Prince Yaropolk Svyatoslavich. Civil war: tragedy or pattern? Examples of internecine wars in history. Internecine and feudal war, what is the difference
Most modern countries have gone through a period of feudal fragmentation. This means that once large states were fragmented into a number of smaller ones. They were weaker and could not resist the common enemy. Fragmentation is associated with the transfer of land to inheritance. Since there could be many heirs, this led to the virtual disappearance of a single state.
What is meant by the expression “internecine war”
To understand what internecine wars are, you need to understand the meaning of this expression. It can best be explained as follows:
- fragmentation leads to the formation of a number of small and independent states. Each of them has its own ruler with his own ambitions and interests;
- contradictions between rulers lead to wars between them. Often such wars arose after the death of one of the rulers. With imperfect inheritance law, each local ruler could lay claim to the lands of the deceased. This led to large-scale wars in which coalitions and alliances were created;
- wars between rulers of parts of the same country were called internecine. They brought ruin to traders and farmers. Meanwhile, internecine wars continued for centuries in Europe and Russia, stopping only for short periods.
Thus, internecine wars are a prototype of civil wars. They occur between people of the same nationality, representatives of the same culture. And they arise between rulers.
Examples of internecine wars
A striking example is Kievan Rus. Strong princes divided their lands among their sons. At the same time, one person must be in charge. But after the death of the prince, his sons began to challenge each other for primacy. In addition, they further fragmented their plots, distributing land to allies and relatives.
As a result of fragmentation, by the time of the Tatar-Mongol invasion in Rus' there were several dozen separate principalities. The consequence of this state of affairs was the seizure of the principalities by the Tatar-Mongols and their subjugation of Rus' until the end of the 15th century.
Feudal war in Rus' in the second quarter of the 15th century |
|
Grand Duchy of Moscow, Novgorod land |
|
The struggle for the rights to the grand ducal throne after the death of Vasily I |
|
Opponents |
|
1425-1434 |
1425-1434 |
1434-1436 |
1434-1436 |
1436-1453 |
1436-1453 Vasily the Dark Boris Alexandrovich Tverskoy (1446-1453) Ivan Andreevich Mozhaisky (1447-1453) |
Commanders |
|
Yuri Dmitrievich Dmitry Yurievich Shemyaka Vasily Yurievich Kosoy Alexander Vasilievich Chartorysky |
Vasily Vasilievich Dark Boris Aleksandrovich Tverskoy Fedor Vasilievich Basyonok Ivan Vasilievich Striga-Obolensky |
Civil war in Muscovite Rus' (1425-1453)- the war for the great reign between the descendants of Dmitry Donskoy, Prince of Moscow Vasily II (Dark) Vasilyevich and his uncle, Prince of Zvenigorod and Galich Yuri Dmitrievich and his sons Vasily (Kosy) and Dmitry Shemyaka in 1425-1453. The Grand Duke's throne changed hands several times.
The main reasons for the war were: increased contradictions among the feudal lords in connection with the choice of ways and forms of centralization of the state in the context of Tatar raids and Lithuanian expansion; political and economic consolidation of the principalities. The result was the liquidation of most of the small fiefs within the Moscow Principality and the strengthening of the power of the Grand Duke. The last internecine war in Rus' and one of the last in Europe.
Vasily II against Yuri Dmitrievich (1425-1434)
In 1389, Yuri Dmitrievich, according to the will of his father Dmitry Donskoy, was appointed heir in the event of the death of his young brother Vasily Dmitrievich, which subsequently, after the death of his already adult brother in 1425, gave him grounds to claim the grand-ducal throne, bypassing his son, Vasily Vasilyevich. In 1428, Yuri recognized his nephew as his “elder brother,” but in 1431 he tried to get a label to reign from the Horde Khan, but the label went to Vasily. However, Vasily did not give Dmitrov to Yuri, who ordered the khan to give it to him. In 1433, at the wedding of Vasily II, his mother Sofya Vitovtovna publicly tore off a precious belt from her son Yuri Vasily, which, according to her, was allegedly previously intended for Dmitry Donskoy and replaced. The offended Yuryevichs immediately went to their father in Galich; On the way, they plundered Yaroslavl, whose prince supported Vasily Vasilyevich. The insult became the reason for a new speech by Yuri, who, with troops of Galicians, defeated Vasily on the banks of the Klyazma and occupied Moscow, giving Kolomna to his nephew. However, after that, Moscow boyars and service people began to flee to Kolomna; They were joined by both of Yuri's sons, Vasily and Dmitry, who had quarreled with their father. Yuri chose to reconcile with his nephew, returning the grand-ducal throne to him. However, Vasily’s subsequent persecution of former opponents led to the action in 1434 against Vasily, first by Yuri’s sons (in the battle on the banks of the Kus River, the Yuryevichs gained the upper hand), and then (after the defeat of Galich by the Muscovites) himself. Vasily was defeated near Rostov near the village of Nikolskoye on the Ustye River, Yuri again occupied Moscow, but soon after that he died (it was believed that he was poisoned), bequeathing the throne to his nephew.
