Was the Ryazan prince Oleg a traitor? In Rzeczpospolita, Prince Kurbsky beat his wife and was engaged in racketeering. Moscow Prince Yuri Danilovich

The history of our Fatherland is full of myths that are firmly rooted in the minds of Russians. For example, we were drummed from school that the hordes of Batu did not take Novgorod in 1238 only because of the notorious spring thaw. In fact, the bloodless horde simply did not have the strength to storm this well-fortified city - our ancestors desperately resisted the conquerors and inflicted heavy losses on them.
Or another myth - about the traitorous prince Oleg Ryazansky, who betrayed the all-Russian cause and did not oppose Mamai under the banner of Dmitry Donskoy. This myth will be discussed.

Frontier principality

Ryazan was the first Russian city to take on the first - and the most terrible - blow of the Mongol horde that rushed into Russia in 1237. A remarkable work of Russian medieval literature - "The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu", tells about this. The Ryazanites rejected the demand of the ambassadors of the horde to pay tribute, and the reciprocal Russian embassy, \u200b\u200bwhich arrived at Batu with gifts, was killed by the steppe inhabitants. Batu Khan, excluding any possibility of a peaceful outcome of the negotiations, put forward an impudent demand - to give the sisters and daughters of the Ryazan princes to the Mongols as concubines. Moreover, Batu demanded from the head of the embassy, \u200b\u200bPrince Fyodor: "Let me, prince, know your wife's beauty." "It is not proper for us Christians," the Russian prince answered with dignity, "for you, an impious tsar, to lead your wives to fornication. If you defeat us, then you will own our wives." And the embassy fell under the Tatar sabers ... Fyodor's wife Evpraksia, having learned about the death of her husband, threw herself out of the window of the mansion onto the stones of the courtyard with her little son. Ryazan, Pronsk, Murom, Izheslav squads met the enemy in the field. The battle was desperate, but short-lived - it could not have been otherwise due to the multiple numerical superiority of the conquerors. Ryazan fell after a seven-day continuous assault, was burned and destroyed, and the inhabitants of the city were cut out clean or taken away to the full. The first Russian partisan, noted in history, appeared on the Ryazan land - the Ryazan governor Evpatiy Kolovrat. With a small detachment, he ruffled the rear of the Horde army for more than a month, until he fell into a deadly ring and died. The Ryazan land, plundered by Batu, has since been systematically subjected to devastating raids. "Dudenev's army", "Nevryuev's army" - the devastation is innumerable. As soon as the burnt-out villages were being rebuilt and the miraculously survived children were growing up, the merciless steppe cavalry again swooped in, leaving behind only corpses and ashes. The Ryazan principality lay on the border with the Great Steppe and always became the first victim of the next invasion. Indeed, in something, and in sympathy for the Horde inhabitants of this unfortunate land could not be suspected (as well as their rulers, the Ryazan princes). The Horde was a primordial enemy for the people of Ryazan, and hatred of the steppe robbers was passed down from generation to generation and was absorbed with mother's milk. Of course, in the bickering of the feudal lords for power, all means were good - in this respect, the Russian princes did not differ at all from their brethren, the European barons and counts. And yet it is not very hard to believe that at the moment of the decisive battle, a battle capable of ending the age-old domination of a predator that sucks all the juices from all the Russian land, it was the Ryazan prince who turned out to be a traitor. But let's leave ethical considerations and analyze the historical facts.

Hand of Moscow

The XIV century in Russia is the time of the unification of the Russian lands under the strong hand of Moscow. This did not happen immediately and not suddenly. There was also a long rivalry between Moscow and Tver for the right to take the lead; The Suzdal, Nizhny Novgorod (and Ryazan!) princes resisted the strengthening of the power of the Moscow principality with arms in their hands. The XIV century in Russia is the time of the most fierce feudal civil strife. As was the case everywhere and everywhere in the Middle Ages, the parties did not hesitate in choosing the means to achieve the goal. Murder, betrayal, violation of oaths and contracts, neglect even of family ties were the most common thing. The coveted prize - a label for the great reign - was given out in the Golden Horde, and the princes fought with all their might for the right to be called "great". And very often the rivals turned to the khans for help and brought the Horde troops to Russia. The fact that at the same time entire regions of Russia were devastated did not bother the warring princes at all. Firstly, such actions were the norm of that wild era, and secondly, in the course of the fierce struggle for power, the suffering of the people was never taken into account by anyone, anywhere. According to the princely genealogy of the Rurikovichs, dating back to the Kiev prince Yaroslav the Wise, the Ryazan prince Oleg Ioannovich was no worse than the Moscow prince, and his principality, according to the labels of the Horde rulers, was considered the same Great as Tver and Moscow. And there lived in the memory of generations of Ryazan residents a blood resentment against their neighbors who did not come to their aid in the terrible year of Batu's invasion. So it seems that the very political situation of that time suggests: yes, the betrayal of the Ryazan prince was more than possible. The interests of the Ryazan principality by the time of Oleg's accession to the princely throne were greatly infringed by Moscow. Some of the original Ryazan lands (Kolomna and Lopasnya) passed to the Moscow princes. Under Dmitry Donskoy's father, the Ryazan boyars, who played the role of a collegiate mentor under the underage Prince Oleg, took advantage of Moscow's misfortune - the "black plague" - and recaptured Lopasnya. The Grand Duke of Moscow Ioann Ioannovich ("meek and quiet", according to the chronicler) resigned himself to the loss of Lopasnya, but the splinter remained. In 1365, the Horde prince Tagai fell upon the Ryazan region with another raid. With a sudden onslaught, he seized, robbed and burned Pereslavl, "laid empty" neighboring volosts and turned back to the Horde. Oleg Ioannovich could not endure evil: together with the squads of the Pronsky and Kozelsky princes, he chased Tagai, overtook him at the Shishevsky forest and utterly defeated, killing the raiders almost without exception. But now, having dared to raise his hand to such strength, Oleg Ryazansky inevitably had to look for an ally, which could only be the Moscow Grand Duke. It is not known (neither the treaty letters nor the testimonies of the chroniclers have reached us) how Oleg Ioannovich managed to enter into an alliance with Moscow after the hostile sortie of his boyars against Lopasnya, but in 1370, when Moscow was threatened by the Lithuanian prince Olgerd, the Ryazan army joined the Moscow army. and prone shelves. Assessing the situation, Olgerd did not accept the battle and asked for peace. So, Oleg and Dmitry are allies. However, the priority dispute between Moscow and Ryazan remained unresolved. In 1371 the Ryazan boyars decided to repeat the "Lopasninsky variant" and in the same way take away from Moscow and Kolomna. The advisers pushed the Ryazan prince to invade. In the battle of Skornishchev, not far from Pereslavl, the Ryazan army was defeated by the Moscow voivode Dmitry Volynsky (thus Bobrok-Volyntsi, who nine years later won unfading fame on the Kulikovo field). This battle clearly showed Oleg that he cannot compete with Moscow. And over Ryazan, and over the entire Russian land, the insatiable Golden Horde still hung like a black cloud. And all further actions of both Oleg Ryazansky and Dmitry Moskovsky were dictated by simple historical logic.

