Any large state in its history goes through stages of formation, expansion, weakening and collapse. The collapse of a state is almost always painful and is considered by descendants as a tragic page in history. Kievan Rus was no exception. Its collapse was accompanied by internecine wars and struggle with external enemies. It began in the 11th century and ended by the end of the 13th century.

Feudal structure of Rus'	According to established tradition, each prince did not bequeath his possessions to one son, but distributed the possessions among all his sons. A similar phenomenon led to the fragmentation of not only Rus', but also dozens of other feudal monarchies in Eurasia.
Transformation of estates into fiefdoms. Formation of dynasties	Often, after the death of an appanage prince, his son became the next prince, although formally the Grand Duke of Kiev could appoint any of his relatives to the appanage. Without feeling dependent on Kyiv, the appanage princes pursued an increasingly independent policy.
Economic independence	Due to the predominance of subsistence farming, the estates, especially on the outskirts of Rus', had little need for the development of a national transport and trade infrastructure.
Weakening of the capital	The struggle of appanage princes for the right to own Kiev harmed the city itself and weakened its power. Over time, possession of the ancient capital of Rus' ceased to be the priority of the princes.
Global changes in the world	By the end of the 12th century, against the background of the weakening of Byzantium and the activation of nomads in the Great Steppe and Asia Minor, the “Road from the Varangians to the Greeks” lost its former significance. At one time, he played an important role in the unification of the Kyiv and Novgorod lands. The decline of the Path led to a weakening of ties between the ancient centers of Rus'.
Mongolian factor	After the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the title of Grand Duke lost its former meaning, since the appointment of each appanage prince depended not on the grand-ducal will, but on the Horde label.

Consequences of the collapse of Rus'

Formation of individual East Slavic peoples	Although during the era of the unity of Rus' there were differences in the traditions, social structure and speech of different East Slavic tribes, during the years of feudal fragmentation these differences became much more pronounced.
Strengthening regional centers	Against the backdrop of the weakening of Kyiv, some appanage principalities strengthened. Some of them (Polotsk, Novgorod) were important centers before, while others (Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Turov, Vladimir-Volynsky) began to play an important role at the turn of the 12th - 13th centuries.
Urban decline	Unlike rural subsistence farms, cities needed the supply of many goods. The emergence of new borders and the loss of uniform laws led to the decline of urban crafts and trade.
Political decline	Fractured Rus' could not resist the Mongol invasion. The expansion of Russian lands stopped, and some of them came under the control of neighboring states (Poland, knightly states, the Horde).
Formation and rise of new states.	In the northeastern and northwestern parts of Rus', new centers arose, which began to reassemble the East Slavic lands around themselves. The Principality of Lithuania was born in Novogrudok, the capital of which was later moved to Vilna. The Moscow Principality was formed in the northeastern part of Rus'. It was these two entities that began the successful process of unifying the East Slavic lands. The Lithuanian principality eventually turned into a unitary class-representative monarchy, and the Moscow principality into an absolute one.

The collapse of Rus' and world history

Representatives of academic science are unanimous that the stage of feudal fragmentation is a natural and inevitable part of the history of any feudal state. The collapse of Rus' was accompanied by the complete loss of a single all-Russian center and powerful foreign policy upheavals. Many believe that it was during this period that three East Slavic nationalities clearly stood out from the previously unified Old Russian nationality. Although centralized states on the territory of Rus' began to form already in the 14th century, the last appanage principalities were liquidated only at the end of the 15th century.

It is believed that the disintegration into principalities began under (1019-1054) and intensified after his death. The process under (1113-1125) - the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise - was suspended due to the strength of his authority.

In 1097, on the initiative of Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich, the princes were organized, at which two decisions were made:

• stop;
• be guided by the principle “Princes should rule only on those lands that belonged to their fathers.”

This fragmentation of the lands of Rus' was practically legitimized.

The final collapse of the Old Russian state

The period of fragmentation of the state of Kievan Rus is associated with the death of the last Kyiv prince - Mstislav the Great, son of Vladimir Monomakh, in 1132.

The division of the Old Russian state into independent principalities did not solve the problem of civil strife. The situation was complicated by the order of succession by seniority - the brother, nephew, son and the rest of the relatives of the deceased claimed the inheritance, but seniority was not always easy to establish. The principalities began to be fragmented and divided into fiefs. The princes are becoming poor, their power is weakening.