Vasily II against Vasily Yuryevich (1434-1436)
Despite this, his son Vasily Yuryevich declared himself Grand Duke, but his younger brothers did not support him, concluding peace with Vasily II, according to which Dmitry Shemyaka received Uglich and Rzhev, and Dmitry Krasny - Galich and Bezhetsk. As the united princes approached Moscow, Vasily Yuryevich, taking his father’s treasury, fled to Novgorod. After staying in Novgorod for a month and a half, he went to Zavolochye, then to Kostroma and went on a campaign against Moscow. Defeated on January 6, 1435 on the banks of the Kotorosl River between the villages of Kozmodemyansky and Velikiy near Yaroslavl, he fled to Vologda, from where he came with new troops and went to Rostov, taking Nerekhta along the way.
Vasily Vasilyevich concentrated his forces in Rostov, and his ally, the Yaroslavl prince Alexander Fedorovich stood near Yaroslavl, not allowing part of Vasily Yuryevich’s troops, who went to take it, to the city - as a result he was captured along with the princess, a large ransom was given for them, but They were not released immediately. Vasily Yuryevich thought to take Vasily Vasilyevich by surprise, but he set out from Rostov and took a position in the village of Skoryatino, then defeated the enemy troops (May 1436), and Vasily Yuryevich himself was captured and blinded, for which he was nicknamed Kosy (died in 1448 ). Vasily II freed Dmitry Shemyaka, who was held in Kolomna, and returned to him all his possessions, which, after the death of Dmitry the Red in 1440, were annexed by Galich and Bezhetsk.
Vasily II against Dmitry Yuryevich (1436-1453)
After in 1445, in the battle of Suzdal, the sons of the Kazan Khan Ulu-Muhammad defeated the Moscow army and captured Vasily II, power in Moscow, according to the traditional order of succession, passed to Dmitry Shemyaka. But Vasily, having promised the khan a ransom, received an army from him and returned to Moscow, and Shemyaka was forced to leave the capital and retire to Uglich. But many boyars, merchants and representatives of the clergy, outraged by the “Horde commandership” of Vasily the Dark, went over to Dmitry’s side, and in 1446, with their support, Dmitry Shemyaka became the Moscow prince. Then, with the help of Ivan Andreevich Mozhaisky, he captured Vasily Vasilyevich in the Trinity Monastery and - in revenge for the blinding of his brother and accusing Vasily II of favoring the Tatars - blinded him, for which Vasily II was nicknamed the Dark One, and sent him to Uglich, and then to Vologda. But again those dissatisfied with Dmitry Shemyaka began to come to Vasily the Dark; princes Boris Alexandrovich (Tver), Vasily Yaroslavich (Borovsky), Alexander Fedorovich (Yaroslavsky), Ivan Ivanovich (Starodubsko-Ryapolovsky) and others provided assistance. On December 25, 1446, in the absence of Dmitry Shemyaka, Moscow was occupied by the troops of Vasily II. On February 17, 1447, Vasily the Dark solemnly entered Moscow. Dmitry, who was at Volokolamsk at that time, was forced to begin a retreat from Moscow - he went to Galich, and then to Chukhloma. Later, Dmitry Shemyaka unsuccessfully continued to fight Vasily the Dark, suffering defeats near Galich and then near Ustyug.