Russia and the Horde

After the defeat at Skornishchev, Oleg fled and lost power: Prince Vladimir of Prons sat down on the Ryazan table. Oleg went to the Horde, there he enlisted the support (most likely, he simply bought this support) of the tycoon Salakhmir and returned to Russia with the Horde military force. Vladimir did not resist and lost Ryazan without a fight. Dmitry did not intervene in the showdown between the prince of Prons and Oleg, although he could. Salakhmir acted on his own initiative, and defeated the Moscow prince by his detachment, Dmitry had every chance to justify his actions in front of the khan. However, Dmitry preferred to see Oleg in Ryazan: he reconciled the Ryazan and Prussian princes and concluded a defensive and offensive alliance with Oleg (references to the text of this treaty are available in Dmitry Ivanovich's contractual letters with Olgerd and Mikhail Tverskoy). And more in the annals there is no mention of the enmity between Oleg and Dmitry. Moreover, Moscow is defending Ryazan from the Horde raids. In 1373, the Horde burned and plundered the lands of the Ryazan principality, but immediately retreated as soon as they learned about the Moscow regiments against them. In 1377, Tsarevich Arapsha defeated the Moscow army on the Pyana River and took Nizhny Novgorod. Arapsha did not dare to go to Moscow, but on the way to the steppe he plundered and burned (for the umpteenth time!) The long-suffering Ryazan. Oleg was wounded by arrows and barely escaped. In 1378, Mamai, who by this time had become the de facto ruler of the Golden Horde, sent the dark man Begich to roughly punish the Moscow prince and bring him to complete submission. And none other than Oleg Ryazansky informed Dmitry about the movement of a strong and numerous Horde army. The Moscow prince realized that this was not just an ordinary predatory raid, but a punitive expedition, and made the appropriate conclusions. Due to the speed of Begich's movement, there was no time to collect the all-Russian militia, and Dmitry spoke only with the Moscow regiments, which were joined by the squads of Oleg and Prince Vladimir of Prons. On Ryazan land, near the Vozha River, the Horde army suffered a crushing defeat - it was almost completely destroyed, and Begich himself died. Mamai hastily gathered the detachments at his fingertips and rushed to Russia. The khan devastated the Ryazan land (Ryazan again!), Plundered and burned its best cities, but did not dare to engage in battle with the numerous Moscow army that blocked his way to Moscow on the Oka and retreated to the steppe. So, in two years - two most terrible invasions on Ryazan, invasions comparable in their destructive consequences to Batyev. And after that, Oleg burned with love for the Golden Horde and became a traitor to the Russian land? Or the love for the steppe robbers was awakened in him by the arrowheads of the Horde, which left scars on the prince's body? Arapsha and Begich (and a little earlier - Tagay) once again showed what the Horde is for Russia, and no prince could disregard the moods of his subjects. And besides, even from a purely pragmatic point of view, the dilemma faced by Oleg was extremely simple: either to be a vassal of a stronger (as the experience of confrontation) Moscow prince, or to remain an obedient tributary of the khan (even with the longed-for label of a great reign) and resignedly endure and then the Horde chaos. And the prospect of guaranteed possession of the grand-ducal title did not look cloudless at all - the not-too-powerful ruler of the constantly ruined Ryazan lands had enough rivals experienced in internecine squabbles in Russia.

At the decisive hour

The chroniclers (and behind them historians), accusing Oleg of treason, refer to the fact that the Ryazan militia did not join Dmitry's army, and Oleg himself entered into an agreement with Mamai. But why, then, before the decisive battle, Dmitry did not devastate the land of the traitor and crushed his squad, but calmly left the enemy in the rear? He could well have done this, moreover, he was obliged to do so according to all the rules of conducting military operations. In the epic confrontation on the Kulikovo field, in addition to the two main forces, there was also a third - the Lithuanian army of Jagaila. Had it appeared on the battlefield, the outcome of the Kulikovo battle could have been completely different. It is believed that Jagaila was simply late, and therefore did not help Mamai. But this is not so - the Moscow army moved to the Don very slowly, covering the Moscow lands in case Yagaila suddenly decides to rush directly to Moscow instead of going to join Mamai. The Lithuanians moved in parallel, by the beginning of the battle, Yagaila's army was only one day's march from the Kulikovo field, but did not go further. Why? Yes, because the squad of Prince Ryazan was located nearby - in full readiness to interfere with this movement. Dmitry knew that Oleg himself would not stab him in the back, and would not allow Yagayla to do it. This is the only way to explain the unforgivable - if Oleg was a traitor - mistake of Dmitry, who did not leave any reserves for the Don in case the Lithuanian cavalry or Ryazan regiments intervened in the battle on the side of Mamai. However, let's say that both Oleg and Yagailo were really late and missed their chance. But if so, then why is Dmitry (already Donskoy), returning with a victory, moving around the lands of the "traitor", especially ordering any of the Ryazan residents "not to dawn and not offend." But the Grand Duke of Moscow had enough strength to defeat Ryazan, despite even the heaviest losses in the Battle of Kulikovo. Is that how they punish for betrayal? Oleg played with both Mamai and Yagaila a subtle and dangerous diplomatic game - and won. Mamai accepted the plan proposed to him by Oleg for a simultaneous strike on Dmitry's army with the combined forces of all three allies. In the terms of the agreement between Oleg and Yagaila, it was stipulated that they would enter into battle only after the Ryazan and Lithuanian troops were united. And this, as you know, did not happen. Dmitry, moving from the Oka to the Don, reliably covered the Ryazan lands from the inevitable defeat that Mamai, who intended to return Russia to the time of Batu, could have inflicted. And after the Mamaev massacre, despite the label hung on Oleg as a traitor and dissatisfaction with the actions of the traitors-Ryazan among the common people, Dmitry Donskoy did not take any hostile steps towards the apostate prince. But Dmitry did not consider it necessary to explain "who is who" - it is still unknown how everything will go further there, and it is not time to reveal all his cards to a friend (and therefore to an enemy). Ryazan boyars themselves came to Dmitry for forgiveness, and he forgave them. In 1381, a new treaty was signed between Moscow and Ryazan, and Oleg recognized Dmitry as his older brother. Note that in this way the Ryazan prince was equated with Prince Vladimir Serpukhovsky, who was awarded the nickname "Brave" for his valor on the Kulikovo field. I wonder for what merits the traitor prince was given such an honor?