Conflicts between the boyars and the princes are intensifying, as the boyars want to influence politics and reduce the power of the princes.

The main reasons for the collapse of Kievan Rus

Kievan Rus was not a centralized state.

Economic reasons:

• exploitation of the dependent population;
• the prince's desire to strengthen his principality;
• lack of opportunity to gain wealth through overseas trade;
• the influence of the natural method of farming (remote territories, developing on the basis of economic and economic isolation, were self-sufficient social organisms), which created.

Political reasons:

• independent governing bodies in the volosts;
• the desire of the governors (representatives of the prince of Kyiv) to separate from Kyiv;
• support by townspeople for governors;
• lack of a firm order of government;
• the desire and efforts of the prince to transfer power by inheritance.

Consequences of the collapse of Kievan Rus

As a result, new political formations will take the place of the Old Russian state.

Negative consequences of the collapse of Kievan Rus:

• fragmentation had a negative impact on the defense capability of the state in the face of foreign policy enemies (from the north-west - Catholic German orders and Lithuanian tribes, in the south-east - and to a lesser extent - since 1185 there have been no invasions outside the framework of Russian civil strife);
• inter-princely strife intensified.

Positive consequences of the collapse of Kievan Rus:

• fragmentation contributed to the active development of the economy and culture of Russian lands;
• a general increase in the territories of Rus' due to intensive colonization.

Historical path from formation to collapse of the Old Russian stateEastern Slavs passed in three centuries. The unification of scattered Slavic tribes by Prince Rurik in 862 gave a powerful impetus to the development of the country, which reached its peak in the middle XI century. But after a hundred years, instead of a powerful state, dozens of independent, small principalities were formed. Period XII - XVI centuries gave rise to the definition of “Appanage Rus'”.

The beginning of the collapse of a single state

The heyday of the Russian state occurred during the reign of Grand Duke Yaroslav the Wise. He, like his predecessors of the Rurik family, did a lot to strengthen external relations, increase borders and state power.

Kievan Rus was actively involved in trade and developed handicraft and agricultural production. Historian N.M. Karamzin wrote: “Ancient Russia buried its power and prosperity with Yaroslav.” Yaroslav the Wise died in 1054, this date is considered the beginningcollapse of the Old Russian state.

Lyubechsky Congress of Princes. Trying to stop the decay

From that moment on, strife for power broke out between the heirs of the princely throne. His three sons entered into the dispute, but the younger Yaroslavichs, the prince’s grandchildren, did not lag behind them. This happened at the time when the Polovtsians first raided Rus' from the steppes. The princes, at war with each other, sought to achieve power and wealth at any cost. Some of them, hoping to receive rich inheritances, entered into agreements with enemies and brought their hordes to Rus'.

Some princes saw the fatality of the feud for the country, one of whom was Yaroslav’s grandson Vladimir Monomakh. In 1097, he convinced his princely relatives to meet in the city of Lyubech, on the Dnieper, and agree on the rule of the country. They managed to divide the lands among themselves. Having kissed the cross in fidelity to the agreement, they decreed: “Let the Russian land be a common fatherland, and whoever rises up against his brother, we will all rise up against him.” But the agreement did not last long: one of the brothers blinded the other, and anger and mistrust flared up in the family with renewed vigor. The congress of princes in Lyubech actually opened a wide way for the collapse of the Old Russian state, giving it the legal force of the agreement.

Called by the people in 1113 to the princely throne in the city of Kyiv, Vladimir Monomakh stopped the disunity of the state, but only for a while. He managed to do a lot to strengthen the country, but he did not reign for long. His son Mstislav tried to continue his father’s work, but after his death in 1132, the temporary period of unity of Rus' also ended.

Further fragmentation of the state

Nothing was holding back the decay anymoreOld Russian state, for centuriesleaving in an era of political disunity. Scientists call it the period of specific, or feudal, fragmentation.

Fragmentation, according to historians, was a natural stage in the development of the Russian state. In Europe, no country could avoid this during the period of early feudalism. The power of the prince at that time was weak, the functions of the state were insignificant, and the desire of the growing rich landowners to strengthen their appanage power and break from obedience to centralized rule was understandable.

