Library:A History of the U.S.S.R./Part 1

Early Times

The Primitive Community System in Our Country

Primeval Human Society

The Birth of Human Society

The first traces of human life in Europe date back to that distant penod when the climate was warm and humid. The luxununt, eveie»ee*i fo ests coiitoisled of laiuel, box, yew and othei species of trees. The and nveibanks abounded

in animals which today aie either extinct (as the pi e-hjstoiic elephant, and a peouluit genus, ut ihuiooeios) or xvh ch now occur in bouthern lands (as the h ppopotaimis and leopaid).

Human beings lived in small giuups (‘‘primitive hordes”). The hrst implements used by man ueie lough-ch^ppca stones. People obtained their food in common by gulh. nng snails insects, fiuit and edible roots. The hunting of small animals was still a casual pursuil . Because of the warm climate man had no need for the protection of special shelters or clothing.

Gradually the climate hardened and grew still more humid. Large glaciers formed in the north, and moved down the mountains. The luxuriant forests receded farther south, and the warm-climate animals either went south with them, or vanished completely. Vast areas were under ice.

Man however remained and adapted himself to the harsher climatic conditions inasmuch as he had learned the use of fire. At first he learned how to keep up a fire, and then how to obtain it by rubbing dry sticks together and by striking sparks out of stone. Fire kept man warm, protected him against wild beasts, and allowed him to eat his meat and fish cooked.

The earliest squatting places of man in our country are those discov- ered in the Caucasus (near Sukhumi) and in the Crimea. A large number of split animal bones and rude stone implements have been found in oaves not far from Simferopol. These were the dwellings of primitive hunters who used natural caves as protection against beasts and as shelter in time of bad weather.

When the Glacial Age was at its height, a large cap of ice covered the European territory of our country, extending to the Middle Don and the Southern Dnieper (almost to Dniepropetrovsk). The ice cap over Siberia was less considerable.

The beginning of the first millennium B.C. witnessed the birth of a class society in the southern mountains of Transcaucasia and in Asia Minor. The iron ploughshare and the iron ax brought about the decline of ^he primitive commimity system.

This blanket of ice cjovered our land for many tens of thousands of years. The glaciers melted slowly and the ice gradually receded to the north, leaving behind it ridges of boulders.

At first the land freed from the glaciers was covered with tundra. Torrents of thawing ice out channels into the soil and formed the liver systems. The abundance of moisture stimulated the rapid growth of grass and forests. The plains, woods, riverbanks, lake shores, etc., became the abode of large animals — ^the mammoth and rhinoceros, as well as the reindeer and other specimens of the northern and Arctic animal world, Man’s most dangerous enemies — the cave lion, cave bear and cave hyena— inhabited the hills and caves. Man followed the retreating glaciers to the north.

The Primitive Community

Equipped only with the wooden club, the wooden spear and the crudest stone implements man was unable to combat the ri- gorous conditions of nature and the wild beasts singlehanded.

Danger dogged him at every step. Only by helping each other could men protect themselves against the attacks of beasts and obtain the food they needed. This co-opeiation was especially necessary when hunting big game like the mammoth, rhinoceros, the wild bull and other beasts. In appearance the mammoth resembled the elephant, but was much larger and stronger. The mammoth chief means o£ defence were his enormous upcurving tusks-

The mammoth was a herbivorous animal and dangerous only when being pursued. To capture such a strong beast people had to set traps or to lie in wait for their quarry near watering places or steep cli&.

Collective life led to the formation of the primitive commumty. Everything, with the exception of some insignificant articles, be- longed to the community; private property did not yet exist. In the primitive community there were no rich and poor, no exploitation of man by man. Productive forces were very poorly developed.

People learned to make mud-huts and hovels as a shelter from the cold. Not long ago the remains of such a dwelling place were discov- ered on the Don, near the village of Gagarino. The bottom of t e hut was a shallow, oval pit the sides of which were lined with bould^ and large bones, to which poles were affixed, joined together at e top and forming a roof covered with twigs and hides. The bones ^ ^ mammoth, rhinoceros, bull and various small animals were found scattered inside the hut. Ornaments were also discovered there — the teeth of small beasts of prey, shells, and several carved bone figures of women. With the development of Soviet archeology as many as 200 habitats of ancient human society have been discovered on Soviet land, They are scattered in various places in the southern half of the European territory, in the Altai Mountains and in Western and l^astem Siberia, and are evidence of the profound antiquity of human society in our country.

The Matriarchal Clan

Origin of the Matriarchal Clan

Origin of the Matriarchal Clan, As the climate changed, the vast glaciers vanished. They remained only in the extreme north and on mountain peaks. Gradually the conditions of nature became more like what they are today. The animal world changed; many large beasts, such as the mammoth and the cave lion, became extinct. Man*s struggle for existence was considerably mitigated.

The primitive community had had no definite social organization and readily disintegrated. On the other hand, the existence of a common economy called for a more stable and permanent social organization.

In the course of many thousands of years people handed down from generation to generation acquired labour habits. They learned to make implements of various sizes and shape from flint and bone, such as axes, hammers, knives, celts, picks, spear points, etc. They started polishing the surfaces of the stone implements, making them easier to handle. People learned to sharpen and pierce stones and fix them onto handles. Of great importance was the appearance of the bow and arrow which enabled the hunter to kill his quarry from afar.

His new production technique enabled man to rise to a higher stage of human civilization, that of barbarism. Man began to make earthenware, which was necessary for storing water, especially in dry regions. At ‘first, the utensils were made of wood, twigs and skins. Then, to make them more durable, the walls of the wooden vessels were lined with clay. Still later the entire vessel was made of clay alone. Finally, the potter's wheel appeared, and with it pottery pro- duction. The “plaiting of baskets from twigs and rushes anticipated the weaving of the fibre of wild plants. This was the beginning of textile production. Coarse, hand- woven fabric w^as used for clothing, bags, and the like, !Man’s vocations became more intricate and diverse. He began to use nets woven of fibre for fishing. His chief hunting weapons were the spear, the harpoon, and the bow and arrow. Dming their excavations archeologists sometimes find the bones of large beasts .of prey with flint arrowheads deeply imbedded in them. At first women gathered fmit and berries; then they began planting grain, tubers and edible roots. For this purpose a plot of'fertile land, usually in a river valley, was loosened by means of a pointed stick — ^the hoo. Barley, millet and wheat were sown. In this way arose the primitive form of hoe agriculture.

Primitive agriculture, which was carried on chiefly by the women, provided mankind with a more stable economic basis. Gradually, in the course of centuries, primitive people began to revere woman as the s^rmbol of fertility. Realizing the importance of maternity, they also honoured woman as the ancestral Mother. And woman, as the Mother, tiller of the soil, and guardian of the collective life of the group, became head of the primitive matriarchal clan.

When a man took a wife, he went to live with her clan, where he was subordinate to his wife’s mother. At clan meetings, woman, the Mother, was in command, and members of the clan honoured only their female ancestors. For the murder of or insult to one of their kin, the entire clan sought revenge. Inter-olan blood feuds beeamo endless wars. For purposes of war several clans Joined to form tribes. Clans consisted of several hundred people, and were united chiefly for work. A tribe combined a number of clans comprising several thousand people, who primarily formed a military group. At tribal meabings the armed people — ^men and women— elected leaders and elders, and decided questions of war and peace. Women were also tribal chieftains.

The men, who were hunters, tamed wild animals. This laid the foundation for animal herding. The flrst domestic animal was the dog. In northern regions man tamed the reindeer.

Habitations of Clan Communities

Many dwelling places of clan communities have been found all over our country, from the shores of the Black Sea and the valleys of the Transcaucasian Mountains to the Far North, and from Byelorussia to Eastern Siberia. Tais material has enabled scientists to determine how people lived in that remote epoch

In the forest belt people lived along riverbanks and lake shores. Each settlement belonged to a single clan and consisted of a few hovels. The dwellers ’ chief occupation was fishing, and to somo extent hunting. In some places elan settlements were located in g/oups, a fact that points to the rise of a tribal union of clans.

In the south, where the country consisted of mixed forest and steppeland, and especially in the fertile river valleys, the chief occu- pation of the population was tilling the ground with the hoe. As an example of a primitive agricultural society we have the Tripolye civilization, relics of which were first discovered near the village of Tripolye (not far from Kiev). Numerous settlements of the Tripolye civilization have been found on Ukrainian territory, west of the Dnie- per; they are said to be about 6,000 years old. Settlements were located on high banks or on the slopes of ravines at the bottom of which streams flowed. The site selected for a dwelling was spread with clay which was baked hard with the help of bonfires. The walls were built of piles and sticks coated with clay. The result was a fairly spacious dwelling with several heai*ths inside. These crudely constructed houses accommodated up to a hundred and more people. The people planted wheat, barley and millet not far from their place of abode. Wooden flint-tipped hoes were used to turn up the soil. The grain was ground between large stone slabs.

A large number of clay statuettes of animals have been found; a magical power was presumably ascribed to these statuettes which were supposed to protect the domestic herd and help it to multiply. Pictures of domestic animals are also to be found on vessels.

Occasionally articles made of copper are found in the villages of the Tripolyo civilization. Little casting moulds have been unearthed, pointing to the fact that some of these articles were made at the place whore they were found. The frequent occurrence of metallic objects coincides with the period when the matriarchal clan system began to decline.

The Patriarchal Clan

The Development of Herding

The domestication of wild animals was of gieat importance in the life of the clan communities. Possessing domestic animals, people had a constant supply of food and were no longer dependent on the outcome of their hunt, which was not always a success. The taming of dogs and reindeer (in the north) was followed by the dom^ stication of otb r animals such as cattle, goats, sheep, swine and horses. Gradually herding became the chief pursuit of the community- At first the cattle lived all year by grazing near the set- tlement. Later the people began to make hay as fodder for the winter; in the north thin leafy twigs were dried and shredded for this purpose. During the winter domestic animals lived in the same houses with the people. Later special sheds were put up for the animals. Large herds of cattle could not remain in one place for a great length of time. People therefore began to migrate with their cattle in search of fresh pasturage. Thus, nomad herding originated in the vast steppe land- Dairy farming, and the making of cheese and butter appeared with the development of cattle raising. Man learned to treat the wool of animals and to spin thread from it; then he began to make warm fabrics which were a good protection against the cold. Later the weav- ing loom was invented.

The breeding of domestic animals enabled man to use them in turning up the soil. This led to the appearance of the first tilling implement —the wooden plough. The first primitive plough was probably a tree limb with a bent, pointed bough or rhizome.

Origin of the Patriarchal Clan

Herding was the chief occupation of the man. It greatly enhanced his importance in the community. Man, the livestock breeder, replaced woman in agriculture: he tilled the land with the aid of animals (the bull, deer and horse) and freed woman from heavy physical labour with the hoe or plough. By using draft animals, man transformed hoe agriculture into plough farming. Kinship began to be traced from the male line, and no longer from the female -The matriarchal clan, which had existed heretofore, disappeared, and was replaced by the patriarchal clan, that is, a union of relatives who originated from a common male ancestor.

It became the established custom for a man’s children to inherit their father’s property, and this led to the accumulation of wealth in the family. Rich families began to withdraw from the clan. This accelerated the disintegration of the primitive community system.

Development of Copper and Bronze Age Culture

The development of the patriarchal clan was coeval with the period when stone imple- ments began to give way to copper and bronze tools. Native copper was worked in the cold state. However, implements made of pure copper were too soft, they easily bent and soon got blunt. The dis- covery of bronze, a copper and tin alloy, was of great importance in improving the quality of metal implements. Bronze melts at a lower temperature than copper. This facilitated the smelting and manu- facture of bronze implements. The use of bronze, which is much harder than copper, permitted of a considerable improvement in tools and weapons, with the result that man’s labour became more productive and his weapons stronger.

The most ancient copper articles found on the territory of the U.S.S.R. date back to 3,000 B.C. They were originally introduced from southern and eastern lands. Local production came into being no later than 2,000 B.C, The mountains of the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Altai and the Urals became seats of the Bronze Age civili- zation. From here the use of bronze implements spread to the steppe and forest regions.

In early times, when himting was man’s chief occupation, life in the different primitive communities was practically unvaried. Later occupations became more diversified. In forest localities which abounded in wild animals, hunting was still an impoi-tant pursuit. Near rivers and lakes people turned chiefly to fishing, while in fertile river valleys they tilled the soil. The grassy steppe served as pasturage for their herds.

The inhabitants of the European forest belts and the vast wooded areas of Siberia remained preeminently hunters and fishermen. They lived in small villages far removed from each other. The primitive community system still prevailed there.

In the grassy plains of Southern Siberia, Central Asia and the Black Sea region, herding became the basic occupation. Agriculture predominated in the fertile valleys. Here the disintegration of the primitive community proceeded more rapidly. Communities of hus- bandmen and herders developed more quickly than communities of hunters. Sea steppes, which, when excavated, revealed human skeletons dyed a red colour. During burial, the dead body was covered with ochre or minium (red lead), which later settled in the bones. The dead man’s weapons and various household chattels were placed beside him. Sometimes the skeletons of a man and a woman were found together in the same burial mound. It is to be presumed that' when a man, the head of a family, died, his wife was killed and buried with him. The barrows reveal hat there were rich and poor burials, and testify to the incidence of inequality in property status. An example of an especially lavish burial— that of a clan or a tribal chief —is the tumulus discovered near the city of Maikop. The mound was about 30 feet high. The main section of the sepulchre contained a skeleton which had been coloured a bright red with minium. The deceased was dressed in clothing ornamented with golden images of bulls, rings, rosettes, and also with gold, cornelian and turquoise beads, and other small objects. Gold and silver vessels lay beside him. A canopy had been erected above the body, and was supported on gold and silver tubular piles decorated with solid gold and silver figures of bulls. The grave contained two other skeletons in special sections; the chieftain’s nearest relatives had to die with him. The Bronze Age flourished during the second millennium and the beginning of the first milleimium B C. in the mountains of the Cau- casus, Transcaucasia and the Altai. Ancient mines from which ore was obtained for the local production of bronze, have been discovered in many places.

Beginning of the Iron Age

Iron objects appeared on the territory .of the U.S.S.R. at the end of the second millennium B.C. At first iron was used to ornament bronze articles. In tbe first half of the first millennium B.C. the production of iron implements had already originated in various places, and these articles began to replace bronze weapons and tools. By the middle of the first millennium B.C, iron had firmly established itself in the life of the population of our country. It increased the productivity of labour tremendously, especially in agriculture and the crafts. “Iron made possible agriculture on a larger scale and the clearing of extensive forest tracts for cultivation; it gave the ciaftsman a tool of such hardness and sharpness that no stone, no other known metal, could withstand it/’*

The beginning of the first millennium B.C. witnessed the birth of a class society in the southern mountains of Transcaucasia and in Asia Minor. The iron ploughshare and the iron ax brought about the decline of ^he primitive commimity system.

Earliest States on the Territory of Our Country

Earliest Slaveowning States in the Caucasus and Central Asia

Basis of Slavery

In the primitive community oppression did not exist. But production, too, was in an embryonic state. With the develop- ment of herding, agriculture and domestic crafts, men were able to produce more than was necessary for their own subsistence This led to the accumulation of stocks and the bartering of products among the clan communities. With the development of private family owner- ship of the means of production, individual families also engasred in inter-family barter. Such barter further stimulated production, which could no longer be maintained by the labour power of a single family or clan.

Wars furnished a new source of labour power: prisoners of war were no longer killed, but were converted into slaves. War was now waged for the sake of capturing prisoners no less than for that of plun- der. Wars still further increased property inequality. The rich could now enslave not only people of alien tribes, but also their own tribesmen and clansmen. Thus arose a division of society into classes: a class of slaveowners and a class of slaves. The slaveowner considered his slaves Ms absolute property, just as he did any other article that belonged to Mm. He could sell, buy and kill Ms slave just as he did his cattle. A slave had no property of his own. His labour was exten- sively employed in the economy. The condition of slaves was a very wretched one, yet compared to the primitive community, the system of slavery was a progressive stage.

Formation of the Slaveowning State

The state came into being with the development of property and class inequality. It was essential to the propertied class as a means of preserving amassed riches and maintaining its power over the slaves and the indigent population. The body politic arose on the ruins of the primitive community system.

With the appearance of property inequality, clan and tribal chief- tains came to be elected from among the rich families. Wars of plunder enriched these chieftains still further and made them more powerful; with them their military retinues also enriched themselves. These retinues helped to make the rule of the chiefs hereditary. A special armed force, one which replaced the former tribal volunteer levy, was required to keep the slaves and the poor in subjection. Popular justice was replaced by a new court of law, one which served the in- terests of the ruling minority. In the clan, society had been governed according to traditional customs. Laws that protected the interests of the slaveowners appeared in the slaveowning state. A state power unknown under the primitive community system was formed in this manner.

Ancient states expanded by subjugating weaker neighbouring tribes. Such multi-tribal states were unstable since they were founded not on economic ties but on the power of the conqueror. They therefore united or fell apart according to the success or failure of one or another military leader or ruler.

Ancient Transcaucasian States

The first slaveowning state to appear on the territory of our country originated in Transcaucasia near Assyria. In the middle of the second millennium B,C. the moun- tainous land in the region of the triple lakps, Van, Sevan and Urmiya, and the upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and their tributaries, was occupied by small tribal unions. The Assyrian kings undertook frequent campaigns against them. This country of the triple lakes was named XJrartu (Urardhu) by the Assyrian kings.

In the beginning of the first millennium B.C. the small princi- palities of Urartu united under the supremacy of the stronger tribes. The united tribes, called Chaldeans —after the name of their god, Chaldu (Khaldu) —formed a kingdom headed by powerful rulers, who not only effectively repelled the attacks of the Assyrians, but themselves launched campaigns against them. A capital w hich was well protected in the south by the Iranian Mountain Range was built on the shore of Lake Van (near the present city of Van). During the 9th-8th centuries before our era the dominions of Urartu expanded tremendously.

To commemorate their victories the kings of Urartu left cunei- form inscriptions on rocks and cliffs, which were sometimes located in very inaccessible places. These writings, telling of important events in the history of Urartu, have been deciphered with great difficulty by Russian and foreign scientists.

The kingdom of Urartu attained its maximum size and power in the middle of the 8th century B.G. In the north the Chaldeans seized the valley of the Araxes River and went as far as the Great Caucasian Mountain Range. During their successful campaigns against their neighbours, the Chaldeans destroyed settlements and forts, carried off rich spoils and herds, and either slew the inhabitants or captured and made them slaves. King Argishti, in an inscription engraved on a cliff at Van, records the massacre and enslaving of over 64,000 people effected by him in a single campaign. Thousands of slaves dug canals, were employed in economy, and built impregnable castles on high cliffs on the domains belonging to the king of Urartu and his lords. The buildings were erected without the use of mortar, merely by pressing stones tightly against each other. Spacious dwellings were also hewn out of stone cliffs. This demanded a tremendous expenditure of labour. The intricate water supply and irrigation systems were amazing engineering feats. The canal wnioh supplied drinking water to the capital, Van, remained in use for over two thousand years. Grain and grape vines were cultivated in the irrigated regions and river valleys. Livestock breeding was of great economic importance. The Chaldeans were noted for their excellent bronze weapons and other bronze articles. Urartu was a state of slaveowners, the popu- lation being divided into freemen and slaves. The richest slaveowners were the king and his chief courtiers.

At the end of the 8th century B.C. the power of Urartu began noticeably to wane. Nomads from the north pressed the Chaldeans hard. The Assyrian empire on the Tigris grew strong again. Sargon, the Assyrian king, routed the troops of the' Urartu ruler, destroyed his capital, and carried off tremendous booty. Sargon carved the following inscription on a cliff as a record of his victory: ‘‘When the king of Urartu learned of the defeat of his troops, his heart quivered with fear, as the heart of a bird fleeing from an eagle.”