Double game

Just two years after the Battle of Kulikovo, in 1382, a new khan, Tokhtamysh, invaded Russia, who managed to stop the disintegration of the Golden Horde and even temporarily restore it to a semblance of its former power. Another accusation of treason against Oleg is connected with this invasion: the Ryazan prince showed the Khan the way to Moscow and the fords on the Oka. Tokhtamysh advanced swiftly. Dmitry, having received news from Oleg about the approach of the enemy, leaves a garrison in Moscow to defend the capital, and he himself goes to Pereslavl-Zalessky to collect regiments. Oleg promptly notified his "elder brother", and he himself entered into the same game with Tokhtamysh as with Mamai, averting the threat from his tormented lands. The accusations brought against Oleg Ryazansky by the chroniclers are untenable. Moscow by this time had already existed for more than three hundred years, was the capital of a state that was gaining strength, was repeatedly visited by merchants, and therefore it is very doubtful that no one other than the Ryazan prince knew the way to her. The same applies to the fords on the Oka - their location was by no means a strategic secret known only to a narrow circle of people. Oleg really convinced Tokhtamysh to go to Moscow, but who would benefit from it? From a military point of view, the Horde army had to bypass Moscow and catch Dmitry, not giving him time to gather all his forces. And Tokhtamysh rested against the stone walls of the Moscow Kremlin. The first Russian cannons ("mattresses") were installed on the walls of the fortress, and the assault drowned in the blood of the Horde. Khan lost the advantage of surprise and mobility - time worked for Dmitry Donskoy. A little more, and the matter would simply end with the second Battle of Kulikovo - with the same result. Moscow was ruined by the treachery of the Horde, the betrayal of the Nizhny Novgorod princes Vasily and Semyon, who persuaded the townspeople to open the gates and enter into negotiations with the enemy, and the credulity of the Muscovites. Tokhtamysh burst into the Kremlin and staged a savage massacre there, but quickly got away, learning about the approach of the troops of Vladimir Serpukhovsky and Dmitry himself. Returning to the steppe, the khan subjected the Ryazan lands to merciless ruin. Is this a reward for Oleg's faithful service? No, the khan understood for whom (in modern terms) the Ryazan prince actually worked, and severely took revenge on him. Further events confirm this version. The Moscow prince again showed amazing tolerance towards the "traitor", and in 1386, with the mediation of Sergius of Radonezh, an agreement was signed on the eternal alliance of Moscow and Ryazan.

And one more stroke that speaks in favor of Oleg Ryazansky. In 1387, Prince Dmitry Ioannovich Donskoy gave his daughter Sophia in marriage to Oleg's son Fyodor. Yes, military and political alliances were held together by dynastic marriages (and not only in the Middle Ages), but it seems very, very unlikely for the Grand Duke of Moscow to intermarry with the multiple traitor of the Russian land. In Russian history there were all sorts of figures, there were true traitors in it (for example, the same princes of Nizhny Novgorod, Vasily and Semyon, who played a fatal role in the plunder of Moscow by Tokhtamysh). However, it would be desirable that the shameful stigma of a traitor would not decorate anyone undeservedly.

How can you assess the act of Prince Vladimir? What are his personal qualities manifested in this act?

The act of Vladimir was cruel and intolerable. But in the prince, most likely, it was not an offense at the words of Rogneda that spoke, but political calculation, that is, pragmatism.

Compare this reference information with the chronicle information about the personality of Prince Vladimir - what is the contradiction?

Question: Why did Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, despite the low deeds he committed, left a good memory of himself?

Answer: The Russian Orthodox Church praises Grand Duke Vladimir for the fact that he baptized his state, moreover, into Orthodoxy. Thanks to this act, they are ready to forget all sins. Popular memory was formed not separately from the teaching of the church, but in close connection with this teaching. Therefore, the national memory began to attribute all the features of an ideal ruler to the prince, who was recognized as a saint by the church.

Determine from the text what the rule of Vladimir brought to the inhabitants of Russia.

Brought:

End of civil strife;

In addition to trade routes along the rivers, Vladimir laid land roads;

Many local princes were replaced by the sons of Vladimir, there was less danger that the state would collapse;

The mayors appointed from Kiev were now judged according to a single law;

Ramparts on the border, protection of fords, construction of fortresses, posts with signal fires and other measures against the raids of the Pechenegs;

The first known issue of gold and silver coins in Kiev (own currency).

Draw a conclusion about the historical image of the prince. Remember the order of productive reading (see page 21).

Vladimir continued the work of the first Rurikovichs to strengthen the state, for which he is worthy of blessed memory. But for other things he is blameworthy. For example, during the internecine strife, he not only ordered to kill his brother - Yaropolk was "raised to the sword" when he came to the negotiations, that is, Vladimir also broke his oath (without such an oath, his rival would not have left the fortress in which he was hiding).

In the text, explain why Vladimir Svyatoslavich abandoned paganism and chose Orthodox Christianity.

Most likely, Orthodox missionaries have long penetrated into the Kiev land together with merchants along the Dnieper, their ideas were already well known;

Before Vladimir, Orthodoxy was accepted by his grandmother Olga, who in many respects raised Vladimir, because his father spent all his time on campaigns;

Vladimir needed to strengthen the central power of the prince, for which he first established a central pantheon in Kiev, but Orthodoxy was better suited for this purpose, because among his servants there was a clear hierarchy headed by a single ruler;

The tribal community was already noticeably collapsing; for the new neighboring community, the world religion turned out to be more convenient, which provided answers to basic human questions;

Kiev had the closest economic and cultural ties with Byzantium, which professed Orthodoxy.

The main legacy of Vladimir was the baptism of his country. It is because of this that he is recognized as a saint. The Church forgave him both polygamy and the murder of his brother precisely because he extended her influence to vast new lands. Written sources of that time were created mainly by the ministers of the church, and they wrote down that the people of this prince had a good memory. In addition, the church influenced public opinion itself, for example, through sermons.

Prove that as a result of the baptism, Russia made a significant step towards the development of culture and civilization.

Thanks to Christianity, churches began to be built in the Russian state, at first from wood, and then from stone and plinths (bricks). Icons, frescoes and mosaics appeared. The church organization itself arose, where there were both parish priests, bishops and a metropolitan, as well as monks headed by abbots. Many traditions of Byzantium were borrowed both in architecture and in books.

But we know very little about what we had to give up for this. The pagan heritage is poorly known, therefore it may well be that the pre-Christian culture was no less developed, just different. For example, there is a version that Christianity did not bring writing to these lands, but replaced the more ancient pagan script with Cyrillic (about which the Arab travelers of the 10th century Ibn Fadlan, El-Masudi, Ibn an-Nadim, as well as the Bulgarian monk of the turn of IX-X centuries Brave).