Events accompanying the collapse of the Old Russian state

The scattered Russian lands, little connected with each other, conducted a subsistence economy, sufficient for their own consumption, but not capable of ensuring the unity of the state. The timing also coincided with a decline in the world influence of the Byzantine Empire, which weakened and soon ceased to be a major center. Thus, the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which allowed Kyiv to carry out international relations for many centuries, also lost its significance.

Kievan Rus united several dozen tribes with complex relationships within the clan. In addition, the raids of nomads also made their life more difficult. To escape, people left their habitable places for sparsely populated lands and set up their homes there. This is how the distant northeastern part of Rus' was settled, which led to an increase in the territory of the state and the loss of influence of the Kyiv prince on them.

The principle of inheritance of power, the principle of primogeniture, which existed in many European states, provided that all the lands of the feudal father were inherited by his eldest son. The land holdings of the Russian prince were divided among all the heirs, which fragmented the lands and power.

The emergence of private feudal land ownership also contributed to the generation of feudal fragmentation and the collapse of the Old Russian state intoindependent lands. The warriors, who often received payment for their service from the prince in the form of land plots or simply took them away from the weaker ones, began to settle down on the land. Large feudal estates - boyar villages - appeared, and the power and influence of their owners grew. The presence of a large number of such properties becomes incompatible with a state with a large territory and a weak administrative apparatus.

The reasons for the collapse of the Old Russian state briefly

Historians call the fragmentation of Rus' into small appanage principalities a process that was natural in those conditions.

They list many objective reasons that contributed to it:

The presence of disunity between the Slavic tribes and the superiority of subsistence farming, sufficient for the community to live.

The emergence of new, rich and influential feudal lords, an increase in princely-boyar land ownership, who did not want to share power and income with Kiev.

Increasing struggle between numerous heirs for power and land.

Migration of tribal communities to new distant lands due to the robberies of nomads, removal from Kyiv, loss of contact with it.

The loss of world dominance by Byzantium, the decrease in trade turnover on the trade route to it, the weakening of Kyiv’s international relations.

The emergence of new cities as centers of appanage principalities, the growth of their importance against the background of the weakening of the power of Kyiv.

Consequences of the collapse of Rus'

Consequences of the collapse of the Old Russian stateare both positive and negative. Positive consequences include:

the emergence and flourishing of cities in numerous principalities;

searches for trade routes to replace the Byzantine one, which had lost its former importance;

preservation of a single spirituality, religion, as well as cultural traditions of the Russian people.

did not destroy the nation itself. Scientists note that the spiritual and cultural life of individual principalities retained common features and unity of style, although they were diverse. Cities were built - centers of new destinies. New trade routes developed.

The negative consequences of this event are:

incessant princely wars among themselves;

dividing land into small plots in favor of all heirs;

decreased ability to defend oneself, lack of unity in the country.

Significant negative consequences had a very serious impact on the life of the Old Russian state during the period of collapse. But scientists do not consider it a retreat back in the development of Rus'.

Some specific centers

During this historical period, the power of Kyiv and its importance as the first city of the state, gradually declining, came to naught. Now it is just one of the large Russian cities. At the same time, the importance of other lands and their centers is growing.

The Vladimir-Suzdal land played an important role in the political life of Rus'; the princes here were the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh. Andrei Bogolyubsky, who chose the city of Vladimir for permanent residence, did not even leave it to rule Kiev and Novgorod, which he temporarily subjugated to himself in 1169. Declaring himself the Grand Duke of All Rus', he made Vladimir for some time the capital of the state.

The Novgorod land was the first to emerge from the rule of the Grand Duke. The structure of administration of the estate that developed there is called by historians a feudal republic. The local residents themselves called their state “Mr. Veliky Novgorod.” The highest power here was represented by the people's assembly - the veche, which removed unwanted princes, inviting others to rule.

Mongol invasion

Nomadic Mongol tribes united at the beginning of the 12th centurycentury Genghis Khan, invaded the territory of Rus'.Collapse of the Old Russian Stateweakened him, making him a desirable prey for invaders.

The Russians fought desperately, but each of the princes considered himself the commander-in-chief, their actions were not coordinated, most often they stood up to defend only their lands.

For many centuries, Mongol-Tatar rule was established in Rus'.

The Grand Duke of Kyiv Mstislav the Great died in 1132. After his death, a period began that can be characterized as the collapse of Kievan Rus. The first sign was Polotsk, which separated from the unified state. In the year of Mstislav’s death, the Polotsk princes returned there from Byzantium. The city residents accepted them, and Polotsk began to live an independent life. In 1135, Veliky Novgorod seceded and refused to send an annual monetary tribute to Kyiv.

