What are internecine wars? Ages of fragmentation and dependence on the Golden Horde

From the school history course, we know that civil strife and civil wars are bad for any state. They bring destruction, weaken powers, which leads, as a rule, to their destruction by various external forces.

So it was everywhere and at all times: in the ancient period in Greece and Rome, in the medieval period - in Europe and in Russia, etc. What wars are called internecine? Why did they weaken the states in which they took place? We will try to answer these questions in our article.

concept

Internecine war - a war that occurs between cities and lands. This concept refers to the feudal period in the history of any state. However, sometimes the term "civil war" is used in the study of the history of the ancient and ancient periods as a synonym for the term "civil war".

Is feudal fragmentation a tragedy?

It is believed that feudal fragmentation and, as a result, internecine war is a tragedy for any state. This is how it is presented to us school courses, cinema. But if you look at it, then feudal fragmentation, on the contrary, benefits the state as a whole, although it is sometimes accompanied by armed conflicts between lands and cities.

During the period of fragmentation, there is always an economic flourishing, the development of all lands on the territory of the once unified state, while maintaining cultural and religious ties. It is the latter factors that do not allow the lands to finally separate from each other.

Let us recall our history: each specific prince sought in his city to build a semblance of the “mother of Russian cities” with powerful walls, churches, estates. Also, fragmentation made it possible not to send all the resources to the center, but to keep them for their own development. Therefore, the collapse of the state before the emergence of capitalist market relations always brings only benefits. However, it is always accompanied by two negative factors:

Constant wars between cities and lands.
The risk of being captured and enslaved by outside forces.

Thus, we can conclude: internecine war is a normal process in the natural historical development of any state. The tragedy lies in the fact that sometimes this is used by peoples who are going through a lower stage of cultural and socio-economic development - the stage of "military democracy". So, we have said which wars are called civil wars. Let's move on to some real examples from history.

Greece

The policies of Hellas have always been independent and independent, despite the constant civil strife. They united only when Hellas was in mortal danger of being captured. For the rest of the time, each policy developed independently, sometimes united in alliances, becoming either a metropolis or a colony, depending on the situation. This did not particularly affect the lives of ordinary citizens.

On the territory of Hellas there were two political centers on which peace in the region depended: Athens and Sparta. Peace between them was impossible by definition, since they adhered to a diametrically opposed ideology. Athens was a supporter of democracy, engaged in trade, craft, art. Sparta was a rigid totalitarian state. There was strict discipline in the policy, complete hierarchical subordination of some members of the group to others. It was believed that the only the right occupation real Spartans - war and preparation for it. A wound in the back was regarded as a real shame for the men of this policy, which was punishable by a humiliating death.

Athens dominated the sea, no one could defeat Sparta on land. There was a certain parity: some established their protectorate over the island policies, others captured those that could be reached without ships. However, in the 5th century BC. a long internecine war broke out, which lasted about 30 years (431-404 BC).

Most of the Greek policies were drawn into the war, divided into two camps. Some supported Athens, others - Sparta. This war was distinguished by the fact that it aimed to completely destroy the enemy, without thinking about future consequences: women and children were exterminated, olive trees and vineyards were cut down, workshops were destroyed, etc. Sparta won the war. However, in 30 years, the Spartan ideology based on asceticism and total subordination was undermined: gold coins began to be minted, they began to donate and sell nationwide land, and social stratification of Spartan society took place.

Why did internecine wars weaken Greece? Firstly, almost all the economic power of Hellas was destroyed, and secondly, processes began in Sparta that dealt an irreparable blow to the centuries-old ideology of the policy. The Spartans understood what wealth, entertainment, delicious food, pleasure are. They no longer wanted to return to the rigid framework of the police state. As a result, Hellas immediately lost both the economic power of Athens and the military power of Sparta. The northern tribes of nomadic shepherds from Macedonia took advantage of this, completely subjugating the whole of Hellas.

The first civil strife in Russia

Internecine wars in Russia also broke out quite often. It is believed that the first occurred between the sons of Svyatoslav - Yaropolk and Vladimir in the X century. As a result, Vladimir came to power, later baptizing Russia.