Make a conclusion about the image of Vladimir in history.

Under Vladimir, our ancestors adopted a lot from Byzantine culture, and through it they received many of the achievements of antiquity. It is on this heritage that modern culture is ultimately based. But at the same time, they had to reject the centuries-old legacy of their ancestors, today we cannot imagine how great it was.

With the help of additional sources, try to explain why most Russian epics are associated with the name of Prince Vladimir.

Prince Vladimir became a saint, therefore more often than other princes over the course of many centuries he was mentioned in churches. For him, as for a saint, they called to pray. In addition, the saint, of course, was described as a kind and just prince. The image was entrenched in the people's memory, they began to attribute to him what people expected from a kind and just ruler.

Imagine that in 1015, after a long separation, a father and son met. His father, a pagan sorcerer, lived for decades in the forests near Novgorod, and his son, in his youth, left for Kiev and became a vigilante of Prince Vladimir. Describe what kind of dispute could have taken place between them about the rule of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich in Russia.

The son would praise how the capital was transformed, and other cities, including Novgorod. How their churches were decorated. To this, the father could object that it is bad when the servants of God live in the city. There they depend on the prince and serve him more than their god.

The son could begin to talk about what a great faith Christianity is. But for this, the father, who had heard something about this teaching for certain, would have only had to ask whether Christ said to baptize people by force. But Vladimir did just that. How can he hope for the mercy of his god if he does what he did not teach?

The son would begin to talk about measures to strengthen the princely power and protection from the Pechenegs. The father could look skeptically at his son and say that if the prince had not killed his brother, the gods themselves would have protected his lands from raids, even if only the same Christ, who is probably not weaker than Perun, once seized such power for himself.

Diplomatic relations between the Moscow state and the Crimean Khanate during the reign of Ivan III remained friendly. The first exchange of letters between countries took place in 1462, and in 1472 an agreement of mutual friendship was concluded. In 1474, an alliance agreement was concluded between Khan Mengli-Giray and Ivan III, which, however, remained on paper, since the Crimean Khan soon became not up to joint actions: during the war with the Ottoman Empire, Crimea lost its independence, and Mengli himself Giray was captured, and only in 1478 he ascended the throne again (now as a Turkish vassal). Nevertheless, in 1480, the alliance agreement between Moscow and the Crimea was concluded again, while the treaty directly named the enemies against whom the parties had to act together - the Khan of the Great Horde Akhmat and the Grand Duke of Lithuania. In the same year, the Crimeans made a campaign to Podolia, which did not allow King Casimir to help Akhmat during the "standing on the Ugra".

In March 1482, in connection with the deteriorating relations with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Moscow embassy again went to Khan Mengli-Girey. In the fall of 1482, the troops of the Crimean Khanate made a devastating raid on the Lithuanian Ukraine. Among other cities, Kiev was taken, the whole of southern Russia was ruined. From his booty, the khan sent Ivan a chalice and a diskos from the Kiev Sophia Cathedral robbed by the Crimeans. The devastation of the lands seriously affected the fighting efficiency of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

In subsequent years, the Russian-Crimean union showed its effectiveness. In 1485, already Russian troops made a campaign in the Horde lands at the request of the Crimean Khanate, attacked by the Horde. In 1491, in connection with the new Crimean-Horde clashes, these campaigns were repeated again. Russian support played an important role in the victory of the Crimean troops over the Great Horde. An attempt by Lithuania in 1492 to lure Crimea over to its side failed: in 1492 Mengli-Girey began annual campaigns on lands belonging to Lithuania and Poland. During the Russian-Lithuanian war of 1500-1503, Crimea remained an ally of Russia. In 1500, Mengli-Girey twice devastated the lands of southern Russia belonging to Lithuania, reaching Brest. The actions of the allied Lithuania of the Great Horde were again neutralized by the actions of both the Crimean and Russian troops. In 1502, having finally defeated the Khan of the Great Horde, the Crimean Khan made a new raid, devastating part of the Right-Bank Ukraine and Poland. However, after the successful end of the war for the Moscow state, relations deteriorated. First, the common enemy - the Big Horde - disappeared, against which the Russian-Crimean alliance was to a large extent directed. Secondly, now Russia is becoming a direct neighbor of the Crimean Khanate, which means that now the raids of the Crimeans could be made not only to Lithuanian, but also to Russian territory. And, finally, thirdly, Russian-Crimean relations worsened because of the Kazan problem; the fact is that Khan Mengli-Girey did not approve of the imprisonment of the deposed Kazan Khan Abdul-Latif in Vologda. Nevertheless, during the reign of Ivan III, the Crimean Khanate remained an ally of the Moscow state, waging joint wars against common enemies - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Great Horde, and only after the death of the Grand Duke, constant raids of the Crimeans begin on the lands belonging to the Russian state.

C1-C3 tasks

10-11 grades.

Preparing for the exam.

THEME №1

Old Russian state in the 9th - early 12th centuries

# 1. From a historical source.

“In the year 6370, they drove the Varangians across the sea, and did not give them tribute, and began to dominate themselves, and there was no truth among them, and clan after clan, and they had strife, and began to fight with each other. And they said to themselves: "Let us look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right." And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Rus ... The Chud, the Slavs, the Krivichi and the whole of Russia said: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come to reign and rule over us. " And three brothers with their families were elected, and they took all Russia with them, and the eldest, Rurik, came and sat in Novgorod, and the other, Sineus, on Beloozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed ".

C1.Give the title of the document and the name of its author. The events of which century are mentioned in the document?

C2. What event does the passage refer to? What caused it? Provide at least two reasons.

SZ.What were the consequences of the event described in the historical source? Name at least three consequences.

Models of answers and options for constructing argumentation in tasks C1 - C3

Document No. 1

C1. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) the title of the document - "The Tale of Bygone Years";

C2. Answer:

1. It may be indicated that we are talking about the vocation of the Varangians.

2. The following reasons may be given:

1) "race to race";

2) strife and strife began;

3) this prompted the search for a prince who would own and judge by right.

SZ. Answer:

The following consequences can be named:

1) three Varangian brothers came in response to the call;

2) senior Rurik began to reign in Novgorod, Sineus - in Beloozero, and Truvor - in Izborsk;

3) the vocation of the Varangians marked the beginning of the first princely dynasty - the Rurik dynasty.

# 2. From the treaty of Prince Igor with the Greeks in 945

“In the year 6453 Roman, and Constantine, and Stephen were sent ambassadors to Igor to restore the old world ... And they brought Russian ambassadors, and ordered to speak and write down the speeches of both of them on the charter:

If any of the Russians plans to destroy this friendship, then the baptized of them may accept revenge from God the Almighty, and condemnation to eternal destruction, and the unbaptized may not accept help from God and from Perun, may they not defend themselves with their shields and other weapons. and may they be slaves "forever in the hereafter.

