An absolute monarchy is characterized by the maximum concentration of power in the hands of one person, the presence of a strong ramified bureaucratic apparatus, a strong regular army, and the elimination of all class-representative bodies and institutions. In addition, a situation of transition from the feudal to the capitalist system is also necessary (a state of “balance of power” between the nobility and the bourgeoisie. This period in different countries occurred in different historical periods, while maintaining common features.
The trend of transition from an estate-representative monarchy to an absolute monarchy began to develop in the Russian state from the second half of the 17th century. In the first quarter of the 18th century, the transition to absolutism was accelerated by the Northern War and reached its completion.
The following features were characteristic of Russian absolutism:
If absolute monarchy in most European countries took shape under the conditions of the development of capitalist relations and the abolition of old feudal institutions, especially serfdom, then absolutism in Russia coincided with the development of serfdom;
If the social basis of Western European absolutism was the alliance of the nobles with the cities (free, imperial), then Russian absolutism relied mainly on the serf-dominated nobility and the service class.
From the second half of the 17th century, the convening of Zemsky Sobors gradually ceased in Russia. In 1651 and 1653 Zemstvo councils are convened for the last time in full composition. After this, they degenerate into conferences of kings with representatives of classes on certain issues. Thus, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and Fyodor Alekseevich, meetings with townspeople and service people were held several times, who resolved issues related only to this class. Zemstvo and provincial elders were first subordinated to governors appointed from Moscow, and then these positions were completely abolished.
The power of the tsar increased, and the Boyar Duma lost its importance. The decline in the importance of the Boyar Duma also occurred gradually and, above all, was reflected in the numerical growth of the Duma. If under Ivan the Terrible there were 21 people in the Duma, then under Alexei Mikhailovich there were already 59, and under Fyodor Alekseevich – 167. And if earlier the Duma could meet every day and very quickly, now it was difficult to do this. The Duma began to meet only on solemn, ceremonial occasions. The actual functions of the Duma began to be carried out only by its part, the so-called room, which included a very narrow circle of people closest to the tsar. Since the time of Tsar Alexei, the chamber of “close” people (elected advisers from among the Duma members and other persons close to the sovereign) has become a permanent institution, consisting of a certain number of persons and acting separately from “all boyars.”
Moreover, the verdicts of this elected highest secret council, the nearby Duma, formally become the verdicts of the “whole Duma” and are issued as “a sovereign decree and a boyar sentence.”
Gradually, even the traditional formula of laws as a source of law changed: “the king indicated, and the Duma sentenced.” Acts began to be issued on behalf of one king. The administrative bureaucratic apparatus grows, the first soldier and dragoon regiments of “willing people” appear - the sprouts of the future regular army as the most important attribute of absolutism.
The special position of the boyars already at the end of the 17th century. sharply limited and then eliminated. An important step in this direction was the act of abolition of localism (1682). Aristocratic origin loses importance when appointed to senior government positions. It is replaced by length of service, qualifications and personal devotion to the sovereign and the system. These principles would later be formalized in the Table of Ranks (1722).
The final formation of absolutism and its ideological justification dates back to the beginning of the 18th century, when Peter I, in his interpretation of Article 20 of the Military Regulations (1716), wrote that “...his Majesty is an autocratic Monarch who does not give an answer to anyone in the world about his affairs.” must; but the States and lands, like a Christian sovereign, have the power and authority to rule according to their own will and good will.”
One of the main factors in the establishment of absolutism in the Russian state was the foreign policy factor: external danger from Turkey and the Crimean Khanate, Poland and Sweden.
The necessary material resources for the establishment of an absolutist monarchy and the solution of internal socio-political and foreign policy problems facing Russia during the period of the late 17th - first quarter of the 18th centuries appeared as a result of economic recovery and development of the internal all-Russian market and the foreign trade market.
Despite the fact that agriculture with a three-field farming system and relatively backward tools of production (plows, harrows, sickles, scythes) remained the main sector of the Russian economy, quite intensive development of new sown areas in the south of the country began.
There is a development of fishing and handicraft production. The division of labor is deepening. From the end of the 17th century. In the development of handicraft production, there is a clear tendency to transform it into small-scale production (the number of artisans working for the market is increasing). The development of small-scale crafts and the growth of commodity specialization prepared the ground for the emergence of manufactories. Their creation was accelerated by state needs. However, the rapid development of manufactories was hampered by the absence of a market for civilian labor.