Mstislav's brother Yaropolk reigned in Kyiv until 1139. After his death, his next brother, Vyacheslav, began to reign. But then the Chernigov prince Vsevolod intervened in the fate of the Kyiv grand-ducal table. He was the son of Prince Oleg, who in 1093 expelled Vladimir Monomakh from Chernigov and became a prince there.

Vsevolod attacked Kyiv, expelled Vyacheslav and declared himself Grand Duke. The entire branch of the Monomakhs opposed the invader. The most energetic of them, Izyaslav, who was Vyacheslav’s nephew, tried to return the capital city to the descendants of the Monomakhs. However, Vsevolod, thanks to his intelligence and cruelty, remained the Grand Duke until his death in 1146.

After the death of Vsevolod, his brother Igor became the Great Prince of Kyiv. But he turned out to be a narrow-minded and untalented person. During the month of his reign, he turned all the people of Kiev against himself. Meanwhile, Izyaslav Mstislavovich, who was the grandson of Monomakh, came from Volyn at the head of detachments of Torques. The Kiev militia left Prince Igor. He tried to escape, but his horse got stuck in a swamp near the Lybid River. Igor was captured and imprisoned in a hole.

The third brother Svyatoslav Olegovich undertook to save him. He gathered a strong squad in Chernigov to rescue his brother from captivity. And he, while in prison, became a monk. But the hatred of the Kievites towards the tonsured Igor was extremely great. To prevent the prisoner from being killed, Izyaslav ordered him to be transported from the cutting to the Church of Hagia Sophia. It was a holy place enjoying the right of refuge. But when Igor was taken to the temple, the people of Kiev took him away from the guards and trampled him underfoot. This happened in 1147.

After this, a war began between Kyiv and Chernigov. At the same time, the Rostov-Suzdal land separated and became independent. The son of Monomakh, Yuri Dolgoruky, ruled there. He was considered the legitimate head of the senior line of Monomakhs. But Prince Izyaslav, whom the people of Kiev loved, belonged to the younger line of Monomakhs.

There is no point in listing the endless clashes between princes who are closely related. It should only be noted that Yuri Dolgoruky reigned in Kyiv in 1149-1151 and 1155-1157. He died of poison in 1157. The Rostov-Suzdal principality was inherited by his son Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky. He received his nickname because he lived in the village of Bogolyubovo. And Yuri Dolgoruky is officially considered the founder of Moscow. This city was first mentioned in chronicles in 1147. It is also said that Andrei Bogolyubsky was involved in its strengthening (ditch, walls).

It should be noted that the collapse of Kievan Rus is characterized by internecine wars between the children and grandchildren of Vladimir Monomakh. The Rostov-Suzdal princes Yuri Dolgoruky and Andrei Bogolyubsky fought with the Volyn princes Izyaslav Mstislavovich, Mstislav and Roman for the Kiev throne. It was a struggle between uncles and nephews. But it cannot be seen as a family quarrel.

In accordance with the generally accepted rules of that time, chroniclers wrote: “the prince decided”, “the prince accomplished”, “the prince went” - regardless of the age of this prince. And he could have been 7 years old, or 30, or 70. Naturally, it couldn’t have been that way. In reality, military-political groups fought among themselves. They expressed the interests of certain lands of the disintegrating Kievan Rus.

The process of disintegration began after the decision of the Lyubech Congress of Princes, held in 1097. It marked the beginning of a confederation of independent states. After this, dozens of years passed, and by the beginning of the 13th century Kievan Rus was divided into several independent principalities.

Principalities of Kievan Rus on the map

The northeast of Rus' became isolated, as well as the southwestern lands, including the Kiev region, Galicia and Volyn. The Chernigov principality became independent, where the Olegovichs and Davydovichs reigned. Smolensk and Turovo-Pinsk land separated. Veliky Novgorod became completely independent. As for the conquered and subordinated Polovtsians, they retained their autonomy, and the Russian princes did not even think of encroaching on it.

The state collapse of Kievan Rus can be explained by weak trade and economic ties and the loss of ethnic unity. So, for example, Andrei Bogolyubsky, who captured Kyiv in 1169, gave it to his warriors for 3-day plunder. Before this, in Rus' only foreign cities were dealt with in this way. But such cruel practices have never extended to Russian cities.

