Periodization of world history:
1) prehistory (4-2 mln years ago - up to 8 thousand BC)
2) the history of the "ancient world" (from 8 thousand BC to V AD)
3) the history of the "Middle Ages" (from the 5th century to the turn of the 15th-16th centuries)
4) the history of the "new time" (from the turn of the XV-XVI century - to the XX century)
5) recent history (XX-XXI centuries)
|
Europe | |
|
Primitive communal system Primitive society appeared about 40 thousand years ago with the advent of Homo sapiens and the formation of tribal communities and existed before the formation of the first city-states at the end of the 6th millennium BC. in Mesopotamia (Asia). preliterate type of culture. |
|
|
Ancient world (The end of the 4th millennium BC - the end of the 5th century AD) From the emergence of the first city-states in Mesopotamia to the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476). slaveholding build. Form of government: eastern despotism, empire, republic. The emergence of a written type of culture. |
|
|
Middle Ages 5th century AD - ser. 17th century Feudal build. The predominant form of government in Europe is monarchy (all types). Religious nature of culture . |
|
|
new time (Mid. XVII - early XX century.) Spreading capitalist relations. Industrial revolutions, the formation of industrial societies. Various forms of government monarchy , limited monarchy, republic ). Secular culture. |
|
|
Newest time (Beginning of the 20th century - beginning of the 21st century) The variety of ways of development of the economy, politics and culture, the formation of the information society. |
3. Name the main concepts of historical development.
Concepts historical development
Formation concept of history. (World-historical (linear) interpretation )
In ancient times, the view was popular that history develops in a vicious circle: birth, flourishing, decline, death. This view is shared by some modern scholars. However, this idea is contrary to practical experience. The development of mankind is seen as an ascending process, a transition from the old to the new, although temporary deviations are possible.
During much of the 20th century historians were guided by the formational approach. The socio-economic formation was presented as a certain stage in the development of mankind. Each formation is determined by the mode of production prevailing in it, the ratio of productive forces and production relations. Historians counted five formations: primitive-communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and communitarian (the last formation was called the highest stage of development, it was assumed that its folding was just beginning). Their characteristics were already in the names of the formations.
The corresponding way of life dominates in the economy, relations between people and in all other spheres of life of the peoples in the country, which are within the framework of one of the formations. The transition from formation to formation was explained by the growth of productive forces leading to “changes in production relations. Different peoples and countries enter the appropriate formation at different times, some of them may “miss out”, but in general, the whole world history was put into this scheme. The concept of formation thus characterizes, first of all, the socio-economic structure of society.
Described above formational approach does not take into account natural and geographical factors that significantly and differently affect the development of various regions of the world. Nowadays, other formational schemes are becoming more and more popular, which, nevertheless, put socio-economic differences at the forefront.
A variation of the formational approach can be called the technocratic concept of human development. According to this approach, the decisive factor in the development of society is the development of technology, production technology. Technique changes - the character of society changes. One of the variants of this approach is the archaeological periodization: the Stone Age, bronze age and the Iron Age. The division is carried out according to the main material for the manufacture of tools.
An important facet in the history of mankind, no doubt, is its transition from an appropriating to a producing economy, which dominates in our time. These two types of economy determine the whole way of life of people. Therefore, the history of mankind is divided into two corresponding stages.
Civilization concept of history.(Cultural-historical concept of history ).
Recently, the term "civilization" has been used more and more widely in characterizing the direction of development of society. This term has several interpretations.
So the famous French scientist of the XVIII in C. Montesquieu divided history into periods of savagery, barbarism and civilization (continuing to this day). The transition from barbarism to civilization occurred when writing, cities and the state appeared. In this concept, civilization has gone through several stages in the course of its development. In the most general terms, such stages are both pre-industrial civilization and industrial civilization. In the pre-industrial era, the basis of human life was Agriculture, in industrial - industry. There is also a post-industrial, or information, civilization, which a number of countries entered in the second half of the 20th century.
The criteria for distinguishing between pre-industrial and industrial civilizations lie in the sphere of economics. Therefore, a number of historians believe that this division also refers to the formational concept. The advantage of the civilizational conception of history lies in its real universality. All the peoples of the world have gone through the pre-industrial and industrial eras in their development.