The second civil strife in Russia

The second civil strife came after the death of Vladimir (from 1015 to 1019) - between his sons. Many worthy people died in it, including the first holy martyrs - Boris and Gleb - the sons of Vladimir from the Byzantine princess Anna. As a result of the second civil strife, Yaroslav the Wise came to power. Under him, Russia reached its highest power.

The final fragmentation in Russia. Invasion of the Mongol-Tatars

The most active period of internecine princely wars begins with the death of Prince Yaroslav the Wise (1054). Formally, the state was still united, but it was already becoming clear that the processes of feudal fragmentation had begun actively. Not only Russians, but also Polovtsy, Lithuanians, Torks, Kosogs and other unfriendly tribes took part in the constant princely showdowns.

Gentiles did not spare the Orthodox Russian population, and the princes did not spare each other. One of the most influential princes - Vladimir Monomakh - still formally extended the unity of Russia. This was achieved by his son - Mstislav the Great. However, after the death of the latter in 1132, Russia completely plunged into endless internecine wars and feudal fragmentation. And here, too, there were external enemies: in the XIII century, hordes of Mongol-Tatars came to Russia, who captured most of our state.

The scheme is the second strife in Russia

Causes and background

There are several main reasons that pushed the heirs of Vladimir the Baptist to civil strife:

Polygamy of Prince Vladimir - many of his sons were born from different women which increased their dislike for each other. (Svyatopolk was born from a concubine, the ex-wife of Yaropolk, who was killed on the orders of Vladimir).
Polish connections of Svyatopolk - some researchers suggest that Prince Svyatopolk fell under the influence of his wife, the daughter of the Polish prince Boleslav, and her confessor Reyenburn. The young prince was promised help from Poland if he agreed to turn away Kievan Rus from Christianity to Catholicism
A common tendency for all large feudal states to break up into personal principalities, headed by the children of a recently deceased supreme ruler (prince, king, emperor), with a subsequent struggle for power between them.

The murder of princes Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav

After the death of Prince Vladimir July 15, 1015, Svyatopolk, with the help of the Vyshegorodsk boyars loyal to him, established himself in Kyiv and declared himself the new Kyiv prince. Boris, who headed the princely squad, despite the persuasion of his comrades-in-arms, refused to confront his brother. His father's warriors left him and he stayed with the closest people.

According to official history, Svyatopolk, notifying Boris of the death of his father and offering to live in peace with him, simultaneously sent assassins to his brother. On the night of July 30, Prince Boris was killed along with a servant who tried to protect his master.

After that, near Smolensk, assassins overtook Prince Gleb, and the Drevlyan prince Svyatoslav, who tried to escape to the Carpathians, along with his seven sons, died in a battle against a large detachment sent in pursuit of him.

The death of Svyatoslav and the struggle for power between the sons of Vladimir Svyatoslavich deprived the Carpathian Croats of their last ally, and the valleys of Borzhava and Latoritsa were annexed by the Hungarians.

The official version of Svyatopolk's guilt in fratricide was later challenged on the basis of the preserved and translated Norwegian sagas (about Eimund). Considering the fact that according to the chronicles Yaroslav, Bryachislav and Mstislav refused to recognize Svyatopolk as the legitimate prince in Kyiv, and only two brothers - Boris and Gleb - declared their allegiance to the new Kyiv prince and pledged to "honor him as their father", for Svyatopolk it is very strange would be to kill their allies. But Yaroslav, whose descendants had the opportunity to influence the writing of chronicles, was very interested in eliminating competitors on the way to the Kyiv throne.

The struggle between Yaroslav and Svyatopolk for the throne of Kyiv

1016 - battle of Lyubech

In 1016 Yaroslav, at the head of the 3,000th Novgorod army and mercenary Varangian detachments, moved against Svyatopolk, who called for help from the Pechenegs. Two troops met on the Dnieper near Lyubech and for three months, until late autumn, neither side risked crossing the river. Finally, the Novgorodians did it, and they got the victory. The Pechenegs were cut off from the troops of Svyatopolk by the lake and could not come to his aid.

