At the end of the twentieth century, humanity imperceptibly came to a situation where the breadth of knowledge in one person began to seem impossible, and erudition is almost synonymous with superficiality. A specialist in the dominant - and completely erroneous - belief should only be narrow. Today, professionals live in the gorges of their subjects, which they deepen over the course of their lives. In reality, an educated person should live with a fairly complete and adequate understanding of the world around him. In this ideal picture, knowledge obtained by personal experience forms the nearest landscape, which smoothly passes into the hills of the surrounding cultural world, and they, in turn, into distant, but clearly distinguishable ridges of distant sections of science and culture, closing in on the horizon of knowledge common to all educated people. 

A person of the 21st century needs to freely navigate in a multitude of knowledge and information. He should, as it were, soar in their space, choosing in each case the optimal height, the measure of detail, the speed of movement and the trajectory. Modern life forces a repeated change of activities throughout life. This requires a completely different strategy of human life, which is one of the most important characteristics of the society of the coming century. The hope of doing the same thing all your life becomes illusory. The presence of a dynamic orientation will allow a person to consciously build his life trajectory, the choice of which becomes as important as individual knowledge and skills in themselves. The choice of the trajectory of knowledge, the ability to fly over the problem, soar on it at a certain height, like a swallow, survey an object from a chosen height, like an eagle,^[1] .

The above considerations fully apply to history, which is not only part of the idea of ​​the surrounding world, like any science, but also part of the collective perception of the people and its representatives of themselves, as they are or as others represent them. When studying history (as well as any other science), a person must have a solid framework, a view, so to speak, from space. In which, when approaching objects, when looking, so to speak, from the clouds, details begin to appear. And having landed at one point or another in history - be it the Battle of Grunwald or the accession to the throne of Paul the First - be ready at any moment to plan to the required height. And take off again. And somewhere to land. And in any case, when studying the details, keep in mind the whole to which the considered details of this whole belong.

The purpose of this work is an attempt to build a model of history - in this case, Russian history - just like any other science is built. Namely, first the cornerstone principles are formulated, then the main results, then those that are based on these results, and so on. When studying geometry (Euclid, Lobachevsky, Riemann), the initial, most general level is postulates. When studying arithmetic - the multiplication table. In physics - the fundamental laws of nature, in chemistry - the rules of valence, arising from the periodic system, on which the understanding of the structure of chemical compounds is based. Cars are made up of parts, food is made up of shop-bought components. The possibility of a hierarchical approach, from a panoramic view to details, from the general to the particular (as, indeed, vice versa) is a feature of not only accurate, but also the humanities. When learning to read, they start with learning the letters of the alphabet, then come words made up of letters, then sentences made up of words... When learning music, they start with musical notation and only then write symphonies or play from sight. How is it possible, by reconstructing the past, to make it similar to all other sciences and even arts? But how. Of the many facts, it is necessary to single out a set of those that had the most long-term consequences (for example, when studying Russian history, the baptism of Rus', the transfer of the capital from Kiev to Vladimir under Bogolyubsky, the election of the Romanovs to the throne, the Bolshevik coup ...). And on their basis, try to build the most general history, which is the main backbone, a look, so to speak, from outer space or from distant heavens. Some of these key facts can be chosen unambiguously, and there can be several others that give the same picture. In this case, it is not necessary to mention them all to build a panorama, just as all the children of one city eventually learn the same native language, although at the heart of this learning (the details of which we do not know, because it occurs at the subconscious level) offspring in different families can have different sets of basic words - and the table does not have to stand on twenty legs. Of course, the choice of basic facts can be ambiguous and subject to discussion and criticism. However, what how all the children of one city eventually learn the same native language, although at the basis of this learning (the details of which we do not know, because it occurs at the subconscious level), offspring in different families may have different sets of basic words - and the table does not have to stand on twenty legs. Of course, the choice of basic facts can be ambiguous and subject to discussion and criticism. However, what how all the children of one city eventually learn the same native language, although at the basis of this learning (the details of which we do not know, because it occurs at the subconscious level), offspring in different families may have different sets of basic words - and the table does not have to stand on twenty legs. Of course, the choice of basic facts can be ambiguous and subject to discussion and criticism. However, whatthe construction of the building of history, like any other science, should be carried out according to the principle of the TRAJECTORY OF KNOWLEDGE, starting with specific facts, and then rising “higher and higher” until the general picture is obtained - and when studying history, on the contrary, the trajectory of knowledge should begin with an understanding of the general , a panoramic picture of the millennium, and then gradually “decrease” in space and / or time, so that more and more details become visible to the intellectual eye - seems absolutely necessary. Possible. And completely natural.

============================

^[1]  The concept of the trajectory of knowledge was developed by the author of this paper together with Fedor Alekseevich Bogomolov, professor at New York University and one of the greatest mathematicians of our time.