In the middle of the 6th century B.C. the Persian kingdom lying southeast of Urartu grew in power. The Chaldean tribes were weak- ened by their struggle against it. Their union under the rule of the Urartu kings had begxm to disintegrate. The very name, Chaldean, fell into disuse; Urartu was retained in the name Mt. Ararat.

New tribal unions were formed on the former territory of Urartu in the 6lh century B.C., which later developed into two nations— the Georgians and Armenians, The ancient Aimenians lived on the land around Lake Van. The Karthveli (Karthli) and other kindred tribes who lived in the valleys of the Araxes and Kura rivers and the adjacent mountainous regions formed the Georgian people. At the end of the 6th century B.C, Ai menia was compelled to submit to the rule of the Persian, king, Darius I Hystaspes, Darius has left a lengthy inscription about his conquests, in which he describes how the Armenians rose up in rebellion against him, and how this rebellion was crushed only after five bloody engagements. Armenia had to pay heavy tribute to the Persian king.

Ancient Peoples of Central Asia

In the first millennium B.C. the vast steppes of Central Asia were inhabited by numerous nomad tribes of berdfcmen. According to the Greeks, these people were noted for their warlike spirit and bravery, 'All their weapons— arrows, spears, swords, axes — ^were made exclusively of copper and bronze. Women en- joyed great freedom and even took command in time of war.

In the fertile river valleys the population engaged in agriculture. Among the agricultural people the clan system had already begun to disintegrate. Husbandry was carried on by a large patriarciial family which also included the slaves. Slave labour was used for the build- ing of artificial reservoirs and canals, which were of great impor- tance in arid areas. The most important agricultural regions were Khoresm (Khwarizm) along the lower reaches of the Amu Darya, and Sogdiana on the Zeravshan River. Caravan routes crossed Central Asia, connecting the Caspian coun- tries with Eastern Asia. The towns situated along these routes plied an active trade. The largest of these towns was Marakanda (now called Samarkand), the principal city of Sogdiana.

Campaign of Alexander the Great in Central Asia

In the 4th cen- tury B.C. Greece and Persia contended for world supremacy Alexander, king of Macedonia, invaded Asia Minor, Iraq and Persia. He dreamed of conquering India. He defeated the army of the last Pensian king, Darius III, and in the spring of the year 329 B.C. crossed the Hindu Kush Mountains and descended to the Central Asiatic plain, attracted by its natural resources and large population.

The inhabitants of Sogdiana desperately resisted the Macedonians. Taking advantage of Alexander ’s absence— he had set off for Syr Darya with the bulk of his forces— the rebellious population, led by Spitamen, massacred the Macedonian garrisons in the towns. Alexander the Great hastily returned to Sogdiana and devastatedl he land wantonly. However, in spite of their fearful losses, the people continued to resist. Spitamen, with detachments of horsemen, made unexpected sallies against the Macedonians and kept them in a state of constant alarm. After a protracted struggle, the Macedonians succeeded in routing Spitamen, who then retired to the steppes with the nomads who had been his allies. The nomads, however, fearing the Macedonians^ ven- geance murdered Spitamen and sent his head to Alexander. Thus did this outstanding leader of the Sogdians meet his end.

Having completed the conquest of Central Asia Alexander the Great marched against India. He died in the year 323 B.C., while he was preparing for new conquests.

Following the death of Alexander the Great his empire, which con- sisted of a large number of conquered lands in no way united among themselves, fell apart. Several independent states, headed by the de- scendants of Macedonian generals, were formed on the territory con- quered by Alexander. Greek (Hellenic) culture began to penetrate into the East after its conquest by Alexander. Greek warriors paved the way for merchants and craftsmen. Commerce between the Eastern coimtries and Greece increased. Greek art considerably influenced the art of the Eastern peoples. For this reason the Eastern states formed as a result of Alexander the Great ’s conquests are called "Hellenic.”

The state of the Seleucids (named after one of Alexander’s gen- erals, Seleucus) was founded in Syria. It subjugated Transcaucasia including Georgia and Armenia, and part of Central Asia including Sogdiana. Gradually the population of these lands threw off the yoke^ of the Seleucid state.

In the 3rd century B.C., Bactria became an independent state. Bactria (the territory of modern Tajikistan) was a flourishing slave- owning state at that period, and at various times included separate parts of Sogdiana, Ferghana, ELazahhstau, Afghanistan and Northwestern India.

Bactria maintained intercourse with Siberia, which supplied gold to Central Asia, and with the Urals, where metal was mined. It also had ties with China, to which coun- try a so-called “silk route” had beenlaid. The Baotrian kingdom reached the zenith of its develop- ment in the 2nd century B.C.

Armenia under Tigranes II

Af- ter the destruction of the Seleucid state by the Romans in the year 190 B.C. the Armenians rebelled against the Syrians and formed an independent slaveowning kingdom with its own dynasty of rulers, Armenia was at its greatest during the 1st century B.C, under Tigranes 11, who crushed the might of the neighbour- ing Parthian king in Asia Minor, Persia and Turkmenia, Following this victory Tigranes 11 called himself the ‘“king of kings” and even declared himself a god. He established a magnificent Eastern court at which he gave refuge to Greek philosophers and writers who had fled from Roman oppression. During his campaigns Tigranes II captured large numbers of Greeks, Jews and Arabs, and settled them in his towns. With the help of these settlers he tried to develop the crafts and trade,

Tigranes 11 governed the country with the help of the rich slave- owners, Slaves cultivated the lands belonging to the king, the temples and the rich nobility. Tigranes 11 had a large, well-organized army. If necessary he raised a popular levy of slaveowners and their people. The army was organized on the Roman system.

Georgia and Albania. Georgia, which comprised two large coun- tries — ^Iberia and Colchis — was situated north of Armenia. Colchis was the name of a country bordering on the eastern extremity of the Black Sea famous for its auriferous sands and silver mines. East of Colchis was Iberia. The population inhabiting its mountainous regions engaged in herding and preserved the clan system. Both agriculture and horti- culture were developed in the plains. Slavery was introduced here in the 1st centiuy B.C.

Albania was located on the western shore of the Caspian Sea. The mountainous regions and lowlands of Albania were inhabited by numerous small tribes, which were ruled by their respective petty princes. These tribes often attacked their neighbours, the Iberians (Georgians) and Armenians. Later they united under the supremacy of the strongest tribe, the Albanians. Subse- quently the descendants of the people of ancient Albania were incorporated into the Azerbaijan nation.

Peoples of the Northern Black Sea Region

Scythians

The people occupying the steppeland from the Volga to the Dniester in the 8th-3rd centuries B.O, consisted of various tribes including cultivators and nomad herdsmen, who bore the common name of Scythians.

We find descriptions of the life of the Scythian nom- ads in the accounts of Greek writers. All the proper- ty a Scythian possessed was contained in a four-wheeled or six-wheeled nomad kibitha — o, waggon with a felt tilt drawn by two or three yoke of oxen. Each hihi'ha was

a sort of little felt home in which the women and children lived. The

Scythians roamed with their herds of horses, sheep and cattle, remaining in a given spot as long as there was sufficient pasturage for their cattle. Then they would leave in search of pasture land. Among the masses of nomads was a rich ruling nobility which possessed large herds that were tended by slaves.

The Scythians were remarkable for their martial spirit and power of endurance, for their daring, and their cruelty to the enemy. They made wine-cups from the skulls of the people they killed, and quivers from their skin. A brave warrior was accorded the greatest honour. The Scythians held annual feasts at which only those who had slain one or ynore of the enemy were permitted to take a draught of wine from the common goblet.

Eveiy tribe had its king who was vested with great power. When a king died, his body was placed on a cart which was drawn throughout the entire land. The inhabitants who met the body of the king had to ex- press profound grief: they cut their hair short, cut off part of an ear. scratched their faces, pierced their left hand with arrows. Kings were buried in huge barrows. With them were laid their arms, precious gold and silver vessels, and a large number of horses. Their wives and ser- vants were also killed and buried with them.

Scythian tombs, some of which rise to a height of 30-35 feet are extant in the south of our country. Many of them have been excavated and a large number of interesting objects found in them are now on display in our museums.

In the large Chertomlyk barrow (not far from the city of Nikopol) on the Dnieper) a wonderful silver vase was discovered, with a frieze showing scenes of nomad life and Scythians breaking in wild mares. One section depicts two horses grazing freely in the steppe, in another scene some Scythians are having a hard time holding down a wild horse they have captured; in a third, three Scythians are trying to thi’ow a horse to the groimd. Then there is a picture of the horse after it had been tamed; a stooping Scythian is hobbling its forelegs.

Of no les interest is a gold vase found in a barrow near Kerch (on the Kul-ObaHill). One of the scenes pictures a sea ed Scythian,evident- ly a chief, listening to a tale or a warrior’s report. The chief’s long hair is tied with a headband. His clothing consists of a short kaftan con* hned by a belt, and loose, Turkish-like trousers. The chief is leaning on a long spear with both hands. A warrior is kneeling before the king. Another picture ou the vase shows a, Scythian fitting a string to his bow. Some other Scythian is treat- ing the tooth of a third person. Still another picture portrays a Scythian bandaging someone’s dis- eased or injured leg. Several of the Scythians are wearing tall pointed hoods on their heads. All of them have quivers of arrows and cases for bows slung at their side.

A golden comb, which appar- ently belonged to some Scythian king, was found in one of the bar- rows (Solokha). The upper part of the comb has a scene on it picturing a combat between three warriors: two foot soldiers (one of whom is un- doubtedly a Scythian) are attack- ing a Greek horseman. Thus has an episode of the Scythian people’s struggle for independence from the Greek enslavers been preserved for

history.

Greek Colonization of the Black Sea Coast

Greek slaveowners

went to the Black Sea region in quest of slaves, and were also lured to that tenitoiy by its riches .They had

heard that the Scythians possessed large herds of cattle and a great amount of grain, and also that there was gold in the Caucasus. Accounts of the Black Sea region have been preserved in Greek legends about the golden lieeoe,the adventures of Odysseus and others .The first Greeks to visit these shore? were fisher- men and tradesmen who bartered with the local inhabitants. Begin- ning with the 7th century B.C. permanent Gi'eek colonies sprang up on the shores of the Black Sea. On the estuiry of the Southern Bug and Dnieper arose the colony of

Olvia; not far from modern Sevas-

topol was KhersoneS; and on the Scjrthian fitting a bow-string, southeastern shore of the Crimea — Teodosia and Panticapaeum (now Keroli). The city of Tanais was built at the mouth of the Don by the Sea of Azov; Greek colonies also arose on the Caucasian coast.

The centre of each Greek colony was a city surrounded by a stone wall. This wall protected the Greek colonists from attack by the hostile population. Within the city wall were dwellings, stores and various public buildings, such as the temples and baths. Among these structures were some splendid woiks of Greek architecture, ornamented with marble columns and statues.

Trade with Greece, with Eastern lands and the peoples of Eastern Euiope was of gieat importance for the Greek colonies on the shores of the Black Sea. Vessels sailing for Greece were loaded with grain, slaves, furs and fish, while Greece exported weapons, fabrics, various utensils of clay and glass, costly ornaments and articles of luxury, and;tvine. Part of these imported goods went to satisfy the needs of the upper class of the local Greek population; part was exchanged for

f uin and other products supplied by the population of the northern^ lack Sea coast. Later the Greek cities developed their own crafts/ Many of the articles found in the Scythian barrows were made in the workshops of the Black Sea colonies. The free Greek population in the colonies, as in Greece itself, met at ^'popular assemblies” to discuss various questions and to elect their functionaries. The entire adminis- tration was in the hands of the rich slaveowners and merchants. Every city-colony consti- tuted a separate state. One such city, Panticapaeum, ruled a considerable teintory , the so-called Bosporus king- dom. It was governed both by Greek and Scythian slave- owners, whose power was passed by inheiitance from father to son.

At the end of the 3rd century B.C, the condition of the Greek colonies along the Black Sea shore deteriorated. Tribes of nomads, Sarmatae, who were kin to the Scythians appeared on the Caspian steppes. Harassed by the Sar- matae, some of the Scythians , and other nomads moved westward and reached the Danube; others went to the Crimea and occupied its northern steppes.

The Scythians who remained were assimilated by the Sarmatae and other tribes. The Greek cities found increasing difficulty in repulsing the attacks of the nomads.

The Scythians who settled in the Crimea during the 2nd cen- tury B.O. often attacked Kher- sones and the Bosporus kingdom. At this time a Pontic kingdom was formed in Asia Minor, on the southern shore of the Black Sea.

Eiersones, which was not strong enough to defend itself, concluded a treaty with the king of Pontus, by which it was to receive help.

Slave Revolt in the Crimea

At the end of the 2nd contury B. C. the Scythian slaves in the Bosporus kingdom rose in revolt. A slave of the Bosporus king, named Saumaeus, slew the king and headed the uprising. The revolt was crushed by Diophantus, a general of King Mith- ridates VI of Pontus, who had come to Elhersones to defend it against the Scythians. He captured Sanmacus and sent him to Mithridates in Asia Minor, As a sign of their gratitude for the help rendered against the Scythians, the rulers of Khersones erected a bronze statue of Diophan- tus in the acropolis of the city near the altar of tlieir most revered goddess. An inscription telling of the services and victories of Diophantus was carved on the marble pedestal. The in- scription was found among the ruins of Khersones,

The uprising of the slaves in the Crimea was not an iso- lated instance. Similar mass rebellions of slaves occurred in the 2nd and Ist centuries B. C. in many other slaveown- mg states — in Asia Minor,

Greece, Italy, on the Island of Sicily and other places.

These rebellions portended the end of the slaveowning

system.

Roman Conquests in the Black Sea Region

During the 1st century B. C. Roman dominions rapidly spread eastward. In order to conquer Asia Minor Rome had to destroy the kingdoms of Pontus and Armenia. The struggle between Rome and King Mithridates VI of Pontus lasted almost 18 years. Finally, the Roman legions indicted a serious defeat on Mi hridatos. Roman slaveowners invaded the domains of Tigranes II. They sacked the rich capital of Armenia (the city of Tigra- nocerta on the Tigris River) . The people rose in defence of their land and inflicted a series of defeats upon the Romans. Other legions under Pom- pey were then sent against Tigranes II. Georgians, Medes and other peoples joined the Armenians against the Romans. Pompey took advan- tage of dissension among the Armenian nobility and forced Tigranes II to conclude peace. The Armenian king was named the ‘'friend and ally of the Roman people,” a title which signified the subordination of Armenia to Rome. Subsequently the Romans subjugated a considerable part of Georgia.

During the 1st century B.C. the Romans established themselves firmly in the Black Sea region. The kings of Bosporus became the vassals of the Roman emperors and submissively executed all their or- ders. Roman legions were quartered in Khersones and other Greek cities of the Crimea and the Caucasus. Roman fortresses with towers from which the approach of enemy vessels could be observed, were built along the shore of the Black Sea.

The kings of Bosporus began to use the names of Roman emperors and to wear Roman clothmg. They received their insignia of royalty from Rome: the sceptre with an image of the emperor and the royal crown. Throughout the century-long existence of the Greek colonies, the descendants of the former colonists intermingled with the local popu- lation. Alien people of various tribes made their home in the Black Sea towns and became local citizens. In the Crimea, too, there was a min- gling of different peoples and cultures.

With the decline of the Roman empire, its influence in the Black Sea countries decreased still further. By the 3rd century A. D. the Ro- man fortresses in the Crimea and along the Caucasian shore became deso- lated. The former Greek cities became independent once again. A new imion of tribes, known as the Goths, was formed on the southern steppes of the Black Sea region in the 3rd century. This union also included the eastern Germans, who had fonnerly inhabited the lower reaches of the Vistula. Towards the middle of the 3rd century the Goths began to invade Roman dominions beyond the Danube. At the same time Goth pirates plundered the Caucasian and Asia Minor coasts of the Black Sea and penetrated to the Aegean Sea, burning Greek towns. In the 4th century the Goths were severely defeated by the Romans.

The attack of the Goths upon Rome’s eastern possessions marked the hegiiming of the struggle of various East European tribes against the Romans. During the same period a struggle was being waged in Western Europe between tlie Romans and the German tribes. The attacks of the “barbarians” (non-Romans) hastened the downfall of the slaveowning Roman empire.

Nomads of Asia (from the 3rd century B.C. to the 8th century A.D.)

The vast steppes of Southern Siberia and Central Asia were inhabit- ed by various tribes of nomads that later formed the Turkic and Mongo- lian peoples. Several centuries before our era the nomads living north of China formed a large tribal union. The Chinese called the nomads belonging to this union Huns. The Chinese waged an arduous strug- gle against the Huns, which lasted for centuries. The nomads made sudden raids on China’s northern territories, sacked the towns, ruined the harvest and carried off the population. When a large Chinese army was rallied, the nomads returned to the steppe and dispersed over its boundless expanses.

In order to defend their frontiers the Chinese, as far back as the 3rd century B.C., constructed solid stone fortifications which became known as the “Great Wall of China.” Gradually Chinese infiueuce made itself felt among the nomads. The Hun chief assumed the title of “bom of heavens and the earth, the chosen of the sun and the moon.” The Hun princes sent their sons to serve at the court of the Chi- nese emperor.

The nomad ruling caste adopted Chinese customs and Chinese clothing .A Soviet expedition toNorthern Mongolia, headed by P.R. Koz- lov, which explored the exceedingly rich barrows of the Hun rulers, discovered chariots, Chinese silks, a magnificent rug picturing a winged animal tearing an elk apart, precious objects, parasols whicb were symbols of high honour, and other objects.

The great Hun state decayed in the 1st century B.C. A large num- ber of Huns moved westward. New tribes formerly under the domina- tion of the Huns now came to the fore in the steppes of Asia.

Invasion of Eastern Europe by the Nomads

When the Hun state collapsed in Mongolia, some of the tribes moved westward in their attempt to escape the Chinese. Their descendants after intermingling with other peoples in the course of their roamings, appeared in Eastern Europe in the 4th century A.D. Contemporaries of the Huns called them "the fiercest warriors.” Besides the Mongolian Huns, the Hun kingdom included the native population of Central Asia and the northern part of the Black Sea region.

The Huns defeated the Goths and drove them west. The main Hun horde stopped between the Danube and the Tisia. Eor a biief space of time there was a strong Hun state in this locality, the king of which was Attila. After his death in 453, the Hun kingdom broke up: some of the Huns settled on the right bank of the Danube and mixed with the local population; others returned to their native haunts in the Black Sea steppes, where they were ethnically assimilated by the local population.

The movement of the Huns west of the Volga along the northern shores of the Black Sea stimulated the migration of other tribes aa well. Close upon the heels of the Huns, the Bulgars came to the Caspian steppes. But the Bulgars, too, were not long able to withstand the pressure of other nomads. The Bulgarian tribal union broke up into several parts. Some of these settled on the Volga (in the Bulgarian kingdom); others reached the Balkans, where they intermingled with the local Yugoslavio population, to whom it gave its ethnic name — Bulgar.

Turkic Khanate

A group of tribes, known as the Turkic khanate, arose in Mongolia in the 6th century A.D. The ruler of this state was called a kaghan, A large number of nomad and, to some extent, agricuD tuxal tribes were under the rule of this khanate. The ruling tribes un- der the leadership of their khan constantly raided their neighbours and spreadtheirpower over a vast territory. The rich and the nobles com- manded the warrior detachments and governed the subjugated tribes. The bulk of the nomad population lived in separate clan communities.

Tombstones of Turkic khans, hearing engraved inscriptions of remarkable campaigns and outstanding events, have been preserved in the valley of the Orkhon Hiver.