Trade begins to develop intensively, despite the presence of significant obstacles: Russia in the west and south did not have access to the seas. In addition, foreign capital sought to seize Russian markets, which led to a clash of interests of foreign traders with the interests of Russian merchants. The Russian merchants needed state protection of their interests. As a result, the new trade charter was adopted (1667), according to which foreign merchants were prohibited retail on Russian territory.
Development of commodity-money relations, completion of the formation of a single all-Russian market, great needs of the state treasury for cash, necessary for waging wars, led to a significant increase in the duties of the peasantry and townspeople, taxes and other payments. And this, in turn, led to a serious deepening of social contradictions and tensions in society.
In the second half of the 17th century, a wave of uprisings of the urban population swept across Russia. Suppressing the Cossack-peasant uprising led by S. Razin required the exertion of all the forces of the state. Social contradictions became especially acute at the beginning of the 18th century. Sufficient confirmation of this is the uprising in Astrakhan (1705), the Bashkir uprising (1705-1711), as well as a particularly powerful movement on the Don (anti-government war led by K. Bulavin).
The suppression of all these unrest and uprisings and the preservation of the feudal system required the consolidation of the dominant noble class, strengthening the power of the monarch and rallying around him as the head of this class (“first nobleman”). It also required the centralization of the state apparatus and especially its security forces: the army, police, tax authorities.
In Russian historical and historical-legal literature, another point of view on the social essence of an absolute monarchy has been widespread for a long time, and even now it still sometimes occurs. Following K. Marx and F. Engels, a number of authors believed that absolute monarchy arises in transitional periods, when the old feudal classes are in decline, and the modern bourgeois class is formed from the medieval class of townspeople, and when none of the fighting parties has yet gained the upper hand over the other, and with the balance of forces of the struggling classes, state power receives a certain independence in relation to both classes, as an apparent mediator between them. However, this conclusion of the classics of Marxism is true in relation to, for example, France and England, but it is not applicable to Russia.
In France and England, the bourgeoisie actually formed quite early as a special class and declared its claims to participate in power. But these countries had direct access to world sea trade routes, which stimulated economic development. This especially applies to England, which, due to its island position, was literally at the crossroads of world maritime trade routes in the Atlantic. It is no coincidence that in England in the 16th century, the time of the formation of English absolutism, the proportion of the urban population was over 20% of the total population of the country. This explained the fact that English absolutism was incomplete (parliament and local government were preserved, the standing regular army was small).
In Russia, which was located far from world sea trade routes (and for a long time had no access to the sea), the urban population by the beginning of the 18th century. did not exceed 3.2% of the total population. And the bourgeoisie arose with the active support of the absolutist government, interested in the creation and development of industry, primarily in the interests of supplying the army and navy with artillery and other weapons and ammunition. Therefore, there is no talk of any opposition between the bourgeoisie and the nobility in the 18th and even 19th centuries. there was no question. The Russian bourgeoisie began to declare its claims to participation in power only at the beginning of the 20th century.
Thus, the absolute monarchy in Russia was, in social terms, a dictatorship of the serf-owning nobles. And one of the main tasks was to protect the feudal-serf system and ensure its functioning. It is no coincidence that the emergence of absolutism coincides with the final legal consolidation of serfdom. But this does not mean that the absolutist state protected the interests of only the serf-owning nobles. Not at all. Firstly, he had to take into account the interests of the merchants, factory owners, and manufacturers. Secondly, the problem of protecting the country’s extremely long borders, not protected by any natural obstacles (seas, mountains, etc.), was still acute. Thirdly, there was still the task of reuniting the related Slavic peoples of the Great Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians who came from the same root. The tasks listed above were certainly of a national character, and absolutism in Russia at a certain stage of its development (in the 17th - 18th centuries) reflected national interests and even enjoyed some support from the entire population, including the bulk of the peasantry, which was united by a common Orthodox religion and a common belief in a good king surrounded by “evil boyars.”
An early form of absolutism that developed in the second half of the 17th century. with the Boyar Duma and the boyar aristocracy, turned out to be insufficiently adapted to solving the above domestic and especially foreign policy problems. And only the noble empire, formed as a result of the reforms of Peter I, with its extreme authoritarianism, extreme centralization, powerful power structures in the form of a regular army and regular police, a powerful ideological system in the form of the Church, subordinate to the state, an effective system of control over the activities of the state apparatus (General -prosecutor and local prosecutors, the institution of fiscals, the “all-seeing eye” - the secret office), was able to successfully solve the problems facing the country. It was precisely such a political form of organization as the noble empire, with its total control not only over the country’s material resources, but also over the personality of its subjects, right down to their behavior in private life, that was able to mobilize all the material and spiritual resources of the country to solve the main task - economic reconstruction and even the very way of life - the creation in a short time of the military-industrial complex as the basis of military power, a regular army and navy, the development of science and education.
