middle of the 11th century. Yes, and our princes did not wear the royal title in pre-Mongolian times. Therefore, the whole legend of the Byzantine gift is now being questioned.

Now, of course, it is impossible to determine exactly what kind of regalia Vladimir Monomakh received, and whether this actually happened. And it's not that important.

Another thing is more important: the Moscow historiosophist of the 16th century threw the “bridge of royalty” from the 12th century into the present. Then the ruler of Russia already had the royal title? Perfect! Consequently, it is appropriate for the current sovereigns of Russia to renew the royal title. Idea kingdom, kingship, slowly but surely took root in Russian soil. Moscow began to try on the crown of the royal city long before it became "Porphyry-bearing" in reality.

(On the picture - Ivan III. Engraving by A. Teve from the book "Cosmography". 1575 Seal of Ivan III. 1504)

Mirrors of Moscow

Grand ducal games with genealogy were much inferior in courage, scope and depth to what church intellectuals expressed. The sovereigns acquired an official historical legend about their own dynasty. They had enough.

The learned Josephite monks (followers of the Monk Joseph of Volotsky) were the first to understand that Muscovite Russia was no longer the backyard of the Christian world. From now on, she should perceive herself differently.

The ideas of the wise scribes who lived under Ivan the Great and his son Vasily resemble mirrors. Young Moscow, not yet fully aware of its beauty, its greatness, looked capriciously from one to the other, and still could not decide where it looked better. In the first, it looked like the “Third Rome”, in the second, like the “House of the Most Pure”, marked by the special patronage of the Virgin, in the third, like “new Jerusalem”.

The most famous "mirror" in which Moscow then looked was born from several lines.

In 1492, Paschalia was recalculated for a new, eighth thousand years of Orthodox chronology from the Creation of the world. In the explanation of Metropolitan Zosima to this important matter, Grand Duke Ivan III was spoken of as the new Tsar Konstantin, ruling in the new city of Konstantinov - Moscow ...

Here is the first spark.

A great flame flared up in the correspondence of the Elder of the Pskov Eleazarov Monastery Philotheus with Tsar Vasily III and the deacon Misyur Munekhin. Philotheus expressed the concept of Moscow as the "Third Rome".

Philotheus regarded Moscow as the center of world Christianity, the only place where it was preserved in its pure, uncomplicated form. Two of its former centers - Rome and Constantinople ("Second Rome") fell due to apostasy. Philotheus wrote: "... all the Christian kingdoms came to an end and converged in the single kingdom of our sovereign according to the prophetic books, that is, the Roman kingdom, since two Romes fell, and the third stands, and there will be no fourth."

In other words, the “Roman Kingdom” is indestructible, it simply moved to the east and now Russia is the new Roman Empire. Basil III Philotheus calls the king "Christians of all under heaven." In this new purity, Russia will have to rise when its sovereigns “arrange” the country, establishing a just, merciful government based on Christian commandments.

But most of all, Filofey is not worried about the rights of the Moscow rulers to political primacy in the universe of Christianity, but about preserving the faith in an uncorrupted form, in saving the last focus of true Christianity. His "indestructible Roman kingdom" is more of a spiritual entity than a state in the usual sense of the word. The role of the Moscow sovereign in this context is, first of all, the role of the guardian of the faith. Will they cope with such a difficult task? Filofey, therefore, does not sing solemn hymns to the young state at all, he is full of anxiety: such a responsibility has fallen on Moscow!

The idea of ​​Moscow as the Third Rome did not immediately receive wide recognition. Only from the middle of the 16th century did they begin to perceive it as something deeply related to the Moscow state system.

Crowning the kingdom

In January 1547, Ivan Vasilyevich was married to the kingdom.

Moscow sovereigns from the XIV century bore the title of "Grand Dukes of Moscow." However, in diplomatic correspondence, even under Ivan III, they began to use the title "tsar", equating it with the imperial one. Thus, in the whole of Europe, in the opinion of our monarchs, only the German emperor could equal them, and even, perhaps, the Turkish sultan. But it is one thing to use such a high title in diplomatic etiquette and quite another to officially accept it. This step was a serious reform, since it raised the Moscow sovereign above all his western neighbors.