The Turkomans of the khanate were hostile to the Turkic Kirghiz (Khakass) who inhabited the upper reaches of the Yenisei Hiver and the Altai Mountains. One of the inscriptions tells how a Turkic khan mounted his white stallion and set off with his troops against the Kirghiz. He threw one Kirghiz off his horse. Then with a spear in his hand, he rushed into the ranks of the enemy, "While doing so he dug his spurs into his white horse so violently, that he broke the horse ’s ribs. The Kirghiz khan was killed and the people submitted to the power of the Turkic khan.

The Turkic state in Mongolia and Central Asia collapsed in the 8th century A.D. After the fall of the Turkic khanate, the Kirghiz (Khakass), who had as many as 80,000 warriors and a large popula- tion proved to be the strongest people.

And so throughout many centuries the vast lands of Southern Siberia and Central Asia saw the continuous rise and fall of one or another tribal union. The nomads in their search for better pasturage and plunder, traversed a large section of the Central Asiatic steppes. Part of the nomads settled in the new places; olhers continued fur- ther west. They were drawn to those regions by the fertile, grassy plains which spread out like a heavy green blanket northwest of the Caspian Sea.

Early Feudal States in Transcaucasia

The struggle Between Rome and Persia (Iran) for Armenia and Georgia

Rome ceased to exist as a slaveowming empire in the 4th- oth centuries A.D. The peoples of Europe and Asia, including those of Parthia and Persia, rose against her. Persia subjugated Parthia, Albania (Azerbaijan) and a considerable part of Georgia and Armenia. Only a small pait of Western Armenia and Western Georgia remained under Roman power. At the end of the 4th century the Roman empire fell apart and was divided into two empires: the Eastern and the West- ern. The Eastern Roman empire (Byzantium) continued its struggle against Persia for possession of Armenia and Georgia.

The Bfrih of Feudalism in Armenia and Georgia

About the middle of the 1st century A. D. the Arsacid dynasty was established in Armenia. With great solemnity the Roman Emperor, Kero, re- ceived an Armenian embassy and personally placed a croum upon the head of the Armenian king. It was approximately in the 4th century A.D., when kings of the Arsaeid dynasty were in power, that feudal relations originated in Armenia. Slave labour was not very productive and even became unprofitable with the development of agriculture and the crafts and impiovemenis in working tools. It was therefore superseded by the labour of feudal subjects. Serfs who lived on the lands of their feudal loids had their own little farms and the necessary implements. They tilled the land of the feudal lord and fulfilled other services for him. The lord could no longer kill bis serf with impunity, as he had killed his slave, but he still retained the right to buy and sell sei-fs. Under serfdom the peasant was interested, to a certain degree, in husbandry as a means of livelihood and to pay his lord a tax in kind, that is, with the products of his own harvest. The big landowners forced the peasants to do all the work on their estates and to render all manner of service. Every rich feudal lord had his own castle and troops. The feudal nobility seized the most important posts. The great feudal lords formed the king’s court, and attended state ceremonies at which they occupied places according to seniority.

At the end of the 3rd century A. D. the Armenian king and nobility adopted Christianity from Byzantium, and it became the national religion of Armenia. Byzantium supported the Christian church, using it to strengthen her influence. The church contributed to the final establishment of feudalism in Armenia, though ancient pagan beliefs persisted for a long time among the peasant population.

In the Byzantine part of Armenia the power of the king was de- stroyed at the end of the 4th century, and the country was ruled by By- zantine officials appointed by the emperor. Similarly the rule of the king in that part of Armenia which was under Persian sway soon came to an end. With the termination of the king’s rule the power of the large landowners was still further augmented.

Mesrob Mashtots, a monk, born of a peasant family, perfected the Armenian alphabet in the early part of the 6th century. This marked the beginning of an Armenian literature; instruction in the schools was carried on in the native language; youths were sent to Egypt and Byzantium to perfect their knowledge of the sciences. An exten- sive literature, both original and translated, appeared.

A kingdom was formed in Western Georgia on the territory of ancient Colchis in the 4th century A.B, This land was inhabited by ancient Georgian tribes of Lazis, whence the Romans and Greeks derived their name for the land — Lazica. The centre of this land was the fertile valley of Rion, which was covered with vineyards and orchards. This valley was also the site of a considerable number of towns, including Kutaisi, which engaged in commerce. After a long struggle with Persia, Lazica remained under Byzantine rule. The Eastern Georgian lands formed part of another kingdom, Karthli (ancient Iberia). In the beginning of the 5th century the king of Kar- thli became a vassal of Persia. As eveiywhere else, the development of feudal relations in Georgia enhanced the power of the landowning nobility, which tried to limit the king’s power. Christianity began to penetrate into Georgia via the cities along the Black Sea shore. With the aid of By^iantium it became firmly established as the state religion of Karthli in the middle of the 4th century, and in Lazica in the beginning of the 6th century. Christianity strengthened the cultural ties between Georgia and Byzantium. Translations of reli- gious writings appeared simultaneously with translations of Greek philosophical and historical works. This stimidated the growth of Georgian literature. The peoples of Transcaucasia did nob cease their struggle for liberation. At the end of the 5th century the Karthlian king, Vakhtang, who was called the "Wolfes Head” because of the emblem in the form of a wolf’s head on his helmet, fought against Persia. During one of the engagements he was mortally wounded. After his death the Persian feudal lords assumed power. The country was then ruled by a Persian satrap who settled in Tbilisi.

The Struggle of the Peoples of Transcaucasia Against Persian and Byzantine Domination

Byzantine and Persian domination in Georgia, Armenia and Albania (Azerbaijan) was accompanied by the terrible oppression and devastation of these lands. The population was brought to the point of despair by intolerable tribute and com- pulsory services. The conquerors conscripted the Armenian and Geor- gian youth into their armies. These conditions led to frequent bloody popular uprisings in Georgia, Armenia and Albania (Azerbaijan). The rebellions were notably powerful when the Georgians and Arme- nians joined forces against the common enemy. Pilled with hatred for their enslavers, these peoples won many a victory over numerous and better armed enemy detachments. While the people fought heroic* ally and staunchly for the liberation of their country, the rich feudal lords often turned traitors and went over to the camp of their country’s enemies. This made it easier for Persia and Byzantium to crush the uprisings of the people.

Struggle of the People of Transcaucasia against the Arabs

Persia’s rule in Armenia and Georgia lasted until the 7th century, when the Arabs, soon after reducing the Persian empire, conquered Transcaucasia and Central Asia. In 642 they seized the capital of Armenia, Dvin, and within a few years conquered all of Armenia and Eastern Georgia. In the 9th-10th centuries there was a consider- able number of rich cities in Ti*anscaucasia — ^Tbilisi (Tihis), Derbent, and others, which carried on trade and the crafts and maintained intercourse with Eastern Europe. Tbilisi became the residence of the Ai'abian emir. The country was ruled by his ostihans — governors. With the arrival of the Arabs the Moslem faith spread among the people of Transcaucasia.

The peasants of Transcaucasia fiequently rose in revolt against their Arabian conquerors, who were ruining the land with their exat*- tions and turning the local population into slaves and serfs, A big uprising of peasants, craftsmen, and slaves occurred in the first half of the 9th century in Azerbaijan, under the leadership of the gallant chieftain Babek. Babek was orphaned w^hen still a diild. After his father’s death, when he was only 10 years old, the boy was turned over to a rich herdsman, for whom he worked as a shepherd. Later he became a camel driver. This enabled him to study the life of the Azerbaijan people at first hand. The sufferings of these people, oppressed by heavy taxes and other exactions, aroused in Babek a feel- ing oi irreconcilable hatred for the oppressors and enslavers, especial- ly for the Arabian rule. Babek, who was only 18 years old at that time, joined a popular uprising and soon became its leader. Binding protection in the inaccessible, high mountain regions, Babek fought tenaciously against the Arabs. The rebels won several victories over powerful Arabian detachments.

It was only after long years of struggle that the Arabs succeeded in occupying the chief insurgent areas. Babek went into hiding in the mountains and from there he continued guerilla warfare against the Arabs and the local feudal lords who had betrayed their own peo- ple. All attempts to surround and capture Babek failed. Then one of the powerful feudal lords, pretending to be a supporter of Babek's, invited him to his castle. There Babek was treacherously seized and turned over to the Arabs. He was executed upon the order of the caliph. The uprising was suppressed. This determined struggle of the Azer- baijan. people for independence lasted over twenty years.

The disintegration of* the Arab caliphate, which began at the end of the 9th century, led to the restoration of the rule of the local wealthy families in Georgia and Armenia.

In 864 Ashod I, who represented one of the most powerful families of Armenia, became king of Armenia and founded a new dynasty of the Bagratids, which ruled until the middle of the 11th century. This dynasty succeeded in uniting a large part of Armenia. The city of Ani (not far from the city of Khrs) became the capital of the Bagra- tids and the trade centre between the East and the West. The city was beautified by a number of splendid buildings which point to the flourishing state of Armenian architecture. Erom his study of the luins of the city of Ani, Academician N. Marr, famous Soviet scientist, retraced the history of the language and cultui’e of ancient Armenia.

After the fall of the Arab caliphate, Georgia broke up into a number of rival independent feudal principalities. It was only in the second half of the 10th century that one of these, the Tao-Klarzhetsk, suc- ceeded in uniting these principalities under the power of the kings of the Georgian Bagratid dynasty.

Armenian Epic, "David of Sasun"

The memory of the age- long struggle of the Armenian people against their conquerors, the Arabs, has come down to ns in a beautiful epic poem, David of Sasun, It tells of the adventures and feats of four generations of Armenian knights. Two brothers built a fortress of huge stones high in the moun- tains which they named Sasun (‘‘Wrath”). Poor people came to Sasun from all parts of the country to seek protection, and it became the bulwark of the people’s struggle against the enemies of their native land. David of Sasun is the central figure of the poem. When ^till a youth he fought against the Arabs, who were oppressing his people. The Arab sovereign set ofF with a large army against Sasun. He had so many warriors that they dried the rivers on their way by each of them merely drinking a mouthful of the water. 1^'et the enemy’s might did not daxmt David. ‘^Brothers and sisters!” David exclaimed. *Tear not the enemy; I shall go and fight the foe for you.” David mounted his father’s miraculous steed and engaged the enemy in battle. He slew the enemy warriors, sparing those, however, who had been for- cibly driven to war. He also slew the Arabian king and liberated the

prisoners:

J break the hoind-s that do enslave^

Return, you all, to friends and those you love so true.

Return, you, home, return and there your life renew.

Nor fees nor tribute do I crave,

David had a son, Mger the Yoimger, who was as puissant and

dauntless as his father. Left an orphan, Mger continued the struggle against the enemies of his native land. The poem tells how IMger stepped up to a cliff and with a powerful blow cleaved it in two. Riding his grandfather’s miraculous steed, he vanished into the fissure, where

he will remain until the old, unjust world is destroyed.

As long as the world is all sm

As long as deceit stands to win,

So long do I 'part with this world.

When all is destroyed and created anew.

When barley grows large as the berries I 7:ncto,

Oh then will I welcome my day!

This place will I leave on that day!

In these words of Mger the Younger the Armenian people expressed their undying dream of a better life. Centuries passed, gener-

ations changed, but the bards, from age to age, continued to sing of the knights of Sasun, of their feats in their struggle against evil,  and of their great love for their native land.

Peoples of Central Asia in the Struggle against the Arabs

Conquest of Central Asia by the Arabs

At the time of the Arabian conquest Central Asia consisted of seveial states which were constantly at war with each other. The most important of these was Sogdiana, a land of fertile oases, rich foothills and momi- tain valleys. Its territory was studded with the castles of landowning princelings who were practically independent of each other. The most powerful of them was the ruler of Samarkand, who called himself the “Sogdianian king.” West of Samarkand was Bokhara. Along the lower reaches of the Amu Darya stood Khoresm.

The steppes of Central Asia were populated by nomad tribes. The incursions of Turkic tribes from the east grew more insistent. In the early part of the 8th century they tried to seize the agricultural re- gions of Central Asia and its rich commercial cities, but were repulsed by the Arabs.

In 751 the Arabs routed both the Turkomans and the Chinese on the banks of the Talass River and also conquered Central Asia.

The population of Sogdiana— the Sogdians, remote ancestors of the Tajiks —desperately resisted the Arab aggression. This agricul- tural people found an ally in the nomads, who came to their aid. It took the Arabs about 75 years to completely subjugate the lands between the Amu Darya and S3rr Darya. EJioresm, Sogdiana, Bokhara and other Central Asiatic lands became part of the Arab caliphate in the middle of the 8th century. In most cases the Arabs permitted the local prince- lings to retain their lands and power, but made them their tributaries. The caliph sent his governors to the larger cities and established per- manent Arabian garrisons there.

The prosperous merchants took advantage of the Arabian conquest to trade with the caliphate dominions. Large numbers of Arabs settled in the towns, and noticeably influenced the local culture. The Moslem faith spread among the ruling class of the local population, and the Arabian tongue became the language of literature and of the state.

The agricultural population, who had heretofore rendered various services to their landowners, now also had to pay heavy taxes in kind to the Arabs. This tax sometimes amoxmted to as much as half their crops. The people, i,e,, the peasants, slaves and indigent city popula- tion , were in constant rebellion against the Arab yoke.

The Revolt of Mokanna

The greatest uprising took place in the seventies of the 8th century. It was called the revolt of ‘^the white- shirted,” since the peasants wore simple white clothing. The leader of the popular lebellion was Hashim-ibn Hakim, who was known among the people as Mokanna, which means ‘‘The Veiled.”

Mokanna used to wash clothes in his youth. Later he had command of one of the rebel detachments. He was captured by the Aiabs and spent some years in a dungeon, but succeeded in escaping, and began to prepare a general uprising of the peasants against the Arabs and local landowners. This lebellion lasted about seven years. The insurgents seized and destroyed castles, killed the local landowners who had joined the enemies of their native land, and wiped out the Arabian garri- sons in the towns. To subdue the peasant uprising, the Arabian emirs raised a huge army equipped with battering rams. Several fierce bat- tles took place in which the peasant army suffered heavy defeats. Mokanna was killed, but tbe people did not cease to rebel against the Arabs.

The State of the Samanids

When the Arab caliphate collapsed in Central Asia in the second half of the 9th century, the ancient Tajik state of the Samanids was formed (subsequently the name Tajik was given to the native Sogdiana population), with the city of Bokhara as its capital. The kings of the Samanid dynasty tried to create a strong, centralized power, such as was necessary to combat the nomads. They stubbornly opposed individual petty rulers who tried to establish an independent rule.

Thanks to the power of the Samanids, quiet set in in the Central Asiatic steppes. This stimulated trade and life in the cities. The larg- est cities (Bokhara, Samarkand and Merv) engaged in a lively trade with eastern and western countries, particularly with China and the Volga region.

Literature and learning flourished during the reign of the Samanids, Poets and scholars (philosophers, doctors, geographers, mathemati- cians, historians and others) created an exceedingly rich literature in the Fabian and Persian languages, Numerous valuable manuscripts were stored in the royal library at Bokhara. Each department of science or literature in the library had a special room to itself, and the library had an efficiently-kept catalogue. The famous philosopher, natura- list and doctor, Avicenna (ibn-Sina) lived and worked in Bokhara at the end of the 10th century. Later his works were translated into Latin and became widespread in medieval Europe.

Khazars and Bulgars on the Volga

The Khazar State on the Volga

The Turkic-Khazars formed a strong Elhazar state on the Lower Volga in the 7th century. The K h a - zars woie a semi-nomad people. In the winter they lived in the cities, and in the spring they took their herds out to the steppes to graze. Herding remained their chief occupation, although they also engaged in agriculture, and grapevine cultivation. The Khazars were still divided into clans, each of which possessed its own section of land. However, the clan system had already begun to decay, and an iuduen- tial group of the nobility in the clan came to the fore. The Eihazar langdom was headed by a hhahan or king, who was surrounded by rich dignitaries. The king was rendered divine homage. The country, however, was governed by a lord lieutenant and not by the khakan himself.

The khakan lived in Itil, a populous city situated upon the delta of the Volga. Outside the city walls were wooden dwellings and felt nom- ad tents. The royal brick palace was situated on an island connected witli the bank by a floating bridge. The eastern side of the city was inhabited by visiting merchants —people from Khoresm, Arabs, Greeks, Jews and otheis. The many markets here had a diversity of wares from Gentral Asia, the Caucasus, the Volga region and the Slavonic lands. Itil was an important centre for southeastern trade, and its commer- eial intercourse with EJaoiesm was of especial importance. The duty which the merchants paid the lOtazars constituted one of the chief sources of income for the khakan’s treasury. The regular intercourse with Transcaucasia and Khoresm had an important influence on the constitution of the Khazar state and the everyday life of its population. The Khazar ruling class and the king embraced Judaism.

Another important Khazai city was Sarkel on the Don. Sarkel was built with the help of Byzantine engineers, and was intended to afford protection against irruptions of nomads from the north and the ^ast.

The Khazar state reached the zenith of its power in the 9th century. In the south the Khazars in alliance with Byzantium fought against the Arabs and even went as far as the Araxes River. West of the Volga, the lands between the Caspian and Azov seas belonged to the Khazars, who at one time had subjugated part of the Crimea and imposed trib- ute upon the Slavonic tribes living along the Dnieper and the Oka rivers. In the north their power extended to the middle reaches of the Volga.

The closest neighbours of the Khazars were the Pechenegs, who, in the 9ih century, roamed between the Yaik (the Ural) River and the Volga, BLarassed by other nomad tribes as well as by the Khazars, the Pechenegs moved further west in the second half of the 9th cen- tury, and occupied the steppe between the Don and the Dnieper.

Bulgar State on the Volga and Kama

he union of Bulgar tribes on the Volga broke up as a result of the constant attacks of other nomads. Some of the Bulgars migrated to the Danube. Here they were absorbed by the Slavs, but they handed down their own tribal name to these people. Others went north up the Volga and settled on the lands along the lower reaches of the Kama and the Middle Volga, where they formed an independent state. During this period of migration to the Kama and the Volga, the Bulgars were still nomads. In their new environment they turned to agriculture. According to the accounts of Arab VTiiters, the Bulgars cultivated wheat, barley and millet.

In the Bulgar state the power belonged to the king, the tribal chief- tains and the tribal nobility. Most of the towns were situated near the confluence of the Kama and the Volga. The Arabs called the Bulgar capital on the Volga, the “Great City.” Merchants from the Slav lands, from Transcaucasia, Byzantium and Central Asia, paid annual visits to the capital of Bulgaria. From the Slav lands they brought strong, fitalwart slaves and valuable furs. Arabian merchants came with steel swords, silk and oolton fabrics, and various rich ornaments.

The Bulgars themselves made journeys for furs to the north, which they called the ^^land of gloom.” They bartered with the trappers of that country. The Bulgar merchants would lay out their wares in a pre- arranged spot and then depart. The following day they would find animal skins set out beside their own goods. If the Bulgar merchant was satisfied with the bargain, he took the furs and left his own waies. If not, he would not touch the skins but would take back his own goods. Arabian cultme, which was more highly developed, penetrated Bulgaria with the eastern trade. By the 10th century the ruling class of Bulgars had already takeu over the Moslem faith from the Arabs. In imitation of the Arabs, the Bulgars began to mint their own coins.

In the beginning of the 10th century ibn-FadhIan visited Bulgaria as a member of an Arabian embassy. He left a most interesting descrip- tion of his travels. The Bulgar king met the embassy not far fiom the capital. The envoys were ushered into a large, richly appointed tent, with Armenian rugs spread on the ground. The king sat on a throne covered with Byzantine brocades- On his right hand sat the chiefs of his subject tribes. During the feast the guests were legaled with chimks of meat and drinks made of honey. Ibn-Fadhlan also saw Russian merchants there. They were strong stalwart people. Each of them was armed with a battle-ax, a knife and a sword, with which he never parted.