An estate-representative monarchy is a type of power where the monarch, in leading the country, relies primarily on estate-representative institutions that exist in the vertical of central power. These representative institutions express the interests of all free classes of society. An estate-representative monarchy in Russia began to take shape already in the 15th century. during the period of completion of the political process of unification of Rus'. Then, under the sovereign of all Rus' Ivan III, the Boyar Duma acted as a permanent advisory body in the system of supreme power.
The Boyar Duma represented and expressed the interests of large landowners and performed two functions: it provided support for the power of a single monarch-sovereign of all Rus' and contributed to overcoming the elements and tendencies of feudal fragmentation and separatism.
In its most complete form, the estate-representative monarchy took shape in Russia in the middle of the 16th century, when, along with the Boyar Duma, the system government controlled A new political structure begins to operate - Zemsky Sobors, which became the dictate of the time along with the reforms of the mid-16th century.
A period of transformation began, which became known as the “reforms of the 50s.” XVI century Historians identify six reforms: public administration, local government, military, judicial, tax and church.
The reform of public administration became central, as a result of which the following vertical of supreme power took shape in the country:
- a tsar in whose activities the elements of autocracy became more and more clearly intensified, that is, a power that is ready to cooperate with representatives of all free classes of society, but does not consider it possible to put up with the class privileges of the boyars.
Researchers identify the following specific features of the Russian class-representative monarchy of the 16th - 18th - 17th centuries:
1. Zemsky councils were convened at the will of the tsar, and therefore not periodically, but as needed;
2. They had no legal status and did not have the right of legislative initiative; their right is to discuss and make decisions on those issues that are put before the Council by the Tsar;
3. There was no elective election of deputies-representatives to the Councils. As representatives from the estates, mainly persons from local self-government were invited: heads and elected local noble and townspeople societies: zemstvo judges, provincial and townsman elders, favorite heads, kissers; from peasant communities - village elders.
The class struggle of the peasants and townspeople largely determined the evolution of the state system in Russia. From the second half of the 17th century. the transition to absolutism began. Absolutism is an unlimited monarchy, in which all political power belongs to one person.
The establishment of absolutism was accompanied by the gradual withering away of medieval representative institutions, which during the period of the estate-representative monarchy acted along with royal power, as well as the weakening of the role of the church in government. Boyar Duma during the 17th century. turned from a legislative and advisory body into an advisory body under the king. The boyars no longer opposed themselves to the autocracy, did not try to put pressure on the monarch or challenge his decisions. Under Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), more than half of the Duma was composed of nobles.
By the first quarter of the 18th century. refers to the final approval and formalization of absolutism in Russia. It is associated with the radical transformations of the entire political system of the state undertaken by Peter I.
As a result of the public administration reform, a new vertical of central institutions has emerged: the emperor - the Senate as an executive and administrative body - the collegiums as national executive bodies in charge of the most important areas of public administration. The activities of the Senate and collegiums were regulated by strict legal norms And job descriptions. In this vertical of power, the principle of subordination of lower institutions to higher ones was clearly implemented, and they were confined to the emperor.
Provincial reform of 1708-1710. changed the system of local government. Local self-government was abolished, and at the head of all administrative-territorial units were placed persons performing state service and receiving salaries for it - governors, provincial commissioners, district and volost governors. The principle of interaction between these local authorities is the same - subordination from bottom to top.
Administrative transformations completed the formalization of the absolute monarchy in the political system of Russia. Peter I's acceptance of the title of emperor was not only an external expression, but also a confirmation of the absolutism established in Russia.
Public Administration Reform
In the first quarter of the 18th century. The transition to absolutism was accelerated by the Northern War and was completed. It was during Peter's reign that the regular army and the bureaucratic apparatus of government were created, and both the actual and legal formalization of absolutism took place.
An absolute monarchy is characterized by the highest degree of centralization, a developed bureaucratic apparatus completely dependent on the monarch, and a strong regular army. These signs were also inherent in Russian absolutism.
