Question

Допоможіть будь ласка даю 90 балов За допомогою методу історичного доказу доведіть або спростуйте тези 1. Князівські чвари робили Русь-Україну слабкою перед зовнішніми загрозами. 2. Упровадження Любецьким з'їздом вотчинного прин ципу управління сприяло пришвидшенню розвитку уділь них князівств. 3. Розквіт культури Русі-України відбувався попри су- перечливі історичні умови​

Answer 1

Ответ:1. За допомогою історичних доказів можна ствердити, що князівські чвари значною мірою причиняли Русь-Україні шкоди в стосунку здійснення зовнішньої політики захисту, так як вони були неспроможні переглянути позицію співробітників і прийняти більш ефективні заходи у критичних ситуаціях.

2. Упровадження любецького з'їзду вотчинного принципу управління дозволило князям забезпечити законне, урядове та адміністративне управління в рамках своїх окремих країн. Це сприяло більш швидкій державній та соціальній трансформації Русі-України.

3. Навіть при виконанні суперечливих історичних умов культурний розквіт Русі-України був яскравим і потужним. Завдяки значним зусиллям князів з одного боку і впливу цієї культури на інші народи з іншого боку уділь Русь-України було розвинено безліч форм духовної та художньої культури, таких як літопис, поетика, архітектура та мистецтво.

Объяснение:1

Answer 2

1. Князівські чвари робили Русь-Україну слабкою перед зовнішніми загрозами.

The claim suggests that internal conflicts among the princes weakened Rus-Ukraine in the face of external threats. While it is true that internal conflicts and power struggles among the princes were common during the medieval period, it is important to examine the impact of these conflicts on the overall strength of Rus-Ukraine.

According to the search results, the internal conflicts among the princes did have some negative consequences for Rus-Ukraine. These conflicts often led to fragmentation and disunity, making it difficult for the region to present a united front against external threats. Additionally, the constant power struggles diverted resources and attention away from defending against external enemies.

One example of the impact of internal conflicts is the Mongol invasion of the 13th century. The disunity among the princes made it easier for the Mongols to conquer and control the region. However, it is worth noting that the Mongol invasion was a significant external threat that would have been challenging to repel even with a united front.

In conclusion, while the internal conflicts among the princes did contribute to the weakening of Rus-Ukraine, it is important to consider other factors as well, such as external threats like the Mongol invasion.

2. Упровадження Любецьким з'їздом вотчинного принципу управління сприяло пришвидшенню розвитку удільних князівств.

The claim suggests that the introduction of the patrimonial principle of governance by the Lyubetsk Congress contributed to the accelerated development of appanage principalities. To evaluate this claim, it is important to understand the context and consequences of the Lyubetsk Congress.

The Lyubetsk Congress, held in 1429, aimed to establish a unified government structure for the appanage principalities of Rus-Ukraine. It introduced the patrimonial principle, which meant that the appanage territories were inherited by the ruling prince's descendants rather than being divided among multiple heirs. This consolidation of power had several potential benefits for the development of the appanage principalities.

According to the search results, the introduction of the patrimonial principle did contribute to the consolidation of power and stability within the appanage principalities. This allowed the ruling princes to focus on governance and development rather than constantly battling for control over territories. The unified government structure also facilitated better coordination and cooperation among the appanage principalities.

However, it is important to note that the accelerated development of the appanage principalities cannot be solely attributed to the introduction of the patrimonial principle. Other factors, such as economic growth, cultural exchange, and external trade, also played significant roles in the development of these territories.

In conclusion, while the introduction of the patrimonial principle by the Lyubetsk Congress did contribute to the accelerated development of the appanage principalities, it is important to consider other factors as well.

3. Розквіт культури Русі-України відбувався попри суперечливі історичні умови.

The claim suggests that despite contradictory historical conditions, there was a flourishing of culture in Rus-Ukraine. To evaluate this claim, it is necessary to examine the historical context and the cultural achievements of the region.

According to the search results, there is evidence to support the claim that there was a flourishing of culture in Rus-Ukraine despite challenging historical conditions. The medieval period in Rus-Ukraine witnessed significant cultural achievements in various fields, including architecture, literature, art, and religious practices.

One notable example is the architectural style known as "Rus-Ukrainian Baroque," which emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries. This architectural style combined elements of traditional Ukrainian architecture with Baroque influences, resulting in unique and visually striking buildings.

Literature also thrived during this period, with the works of prominent writers such as Taras Shevchenko and Ivan Kotlyarevsky gaining recognition and contributing to the development of Ukrainian national identity.

Despite the challenging historical conditions, including foreign invasions and political instability, cultural expressions in Rus-Ukraine continued to evolve and flourish. These cultural achievements are a testament to the resilience and creativity of the people of Rus-Ukraine.

In conclusion, the claim that there was a flourishing of culture in Rus-Ukraine despite contradictory historical conditions is supported by the evidence.