However, the term "civilization" is more often used to denote not so much economic as historical and cultural features. When studying history different countries and peoples, it is not difficult to see that they differ from each other in many parameters of spiritual life. This is expressed in the peculiarities of culture, values, norms, customs, traditions, religions, the system of education and upbringing, life principles and lifestyle, etc. Moreover, these differences sometimes persist for a long time, for example, during the transition of society from pre-industrial to industrial era. On the basis of such differences, the so-called local civilizations are distinguished.
The criteria for division into local civilizations lie primarily in the sphere of culture. In addition, the nature of civilization is influenced by the natural and geographical conditions in which it develops.
Now there are no well-established approaches to determine the types of local civilizations. So, in almost all textbooks that list civilizations, their lists are very different from each other.
The most common division into ancient Eastern, ancient, Byzantine, Western European, Arab-Muslim, Chinese, Indian, Russian and a number of other local civilizations. Some of these civilizations have disappeared, others continue to develop in our time.
Civilizations can be divided into primary and secondary. Civilizations that arose directly from primitiveness are considered primary. Secondary civilizations appeared on the basis of the primary ones and mastered their achievements.
Finally, there is the concept of world (global) civilization. It is believed that the development of comprehensive ties between countries and peoples, the unification of their socio-economic, political, cultural life leads to the formation of a single world civilization. This process is, of course, far from over.
Modern times, in short, is the period of development of human history, from 1918 to the present day.
The term itself was coined by Hegel. In the Soviet historical science considered to be the beginning recent history 1917, when the October Revolution took place, since it was the most significant event for the country.
In the period of modern times, in short, changes in all spheres of life are becoming more and more rapid. This became especially noticeable in the 1940s. One of major discoveries those years was the creation of nuclear weapons. This forever changed the balance of power on the planet. In mid-July 1945, the United States tested the first nuclear weapons in the world, and in August, two Japanese cities - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped atomic bombs. Now, not a single city on Earth was immune from such a fate.
Many discoveries have been made in the field of technology - computers, the Internet, satellite and cellular communications, Genetic Engineering, nanotechnology.
With the increase in the population of the planet, global threats have appeared. It is a problem of the environment, disarmament, hunger, lack of drinking water and many others.
Recent time, in short, has its own periodization and is divided into the following stages:
1. before the start of World War II - 1918 - 1939;
2. years of World War II - 1939-1945;
3. post-war period - 1945-1991;
4. 1991 - present
First period of modern times
The most significant events in it were the formation of the USSR and the Great American Depression.
After civil war the process of unification in the USSR of several Soviet republics that arose after the disappearance of the Russian Empire. The first to join the new union were the Byelorussian Republic, the Ukrainian, Transcaucasian Republics and the RSFSR. This happened in 1922.
Around the same time, in 1929, the United States began a long economic recession, known as the Great Depression. It became part of the global crisis that affected other countries as well.
This difficult period in the history of America lasted until 1940, but in fact the United States came out of it after the end of World War II. The causes of depression are the overproduction of goods and the lack of the necessary money supply to buy them. The US stock market crashed in one day. About 25 million people suffered from this.
The Second World War
It has become the largest global military conflict in the history of mankind. The scale of hostilities and the number of victims is appalling. About 80% of the population took part in the war the globe. To date, this is the only military clash in which it was decided to use nuclear weapons.
The war involved the anti-Hitler coalition, the main participants of which were Great Britain, France, the USSR, the USA and more than 40 countries, and the Nazi bloc. Its composition: Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary.
A characteristic feature of the Second World War was that the countries participated in it with different intensity. Someone was an active participant in the hostilities, someone was simply listed in the ranks of the allies, some helped with the supply of weapons and food.
The reasons for the war were the contradictions that arose between Germany and the victorious countries of the First World War, as well as the desire of the losing side to achieve revenge.
On September 1, 1939, German troops occupied Poland and the world entered the war.
For the USSR, it began on June 22, 1941, when Germany crossed the border of the Soviet Union.
From 50 to 70 million dead - this is the result of the most brutal war of modern times.
cold war
Very quickly, the former allies in the anti-Hitler coalition again became ideological and political enemies. A new confrontation, but without the use of weapons, began in 1946 and ended only with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The Cold War is an ideological conflict between two superpowers and their allies - the USSR and the USA. The famous English writer George Orwell came up with this expression and used it in one of his articles in 1945. Countries that have nuclear weapons in their arsenal and understand the full danger of their use will be forced to be in a state of constant confrontation with each other, or "cold war".