After the formation of the Bulgar and Elhazar kingdoms, the Volga became a very important trade route between Europe and Asia. Its upper reaches closely approach the Western Dvina, which flows into the Baltic Sea, Thus there was an almost complete river route between the Caspian and the Baltic seas. Where there was a break in the river system, boats were hauled overland by ‘^portage,”

Arabian merchants came in great numbers to trade on the Volga in the 8th-10th centuries. They paid for their purchases with dirhems, small silver Arabian coins, which were current thi’oughout Eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, Scandinavia and even Germany.

The Kiev State

Formation of the Kiev State

The Slavs in the 6th–9th Centuries

The Slavs in the 6th and 7th Centuries

The ancestors of the Slavs, one of the most numerous peoples in Europe, inhabited the greater part of Eastern Europe since time immemorial . According to Homan writers of the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., who knew the Slavs as Venedi, the Slavs lived along the Vistula and on the southern shure of the Baltic Sea.

Byzantine writers of the 6th century referred to the Eastern Slavs as Antes. The Eastern Slavs lived in the region of the Carpathians, the lower reaches of the Danube, along the Dniester, the Dnieper and the Don, occupying almost the whole of the southern part of Eastern Europe as far as the coasts of the Black Sea and Azov Sea. The Eastern Slavs engaged in agriculture, herding, fishing and hxmting. They were also acquainted with the working of metals. Their dwellings consisted of huts made of interwoven brushwood or reeds covered with clay. Their villages were surrounded by ditches, earthen ramparts, and wood- en walls. The Eastern Slavs at that time still preserved the clan system. All matters of tribal concern were decided at tribal meetings called the veche (from the word veshchat meaning to speak). Influential members of the community became head-men or princes; some of them were influential not only in their own, but in neighbouring tribes as well.

Patriarchal slavery existed among the Eastern Slavs, but slave labour did not play a significant role in their economy. Captives were either sold to foreign merchants, were permitted to return to their own land for a ransom, or, after spending several years in captivity, were given their freedom and the right to stay in the community as freemen.

Beginning with the 5th century, the Eastern and Western Slavs, year after year, ravaged the Danube lands which formed part of the Byzantine empire. Tall, strong and very hardy, the Slavs were inured to heat, cold and hunger. In war they displayed great adroitness and cunning, and though armed only with shields and Javelins, rushed boldly at the enemy. During the wars with Byzantium the Slavs mas- tered the Byzantine military art and acquired weapons which they learned to use even better than the Byzantines themselves.

Prom the 6th century the Slavs no longer confined themselves to raiding the frontier regions of the Byzantine empire, but also began to settle on the conquered lands. They peopled the entire northern part of the Balkan Peninsula almost as far as Constantinople and even pene- trated the Peloponnesus.

A nomad horde of Bulgars invaded the Danube Valley in the 7th century. Culturally, the Danube 'Slavs, an agricultural people, were far superior to the Bulgar herdsmen. This explains why the Bulgars who settled on the Danube lands were quickly Slavonicized. The descendants of the Bulgar princes headed the Slavonic kingdom which was formed at the end of the 7th century south of the Danube and which was called Bulgaria (or Bulgaria on the Danube, in contradistinction to Bulgaria on the Elama).

Slavonic Tribes in the 8th-9th Centuries

In the Sth and 9th cen- turies the Eastern Slavs split up into several tribes. The Slavonic tribes which had once inhabited the Black Sea steppes and its shores had, for the most part, been swept away by the influx of nomads. The Po- lyane (from the word polye meaning field) lived along the middle reaches of the Dnieper in the region of Kiev, bordering on the steppe. The land west of the Polyane (in the western regions of the present Ukraine) was inhabited by the Dulebiov Volynyane (FoZ^maizs), while south of them, in what is today the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic as far as the Lower Danube dwelt the TivertsiaoA Ulkhi, Northwest of the Polyane, as far as the Pripyat, a tributary of the Dnieper, were the Dye* lyane, the "forest dwellers” (from drevo meaning tree) and the DregovicM {dryagva — swamp) . The Severyme lived on the left bank of the Dnieper, along its tributary, the Desna. The vast expanse along the upper reaches of the Dnieper, beginning from the Smolensk region, and along the Western Dvina, was inhabited by the Knvichi. The Eodimichi^ who dwelt along the Sozh River, a tributary of the Dnieper, formed a separate tribe. The Slavs inhabiting the shores of Lake Ilmen were known as the Ilmen Slavs, or the Novgorod Slavs, after the city of Novgorod. East of the Dnieper basin, along the Oka and its tributa- ry, the Moskva River, lived the Vyatichi^

Pursuits and Social System of the Eastern Slavs

In the 8th and 9th centuries the Eastern Slavs were chiefly an agricultural people. In wooded areas agriculture was carried on in forest clearings, the under- brush being cut away and the large trees being stripped of their baik to rot away. The next year the patch was prepared for cultivation by firing the soil and loosening it with hoes, or it was ploughed up. Besides agriculture an important place in the ect-nomy of the group was occupied by such pursuits as hunting, collecting the honey of wild bees, and fishing. In the southern regions agriculture was of greater importance than in the north.

By the 9th century the clan system among the Eastern Slavs de- clined noticeably, though certain clan survivals still persisted. One instance of these survivals, though more rarely practised, was the blood feud. Wedding rites characteristic ofthe patriarchal clan still survived. Some of the more backward tribes clung to their custom of abducting women. In other tribes a wife would be bought for a veno^sb piu'chase price. The richer men had several wives. But the clan, as such, prac- tically no longer existed. Clans broke up into separate, large families which, no longer held together by ties of kinship, continued to live as neighbours on a common territory and formed an agrarian community. Such an agrarian community the Eastern Slavs called the verv. The husbandmen who belonged to such a community were called smerds. The verv possessed in common forests, pasture land, etc. Every family that joined the community had the lighu io graze its cattle on the common pasture land, to extract honey of wild bees from the hollows of trees in the common forest, and to set traps for birds and beasts. Tilths were the absolute property of the respective families. The centre of the commimity was the foitified town which sheltered its members in case of danger. Gradually a group of wealthier elders took the lead in the community, and acquired large tracts of land. These lands were cultivated not only by members of their families; some of the prisoners were now made slaves and also forced to woik. How- ever, like other European peoples, the Slavs advanced from the clan system directly to feudalism without adopting the inteimediary slave- holding system, since the slaveholding system was a stage through which man had already pas'jed.

In time of war, chief tains —princes —were chosen from among the elders. Leadership in time of war afforded the princes a new means- of enrichment inasmuch as they would always receive the lion’s share during the division of spoils and captives. This enabled the princes to maintain a retinue of warriors whose chief means of existence was warfare. With the help of their retinue the princes seized the power in their own tribes.

Each tribe was ruled by several princes, one of whom was con*- sidered the grand prince. This grand prince was supposed to consult with the other tribal princes and the elders on all questions concern- ing the tribe. Sometimes a meeting of the entire tribe, the veche, was called*

Such tribal principalities originated in the 9th century among all the Slavonic tribes of Eastern Europe. The centres of these princi** palities were the towns that served as the residences of the princes and their retinue. The following towns were already known in the 9th, century: Kiev in the land of the Polyane; Chernigov in the land of the Severyane; Smolensk on the Dnieper and Polotsk on the Western Dvina in the land of the Krivichi; Novgorod of the Ilmen Slavs, and others.

The Slavonic tribes east of theDnieperfthe Vyatichi and Severyane) and also the Polyane, who bordered on the steppe, were conquered by the Elhazars in the 9th century. They paid tribute in the form of furs to the Khazar khakan.

Religion of the Eastern Slavs

Until the 10th century the Slavs were heathens. They believed in the forces of nature, which they vested with human qualities. Everything that surrounded them— the stones, streams, trees, the grass— they endowed with miraculous powers: they made sacrifices to nature, decorated the boughs of ^'sacred" trees with bits of cloth, threw offerings into the water. According to the Slavs the birds and beasts also possessed miraculous powers.

The Slav world was peopled with spirits. They believed that every forest had its wood-goblin upon whom the success of the hunt depended. Before starting on a hunting expedition the Slavs left a piece of bread for the wood-goblin on a tree stump. The deep still waters ot rivers, the Slavs believed, were the abode of the water- goblins whom they tried to propitiate before going to fish. The waters were also inhabited by water-nymphs. Every Slav had his household god (the Domovoy, hearth-god) in his hut, who helped him to run the household.

The Slavs believed in the power of the sky, the sun, thunder and lightning. Their chief deity was the sun, or Dazbog^ the son of the

god of heaven. In the summer when the days were longest, the Slavs held a big feast in honour of the sun. In ancient times on the eve of June 24 (old style calendar) a maiden was thrown into the water as a sacrifice to the god-s. Later a puppet was used lor this purpose

and the people bathed in the river. This night was called Ku'paU ^Jcaya (from ku'pat’— to bathe), or Midsummer Eve. Fire, according to the Slavs, was the son of the sun. The god of thunder was Peroun. They believed that Peronn drgve across the sky in his chariot and slew evil spirits with his fiery arrows. Thus did the Slavs explain the phenomena of thunder and lightning. Strilog was the god of the wind. The patron of herding and agriculture was the ‘‘cattle god," Teles. He was also revered as the patron of bards.

One of the beliefs of the Slavs was that the souls of the dead contin- ued to live after death. Food was left on the graves for the deceased. Their funeral rites were in conformity with the cult of the dead. Not all Slav tribes had the same rites: in some places the body was buried in a grave, in others the corpse was burnt and the ashes interred. A mound was put up over the grave. The deceased was fully equipped for his future life; various household objects (a knife, flint, weapons, utensils, etc.) were laid in the grave. When a rich man died bis wife and slaves were all interred with him. A wake was held to honour the dead, attended by military games and feasting in which the dead man was supposed to be a participant.

The Eastern Slavs had no temples. Wooden idols were set up in open-air shrines . Sacrifices were made to propitiate the gods and receive their support or appease their wrath. Sometimes these were human sacrifices. The Slavs believed that there were people who could divine the will ofthegods. and they called such people or wizards. The

latter were supposed to know special incantations by which they could control the powers of nature, cine the sick, transform themselves into werewolves, etc. The pagan beliefs of the Slavs such as the belief in household gods, wood-goblins and other superstitions persisted among the people for many centuries.

The Neighbours of the Slavs

The southeastern part of the Baltic seacoasi from the Niemen River to the Western Dvina was occupied by Lithuanian tribes. Those living between the Niemen and the Vistula were called Litavtsi-Pnossi. The right tributaries of the Lower Niemen were inhabited by the Litovtsi-Zhmud.The region of the middle reaches of the Niemen was occupied by the Lithuanians proper {Litva). This name was later applied to all Lithuanian tribes. The right bank of the lower reaches of the Western Dvina was the home of the Letygoh, and the left bank -—the These two tribes subsequently formed the Latvian people. The land along the watersheds flowing into the Baltic Sea was covered with dense forests and swamps. The Lithuanians lived in these forest jungles in small settlements; they had neither towns nor fortifications. Their small clan and tribal unions were in no way connected with each other. The population engaged in hunting, agriculture, and, to some extent, in herding. The Lithuanians who lived along the seacoast fished, collected amber, which, was highly prized at that time, and traded with neigh]?oiiring peoples (notably the Scandinavians).

Various Ural-Altaic tribes lived northeast of the Lithuanians and Slavs: the CJmdes (Esths), Merya, Mordvinians, Charemissi {Mari) and others. They occupied the forest land in the northeast of Emrope. Their chief occupations were hunting and fishing. The northern woods abound- ed in sable, marten, squirrel, fox and other valuable fur-bearing animals. The pelts of these animals were bought by eastern merchants on the Volga and by European merchants on the shore of the Baltic. The people lived in mud-huts, selecting as sites for their settlements places which offered a natural protection and shielded them against attacks of the enemy.

The Varangians in Eastern Europe

A water route connecting the Baltic Sea with the Black Sea ran across the land occupied by the Eastern Slavs and was called the “route from the Varangians to the Greeks,” that is, from Scandinavia, the land of the Varangians, to Byzantium. This route ran from the GuK of Finland via the Neva Biver to Lake Ladoga^ thence up the Volkhov Biver to Lake Ilmen and from Lake Ilmen to the Lovat River, from which vessels were carried by portage to the upper reaches of the Western Dvina. Bands of Varan- gians, as the inhabitants of Scandinavia were known in Eastern Europe, or Norsemen, as they were called by their southern neighbours, used Ibis route in the 9th century when they went in quest of plunder. At that time the Norsemen terrified all Western Europe with their raids. They invaded the lands of the Eastern Slavs, as eyerywhe.*e else, for preda- tory trade and plunder. The Varangians were organized in military bands under the leadership of their Izonungs, or princes. They attacked the Slavs and other tribes, robbed them of their furs, took prisoners, and carried off their booty to be sold in Constantinople, or to be shipped down the Volga to the land of the Bulgars and to the IQiazar capital Itil. The Slavs and their neighbours repeatedly rose against these freebooters and drove them off.

Some of the Varangian princes and their retinues seized the most advantageous places on the ^‘route from the Varangians to the Greeks” and imposed tribute upon the local Slav population. They very often killed or subordinated the local Slavonic princes and ruled in their stead. Legend has it that in the middle of the 9th century one such adventurer, Rurik, established himself in Novgorod, which was the key position to the Dnieper route from the north. His brother Si- neus lived at Byelo Ozero (White Lake), across which lay a route from the Gulf of Finland to the Volga and the Urals, and another brother, Truvor, at Izborsk, a town which commanded the routes to the Baltic shore. Two other Varangian chiefs Askold and Dir, took possession of the city of Kiev in the land of the Polyane. Kiev was an important southern point on the “route from the Varangians to the Greeks.”

Another offshoot of Scandinavia seized the principality of Polotsk on a different route leading from the Baltic Sea to the Dnieper along the Western Dvina. Most of the Varangians who made raids on Slav lands returned home with their booty. Some of the Scandinavian princes, however, settled with their retinues in the towns of Riis,. sometimes entering the service of the local Slav princes to protect them from new freebooters coming from Scandinavia.

The number of Varangians who settled on Slav lands was negli- gible, The Varangian bands were augmented by local Slav warriors. Before long the Varangians were Slavonicized: already in the begin- ning of the 10th century they used the Slavonic language and wor- shipped Slavonic gods. The Varangian warriors very quickly merged with the Slav nobility and formed with it a single class. The ancient state of Rus grew in its struggle with the Varangians in the north and with the nomads who invaded the Black Sea steppes from the east, and maintained its independence of By^iantium.

Union of Eastern Slavs around Kiev

The Kiev State

The Dnieper region and the adjacent lands were united under the rule of Prince Oleg in the beginning of the 10 th century. The chroniclers tell us that at first Oleg ruled over the Novgorod Slavs, but later went down the Dnieper and conquered the Smolensk Krivichi . Proceeding farther down the Dnieper, he slew Askold and Dir, who were in Kiev, took possession of the city, and reduced the neighbouring Drevlyane. Oleg also subdued the tribes of Severyane and Radimiohi, who had been under the Khazar yoke. The simultaneous possession of Novgorod and Kiev made Oleg the undisputed lord of the Dniepei route. The lesser princes wore forced to submit to him. He became the “Grand Prince of Rus,” with all other princes “under his will.”' The lands of the Dnieper and the Ilmen Slavs were united under the rule of the Kiev prince. Tliis union was called Bus, and its centre was Kiev, which is why we call this union of ancient Russian lands “Kiev Bus.”

The greater part of the population subject to the Kiev princes were Slavs, but their state also included the Merya, Vesi, Chudes and other tribes. The economic ties among all these tribes were weak, and the latter were theiefore unable to form a stable entity.

During this period the Eastern Slavs still lived in agricultural communities — vervs — ^and retained various customs that had prevailed under the clan system. But the process of disintegration was already in progress in the community; individual members accumulated wealth; the labour of the poorer tribesmen was exploited. In this way the division of society into classes was hastened, private ownership of land developed, and feudal relations originated.

Campaigns Against Byzantium and the Caspian Countries. The Kiev state, which consisted of a number of independent principalities loosely held together maintained itself by force of arras.

The Kiev state played an important role in Eastern Europe. In 860, as a reprisal against Byzantine aggression a laigo fleet of Slav odnoderc- vhi (small craft hewn out of solid oak trunks) made its way to the Golden Horn (the inlet of the Bosporus forming the harbour of Constantinople) and threatened the walls of Constantinople. The city was saved only because a storm dispersed the Slav beet. The annals state that Oleg undertook a successful campaign against Constantinople. In 911 he concluded an .advantageous peace with Byzantium, which established the exact relations between the Bus and the Greeks. The treaty is evidence of the regular relations between Bus and Byzantium and of the great power of the prince of Kiev.

In 913 or 914 Bus attacked the Caspian coaslliiie. Russian vessels sailed from the Sea of Azov up the Don to the spot where this river most closely approaches the Volga, and from there, hy portage, their boats were carried to the Volga. The Bus then went down to t3ie Caspian Sea and ravaged the Transcaucasian coast (now Azerbaijan), but on the way back they themselves were attacked by the Khazars and sustained certain losses.

Oleg was succeeded in the second quarter of the 10th century b\* the Kiev Princ'j Igor, whom the annals call the son of Rurik, and who occupied a similar dominating position in relation to the other xDrinces. Igor continued the conquests of Oleg. He subjugated the Slavs living on the Southern Bug and imposed tribute upon the Drevlyane who revolted against the rule of Kiev. In 941 Igor launched a big sea campaign against B^^zantinm. The Bus devastated the precincts of Constantinople , but the Greek fleet kept them out of the harbour and forced them back to the Black Sea. Repulsed from Constantinople, the Rus ravaged the northern shore of Asia Minor. The Greek govern- ment had to send a large land force to drive the Rus out of that country. The Greek fleet, which was equipped with devices for pouring liquid combustibles — “Greek fire’’ — over enemy vessels, inflicted a telling defeat on Igor’s sea force. The Greeks succeeded in setting fire to the Russian vessels. To save themselves from the “Greek fire” many of the Rus plunged into the water and were drowned. Never- theless, what remained of the Slavonic fleet made its way past the enemy vessels and retmned to its native land.

To avoid a repetition of raids by the Rus the Greeks concluded a new treaty with Igor in 945. In this treaty the trade conditions between Rus and Constantinople were set forth in detail, and a military alliance against their common enemies was established.

In 943 Rus once more undertook a big expedition against the set- tlements along the Caspian seacoast. Rus warriors sailed up the Kura River and captured the city of Berdaa. From there the Rus made attacks on the outlying lands. The unfavourable climatic conditions told on the Rus, of whom disease and mortality took heavy toll. Their thinned ranks were besieged in a fortress by Arab troops; however, the remnants, under cover of night, succeeded in making their way to their vessels and to return to Rus with their plunder.

Polyudye

One of the reasons that prompted the Kiev princes to undertake campaigns and to wage war was the collection oi tribute from the conquered peoples.

