Yet it was not a time for coordination. Only a leader of superior personality and ability could hold in check the disruptive tendencies which made their appearance in every land. There was the bad tradition of the early feudalism, whereby the various princes and their forces felt themselves practically independent and able to defy the will of the central ruler. There was the equally unfortunate custom whereby that ruler, to satisfy the members of his immediate family, apportioned out the land into various fiefs. Both Volodymyr and Yaroslav obeyed this tradition. Each of them had been compelled to fight against his own brothers and relatives to secure absolute control of the whole of Rus’ and yet each of them had in turn divided his dominions among his own children in such a way that the task of unification had to be recommenced with each succeeding generation. The reason for their actions was clear. It was necessary to have in each strong post a strong ruler. It was impossible for a leader to be everywhere at once and, in the spirit of the day, a strong subordinate felt no scruples about asserting his own independence and seeking to seize the supreme power. The Church was the only force that definitely stood for a national unity. From the Monastery of the Caves at Kiev, bishops went out to try to maintain some semblance of unity. The Metropolitan of Kiev had some influence and authority, but he was usually a Greek from Constantinople and he was not always aware of the questions at issue. When we consider the turbulence of the times and the external menace, we can only wonder at the success achieved by some of the more able rulers. Men like Volodymyr Monomakh, in the twelfth century, could definitely take their stand on relatively high moral principles, and use their influence against internal dissensions and the oppression of their people. Yaroslav could build in Kiev the great Church of St. Sophia, modelled on the New Church of Constantinople. The arts flourished. It is abundantly clear also that the princes were not absolute sovereigns. They were compelled to pay attention to the wishes of their higher officers and counsellors, the druzhina. They were compelled also to give heed to the will of the people of the various cities expressed through their public assemblies or Veches. In fact in some cities, as in Novgorod, which really became an aristocratic republic, the Veche became the controlling body and was able to oust the prince whenever he displeased it. All of this points to the fact that Rus’ was really a form of aristocratic democracy, a state in which the power of the Grand Prince or of any of the subordinate princes was more or less closely restricted by his ability to hold or alienate the devotion of his people.