The army, in addition to its main internal function of suppressing popular unrest and uprisings, also performed other functions. Since the time of Peter the Great it has been widely used in government as a coercive force. The practice of sending military commands to places to force the administration to better implement government orders and instructions has become widespread. But sometimes central institutions were placed in the same position, for example, even the activities of the Senate in the first years of its creation were under the control of guards officers. Officers and soldiers were also involved in the census, collection of taxes and arrears. Along with the army, to suppress its political opponents, absolutism also used punitive bodies specially created for this purpose - the Preobrazhensky Order, the Secret Chancellery.
In the first quarter of the 18th century. The second pillar of the absolute monarchy also arises - the bureaucratic apparatus of public administration.
Bodies of central government inherited from the past (Boyar Duma, orders) are liquidated, a new system of state institutions appears.
The peculiarity of Russian absolutism was that it coincided with the development of serfdom, while in most European countries the absolute monarchy developed under the conditions of the development of capitalist relations and the abolition of serfdom.
The old form of government: the Tsar with the Boyar Duma - orders - local administration in the districts, did not meet the new tasks either in providing military needs with material resources, or in collecting monetary taxes from the population. Orders often duplicated each other's functions, creating confusion in management and slowness in decision-making. The counties were different sizes- from dwarf counties to giant counties, which made it impossible to effectively use their administration to collect taxes. The Boyar Duma, with its traditions of unhurried discussion of affairs, representation of the noble nobility, not always competent in state affairs, also did not meet Peter’s requirements.
The establishment of an absolute monarchy in Russia was accompanied by widespread expansion of the state, its invasion into all spheres of public, corporate and private life. Peter I pursued a policy of further enslavement of the peasants, which took its most severe forms at the end of the 18th century. Finally, the strengthening of the role of the state was manifested in detailed, thorough regulation of the rights and responsibilities of individual classes and social groups. Along with this, the legal consolidation of the ruling class took place, and the nobility class was formed from different feudal strata.
The state, formed at the beginning of the 18th century, is called a police state not only because it was during this period that a professional police force was created, but also because the state sought to intervene in all aspects of life, regulating them.
Administrative changes were also facilitated by the transfer of the capital to St. Petersburg. The king wanted to have the necessary control levers at hand, which he often created anew, guided by immediate needs. As in all his other endeavors, Peter during the reform state power did not take into account Russian traditions and widely transferred to Russian soil the structures and methods of management known to him from Western European voyages. Without a clear plan for administrative reforms, the tsar probably still presented the desired image of the state apparatus. This is a strictly centralized and bureaucratic apparatus, clearly and quickly executing the decrees of the sovereign, and within the limits of its competence showing reasonable initiative. This is something very similar to an army, where each officer, executing the general order of the commander-in-chief, independently solves his own private and specific tasks. As we will see, Peter’s state machine was far from such an ideal, which was only visible as a trend, albeit a clearly expressed one.
In the first quarter of the 18th century. a whole set of reforms was carried out related to the restructuring of central and local authorities and administration, areas of culture and everyday life, and a radical reorganization of the armed forces was also taking place. Almost all of these changes took place during the reign of Peter I and had enormous progressive significance.
Let us consider the reforms of the highest bodies of power and administration that took place in the first quarter of the 18th century, which are usually divided into three stages:
Stage I - 1699 – 1710 - partial transformations;
Stage II - 1710 – 1719 - liquidation of previous central authorities power and administration, the creation of the Senate, the emergence of a new capital;
Stage III - 1719 – 1725 - formation of new sectoral management bodies, implementation of the second regional reform, church government and financial and tax reform.
An estate-representative monarchy is a type of power where the monarch, in leading the country, relies primarily on estate-representative institutions that exist in the vertical of central power. These representative institutions express the interests of all free classes of society. An estate-representative monarchy in Russia began to take shape already in the 15th century. during the period of completion of the political process of unification of Rus'. Then, under the sovereign of all Rus' Ivan III, the Boyar Duma acted as a permanent advisory body in the system of supreme power.
In its most complete form, the estate-representative monarchy took shape in Russia in the middle of the 16th century, when, along with the Boyar Duma, a new political structure began to operate in the system of public administration - Zemsky Councils, which became the dictate of the time along with the reforms of the mid-16th century.
A period of transformation began, which became known as the “reforms of the 50s.” XVI century Historians identify six reforms: public administration, local government, military, judicial, tax and church.