Feudal relations were as yet poorly developed in the Kiev state in the 10th century. Big land tenure was in the process of formation. The princes therefore exploited the population chiefly by collecting tribute from the people. The princes had bodies of military retainers — retinues — ^with whose help they undertook their campaigns and kept the conquered peoples in subjection. They shared the tribute they extorted with their retinue, thus paying the latter for their services. Each year, at the beginning of winter, the prince and his retinue of warriors would leave their city ticl <polyudye, that is, on an expe- dition “among the people” — to levy tribute. The prince would make the round of his subject domains and collect furs, honey, hees-wax, etc., from the inhabitants. In the spring the booty together with prisoners captured in war would be loaded on ships and sent down the Dnieper to the Black Sea. At the Dnieper rapids the merchan- dise and vessels would be transferred by portage. Here the travellers would often he beset by the Pechenegs, lying in wait to rob them of their wares. Another dangerous spot was near the Island of Khortitsa (where Dnieproges, the Dnieper Power Station, now stands). The high bluffs here cramped the narrow current of the Dnieper, and a fleet of ships was always in danger of attack by the nomads.

After leaving the mouth of the Dnieper and sailing into tho Black Sea, the voyagers offered thanksgiving sacrifices at a '‘sacred” oak on a little islet. Then they followed the western shore of the Black Sea. The final destination was Constantinople, or Tsargrad (the tsar’s city) as tho Slavs called it. Theie they sold the furs, hoes- wax and slave.'-, and in exchange acquired costly fabrics, wines, fimit and other luxurie.N.

Tribute was wrung from the subject tribes by violent and oppressive means, with the result that the Drovl 3 "ane, headed by their local Prince Mai, rebelled during the rule of Igor. Igor, the chronicler says, entrust- ed the levying of tribute from certain Slav tribes to one of his more influential retainers named Sveneld, thus arousmg dissatisfaction among his guard. The latter persistently urged Tgor to go to the land of the Drevlyane himself to collect tribute, saying: "Svenold's warriors have fitted themselves out with ams, clothes and horses, while we are naked. Let us go. Prince, and collect the tribute, and thou wilt gain and we will.” After collecting tribute from the land of the Drevlyane, Igor dismissed most of his military retinue and decided to make another round himself. 'T will return and go about some more.” When the Drevlyane heard that tho prince was preparing to come back for more tribute, they said: 'Tf the wolf gets into the habit of visiting a herd he will devour it all unless he is killed.*’ They slew Igor’s attendants, then captured and killed Igor hmiself (945).

Igor’s widow, Olga (945-957), uho ruled instead of her son Sv^^a- toslav, who was in his minorit^^ mercilessly" crushed the mutin 3 % I&korosten, the principal city of the Drevly-ane, was taken and burned; many of the inhabitants were either slain or reduced to slavery’'; the rest had to pay a heavy tribute. Pearing fui*ther uprisings, Olga fixed the exact amount of tribute to be paid in the future. However, not con- tent merely with tribute she began seizing portions of the land that still belonged to the communities. This testifies to the still greater exploitation of the conquered lands by the princes and their retainers.

The Conquests of Svyatoslav

Svyatoslav (957-972), the son of Igor and Olga, wns a Slav by birth, name and appearance. He wore a simple white shirt, an earring in one of his ears, and shaved his head, leaving only a long forelock. A brave leadqr of a martial retinue, he spent his whole life on campaigns, "walking lightly, like a panthen-”; he never took any baggage carts on his marches, slept on tho erround with his saddle as pillow, and ate half-cooked horseflesh. Svyatoslav never attacked an enemy by underhand, treacherous moans. When setting out on a campaign he sent messengers ahead to say*: ‘T ’want to march against you.”

The ^jacent lands of the Dnieper and Lake Ilmen were already part of the Kiev state. S'vyatoslav directed his arms first against the Slavonic tribes living east of the Dnieper, conquered the Vyatichi on the Oka, and then attacked the other peoples. In the sixties of the 10th cenfcnry he defeated the Volga states of the Bulgars and the Khazars, then marched to the Northern Caucasus, where he defeated the Kasogi (Circassians) and Yasi (the Ossetians), In 907 Svj’-atoslav launched a campaign against Bulgaria on the Danube, a land inhab- ited by Slavs who had assumed the name of the Bulgars, their con- querors. The Bulgars were constantly attacking their neighbour, the Greek empire, indicting serious defeats on the Greeks. Not equal to coping with Bulgar incursions the Greeks appealed to Svyatoslav for aid. He not only won a complete victory over the Bulgars, but even planned to establish himself permanently in Pereyaslavets on the Danube, the capital of Bulgaria. ‘"Here,” he said, “is the centre of my land; here flows everything that is good — ^gold, rich fabrics, wine and fruit from the Greeks; silver and hordes from Czechia and Hungary; furs, bees-wax, honey and slaves from Rus.”

The Greek government, fearing such a dangerous neighbour, bribed the Pechemgs to attack Kiev. News of the siego of Kiev by the Pechenogs forced Svyatoslav to hasten back to the Dnieper region. But he did not relinquish the idea of conquering Bulgaria, After driving the Pechenegs back to the steppes, he returned and recap- tured Pereyaslavets. Thereupon the new Byzantine Emperor, John Tzimisces, advanced against him with a big army. Faced by a supe- rior enemy, Svyatoslav nevertheless did not abandon the struggle. He is attributed by the chronicles to have made the following address to his warriors: “Let us not shame the Russian soil, but lay down our lives, for the dead know no shame, but if we flee, then shall we be shamed.”

The Greek troops took Pereyaslavets, but not until after a hard struggle. The Bus garrison which had been left in the city by Svyato- slav barricaded itself in the royal palace of the Bulgars and defended itself even after the city fell to the enemy. Tzimisces ordered the palace to be set on fire; only then did the Bus leave the city for the field, where they fought their last battle. “They fought vigorously,” writes a Greek historian; “they did not take to flight, and our men put them all to the sword.” Svyatoslav shut himself up in the town of Dorostol on the Danube. He was besieged on land by Tzimisces’ army, while on the Danube his retreat was blocked by the Greek fleet with its fire-throwers. In spite of this, Svyatoslav rejected all peace offers. His army, which was very small, defended itself he- roically and made daring sallies. During the night the Bus burned their dead, killed the prisoners in their honour, and offered sacri- fices to the gods. The besieged were weakened by hunger. They made a last desperate attempt to break their way through. The Greek army wavered, and the emperor had to go into battle himself, at the head of his bodyguard — the r‘immortals/^ The sortie was repulsed; many of the Rus were wounded, and killed, and Svyatoslav himself was wounded. Further resistance was impossible. In 971 Svyatoslav con- cluded a peace treaty by which he surrendered Bulgaria. But the Oreek govermnent still feared Svyatoslav and informed the Peche- negs of his return to his native land. They ambushed Svyatoslav at the Dnieper rapids, where they killed him (V)72). The Pecheneg prince made a drinking cup of the skull of the murdered Svy^atoslav.

Introduction of Christianity into Kiev Rus

Vladimir Svyatoslavich (980-1015)

Sv^-atoslav, during his absence at the wars, had left the government of his domains in the hands of his three sons. The land of the Polyane, including Kiev, went to his oldest son Yaropolk; the land of the Drevlyane — to Oleg, and Novgorod to Vladimir. Soon after the death of their father the brothers quarrelled. Oleg and Yaropolk fell in battle, and Vladimir again united all the lands of the Eastern Slavs under his rule. Sub- sequently he extended his possessions at the expense of his neighbours. Vladimir annexed the land of Galich (Halicz) to the Kiev state, and marched against the Poles, who wanted to take possession of it, Vla- dimir also advanced against Lithuania. But his chief concern was to defend his southern frontiers against the raids of the Pechenegs. During his rule the steppe borders were fortified with ramparts and palisades, forts were erected and warlike people were settled on the frontier.

Adoption of Christianity

During Vladimir’s reign Kiev Rus adopted the Greek Orthodox religion, as Greek Christendom is called in distinction to that of Western Europe, called Catholicism. The Eastern Slavs became acquainted with Christian culture through their regular trade and political intercourse with B^’zantium and tlieir frequent trips to Constantinople, The chief reason for the adop- tion of Christianity was the fact that the class of feudal lords, which sprang up in the Dnieper region, needed a religion which would sup- port its class interests. Furthermore, the old heathen religion was in the hands of sorcerer-priests, representatives of the old tribal nobi- lity, who were hostile to the princes. The first to embrace Christia- nity were the representatives of the upper class, including their retainers. Even under Igor there already were many Christians in the prince *s military retinue, Igor's widow, Olga, had also adopted Christianity. At the end of the j'ear 987 a revolt broke out in the Byzantine empire. At the same time the Danube Bulgars threatened Byzantium from the north. The Byzantine government called upon the Kiev prince for help. An alliance was formed (OSS) which was to be sealed by the baptism of Vladimir and the entire Russian people, and by the marriage of the Kiev prince to the Greek Princess Anna (two emperors ruled Byzantium at that time; Princess Anna was their sister). With the help of a contingent of Russian troops the revolt in Byzantium was suppressed, Byzantium, however, was in no hurry to fulfil the terms of the agreement concerning the marriage of Vladi- mir and r rincess Anna. Vladimir besieged and took the city of Kher- sones (Korsun) in the Crimea, which belonged to Byzantium, and forced Byzantium to fulfil its part of the treaty. Vladimir was bap- tized according to the rites of the Greek church and married Princess Anna.

On his return from Khersones, Vladimir ordered the whole population of Kiev to be driven to the river, in which they were baptized by Greek priests. The images of the gods were burnt, and an idol of Peroun was thrown into the Dnieper. The population of other cities was baptized in the same way. Christianity, however, did not take immediate root. Heathen beliefs continued to prevail for a very long time, especially, among the rural population.

The adoption of Christianity was an important event in the life of Kiev Rus. In comparison with heathenism, Christianity was a great advance on the path of progress. It stimulated the further development and strengthening of feudal relations in Kiev Rus, since the Greek clergy employed peasant serfs on their church lands, and not slaves. The church advocated the liberation of the slaves,

Christianity was instrumental in spreading the higher Byzan- tine culture among the Eastern Slavs. The establishment of a single religion hastened the unification of all Slavonic tribes and strength- ened the power of the princes.

The introduction of Christianity also brought about closer ties with Byzantium and the states of Western Europe. Vladimir main- tained friendly relations with Czechia, Poland and Hungary. He be- came related to the Greek imperial house through his marriage with Anna. The cultural influence of the more enlightened Christian coun- tries also increased. Kiev, in the manner of Byzantium, erected stone buildings ornamented with paintings and mosaic work. The heathen shrines gave way to a church built by Greek craftsmen, and, beside it, a palace was erected for Vladimir.

Education became more widespread. About a hundred years be- fore the conversion of Rus, the missionaries Cyril and Methodius, upon instruotions from the Greek government, invented a Slavonic alphabet and translated the Greek scriptural books into the Slavonic (Bulgarian) dialect to facilitate the preaching of Christianity among the Western and Southern Slavs, Thanks to this, Kiev Rus, after its conversion, received books in the Slavonic language, Vladimir ordered the children of the nobility to be taken from their parents and forcibly taught to read and write.

The memory of Vladi- mir has been preserved in folk songs or hyliny. In these songs the people embodied their ideal of love for their native land in the persons of their valorous knighls —

Prince Vladimir’s warriors, the peasant Ilya of Murom,

Dobrynya Nikitich, Alyosha Popovich, and others who de- fended their Eussian land against the dwellers of the sloppes. These folk songs present the period of Kiev Bus as a brilliant epoch in Russian history.

Yaroslav Mudry (the Wise)

Vladimir died in 1015 and imme- diately after his death a fierce struggle broke out among his sons. One of them, Svyatopolk, seized the power in Kiev and slew his, brothers, Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav. Another son, Yaroslav Vla- dimirovich, who had been entrusted with the government of Novgo- rod during his father’s lifetime, attacked Svyatopolk, With the help of the people of Novgorod, he routed Svyatopolk, who tied to Poland to his father-in-law. Prince Boleslaus the Brave. This internecine warfare among the princes exposed the Russian frontiers to foreign aggressors. Boleslaus of Poland invaded Rus, defeated Yaroslav on the Western Bug, entered Kiev and placed Svyatopolk on the throne. The indignation of the Russians was aroused against the Poles who engaged m plundering and banditry. When the latter dispersed through the towns and villages to take up their winter quarters, the population slew them. Boleslaus fled to Poland with the remnants of his army. Without the support of the Polish king, Svj^atopolk suffered a decisive defeat at the hands of Yaroslav and the Novgo- rodians, and was killed while trying to make his escape. Yaroslav united Kiev and Novgorod imder his rule (1019). However, his brother IMstislav Vladimirovich, ruler of the Tmutarakan principality on the Taman Peninsula, near the Caucasus, laimched a campaign against him, Mstislav conquered Seversk Land and the city of Cherni- gov from. Yaroslav. The Dnieper became the boundary between the possessions of these two brothers. After Mstislav’s death (1036) Yaro- slav re-annexed the land of Seversk to the Kiev state.

The reign of Yaroslav (1019-1054) was marked by the ultimate triumph of Christianity in Kiev Rus. It was during his rule that the church, administration was organized, and a metropolitan appointed by the patriarch of Constantinople was placed at the head of the church of Kiev. It was also under Yaroslav that the Pechersk Monastery near Kiev came into existence. This monastery played a great pait in the spread of learning among the ruling classes of Kiev Bus.

The Kiev state in Yaroslav’s reign occupied a leading position among the states of Europe in point of power and the high level of its culture. Evidence of the close political ties that existed between Kiev Eus and the states of Western Europe is furnished by the matri- monial alliances formed by Yaroslav’s family with foreign courts: his sister was married to the Polish prince, one of his daughters to the French kmg, another to the Norwegian, and a third to the Hun- garian. Yaroslav frequently interfered in the affairs of Poland. Taking advantage of the turmoil that reigned in Poland after the death of Bo- leslaus, Yaroslav once more recovered the towns which had been lost after Vladimir’s death m Galich Eus. Later Yaroslav supported his brother-in-law, the Polish prince, by sending troops to his aid The last campaign against Constantinople (1043), which ended in failure, was undertaken during Yaroslav’s rule under the leadership of his son Vladimir. In the Baltic region, which was already becoming the object of attacks by Gormans, Yaroslav built the city of Yuriev (Tartu in Esthonian) and extended his power over the Baltic peoples. He built a city on the Volga which he named Yaroslavl. In the south Yaroslav was compelled to wage a hard struggle against the Pechenegs. He continued to fortify the frontier belt by building towns.

During Yaroslav’s reign, the earliest code of laws was compiled imder the name of Yaroslav’s Pravda^ 'which revealed induences of Christian Byzantine legislation. Yaroslav’s Pravda reflected the tenacity of the old clan customs, for instance, it sanctioned the blood feud, which was confined to the members of the family, and was not applicable to the clan. ‘‘If one man shall kill another,*^ Pravda said, “the brother shall avenge a brother, the son a father, the father a son, the nephew on the brothers or on the sister’s side, if there be none to take revenge, then forty grivnas ( a grivna was a bar of silver weighing sipproximately 200 grams) shall be paid for the murdered person.” However, this obligation to seek revenge was imposed only on the next of kin and not on the entire clan, for by that time the clan had already fallen apart. During the reign of Yaroslav’s sons the blood feud^was aboli^ed altogether.

Yaroslav’s Pravda was later supplemented and revised during the reign of his sons and grandsons.

The Culture of Kiev Rus

The cullural development of Kiev Bus in the 11th century was greatly influenced by Byzantium which vtas the most civilized country m Europe at the time. The Russians, however, did not simply borrow an alien culture; they moulded it to the form of their own national ait as well as that of Western Europe and Transcaucasia. An ancient Kussian, native culture was created on Kiev soil which subsequently foimed the basis of the national cultures of the Bussian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian peoples.

A considpiable number of books translated fiom the Greek in Bulgaria on the Danube made their appearance in Kiev Bus togethei with the new religion. The pnnee and rich people had tiansenpts oi these books made for themselves. Other books were tianslated anew into the Russian language.

Besides theological books there wore secular writings, such as the Greek chronicles. Translated liteiatme served as the model for original Russian works. The first attempts to compile a history of Bus date back to the time of Yaroslav. After his death these historical notes were elaborated in the Pechersk Monastery in the form of a volmninouR work which related “whence came the Russian land.” The under- lying idea of this work was that of a united Rus- sia and a united ancient Russian people. The vol- ume Nachalmya Letopis (Initial Annals) as it was commonly called, was composed of stories, biographies of the princes, annual recordings of events made in various cities, passages from Greek chronicles, etc.

The Initial Annals have come down to us under the name, Chro- nicU of Ancient Years, in the revised versions dated 1116 and 1118. The Initial Annals are the source of our information on the ancient history of the Dnieper region and its adjacent lands. They are evi- dence of a high degree of learning in the monasteries of Kiev Rus and of the versatility and wealth of the. translated and original litera- tine of the times.

Byzantine influence made itself felt in art as well. During Yaro- slav’s reign the St. Sophia Cathedral was built in Kiev by Greek architects; however, the usual type of Byzantine architecture was modified to correspond to Russian tastes and demands. The St. Sophia Cathedral is a masterpiece of 11th century Russian art. The inteiior of the cathedral contains remarkable mosaics and frescos. The so-called “Golden Gate” was also built during Yaroslav's rule Foreigners were amazed at the splendour of Kiev and called it “the rival of Constantinople.” Other cities, especially Novgorod, built sim- ilar magnificent structures. Vladimir, son of Yaroslav, built the superb St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod after the Kiev model.

Disintegration of the Kiev State

Establishment of Feudalism in the Kiev State

Development of Feudal Relations in Kiev Rus

AgricuLme was the basic economy in Kiev Rus. By the 11th century it had made considerable progress and spread over a vast territory.

Among the husbandmen (the smerds) living 'in communities some wealthy people came to the fore who started to seize the land and cultivate it with the labour of the poor people dependent upon them and slaves. In this way there arose in the community a number of rich landowners possessing large demesnes. It also became more profitable for the princes and their retinues to engage in farming on a large scale than to confine themselves to the collection of tribute from the popu- lation. They therefore appropriated the community lands from the smerds and concentrated in their hands large landed estates con- sisting of tilths, forests rich in wild bees, and hunting grounds. With the help of the princes and the boyars (as the wealthy landowners came to be called), the monasteries also appropriated land to them- selves. Thus the landed property of the princes, boyars and churches was considerably expanded at the expense of the community land of the husbandmen.

Around the large towns there sprang up villages belonging to the princes, boyars and monasteries. Slave labour was not very productive. It was more advantageous for the landowner to have semi-free peasants on his land, people who had their own farms but who at the same time were compelled to work for the landowner. And so the landowners made bondsmen of the free husbandmen and exploit- ed them.

The mass of the husbandmen still lived in communities in the 11th century, their dependence on the princes being limited to the payment of tribute. By the end of the 11th century there already was a considerable group of husbandmen who were dependent upon the rich landowners. Such dependent husbandmen were, for instance, the zahu'py, A zahup received a Aiitpa, or money loan from his masrer and a small plot of land which was paid for by services (the corvee) . The inventory — Ahorse, plough and harrow — ^belonged to the master. The latter had the right to inflict corporal punishment upon his zahu'p, who could not quit without settling his debt. If he ran away and was caught, he became a slave. The zakwp was thus in complete bondage to the landowner. "TDhe landoTmers kept the smerds in bondage even at the time of Busskaya Pravda^^* Lenin said.* In the ilth century, according to Lenin, ‘‘the smerds (as Busskaya Pravda called the peasants) went into bondage and ^signed up’ for the landlords.”**

The husbandmen resisted the attempts to deprive them of their land and to enslave them; they ploughed up the boundary lines separat- ing the lands that were alienated by the feudal lords, destroyed all boundary marks, killed the princes’ and boyars’ bailiffs, and set fire to the buildings on their masters’ estates. Spontaneous uprisings against the feudal lords broke out frequently in the villages.

Relations characteristic of the feudal system came into existence in Kiev Rus: the large landowner subordinated and exploited the small producer and forced the latter to work for him.