In 1449, Vasily II concluded a peace treaty with the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir IV, confirming the Moscow-Lithuanian borders and a promise not to support the internal political opponents of the other side, and Casimir also renounced claims to Novgorod. In 1452, Dmitry was surrounded by the army of Vasily the Dark, lost his possessions, fled to Novgorod, where he died (according to chronicles, poisoned by the people of Vasily II) in 1453. In 1456, Vasily II was able to impose the unequal Yazhelbitsky Peace Treaty on Novgorod.
Civil wars in Rus'
In the second half of the 11th century. In the ancient Russian state, the process of development of feudal relations intensified. Large patrimonial land ownership grew, the enslavement of smerds intensified, and a process of economic, political and military decentralization was underway. New economic and political centers developed: Suzdal, Rostov, Vladimir and others. The class struggle intensified between the ruling class of feudal lords (princes, boyars, high clergy) and the oppressed, exploited classes of the countryside and city (smerds and urban working people). “The Truth of the Yaroslavichs,” which was the legal formalization of feudal class relations in the ancient Russian state, was directed primarily against smerds and defended the interests of large landowners.
Changes in economic and social relations influenced the political system of the ancient Russian state. The importance of the prince’s senior squad, with whom he was obliged to “think,” increased; the role of the veche increased, now often interfering in government affairs, and sometimes inviting or driving away the prince. The power of the prince weakened, and the grand-ducal power became nominal. By the 12th century. on the territory of the ancient Russian state there were already 12 separate independent principalities: Kiev, Chernigov, Smolensk, Ryazan, Rostov-Suzdal and others. The process of political fragmentation of the state was intensified by the existing order of inheritance of principalities, which turned into hereditary “destinies.”
Some cities, which were large trade, fishing and craft centers, became politically isolated. These were Novgorod, Pskov and others. In these cities, the role of the veche increased greatly, which in its form was an organ of popular rule, but in essence was a tool in the hands of rich boyars and merchants, a weapon in the struggle of their various factions. The veche greatly limited the power of the prince, who now often performed only the functions of an ordinary military leader. Now at the veche the prince could hear: “You, prince, are no longer loved by us, go back to where you came from.”
The change in the political structure of the ancient Russian state also determined the change in the nature of the armed organization. At the same time, the previous organizational forms were still preserved, but the content of the military structure had already changed significantly.
The first and main part of the armed organization was still the princely squad, but it did not constitute “free servants”, but turned into the princely “court”, a detachment of armed servants. Such squads of servants, and not “warriors,” were the support in the implementation of separatist policies by the princes and in consolidating political and military decentralization.
The second part of the feudal army consisted of regiments and armies of boyars - landowners. The patrimonial boyars brought people subordinate to them, whom they armed and supplied. This was an unreliable part of the army, since the boyars enjoyed the right of “departure,” that is, they could go with their people to another prince at any time.
The city regiments were the third part of the feudal military organization. Usually they gathered by decision of the council for a certain period of time. If the veche did not agree to the campaign, the prince could recruit volunteers.
All these units of the army were actually autonomous. There was no unity of organization and weapons. There was no unified command. All questions of strategy and tactics were resolved at the council of princes and governors of city regiments. The decisions made were not binding on everyone; many princes acted at their own discretion. As a rule, there was no unity of action. In essence it was a feudal army.
Reporting on the military events of the 12th century, Russian chroniclers noted new tactical aspects. Firstly, during the 1184 campaign to the Bulgarian land, “he saw our guard regiment”; secondly, in the battle with the Polovtsians in 1185, the Russian army had six regiments, one of which consisted of “streltsy” (archers). The possibilities of tactical maneuvering have increased.
The nature of the wars of the Russian principalities during the period of feudal fragmentation was determined primarily by the internal political situation - the internecine struggle of the princes, feudal strife. The grave consequences of the princely civil strife were experienced first of all by the smerds. The princes' squads trampled down the fields of the smerds, seized their livestock, food and belongings, and burned their homes.
* * *
The political and military weakness of Rus' was taken advantage of by external enemies who invaded the Russian principalities, ruined and robbed the population.