The reform of public administration became central, as a result of which the following vertical of supreme power took shape in the country:
tsar, in whose activities the elements of autocracy became more and more clearly intensified, i.e. such a power that is ready to cooperate with representatives of all free classes of society, but does not consider it possible to put up with the class privileges of the boyars.
Researchers identify the following specific features of the Russian class-representative monarchy of the 16th - 18th - 17th centuries:
- 1. Zemsky councils were convened at the will of the tsar, and therefore not periodically, but as needed;
- 2. They had no legal status and did not have the right of legislative initiative; their right is to discuss and make decisions on those issues that are put before the Council by the Tsar;
- 3. There was no elective election of deputies-representatives to the Councils. As representatives from the estates, mainly persons from local self-government were invited: heads and elected local noble and townspeople societies: zemstvo judges, provincial and townsman elders, favorite heads, kissers; from peasant communities - village elders.
The class struggle of the peasants and townspeople largely determined the evolution of the state system in Russia. From the second half of the 17th century. the transition to absolutism began. Absolutism is an unlimited monarchy in which all political power belongs to one person.
The establishment of absolutism was accompanied by the gradual withering away of medieval representative institutions, which during the period of the estate-representative monarchy acted along with royal power, as well as the weakening of the role of the church in government. Boyar Duma during the 17th century. turned from a legislative and advisory body into an advisory body under the king. The boyars no longer opposed themselves to the autocracy, did not try to put pressure on the monarch or challenge his decisions. Under Alexei Mikhailovich (1645 - 1676), more than half of the Duma was composed of nobles.
By the first quarter of the 18th century. refers to the final approval and formalization of absolutism in Russia. It is associated with the radical transformations of the entire political system of the state undertaken by Peter I.
As a result of the public administration reform, a new vertical of central institutions emerged: the emperor - the Senate as an executive and administrative body - the collegiums as national executive bodies in charge of the most important areas of public administration. The activities of the Senate and collegiums were regulated by strict legal norms and job descriptions. In this vertical of power, the principle of subordination of lower institutions to higher ones was clearly implemented, and they were confined to the emperor.
Provincial reform 1708 - 1710 changed the system of local government. Local self-government was abolished, and at the head of all administrative-territorial units were placed persons performing state service and receiving salaries for it - governors, provincial commissioners, district and volost governors. The principle of interaction between these local authorities is the same - subordination from bottom to top.
russia monarchy people's movement
Administrative transformations completed the formalization of the absolute monarchy in the political system of Russia. Peter I's acceptance of the title of emperor was not only an external expression, but also a confirmation of the absolutism established in Russia.
An estate-representative monarchy is a type of power where the monarch, in leading the country, relies primarily on estate-representative institutions that exist in the vertical of central power. These representative institutions express the interests of all free classes of society. An estate-representative monarchy in Russia began to take shape already in the 15th century. during the period of completion of the political process of unification of Rus'. Then, under the sovereign of all Rus' Ivan III, the Boyar Duma acted as a permanent advisory body in the system of supreme power.
The Boyar Duma represented and expressed the interests of large landowners and performed two functions: it provided support for the power of a single monarch-sovereign of all Rus' and contributed to overcoming the elements and tendencies of feudal fragmentation and separatism.
In its most complete form, the estate-representative monarchy took shape in Russia in the middle of the 16th century, when, along with the Boyar Duma, a new political structure began to operate in the system of public administration - Zemsky Councils, which became the dictate of the time along with the reforms of the mid-16th century.
A period of transformation began, which became known as the “reforms of the 50s.” XVI century Historians identify six reforms: public administration, local government, military, judicial, tax and church.
The reform of public administration became central, as a result of which the following vertical of supreme power took shape in the country:
- a tsar in whose activities the elements of autocracy became more and more clearly intensified, that is, a power that is ready to cooperate with representatives of all free classes of society, but does not consider it possible to put up with the class privileges of the boyars.
Researchers identify the following specific features of the Russian class-representative monarchy of the 16th - 18th - 17th centuries:
1. Zemsky councils were convened at the will of the tsar, and therefore not periodically, but as needed;
2. They had no legal status and did not have the right of legislative initiative; their right is to discuss and make decisions on those issues that are put before the Council by the Tsar;
3. There was no elective election of deputies-representatives to the Councils. As representatives from the estates, mainly persons from local self-government were invited: heads and elected local noble and townspeople societies: zemstvo judges, provincial and townsman elders, favorite heads, kissers; from peasant communities - village elders.
