The history of ancient Rus' in brief. How they lived in Rus' before the arrival of Christians or why the history of Rus' before baptism was a big headache for Soviet historians
I understand that such an article can break the fan, so I will try to avoid sharp corners. I write more for my own pleasure, most of the facts will be from the category taught in school, but nevertheless I will gladly accept criticism and corrections, if there are facts. So:
Ancient Rus'.
It is assumed that Rus' appeared as a result of the merger of a number of East Slavic, Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes. The first mentions of us are found in the 830s. First, in the region of 813g. (very controversial dating) some Rosas successfully ran into the city of Amastrida (modern Amasra, Turkey) in Byzantine Palfagonia. Secondly, the ambassadors of the "Kagan Rosov" as part of the Byzantine embassy came to the last emperor of the Frankish state, Louis I the Pious (a good question, however, who they really were). Thirdly, the same Dews ran into Constantinople in 860, without much success (there is an assumption that the famous Askold and Dir commanded the parade).
The history of serious Russian statehood begins, according to the most official version, in 862, when a certain Rurik appears on the scene.
Rurik.
In fact, we have a rather poor idea of who he was and whether he was at all. The official version is based on the "Tale of Bygone Years" by Nestor, who, in turn, used the sources available to him. There is a theory (quite similar to the truth) that Rurik was known as Rorik of Jutland, from the Skjoldung dynasty (a descendant of Skjold, King of the Danes, mentioned already in Beowulf). I repeat that the theory is not the only one.
Where did this character come from in Rus' (specifically, in Novgorod), is also an interesting question, I personally am closest to the theory that he was originally a hired military administrator, moreover, in Ladoga, and he brought the idea of \u200b\u200ba hereditary transfer of power with him from Scandinavia, where it just came into fashion. And he came to power completely by himself by seizing it during a conflict with another military leader of the same kind.
However, in the PVL it is written that the Varangians were still called upon by three tribes of Slavs, unable to resolve the disputed issues themselves. Where did it come from?
Option one- from the source that Nestor read (well, you yourself understand, it would be enough for those who wanted to do fascinating editing from among the Rurikovichs at their leisure. Princess Olga could also do this, in the midst of a conflict with the Drevlyans, who for some reason still did not understand what to break the prince in half and offer a replacement, as always in their memory and done in such cases - a bad idea).
Option two- Nestor could have been asked to write this by Vladimir Monomakh, who was just called by the people of Kiev, and who really did not want to prove the legitimacy of his reign to everyone who was older than him in the family. In any case, somewhere from Rurik, the well-known idea of a Slavic state appears. "Somewhere" because it was not Rurik who took real steps in building such a state, but his successor, Oleg.
Oleg.
Called "prophetic", Oleg took over the reins of Novgorod Rus in 879. Probably (according to PVL), he was a relative of Rurik (possibly brother-in-law). Some identify Oleg with Odd Orvar (Arrow), the hero of several Scandinavian sagas.
All the same PVL claims that Oleg was the guardian of the real heir, the son of Rurik Igor, something like a regent. In general, in a good way, the power of the Rurikovichs for a very long time was transferred to the "eldest in the family", so that Oleg could be a full-fledged ruler not only in practice, but also formally.
Actually, what Oleg did during his reign - he made Rus'. In 882 he gathered an army and in turn subjugated Smolensk, Lyubech and Kyiv. According to the history of the capture of Kyiv, we, as a rule, remember Askold and Dir (I won’t speak for Dir, but the name “Askold” seems to me very Scandinavian. I won’t lie). PVL believes that they were Varangians, but had nothing to do with Rurik (I believe, because I heard somewhere that not only did they have - Rurik sent them along the Dnieper with the task "capture everything that is badly worth "). The annals also describe how Oleg defeated his compatriots - he hid military paraphernalia from the boats, so that they looked like trade ones, and somehow lured both governors there (according to the official version from the Nikon Chronicle, he let them know that he was there . but he said he was sick, and on the ships he showed them the young Igor and killed them. But, perhaps, they simply inspected the incoming merchants, not suspecting that an ambush was waiting for them on board).
Having seized power in Kyiv, Oleg appreciated the convenience of its location in relation to the eastern and southern (as far as I understand) lands compared to Novgorod and Ladoga, and said that his capital would be here. He spent the next 25 years "swearing in" the surrounding Slavic tribes, repelling some of them (Northerners and Radimichi) from the Khazars.
In 907 Oleg undertakes a military campaign in Byzantium. When 200 (according to PVL) boats with 40 soldiers on board each appeared in sight of Constantinople, Emperor Leo IV the Philosopher ordered to block the harbor of the city with stretched chains - perhaps in the expectation that the savages would be satisfied with the robbery of the suburbs and go home. "Savage" Oleg showed ingenuity and put the ships on wheels. The infantry, under the cover of sailing tanks, caused confusion in the walls of the city, and Leo IV hastily paid off. According to the legend, along the way, an attempt was made to slip wine and hemlock into the prince during the negotiations, but Oleg somehow felt the moment and pretended to be a teetotaler (for which, in fact, he was called "Prophetic" upon his return). The ransom was a lot of money, tribute and an agreement under which our merchants were exempt from taxes and had the right to live in Constantinople for up to a year at the expense of the crown. In 911, however, the agreement was renegotiated without exempting merchants from duties.
Some historians, not finding a description of the campaign in Byzantine sources, consider it a legend, but recognize the existence of the treaty of 911 (perhaps there was a campaign, otherwise why would the Eastern Romans bend like that, but without the episode with "tanks" and Constantinople).
Oleg leaves the stage in connection with his death in 912. Why and where exactly is a very good question, the legend tells about the skull of a horse and a poisonous snake (interestingly, the same happened with the legendary Odd Orvar). The circular buckets, foaming, hissed, Oleg left, but Rus' remained.
Generally speaking, this article should be brief, so I will try to summarize my thoughts further.
Igor (r. 912-945). The son of Rurik, took over the reign of Kiev after Oleg (Igor was governor in Kyiv during the war with Byzantium in 907). He conquered the Drevlyans, tried to fight with Byzantium (however, the memory of Oleg was enough, the war did not work out), concluded an agreement with her in 943 or 944 similar to the one Oleg concluded (but less profitable), and in 945 unsuccessfully went for the second time to take tribute all from the same Drevlyans (it is believed that Igor perfectly understood how all this could end, but he could not cope with his own squad, which at that time was not particularly surprising). Husband of Princess Olga, father of the future Prince Svyatoslav.
Olga (r. 945-964)- Igor's widow. She burned the Drevlyansky Iskorosten, thereby demonstrating the sacralization of the figure of the prince (the Drevlyans offered her to marry their own prince Mal, and 50 years before that this could seriously work). She carried out the first positive tax reform in the history of Rus', setting specific deadlines for collecting tribute (lessons) and creating fortified yards for receiving it and standing collectors (graveyards). She laid the foundation for stone construction in Rus'.
Interestingly, from the point of view of our chronicles, Olga never officially ruled, since the death of Igor, his son, Svyatoslav, ruled.
The Byzantines were not allowed such subtleties, and in their sources Olga is mentioned as the archontissa (ruler) of Rus'.
Svyatoslav (964 - 972) Igorevich. Generally speaking, 964 is rather the year of the beginning of his independent reign, since formally he was considered the prince of Kiev from 945. But in practice, until 969, his mother, Princess Olga, ruled for him, until the prince got out of the saddle. From PVL "When Svyatoslav grew up and matured, he began to gather many brave warriors, and he was fast, like a pardus, and fought a lot. On campaigns, he did not carry carts or boilers with him, did not cook meat, but, thinly slicing horse meat, or beast, or beef, and roasted on coals, so he ate, he did not have a tent, but slept, spreading a sweatshirt with a saddle in his head, - all the rest of his soldiers were the same. .. I'm going to you!" In fact, he destroyed the Khazar Khaganate (to the joy of Byzantium), imposed a tribute to the Vyatichi (to his own joy), conquered the First Bulgarian Kingdom on the Danube, built Pereyaslavets on the Danube (where he wanted to move the capital), frightened the Pechenegs and, on the basis of the Bulgarians, quarreled with Byzantium, the Bulgarians fought against she is on the side of Rus' - the vicissitudes of wars are vicissitudes). In the spring of 970, he put up a free army of 30,000 of his own, Bulgarians, Pechenegs and Hungarians against Byzantium, but lost (possibly) the battle of Arcadiopol, and, taking a retreat, left the territory of Byzantium. In 971, the Byzantines already besieged Dorostol, where Svyatoslav organized his headquarters, and after a three-month siege and another battle, they convinced Svyatoslav to take another retreat and go home. Svyatoslav did not get back home - first he got stuck in the winter at the mouth of the Dnieper, and then ran into the Pecheneg prince Kurya, in a battle with whom he died. Byzantium received Bulgaria as a province and minus one dangerous rival, so it seems to me that Kurya was stuck on the doorsteps all winter for a reason. However, there is no evidence for this.