In the second half of the 12th century. The Polovtsians intensified their attack on Rus'. The Polovtsian Khan Konchak raided in 1184 and devastated large areas. This forced many Russian princes to unite again. In the same 1184, the Kiev prince Svyatoslav, and with him up to 12 princes of Southern Rus' (Pereyaslavl, Smolensk, Turov, Galician, Volyn and others) set out on a campaign against the Polovtsians. After five transitions, the Russian army is on the bank of the river. The Ugrians met a strong vanguard of the Polovtsians and defeated them. Rich booty fell into the hands of the victors, 7 thousand Polovtsians and 417 of their princes were captured.
Khan Konchak with the main forces walked towards the Russian army. The Polovtsians had crossbows that could barely pull 50 warriors. They had unknown guns that fired “living fire” (maybe “Greek fire”). Near the Khorol River on March 1, 1185, the Polovtsian army was defeated. This victory inspired the Seversk princes to fight, led by Igor Svyatoslavich, the prince of Novgorod-Seversky.
On April 23, 1185, Igor set out from Novgorod, joining his allies along the way: the squad of his son Vladimir, the squad of his nephew from Rylsk, the squad of the Prince of Putivl, the forces of the Chernigov prince and his brother Vsevolod. Having crossed the Donets, the Russian army concentrated on the banks of the river. Oskol, and then moved to the Don and Sale rivers.
Konchak and five other Polovtsian khans with a large army headed towards the Russians. Between Oskol and Don, on the banks of the river. Syurli (Sula), the Russian princes met the advanced units of the Polovtsians.
Russian pre-revolutionary and Soviet historians and archaeologists studied the question of the location of the battle between the Russian regiments and the Polovtsians. It was established that the battle took place in the Izyum-Slavyansk direction. The defeat of the advanced units of the Polovtsians was inflicted at Golaya Dolina, the Russians spent the night on the banks of the Makatikha River, which had steep banks (the entire length of the river is 7–8 km). In the battle of the main forces, the Polovtsians pushed the Russians to the Slavic (Salty) Lake. In 1894, during the construction of the railway between the salt lakes Weisov and Raine, many skeletons and weapons were found. This made it possible to clarify the location of the battlefield, which is located 250–300 km northwest of the previously assumed point.
In the chronicle about the campaign of Prince Igor Seversky we find the following description of the battle order of the Russian regiments:
“And you ordered 6 regiments: Igor’s regiment in the middle, and I will trample down his brother Vsevolozh, and his son Svyatoslavl on the field, in front of him is his son Volodimir and another regiment Yaroslavl, who are fighting with Olstin Koueve, and the third regiment is in front of the archers, who are fighting from all princes excretion; and thus you have cleared out your regiments.”
Consequently, the battle formation of the Russian army was dispersed along the front and in depth. The first line consisted of archers allocated from all regiments; in the second line there were two regiments, in the third line there were three regiments, which made up the main forces. This formation of the Russian army ensured stability in battle.
Approaching the river. Syurli, the Russian regiments saw the Polovtsians. Archers separated from the Polovtsian detachments, galloped up to the river, fired at the Russians and rushed off into the steppe along with those who stood far from the river. The advanced Russian regiments began to pursue the Polovtsians, and Igor with the main forces moved behind the advanced regiments in battle formation towards the river. Kayala. By evening, the Russians captured the Polovtsian camp and took prisoners.
Igor decided to pursue the enemy at night, but the horses of the leading regiments were very tired and had to spend the night. At dawn on Saturday, the Cumans concentrated all their forces against the Russians. The enemy, having a large numerical superiority in forces, surrounded the Russian army.
In the created unfavorable situation, the Russian princes decided to make their way to the river. Donets, dismounting mounted warriors and fighting on foot. The princes said: “If we run, we run away ourselves, and leave ordinary people behind, then it will be our sin that we handed them over to the enemies, or we will die, or we will live together.” Consequently, not only the squads of the princes, but also the “warriors” took part in the campaign.
On Saturday the Russians fought successfully. But at dawn on Sunday, “Koueva got agitated in the regiment and ran away.” Igor on horseback rushed to the retreating people to return them to the line, but to no avail. When the prince was returning to his regiments, the Polovtsians captured him. The battle continued after Igor’s capture. The warriors fought on foot.