The class struggle of the peasants and townspeople largely determined the evolution of the state system in Russia. From the second half of the 17th century. the transition to absolutism began. Absolutism is an unlimited monarchy in which all political power belongs to one person.
The establishment of absolutism was accompanied by the gradual withering away of medieval representative institutions, which during the period of the estate-representative monarchy acted along with royal power, as well as the weakening of the role of the church in government. Boyar Duma during the 17th century. turned from a legislative and advisory body into an advisory body under the king. The boyars no longer opposed themselves to the autocracy, did not try to put pressure on the monarch or challenge his decisions. Under Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), more than half of the Duma was composed of nobles.
By the first quarter of the 18th century. refers to the final approval and formalization of absolutism in Russia. It is associated with the radical transformations of the entire political system of the state undertaken by Peter I.
As a result of the public administration reform, a new vertical of central institutions emerged: the emperor - the Senate as an executive and administrative body - the collegiums as national executive bodies in charge of the most important areas of public administration. The activities of the Senate and collegiums were regulated by strict legal norms and job descriptions. In this vertical of power, the principle of subordination of lower institutions to higher ones was clearly implemented, and they were confined to the emperor.
Provincial reform of 1708-1710. changed the system of local government. Local self-government was abolished, and at the head of all administrative-territorial units were placed persons performing state service and receiving salaries for it - governors, provincial commissioners, district and volost governors. The principle of interaction between these local authorities is the same - subordination from bottom to top.
Administrative transformations completed the formalization of the absolute monarchy in the political system of Russia. Peter I's acceptance of the title of emperor was not only an external expression, but also a confirmation of the absolutism established in Russia.
13. Russian foreign policy in the 16th century: main directions, results, consequences
The main objectives of Russian foreign policy in the 16th century. were:
A). in the southeast and east - the struggle with the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates and the beginning of the development of Siberia;
B). in the west - the struggle for access to the Baltic Sea;
IN). in the south - protecting the country from the attacks of the Crimean Khan.
Main dates and events: 1552 - capture of Kazan; 1556 - capture of Astrakhan; 1558--1583 - Livonian War; 1581 - Ermak's campaign to Siberia.
Historical figures: Ivan the Terrible; Stefan Batory; Andrey Kurbsky; Ermak; Kuchum.
By the middle of the 16th century. Russia faced a number of foreign policy challenges. Young state was interested in access to the sea to develop trade and political relations with Europe. The interests of expanding local land ownership required new territories and dependent peasants. In addition, the threat of raids from the Crimean and Kazan khans remained.
By this time, a fairly favorable situation had developed for solving foreign policy problems. The Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian khanates were weakened. The Livonian Order, which at that time owned significant Baltic territories, also could not resist Russia. Finally, the reforms of the 1550s. led to the formation of a strong regular army and the necessary economic conditions.
In 1552, the Russian army led by the Tsar set out to conquer the Kazan Khanate. The resistance of the defenders of Kazan was broken after the undermining and explosion of the fortress wall. In 1552--1557. followed by the annexation of the Bashkir lands, and in 1556 - of the Astrakhan Khanate. In 1581, with the support of the Stroganov merchants, a military expedition of Ataman Ermak’s squad began with the goal of annexing the Siberian Khanate. In 1582, Western Siberia became part of Russia.
The Livonian War lasted twenty-five years (1558-1583). At the first stage, Russian troops not only defeated the armed forces and knights, but also achieved the collapse of the Livonian Order itself. However, it was precisely this circumstance that determined the entry into the war of Sweden and the unified Polish-Lithuanian state formed in 1569 - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As a result, the situation changed, Russia was forced to fight a much stronger enemy. The introduction of the oprichnina regime weakened the country's position, as peasant farms, which formed the basis of the agrarian system, were ruined. In addition, Ivan the Terrible's campaign against Novgorod (1570) bled the northwestern regions and made them vulnerable to the enemy. All this led to the fact that, having crushed the Livonian Order, Russia was forced to return all the lands occupied during the war. Moreover, it lost Narva, Yam, Koporye, and Ivan-Gorod, which it had had since the time of Ivan III.