By the way. Svyatoslav was never baptized, despite repeated proposals and the possible breakdown of the engagement with the Byzantine princess - he himself explained this by the fact that the squad would not specifically understand such a maneuver, which he could not allow.
The first prince who gave reigns to more than one son. Perhaps this led to the first strife in Rus', when, after the death of their father, the sons fought for the throne of Kiev.
Yaropolk (972-978) and Oleg (prince of the Drevlyans 970-977) Svyatoslavichi- two of the three sons of Svyatoslav. Legitimate sons, unlike Vladimir, the son of Svyatoslav and the housekeeper Malusha (although it’s still a good question how such a trifle played a role in Rus' in the middle of the 10th century. There is also an opinion that Malusha is the daughter of the same Drevlyansky prince Mal, who executed Igor) .
Yaropolk had diplomatic relations with the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. In 977, during the strife, opposing the brothers, he attacked Oleg's possessions in the land of the Drevlyans. Oleg died during the retreat (according to the chronicle - Yaropolk lamented). In fact, after the death of Oleg and the flight of Vladimir, he became the sole ruler of Rus' somewhere "over the sea". In 980 Vladimir returned with a squad of Varangians, began to take the city, Yaropolk left Kiev with a better fortified Roden, Vladimir laid siege to it, famine began in the city and Yaropolk was forced to negotiate. In place, instead of or in addition to Vladimir, there were two Varangians who did their job.
Oleg - Prince of the Drevlyans, the first successor of Mala. Perhaps he accidentally started a strife by killing the son of the governor Yaropolk, Sveneld, who poached on his land. Chronicle version. Personally, it seems to me (together with Wikipedia) that the brothers would have had enough motives even without the voevoda father burning with a thirst for revenge. Also, perhaps, he laid the foundation for one of the noble families of Maravia - only the Czechs and only the 16th-17th centuries have evidence of this, so believe it or not - on the conscience of the reader.
Brief history of Rus'. How Rus' was created
14 ratings, Average rating: 4.4 out of 5The formation of the first state in Eastern Europe, which received the name Kievan Rus in the nineteenth century, had a strong influence on further course of the history of the region. Having existed for several centuries, having gone through a period of prosperity and decline, it disappeared, laying the foundation for the emergence in the future of several states that play an important role in modern times.
The appearance of the Eastern Slavs
The history of the formation of the Kievan state can be conditionally divided into three stages:
- the emergence of tribal unions;
- the emergence of the ruling elite;
- the beginnings of statehood, Kyiv.
The origin of the term Kievan Rus dates back to the nineteenth century. So historians called Rus, denoting a huge state in Eastern Europe, the successors of which were several modern countries.
There is no exact date of the creation of Rus'. The formation of the Kyiv state was preceded by several centuries of the formation of Slavic tribal unions on its territory on the basis of the gradually disintegrating Slavic ethnos. By the beginning of the eighth century, separate tribes of the Slavs created seven tribal unions here. On the lands of the glades, one of these unions, located along the middle reaches of the Dnieper, the birth of the state of Kievan Rus took place.
The formation of military-tribal unions was accompanied by the collapse of primitive democracy within the tribes, when the ruling military elite arose, the princes and their warriors, appropriating most of the military booty. The formation of the ruling stratum contributed to the emergence of the beginnings of the state. In the places of the future key cities of ancient Rus', large settlements began to emerge. Among them was the ancient Russian Kyiv, which arose in the sixth century, the first ruler of which is considered to be the prince of the glades Kiy. This process especially intensified at the turn of the eighth and ninth centuries.
The formation of Kyiv statehood
The history of Kievan Rus as a state entity began in the 9th century, when tribal unions began to fight among themselves for leadership in the region. As a result of this, during the 9th and 10th centuries, a military-trade association of tribal unions was first formed, which gradually evolved into the Kievan state.
Reign of Rurik in Novgorod
The gradual transition of tribal relations within the tribes to feudal ones also required new methods of management. New social relations demanded other, more centralized forms of power that would be able to maintain a changing balance of interests. The most famous result of such a search was, according to The Tale of Bygone Years, the calling in 862 to the princely throne of Novgorod, at that time the most developed city of the future Rus', the Norman king Rurik, who was the founder of the future dynasty of Kievan princes.
Having entrenched himself on the Novgorod table, Rurik, with the help of Askold and Dir's combatants, seizes power in Kyiv, which was an important trading point on the way "from the Varangians to the Greeks." After the death of Rurik, his governor Oleg, having killed Askold and Dir, declares himself Grand Duke of Kyiv, making Kyiv the center of the united northern and southern Slavic lands. He made many military campaigns, among which two - to Byzantium, the result of which was the conclusion of trade and political agreements beneficial for Rus' in 907 and 911. And also the result of the wars conducted by Oleg, nicknamed the Prophet, was an almost twofold increase in the country's territory.
Reign of Igor, Olga and Svyatoslav
Rurik's son Igor, nicknamed the Old, since he received power late, took the throne after the death of Oleg in 912. His reign was less successful than that of his predecessor. An attempt, in alliance with Byzantium, to break the Khazar Khaganate ended in defeat, which turned into an unsuccessful military conflict with a former ally. The result of the next campaign in 944 against Byzantium was the signing of a new treaty, less beneficial for Rus', reintroduced trade duties.
Igor Stary was killed by the Drevlyans while collecting tribute from them in 945, leaving behind his young son Svyatoslav. As a result, his widow Princess Olga received real power in the principality.
Olga streamlined many laws of the Old Russian land, including a tax reform, the impetus for which was the uprising of the Drevlyans. The polyudye was canceled and clear amounts of tribute, “lessons”, were established. Tribute was to be delivered to special fortresses, called "graveyards", and accepted by the administrators appointed by the prince. Such a tribute and the procedure for its reception was called "cart". Having paid tribute, the payer received a clay seal with the sign of the prince, which guaranteed against re-payment of the tax.
The reforms of Princess Olga contributed to the strengthening of the power of the Kyiv princes, its centralization, and the reduction of the independence of the tribes.
In 962, Olga transferred power to her son Svyatoslav. The reign of Svyatoslav was not marked by noticeable reforms, the prince himself, being primarily a born warrior, preferred military campaigns to state activity. First, he subjugated the Vyatichi tribe, including it in the Russian land, and in 965 he led a successful campaign against the Khazar state.
The defeat of the Khazar Khaganate opened for Rus' trade route to the east, and two subsequent Bulgarian campaigns provided the Old Russian state with dominance over the entire northern coast of the Black Sea. Rus' advanced its borders to the south, establishing itself in Tmutarakan. Svyatoslav himself was going to establish his own state on the Danube, but was killed by the Pechenegs, returning from an unsuccessful campaign against Byzantium in 872.
Board of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich
The sudden death of Svyatoslav caused in Rus' an internecine struggle for the Kiev table between his sons. Yaropolk, who by seniority has the original right to the grand-ducal throne, first defended it in the fight against Oleg, who reigned in the Drevlyans, who died in 977. Vladimir, who ruled in Novgorod, fled beyond the borders of Rus', but later returned with the Varangian squad in 980 and, having killed Yaropolk, took the place of the Kyiv prince.
Reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, later called the Great or the Baptist, marked the formation of Rus' as a state. Under him, the boundaries of the territory of the Old Russian state were finally determined, Cherven and Carpathian Rus were annexed. The increased threat of attacks by the Pechenegs forced him to create a border defensive line from fortresses, the garrisons of which consisted of selected soldiers. But the main event of the reign of Vladimir the Baptist is the adoption by Russia of Orthodox Christianity as the official state religion.