This bloody battle is described in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”: “From early to evening, from evening to light, red-hot arrows fly, sabers grimace from their helmets, spears of kharaluzhny crack in an unknown field, in the midst of the Polovtsian land. The black earth under the hooves was sown with bones, and the glade was cleared with blood: it rose tightly across the Russian land.
...Bisha day, bisha another; On the third day, at noon, the fall of Igor’s struggles. My brother was separated on the breeze of fast Kayala; there is not enough bloody wine; tu piya dokanchasha brave rusichi; They searched for matchmakers, but they themselves fought for the Russian land. The grass was stricken with pity, and the tree bowed down to the ground.”
Civil War- the most acute form of resolving accumulated social contradictions within a state, which manifests itself in the form of large-scale armed confrontation between organized groups or, less commonly, between nations that were part of a previously unified country. The goal of the parties, as a rule, is to seize power in a country or in a particular region.
Signs of a civil war are the involvement of the civilian population and the resulting significant losses.
Methods of waging civil wars often differ from traditional ones. Along with the use of regular troops by the warring parties, the partisan movement, as well as various spontaneous uprisings of the population and the like, are becoming widespread. Often a civil war is combined with a struggle against foreign intervention by other states.
Since 1945, civil wars have claimed an estimated 25 million lives and forced the deportation of millions of people. Civil wars have also caused the economic collapse of the countries involved in them; Burma (Myanmar), Uganda and Angola are examples of states that were widely seen as having a prosperous future until they fell into civil war.
Definition
James Fearon, who studies civil wars at Stanford University, defines a civil war as “violent conflict within a country, the struggle of organized groups that seek to seize central and regional power, or seek to change government policy.”
Some researchers, in particular Ann Hironaka, believe that one of the parties to the conflict is the state, which in practice is not at all mandatory. The point at which civil unrest becomes civil war is highly controversial. Some political scientists define a civil war as a conflict with more than 1,000 casualties, while others consider 100 casualties on each side sufficient. American Correlates of War, whose data is widely [ ] used by conflict scholars, classifies a civil war as one with more than 1,000 war-related deaths per year of conflict.
Using 1,000 deaths per year as a yardstick, there were 213 civil wars between 1816 and 1997, 104 of which occurred between 1944 and 1997. Using the less stringent criterion of 1,000 total casualties, more than 90 civil wars occurred between 1945 and 2007, with 20 of them still ongoing as of 2007.
The Geneva Conventions do not include a definition of "civil war", but they do include criteria for which a conflict can be considered a "non-international armed conflict", which includes civil wars. There are four criteria:
- The parties to the uprising must possess part of the national territory.
- The rebel civil authorities must have de facto power over the population in a certain part of the country's territory.
- The rebels must have some recognition as a belligerent.
- The government is "obliged to resort to regular military force against insurgents with a military organization."
Research into the causes of civil wars
Scientists who study the causes of civil wars look at two main factors that cause them. One of the factors may be ethnic, social or religious differences between social strata of people, the tension of which reaches the scale of a national crisis. Another factor is the economic interests of individuals or groups. Scientific analysis shows that economic and structural factors are more important than population group identification factors.
In the early 2000s, World Bank experts conducted a study of civil wars and formulated the Collier-Hoeffler model, which identifies factors that increase the risk of civil war. 78 five-year periods from 1960 to 1999 in which civil wars occurred, as well as 1,167 five-year periods without civil wars, were examined to establish correlations with various factors. The study showed that the following factors had a statistically significant impact on the likelihood of a civil war:
- Availability of funding
- Educational factor
- Military advantages
- Harassment
- Population
- Time factor
Processes of ending civil wars
In the period 1945-1992, only a third of the negotiation processes launched to end the civil war ended in success.
Research confirms the obvious conclusion that the more participants are involved in a civil war, the more difficult the process of finding a compromise and the longer the war continues. A larger number of parties who have the power to block a truce almost definitely means difficulties in achieving this truce and its postponement for the long term. One possible example is the two wars in Lebanon - the crisis of 1958 and the civil war (1975-1990), when the first civil war lasted about 4 months, and the second - 15 years.
In general, three large groups of civil wars can be distinguished by duration:
- lasting less than a year
- lasting from one year to 5 years
- long civil wars lasting 5 years or more.