Caribbean crisis
It was the result of the Cold War and the arms race between the USSR and the USA. This confrontation between the two superpowers took place in October 1962 and almost led to the Third World War. The reason for the crisis was that the United States deployed medium-range missiles in Turkey, within the radius of destruction of which were Soviet cities, including Moscow. In response, the USSR deployed its military units on the island of Cuba. The world was literally on the verge of another war. The leaders of the two countries managed to reach a compromise and the Soviet missiles in Cuba were dismantled.
The Cuban Missile Crisis marked the beginning of the disarmament process.
The collapse of the USSR
On December 26, 1991, the Declaration on the collapse of the USSR and the creation of the CIS was adopted. 15 former Soviet republics became independent states.
Modern historians have not yet developed a common point of view on the reasons for the collapse of the superpower. There are a lot of them, and they are all extremely important. These include: the incompetence of the country's top leadership, the degradation of the union leadership, the adoption of key decisions exclusively by Moscow, and much more.
Environmental problems
In the 21st century, in first place among global problems the problem of the environment emerged. Mankind for many centuries thoughtlessly spent resources and changed the world. In the 19th century, the process of influencing the biosphere increased many times over due to the coming era of the scientific and technological revolution. This led to threatening consequences, which people began to think about only at the beginning of the 21st century.
In recent times, in short, there are prerequisites for the disappearance of human civilization due to the conflict with environment. Now the biggest danger, according to environmental scientists, is the problem global warming. Due to human production activities, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the air is gradually increasing, which leads to an average increase in temperature. The consequences of global warming will be terrible and will affect every inhabitant of the planet. Melting ice will lead to sea level rise and flooding of many places of human habitation. extreme high temperatures will not tolerate many species of animals and plants. Fertile soils will turn into deserts. The climate will change dramatically.
Global problems are so called because they concern everyone, and it is also possible to solve them only together.
Philosophy of modern times
The latest philosophy of the XIX-XX centuries. called non-classical and sometimes combined into one period, and sometimes divided into the philosophy of the XIX century and XX century. The history of modern philosophy begins with a critique of its classical forms.
In the 19th century, the following areas of modern philosophy developed, briefly outlined:
1. Positivism, for which philosophy has become a tool for the analysis of knowledge.
2. Marxism, which used philosophy to revolutionize the world.
3. Irrationalism, or "philosophy of life."
Classical forms of philosophy, for example, rationalism, are also preserved and continue to develop.
2. General periodization world history
|
Primitive society (40 thousand years ago - 4-3 thousand BC) |
the time of pre-civilized, pre-state existence of mankind |
|
Ancient world (4-3 thousand BC - V century AD) |
the time of formation of the main types of development: eastern and western |
|
Middle Ages |
Arab-Muslim civilization formed in the Near and Middle East in Asia - Chinese-Confucian and Indian civilizations; on the European continent, East European and West European civilizations were formed |
|
new time (XVI-50s of XX centuries) |
approval of the capitalist mode of production, market economy, liberal political views, a rational secular picture of the world, the priority of science, religious tolerance, mass culture |
|
Newest time (since the 60s of the twentieth century) |
the formation of the information society, the collapse colonial system, exacerbation of global problems of our time (depletion of resources, the North-South problem, the growth of Islamic extremism, the environmental issue) |
3. The problem of the place and role of Russia in world history
There is no consensus in historical science regarding place of Russia in world history. Everyone who seeks to answer this question, to correlate Russia with other societies, to determine the civilizational affiliation of our fatherland, faces many problems.
Supporters Western concepts argue that our country is developing in the same way as the West (Europe), but lagged behind on this path, which resulted in its historical originality. Therefore, Russia needs modernization and Westernization (Europeanization).
Westernization is a variant development echelons concept. It is believed that all peoples and states go through the same historical periods, but countries of different echelons - at different times. Criteria for selecting countries of the first, second, third and other echelons - level economic development at any given moment in history. Russia, within the framework of this concept, belongs to the countries of the second echelon.
According to modernization theory, For one reason or another, Russia periodically lags behind Western countries, and there is a need for a quick leap forward - modernization, which can be more or less comprehensive, more or less successful. In the history of Russia allocate Peter's modernization (reforms of the first quarter of the 18th century), Alexandrovskaya(reforms of the middle of the XIX century), Stolypin(reforms of the beginning of the 20th century), Stalinist(industrialization of the 30s of the XX century) and Yeltsin(reforms at the end of the 20th century). The West acts as a model in all cases.