Under the feudal system the peasants and craftsmen were the owners of the instruments and means of production and conducted their private economy by their own labour. The land, however, which was then the chief means of production, belonged to the feudal lorfls. This enabled the latter by means of force to enthrall the petty produ- cer, the peasant, and convert him into a semi-ffee man.

Russkaya Pravda

During the reign of Yaroslav’s sons and grandsons, feudal customs found reflection in a code of ducal regula- tions, known xmder the name of Busskaya Pravda^ the basis of which was Y’aroslav's Pravda, The aim of Busskaya Pravda was to protect the property of the landowners, the feudal lords. It contained a number of clauses which listed the fines imposed for violation of boundary lines, for stealing cattle, etc. The rights of a lord over his zakup and slave were precisely defined. Busskaya Pravda abolished the clan feud, which it substituted by the vu'a (blood money), that is, recom- pence paid for a murdered man; this was set at forty grivnas. Recom- pense for the murder of a boyar was double the amount, eighty grivnas, A similar vira was paid for the murder of persons who occupied impor- tant posts on the estate of the prince, the prince 's equerry, major-domo, etc. But no vira was paid for slaves. Their master was merely compen- sated for their cost which was five grivnas, A similar sum was paid for husbandmen working on a prince’s or boyar’s estate. Thus the tenant working on the land of a feudal* lord was placed in the same category as the slave. In the case of crimes Busskaya Pravda fixed fines payable t.o the prince and damages to the plaint iff. For instance, accord- ing to Busskaya Pravda, “if a man be struck with the sword but not killed, the fine is three grivnas, and one grivna to the peison struck and the cost of treatment, if a wound is inflicted,*’ or “if a tooth is knocked out and blood appears in the mouth, then the fine is twelve grivnas and a grivnia for tlie tooth"*’; “if someone hews down a tree in which wild bees swarm, the fine is three grivnaay and half a grivna for the tree.” The severest punishment was imposed for setting fire to a farm- stead or threshing fioor, taking the form of banishment and confisca- tion of the malefactor’s property. The severity of this punishment was due to the lords’ fear of vengeance on the part of their exploited tenants.

Trade and Crafts

A natural economy prevailed in Kiev E,us, that is, each farm was practically self-sufS.cient. However, in the 11th century the cities were producing commodities for the local market. Certain articles of prime necessity, such as clothing and footwear, were obtained at the torg — smarts. The feudal lords wanted articles of luxury such as jewelry, similar to those imported from Byzantium and the East. The Kiev craftsmen imitated the Greek and Eastern models and created an art of their own, the high standard of which can be judged from objects discovered amid the hidden treasures of Kiev and other cities. The Smithy’s craft stood particularly high; Bussian armourers made superior swords and other weapons. A new group sprang up in the cities — the merchants, who bought local goods and resold them in other cities in their own coun- try and abroad; in exchange they imported foreign goods which they sold in their homeland.

The original medium of exchange was animal skins in the forest belt and cattle in the steppe zone. That is why in ancient times money was called shot — cattle, or Tcuny — marten skins. Bus had no coinage of its own at first, and only iiabian, Greek and Western European coins were current. Beginning with the 11th century a small quantity of coins was minted in Kiev Bus in imitation of the Greek coins, with the heads of the princes stamped on them.

Money lending was prevalent in the cities, where the lower sec- tions, especially the artisans, suffered from it acutely. Though the craftsmen owned their own instruments of production, they became dependent upon the moneylender and merchant. The increasing division of labour intensified the* process of class stratification in the towns. Exploited by the rich merchants and moneylenders, the city poor rose against tlieir oppressors, but were unable to shake ojff the grievous yoke of dependence.

Beginning of the Disintegration of the Kiev State

Despite its show of splendour, the Kiev state was an agglomeration of loosely connected, diverse lands that had been subjugated by the Kiev princes. As big landownership developed in various regions, the local land- owners, who came into possession of large estates with numerous dependent peasants, grew more powerful and maintained their own retinues of warriors. The most powerful local feudal lords strove to free themselves of the suzerainty of the Kiev princes, and sup- ported their own princes who aspired to independence from Kiev. Thus the integrity of Kiev Rus began to crumble and give way to feudal disunity.

Shortly after the death of Yaroslav (1054) this process of disinte- gration went on apace and the Kiev state was superseded by a number of independent principalities, respectively ruled by Yaros- lav’s sons- The oldest, Izyaslav, inherited Kiev and Novgorod, that is, the two most important points on the Dnieper route; Svyatoslav received Chernigov Land, and Vsevolod —Pereyaslav and Rostov- Suzdal. The other lands went to the younger members of the prince’s family. At first the three elder brothers, Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod, acted in harmony, maintaining order in the land and defend- ing it against enemies by their joint efrorts. Sometimes the brothers met to confer on matters of common interest. Thus, at a conference called shortly after a revolt of the craftsmen and husbandmen in Kiev in 1068 they supplemented and revised the Pravda of their father Yaroslav.

Feudal Wars and the Struggle Against the Polovtsi

Yaro- slav’s sons had to defend the Russian domains against the invasions of a nomad Turkic race from Asia, called the Polovtsi. lu the middle of the 11th century the Polovtsi invaded and occupied the Black Sea steppes, driving some of the Pechenegs westward, to the Danube, and intermingling with the others. The Polovtsi were herdsmen. They were divided into several hordes or tribes, ruled by khans (princes). These nomads made devastating descents on Russian lands, seized captives, drove off the cattle, and disappeared back into the steppe. Tlieir attacks were extremely fierce and sudden.. A Greek writer bays ot them: “The Polovtsi appear and disappear in the twinkling of an eye. Their raid over, and arms full of spoil, they piecipitately seize tile reins, urge tlieir horses on %vith their feet and whip, and rush off like a whirlwind, as though desiring to overtake a bird in fiight. They are gone before you have seen them.”

in 1068 Izj^aslav and his brothers, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod marched against the Polovisi, but suffered a serious defeat and fled from the field of baitle. Izyaslav went to Kiev. The peasants, who had thronged to the city from the villages pillaged by the Polovtsi, and the Kiev populace demanded that Izyaslav give them weapons and horses and lead them again into battle against the enemy. But Izyaslav refused, fearing lest the weapons be turned against him. The crowd then broke into and pillaged the prince’s household, released the captive Polotsk Prince Vseslav from his prison, and proclaimed him the prince of Kiev. Izyaslav fled to Poland to seek the aid of Prince Boleslaus the Bold. The Polish feudal lords found this an opportune moment to intervene in the affairs of Kiev Bus. Izyaslav returned with a Polish army. Vseslav betrayed the Kiev people and secretly fled to Polotsk during the night. With the heli> of the Polish feudal lords Izyaslav cruelly avenged himself upon the rebellious Kiev people: seventy were executed and many were blind- ed and punished in other ways. The Poles quartered themselves in the cities of the Kiev principality, where the populace, infuriated by their outrages, massacred them.

In spite of the danger from the Polovtsi, the league of Yaroslav ’h. sons did not last very long. In 1073 Svyatoslav and Vsevolod drove Izyaslav out of Kiev. Svyatoslav occupied the Kiev throne. Izyaslav sought help from the German emperor and the Pope and fi.nally, with the help of the Poles, recovered the throne, but shortly after this was killed in a war against his nephews.

The feudal wars continued under Yaroslav’s grandsons. In 109T the most influential princes gathered at a joint council at Lyubech.. *^Why do we ruin the Land of Bus,” the princes exclaimed at this meeting; "plotting treason against each other while the Polovtsi are harassing our land and are glad that we are fighting among our- selves! Let us henceforth live in harmony!” To put an end to the feudal internecine warfare, those who attended the council ordained the division of Kiev Bus among themselves according to the prin- ciple of feudal heritage: **Let each possess his own patrimony!” — that is, the principality which his father had possessed . Kiev remained in the hands of Svyatopolk, the son of Izyaslav, the oldest of the* Yaroslavs. The Pereyaslav principality, which had belonged to Vsevolod, Went to his son Vladimir, known under the name of Mono- maohus, the "autocrat” (after the title of his grandfather, the By- zantine Emperor Constantine Monomachus). The participants of the conclave undertook to act jointly against those who violated the agreement. But they had no sooner departed to their respective homes when David Igorevich, the prince of Vladimir-Volhynsk, incited Svyatopolk Izyaslavich to seize one of the members of the conclave, the enterprising and bold Vasilko. Svyatopolk lured Va- silko to Kiev, seized him and turned him over to David. The latter ordered Vasilko to be blinded and imprisoned, and then seized his^ cities. The other princes, led hy Vladimir Monomachus, came out in defence of Vasilfco. He was liberated, and avenged bimself for being blinded by mercilessly devastating David’s lands. At another convocation held in 1100 in the city of Vitichev, the princes punished David by depriving him of Vladimir- Volhynsk. “We do not wish to give thee the Vladimir throne,” they hade him be told, “because thou hast flung the knife among us, which has never been in the Land of Rus.”

The wars among the princes enabled the Polovtsi to plunder the Russian lands with impunity. Sometimes the princes themselves sought the aid of the Polovtsi against their enemies. In order to fight the Polovtsi it was necessary to unite. In the spring of 1103 Svyatopolk Izyaslavich and Vladimir Monomachus met near Kiev, at Lake Dolobtkoye, where they discussed the question of a joint campaign against the Polovtsi. Svyatopolk and his warriors were reluctant to agree to this undertaking, demurring that a spring campaign would have a bad effect upon the ploughing as they would have to take the horses from the peasants for this purpose. “I am astonished, warriors,” Vladimir argued, “that you are sorry for the horse that is used in ploughing but you do not think that when the husbandman begins to plough, the Polovtsi will come, slay him with their arrows, and take away his horse, then they will come into the village and cany off his wife and children and all his prop^ erty. You are sorry for the man’s hor^^e, but you are not sorry for tile man Mmself!” Vladimir arguments convinced the vacillators. The expedition against the Polovtsi, in which almost all the Russian princes took part, was a signal success. The Polovtsi were routed, and the victors returned home with rich booty in cattle, horses, camels and captives. Another expedition undertaken in 1111 was even more successful; the Russian princes then penetrated deep into the land of the Polovtsi.

The long struggle which Kiev Rus was compelled to wage against the peoples of the steppes has been commemorated in folk legends, which tell of the heroes who defended Russian soil against the Tatars (the name Tatar implies all the steppe people— the Polovtsi, Peche- negs, and others). These tales relate how Ilya of Murom, Dobrynya Nikitich, Alyosha Popovich and other heroes stood at the “knights*  outpost” and guarded the land of Rus.

Vladimir Monomachus (1113-1125)

A violent uprising broke out in Kiev in 1113, immediately after the death of Prince Svya- topolk Izyaslavich. Driven to despair by the tyranny of the prince’s retainers and the exploitation of the rich usurers, the city poor re- volted and wrecked their houses. The rebellion threatened to spread to the countryside. The rich feudal lords— the boyars, the family of the deceased prince and the monasteries— were in danger. The wealthy burghers of Kiev, terrified by the menace, sent for Vladimir Monomachus to rule over them: “Come, Prince, to Kiev; if thou comest not, then know that much evil will be done— they will go against the boyars and the monasteries.”

The arrival of Vladimir with his retinue checked the rebellion. Vladimir appreciated the necessity of making concessions and passed a law which slightly limited the amount of interest to be paid on loans. The position of the zakupy was also somewhat alleviated. But these concessions, prompted as they were by the fear of new outbreaks, in no way changed the general situation.

After taking Kiev, Vladimir Monomachus endeavoured to arrest the disintegration of the Kiev state, which was already in progress. He forced the other princes into submission and dealt harshly with the recalcitrant, dispossessing them of their cities. All the princes were “under his will” (his vassals), and had to appear before him at his first smnmons.

This powerful Kiev prince played an important role in the affairs of Eui'ope. Vladimir was related to the Greek imperial house, his mother being the daughter of Emperor Constantine Monomachus, and a granddaughter ’Of Vladimir’s was married to one of the Greek princes. Vladimir interfered in the civil ‘strife in Byzan- tium, and his troops went as far as the Danube, where they established the claim of Rus to the ancient Russian lands of ismail. Vladimir Monomachus’ sister was married to the German emperor; Vladimir himself was married to the daughter of the English king.

Vladimir Monomachus was noted for his daring and bravery. “I never tied to save my life,” he wrote of himself, "and always looked danger boldly in the face.” "Children,” he admonished his sons, "fear neither an army nor the beast; yours is a manly task.” He spent all his life in campaigns and dangerous marches. "I gave myself no rest either by day or night, in cold or heat.” He wa^ iond of the hunt and frequently risked his life: twice the aurochs (wild bull) tossed him on its horns, a deer srored him, an elk trampled over him, a wild boar tore his sword fiom his side, a bear rent his clothing, and a "ferocious animal” threw both him and his horse.

Their tempestuous mode of life did not hamper the development of the princes intellectual pursuits. Vladimir’s father, Vsevolod, was an educated man, who knew five foreign languages. Vladimir himself set great store on learning. "Forget not the good that you know, and what you do not know, learn,” he wrote his sons. He read a great deal, and always carried books about with him on his marches. He himself wrote an interesting book, "Instructions to Chil- dren,” in which he set forth what in his opinion was the character of an ideal prince, illustrating it copiously from his own life.

The Significance of the Kiev State in the History of the U.S.S.R

The Kiev state was a stage in the history of both the Eastern Sla- vonic world, and of the non-Slavonic peoples who subsequently became independent states. Within the womb of the Kiev state a rich and vivid culture was formed, which was destined to become the fountainhead of civilization for a number of Slavonic independ- encies in Eastern Europe and to exeii: a great influence on the neigh- bouring peoples.

However, the Kiev state was not a stable, political entity. Close economic ties did not yet exist among its separate parts — a circum- stance which precluded the possibility of a strong political organi- zation. Agricult m*e and the crafts spread throughout the various regions of the Kiev state, big landownersbip developed, and the economic significance of the cities \^as enhanced. These regions formed their own separate political centies. The falling apart of the Kiev state became inevitable.

Feudal Disunity in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Feudal Principalities in the 12th and 13th Centuries

Intensification of Feudal Disunity

The State System of Russian Principalities

Vladimir Mono- niachus was unable to anest the process of disintegration in the Kiev state. The development ot feudal relations in the dijfiFerent regions led to the formation of independent principalities which no longer professed allegiance to Kiev.

In the 12th century the entire land of Rus split up into a number of independent principalities, the most important of which were those of Kiev, Chernigov, Galich, Smolensk, Polotsk, Turov-Pinsk, Rostov- Suzdal, Ryazan, Novgorod and Vladimir-Volhynsk. Each of these principalities was ruled by an offshoot of the vast genealogical tree of Vladimir Svyatoslavich. Kiev passed from hand to hand. It was the prey of the strongest, for, as one of the princes said, ‘‘it is not the place that fits the head, but the head that fits the place.” The Kiev prince enjoyed a traditional authority over all the other princes. being consideied as the grand prince. It was his business to '*think and ponder'’ for all the land of Rus. But after Vladimir Monomachus, the princes no longer obeyed the Kiev prince and became completely independent. Kiev Rhs thus broke up into numerous small princi- palities independent of one another.

The prince was sovereign and master in his own little state. He managed all state affairs himself— he meted out justice, commanded the troops, and supervised the eoomony of the state. Sometimes, in case of need, or for lack of time he would entrust the court of justice to his bailiff. Vladimir Monomachus never lelied on his servants but attended to everything himself, including his horses, falcons and even his kitchen.

War occupied an important place in the life of a prince . The prince ’s chief military force was a well-armed retinue of horsemen which he maintained at his own expense. This military retinue was divided into superiors and inferiors. The superiors consisted of rich boyars— landed proprietors. The prince conferred with them about everything and made no decisions without their consent. If a prince undertook anything without the consent of his warriors they would say to him: ^‘Thou hast planned this without us. Prince; we shall not go with thee.”

In case of war the piince rallied a levy of foot soldiers from among Ihe city inhabitants. He could not foice the population to go to war, and m such questions he was wholly dependent upon the veche, that i*-, the assembly of the townsfolk. The veche which was controlled by the boyars and rich buighers expressed only the will of the rich burgh- eib and not the populace as a whole. The townspeople vere summoned to the veche either by the tolling of a bell or through town-criers. If the veche agreed to the campaign, the people shouted; “‘\re shall all go, and our children, too.” But there were occasions when the townspeople could not or wished not to fight. In such cases they demanded that the piince make peace with the enemy: “Make peace, Prince, or do thine own worrying.” Thus, in the 12th century, a prince could not go to -war or resist an enemy invasion without the support of the veche or the consent of his retinue. This circumstance made the veche a poweiful organ. When a new prince came to the throne, the veche negotiated with the prince regarding the conditions on which it was willing to accept him. There were times when an undesirable prince was driven out by the burghers who invited a new prince in his stead: “Come to ns. Prince, we want thee.”

The Decline of Kiev Rus

The breaking up of Bus into sepa- rate principalities was the result of economical development and ter- ritorial expansion which entailed the decline of the old political cen- tres— Kiev, Chernigov. Pereyaslavl, and, what was especially impor- tant, the weakening of the defence of Rus against foreign enemies. Bus was no longer able to defend herself effectively against the Pol- ovtsi. The constant feudal wars between the various principalities led to the ruin of the land. The raids of the Polovtsi met with almost no resistance. The effects of these wars were" most keenly felt by the hus- bandmen. During campaigns the princes drove them out of other prin- cipalities to settle them on their own lands and made them work for them, the princes. But even in their own principalities the princes and their boyars, by fair means or foul, deprived the free husbandman of his land and reduced him to bondage. From here originated the old adage : ‘‘Don’t set up your household near the household of a prince, don’t sot up a village near the village of a prince: the prince’s bailiff is like fire and his servants like sparks. If you escape the fire, you wdll not escape the spark.” Rapacious exploitation by the feudal lords and interminable waifaie wreaked havoc among the labouring population. The devastating raids of the Polovtsi drove the husbandmen from the steppe-boider regions and depopulated Kiev Rus.

“All the cities and all the villages are desolated,” writes the chroni- cler in this connection. “We cross the fields where herds of horses and cattle and flocks of sheep used to graze — everything is de eited now, the cornfields are overgiown and have become the home of wild ani- mals.” The Polovtsi took multitudes of the husbandmen into captiv- ity, “ Woe-begone and wretched, black with hunger and thirst, they walked through strange lands, naked, barefoot, their feet lacerated by thorns; with tears in their eyes they spake unto each other: ‘I am from such and such a city, ’and the other would reply: ‘And I am from such and such a countryside.’ ”

The Lay of Prince Igor’s Regiment

The grievous consequences of feudal disimity and the need for unity if the land of Rus was to be saved are portrayed with great artistic power in a brilliant national epic of the Russian people The Lay of Prince Igor^s Regiment (that is, Igor’s campaign). This work, written by an unknown author at the end of the 13th century, centres around the expedition against the Polovtsi that was undertaken by the Seversk princes and led by Prince Igor Svyatoslavich. The Seversk princes refused to join the league of the Rus princes against the Polovtsi; later they undertook an independent raid and suffered overwhelming defeat. Prince Igor himself was taken prisoner. The author depicts Prince Igor as the champion of the land of Riis, going into mortal danger for her sake- “Pilled with martial spirit, he led his brave regiments against the land of the Polovtsi to defend the land of Rus.” And Igor spake to his warriors: “Brothers and warriors! ’Tis better to be killed than taken prisoner. I wish,” he said, “to break the spear against the edge of the Polovtsi steppe; with you. Men of Rus, I wish to lay down my head or drink of the waters of the Don from my helmet!” The entire campaign is described as a heroic feat performed to save the motherland from the enemies who were continually ravaging it. The decisive battle is pictured as a sanguinary feast: 'There was not enough bloody wine here; the brave men of*Rus were finishing their feast; they gave their kinsmen to drink and they themselves laid dovm their lives for the soil of Rus.” The poet rightly lays the blame for this defeat on the princes, who were at war with each other and who did not wish to unite in tlie common struggle against the enemy. He gives a graphic description of the afflictions of the land of Rus, which was rent by feudal wars. "‘At that time internecine strife was sown and grew upon the land,’’ he says, “and the span of human life w’as shoit- ened by the treacheries of the princes. At that time the cries oi the ploughmen were rarely heard on Rus soil, but often did the crows caw as they shared the corpses among themselves.” “Brother spake to brother; this is mine and this too is mine, and the princes began to call small things great, and to forge treason, and the unclean [the heathens, that is, the Polovtsi) came with victories to the land of Rus.” The poet addresses an ardent appeal to all the princes to unite in defence of the land of Rus against the Polovtsi: “Place your feet, Sires, in the golden stirrups for the wrong we suffer today, for the land of Rus, for the wounds of brave Igor, Son of Svyatoslav!”