Research shows that the duration of wars does not depend on their geography; they can occur in any part of the globe.
The theory of sufficient information, when it is believed that a party agrees if it becomes clear to it that the chances of winning are small, does not always work. An example is the actions of UNITA in Angola in 1975-2002, when it continued military operations, even after losing any significant support from the population and foreign powers, ending its actions only with the death of its leader, Jonas Savimbi.
A more successful theory is the “sufficiency of spoils” theory, which explains the continuation of hostilities by the economic benefits received by the belligerent, regardless of how much support it has in the country. It is personal enrichment that can be considered one of the reasons for the functioning of UNITA for so long [ ] . Accordingly, in order to end the conflict, it is necessary to introduce measures that would reduce the economic benefits of the parties. Attempts to introduce appropriate sanctions were used by the UN in the conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Accordingly, the more parties to the conflict, the greater the likelihood that at least one of them may consider either its chances of victory sufficient (due to the more problematic assessment of chances in the presence of several participants), or the benefits from the war sufficient, and continue the fight, making it difficult to achieve a truce . At the same time, the entry of an external participant into the conflict, whose goal is to facilitate the achievement of peace agreements, can only bring effect if all significant parties to the conflict are settled at the negotiating table. At the same time, the role of the third party in the success of such negotiations is very significant.
The third party in the negotiations serves as a guarantor of security for the parties to the conflict during the transition period. Reaching agreements on the causes of a war is often insufficient to end it. The parties may fear that the cessation of hostilities and the beginning of disarmament could be used by the enemy to launch a counterattack. In this case, the commitment of the third party to prevent such a situation from occurring can greatly contribute to the development of trust and the establishment of peace. In general, it is often agreements on how the process of transition to peaceful life will be established that are critical to achieving peace agreements, and not the actual disputes about the causes of the conflict and their resolution.
Civil wars in history
Throughout world history, civil wars have had different forms and types: slave uprisings, peasant wars, guerrilla wars, armed struggle against the government, struggle between two parts of the people, etc.
Slave revolts
The topic of slave rebellions remains a controversial topic in historical scholarship, part of a larger debate about whether all of human history is a history of class struggle. The question of what the largest slave uprisings can be considered - rebellions or attempted revolutions - remains open. The significance of a particular uprising in the history of a country does not necessarily depend on its duration and scale. Small rebellions could play an important role in the history of the state and, if not actually “civil wars,” then be one of the reasons causing them.
The most famous purely slave states arise only in the era of antiquity - in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.
They are also associated with movements in Roman Spain: the national liberation uprising of the Lusitanians under the leadership of Viriatus in -139 BC. e., as well as the movement led by Quintus Sertorius -72 BC. e., directed against supporters of the Roman commander and politician Lucius Cornelius Sulla. In both of these wars, fugitive slaves acted on the rebel side.
Military actions of the civil war in Rome - gg. BC e. between supporters of Gaius Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompey the Great were fought on the territory of several provinces: Italy, Africa, Spain, Illyria, Egypt, Achaia, and were accompanied by the mass death of soldiers and the devastation of the civilian population.
Along with the movements of slaves and dependent people, mass movements on religious grounds took place in the Arab Caliphate, acquiring the scale of civil wars. Thus, as a result of the uprising of the Khurramites of Abu Muslim in Khorasan in -750, the ruling Umayyad dynasty was overthrown and a new Abbasid dynasty was established, and the war of the Khurramites of Iranian Azerbaijan with the troops of the caliphate led by Babek lasted over 20 years: from 837.
Slavery, replaced almost everywhere in Europe by serfdom, was restored in the New World in the 17th century, after the beginning of the Age of Discovery. This leads to new slave uprisings. Armed insurrections are breaking out across America. From 1630 to 1694, Quilombu Palmaris, a state of runaway black slaves, existed in northeastern Brazil. The territory of Palmaris reached 27 thousand km², where about 20 thousand people lived (blacks, mulattoes, Indians). In -1803, the Haitian Revolution took place in the French colony of Saint-Domingue - the only successful slave uprising in history, as a result of which the colony (which changed its name to Haiti) gained independence from France. In 1832, a slave revolt occurred in Jamaica. 60 thousand of the three hundred thousand slaves on the island took part in the uprising. In the United States in August 1831, the Net Turner Rebellion took place. Nat Turner's slave rebellion).