And let the great Russian prince and his boyars send ships to the Greek land to the great Greek kings, as they want, with ambassadors and merchants, as it is established for them ... If a slave runs away from Russia, then the slave should be caught, since Russia came to the country of our kingdom, if the slave fled from the holy Mother; if the escaped one is not found, then let our Christians take the oath to Russia according to their faith, and not Christians according to their own law, and then let Russia take on us (the Greeks) the price of a slave, as previously established, 2 silk for a slave ... "

C1. What is the chronological framework of the reign of Igor. What was the purpose of the 945 treaty? What was the nature of the terms of the contract for Russia?

C2.What punishment was envisaged in the document for violating its terms? Name at least two positions. Make a conclusion about the beliefs of the population of Russia in the middle of the X century.

SZ.What conclusions can be drawn from the text of the treaty on the economic development of Rus using the knowledge of the course of national history? Please indicate at least two findings.

Document No. 2

C1. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) the period of Igor's reign - 912-945;

2) the treaty was the renewal of the 911 peace. between Russia and Byzantium;

3) the contract dealt with preferential terms of trade for Russian merchants in Byzantium.

C2. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) the punishment for Christians is revenge from God the Almighty and condemnation to eternal destruction;

2) punishment for pagans - deprivation of the protection of the god Perun;

3) conclusion - there were pagans and Christians among the population of the Old Russian state.

SZ. Answer:

The following conclusions can be indicated:

1) the text contains a number of indications of the economic development of Rus: trade ties and relations with Byzantium;

2) the mention of slaves in the text should not serve as proof of the existence of a slave system in Russia, since slavery among the Slavs was domestic, patriarchal.

No. 4. From a historical source.

“But do not forget all the poorer ones, but, as far as you can, feed them, and give them to the orphan, and justify the widow yourself, and do not let the strong destroy a person. Do not kill either the right or the guilty, and do not command to kill him; even if he is guilty of death, then do not destroy any Christian soul ...

And now I will tell you, my children, about my work, how I have worked on the road and on the hunt since I was thirteen. First I went to Rostov through the land of the Vyatichi; Father sent me, and he himself went to Kursk ...

And in the spring my father put me in Pereyaslavl above all the brethren ... and on the way to Priluka-city suddenly Polovtsian princes met us, with eight thousand, and they wanted to deal with them, but the weapon was sent ahead by carts, and we entered city...

And then Oleg went against me with all the Polovtsian land to Chernigov, and my squad fought with them for eight days over the small shaft and did not allow them to enter the prison; I took pity on Christian souls, and burning villages, and monasteries, and said: "Let the pagans not boast." And he gave his father's brother his table, and he went to his father's table in Pereyaslavl ...

And from Chernigov to Kiev about a hundred times traveled to his father, one day driving until evening. And all the campaigns were eighty and three great, and the rest and I do not remember the least. And he made worlds with the Polovtsian princes without one twenty, and with his father and without a father ...

Do not condemn me, my children or anyone else who reads: I do not praise either myself or my courage, but I praise God and glorify mercy for the fact that he protected me, a sinner and evil, from mortal dangers for so many years, and not lazy He created me, but fit for all human affairs. "

C1. What age is the work from which this passage is taken? What is it called? Who is its author?

C2.Using knowledge from the history course, indicate what the author of the work is famous for. Indicate at least three provisions.

SZ.Using the text of the passage, name at least two problems that concern the author. What character traits does he celebrate? List at least two character traits.

Document No. 4

С 1. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) the work was created in the XII century;

2) title - "Teaching to Children";

C2. Answer:

1) the fight against the Polovtsy (organizing a campaign against the Polovtsy in the steppe in 1111);

2) organization of the princely congress in Lyubech in 1097;

3) editing of "Russian Truth";

4) restoration of the unity of Russia.

SZ. Answer:

1. The following problems of concern to the author can be cited:

1) preserving the unity of the Russian lands;

2) internecine wars;

3) the weakening of defense and external threats to Russia.

2. The following character traits may be indicated:

courage, mercy, hard work, modesty.

№ 5. From the book "The World of History" by academician BA Rybakov.

“Perhaps not one of the leaders of Kievan Rus has preserved so many vivid memories as about Vladimir Monomakh. He was remembered both in palaces and in peasant huts after many centuries. The people laid down epics about him as the winner of the formidable Polovtsian Khan Tugorkan - "Tugarin Zmeevich", and because of the same names of the two Vladimirov, they poured these epics into the old cycle of the Kiev epic of Vladimir I ...

It is not surprising that at the end of the 15th century, Moscow historians most noticeably in their native past was the figure of Monomakh, with whose name they associated the legend of the royal regalia, allegedly received by Vladimir from the emperor of Byzantium ...

It is not surprising that in the dark years of strife, the Russian people sought consolation in their majestic past; their views turned to the era of Vladimir Monomakh. "The Word about the death of the Russian land", written on the eve of the Tatar-Mongol invasion, idealizes Kievan Rus, praises Vladimir Monomakh and his era ...

Vladimir received a good education, which allowed him to use in his political struggle not only the sword of a knight, but also the pen of a writer. "

C1.Indicate the chronological framework of the great reign of Vladimir Monomakh. What royal regalia, allegedly received by him, did the historian mean?

C2... How do you understand the statement that the Grand Duke in the political struggle used “not only the sword of a knight, but also pen of a writer "? Give at least two provisions.

SZ.Why "The Word about the Destruction of the Russian Land" praises Vladimir Monomakh? Name at least three merits of the Grand Duke.

Document No. 5

C1. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) the chronological framework of the reign - 1113-1125;

2) "Cap of Monomakh", with which all Russian tsars were crowned.

C2. Answer:

The following provisions may be specified:

1) Vladimir Monomakh went down in history with his literary works;

2) "Teaching to Children" is not only an example of ancient Russian literature, but also a monument of philosophical, political and pedagogical thought;

3) of considerable interest is the "Chronicle" compiled by Vladimir Monomach, containing a description of the military and hunting exploits of the Grand Duke.

SZ. Answer:

The following merit can be attributed:

1) under the prince, Russia pacified the Polovtsians (for a while they ceased to be a constant threat);

2) the power of the Kiev prince extended to all lands inhabited by the ancient Russian people;

3) the strife of the small princes was resolutely suppressed by Vladimir Monomakh;

4) Kiev was the capital of a huge, largest state in Europe.

Topic number 2. Russian lands and principalities in the XII - the middle of the XV centuries.

№ 6. From the work of the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky.

