|
|
| |
 |
| |
Archyvai (16 Volume) |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| ISSN 1392-0448. LIETUVOS ISTORIJOS STUDIJOS. Nr. 16 |
| quality. As a contrast the productive cell of civilisations of the main way remained community. There have been no private property. Such a kind of societies were ruled by a despot or a board of priests. These are the main features of Asiatic mode of production. According to E. Gudavičius, the type of social structure characteristic to Byzantine Empire and Russia could be described as semi-feudal. There were latifundia in the Byzantium but the owners of these latifundia exploited not the individual holdings of peasants but the whole communities. So the social structure of Byzantine Empire remained transmixed between the slave and the feudal mode of production. There was the same mixed model in Russia as in Byzantium. The ruling minority possessed private property but peasants had no private property (it belonged to community) though they had individual holdings. The ruler of Russia was even more autocratic than the Byzantine emperor. The countries of Southeastern Europe adopted political as well as sociocultural structure of the Byzantine Empire: the state was centralized, the church was subordinated to the state, the aristocracy did not rely on private property but on state distribution or redistribution etc. The most advanced country of Southeastern Europe before the Otoman conquering was Serbia: both Western and Byzantine cross-currents are visible in the mixed character of its political system, intermediate between fief system and autocratic bureaucracy. According to P. Gunst, the lack of West European feudal property in land caused the absence of real feudal features in the area of the Byzantine civilization. Because of that the regions to the east of the Central Europe developed on a different basis altogether. At the end it should be said that there is not properly developed conception yet about the type of social structure of the area of Byzantine civilization in the Middle Ages and also about certain subregions of the mentioned area (Byzantium, Russia, Southeastern Europe). It looks that the most succesful term describing social specifics of the medieval Byzantine area is semi-feudalism but this conception is not properly devepoled too. So the conclusion is clear: it is still left much to study if we want to desribe the type of the Byzantine region social structure more thoroughly.
Įteikta 2005 11 11
Priimta spaudai 2005 12 13 |
| 18 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
dizainas ir programavimas giriaus