The ceremony of showering Tsar Ivan IV with gold coins after the crowning of the kingdom. Miniature. 16th century

Ivan the Terrible. Illustration from the Big State Book. 1672

Moreover, the “bookish people” of that time understood that the Byzantine political heritage was being transferred to Russia before their very eyes. A new “restraint” appears in Moscow, whose place for a century, after the fall of Constantinople, was empty. Politics was connected with Christian mysticism - "holding", or "katechon", prevents the final fall of the world into the abyss, to complete corruption and departure from the Commandments. If it does not exist, then either a new one must appear, or the Last Judgment is approaching, and with it the end of the old world. Thus, a heavy burden fell on the shoulders of the young man.

Behind this transformation, one can see the wisdom of Metropolitan Macarius, who crowned the young monarch, and the sharp mind of the princes Glinsky - Ivan IV's relatives by mother.

The wedding ceremony was held with great pomp in the Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral. A few days later, the sovereign went on a pilgrimage to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery.

European countries did not immediately recognize the royal status. Yes, and confirmation of it from the Patriarch Joasaph of Constantinople came only in 1561.

Mysticism and politics

In addition to Christian mysticism, in addition to the historiosophical ideas generated by the environment of learned monasticism, there were much more prosaic circumstances that made it necessary to accept the royal title.

First of all, the country with great difficulty got out of the turmoil caused by the minority of the ruler. The largest aristocratic "parties" reigned supreme for many years, fighting each other, arranging bloody internecine skirmishes. Law and order have come to nothing. Ivan IV was allowed very little access to state affairs. Yes, and he himself was distinguished by a dissolute character: cruel entertainment interested him more than questions of big politics. The Church and those of the aristocrats who would like to end the era of lawlessness have chosen an ideal way for this. First, they raised the young ruler high above the level of nobility, elevating him to the pinnacle of royal rank. Secondly, they married him to Anastasia, a representative of the ancient boyar family of the Zakharyins-Yuryevs: here is the tsar and faithful allies, and a cure for debauchery!

It cannot be said that the wedding and the crowning of the kingdom instantly corrected the character of Ivan IV. But they contributed to it. Until then, the sovereign was a young man living close to power - without a firm understanding of who he is in relation to his own aristocracy, according to what models his life should be built, that it will play the role of immutable laws, and what is destined for the fate of the marginals in the fields biographies. The adoption of the royal title and marriage led to the fact that he was built into the social mechanism of Russian civilization. Ivan Vasilievich actually acquired a real full-fledged role for life - the role of the head of his own family, in the long term - the secular head of the entire Orthodox world.

Icon "Moscow - Third Rome". 2011

Seal of Ivan the Terrible. 1583

Such an elevation imposes significant restrictions on the monarch - on his way of life and even on his way of thinking. For several years, the young sovereign brought repentance to the Church for his previous sins and "grew" into his great role. In the mid-1550s, Ivan Vasilyevich looked like a person who ideally matched her.

The country at that time was ruled in a complicated and colorful way. Each region had its own administrative and legal customs. The "church region", scattered throughout the state, was governed by special laws and rules. The serving nobility received income from cities and regions for “feeding”, where its representatives in turn, for a relatively short period, occupied managerial positions. These incomes were distributed unevenly, depending on the strength and weakness of the aristocratic parties that were able to promote their people to feed. The law has been shaken. The central administration could not keep up with the ever-increasing wave of tasks that arose on a colossal territory. After all, the size of the country increased several times compared to the territory that Ivan III received!

The country needed reform. And after the wedding of the sovereign, a period favorable for reformation begins.

At the helm of power are all the same aristocratic clans, but among them there is no dominant party. In other words, the most powerful people of Russia came to reconciliation, they agreed among themselves on a more or less even distribution of power. The sovereign was no longer a boy who was easy to push around, now he could play the role of an arbitrator and influence the political course in the direction he desired.

A formal reconciliation between the monarch and his ill-wishers takes place in 1549: the king publicly exonerates them of their previous abuses. On the metropolitan chair stands a man of statesmanship, great mercy and extensive knowledge - St. Macarius. As you can see, he managed to direct the frantic energy of the young king in a good direction and not let it splash violently, destructively.

In the 1550s, reforms come one after another, the country comes out of them transformed.

However, this might not have happened if in 1547 the young ruler of Moscow had not accepted the royal crown. And the wedding could not have happened if our Church had not prepared the spiritual ground for it. The truth is that the Russian "priesthood" nurtured and set the Russian "tsardom" on its feet.