Modern Western historians, supporters of a civilizational approach to history consider Russia as an organic part of Western (European) civilization. At the same time, given the fact that Western Europe and the United States are currently the civilizational center of the Western world, Russia, as well as the countries of Eastern Europe, is assigned the role of a periphery. Within the framework of this version, the concept of Russia has all the same features as the civilizational center, but in a "weakened" form. Critics of this point of view argue, not without reason, that Russia itself is a civilizational center - an area of attraction for other states and peoples.
There is a theory that proposes to classify Russia as an Eastern type of society. It assumes that all attempts to transfer the country to the Western path of development (the adoption of Christianity, the reforms of Peter I, etc.) were unsuccessful. After the Bolsheviks came to power, the country turned into a typical Eastern despotism headed by a tyrant - the party leader.
The modern version of this view is Russia concept as an Asian-European state, that is, originally an eastern society, striving during periods of weakening external regulators of behavior due to the decline of power to free itself from everything western as superficial and alien to the broad masses of the country's population.
No less influential than Westernism is approach that affirms the identity of Russia. The first theory of this type can be considered the concept created in the 15th century by the elder Philotheus and called " Moscow is the third Rome. According to its author, Russia is the only fair state in the world that brings the light of truth - the Orthodox religion - to other peoples. The uniqueness of Russia is associated with continuity in relation to the disappeared state - Byzantium. The ideological heirs of the views of Philotheus were Slavophilism and Eurasianism.
Slavophile concept history of Russia arose at the turn of the 30s and 40s of the XIX century. According to its creators, Russia initially developed in an original way, but the reforms of Peter I disrupted the natural course of history, introducing European forms of life organization into Russia. It is impossible to return to the past, it is impossible to forget what has been acquired, and now it is no longer necessary. It is necessary to carry out a synthesis of all the best that was in pre-Petrine Russia (freedom of the peasants, loyalty to Orthodoxy, the power of the tsar, based on the opinion of the people, expressed in Zemsky Sobors) and what was borrowed from the West. This synthesis will mean a newfound identity for the country. Thus, in the history of Russia, the Slavophils saw uniqueness and Western influence, moreover, they identified and described the original features, but did not correlate them with the features of the East or West, seeing in them an indivisible integrity.
Eurasians differently approached the Russian identity. According to them concepts Russia is a special Eurasian world(in the modern version of the supporters of the civilizational approach - the Eurasian civilization), which was the result of a synthesis of Eastern and Western influences. This is a "complex historical formation", "a special historical world", which includes the cultures of Europe and Asia. The specificity of Eurasia-Russia, its role as a spiritual stronghold, opposing the "world evil", is connected, first of all, with Orthodoxy. It is thanks to Orthodoxy as the only true, universal and at the same time individualized religion, as well as national identity as a synthesis of the cultures of Europe and Asia, that Eurasia-Russia will be able to play a messianic role in history, to involve Europe in its Eurasian world. In the conditions of the crisis of the West, Russia was capable, the Eurasians believed, of offering the world an alternative path of development and leading it along. This theory took shape in the 20-30s of the 20th century among Russian emigrants. When the crisis of liberalism in the West was overcome, interest in Eurasianism fell.
Supporters of the civilizational approach, who share ideas about non-Westernness, the identity of Russia, either they see it as the center of Orthodox civilization, or single out a special Russian civilization. Among the adherents of both concepts there are historians and culturologists who classify Russian or Orthodox civilization as borderline, that is, they see in it a combination of Eastern and Western principles. Other adherents of these concepts do not consider it necessary to correlate the characteristics of the Orthodox or Russian civilization with the characteristics of other countries and peoples.
The concept of Orthodox (Eastern Christian) civilization unites Russia with Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Montenegro, Moldova, Romania, Georgia and Armenia on a confessional and territorial basis. The shortcomings of the concept are determined by the fact that a little less than 20% of the country's population are not carriers of the mentality formed by Orthodoxy, but profess religions such as Islam, Buddhism and paganism.
The concept of Russia as an independent (Russian) civilization is directed mainly against the attribution of our fatherland to the periphery of the Western world, since its supporters emphasize the obvious fact for them that Russia is a center of civilization. On the other hand, singling out Russian civilization as one of the world civilizations at the level of generalization of a high order, that is, not along with French, Portuguese, Vietnamese, Iranian, etc., but on a par with Western, Islamic, Confucian, Indo-Buddhist and other major world civilizations, which include entire regions, is based on the size of the country and its multinational composition, forming a kind of supranational cultural and historical unity. The concept emphasizes the integrity and significance of Russia, but, identifying one of the world civilizations with the borders of the Russian state, this point of view asserts that all other countries and peoples are part of other civilizations, and Russia is not a natural center of gravity for anyone, which does not correspond to the historical the past of the country.