The Lay of Prince Jgor^s Regiment is remaikable for its artistic merits. The author was not merely influenced by the literature of hi& time, but also found inspiration in folk poetry from Avhioh he borrowed poetic figures of speech and images. His poem is a patriotic appeal for the union of the entire land of Rus against the foreign enemies.

The Galich-Volhynsk Principality in the 12–13th Centuries

Southwestern Rus

Southwestern Rus separated from Kiev at an early date and formed an independent state on the foothills of the Carpathians. It was one of the richest and most populous Russian regions. This land suffered less from the inroads of the steppe dwellers than the Dnieper region. Its proximity to the countries of Central Europe— Poland and Hungary — contributed to the development of its trade. The salt mines of Galich supplied all of Kiev Rus with salt. The local feudal lords— boyars and bishops — lost no time in seizing the finest lands for themselves. Their wealth enabled the Galich and Volhynsk boyars to acquire great political influence and power. They had their own bodies of warriors with w’hom they went to w’ar, they maintained relations with foreign states, and exercised the right of dismissing their own princes.

Two principalities were formed in Southwestern Rus in the 12th century: the Galich principality, the chief city of which was Galich, and Volhynia, whose main city was Vladimir. The Galich principality tlirived greatly under Prince Yaroslav Osmoniysl (1152-1187). Evidence of tlie might of this prince can he found in the words whidd the author of The, Lay of Prince Igor^s Regiment addresses to him: ‘'^"aroslav Osmomysl of Galich! Thou sittest high on thy throne. Thou hast propped up the Hungarian mountains with thine iron regiments, thou hast barred the path of the king (of Hungary), thou hast shut the gates to the Danube.... Fear of thee fills the lands, thou wilt open the gates to Kiev,’^ Yaroslav was called Osmomysl — ^man of great wisdom — not only because of his native wisdom but also because of his great learning— he knew several foreign languages.

The Founding of the Galich-Volhynsk Principality

After the death of Yaroslav Osmomysl, disturbances broke out in Galich. Dis* pleased with his son, who wanted to rule independently, the boyars appealed to the Hungarian king for aid.

Galich was invaded by Hungarian troops who, with the support of boyar traitors placed Andrew, the son of the Hungarian king, on the throne. The Hungarians bore themselves as conquerors in Galich and aroused a strong feeling of popular animosity. Prince Andrew was driven out with the help of the Poles who were called in from abroad. However, the disturbances still continued. A descendant of Monomachus, Roman Mstislavich, prince of the neighbouring princi- pality of Vladimir-Volhynsk, took advantage of this circumstance to seize Galich and annex it to his principality (1199), thus establishing the Galich-Volhynsk principality. Roman was one of the most mas- terful, powerful, and cruel princes of Southern Rus. He interfered in the aifairs of the Kiev principality, and waged war against Lithu- ania. He made the captive Lithuanians work on his land. It is of him the proverb says: “Roman, Roman, thy life is ill when the Litva must till.” The Polovtsi made his name a bugbear for their children. In his own principality Roman fought persistently against the boyars in an effort to unite the land of Rus.

In 1203 Roman was killed in a battle with the Poles. The chronicler describes him in iHe following way: “He rushed at the unclean (the heathens) like a lion, his fury was like that of a lynx, he slew them like a crocodile, flew over their land like an eagle, was as brave as an aurochs, and followed in the steps of his great-grandfather Mono- machus.”

Roman left two young sons— Daniel and Vasilko. Taking ad- vantage of their minority, the Galich boyars attempted to seize the power. The Hungarians and Poles intervened in the disturbances that broke out. The Tatar-Mongolian khans threatened from the east. Romanes sons were alternately driven out and recalled. When he reached manhood Daniel Romanovich vigorously combated the ar- bitrary power of the big feudal lords, the boyars. In this struggle he found support among the inferior retainers who were wholly dependent

upon the prince. Even at the most critical times the inferior retainers rallied around Daniel Romanovich. The population of the rich cities also warmly supported the prince, for they too suffered from the feudal wars and the oppression of the feudal lords. A representative of the townsfolk, the captain of a troop of one hundred men named Mikula, the annals tell us, urged Daniel to exterminate the boyars completely, saying: ^‘You cannot eat the honey until you have killed the bees.”

Daniel finally established himself on Galich soil with the help of the military commonalty and the townspeople. The attempts of the bishop and the boyars to keep Daniel out of the city of Galich failed, for the people of the city rushed to meet their prince, as the annals say, ‘‘like children to their father, like bees to the queen bee, like thirsting people to a spring.” Daniers brother, Vasilko, who had shared with him his adversities and successes, became prince of Vol- hynia.

Daniel had to repel the invasions of the Hungarians several times. In 1249, when the Tatar-Mongolian yoke settled firmly over Rus, a combined army of Hungarians and Poles invaded the land of Galich. Daniel tore into the ranks of the Hungarians and was almost taken prisoner, but he escaped, charged the enemy again, and seized and tore the Hungarian banner into shreds. The Hungarians fied, soon to be followed by the Poles who had engaged Vasilko ’s troops.

The Hungarian king subsequently found it more to his profit to form an alliance with Daniel. The latter, in league with Hungary and Poland, fought against Czechia and Austria. DaniePs son was married to the niece of an Austrian duke, and Daniel hoped, in case of his victory, to place his son on the Austrian throne. How'ever, the dual campaign ended in failure. Daniel undertook several successful cam- paigns against the neighbouring Lithuanian tribes.

The Galich-Volhynbk principality acquired a prominent position in Europe. Daniel assumed the title of king. His coronation, however, had no tangible effect. Rus could not count upon the support of Gei- many and Rome in her struggle against the Tatars.

In the continuous struggle against foreign enemies and the boyais at home Daniel developed into a daring and brave prince who, howevei , was at times too much carried away by his love of military glory.

In the 13th century the Galich- Volhyn&k principality reached a nourishing state, A busy commerce with the Dnieper region and Western Europe stimulated the growth of cities with a multifarious population engaged in trade and crafts. Daniel invited settlers, in- cluding many craftsmen, to the city of Hholm, which was fortified according to the last word of Western European military science. In his struggle against the feudal lords Daniel found support among the city population. The foimdiDg of the city of Lwow— so named in honour of one of Daniel’s sons— also dates back to the 13th century. Lwow be^ came the chief city in the land of Galich.

Russian culture in the land of Galich-Volhynsk was of a high standard. A memorial of this culture are the Galich -Volhynsk annals, which are notable for their vivid artistic descriptions and which, in poetic quality, are at times reminiscent of The Lay of Prince Igor^e Regiment,

TTestern European culture found access to the land of Galich- Volhynsk through the latter’s trade relations with the countries of the West. The churches of Ivholm were ornamented in the Catholic style with sculptural figures and stained-glass windows.

The Principality of Rostov-Suzdal

Northeastern Rus

The powerful principality of Rostov-Suzdal, situated northeast of the land of Kiev, between the Volga and the Oka, was formed in the 12th century. The land here could not boast of its natural riches. The forests abounded in wild animals and bees, and the rivers teemed with fish, but the only large fertile plain was that along the Klyazma River.

Along the Oka and its tributary, the Moskva River, lived the Slavonic tribe of Vyatichi. The Slavonic population of this territory was augmented by the steady infiux of Smolensk Kriviohi and Ko^* gorod Slavs. The Slavonic city of Rostov is mentioned as early as the 10th century. Another very ancient Slavonic city was Suzdal. During the rule of Yaroslav the city of Yaroslavl was founded (11th century). The city of Vladimir was probably built during the rule of Vladimir Monomachus (12th cen- tury).

The neighbours of the Vyatichi were the Merya, Vesi and Mordvinians. The chief pursuits of these peoples were tree felling, hunting and collection of honey, and also agriculture. In the 12th cen- tury their clan system was already in a state of decay. A number of rich fami- lies came to the fore. The tribes were ruled by princes. For a long time heathen beliefs prevailed among the non-Russian population of the Oka and the Volga regions. As among the ancient Slavs the worship of trees, rocks and the waters was widespread. People believed in wood-goblins, water-goblins and other spirits. They had a strong belief in wizards.

The Russian feudal lords began to seize the land of the Merya and Vesi and, later, of the Mordvinians. The Rus- sian princes exacted tribute from the local population.

In the 12th century the boyars and church authorities both in the Rostov- Suzdal principality and in the Dnieper region appropriated the lands inhabited by Russian peasants and non-Russian peoples and reduced the population to bondage. The annals speak of the Rostov bishop, Fyodor, as follows: "‘Grievously did the people suffer at his hands; they were deprived of their villages and weapons and horses, while others he reduced to seiwitude, threw into prison and robbed.” By such means did the feudal lords increase their possessions in the land of Suzdal. The population between the Oka and the Volga was forcibly converted to Chribtianity.

An independent principality was formed on the land of R-ostov-

Suzdal in the first half of the 12th century. The lirat Rostov-Suzdal

prince was Yuri Dolgoruki, son of Vladimir Monomachus. Here he

seized laige domains and had no scruples about appropriating the patrimonies of the local boyars. Legend hab it that the village belonging to the boyar Kuehka stood on the pt’esent site of Moscow. Yuri took possession of this village. The princely demesne of Moscow arose on the banks of the Moskva River. It was here that Prince Yuri entertained his ally, the prince of Chernigov, in 1147. The estate being situated on the boundary between the land of Suzdal and Cher- nigov, Prince Yuri erected a wooden wall round Moscow, which he converted into a fortress (1156). Yuri Polgoruki was the most powerful of the Russian princes of those days. He fought successfully against the Volga Bulgars and brought Novgorod under his domination. He also succeeded in seizing Kiev, luri, who became the prince of Kiev, died in 1157.

Andrei Bogolyubski and the Struggle with the Boyars. During the reign of Yuri’s son, Andrei Bogolyubski (1157-1174) the land of Rostov-Suzdal became a separate feudal principality. Andrei sub- jected the neighbouring princes and made them his vassals. In 1169 his troops, operating jointly with the troops of other princes, his allies, took Kiev ^‘on the shield” stormed it). For three whole days they pillaged the ancient capital. The next year Andrei sent an army to reduce Novgorod. The people of Novgorod successfully repelled the attacks of the Suzdal army, which was compelled to raise the siege of the city and withdraw after suffering heavy losses. But Novgorod subsisted on grain that came from the land of Suzdal. Andrei stopped the delivery of grain to Novgorod, thereby forcing it to surrender. It was the events of 1169, when Kiev was taken and sacked, that marked its utter decline. On the other hand, the Suzdal city of Vladimir, which Andrei made the capital of his principality, acquired great importance.

Andrei built his capital with great splendour, inviting artists from Western Europe. The Uspensky Cathedral erected in Vladimir during his rule bears traces of the influence of western art. Bogolyu* bovo, the fortified estate of the prince, was situated near Vladimir. Here the grand prince spent the greater part of his time. It was from this that he received the name of Bogolyubski,

Uneasy over the might of the Rostov and Suzdal boyars, Andrei endeavoured to increase his power within his own principality. He banished the boyars and surroimded himself with people of humble origin. The commoners, or mizinniye (“small” people), who suffered greatly from the tyranny of the powerful feudal lords, supported Andrei. “It is better to walk about in bast shoes on the estate of the prince than in fine boots on the estate of the boyar,” one of them wrote later. The boyars retained their influence in Suzdal and Rostov. On the other hand, the craftsmen and inferior retainers who were loyal to the prince, were concentrated in Vladimir and the surround- ing cities. With the support of these retainers and the townsfolk, Andrei attempted to unite the separate Russian principalities, including Kiev and Novgorod, into a single state. But the absence of economic ties among the various regions of the land of Bus made this impossible.

Andrei’s ambition to concentrate all power in his own hands brought him into armed conflict with the poweiful feudal lords of Suzdal. In 1174 the boyars entered into a conspiracy which was headed by the Kuchkovichi, whose brother had been executed by the prince. The plotters stole into the palace at Bogolyubovo and assassinated Andrei. This murder served as the signal for an uprising of the masses in Bogolyubovo and Vladimir. The poor sections of the population hud suffered greatly at the hands of the prince’s underlings. They now took advantage of the absence of all authority in the city to wreak vengeance on their persecutors. The households of the prince’s servants were plun- dered and many of their owners were killed.

Consolidation of the Vladimir- Suzdal Principality

After And- rei’s death the Rostov and Suzdal boyars decided to secure their inde- pendence and, refusing to recognize Andrei’s brothers as princes, invited his nephews to rule over them. Andrei’s inferior letinue and the townspeople of Vladimir refused to submit to the boyars of Rostov and Suzdal. The boyars threatened: ‘TVe shall burn Vladimir or send down a posadnik (burgomaster) for they are our serf-masons.” But Vsevolod Yurievich, brother of Andrei Bogol 3 rubski, supported by his soldiers and the townspeople, defeated the powerful feudal lords and forced them to recognize him as their prince (1176-1212).

The Rostov-Suzdal principality came to be called the Vladimir principality after the new capital, Vladimir-on-the-Klyazma.

Vsevolod assumed the title of Grand Prince of Vladimir, and vigor- ously upheld the traditional seniority of the grand prince among the reigning princes. The Novgorodians were forced to accept his nephews and sons, whom he sent to them as their princes. The Smolensk princes were his ‘Vassals” and compliantly took part in the campaigns on which he sent them. Vsevolod seized the Ryazan princes and threw them into prison, placing his own son in power in Ryazan. When the populace attempted to oiffer resistance, Ryazan was ciuelly ravaged.

‘‘Grand Prince Vsevolod!” the author of The Lay ot Prince Igor's Regiment says in addressing the prince. “With the oars of thy boats thou canst scatter the waters of the Volga, and with the helmets of thy warriors — drain the Don.”

Vsevolod fought the Volga Bulgars on several occasions. He under- took a great campaign against the Polovtsi, and invaded their steppe- lands. Under Vsevolod friendly relations were established between the Vladimir principality and distant Georgia. Vsevolod employed Georgian craftsmen to build the Dmitrov Cathedral in ^ ladimir. Georgian annals speak of the might of the Grand Prince of Vladimir describing him as a man “whom 300 kings obey/'

Vsevolod treated the boyars with the same high hand as did his brother Andrei. ‘‘He even showed no respect for the powerful boyars," the chronicler writes.

Vsevolod is known as BoLkoye Gnezdo (the “Large Nest”) because he had so many sons. After Vsevolod’s death each of his sons received an appanage in the principality of Vladimir. As time went on, these portions of land were divided up more and more. After separating from Kiev Bus, the land of Viadimir-Suzdal was broken up into a number of petty principalities. Under Vsevolod’s sons it was split into five parts and under his grandsons, into twelve. The oldest member of the prince’s family received the principal city of Vladimir and the title “Grand Prince of Vladimir."

The Conquest of the Mordvinian Lands

Russian feudalism expanded and absorbed the lands of non-Russian peoples. After Vse- volod’s death the Vladimir princes continued their conquest of the peoples living along the Oka and the Middle Volga. The Mordvinians retained their independence for a long time. In 1221 Vsevolod’s son, the Grand Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich, built a fortress on the site of a small Mordvinian town, at the confluence of the Oka and Volga; this fortress was named Nizhni Novgorod (now the city of Gorily); from here the Russian princes launched their raids on Mord- vinian territory. The Mordvinians defended themselves stubbornly. Their prince, Purgas, indicted many defeats on the Russian princes, and even attacked Nizhni Novgorod and burned its suburbs, but he was unable to capture the fortress. The Russian feudal lords visited savage reprisals upon the insubordinate Mordvinian people.

The Land of Novgorod

Great Novgorod and Its Domains

The land of Novgorod, in the north, stood apart from the Kiev principality in the 12th century.

Novgorod, situated on both banks of the River Volkhov at the point where it issues from Lake Ilmen, was one of the most ancient of Slavonic cities. On the eastern Torgovaya (trading) side were the mait and the square where the veche used to meet. This part of the city was chie3y inhabited by tradesmen, craftsmen and labourers. On the western, Sofiiskaya side stood a fort containing the St. Sophia Cathedral, where the Novgorod bishop had his residence. Near Nov- gorod began the land of Novgorod proper, which extended to lakes Onega and Ladoga and to the shores of the Gulf of Finland. Here were located the vast demesnes of the Novgorod boyars and the church.

Further stretched the extensive colonial possessions of Xo\"gorod, a territory that covered the entire north of our coimtry as far as the Ural Mountains. The Novgorod feudal lords collected tribute in the form of furs and silver from the peoples inhabiting the coast.

The land of Novgorod was not very feitile. Its people were depend- ent upon Suzdal for their corn supply. But the Northern Pomorye (maritime country) which was rich in fur-bearing animals ^ was a veritable gold mine to the Novgorod boyars. It was connected by river routes both with the Baltic Sea and with the most impoitant Bussian cities. Owing to its geographical position Novgorod was a natural medium of trade between Europe and Bus. German and Swed- ish merchants, at great profit to themselves, exported clolhs and other fabrics, as well as metallic wares to Bus and imported from Novgorod furs and raw materials such as flax and hemp. Begularly twice a year caravans of German “guests,” as the merchants were called, arrived in Novgorod: “summer guests” came by the water route up the Neva; “winter guests”— by sleigh through Livonia. Two inns were built for the visiting “Grerman” and “Goth” guests (the latter meaning merchants from the Swedish island of Gothland)— a “German” inn and a “Goth” inn. The German cities of the Baltic that traded with the countries of Northern Europe and in particular with Novgorod, formed a confederacy which later, in the 14th centmy^ became known as the Hanse (BCanseatic League), Novgorod merchants acted as Ihe inlermediarics in the foreign trade with Eastern Europe, reselling the articles of foreign craftsmen and similar ‘‘German” goods to other Bussian principalities.

Conquest of the Northern Peoples

At that time the ISTentsi, a people Trhom the XoTgorodians called Samoyedes, roamed the tun- dra 'seaboard of the Arctic Ocean. The main pursuit of these people ■was deer-breeding, while tiapping water-fowl and polar fox provided an additional means of subsistence. The Nentsi lived in clans, in which the head-man was also the shaman, i.e., the priest. The Nentsi were a supcrstilious people who believed in tbe power of their shamans.

South of the tundra, in the taiga, lived tribes of hunters— the Komi. The people living along the Vychegda Pviver (a tributary of the Northern Dvina) were called Zyryane by the Bussians, and those inhabiting the upper reaches of the Kama were known as the Permi (Perniiaks).

On the slopes of the Northern Urals lived peoples whom the Novgo- rodians called the Yugra. They applied this name to the people known today as Mansi (Voguls) and the Khanti (Ostiaks). Their land was famous for its wealth of fur-bearing animals. The Novgorod people used to say that tiny squirrels and deer fell from the clouds in that country instead of rain, and that they then grew up and scattered in all directions. The Ural peoples also mined silver.