“Since that time, signs of the desolation of Kievan Rus become noticeable. The river strip along the middle Dnieper with its tributaries, which has long been so well populated, has since become empty, its population disappears somewhere ... Among the seven desolate cities of the Chernihiv land, we meet one of the oldest and richest cities in the Dnieper region - Lyubech. Simultaneously with the signs of the outflow of the population from Kievan Rus, we notice traces of the decline of its economic well-being: Rus, empty, at the same time became poorer. ... The outflow of the population from the Dnieper region went in two directions, in two opposite streams. One jet was heading west, to the Western Bug, to the area of \u200b\u200bthe upper Dniester and upper Vistula, deep into Galicia and Poland. So the South Russian population from the Dnieper region returned to the long-forgotten places abandoned by their ancestors. ... Another stream of colonization from the Dnieper region is directed to the opposite corner of the Russian land, to the northeast, beyond the Ugra River, in the interfluve of the Oka and the Upper Volga. ... She is the source of all the main phenomena revealed in the life of Upper Volga Rus. ... The entire political and social life of this Rus was formed from the consequences of this colonization. "

C1. Using the text of the document and knowledge of the history course, indicate the name of the period in the history of Russia, which is referred to in the document. What is its chronological framework?

C2. How does the historian assess the consequences of the phenomena noted in the document? Using knowledge from history and the text of the document, indicate what role the Upper Volga Rus played in further Russian history. Name at least three positions in total.

SZ. What phenomena characteristic of this period and their causes does the document testify about? To answer, use the text of the document and knowledge of the history course. Indicate at least three provisions in total.

Document No. 6

C1. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) the name of the period - political (state) fragmentation;

2) chronological framework: the middle of the XII century. (30s of the XII century) - the first half of the XIV century.

C2. Answer:

The following provisions may be given:

1) the strengthening and rise of North-Eastern Russia;

2) the political and social life of North-Eastern Russia was largely due to the influx of population from Kievan Rus;

3) the role of the Upper Volga Rus consisted in the fact that in the future it became the center of the unification of all Russian lands.

SZ. Answer:

1. Phenomena such as

1) the outflow of the population from Kievan Rus, the desolation of the cities of Kievan Rus;

2) colonization of the northwestern and northeastern Russian lands.

2. The reasons for Kiev's loss of its historical role can be named:

1) constant civil strife caused by the struggle for the "Kiev table";

2) relocation of the main trade routes, the decline in the role of the “route from the Vikings to the Greeks”.

№ 7. From the work of the historian B. A. Rybakov.

“In addition to the colorful and dramatic external history of the principalities and princes, this era is extremely interesting for us with those exacerbated relations between princes and boyars, which were so clearly marked already in the time of Yaroslav Osmomysl. If we discard the element of personal gain and self-interest, then it should be admitted that their policy of concentration of lands, weakening of inheritance and strengthening of the central princely power was objectively progressive, since it coincided with the interests of the people. In pursuing this policy, the princes relied on broad strata of the townspeople and on the reserves of small feudal lords ("youths", "children", "charities") raised by them themselves, who were completely dependent on the prince.

It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the initial phase of this period (before the factor of conquest intervened in normal development) is characterized not by a decline in culture, as one might expect, ... but, on the contrary, by the rapid growth of cities and a bright flourishing of Russian culture during all its manifestations. It follows from this that the new political form, obviously, promoted (perhaps at first) progressive development. "

C1.List the name of the historical period referred to in the passage. Using the knowledge of the course of history, name the largest political centers of this period. List at least three points in total.

C2.Using the text of the document and drawing on knowledge of history, indicate at least three characteristic features of this period.

SZ.Drawing on knowledge of history and using the text of the document, give an assessment of this period. Provide at least two arguments to support your assessment.

Document No. 7

C1. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) the name of the period - "Specific Rus", feudal fragmentation;

2) the largest political centers: Vladimir-Suzdal principality, Veliky Novgorod (Novgorod land, or Novgorod boyar republic), Galicia-Volyn principality.

C2. Answer:

The following traits may be indicated:

1) princely strife;

2) the struggle of the princes for the "Kiev table";

3) exacerbation of relations between princes and boyars (policy of concentration of lands, weakening of estates, strengthening of the central princely power);

4) the independence of the boyars-patrimonials in their lands;

5) the weakening of the country's military potential, fragmentation and lack of unity in the Russian lands, which became the reason for the defeat of Russia in the fight against the Mongols;

6) flourishing of culture;

7) growth and strengthening of the political and economic power of cities.

SZ. Answer:

It should be indicated that this period can be estimatedas contradictory, ambiguous, but logical for its time.

The following arguments can be given, for example

1) along with the dramatic external history (civil strife, lack of unity, the factor of conquest, increased raids of nomads) there are positive aspects of this period;

2) the new political form promoted progressive development;

3) progressive development includes such phenomena as the growth of cities, the bright flourishing of Russian culture in all its manifestations.

No. 8. From the work of N.М. Karamzin.

“Unfortunately, in this vigorous youth, she did not protect herself from the general ulcer of the state of that time, which the Germanic peoples reported to Europe: I am talking about the specific system. The happiness and character of Vladimir, the happiness and character of Yaroslav could only postpone the fall of a state based on autocracy on conquests. Russia is divided.

Together with the reason for her power, so necessary for prosperity, the power and prosperity of the people disappeared. The pitiful civil strife of faint-hearted princes opened up, who, forgetting the glory, the benefit of the fatherland, cut each other and destroyed the people in order to add some insignificant town to their lot. Greece, Hungary, Poland rested: the sight of our internal calamity served as a guarantee for their safety. Until then, they were afraid of the Russians - they began to despise them. In vain, some magnanimous princes - Monomakh, Vasilko - spoke in the name of the fatherland at solemn congresses, in vain others - Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod III - tried to arrogate to themselves autocracy: the attempts were weak, unfriendly, and Russia for two centuries tormented its own bowels, drank tears and its own blood ".

C1. Indicate the trend in the process of state formation and the chronological framework of the historical period referred to in the passage.

C. Using the text of the document and attracting knowledge of history, name at least three reasons for the princely strife.

SZ. Drawing on knowledge of history and using the text of the document, indicate which way of overcoming the internal political situation was proposed by Vladimir Monomakh and Andrei Bogolyubsky. Give at least two provisions.

Document No. 8

C1. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) tendency - the process of formation of a system of appanages independent of the central government;

2) chronological framework - XII-XV centuries.

C2. Answer:

The following reasons may be given:

1) the cowardice of the princes, who, having forgotten the glory, the benefit of the fatherland, cut and destroyed the people;

2) the desire of appanage princes for political and economic independence;

3) the development of feudal land tenure;

4) the desire of the boyars to strengthen local power.