There is an opinion that Russia is a civilizationally heterogeneous society, a community of peoples belonging to different types of development. At the sharp turns of history, it shifts now closer to the West, then closer to the East. Therefore, throughout history, Russia has been particularly acute problem of choosing the path of social development. This concept is one of the few that take into account the multinationality and multi-confessional nature of Russia, the diversity of forms of organizing the life of the peoples inhabiting its vast territory. Moreover, it is this factor that plays a decisive role in determining the originality historical path Russia.
There is a concept that proposes to consider Russia as one of the societies belonging to the mixed type of historical development. The eastern type of development was superimposed on the original western one, as a result of which, in many respects, a mechanical combination of eastern and western principles of development took place, and in part - their synthesis. Approximation Russian society sometimes to eastern, sometimes to western samples is explained by the lack of organic unity of heterogeneous elements. Attributing Russia to a certain type of historical development seems constructive, since it refutes the opinion that our country is an exception to all the rules. At the same time, this point of view does not take into account the fact that Russia is multinational.
Conclusion: although the problem of the historical and cultural identification of Russia is complex, the specifics of its historical path fairly well studied. It is determined by the following factors (see table)
|
natural and geopolitical components: geographical landscape, climate, population, territory of the state and its position among neighboring countries. The vast territory, the wide possibility of migration of the population determined to a large extent both the nature of our statehood and the peculiarities of socio-economic processes. The people had to expend enormous efforts to develop new lands, and the state sought, as it grew, to consolidate the population in certain territories. The natural openness of the borders, their insecurity led to invasions, raids on our lands, both from the East and the West. The constant threat of military invasions required colossal efforts to ensure the country's security, huge material costs, as well as significant human resources. For a long time, Russia was cut off from the seas and maritime trade, and for centuries she had to lead tense bloody wars to break through to the seas. The harsh continental climate of the country sharply reduced the cycle of agricultural work. Low productivity, the dependence of labor results on weather conditions, led to the extreme stability of communal institutions in Russia, which are the guarantor of the survival of the bulk of the rural population. The natural and climatic factor contributed to the extensive nature of agriculture. |
||
|
ethnonational The factor of multinationality contributed to the mutual enrichment of the cultures of the peoples inhabiting Russia, contributed to the formation of a unique form of national community of the numerous peoples of Russia |
Religious Orthodoxy laid the foundations of the mentality, i.e. systems of spiritual values and moral guidelines, world outlook and social psychology of the people. |
social state The assertion of collectivist forms of social life and the collectivist type of thinking of the Russian people (this helped to survive in difficult, sometimes extreme conditions) determined the enormous role of the state in the history of Russia. Unlike Western countries, it was in a strong state that people saw the main condition for preserving their historical existence. Personality, state, society were not isolated, as in the West, but interconnected. |
1. What approaches to the periodization of world history existed in historical science? Give examples.
As far back as the 19th century, the historical process began to be divided into stages. J. Condorcet and L. Morgan divided it depending on the occupation of the population and the presence of the state. There are 3 stages:
Savagery (a society of primitive peoples and gatherers),
Barbarism (pre-state communities of farmers and pastoralists)
Civilization (society enters this stage with the advent of its statehood).
Formation Marxist theory divides the historical process into so-called formations, each of which is characterized by its own relations of production and its own classes:
Primitive communal,
slaveholding,
feudal,
capitalist,
Communist.
2. Explain why any periodization of the historical process is conditional. What changes in social development Is it right to talk about the onset of a new stage in world history?
First of all, the periodization of history depends on the prevailing this moment concepts regarding the driving forces in history. When the dominant concept changes, periodization will almost certainly have to change, and this is its conditionality. In addition, the change of historical eras is always a complex process, the changes leading to this change do not occur instantly, but are extended over time, while historical periods have clear boundaries. This is also the reason for the conventionality of any periodization of history.
It is possible to speak about the beginning of a new stage in world history with significant changes in the forms of economic activity and property relations, which are accompanied by significant political upheavals and profound changes in spiritual culture.
3. Fill in the table.
4. Explain why the periodization of modern times is one of the controversial issues. What changes in world social development can be associated with the onset of a new stage?