The methods of slave warfare had much in common with the tactics of guerrilla warfare. They skillfully took advantage of the terrain, used natural conditions to their advantage, tried to avoid large-scale battles and attack the weakest areas of the enemy’s defense.
Peasant revolts
As historical development progressed and the slave-owning system transitioned into a feudal system, the number of slaves decreased, moving into the category of feudal-dependent peasantry and courtyard people. Moreover, the position of many serfs was very similar to the position of slaves.
Increased extortions from peasants, expansion of “lordly” rights over the rural population, unfavorable changes in the general social conditions of peasant life that took place at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries, fermentation of minds caused by the Reformation - these were the main reasons for the Peasant War, a popular uprising in the central Europe, primarily on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire in -1526. It was one of the many wars of that period. Popular revolt in late-medieval Europe ). The growing social gap between the elite and the rest of the population, increasing extortions by the nobility, rising inflation, mass famine, wars and epidemics - all this led to popular uprisings.
The first “peasant war” in Russia is traditionally considered to be the movement led by I. I. Bolotnikov -1607, caused by the devastation of the Time of Troubles and suppressed by the troops of Tsar Vasily IV Shuisky with great difficulty. In 1670, a peasant war begins in Russia under the leadership of Stepan Razin. This war lasted about two years and ended with the defeat of the rebels and mass executions. A little over a hundred years later, a new large-scale war begins - the Pugachev uprising of 1773-1775. Up to 100 thousand rebels took part in military operations on the side of E.I. Pugachev and his supporters, both Russian peasants and factory workers of the Urals, as well as Cossacks and representatives of non-Russian nationalities - Tatars, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, etc. Just like in the time of Razin, the uprising was defeated and caused numerous repressions.
In ancient and medieval China, mass movements of the tax-paying, including peasant, population often acquired religious overtones and caused a change in the ruling dynasty. Already in 17 AD. e. In the provinces of Shandong and Jiangsu, a peasant uprising of the “red brows” broke out, caused by the atrocities of the rule of the usurper Wang Mang and the floods of the Yellow River, which lasted for several years and captured neighboring provinces. And the mass movement led by the Taoist sect of the “yellow bandages” -204 AD. e. led to the collapse of the Han Empire and the division of the country (the “Three Kingdoms” period). The largest “peasant” uprising in medieval China led by Huang Chao -878, accompanied by massacres, destruction of cities and villages, and persecution of ethnic minorities (Arabs and Jews), led to the fall of the Tang dynasty (-).
At first, the national liberation uprising of the “red bands” of 1368, directed against the Mongolian Yuan dynasty and led by people from the Taoist White Lotus sect, was also peasant in its social nature and religious in its political program, as a result of which the national liberation rebellion came to power Chinese Ming dynasty (1368-1644).
The Taiping Uprising in Qing China, which broke out in the summer of 1850 in the province of Guangxi, initially as a peasant movement, and quickly spread to neighboring provinces with a population of over 30 million people, acquired the character of a genuine civil war. Lasting until 1864 and suppressed only with the help of British and French troops, it was accompanied by the death of millions of people and caused a protracted economic crisis, ultimately leading to the partial loss of the country's independence.
see also
- War for independence
Notes
- Civil War// Military encyclopedia / P. S. Grachev. - Moscow: Military Publishing House, 1994. - T. 2. - P. 475. - ISBN 5-203-00299-1.
- Fearon, James. (English)Russian . Iraq's Civil War Archived March 17, 2007. // “Foreign Affairs”, March/April 2007. (English)
- E. G. Panfilov. Civil War. Great Soviet Encyclopedia: In 30 volumes - M.: “Soviet Encyclopedia”, 1969-1978.
- Flaherty Jane. Review of Nicholas Onuf and Peter Onuf, Nations, Markets, and War: Modern History and the American Civil War(English) (unavailable link). // Website “EH.Net” (Economic History Services) (23 October 2006). - “Two nations developed because of slavery.” Retrieved June 5, 2013.