The results of Ivan the Terrible's foreign policy are quite contradictory. On the one hand, it was possible to significantly expand the territory of the country in the east, annexing not only Kazan and Astrakhan, but also a significant part of the Siberian Khanate. However, on the other hand, Russia's advance to the western seas met with opposition from the Polish-Lithuanian state and Sweden. Success in the military confrontation with them was hampered by an ineffective economic system and the oprichnina regime. Significant territorial acquisitions of Russia in the second half of the 16th century. contributed to the fact that the country's economy began to focus on development not “in depth” (through the intensification of agricultural production), but “in breadth” (through the annexation and development of new lands). As a result, according to figuratively V. O. Klyuchevsky, “the state was swelling, but the people were fading.”
Russian foreign policy in the 17th century: main directions, results, consequences
By the middle of the 17th century. The main objectives of Russian foreign policy are: in the west and north-west - the return of lands lost during the Time of Troubles, and in the south - achieving security from the raids of the Crimean khans (vassals Ottoman Empire), who took thousands of Russians and Ukrainians into captivity. By the 1930s, a favorable international situation was developing for the fight against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for the return of Smolensk, especially since in the spring of 1632 a period of kinglessness began in Poland. In December of the same year, Smolensk was besieged by Russian troops commanded by boyar M.B. Shein. The siege lasted eight months and ended unsuccessfully. In June 1634, the Polyanovsky Peace Treaty was concluded. All the cities captured at the beginning of hostilities were returned to the Poles, and Smolensk was also included in them. Vladislav finally abandoned his claims to the Moscow throne. In general, the results of the Smolensk War were considered unsuccessful. New military clashes between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russia began in 1654. At first, the war was successful for Russia: Smolensk was taken in the first campaign and another 33 famines in Eastern Belarus (Polotsk, Vitebsk, Mogilev, etc. At the same time, the Swedes invaded Poland and occupied its large territory. Then in October 1656, Russia concluded a truce with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in May of the same year began a war with Sweden in the Baltic states. Having captured a number of fortresses, the Russians approached Riga, but the siege was unsuccessful. The war continued and in the lands of the Neva, Meanwhile, Poland resumed hostilities.Therefore, first a truce was concluded with Sweden, and then in 1661 - the Kardis Peace (in the town of Kardis near Tartu), according to which the entire Baltic coast remained with Sweden.
The war with Poland, during which the warring parties had varying success, was long and ended with the signing in 1667 of the Andrusovo Jeremiah for 13.5 years, according to which Smolensk and all lands east of the Dnieper were returned to Russia, and then the conclusion in 1686 of “Eternal Peace”, which secured Kyiv to Russia forever. The end of the war with Rech Ospolita allowed Russia to actively resist the aggressive intentions of the Ottoman Empire and its subject, the Crimean Khan.
Concluding" Eternal Peace"with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1686), Russia simultaneously accepted obligations in alliance with Poland, Austria and Venice to oppose the Crimea and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), which, however, was important for Russia itself, since it provided access to the Black Sea.
The main result of the foreign policy [activities of the Russian government in the second half of the 17th century. was [the activation of Russia in the international arena, preparation for solving large-scale tasks implemented in the next century. It should also be noted the development of cultural and trade contacts [c Western Europe. The government of Mikhail Fedorovich also established close ties with Western European states, as has already been mentioned. The government of Alexei Mikhailovich continued this line. More and more specialists (masters) from a number of foreign countries are appearing in > Moscow; especially close cultural contacts are being established with the German principalities. Trade relations with both Western Europe and the East are actively developing. Founded back in 1584, Arkhangelsk becomes one of the [largest ports in Europe. Since the 50s of the 17th century. The government of Alexei [Mikhailovich] is pursuing a targeted protectionist policy [providing advantages to Russian merchants and restricting the activities of [foreign traders within Russia. The revival of trade through Astrakhan led to the strengthening of ties with Persia and the establishment of trade relations with the states of Central Asia.
Ticket 26
Estates-representative monarchy - “Autocracy with a boyar duma and a boyar aristocracy” - monarchy in which the power of the monarch is limited. The limitation of the monarch's power is associated with the development of commodity-money relations, which undermined the foundations of a closed, natural economy. Political centralization arose, an estate-representative monarchy was organized - a form in which the power of the head of state is limited by estate-representative bodies ( Cathedral, Parliament, Estates General, Diet, etc.)
In Russia, the estate-representative monarchy arose in the 16th century during the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible, against the backdrop of other progressive reforms of this politician in Law and Government. The convening of the Zemsky Sobor in 1549 can be considered the beginning of the existence of this form of government in Russia. Subsequently, with the transition to a mercenary army and the elimination of appanages, it transformed into an absolute monarchy.