The reason for adopting a religion professing belief in a single god was purely practical. The feudal society, finally formed by the end of the tenth century, with its monarchical form of government, was no longer satisfied with a religion based on polytheism. Religious beliefs in the Middle Ages were the basis of a person's attitude to the world, they were the state ideology of any country. Therefore, paganism, which reflected the primitive tribal, has become obsolete. There was a need to replace the old religion with a monotheistic, more suitable for monarchical feudal state.
Prince Vladimir the Great did not immediately decide which of the then dominant religious beliefs to take as the basis of the ideology of the state. According to the chronicles, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism could have established itself in Rus' ... But the choice fell on Orthodoxy of the Byzantine model. Both the personal preferences of the prince and political expediency played a role here.
Christianity became the official religion in Kievan Rus in 988.
The heyday of Kievan Rus
The time before the reign of Prince Vladimir Monomakh is conventionally divided by historians into several stages.
- Svyatopolk and Yaroslav.
- Eleventh century. Triumvirate of the Yaroslavichs.
- Kievan Rus. 12th century. Vladimir Monomakh.
Each stage stands out due to important events for the development and formation of statehood.
Rivalry between Svyatopolk and Yaroslav
Vladimir the Baptist died in 1015, immediately a new internecine struggle for power between his sons began in the country. Svyatopolk the Accursed kills his brothers Boris and Gleb, later canonized as saints, and seizes the Kiev table. Then he enters into a fight with Yaroslav, who ruled in Novgorod.
The struggle has been going on with varying success for several years and almost ends with the complete victory of Svyatopolk-Yaroslav, who, once again expelled from Kyiv, refuses to continue the struggle and is going to flee "overseas". But at the insistence of the Novgorodians, for the money they collected, he again recruits a mercenary army and finally expels Svyatopolk, who later went missing "between the Czechs and the Poles", from Kyiv
After the elimination of Svyatopolk in 1019, Yaroslav's struggle for power was not over. First, after a year and a half, there was a battle with his nephew, Prince Bryachislav of Polotsk, who plundered Novgorod. Later, he entered into a fight with Prince Tmutarakan Mstislav. While Yaroslav in the north suppressed the uprising of the pagan tribes, Mstislav tried unsuccessfully to capture Kyiv, after which he stopped in Chernigov. The battle that took place later on the banks of the Dnieper with Yaroslav, who came to the rescue, ended for the latter in a crushing defeat and flight.
Despite the victory, Mstislav did not have the strength to continue the fight, so he initiated the signing of a peace treaty that divided Rus' along the Dnieper between two capitals, Kiev and Chernigov, in 1026. The agreement turned out to be strong, the “duumvirate” of the brothers successfully existed until 1036, when, after the death left no heirs Mstislav, his lands passed into the possession of the Kyiv prince. Thus, Yaroslav completed a new "collection of lands" of the former possessions of Vladimir the Great.
During the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, Rus' flourished at its maximum. The Pechenegs were defeated. Rus' was recognized as an influential state in Europe, as evidenced by numerous dynastic marriages. A collection of laws "Russian Truth" was written, the first stone monuments of architecture were built, and the level of literacy rose sharply. The geography of trade, which was conducted with many countries from Central Asia to Western Europe, expanded.
After the death of Yaroslav in 1054, the power was shared by his three eldest sons, who ruled in Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereyaslav. At this time, there are a number of Russian-Polovtsian wars, unsuccessful for the Russian princes. The congress held in Lyubech in 1097, dividing the Ruriks into separate dynasties, stimulated further feudal fragmentation, at the same time ending strife to fight the Polovtsy.
Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav Vladimirovich
In 1113, the Kiev period of the reign of Vladimir Monomakh began. Being a subtle politician, with the help of compromises, he managed to stop the inevitable disintegration of the state into separate principalities for the duration of his reign. Having full control over the military forces of the country, he managed to achieve the obedience of the willful vassals, for some time to eliminate the danger of a Polovtsian invasion.
After the death of Monomakh in 1125, his son Mstislav continued his father's policy. The years of the reign of Mstislav the Great were the last when Rus' was still united.
Disappearance of the state
The death of Mstislav in 1132 marked the end of the era of the ancient Russian state. Having broken up into a dozen and a half actually independent principalities, it finally ceased to exist as an integral state entity. At the same time, Kyiv still continued for some time to be a symbol of the prestige of princely power, gradually losing real influence. But even in this capacity, only a century remained for Ancient Rus' to exist. The invasion of the Mongols in the middle of the thirteenth century led to the loss of independence of the ancient Russian lands for several centuries.
6 250
The chronicle of the ancient Slavic state was almost forgotten thanks to the German professors who wrote Russian history and aimed to rejuvenate the history of Rus', to show that the Slavic peoples were allegedly pristine, not tainted by the deeds of the Russians, Antes, barbarians, vandals and Scythians, whom the whole world remembered very well . The goal is to tear Rus' away from the Scythian past. On the basis of the works of German professors, a national historical school arose. All history textbooks teach us that before the baptism in Rus' lived wild tribes - pagans.
This is a big lie, because history has been repeatedly rewritten to please the existing ruling system - starting with the first Romanovs, i.e. history is interpreted as beneficial to this moment ruling class. Among the Slavs, their past is called Heritage or Chronicle, and not History (the word “Summer” preceded the concept of “year” introduced by Peter the Great in 7208 from S.M.Z.Kh., when instead of the Slavic chronology they introduced 1700 from supposedly Christmas). S.M.Z.H. - this is the Creation / signing / of the World with the Arims / Chinese / in the summer, called the Star Temple - after the end of the Great World War (something like May 9, 1945, but more significant for the Slavs).
Therefore, is it worth trusting textbooks, which even in our memory have been copied more than once? And is it worth trusting textbooks that contradict many facts that say that before baptism - in Rus' there was a huge state with many cities and villages (Country of cities), a developed economy and crafts, with its own original Culture (Culture = Culture = Cult of Ra = Cult of Light). Our ancestors who lived in those days possessed vital Wisdom and a worldview that helped them always act according to their Conscience and live in harmony with the world around them. This attitude to the World is now called the Old Faith ("old" - means "pre-Christian", and earlier it was simply called - Faith - Knowledge of Ra - Knowledge of Light - Knowledge of the Shining Truth of the Most High). Faith is primary, and Religion (for example, Christian) is secondary. The word "Religion" comes from "Re" - repetition, "League" - connection, association. Faith is always one (there is either a connection with God, or it is not), and there are many religions - as many as the people of the Gods have or how many ways intermediaries (popes, patriarchs, priests, rabbis, mullahs, etc.) come up with to establish with them connection.
Since the connection with God, established through third parties - intermediaries, for example - priests, is artificial, then, in order not to lose the flock, each religion claims to be "Truth in the first instance." Because of this, many bloody religious wars have been and are being waged.
Mikhailo Vasilyevich Lomonosov fought against the German professorship alone, arguing that the history of the Slavs is rooted in antiquity.
The ancient Slavic state RUSKOLAN occupied the lands from the Danube and the Carpathians to the Crimea, the North Caucasus and the Volga, and the subject lands seized the steppes of the Volga and South Urals.
The Scandinavian name of Rus' sounds like Gardarika - the country of cities. Arab historians also write about the same, numbering hundreds of Russian cities. At the same time, he claims that there are only five cities in Byzantium, while the rest are “fortified fortresses”. In ancient documents, the state of the Slavs is referred to, among other things, as Scythia and Ruskolan. In his works, Academician B.A. Rybakov, the author of the books “Paganism of the Ancient Slavs” 1981, “Paganism of Ancient Rus'” 1987, and many others, writes that the state of Ruskolan was the bearer of the Chernyakhov archaeological culture and experienced a period of prosperity in the Troyan Ages (I-IV centuries AD). ). To show what level of scientists were engaged in the study of ancient Slavic history, we will cite who Academician B.A. Rybakov.
Boris Alexandrovich Rybakov headed the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences for 40 years; M. V. Lomonosov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Honorary Doctor of Krakow Jagiellonian University.