1017 - siege of Kyiv

Next year 1017 (6525) the Pechenegs, at the instigation of Buritsleif (here, the opinions of historians differ, some consider Buritsleif - Svyatopolk, others - Boleslav) undertook a campaign against Kyiv. The Pechenegs went on the attack with significant forces, while Yaroslav could rely only on the remnants of the Varangian squad led by King Eymund, the Novgorodians and a small Kyiv detachment. According to the Scandinavian saga, Yaroslav was wounded in the leg in this battle. The Pechenegs managed to break into the city, but a powerful counterattack by the elite squad, after a heavy bloody battle, put the Pechenegs to flight. In addition, large “wolf pits” near the walls of Kyiv, dug and disguised by order of Yaroslav, played a positive role in the defense of Kyiv. The besieged undertook a sortie and, in the course of the pursuit, captured the banner of Svyatopolk.

1018 - Battle on the Bug River
Svyatopolk and Boleslav the Brave capture Kyiv

In 1018 Svyatopolk, married to his daughter Polish king Boleslav the Brave, enlisted the support of his father-in-law and again gathered troops to fight Yaroslav. Boleslav's army, in addition to the Poles, included 300 Germans, 500 Hungarians and 1000 Pechenegs. Yaroslav, having gathered his squad, moved towards them, and as a result of the battle on the Western Bug, the army of the Kyiv prince was defeated. Yaroslav fled to Novgorod, and the road to Kyiv was open.

August 14, 1018 Boleslav and Svyatopolk entered Kyiv. The circumstances of Boleslav's return from the campaign are vague. The Tale of Bygone Years speaks of the expulsion of the Poles as a result of the Kiev uprising, but Titmar of Merseburg and Gall Anonymous write the following:

Boleslav the Brave and Svyatopolk at the Golden Gates of Kyiv

“Boleslav put in his place in Kyiv one Russian who became related to him, and he himself, with the remaining treasures, began to gather in Poland.”

Boleslav received the Kyiv treasury and many prisoners as a reward for helping the Cherven cities (an important trade hub on the way from Poland to Kyiv), and also, according to the Chronicle of Titmar of Merseburg, Predslava Vladimirovna, Yaroslav's beloved sister, whom he took as a concubine.

And Yaroslav prepared to run "over the sea." But the Novgorodians cut down his boats and persuaded the prince to continue the fight against Svyatopolk. They collected money, concluded a new agreement with the Varangians of King Eymund, and armed themselves.

1019 - Battle of the Alta River

Spring 1019 Svyatopolk fought Yaroslav in the decisive battle on the Alta River. The chronicle did not preserve the exact location and details of the battle. It is only known that the battle went on all day and was extremely fierce. Svyatopolk fled through Berestye and Poland to the Czech Republic. On the way, suffering from illness, he died.

Civil War- the most acute form of resolving the accumulated social contradictions within the state, which manifests itself in the form of a large-scale armed confrontation between organized groups or, more rarely, between nations that were part of a previously unified country. The goal of the parties, as a rule, is to seize power in the country or in a separate region.

Signs of a civil war are the involvement of the civilian population and the resulting significant losses.

Ways 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 about 25 million lives and forced the deportation of millions of people. Civil wars also caused the economic collapse of the countries mired in them; Burma (Myanmar), Uganda and Angola are examples of states that were widely seen as having a prosperous future until they entered a state of civil war.

Definition

James Feron, a student of civil wars at Stanford University, defines civil war as "a violent conflict within a country, a struggle by organized groups that seek to seize power in the center and in the region, or seek to change public policy."

Some researchers, in particular, Anne 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 debatable. Some political scientists define a civil war as a conflict with more than 1,000 casualties, while others consider 100 casualties on each side to be sufficient. American Correlates of War, whose data is widely [ ] used by conflict scholars classifies the civil war as a war with over 1,000 war deaths in a year of conflict.

With 1,000 deaths a year as a benchmark, there were 213 civil wars between 1816 and 1997, 104 of which took place between 1944 and 1997. Using the less stringent criterion of 1,000 casualties in total, more than 90 civil wars took place between 1945 and 2007, with 20 of them still ongoing as of 2007.

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", including civil wars. There are four criteria:

The parties to the uprising must possess part of the national territory.
The insurgent 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 "obligated to resort to regular military force against insurgents with a military organization".