The question of the periodization of modern times is closely connected with the concept of historical development. For some historians, this is the offensive of the communist formation; for such modern times began in 1917 with the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia. For others it's formation and existence modern society; for such, it began in 1914 with the First World War, to the foundation of a society that was formed in the 19th century.
5. Using additional literature, prepare reports on thinkers who have proposed their own theories of historical development and their views.
Lev Nikolaevich Gumelev (1912-1992) was a historian, ethnologist, archaeologist, orientalist, writer and translator. This is the son of famous poets Anna Akhmatova and Nikolai Gumilyov. Because of his origin, as well as because of his own views, he became one of the victims Stalinist repressions: Arrested 4 times, served long terms in camps twice.
Lev Gumelev created his own theory. It is among the civilizational, that is, he singled out a number of stages that every civilization goes through (or rather, in this theory, every nation). According to Gumelev's theory driving force The change of these stages is a different degree of the so-called passionarity of the people. Passionarity he called an irresistible internal desire for activity, aimed at the implementation of any goals.
According to L. Gumelev, at different phases of development, people have different degrees of passionarity.
The first phase is the phase of the passionary rise of the ethnos, caused by the passionary push. The greatest rise in passionarity - the akmatic phase of ethnogenesis - is caused by the desire of people not to create integrity, but, on the contrary, to be themselves, not to obey general regulations, to reckon only with their own nature. Gradually, the passionary charge is reduced.
The second is the breakdown phase. As a rule, it is accompanied by a huge dissipation of energy. The ethnos begins to live "by inertia" thanks to the acquired values. This phase can be called "inertial". There comes a phase in which the processes of disintegration in the ethno-social system become irreversible.
The last phase of ethnogenesis is memorial, when the ethnos retains only the memory of its historical tradition.
The theory of L. Gumelev is not recognized by most historians, but continues to retain its attractiveness.
The periodization of the history of Russia contains such time periods of the development of the country that differ from each other by political, economic, social, cultural and other fundamental criteria.
initial periodization. Dozens of periodizations of the history of Russia are known. Let us take for example those proposed by the patriarchs of Russian history: N.M. Karamzin (main work "History of the Russian State"), S.M. Solovyov (the main work "History of Russia since ancient times), V.O. Klyuchevsky (main work "Course of Russian History").
N.M. Karamzin distinguishes three periods in the history of Russia (Table 1):
Table 1
As you can see, N.M. Karamzin laid down the concept: "The history of the people belongs to the tsar."
CM. Solovyov identified four periods in Russian history (Table 2):
table 2
|
Period |
Nominal or chronological framework | ||
|
From Rurik to Andrey Bogolyubsky |
period of tribal domination relations in political |
||
|
From Andrey Bogolyubsky before early XVII in. |
Period of ancestral struggle and state principles, complete triumph state beginning |
||
|
a) from Andrei Bogolyubsky to Ivan Kalita |
The beginning of the struggle of tribal and public relations |
||
|
b) from Ivan Kalita to |
Time for the unification of Russia around Moscow |
||
|
c) from Ivan III to the beginning |
The period of struggle for complete triumph of the state |
||
|
From the beginning of the XVII to the middle of the XVIII centuries. |
Entry period Russia into the system European states |
||
|
From the middle of the XVIII to the reforms of the 60s of the XIX centuries. |
New period of Russian |
Periodization S.M. Solovyov reflects, first of all, the history of statehood.
IN. Klyuchevsky also distinguished four periods in the history of Russia (Table 3):
Table 3
|
period |
Chronological framework | |
|
From the 7th to the 13th century |
Russia Dnieper, urban, commercial |
|
|
From the thirteenth to the middle of the fifteenth century. |
Russia Upper Volga, specific princely, free agricultural |
|
|
From the middle of the 15th century to the second decade of the 17th century. |
Great Russia, Moscow, royal boyar, military-agricultural |
|
|
From the beginning of the XVII to half of XIX in. |
All-Russian period imperial nobility, serf period economy, agricultural and factory |
The basis of the periodization of the historical development of Russia V.O. Klyuchevsky put to a greater extent the economy of the uvestadial development, focusing considerable attention on the factor of colonization.
Meanwhile, we believe that the periodization of N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovieva, V.O. Klyuchevsky were acceptable for their time (the level of scientific development of historiography and source studies), today it is enough to know them, and not use them as the basis for teaching a university course in history - too much time has passed since then.