The word "Ruskolan" has the syllable "lan", present in the words "hand", "valley" and meaning: space, territory, place, region. Subsequently, the syllable "lan" was transformed into the European land - country. Sergey Lesnoy in his book “Where are you from, Rus?” says the following: “With regard to the word “Ruskolun”, it should be noted that there is also a variant “Ruskolun”. If the latter option is more correct, then you can understand the word differently: “Russian doe”. Lan - field. The whole expression: "Russian field". In addition, Lesnoy makes an assumption that there was a word "cleaver", which probably meant some kind of space. It also occurs in other contexts. Also, historians and linguists believe that the name of the state "Ruskolan" could come from two words "Rus" and "Alan" after the name of the Rus and Alans, who lived in a single state.
Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov was of the same opinion, who wrote:
“The Alans and Roxolans are of the same tribe from many places of ancient historians and geographers, and the difference lies in the fact that the Alans are the common name of the whole people, and the Roksolani is a saying composed from their place of residence, which is not without reason produced from the river Ra, as among ancient writers reputed to be the Volga (Volga)."
The ancient historian and scientist Pliny - Alans and Roxolans together has. The Roksolanes of the ancient scientist and geographer Ptolemy are called alanorsi by portable addition. The names of Aorsi and Roksane or Rossane in Strabo - “the exact unity of the Russians and Alans is confirmed, to which the reliability is multiplied, that they were wallpaper of the Slavic generation, then that the Sarmatians were of the same tribe from ancient writers and therefore they are of the same root with the Varangians-Rosses.”
We also note that Lomonosov also refers the Varangians to the Russians, which once again shows the fraud of the German professors, who deliberately called the Varangians a foreign, and not a Slavic people. This juggling and the born legend about calling a foreign tribe to reign in Rus' had political overtones so that once again the “enlightened” West could point out to the “wild” Slavs their denseness, and that it was thanks to the Europeans that the Slavic state was created. Modern historians, in addition to adherents of the Norman theory, also agree that the Varangians are precisely a Slavic tribe.
Lomonosov writes:
"According to Gelmold's testimony, the Alans were mixed with the Kurlandians, who were of the same tribe as the Varangians-Russians."
Lomonosov writes - the Varangians-Russians, and not the Varangians-Scandinavians, or the Varangians-Goths. In all documents of the pre-Christian period, the Varangians were classified as Slavs.
Further, Lomonosov writes:
“The Rugen Slavs were abbreviated as wounds, that is, from the Ra (Volga) River, and Rossans. This, by their resettlement to the Varangian shores, as follows, will be more detailed. Weissel from Bohemia suggests that Amakosovia, Alans, Vendi came from the east to Prussia.
Lomonosov writes about Rugen Slavs. It is known that on the island of Rügen in the city of Arkona there was the last Slavic pagan temple, destroyed in 1168. Now there is a Slavic museum.
Lomonosov writes that it was from the east that the Slavic tribes came to Prussia and the island of Rügen and adds:
“Such a resettlement of the Volga Alans, that is, the Russians or Ross, to the Baltic Sea took place, as can be seen from the above authors’ testimonies, not once and not in a short time, which, according to the traces that have remained to this day, it is clear that the names of cities and rivers are honored must"
But back to the Slavic state.
The capital of Ruskolani, the city of Kiyar, was located in the Caucasus, in the Elbrus region near the modern villages of Upper Chegem and Bezengi. Sometimes it was also called Kiyar Antsky, after the name of the Slavic tribe Antes. The results of the expeditions to the site of the ancient Slavic city will be written at the end. Descriptions of this Slavic city can be found in ancient documents.
"Avesta" in one of the places tells about the main city of the Scythians in the Caucasus near one of the highest mountains in the world. And As you know, Elbrus is the highest mountain not only in the Caucasus, but also in Europe in general. "Rig Veda" tells about the main city of the Rus all on the same Elbrus.
Kiyar is mentioned in the Book of Veles. Judging by the text, Kiyar, or the city of Kiy the Old, was founded 1300 years before the fall of Ruskolani (368 AD), i.e. in the ninth century BC.
The ancient Greek geographer Strabo, who lived in the 1st century. BC. - beginning of the 1st c. AD writes about the temple of the Sun and the sanctuary of the Golden Fleece in the sacred city of the Ross, in the Elbrus region, on the top of Mount Tuzuluk.
On the mountain, our contemporaries discovered the foundation of an ancient structure. Its height is about 40 meters, and the diameter of the base is 150 meters: the ratio is the same as that of the Egyptian pyramids and other religious buildings of antiquity. There are many obvious and not at all random patterns in the parameters of the mountain and the temple. The observatory-temple was created according to a "typical" project and, like other cyclopean structures - Stonehenge and Arkaim - was intended for astrological observations.
In the legends of many peoples there is evidence of the construction on the sacred mountain Alatyr (modern name - Elbrus) of this majestic structure, revered by all ancient peoples. There are mentions of him in the national epic of the Greeks, Arabs, and European peoples. According to Zoroastrian legends, this temple was captured by Rus (Rustam) in Usen (Kavi Useinas) in the second millennium BC. Archaeologists officially note at this time the emergence of the Koban culture in the Caucasus and the appearance of the Scythian-Sarmatian tribes.
Mentions the temple of the Sun and the geographer Strabo, placing in it the sanctuary of the golden fleece and the oracle of Eeta. There are detailed descriptions of this temple and evidence that astronomical observations were made there.
The Temple of the Sun was a true paleoastronomical observatory of antiquity. The priests, who possessed certain knowledge, created such observatory temples and studied stellar science. There were calculated not only dates for reference Agriculture, but also, most importantly, the most important milestones in world and spiritual history were determined.
The Arab historian Al Masudi described the temple of the Sun on Elbrus as follows: “In the Slavic regions there were buildings revered by them. Between others they had a building on a mountain, about which philosophers wrote that it was one of the highest mountains in the world. There is a story about this building: about the quality of its construction, about the arrangement of its heterogeneous stones and their different colors, about the holes made in its upper part, about what was built in these holes to watch the sunrise, about the precious stones placed there and signs marked in it, which indicate future events and warn against incidents before their implementation, about the sounds heard in its upper part and about what comprehends them when they hear these sounds.
In addition to the above documents, information about the main ancient Slavic city, the temple of the Sun and the Slavic state as a whole is in the Elder Edda, in Persian, Scandinavian and ancient German sources, in the Book of Veles. According to the legends, near the city of Kiyar (Kiev) was the sacred mountain Alatyr - archaeologists believe that it was Elbrus. Next to it was the Iriysky, or the Garden of Eden, and the Smorodina River, which separated the earthly world and the afterlife, and connected Yav and Nav (that Light) Kalinov Bridge.
This is how they talk about two wars between the Goths (an ancient Germanic tribe) and the Slavs, the invasion of the Goths into the ancient Slavic state, the Gothic historian of the 4th century Jordan in his book “The History of the Goths” and “The Book of Veles”. In the middle of the 4th century, the Goth king Germanareh led his people to conquer the world. This was a great commander. According to Jordanes, he was compared with Alexander the Great. The same was written about Germanarekh and Lomonosov:
"Ermanarik, the king of the Ostrogoths, for his courage in conquering many northern peoples was compared by some with Alensander the Great."
Judging by the testimonies of Jordan, the Elder Edda and the Book of Veles, Germanareh, after long wars, captured almost all of Eastern Europe. He fought along the Volga to the Caspian, then fought on the Terek River, crossed the Caucasus, then went along the Black Sea coast and reached Azov.
According to the “Book of Veles”, Germanareh first made peace with the Slavs (“drank wine for friendship”), and only then “went with a sword against us”.