Bogolyubsky’s decision to plunder shows that for him and his squad, Kyiv in 1169 was as foreign a city as any Polish or German settlement. This indicates that people living in different principalities ceased to consider themselves a single Russian people. That is why Kievan Rus turned out to be fragmented into separate fiefs and principalities.

In turn, some principalities were also not united lands. So in the Smolensk land there were about a dozen appanages. The same thing was observed in the territories of the Chernigov and Rostov-Suzdal principalities. In Galicia there was a region in which it was not the Rurikovichs and the Bolokhov princes who ruled - the descendants of the ancient Slavic leaders. The pagan Baltic and Finno-Ugric tribes, which were divided into Mordovians, Yatvingians, Lithuanians, Zhmud, Estonians, Zyryans, Cheremis, Zavolotsk Chud, remained alien to Rus'.

In this state, Kievan Rus entered the 13th century. Fragmented and weakened by civil strife, it became a tasty morsel for the invaders. As a result, the invasion of Batu put a logical point in this issue.

Alexey Starikov

In 1097, princes from different lands of Kievan Rus came to the city of Lyubech and proclaimed a new principle of relations among themselves: “Let everyone maintain his fatherland.” Its adoption meant that the princes abandoned the laddered system of inheritance of princely thrones (it went to the eldest in the entire grand-ducal family) and moved to inheriting the throne from father to eldest son within individual lands. By the middle of the 12th century. the political fragmentation of the Old Russian state with its center in Kyiv was already a fait accompli. It is believed that the implementation of the principle adopted in Lyubech was a factor in the collapse of Kievan Rus. However, not the only one and not the most important one.

Political fragmentation was an inevitable phenomenon. Throughout the 11th century. Russian lands developed along an ascending line: the population grew, the economy grew stronger, large princely and boyar land ownership strengthened, and the cities became richer. They became less and less dependent on Kyiv and were burdened by its tutelage. To maintain order within his “fatherland,” the prince had enough strength and power. Local boyars and cities supported their princes in their quest for independence: they were closer, more closely connected with them, and were better able to protect their interests. External reasons were added to internal reasons. The Polovtsian raids weakened the southern Russian lands, the population left the troubled lands to the northeastern (Vladimir, Suzdal) and southwestern (Galich, Volyn) outskirts. The Kyiv princes weakened militarily and economically, and their authority and influence in solving all-Russian affairs fell.

The negative consequences of the political fragmentation of Rus' are concentrated in the military-strategic area: the defense capability in the face of external threats has weakened, and inter-princely feuds have intensified. But fragmentation also had positive aspects. The separation of lands contributed to their economic and cultural development. The collapse of a single state did not mean a complete loss of the principles that united the Russian lands. The seniority of the Grand Duke of Kyiv was formally recognized; Church and linguistic unity was preserved; The legislation of the appanages was based on the norms of Russian Pravda. In the popular consciousness until the XIII-XIV centuries. there were ideas about the unity of the lands that were part of Kievan Rus.

At the end of the 12th century. 15 independent lands, essentially independent states, emerged. The largest were: in the southwest - the Galician-Volyn principality; in the northeast - the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality; in the north-west - the Novgorod Republic.

Reasons for fragmentation:

External: no external threat
Economic:

Dominance of subsistence farming

Shifting trade routes

· The economy of individual lands is developing, the principalities are turning into powerful states. Education

Socio-political:

· Multinational composition

· Kyiv is losing its historical role

· The strife of the princes does not stop

· The boyars begin to fight the princes

· Mechanism of inheritance of supreme power

Consequences of the collapse of Rus':

Economic development of each principality

Easier to govern the principality

Development of cities, crafts, trade
+Emergence of new centers of chronicle writing

Development of culture

Development of peasant farming, development of new arable land;

Weakening the country's defense capabilities

Increased danger of external invasion

Principalities are being fragmented

Civil strife

The collapse of Rus' was not complete:

· Kyiv's influence remains

· United Church

The main political centers of Rus' during the period of fragmentation: common features and differences.

During the period of fragmentation, 12 principality states were formed on the territory of Rus': Rostov-Suzdal, Murmansk, Ryazan, Smolensk, Kiev, Pereyaslavl, Galicia-Volinsky, Chernigov, Polotsk-Minsk, Turovo-Pinsk, Tmutarakan, Novgorod land. Within some of them, the process of division into smaller principalities continued.