The Novgorod boyars formed detachments of the Novgoiod poor and their ovm serfs, equipped them at their own expense, and sent them on marauding expeditions to the northern lands. These detach- ments sailed up the rivers in barks called ushhui^ the members of these detachments being called ushhuiniki. The ushkuinihi would swoop down on the dwellers of the north, rob them, take away their furs, and carry off their women and children, whom they sold into slavery. By such means the Novgorod boyars subjugated the peoples of the north and made them pay tribute in furs to Novgorod.

The peoples of the north frequently tried to rebel. In 1187 the Yugra (a Ural-Altaic tribe) slew the Novgorod tribute collectors. Several years later a large punitive force was sent from Novgorod to subdue the land of Yugra, The Yugra prince intrenched himself in his stronghold, and to gain time sent a message to the Novgorod waywode: “We are saving up money and sables and other goods to pay tribute. Do not ruin your subjects!” Novgorod agreed to wait; meanwhile the tribesmen of the Yugra prince began to rally around him in his stronghold. Aided and abetted by certain Novgorod traitors the prince of Yugra inveigled the Novgorod captains into his townlet, ostensibly for the purpose of negotiating with them, and murdered tliem. Tile remnants of the Novgorod troops made their way back to Novgorod with difficulty. The Yugra, however, were unable to maintain their independence; other Novgorod detachments arrived and once more forced them to pay tribute. ‘‘Sovereign Great Novgorod” (Gospoditi Veliki Novgorod) grew prosperous and powerful on its colonial tribute.

The Social System of Novgorod

The Novgorod boyars seized the best lands in Novgorod and the conquered regions, which they cultivated with the labour of their own serfs and peasants. The latter were obliged to deliver to the boyars a considerable part- of their crops (as much as half — polovina — from which they received their name polovnihi). The boyars exercised their power to prevent the polomiiki from quitting their estates and delivered the products of their hunting, fishing and agriculture on credit to the rich Novgorod merchants who sold these products abroad. The petty tradesmen were dependent upon the rich merchants. The crafts were well developed in Novgorod, but the craftsmen also fell into the servitude of the boyars and merchants. The poor were hired to load goods and to row boats.

Thus all the fruits of colonial conquest were reaped by the boyars and the merchants. The latter exploited the poor Novgorod populace — the cliorhif/e (“black people”) — as the commoners were called. The craftsmen and petty tradesmen were in debt to the boyars and meichants. The cruel exploitation to which the clionuye were subjected often led to violent rebellions against the .ruling classes.

The Prince and the Veche in Novgorod

The wealth of the upper stratum of Novgorod society contributed to the strengthening of its political power. The Novgorod boyars and merchants greatly restricted the power of the Novgorod prince. The Novgorod veche was more powerful and influential than that in other cities, but its masters were the boyars, who man- aged all affairs. In the first quarter of the 12th century the Novgorod veche ^ controlled by the boyars, contrived to have all the chief offi- cials elected from among the Nov- gorod boj^ars. Important conces- sions like this the people of Nov- gorod wrung from the princes by force. Open rebellion broke out in Novgorod in 1136, during the reign of Vladimir Monomachus’ grand- son, Vsevolod Mstislavich. Many accusations were levelled at the prince; he was criticized for not showing any concern about the peasants, and for being the first to flee from the field in time of war. The boyars held Vsevolod and his family in custody for two months, after which he was allowed to leave Novgorod. Beginning with thaj^ period the power of the Novgorod boyars greatly increased. However, the Novgorodians could not get along without a prince. Novgorod needed a prince and his retinue as a military force which it could rely on in its struggle against external enemies. But every time a prince came in condict with the "will of Novgorod” the burghers "bowed him out,” that is, they banished him and invited a new more accept- able candidate in his stead.

The Vladimir grand princes often attempted to bring Novgorod under their sway, but the Novgorodians stood their ground and did not yield their independence. Yaroslav, the son of Grand Prince Vse- volod Yurievich, encroached on the rights of the Novgorod boyars, and their indignation was so great that he had to leave the city in 1216. An early frost that year ruined the crops in Novgorod land. The road from Suzdal was held by Yaroslav who did not allow a sin- gle waggon of corn to enter the city. Soon famine set in. The people of Novgorod rallied an army under the leadership of the prince of Toropets, Mstislav Udaloi (the Bold). Yaroslav leagued himself with his brother, the Grand Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich of Vladimir and retreated to the land of Suzdal. A pitched battle took place on the Lipitsa Biver. The men of Novgorod, following an ancient custom, dismounted from their horses, removed all their superfluous clothing and their footwear, and rushing barefooted at the enemy, pressed the Suzdal troops hard. At a de- cisive moment Prince Mstislav and his retinue joined the fight and thrice breached the enemy’s lines.

The Suzdal soldiers quickly took to their heels.

The battle of Lipitsa ensured to the Novgorod people the preser- vation of their “liberties.” Every new prince invited to Novgorod was compelled to sign a ryad or contract binding himself to comply will ti. Novgorod .jotemo(r.lf-

government. The pnnoe hed no o< the Belli. olLlpit™.

right to impose new taxes or acquire 1 8 th eontury.

lands. The government of Novgorod Oruzheinaya PalatUy Moscow

and its region was entrusted to persons elected by the Novgorodians

themselves, and the prince could not dismiss them “without fault.” The prince’s military retinue was not admitted to participation in the administration.

The veche elected a posadiiih (a burgomaster or city magistrate) from among the Novgorod boyars to administer the affairs of the city. Without him the prince had no right to administer justice or decide important questions. To assist the burgomaster a »is7ja ski vas elected who was in command of the Novgorod popular levy and v as also the arbiter in trading affairs. Even the office of bishop of Nov- gorod was elective. It was not the prince but the buigonianor and the tisya ski who actually governed the city.

The veche was the supreme authority in Novgoiod. It invited princes to come and rule, banished them, elected officials and admin- istered justice. The veche assembled at the ringing of the veche bell. It sometimes happened that veche meetings were held oimuLancoubly on the Toigovaya and the Sofiiskaya sides and contradict ojy decisions would be taken by them. Clashes between the two veches usuaPy oc- curred on the Volkhov Bridge.

The veche was a peculiar form of medieval demociacy. “Soveieign Great Novgorod” was the first ancient Russian lepubhc, ailhough a feudal republic. The veche, however, did not lefleot the of the masses of the Novgorod population, being entirely coiitiulied by the boyar feudal lords and, to some extent, the rich mei chants.

By means of biibes and baits the boyars created a taction of “rowdies’^ with whose help they dominated the vcc^e. Eiich land- holders and the merchants held all the power in their hands and reduced the authority of the prince to nought. The toiling people of Novgorod were in vir- tual bondage to the boyars. At times the Novgorod poor would rise against their oppressors — the boyars.

Novgorod Culture

Evi- dences of the rich medieval cul- ture of Novgorod are to be found in the handsome buildings erect- ed by its princes, boyars and merchants, some of which still survive. One of the most remark- able monuments of the 12th century was the Nereditsa Church, with its magnificent mural paintings recently destioyed by the fascist barbarians. The art of winting flourished in Novgorod, Here, as early as the 11th century, an attempt was made to compile annals similar to the chronicles of Kiev. From the end of the 11th century such annals were kept in Novgorod, and the most important events in the city were recorded in them.

Beminiscences of Novgorod’s ancient splendour survive in the legend of Sadko, the “rich guest” (merchant) and Vasili Buslayev. The former tells of the rich trade and the journeys across the seas made by Novgorod merchants; the latter --about the tuibulent con- flicts in the veche,

Pskov

Of the minor cities subordinate to Novgorod, the city of Pskov became the most powerful in the 12th century. Active trade was carried on between Pskov and the cities of the Baltic. This trade enriched the Pskov boyars and merchants and enhanced their power. Gradually they won their complete independence from Nov- gorod.

Novgorod and Pskov with their system of self-government resembled the ^Tree cities” of Western Europe, However, there was an essential difference. In Western European cities the power was entirely in the hands of the merchants and the owners of large workshops, whereas in Novgorod and Pskov, who derived their wealth from extensive domains in the Maritime Begion, the power belonged to the feudal lords— ilie boyars and the church, the rich merchants enjoying only a limited share of the authority.

Transcaucasia and Central Asia in the 11th–12th Centuries

Georgia in the 11th and 12th Centuries

Tianscaucasia main- tained regular relations with Kiev Rus in the Ifllh centuiy,

Georgia, where feudal relations weie more developed than in Kiev Rus, became very strong in the 12th century. The Georgian feudal lords seized the peasants’ community lands and reduced the peasants themselves to serfdom. They built castles in the mountains and estab- lished a tyrannical rule over the peasants. The revolts of the peasants against their oppressors were crushed by armed force; "the people*’ —as a monk chronicler puts it— "were filled with fear of their lords/' Free peasant communities continued to exist only in the inaccessible moun- tain region.

The enhancement of the king’s power, which began to take place in Geoigia in the 10th century, was resisted by the great feudal lords, who endeavoured to preserve their independence. The kings weie sup- ported by the petty feudal lords and the merchants, the former needing a strong monarch to keep the peasants in subordination, while to the inei chants a united Georgia meant unhampered possibilities of trade.

The imification of Georgia was hindered by incursions of the Tuikoman-Seljuks, a people from the Central Asiatic steppes under the leadership of sidtans (sovereigns) of the Seljuk family (whence their name). The Seljuks conquered Persia, Iraq and part of Asia Minor.

The first devastating invasion of the Seljuks in Tran&caueasia (Armenia) occurred in 1048-1049. Beginning with the sixties of the lith century; Georgia became the object of continuous invasions by the Seljuks. It was then that Tbilisi was captured. "The Tuikomans spread over the country like locusts,” an evewitnesrs relates. "They plundered the people and turned them into slaves. They remained here till the fiiat snowfcil, eating the people out of house and home and putting to die sword all tho*e who tiled to seek refuge in the mountains, foiests and caves. Those tv"ho hid in the castles perished fiom cold and hunger. With the return of spiing the Tuikomans came again, Ko one in the land sowed or leaped a harvest* only wild beasts roamed where once people lived. Dwellings were dcstioyed by fire; the rivers ran red with the blood of men.*’

To effectively combat the invasions of the Seljuks, a stiong state powet was needed, capable of uniting the isolated feudal domains. ThU ^’^eci’iie pos":ible under the Georgian king, Da^ld the Renovator (1089-1125). David fought against the feudal lords, who made several attempts on his life. He created a strong army, organized a guards unit of five thousand men; besides this, he brought over 40,000 Polo* vtsi from the Kuban steppes of whom he formed a regular army. He also subjugated the Caucasian hillmen.

After uniting Georgia, David made war on the Seljuks, whom he drove out of his domains. In 1122 he liberated Tbilisi. David began to extend his power over the neighbouring lands as well: he conquered Azerbaijan, and undeiiiook an expedition to Armenia, whither he was called in by the native Armenian population, who looked upon the Geor- gians as their liberators from the yoke of the Seljuks and other alien princes.

David centralized the administration of Georgia. The country was divided into regions under the administration of governors. A code of laws was issued. David appointed and dismissed bishops. Gradually peace set in in Georgia. Commerce revived. Many craftsmen were invit- ed from Armenia, The silk fabrics of Georgia won fame far beyond the borders of the land. They were exported even to Constantinople. David built new cities, including the city of Gori. He renovated bridges and aqueducts and erectedpalaces and other buildings. For these activ- ities he was surnamed the Renovator. Georgian chronicles describe David in the following words: "He rose above all the kings of the earth; in his left hand he held the sea; his right hand rested on the rivers. In battle he was like a lion.”

David’s successors extended their domains in Armenia to Erzemm. Feudal Georgia acquired exceptional splendour under Queen Tamara (1184-1213). She waged war against the feudal lords and maintained power only by making consideiable concessions to the most poweiful of them, promising to rule the country jointly with a council of lead- ing feudal lords.

At that time Geoigia occupied a vast territory from the Black Sea to the Caspian, and from the Caucasian Mountain Range to Erzerum. Under Tamara several Persian regions were annexed to Georgia. The country played an important role among the states of Eastern Europe and Asia. It also established ties with Suzdal Rus.

The Poet Shot’ha Rust’hveli

Georgian culture in the reign of Tamara was in a flourishing state. This was in great measure due to Gergia’s position at the intersection of busy trade routes joining the countries of the west and the east. Here the cultural influences of Asia Minor, Persia and Byzantium met. Young Georgian feudal lords went to Constantinople to study. Georgian architecture reflected the influence of Byzantium, Georgian literatuie that of Persia. From the Arabs came a knowledge of medicine and astronomy. Thus a Georgian native culture was created, which, in its turn, influenced the neigh- bouring countries, in particular Russian culture. Education in Georgia in tile 12t]i century made great strides with the opening of schools and the growth of literature. Tamara surrounded herself with pi^ets. Foremost among them was the great Georgian poet, Shot’ha JRust'hveli. His famous poem, Knight in the Tiger*3 Skin, is of world signidcanee, being the first and earliest work of the Renaissance.

Shot’ha Rust’hveli was educated in Greece and was one of the most enlightened feudal lords of Georgia. He served at the court of Queen Tamara and was an ardent supporter of a stiong monarchy. According to legend he greatly aided Tamara in her struggle against uniuly vas- sals, thereby incurring the hatred of the nobiljty and eventually being forced to withdraw into exile. His poem, written at the end of the 12th century, is dedicated to Tamara.

Ruist’hveli drew upon Georgian folk poetry for his inspiration. His poem reflects the age-old heroic struggle of the Georgian people for their independence against the Persians, Byzantines, Arabs, Seljuts,

and other peoples.

No! The sons of alien Persia Never our sovereign lords shall be!

the heroine of the poem exclaims. Rustaveli lauded the deeds of chival-

ry of the Georgian Imights who fought for their country’s independence,

and sang of intrepidity and defiance of death.

Better death, but death with glory. Than inglorious days of shame.

Realizing the necessity of unity in the struggle, Rustaveli ex-

tolled friendship and brotherhood among the warriors.

He who friendship shuns with near ones.

Is his own most hitter foe.

He that shall deser a comrade.

He will taste the dregs of woe,

A vehement opponent of feudal discord Rust’hveli called upon the

people to support the royal power. At the same time he championed the cause of the exploited classes in their struggle against the tyranny of the feudal lords. One of his heroes orders the following disp jsition to be made of his wealth:

Give unto the weak and hornet ess.

And the slaves do thou make free,

Orphans feed, provide with plenty.

Help thejpoor that they may prosper

And by folk wlwm 1 do shelter

E’er my praises sung shall be.

Hu-Jt’hreli’s poeiQ lias been translated into all the principal lan-

guages and, as a great work of art, will ever evoke universal admiration.

Armenia in the 11th and 12th Centuries

In the 11th and 12th centuries the feudal order in Armenia, as in Georgia, was in full fiower. Va-^t demesnes were concentrated iuthe hands of the Armenian clergy and nobility. His contemporaries wrote of an Armenian bishop that he daily sent out 800 ploughs with six oxen each to till the soil. The peasants were made serfs and worked under the corvee.

The lOlh century saw the beginning of Armenia’s break-up into several independent feudal principalities. The Byzantine empire took this opportunity to seize one principality after another, until, in the first half of the ] 1th, century, it had annexed the whole of Armenia. When, however, Armenia was exposed to the attacks of the Seljuks, the B3'zantine government was unable to defend it. In 1064 the Seljuks took Ani. A Byzantine army that attempted to recover Armenia for Byzantium was defeated and the emperor taken prisoner. The Seljuk invasion seriously affected the population. The people were impov- erished and the country laid waste.

Small feudal estates remained intact only in the mountainous districts, whither the impoverished population sought refuge; heie, too, Led the ruined feudal lords. Uniting under the leadership of the feudal lords, groups of Armenian warriors continued their struggle against the foreign enemy. For a long time the "sons of Armenia, the heroic defenders of their motherland,” as Stalin expressed it, valiantly defended their mountain fastnesses and gorges. The mountainous dis- trict of Sasun defended its independence longer than all the others.

Despite Armenia ’s ruthless devastation by the Seljuks, its cultural life did not die out. On the contrary, Armenian culture exercised no little infiuence on the neighbouring countries.

Azerbaijan in the 11th and 12th Centuries

The region of Shirvan in the northern part of Azerbaijan, contiguous with Georgia, was occupied by the feudal kingdom of the Shirvan shahs (or kings) in the 11th and 12th centuries. In the last quarter of the 11th century the Seljuks forced the Shirvan shahs to pay tribute to them but did not inteifere in the domestic affairs of the country. The Georgian king, David the Benovator, marched against Shirvan; since then the Shirvan shahs became the vassals of Georgia and entered into a military alli- ance with her. This alliance resulted not merely from Georgia’s vic- tory, but from the close commercial ties between the two countries and their need for union in order to defend themselves against their common external enemies.

An important trade centre of Azerbaijan was tlie city of Derbent , situated on a narrow strip between the Caucasian ]kLouiitaiu Range and the Caspian Sea* Intercourse with the Northern Caucasus and Bub was maintained through this pass. The Derbent Pass was pro* tected by strong walls. The city of Shemakha was an important centre for silk production and silk trade.

The 11th century saw the final process in the foundation of an Azerbaijan nation formed by intermarriage of the local Albanian tribes with the Polovtsi from the north, and the Tmkomans from the south, A large section of the Albanians adopted the Moslem faith. Those who preserved Christianity merged with the Armenians.

Her Persian neighbour exercised a great influence on the culture of Azerbaijan, where the feudal lords spoke the Persian tongue and everything was written in that language. But the Azerbaijan people also contributed much of their own to Persian culture. There were two remarkable Azerbaijan poets: Nizami and Ehakani, contemporaries of Shot ’ha Rust’hveli.

Like Rustaveli, Nizami sang of chivalry and deeds of valour. He borrowed his themes from legends about Alexander the Great and the ancient Persian kings. His poem about Alexander the Great, filled with fantastic, fabulous description, mentions the war which Alexander is alleged to have waged against the Bus, and is probably a reminiscence of the Bus expeditions to the Caspian Sea in the lOlh century. Khakani, the son of a carpenter and a Christian female slave, was a brilliant lyric poet; he wrote beautiful love poems and odes, but his masteipiece is the Prison Elegy, written by him in prison, where he was thrown by order of the Shirvan shah, into whose dis- favour he had fallen.

Nizami and Kkakani wrote in the Persian language, although they were native Azerbaijans, They did much to perfect the literary language of Persia. Their woik^was considerably influenced by Azer- baijan’s cultural intercourse with Geoigia.

Central Asia from the 10th to the Beginning of the 13th Centuries

At the end of the 10th century the state of the Samanids was destroyed by the nomavlic Tuikic tribes. The Turkomans mingled with the indigenous population, who adopted the Tuikic language and, to some extent, Tuikic customs. During the first half of the 12th century, the Kara-Kilais, a numerous nomadic people with as many as 40,000 hihiikas, invaded Central Asia from the east and chose the valley of the Chu River for their pastoral pursuits. The dependence of the indigenous population inhabiting the region between the Amu Darya and Syr Darya riverb upon the Kara-Kitais was confined to the payment of tribute.

Klioiesm formed an independent state Its rulers, the Khoresm shahs, succeeded in defending their independence against the Kara- Kitais Khoresm was attacked on the west by the Tuikoman-Seljuks, but the latter weie defeated Under Shah Mukhammed (1200-1220) the legion between the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya and Noithem and Edstein Persia were incorporated in Khoresm, which at that time was a great political power in Asia and culturally far superior to many European states.

Creation of the Russian National State

Expansion of the Russian State and Its Transformation into a Multi-National Realm

The Peoples of Russia in the 17th Century