The peace treaty between the Slavs and the Goths was sealed by the dynastic marriage of the sister of the Slavic prince-king Bus - Swans and Germanarekh. This was a payment for peace, for Germanarekh was then many years old (he died at 110 years old, but the marriage was concluded shortly before that). According to Edda, the son of Germanareh Randver wooed Swan-Sva, and he took her to his father. And then Jarl Bikki, adviser to Germanarekh, told them that it would be better if the Swan went to Randver, since both of them are young, and Germanarekh is an old man. These words pleased Swans-Sva and Randver, and Jordan adds that Swans-Sva fled from Germanarekh. And then Germanarekh executed his son and Swan. And this murder was the cause of the Slavic-Gothic war. Having treacherously violated the "peace treaty", Germanarekh defeated the Slavs in the first battles. But then, when Germanarekh moved into the heart of Ruskolani, the Ants stepped in to Germanarekh. Germanareh was defeated. According to Jordan, he was struck with a sword in the side by the Rossomons (Ruskolans) - Sar (king) and Ammius (brother). The Slavic prince Bus and his brother Zlatogor inflicted a mortal wound on Germanarekh, and he soon died. Here is how Jordan, the Book of Veles, and later Lomonosov wrote about it.
“The Book of Veles”: “And Ruskolan was defeated by the Goths of Germanarekh. And he took a wife from our generation and killed her. And then our leaders flowed against him and Germanarekh was defeated.
Jordan. “History is ready”: “The wrong clan of the Rosomones (Ruskolan) ... took advantage of the following opportunity ... After all, after the king, driven by rage, ordered a certain woman named Sunhilda (Swan) from the named clan for insidious leaving her husband to break, tying to ferocious horses and prompting the horses to run in different directions, her brothers Sar (King Bus) and Ammii (Gold), avenging the death of their sister, struck Germanarekh in the side with a sword.
M. Lomonosov: “Sonilda, a noble Roxolan woman, Yermanarik ordered to be torn apart by horses for her husband's escape. Her brothers Sar and Ammius, avenging the death of their sister, Ermanarik was pierced in the side; died of a wound a hundred and ten years"
A few years later, a descendant of Germanarekh, Amal Vinitary, invaded the lands of the Slavic tribe of Ants. In the first battle, he was defeated, but then "began to act more decisively", and the Goths, led by Amal Vinitar, defeated the Slavs. The Slavic prince Busa and 70 other princes were crucified by the Goths. This happened on the night of March 20-21, 368 AD. On the same night that Bus was crucified, there was a total lunar eclipse. Also, the earth was shaken by a monstrous earthquake (the entire Black Sea coast was shaking, destruction was in Constantinople and Nicaea (ancient historians testify to this. Later, the Slavs gathered their strength and defeated the Goths. But the former powerful Slavic state was no longer restored.
“The Book of Veles”: “And then Rus' was again defeated. And Busa and seventy other princes were crucified on crosses. And there was great turmoil in Rus' from Amala Vend. And then Sloven gathered Rus' and led it. And at that time the Goths were defeated. And we didn't let the Sting go anywhere. And everything got better. And our grandfather Dazhbog rejoiced, and welcomed the soldiers - many of our fathers who won victories. And there were no troubles and worries of many, and so the land of the Gothic became ours. And so it will be until the end"
Jordan. "History is ready": Amal Vinitary ... moved the army into the borders of the Ants. And when he came to them, he was defeated in the first skirmish, then he behaved more bravely and crucified their king, named Boz, with his sons and 70 noble people, so that the corpses of the hanged would double the fear of the conquered.
The Bulgarian chronicle “Baradj Tarihy”: “Once in the land of the Anchians, the Galidjians (Galicians) attacked Bus and killed him along with all 70 princes.”
The Slavic prince Busa and 70 princes were crucified by the Goths in the eastern Carpathians at the sources of Seret and Prut, on the current border of Wallachia and Transylvania. In those days, these lands belonged to Ruskolani, or Scythia. Much later, under the famous Vlad Dracul, it was at the place of the crucifixion of Bus that mass executions and crucifixions were held. They removed the bodies of Bus and other princes from the crosses on Friday and took them to the Elbrus region, to the Etoka (a tributary of the Podkumka). According to Caucasian legend, the body of Bus and other princes was brought by eight pairs of oxen. Busa's wife ordered a mound to be built over their grave on the banks of the Etoko River (a tributary of the Podkumka River) and, in order to perpetuate the memory of Busa, ordered the Altud River to be renamed Baksan (Busa River).
Caucasian legend says:
“Baksan (Bus) was killed by the Goth king with all his brothers and eighty noble Narts. Hearing this, the people gave way to despair: the men beat their breasts, and the women tore their hair on their heads, saying: “Dauov’s eight sons are killed, killed!”
Those who carefully read "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" remember that it mentions the "gone Time of Busovo" long ago.
The year 368, the year of the crucifixion of Prince Bus, has an astrological meaning. According to Slavic astrology, this is a milestone. On the night of March 20-21, 368 moves, the Aries era ended and the Pisces era began.
It was after the story of the crucifixion of Prince Bus, which became known in the ancient world, that the plot with the crucifixion of Christ appeared (was stolen) in Christianity.
The canonical gospels nowhere say that Christ was crucified on the cross. Instead of the word "cross" (kryst), the word "stavros" (stavros) is used there, which means a pillar, and it does not talk about crucifixion, but about pillaring. Therefore, there are no early Christian images of the crucifixion.
The Christian Acts 10:39 says that Christ was "hanged on a tree." The plot with the crucifixion first appeared only after 400!!! years after the execution of Christ, translated from Greek. The question is why, if Christ was crucified, and not hanged, Christians for four hundred years wrote in holy books that Christ was amused? Somehow illogical! It was the Slavic-Scythian tradition that influenced the distortion of the original texts during translation, and then the iconography (for there are no early Christian images of crucifixes).
The meaning of the original Greek text was well known in Greece itself (Byzantium), but after the corresponding reforms in the modern Greek language, in contrast to the previous custom, the word "stavros" took on the meaning of "pillar" in addition to the meaning of "cross".
In addition to the direct source of the execution - the canonical Gospels, others are also known. In the closest to the Christian, in the Jewish tradition, the tradition of the hanging of Jesus is also affirmed. There is a Jewish “Tale of the Hanged Man” written in the first centuries of our era, which describes in detail the execution of Jesus precisely by hanging. And in the Talmud there are two stories about the execution of Christ. According to the first, Jesus was stoned, and not in Jerusalem, but in Lud. According to the second story, because Jesus was of a royal family, the execution by stones was also replaced by hanging. And this was the official version of Christians for 400 years!!!
Even throughout the Muslim world, it is generally accepted that Christ was not crucified, but hanged. The Koran, based on early Christian traditions, curses Christians who claim that Jesus was not hanged, but crucified, and who claim that Jesus was Allah (God) himself, and not a prophet and the Messiah, and also denies the crucifixion itself. Therefore, Muslims, respecting Jesus, do not reject either the Ascension or the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ, but reject the symbol of the cross, as they rely on early Christian texts that talk about hanging, not crucifixion.
Moreover, the natural phenomena described in the Bible simply could not take place in Jerusalem on the day of the crucifixion of Christ.
In the Gospel of Mark and in the Gospel of Matthew it is said that Christ endured passionate agony on the spring full moon from Good Thursday to Good Friday, and that there was an eclipse from the sixth to the ninth hour. The event, which they call an "eclipse," occurred at a time when, for objective astronomical reasons, it simply could not occur. Christ was executed during the Jewish Passover, and it always falls on a full moon.
First, there are no solar eclipses on a full moon. During a full moon, the Moon and Sun are on opposite sides of the Earth, so there is no way the Moon can cover the Earth's sunlight.
Secondly, solar eclipses, unlike lunar eclipses, do not last three hours, as it is written in the Bible. Maybe the Judeo-Christians had in mind a lunar eclipse, but the whole world did not understand them? ...
But solar and lunar eclipses are very easy to calculate. Any astronomer will say that there were no lunar eclipses in the year of the execution of Christ and even in the years close to this event.
The nearest eclipse accurately indicates only one date - on the night of March 20-21, 368 AD. This is an absolutely accurate astronomical calculation. Namely, on this night from Thursday to Friday, March 20/21, 368, Prince Bus and 70 other princes were crucified by the Goths. On the night of March 20-21, a total lunar eclipse occurred, which lasted from midnight to three hours on March 21, 368. This date was calculated by astronomers, including the director of the Pulkovo Observatory, N. Morozov.