In the Old Russian lands there are 3 ways of forming feudal property: the land of the prince and his relatives; lands of "placed" warriors (feudal nobility); lands of the “best people” of the community (tribal nobility). Due to the underdevelopment of socio-economic relations and the primacy of external causes during the formation of the Old Russian state, the third method was preferable. In Soviet historiography, the economic option for the development of feudal relations in the Old Russian lands was considered a priority, i.e. feudal fragmentation is a natural stage in the development of society. The development of a natural economy ultimately leads to the fact that individual property subjects are able to maintain their own property apparatus.

In the 11th century The unified Old Russian state collapsed into 13-15 principalities. The most prominent in their development features were: the Vladimir-Suzdal, Galician-Volyn and Novgorod principalities. Kiev lost its authority. For the princes, the occupation of the Kyiv throne became a purely symbolic event, however, this very fact gave rise to strife and civil strife.

Novgorod Principality.

The geopolitical position of the Novgorod land was determined by the conditions of its socio-economic and political development. There are no enemies. Trade with Europe and the Scandinavian countries.

vast territory; the climate and soils are unsuitable for agriculture; distance from the steppe; proximity to the Baltic Sea and many lakes.

Compared to other Slavic lands, the conditions for agriculture here were unfavorable. But there was a lot of furs and salt. Novgorod imported fabrics, metal products, raw materials for handicraft production, exported furs and handicrafts. The Novgorod land was on the way “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” And it was trade that determined the social differentiation of the population. There is an opinion among historians that Novgorod and Staraya Ladoga arose as Varangian tax collection centers, where Slovenians, Krivichi and representatives of the Finno-Ugric people (Merya) then began to settle. Novgorod played a significant role in the political history of Ancient Rus'. Oleg, Vladimir, Yaroslav began their ascension to the Kiev throne from Novgorod, recruiting Varangians into their squad. These facts indicate that even during the period of statehood, Novgorod was not a mononational center of the Slavic lands, but was a kind of link between Russia and Europe.

Traders and craftsmen predominated. But still, the social elite of Novgorod society consisted, first of all, of the landowner boyars. The class of boyars was formed here differently than in other regions: they were not the prince’s warriors, but local tribal nobility, therefore, independent of the prince (they did not owe him anything). The intermediaries between the Novgorod boyars and the outside world were merchants (guests) who conducted trade on their behalf. Since the raw materials belonged to the boyars, they owned the majority of the profits from trade. The main partners of the Novgorodians were the German city of Lübeck (the Gondze Union between independent cities of Germany) and Swedish merchants from the island of Gotland. The Novgorodians themselves made only sporadic trips to Europe, because... ships in the X-XIII centuries. could not make long voyages.

Craftsmen in Novgorod were largely dependent on the nobility. Very often, the workshops of the artisans themselves were located on the territory of the boyar estates. Despite the craft and trade nature of the bulk of the population of Novgorod, real power in the city belonged to the boyar landowners, whose estates were located both within the Novgorod “hundreds” and in distant colonies. Due to the characteristics of the Novgorod land, the boyars were firmly connected with the foreign fur trade, and this gave them great economic strength and corporate cohesion.

The history of the Novgorod Republic begins with 1136, when Vladimir Monomakh’s grandson Vsevolod Mstislavich was expelled from Novgorod. From this period, a unique political system was established in Novgorod, called the Novgorod feudal or aristocratic republic (slide 8). In reality, political power was concentrated in the hands of 300-400 families (usually boyars), who were the subjects of political law, i.e. participants of local government bodies - Veche. Rich merchants could also take part in its work. The veche elected the head of local government - mayor and Tysyatsky. In modern historical literature, opinions about the functions of Tysyatsky differ. Classically: thousand led the people's militia. However, they now believe that if this was its function, it was a secondary one. Primarily, Tysyatsky was responsible for collecting taxes, because By profession, Novgorod artisans and merchants were divided into hundreds, which united into thousands. The Veche also elected the Novgorod archbishop. This was a unique phenomenon, because... in all other lands, the bishop was appointed by the Kyiv Metropolitan, and then confirmed by the Kyiv Metropolis. The archbishop was responsible for foreign policy, sealed all international treaties of the Novgorodians, and was in charge of the Novgorod treasury

: limited monarchy