Research into the Causes of Civil Wars

Scholars who study the causes of civil wars consider two main factors that cause them. One of the factors may be ethnic, social or religious differences between the social strata of people, the tension of which reaches the scale of a nationwide 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, the World Bank conducted a study of civil wars and formulated the Collier-Hoeffler model, which identifies factors that increase the risk of civil war. We examined 78 five-year periods from 1960 to 1999 in which civil wars occurred, as well as 1167 five-year periods without civil wars, 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

Any civil war requires resources, so its risk is higher in countries that have them. An additional factor is the possibility of financing from abroad.

Educational factor

Civil War less likely where the level of education of young men is higher, which could form the basis armed forces, as they would have lost the chance of a successful career in the event of a war. Income distribution inequality, however, did not correlate with civil wars. However, with higher education, the self-awareness of people also increases. People with high self-consciousness may be dissatisfied with the state of affairs in the state, such as the lack of necessary rights and freedoms, corruption, etc., and may unleash a civil war with the support of like-minded people.

Military advantages

Civil war is most likely in countries with hard-to-reach areas such as mountains and deserts.

harassment

It has been established that ethnic dominance leads to an increase in the likelihood of a civil war. Religious and ethnic fragmentation, on the contrary, reduces the risk of war.

population

The risk of outbreak of war is directly proportional to the population of the country.

Time factor

The more time has passed since the last civil war, the less likely there is to be a renewed conflict.

Processes for the end of civil wars

In the period 1945-1992, only a third of the negotiations initiated to end the civil war were successful.

Research confirms the obvious conclusion that the more participants involved in a civil war, the more difficult the process of finding a compromise and the longer the war lasts. Large quantity parties in whose power to block a truce almost certainly means difficulties in achieving this truce and postponing it for a long time. As one of the possible examples, two wars in Lebanon can be cited - the 1958 crisis 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 1 to 5 years
long civil wars lasting 5 years or more.

Studies show 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 there is little chance of winning, does not always work. An example is the actions of UNITA in Angola in 1975-2002, when it continued military operations, even having lost any significant support from the population and foreign powers, completing its actions only with the death of its leader, Jonas Savimbi.

More successful is the theory of "sufficiency of booty", which explains the continuation of hostilities by the economic benefits received by the belligerent, regardless of how much support he has in the country. It is personal enrichment that can be considered one of the reasons for the functioning of UNITA for such a long time [ ] . Accordingly, in order to end the conflict, it is required to introduce measures that would reduce the economic benefits of the parties. Attempts to impose appropriate sanctions were used by the UN in the conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone.

Accordingly, the more parties in the conflict, the more likely it is that at least one of them can consider either its chances of winning sufficient (due to the more problematic assessment of chances in the presence of several participants), or sufficient benefits from the war, and continue the fight, making it difficult to achieve a truce . At the same time, the entry into the conflict of an external participant, the purpose of which is to contribute to the achievement of peace agreements, can only be effective if all significant parties to the conflict are settled at the negotiating table. At the same time, the role of a third party in the success of such negotiations is very significant.

The third party in the negotiations performs the function of a security guarantor for the parties to the conflict during the transition period. Reaching agreements on the causes of war is often not enough to end it. The parties may fear that the cessation of hostilities and the commencement of disarmament may be used by the enemy to launch a counterattack. In this case, the obligation of a third party to prevent such a situation can greatly contribute to the development of confidence and peace. In general, it is often the agreements on how the process of transition to a peaceful life will be established that are critical for reaching 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 taken different forms and types: slave uprisings, peasant wars, guerrilla wars, armed struggle against the government, struggle between two sections of the people, etc.

Slave uprisings

The subject of slave revolts remains a subject of controversy in historical science, being part of a larger debate about whether the entire history of mankind is the history of class struggle. The question of what the largest slave uprisings can be considered - rebellions or attempts at revolutions - remains open. The significance of this or that uprising in the history of the 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 joined by movements in Roman Spain: the national liberation uprising of the Lusitanians led by Viriato 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, runaway slaves acted on the side of the rebels.

Military actions of the civil war in Rome - gg. BC e. between the 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 ruin 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. So, 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 dynasty of Abbasids 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 to 837.