Why did Christians write from the 33rd move that Christ was hanged, and after the 368th move they rewrote the “holy” scripture and began to claim that Christ was crucified? Obviously, the plot with the crucifixion seemed to them more interesting and they once again engaged in religious plagiarism - i.e. simply by stealing… That's where the information appeared in the Bible that Christ was crucified, that he endured torment from Thursday to Friday, that there was an eclipse. Having stolen the plot with the crucifixion, the Judeo-Christians decided to supply the Bible with the details of the execution of the Slavic prince, not thinking that people in the future would pay attention to the natural phenomena described, which could not have been in the year of the execution of Christ in the place where he was executed.
And this is far from the only example of the theft of materials by the Judeo-Christians. Speaking of the Slavs, the myth of the father of Aria, who received a covenant from Dazhbog on Mount Alatyr (Elbrus), is recalled, and in the Bible, Arius and Alatyr miraculously turned into Moses and Sinai ...
Or the Judeo-Christian rite of baptism. The Christian rite of baptism is one third of the Slavic pagan rite, which included: naming, fiery baptism and water bathing. In Judeo-Christianity, only the water bath remained.
We can recall examples from other traditions. Mitra - born on December 25th!!! 600 years before the birth of Jesus!!! December 25 - the day after 600 years, Jesus was born. Mitra was born a virgin in a barn, a star rose, the magi came!!! Everything is one to one, as with Christ, only 600 years earlier. The cult of Mithras included: baptism with water, holy water, faith in immortality, faith in Mithra as a savior god, the concepts of Paradise and Hell. Mitra died and resurrected in order to become an intermediary between God the Father and man! Plagiarism (theft) of Christians is 100%.
More examples. Immaculately conceived: Gautama Buddha - India 600 BC; Indra - Tibet 700 BC; Dionysus - Greece; Quirinus is a Roman; Adonis - Babylon all in the period from 400-200 years BC; Krishna - India 1200 B.C.; Zarathustra - 1500 BC In a word, whoever read the originals knows where the Judeo-Christians took materials for their writing.
So modern neo-Christians, who are trying in vain to find some kind of mythical Russian roots in the native Jew Yeshua - Jesus and his mother, need to stop doing stupid things and start worshiping Bus, nicknamed the Cross, i.e. Busu Cross or what would be completely clear to them - Busu Christ. After all, this is the real Hero from whom the Judeo-Christians wrote off their New Testament, and the one invented by them - the Judeo-Christian Jesus Christ - turns out to be some kind of charlatan and rogue, to say the least ... After all, the New Testament is just a romantic comedy in the spirit of Jewish fiction, allegedly written by the so-called. "Apostle" Paul (in the world - Saul), and even then, it turns out - it was not written by him himself, but by unknown /!? / disciples of the disciples. Well, they had fun though ...
But back to the Slavic chronicle. The discovery of an ancient Slavic city in the Caucasus no longer looks so surprising. In recent decades, several ancient Slavic cities have been discovered on the territory of Russia and Ukraine.
The most famous today is the famous Arkaim, whose age is more than 5000 thousand years.
In 1987, in the South Urals in the Chelyabinsk region, during the construction of a hydroelectric power station, a fortified settlement of the early city type, dating back to the Bronze Age, was discovered. to the time of the ancient Aryans. Arkaim is older than the famous Troy by five hundred to six hundred years even older than the Egyptian pyramids.
The discovered settlement is a city-observatory. In the course of its study, it was established that the monument was a city fortified by two circles of walls, ramparts and ditches inscribed in each other. The dwellings in it had a trapezoidal shape, tightly adjoined each other and arranged in a circle in such a way that the wide end wall of each dwelling was part of the defensive wall. Every home has a bronze casting oven! But in Greece, according to traditional academic knowledge, bronze came only in the second millennium BC. Later, the settlement turned out to be an integral part of the most ancient Aryan civilization - the "Country of Cities" of the Southern Trans-Urals. Scientists have discovered a whole complex of monuments belonging to this amazing culture.
Despite their small size, fortified centers can be called proto-cities. The use of the term “city” to the fortified settlements of the Arkaim-Sintashta type is, of course, conditional. However, they cannot be called simply settlements, since the Arkaim “cities” are distinguished by powerful defensive structures, monumental architecture, and complex communication systems. The entire territory of the fortified center is extremely saturated with planning details, it is very compact and carefully thought out. From the point of view of the organization of space in front of us is not even a city, but a kind of super-city.
The fortified centers of the Southern Urals are five or six centuries older than Homer's Troy. They are contemporaries of the first dynasty of Babylon, the pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt and the Cretan-Mycenaean culture of the Mediterranean. The time of their existence corresponds to the last centuries of the famous civilization of India - Mahenjo-Daro and Harappa.
In Ukraine, in Trypillya, the remains of the city were discovered, the age of which is the same as that of Arkaim, more than five thousand years. It is five hundred years older than the civilization of Mesopotamia - the Sumerian!
At the end of the 90s, not far from Rostov-on-Don, in the town of Tanais, settlement cities were found, the age of which even scientists find it difficult to name ... The age varies from ten to thirty thousand years. The traveler of the last century, Thor Heyerdahl, believed that from there, from Tanais, the entire pantheon of the Scandinavian Gods, led by Odin, came to Scandinavia.
Slabs with inscriptions in Sanskrit, which are 20,000 years old, have been found on the Kola Peninsula. And only Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, as well as the Baltic languages coincide with Sanskrit. Draw your own conclusions.
The results of the expedition to the site of the capital of the ancient Slavic city of Kiyara in the Elbrus region.
Five expeditions were carried out: in 1851,1881,1914, 2001 and 2002.
In 2001, the expedition was led by A. Alekseev, and in 2002 the expedition was carried out under the patronage of the Shtenberg State Astronomical Institute (GAISh), which was supervised by the director of the institute, Anatoly Mikhailovich Cherepashchuk.
Based on the data obtained as a result of topographic, geodetic studies of the area, fixing astronomical events, the participants of the expedition made preliminary conclusions that are fully consistent with the results of the expedition of 2001, following the results of which, in March 2002, a report was made at a meeting of the Astronomical Society at the State Astronomical Institute in the presence of members of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, members of the International Astronomical Society and the State Historical Museum.
A report was also made at a conference on the problems of early civilizations in St. Petersburg.
What exactly did the researchers find?
Near Mount Karakaya, in the Rocky Range at an altitude of 3,646 meters above sea level between the villages of Upper Chegem and Bezengi on the eastern side of Elbrus, traces of the capital of Ruskolani, the city of Kiyar, were found, which existed long before the birth of Christ, which is mentioned in many legends and epics of different peoples of the world, as well as the oldest astronomical observatory - the Temple of the Sun, described by the ancient historian Al Masudi in his books as the Temple of the Sun.
The location of the found city exactly matches the indications from ancient sources, and later the Turkish traveler of the 17th century, Evliya Celebi, confirmed the location of the city.
On Mount Karakaya, the remains of an ancient temple, caves and graves were found. An incredible number of settlements, ruins of temples have been discovered, and a lot of them have been preserved quite well. Menhirs were found in a valley near the foot of Mount Karakaya, on the Bechesyn plateau - high man-made stones similar to wooden pagan idols.
On one of the stone pillars, the face of a knight is carved, looking straight to the east. And behind the menhir is a bell-shaped hill. This is Tuzuluk ("Treasury of the Sun"). At its top, the ruins of the ancient sanctuary of the Sun are really visible. At the top of the hill is a tour that marks the highest point. Then three large rocks that have undergone manual processing. Once a gap was cut in them, directed from north to south. Stones were also found laid out like sectors in the zodiac calendar. Each sector is exactly 30 degrees.
Each part of the temple complex was intended for calendar and astrological calculations. In this it is similar to the South Ural city-temple Arkaim, which has the same zodiac structure, the same division into 12 sectors. It is also similar to Stonehenge in the UK. It is close to Stonehenge, firstly, by the fact that the axis of the temple is also oriented from north to south, and secondly, one of the most important distinguishing features of Stonehenge is the presence of the so-called “Heel Stone” at a distance from the sanctuary. But after all, at the sanctuary of the Sun on Tuzuluk, a landmark-menhir was installed.
There is evidence that at the turn of our era the temple was plundered by the Bosporus king Farnak. The temple was finally destroyed in IV AD. Goths and Huns. Even the dimensions of the temple are known; 60 cubits (about 20 meters) in length, 20 (6-8 meters) in width and 15 (up to 10 meters) in height, as well as the number of windows and doors - 12 according to the number of signs of the Zodiac.