Absolute monarchy- a monarchy in which class privileges continue to exist, however, there are no feudal estates, a vassal-feudal system, and in some cases (England, France) there is no serfdom.
Under absolutism, the state reaches the highest degree of centralization, an extensive bureaucratic apparatus, a standing army and police are created; The activities of class representation bodies, as a rule, continue.
In Russia, absolutism existed in the 18th - early 20th centuries. From a formal legal point of view, under absolutism, the fullness of legislative and executive power is concentrated in the hands of the head of state - the monarch; he independently sets taxes and manages public finances.
The social support of absolutism is the nobility. The justification for absolutism was the thesis of the divine origin of supreme power. Magnificent and sophisticated palace etiquette served to exalt the person of the sovereign.
At the first stage, absolutism was progressive in nature: it fought against the separatism of the feudal nobility, subordinated the church to the state, eliminated the remnants of feudal fragmentation, and introduced uniform laws. The absolute monarchy is characterized by a policy of protectionism and mercantilism, which contributed to the development national economy, commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. New economic resources used by absolutism to strengthen the military power of the state and conduct wars of conquest.
In general, the absolutist system of government strengthened the sense of state community among representatives of various classes and social groups, thereby contributing to the formation of a nation.
Orlov's addition:
In the process of centralization, the basis was, first of all, patriotism (the association “against” is weaker than the association “for”). Feats of arms (+ Battle of Kulikovo) were in support of patriotism; in addition, the role of religion was strong.
Second half of the 17th century. Characterized by significant changes in state system, transforming in the direction of absolutism.
(During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich)
an almost 3-fold increase in the number of the Boyar Duma due to an increase in the proportion of Duma nobles and clerks;
(from 35 people in 1638 to 94 in 1700)
Attempts to free the Duma from current affairs with the help of the State Chamber under Alexei Mikhailovich and the Execution Chamber under Fyodor Alekseevich;
(Fyodor Mikhailovich created the Execution Chamber in 1680, which heard controversial cases of all orders and accepted petitions. In addition, he ordered the Duma to meet regularly and outlined the order of reports from all central departments about it)
Preparation in 1681 of a kind of “table of ranks”, which consisted of 35 degrees - viceroyal titles that brought together the hierarchy of the state apparatus;
(hierarchy of the sovereign's court, army and higher state apparatus)
abolition of localism by the Zemsky Sobor in 1682;
(burning of all local documents on the initiative of V.V. Golitsin)
local government reform
(over 250 districts were formed, headed by governors who replaced the elders, as a result, reducing abuse in tax collection and centralizing the government of the country)
military reform
(the foundations of the recursion recruitment system were laid, the first military regulations appeared)
Change of the royal title after the annexation of Ukraine: instead of “Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus'” the title “ Great Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke of All Great, White and Little Russia, autocrat";
the victorious outcome of secular power in the fight against Patriarch Nikon;
(when Nikon became patriarch in 1652, he demanded that the tsar and the people swear allegiance and obedience to him. A conflict broke out, and as a result, Nikon renounced the patriarchate in 1658. At the Moscow Council of 1666-1667, the primacy of the tsar over the patriarch, as well as independence, was approved spiritual power from secular)
a course to curtail the activities of zemstvo councils: the council announced for 1683 did not take place;
(the council did not take place due to the resumption of hostilities with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth)
the evolution of orders towards their swelling and self-reproduction;
(initially, orders were created as needed, their internal structure was uniform. The gradual increase in bureaucratization, the increase in the role of officials, the local government apparatus grew. This caused a wild growth of officials, whose posts were even inherited. It was impossible to resolve this issue even by reducing salaries)
termination of awards to Duma ranks in 1694;
gradual establishment from 1680 of autocracy in orders;
The desire to regulate the activities of orders: the order of Secret Affairs and the Accounting Order under Alexei Mikhailovich;
(the order of Secret Affairs was not subordinate to the boyar duma, it was created to control the activities of other orders, the Accounting order - control of finances. In addition, the establishment of a uniform service time)
Establishment of serfdom: the Council Code of 1649, decrees of the 1650s on the search for runaway peasants and slaves, unification of detective norms by decree of 1698.
(the transition to absolutism in general is associated with the completion of the formalization of serfdom. Fines were introduced for harboring runaway peasants. BUT the landowner peasants retained some personal rights: owning property, making transactions, plaintiffs and defendants in court, could become hired workers. In general, peasants could transferred, exchanged, sold, like land or a building)
| | | next lecture ==> | |