Slavery, almost everywhere in Europe replaced by serfdom, was restored in the New World in the 17th century, after the beginning of the Age of Discovery. This leads to new uprisings of slaves. Armed riots are breaking out across America. In 1630-1694, Quilombu Palmaris, a state of runaway black slaves, existed in northeastern Brazil. The territory of Palmaris reached 27 thousand km², on which about 20 thousand people lived (negroes, mulattoes, Indians). In -1803, the Haitian Revolution takes 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 uprising took place 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 waging wars by slaves had much in common with the tactics of guerrilla warfare. They skillfully took advantage of the terrain, used to their advantage natural conditions, tried to avoid large-scale battles, and attack the weakest parts of the enemy's defense.

Peasant uprisings

As historical development and the transition of the slave-owning system to the feudal one, the number of slaves decreased, passing into the category of the feudal-dependent peasantry and courtyard people. At the same time, the position of many serfs was very similar to the position of slaves.

Strengthening the exactions from the peasants, the expansion of "master's" rights over the rural population, adverse changes in the general social conditions of peasant life that took place at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th century, the fermentation of minds caused by the Reformation - these were the main reasons for the Peasants' War, a popular uprising in the central Europe, first of all, on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire in -1526. It was one of the many wars of that period (eng. Popular revolt in late-medieval Europe ). The growing social gap between the elite and the rest of the population, the increase in extortion by the nobility, the growth of inflation, massive famine, wars and epidemics - all this led to popular uprisings.

The first "peasant war" in Russia is traditionally considered to be a 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 led by Stepan Razin. This war lasted about two years, ended with the defeat of the rebels and mass executions. In a little over a hundred years, a new large-scale war begins - the Pugachev uprising of 1773-1775. Up to 100 thousand rebels, both Russian peasants and factory workers of the Urals, and Cossacks and representatives of non-Russian nationalities - Tatars, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, etc., took part in hostilities on the side of E. I. Pugachev and his supporters. Just as in the time of Razin, the uprising was defeated and caused numerous repressions.

In ancient and medieval China, mass movements of the tax-paying population, including the peasant population, often acquired a religious coloring and caused a change in the ruling dynasty. Already in 17 AD. e. in the provinces of Shandong and Jiangsu, a "red-browed" peasant uprising broke out, caused by the cruelty 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 under the leadership of 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 period of the "Three Kingdoms"). The largest "peasant" uprising in medieval China led by Huang Chao -878, accompanied by massacres, devastation of cities and villages, persecution against ethnic minorities (Arabs and Jews), led to the fall of the Tang Dynasty (- years).

Peasant in its social nature and religious in its political program was at first the national liberation uprising of the "Red Turbans" -1368, directed against the Mongolian Yuan dynasty and led by people from the Taoist sect of the White Lotus, as a result of which the national liberation came to power. Chinese Ming dynasty (1368-1644).

The nature of a genuine civil war was acquired by the Taiping uprising in Qing China, which broke out in the summer of 1850 in the province of Guangxi, initially as a movement of peasants, and quickly spread to neighboring provinces with a population of over 30 million people. Continuing 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, eventually leading to a partial loss of independence for the country.

Notes

Civil War // Military Encyclopedia/ P. S. Grachev. - Moscow: Military Publishing House, 1994. - T. 2. - S. 475. - ISBN 5-203-00299-1.
Fearon, James. (English)Russian . Archived from the original Iraq's Civil War on 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) (October 23, 2006). - "Two nations developed because of slavery". Retrieved June 5, 2013.

Princely civil strife - the struggle of Russian princes among themselves for power and territory.

The main period of civil strife fell on the 10th-11th centuries. The main reasons for the enmity between the princes were:

discontent in the distribution of territories;
struggle for sole power in Kyiv;
struggle for the right not to depend on the will of Kyiv.

the first civil strife (10th century) - enmity between the sons of Svyatoslav;
the second civil strife (beginning of the 11th century) - enmity between the sons of Vladimir;
the third civil strife (end of the 11th century) - enmity between the sons of Yaroslav.