As a result of the work of the first expedition, there is every reason to believe that the stones on the top of Mount Tuzluk served as the foundation of the Temple of the Sun. Mount Tuzluk is a regular grassy cone about 40 meters high. The slopes rise to the top at an angle of 45 degrees, which actually corresponds to the latitude of the place, and, therefore, looking along it, you can see the North Star. The axis of the foundation of the temple is 30 degrees with the direction to the Eastern peak of Elbrus. The same 30 degrees is the distance between the axis of the temple and the direction to the menhir, and the direction to the menhir and the Shaukam pass. Considering that 30 degrees - 1/12 of a circle - corresponds to a calendar month, this is no coincidence. The azimuths of sunrise and sunset on the days of the summer and winter solstices differ by only 1.5 degrees from the directions to the peaks of Kanjal, the “gate” of two hills in the depths of pastures, Mount Dzhaurgen and Mount Tashly-Syrt. There is an assumption that the menhir served as a heel stone in the temple of the Sun, by analogy with Stonehenge, and helped predict solar and lunar eclipses. Thus, Mount Tuzluk is tied to four natural landmarks by the Sun and is tied to the Eastern peak of Elbrus. The height of the mountain is only about 40 meters, the diameter of the base is about 150 meters. These are dimensions comparable to those of the Egyptian pyramids and other places of worship.
In addition, two square tower-like tours were found on the Kayaesik pass. One of them lies strictly on the axis of the temple. Here, on the pass, there are the foundations of structures, ramparts.
In addition, in the central part of the Caucasus, at the northern foot of Elbrus, in the late 70s and early 80s of the XX century, an ancient center of metallurgical production, the remains of smelting furnaces, settlements, burial grounds were discovered.
Summing up the results of the work of the expeditions of the 1980s and 2001, which discovered the concentration of traces of ancient metallurgy, deposits of coal, silver, iron, as well as astronomical, cult and other archaeological objects within a radius of several kilometers, we can confidently assume the discovery of one of the most ancient cultural and administrative centers of the Slavs in the Elbrus region.
During the expeditions of 1851 and 1914, the archaeologist P.G. Akritas examined the ruins of the Scythian Temple of the Sun on the eastern slopes of Beshtau. The results of further archaeological excavations of this shrine were published in 1914 in the Notes of the Rostov-on-Don Historical Society. There was described a huge stone "in the form of a Scythian cap", installed on three abutments, as well as a domed grotto.
And the beginning of major excavations in Pyatigorye (Kavminvody) was laid by the famous pre-revolutionary archaeologist D.Ya. Samokvasov, who described 44 mounds in the vicinity of Pyatigorsk in 1881. Later, after the revolution, only some mounds were examined; only initial exploration work was carried out on the settlements by archaeologists E.I. Krupnov, V.A. Kuznetsov, G.E. Runich, E.P. Alekseeva, S.Ya. Baychorov, Kh.Kh. Bidzhiev and others.
History of Rus' until 862.
The history of the emergence of Rus' before 862 is very interesting. The main reason for this story
starts. Or from the moment the Slavic tribes were separated from the total mass of all Indo-Europeans, and this is a long period that begins around 4800 BC.
(on the site of which the cities of Novgorod and Staraya Russa are now located), and this was in 2395 BC.
First, I'll start with the fact that there are many theories about the origin of the Slavs and Russians (Tyunyaev, Demin, Zhuk, Chudinov and others). According to one theory, the Hyperboreans (they are sometimes called the Arcto-Russians) are the ancestors of all the Caucasoid peoples of the world, and they lived already 38 thousand years ago. According to another theory, the ancient Rus are the ancestor of all the Indo-European peoples of the world and they already existed by the beginning of the 6th millennium BC. But I will take a more moderate theory, according to which the Slavs (you can call them the ancient Rus, because all other Slavic peoples later separated from them) were already an independent people in the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. They lived on the territory of the future Kievan Rus already in those distant times and had their own cities (Slovensk and Rusa) and their own princes. According to legend, these princes even had connections with the Egyptian pharaohs (this is according to legend), often with their squads they helped the eastern monarch in the fight between themselves. But in any case, they returned home after the campaigns.
Already about two thousand years ago, Greek and Roman scientists knew that in the east of Europe, between the Carpathian Mountains and the Baltic Sea, numerous tribes of Wends live. These were the ancestors of modern Slavic peoples. By their name, the Baltic Sea was then called the Venedian Gulf of the Northern Ocean. According to archaeologists, the Wends were the original inhabitants of Europe, the descendants of the tribes that lived here in the Stone and Bronze Ages.
The ancient name of the Slavs - Wends - was preserved in the language of the Germanic peoples until the late Middle Ages, and in the Finnish language Russia is still called Veneia. The name "Slavs" (or rather, the Slavs) began to spread only one and a half thousand years ago - in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. At first, only Western Slavs were called that way. Their eastern counterparts were called Ants. Then the Slavs began to call all the tribes speaking Slavic languages.
By 700 AD, the ancient Slavs inhabited the vast territory of Eastern and Central Europe, including eastern Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Balarus, Ukraine, and the western regions of Russia (Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk). To the south of them lived the Scythians, probably there were still tribes who spoke the Scythian-Slavic language. Even to the south of the Slavs lived the Thracians of the Balkan Peninsula, and to the west of the Slavs lived the ancient Germanic tribes and the tribes of the Celts. To the north of the Slavs lived the Finno-Ugric Ural peoples. During this period, the Letto-Lithuanian tribes had much in common with the ancient Slavs (for sure, the language of the Baltic tribes still had much in common with the Slavs).
Around 300-400 AD, the Slavs were divided into two groups, western (Sklavins) and eastern (Antes). Just at that time, the great migration of peoples began, or rather, it could be called the invasion of a large multi-tribal association of Hun tribes into Europe, as a result of which large movements of ancient peoples began to occur in Europe. This particularly affected the Germanic tribes. The Slavic tribes basically did not participate in these movements. They only took advantage of the weakening power of the Illyrian and Thracian tribes and began to methodically occupy their lands. The Sklavins began to penetrate into the territory previously inhabited by the Illyrians, and the southern Antes began to penetrate into the territory of modern Bulgaria. The main part of the Ants remained on their territory, which in the future became Kievan Rus. By about 650, these migrations were completed.
Now the southern neighbors of the Ants were steppe nomads - Bulgars, Hungarians, Khazars.
The tribes were still led by princes, as before, each tribe of Ants
had its own tribal center (city), although there is no exact data on these cities. Most likely, some large settlements existed in Novgorod, Ladoga, Smolensk,
Polotsk, Kyiv. In ancient scriptures and legends, many names of Slavic princes are mentioned - Boreva (it seems that this name remained as a memory of the name of the Borean civilization), Gostomysl, Kiy, Shchek, Khoriv). It is believed that the princes Askold, Dir, Rurik, Sineus, Truvor were Varangians, which was undoubtedly possible. Especially in the northern part of Ancient Rus', there were traditions to hire foreigners from among the Varangians for military leadership (I would now hire foreigners, especially Germans, to the highest posts from Russia, because Great Catherine was German and Russia in her times was the greatest power). But you can say it differently. Slavic princes, trying to be like their Western counterparts, called themselves names similar to Varangian ones. There are sayings that Rurik had the name Yurik, Oleg had the name Olaf.
At the same time, the long coexistence (close to each other) of the Old Russian and Norman (Scandinavian) tribes also entailed a common culture (some important heads of clans and leaders bore both Russian and Scandinavian names).
Here is information about the ancient Rus (wounds, rugs) from foreign sources (medieval):
- The end of the VIII century. In the Life of Stefan of Surozh, the Russian prince Bravlin is mentioned. The prince's name probably comes from Bravalla, during which in 786 a great battle took place between the Danes and the Frisians. The Frisians were defeated, and many of them left their country, moving to the east.
- The end of the VIII century. The geographer Bavarian calls the Ruses next to the Khazars, as well as some Ross (Rots) somewhere between the Elbe and Sala rivers: Attorosy, Vilirosy, Hozirosy, Zabrosy.