The time of obvious active searches for the periodization of history was the end of the 19th and 20th centuries. At the same time, the first period of development of the Russian state has always caused the greatest controversy.
In textbooks of pre-revolutionary (D.I. Ilovaisky and others) and post-revolutionary (M.V. Nechkina and A.V. Fadeeva, B.A. Rybakov and others), including the latest (late 90s. XX century - A. N. Sakharova and V. I. Buganova, Sh. M. Munchaeva and V. M. Ustinova, etc.), it is easy to see that, for example, the concepts Kievan Rus and Novgorod are used either sporadically or not at all. It must be assumed that the textbooks reflect various conceptions of the origin of Russia. There are many, but modern conditions the most common are the Norman, Kievan and heterogeneous origins of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples (at the same time, we do not accept the "theories" of Fomenko, Koder, Kondyba and Zolin with their "exotic" concepts of the history of Russia, far from scientific justification and frankly Russophobic-falsified). In textbooks, the Norman, or "Kyiv" version of the origin of Russia is most often considered.
According to the "Kyiv" concept, Kyiv and only Kyiv is the starting point of Russian statehood. At the same time, Novgorod is not given any role, Vladimir and Moscow are considered a continuation of the development of Kievan Rus.
The Norman theory to a certain extent confirms the Novgorod beginning of Russia, but at the same time, it seems to infringe on the pride of the Russians: after all, according to the annals, the Varangians began to reign in the Novgorod land - the brothers Rurik (in Novgorod), Sineus (in Beloozero) and Truvor (in Izborsk). one
And if these lands are considered the fundamental foundation of the Russian state, then such an assumption, as it were, strengthens the Norman theory. Proceeding from this, apparently, the emphasis was placed on the "Kievan Rus", as the only beginning of the Russian state.
I would like to give some considerations regarding the Norman roots of Russian statehood. Of the three princes mentioned in the annals (PVL), only Rurik, as proved, was a real person. As for Sineus and Truvor, their appearance on the historical stage, according to A.M. Kuznetsov, is nothing but a "curiosity of historiography". Academician B.A. Rybakov in his work “The Initial Ages of Russian History” writes: “Historians have long paid attention to the anecdotal nature of Rurik’s “brothers” ..., “brothers” turned out to be a Russian translation of Swedish words. It is said about Rurik that he came “from his birth” (“Sineuse” - “his relatives” - Sineus) and a faithful squad (“Truwar” - “faithful squad” - Truvor) ... In other words, a retelling of some the Scandinavian legend about the activities of Rurik (the author of the chronicle, a Novgorodian who did not know Swedish well, took the mention in oral care (presentation - I.P.) of the traditional environment of the king for the names of his brothers). The reliability of the legend as a whole ... is not great. 2
Regarding the beginning of Russian statehood, we will make the following assumption. Many detachments (teams) of the Varangians (Normans, Scandinavians) rushed (for various reasons, in our opinion, the main one was material and economic) to the West, South and East for robberies, seizure of land, with the aim of settling on them, etc. One of these detachments, led by the military leader Rurik, who was looking for land for robberies, ended up in Novgorod land, and for a short time captured Novgorod, becoming its ruler (according to another version, the Ilmen Slavs called him to reign along with the “brothers” Sineus and Truvor in Novgorod; the fact of inviting the Varangians to reign in the Russian land has not been established). Meanwhile, soon the Varangians were expelled from Novgorod. N.M. Karamzin writes: “Slavic boyars (led by an elder, Prince Gostomysl - I.P.), dissatisfied with the power of the conquerors, which destroyed their own ..., armed (Novgorodians - I.P.) against the Normans, and drove them out ... ". 3 Consequently, in Novgorod there was a princely power headed by Prince Gostomysl (the first half of the 9th century). Moreover, in the “Life of St. Stephen of Surozh”, who was for a long time an archbishop in the Byzantine colony in the Crimea in the city of Surozh (present-day Sudak) and died in 787, the Novgorod prince Bravlin is told: “The warlike and strong prince of Russian Novgorod ... Bravlin ... with a large army, he devastated places from Korsun to Kerch, approached Surozh with great force ... broke the iron gates, entered the city ... ". 4 And thus, "Life ..." testifies that Novgorod already existed in the 8th century. and Bravlin reigned in it. Since the reign of Bravlin (the second half of the 8th century) and Gostomysl (the first half of the 9th century) already implies statehood, we believe the beginning of Russia as a state formation in the second half of the 8th century. (Novgorod), and not the end of the 9th century. (associated with the "calling" of the Varangians to reign in Kyiv.) It can be assumed that on this basis A.T. Stepanishchev considers Novgorod the first capital of the Old Russian state and therefore the "Norman theory" of origin Russian state untenable from his point of view. Taking into account the reasoning of A.T. Stepanishchev about Novgorod - the first capital of the Old Russian state - the periodization of the last two centuries of the first millennium and the first three centuries of the second millennium could have the following specific form - coinciding with the time of the transfer of the capital of the Russian lands: Novgorod period - up to 882 G.; Kyiv period - until 1157; Vladimir-Suzdal period - until 1326; Moscow period - after 1326 5