SZ. Answer:

1) Vladimir Monomakh proposed to create a single state;

2) Andrei Bogolyubsky advocated the subordination of the weak principalities to the strong.

No. 9. From the work of the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky.

“Something new emanates from the whole figure of Andrey; but this novelty was hardly good. Prince Andrew was a harsh and wayward master who acted in his own way in everything, and not according to the old days and custom. Contemporaries noticed in him this duality, a mixture of strength with weakness, power with whim. “Such a clever man in all matters,” the chronicler says about him, “such a valiant, Prince Andrei ruined his meaning by intemperance”, that is, lack of self-control. Having shown so much military valor and political prudence in his youth in the south, he later ... did a lot of bad deeds: he collected and sent large raids to plunder Kiev, then Novgorod, scattered a web of power-hungry intrigues throughout the Russian land from his dark corner on the Klyazma ... ...

Having chased away the great paternal boyars from the Rostov land, he surrounded himself with such courtiers who, in gratitude for his lordly favors, disgustingly killed him and plundered his palace. He was very pious and poor-loving, set up many churches in his area, before matins he himself lit candles in the church, like a caring church headman, ordered food and drink to be carried around the streets for the sick and the poor, fatherly dearly loved his city Vladimir, wanted to make him another Kiev, even with a special, second Russian metropolitan, built the famous Golden Gate in it and wanted to unexpectedly open it for the city feast of the Assumption of the Mother of God, saying to the boyars: “Here people will come together on a holiday and see the gate” ...

In the person of Prince Andrey, the Great Russian appeared on the stage of history for the first time, and this performance cannot be considered successful. "

C1. Which Prince Andrei is the document talking about? Indicate the chronological framework of his great reign.

C2. What events did the historian have in mind when talking about sending large troops to "plunder now Kiev, now Novgorod"? Name at least two positions.

SZ. How is the prince characterized in the document? Why, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, cannot the first performance of the Great Russian on the historical stage be considered successful? Give at least two provisions.

Document No. 9

C1. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) Andrey Yuryevich Bogolyubsky (Grand Duke of Vladimir);

2) the chronological framework of the reign - 1157-1174.

C2. Answer:

The following provisions may be specified:

1) in 1169 Andrey Bogolyubsky sent an army to Kiev, captured it and subjected it to devastation;

2) in 1170, taking advantage of the poor harvest, the prince cut off the supply of food to Novgorod from his possessions, so the Novgorodians were forced to invite Bogolyubsky's protege to their princely table.

SZ. Answer:

1. The following provisions may be cited:

1) the prince is characterized as an ambiguous political figure (there were positive and negative features);

2) Andrei Bogolyubsky was unable to establish autocracy (to eliminate the specific system) in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, because appanage princes were still strong.

No. 10. From The Lay of Igor's Regiment.

“... Then the great Svyatoslav dropped the golden word, mixed with tears, and said:“ O my nephews, Igor and Vsevolod! Early on you began to create insult to the Polovtsian land with swords, and to seek glory for yourself. But without honor you prevailed, without honor you shed foul blood. Your brave hearts of strong damask steel are chained and tempered in courage. What have they done out of my silver gray hair?

And no longer i see the power of my brother Yaroslav, strong, and rich, and abundant in warriors, with the Chernigov boyars. But you said: "Let us take pride in ourselves: we will steal the past glory for ourselves, and share the future glory ourselves" ...

Grand Duke Vsevolod! Do you think to fly from afar, to observe your father's golden throne? You can splash the Volga with oars, and bail out the Don with helmets.

You, violent Rurik, and Davyd! ... Enter, gentlemen, into the golden stirrup for the insult of our time, for the Russian land, for the wounds of Igor, the violent Svyatoslavovich!

Galician Osmomysl Yaroslav! ... Your thunderstorms flow through the lands, you open the gates to Kiev, you shoot from your father's golden throne of the Saltans beyond the lands. Shoot, Lord, Konchak, the filthy slave, for the Russian land, for the wounds of Igor, the violent Svyatoslavovich! "

C1. What historical event formed the basis of the Lay ...? What time does this event refer to?

Document No. 10

C1. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) The Lay ... was based on the campaign of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich of Novgorod-Seversk against the Polovtsi;

2) this event belongs to the XII century. (1185).

C2. Answer:

The following provisions may be specified:

1) a reason for bitter reflections on the fate of the Russian land - strife between the princes, which became the reason for the military failures of Russia in the fight against the Steppe;

a) sought personal fame for themselves;

b) did not coordinate their actions with other princes;

c) conducted the campaign only on their own. SZ. Answer:

1) to the coordination of actions against nomads by all princes;

2) to the end of strife between the princes.

No. 11. From the Life of Alexander Nevsky.

"... Having worked a lot for the Russian land, for Novgorod and Pskov, for the whole great reign, giving up his belly for the Orthodox faith."

From the historical work of S.M. Solovyov.

“Alexander Nevsky, having become the Grand Duke of Vladimir, had to humiliate himself before the Tatars in order to save his native land from destruction; he had to persuade the people to patiently bear the yoke, to allow the Tatars to rewrite themselves for the imposition of tribute. With the help of the prince, uprisings against the Horde were suppressed. The result was the prohibition of veche orders in cities. However, the prince's political activity made it possible to prevent a new destruction of the cities.

C1. What two victories of Alexander Nevsky were meant when Novgorod and Pskov were mentioned? Provide justification proving that the prince “gave his belly [his life] for the Orthodox faith.

C2.As S.M. Solovyov the motives of Alexander Nevsky's actions How did the historian assess the prince's actions? Name at least two positions.

SZ.What personal qualities of Alexander Nevsky do the cited sources testify to? Indicate at least three qualities

Document No. 11

C1. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) victories - the Battle of the Neva and the Battle of the Ice;

2) the fight against the German knights was also a fight against the spread of Catholicism.

C2. Answer:

It may be indicated that

1) explanation - the desire to save the native land from destruction;

2) S.M. Solovyov assessed the actions of Alexander Nevsky positively.

SZ. Answer:

The following qualities of a prince may be indicated:

flexibility;

patience;

courage;

wisdom, etc.

№ 12. From the Simeon Chronicle.

“The prince, the great, set up an army on Lake Peipus on Uzmen, near the Crow Stone, and, getting ready for battle, went against them. The troops converged on Lake Peipsi; there were a lot of both. But Alexander was here with Alexander and his brother Andrew with many of his father's soldiers, Alexander had many brave, strong and strong soldiers, they were all filled with a warlike spirit, and their hearts were like lions. And they said, "Prince, now is the time to lay down their heads for you." It was then a Sabbath day, and at sunrise the two armies met. And there was an evil and great slaughter for the Germans and a miracle, and the crackle of breaking spears and the sound of the blows of swords was heard, so that the ice on the frozen lake broke, and there was no ice visible, because it was covered with blood. And I myself heard about this from an eyewitness who was there.