In Russia, there was no centralized power, no single state, and no tradition of passing the throne to the eldest of the sons, so the great princes, leaving many heirs according to tradition, doomed them to endless enmity among themselves. Although the heirs received power in one of the large cities, they all aspired to become Kyiv princes and be able to subjugate their brothers.

The first civil strife in Russia

The first family feud broke out after the death of Svyatoslav, who left three sons. Yaropolk received power in Kyiv, Oleg - in the territory of the Drevlyans, and Vladimir - in Novgorod. At first, after the death of their father, the brothers lived peacefully, but then conflicts over territory began.

In 975 (976), on the orders of Prince Oleg, on the territory of the Drevlyans, where Vladimir ruled, the son of one of the governors of Yaropolk was killed. The governor, who learned about this, reported to Yaropolk about what had happened and persuaded him to attack Oleg with an army. This was the beginning of the civil strife, which lasted for several years.

In 977 Yaropolk attacks Oleg. Oleg, who did not expect an attack and was not prepared, was forced, together with his army, to retreat back to the capital of the Drevlyans - the city of Ovruch. As a result of panic during the retreat, Oleg accidentally dies under the hooves of the horse of one of his warriors. The Drevlyans, having lost their prince, quickly surrender and submit to the authority of Yaropolk. At the same time, Vladimir, fearing an attack by Yaropolk, runs to the Varangians.

In 980, Vladimir returned to Russia with the Varangian army and immediately undertook a campaign against his brother Yaropolk. He quickly retakes Novgorod and then moves on to Kyiv. Yaropolk, having learned about his brother's intentions to seize the throne in Kyiv, follows the advice of one of his assistants and flees to the city of Rodna, fearing an assassination attempt. However, the adviser turns out to be a traitor who entered into an agreement with Vladimir, and Yaropolk, dying of hunger in Lyubech, is forced to negotiate with Vladimir. Having reached his brother, he dies from the swords of two Varangians, without concluding a truce.

Thus ends the civil strife of the sons of Svyatoslav. At the end of 980, Vladimir becomes a prince in Kyiv, where he rules until his death.

The first feudal civil strife marked the beginning of a long period internal wars between the princes, which will last almost a century and a half.

The second civil strife in Russia

In 1015, Vladimir dies and a new enmity begins - the civil strife of the sons of Vladimir. Vladimir left 12 sons, each of whom wanted to become a prince of Kyiv and gain almost unlimited power. However, the main struggle was between Svyatopolk and Yaroslav.

First Kyiv prince becomes Svyatopolk, since he had the support of Vladimir's combatants and was closest to Kyiv. He kills the brothers Boris and Gleb and becomes the head of the throne.

In 1016, a bloody struggle for the right to govern Kyiv between Svyatopolk and Yaroslav begins.

Yaroslav, who ruled in Novgorod, gathers an army, which includes not only Novgorodians, but also Varangians, and goes with him to Kyiv. After a battle with Svyatoslav's army near Lyubech, Yaroslav captures Kyiv and forces his brother to flee. However, some time later, Svyatoslav returns with Polish soldiers and recaptures the city, forcing Yaroslav back to Novgorod. But the fight doesn't end there either. Yaroslav again goes to Kyiv and this time he manages to win the final victory.

1016 - becomes a prince in Kyiv, where he rules until his death.

The third civil strife in Russia

The third enmity began after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, who during his lifetime was very afraid that his death would lead to family strife and therefore tried to divide power between the children in advance. Although Yaroslav left clear instructions for his sons and established who would reign where, the desire to seize power in Kyiv again provoked civil strife between the Yaroslavichs and plunged Russia into another war.

According to Yaroslav's testament, Kyiv was given to his eldest son Izyaslav, Svyatoslav got Chernigov, Vsevolod - Pereyaslavl, Vyacheslav - Smolensk, and Igor - Vladimir.

In 1054, Yaroslav dies, but the sons do not seek to win back territories from each other, on the contrary, they fight together against foreign invaders. However, when the external threat was defeated, the war for power in Russia begins.

For almost the entire 1068, different children of Yaroslav the Wise ended up on the throne of Kyiv, but in 1069 power returned to Izyaslav again, as Yaroslav bequeathed. Since 1069, Izyaslav rules Russia.