To a certain extent, one could agree with the reasoning of A. T. Stepanishchev. But still, I would like to clarify the position regarding the "first capital" and the beginning of Russian statehood. According to the research of Acad. B.A. Rybakov "... who in Kyiv began first of the princes ...", he refers to the VI century. (the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian (527-565), which is also dated by Byzantine coins). In all likelihood, it was at this time that several forest-steppe Slavic tribes merged into one large union. The union of the Middle Dnieper Slavic tribes was called Rus (primacy in the new union, one might think, originally belonged to the Rus, but Polyansky Kyiv becomes the capital). At the turn of the VIII-IX centuries. there is a development of the Dnieper union into a superunion, uniting several unions of Slavic tribes. Such an association was already a real state or was becoming one. This is another evidence of the failure of the "Norman theory" of the origin of the Russian state.
In our opinion, Novgorod statehood was already taking shape at the beginning of the 8th century, in the form of an early feudal republic, administratively divided into quintuples, headed by elected government bodies - the posadnik, the thousand and the veche - which exercised direct democracy (people's rule) and survived until the end of the 15th century. - early 16th century Kyiv statehood began to take shape in the 9th century, in the form of an early feudal monarchy, administratively and territorially divided into volosts and destinies, with the Grand Duke and the feudal assembly of the nobility at the head. It can be assumed that two centers with different types (republic and monarchy) of Russian statehood were formed. The interaction of these two centers, as well as international interaction with other states (Novgorod with the Hanseatic League, the Scandinavian countries, etc.; Kyiv with Byzantium, Western European countries, etc.) formed the Old Russian state (the specifics of Novgorod statehood persisted until the 15th and even until the 18th centuries). 6
After 1917, the Norman theory became unacceptable for Soviet historiography and source studies for political, ideological and patriotic reasons. Therefore, along with the Norman theory, Novgorod was also pushed aside as part of it. At the same time, the concept of "Kievan Rus" was not particularly advertised, and the development of the theory and heterogeneity of the origin of Russia and Ukraine was held back.
Another topical moment in the development of the periodization of the history of Russia is the abolition of serfdom as the main milestone in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Many authors argue that the Manifesto of February 19, 1861 gave practically nothing to Russia and the situation of the peasants worsened even more, etc., although they note this act as a turning point in the movement towards capitalism. There are also supporters of another concept, who propose to consider the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905-1907 as the beginning of the development of capitalism in Russia. and the subsequent Stolypin agrarian reform. In addition, parliamentarism as a sign of bourgeoisness was born precisely in these years. There is something to think about here, since Stolypin's agrarian reform also did little for Russia, it even provoked protests from the peasantry, which went as far as clashes with the police.
Along with the uncertainty of certain provisions of the periodization of the history of Russia until October 1917, there are difficulties in assessing the time from 1917 to 1991, etc. Based on the analysis of the concepts of many modern historians, it is possible to propose the use of the following periodization in the university course of Russian history (Table 4):
Table 4
|
Chronological framework | ||
|
From the turn of the 7th-9th centuries. until the 13th century |
Education and becoming Old Russian states |
|
|
From the 13th century until the middle of the fifteenth century. |
Specific fragmentation |
|
|
15th - 18th centuries |
Russian unification principalities into one centralized state, extension Russian lands |
|
|
18th - early 20th centuries |
Russian empire |
|
|
Late 10s - late 80s of XX century. |
Soviet state |
|
|
Since the beginning of the 90s. |
New Russia (provisional name) |
It should be noted that this periodization of the history of Russia is not indisputable, but it incorporates a variety of points of view of different authors and specialists. In educational and teaching work, one should also consider the re-odization given in the textbooks that students work on.
- In contact with 0
- Google+ 0
- OK 0
- Facebook 0