And the Germans turned to flight, and the Russians drove them with a fight as through air, and there was nowhere for them to run away, they beat them 7 miles on the ice of the Subolitsk coast,

and 500 Germans fell, and miracles were countless, and 50 of the best German governors were taken prisoner and brought to Novgorod, while other Germans drowned in the lake because it was spring. Others ran away badly wounded. "

C1. In what year did the aggression of the German knights against the Russian lands, described in the text, take place? How did the battle on Lake Peipsi end? Name at least two results.

C2. What actions did Prince Alexander take to repel

german aggression? Name at least two actions.

SZ... Drawing on knowledge from the course of history, indicate at least three provisions that reveal the historical significance of the victories of Prince Alexander Yaroslavich.

Document number 12

The name Judas has long become a household name when referring to traitors and traitors. It is interesting that in Europe the Iscariot plot is not as popular in folklore as in our country. But both across the sea and on our land there are traitors, sometimes even in abundance.

Oleg Ryazansky

Historians are still arguing about whether the Ryazan prince Oleg Ioannovich was a traitor. He avoided participating in the Battle of Kulikovo - the decisive one in the struggle against the Golden Horde yoke. The prince entered into an alliance with Khan Mamai and the Lithuanian prince Yagaila against Moscow, and later gave Moscow to Khan Tokhtamysh. For his contemporaries, Oleg Ryazansky is a traitor whose name is cursed. However, in our time there is an opinion that Oleg took on the difficult mission of Moscow's secret spy in the Horde. The agreement with Mamai allowed him to find out military plans and report them to Dmitry of Moscow. Even Tokhtamysh's campaign against Moscow, supported by him, is explained in this theory. They say it was necessary to play for time and weaken the forces of the Horde by sieging a powerful fortress. Dmitry, meanwhile, was gathering an army from all over Russia and preparing for a decisive battle. It was Oleg's Ryazan squads who were a barrier to Moscow from the Lithuanian prince Yagaila, and a blow by Lithuanian troops would have called into question the outcome of the battle on the Kulikovo field. Of his contemporaries, only Tokhtamysh guessed about the prince's double policy - and completely destroyed the Ryazan principality.

Moscow Prince Yuri Danilovich

Moscow Prince Yuri (Georgy) Danilovich could count only on intrigues in the Horde in the struggle for the Vladimir throne with Mikhail Tverskoy, the son of Yaroslav III: Moscow at the turn of the XII-XIII centuries was significantly inferior to Tver in power. In the Horde, the prince was his own man, having lived for two years in Sarai. Having married the sister of Khan Uzbek Konchak (baptized Agafya), he received a label for the Grand Duke's throne. But, having come to Russia with this label and the army of the Mongols, Yuri was defeated by Mikhail and fled back to the Horde. Konchaka was captured by the Tver people and soon died. Yuri accused Mikhail Tverskoy of poisoning her and disobeying the Horde. The prince was summoned to the Horde, where the court sentenced him to death. But for a long time, Mikhail, chained in stocks, had to wander along with the Tatar camp, and only after many torments the prince was killed. Yuri got Vladimir and a few years later - death at the hands of the son of the deceased prince of Tver. Posthumous glory to Mikhail: On December 5, Russia celebrates the Day of Remembrance of the Great Martyr Saint Blessed Prince Mikhail of Tver, the patron and patron saint of Tver.

Hetman Mazepa

For a long time the Ukrainian hetman Ivan Mazepa was one of the closest associates of Peter I. For services to Russia, he was even awarded the highest state award - the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called. But during the Northern War, Mazepa openly joined the Swedish king Charles XII and entered into an agreement with the Polish king Stanislav Leshchinsky, promising Poland Kiev, Chernigov and Smolensk. For this he wanted to receive the title of prince and the right to Vitebsk and Polotsk. About three thousand Zaporozhye Cossacks went over to Mazepa's side. In response, Peter I stripped the traitor of all titles and elected a new hetman, and the Metropolitan of Kiev anathematized the defector. Soon, many of Mazepa's adherents repentantly returned to the side of the Russians. By the decisive battle at Poltava, the hetman was left with a handful of people loyal to him. Peter rejected his attempts to negotiate a return to Russian citizenship. After the defeat of the Swedes in the Battle of Poltava in 1709, Mazepa, along with the defeated Swedish king, fled to the Ottoman Empire, where he soon died.

Prince Kurbsky

Prince Andrei Kurbsky is called the "first Russian dissident" today. For a long time he was one of the most influential statesmen in Russia and the closest friend of Ivan IV. He was a member of the "Chosen Rada", which ruled the state on behalf of the tsar through major long-term reforms. However, it was not in vain that he received the nickname Terrible, Tsar Ivan Radu dismissed, and its active participants were subjected to disgrace and executions. Fearing the same fate, Kurbsky fled to Lithuania. The Polish king granted him several estates and included in the members of the Royal Council. Already abroad, Kurbsky wrote a political pamphlet accusing the tsar of despotism - "The Story of the Grand Duke of Moscow." However, it was a question of betrayal later, when in 1564 Kurbsky led one of the Polish armies in the war against Russia. Although he could have left military service. After Kurbsky fled, his wife, son and mother were tortured and killed. Grozny explained his cruelty by the fact of treason and violation of the kissing of the cross, accusing his former friend of trying to seize power in Yaroslavl and of poisoning his beloved wife, Tsarina Anastasia.

General Vlasov

His name during the Great Patriotic War became a household name, denoting a traitor to the Motherland. Even the Nazis hated the traitor: Himmler called him "a runaway pig and a fool." Hitler didn't even want to meet him.

Soviet Lieutenant General Andrei Andreevich Vlasov in 1942 was the commander of the 2nd Shock Army and deputy commander of the Volkhov Front. Having been captured by the Germans, Vlasov deliberately went to cooperate with the Nazis, giving them secret information and advising them on how to fight the Soviet army correctly. He collaborated with Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, Ribbentrop, with various high-ranking officials of the Abwehr and the Gestapo. In Germany, Vlasov organized the Russian Liberation Army from Russian prisoners of war recruited to serve the Germans. ROA troops took part in the fight against partisans, robberies and executions of civilians, destruction of entire settlements. In 1945, immediately after Germany's surrender, Vlasov was captured by the Red Army, in 1946 he was convicted on charges of high treason and hanged.

Was the Ryazan prince Oleg a traitor? In Rzeczpospolita, Prince Kurbsky beat his wife and was engaged in racketeering. Moscow Prince Yuri Danilovich

C1-C3 tasks

10-11 grades.

Preparing for the exam.

THEME №1

Old Russian state in the 9th - early 12th centuries

Recent

You need to know