- VIII-IX centuries. Popes Leo III (795-816), Benedict III (855-858) and other holders of the Roman table sent special messages to the "clerics of the horns". Obviously, the Rug communities (they were Arians) continued to keep apart from the rest of the Christians.
- 839 year. The Vertinsky annals inform about the arrival of representatives of the people of Ros, whose ruler bore the title of kagan (prince), with the ambassadors of the Byzantine emperor Theophilus, to Louis I the Pious.
- Until 842. The life of George of Amastrid tells about the attack of the Ross on Amastrida (Asia Minor).
- Between 836-847 years Al-Khwarizmi in his geographical work mentions the Russian Mountain, from which the river Dr. mustache (Dnepr?). The news is also available in a treatise of the second half of the 10th century (Khudul al-Alam), where it is specified that the mountain is located to the north of the “inner Bulgarians”.
- 844 year. Al-Yakubi reports an attack by the Rus on Seville in Spain.
- 844 year. Ibn Khordadbeh calls the Rus a kind or a kind of Slavs (two editions of his work are known).
- June 18, 860. Ros attack on Constantinople.
- 861 year. Konstantin-Kirill The philosopher, the future creator of the Slavic alphabet, discovered in the Crimea a gospel and a psalter written in Russian scripts, and, having met a person who spoke this language, he mastered the spoken language and deciphered the script.
- IX century. According to the Persian historian Fakhr al-Din Mubarakshah (XIII century), the Khazars had a letter that originated from Russian. The Khazars borrowed it from the nearby living "branch of the Rumians" (Byzantines), whom they call the Russ. There are 21 letters in the alphabet, which are written from left to right, without the letter aleph, as in Aramaic or Syriac-Nestorian writing. The Khazar Jews had this letter. Russes in this case are believed to be called Alans.
- 863 year. In the document confirming the previous award, Rusaramarha (brand of the Rusars) is mentioned on the territory of modern Austria.
- OK. 867 years. Patriarch Photius in the district message reports the baptism of the Ross (the area of residence is unknown).
- OK. 867 years. The Byzantine emperor Basil, in a letter to Louis II, who assumed the title of emperor, uses the title of kagan, equal to the royal one, in relation to four peoples: Avars, Khazars, Bulgarians and Normans. The news is usually associated with the mention of the kagan among the Rus under the year 839 (see note 33), as well as in a number of Eastern and Russian sources proper.
- OK. 874 years. A protege of Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople Ignatius sent a bishop to Rus'.
- 879 year. The first mention of the Russian diocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, apparently located in the city of Rosiya in the Eastern Crimea. This diocese exists until the XII century.
- 879 year. Baptism of the Ross by Emperor Basil (message by John Skylitsa).
- Until 885. The chronicle of Dalimil of the beginning of the 14th century calls the Archbishop of Moravia Methodius a Rusyn.
- Until 894. The Czech chronicle of Pulkava at the end of the 14th century includes Polonia and Russia in the Moravia of the era of the Moravian prince Svyatopolk (871-894).
- The historian of the middle of the 15th century, later Pope Pius II, Aeneas Silvius speaks of the subjugation of Rome by Svyatopolk of Polonia, Hungaria (later Hungary, formerly the region of the Huns) and Russans - Russ.
- In the "Chronicle of the whole world" by Martin Velsky (XVI century) and the chronograph of the Western Russian edition (XVI century) it is said that Svyatopolk "held the Russian lands." Svyatopolk "with the Russian boyar" baptized the Czech prince Borzhivoy.
- The Czech chronicler Hagetius (d. 1552) recalls that Russia used to be part of the Moravian kingdom. A number of eastern authors retell the story about the Rus living on the island "in three days' journey" (about 100 km), whose ruler was called Khakan.
- The end of the IX - the beginning of the X century. Al-Balkhi (c. 850-930) speaks of three groups of Rus: Kuyab, Slavia, Arsania. The nearest to the Bulgar on the Volga is Kuyaba, the most distant is Slavia.
- OK. 904 years. The Raffelstetten trade charter (Austria) speaks of the Slavs coming "from Rugia". Researchers usually choose between Rugiland on the Danube, Rugia in the Baltics, and Kievan Rus.
- 912-913 years. The campaign of the Rus to the Caspian Sea from the Black Sea, noted by the Arab scientist Masudi (middle of the 10th century) and other oriental authors.
- 921-922 years. Ibn Fadlan described the Rus, whom he saw in Bulgar.
- OK. 935 years. The charter of the tournament in Magdeburg names Velemir, the prince (princeps) of Russia, as well as those who perform under the banner of the Duke of Thuringia, Otton Redebotto, the Duke of Russia and Wenceslas, the Duke of Rugia, among the participants. The document was published among other Magdeburg acts by Melchior Goldast (XVII century).
- 941 year. The attack of the Ross or Russ on Byzantium. The Greek authors Theophanes, the Successor of George Amartol and Simeon Magistr (all in the middle of the 10th century) explain that the dews are “dromites” (i.e., migrants, migrating, fidgets) descending “from the family of the Franks”. In the Slavic translation of the Chronicle of George Amartol, the last phrase is translated as "from the Varangian family." Langobard Liudprand (c. 958) wrote a history in which he called the Rus "Northern people", whom the Greeks "in appearance call the Rus" (i.e., "Reds"), and the inhabitants of Northern Italy "by their location, the Normans." In Northern Italy, the “Normans” were called those living north of the Danube, in Southern Italy the Lombards themselves were identified with the northern Veneti.
- Until 944. The Jewish-Khazar correspondence of the 10th century mentions the “King of the Rus Halegva”, who first attacked the Khazars, and then, at their instigation, under Romanus Lekapinus (920-944) went to the Greeks, where he was defeated by Greek fire. Ashamed to return to his country, Khalegvu went to Persia (in another version - Thrace), where he died along with the army.
- 943-944 years. A number of eastern sources close to the events speak of a campaign of the Rus against Berdaa (Azerbaijan).
- 946 year. A document is dated this year, in which the Baltic Sea is called the “sea of rugs”. A similar name is repeated in a document of 1150.
- Between 948-952. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus mentions Rus' "near" and "far", and also gives a parallel designation of the names of the Dnieper rapids in Russian and in Slavonic.
- 954-960 years. The wounds-rugs act in alliance with Otto I, helping him in the subjugation of the rebellious Slavic tribes. As a result, all the tribes living by the sea "against Rus'" were conquered. Similarly, Adam of Bremen and Helmold locate the island of the Rugs as lying "against the land of the Vilians".
- 959 year. An embassy to Otto I of “Queen of the Rugs Helena” (Olga), shortly before this, baptized by the Byzantine emperor Roman, with a request to send a bishop and priests. Libutius, a monk of the Mainz monastery, was appointed bishop of Rus'. But Libutius died in 961. Instead of him, Adalbert was appointed, who made a trip to the Rugs in 961-962. The enterprise, however, ended in complete failure: the missionaries were expelled by the Rugs! The message about these events is described by the so-called Continuer of Reginon, behind which the researchers see Adalbert himself. In other chronicles, Russia is called instead of Rugiya.
- The middle of the X century. Masudi mentions the Russian River and the Russian Sea. In the view of Masudi, the Russian Sea - Pontus is connected to the Gulf of the Ocean (Baltic Sea), and the Rus are called islanders, who rotate a lot on ships.
- Second half of the 10th century. Compiled in southern Italy, the Jewish collection Josippon (Joseph ben Gorion) places the Rus immediately on the shore of the Caspian Sea, and along the "Great Sea" - "Ocean" next to the Angles and Saxons. The confusion, apparently, was facilitated by the mention in the Caspian regions, in addition to the Rus, also of the Saksin people in a number of sources.
- 965 year. Ibn Yakub visited the German (Holy Roman) Empire on a diplomatic mission and met with Otto I. In the report on the trip (included in the work of the 11th century author al-Bekri), he gives a description of the Slavic lands and names the Rus, which border in the east with the possessions of the Polish Prince Mieszko, as well as from the west on ships attack the Prussians.
- 967 year. Pope John XIII, by a special bull authorizing the establishment of the Prague bishopric, forbade the involvement of priests from the Russian and Bulgarian people and worship in the Slavic language. The document is reproduced in the Chronicle of Cosmas of Prague (c. 1125) and also by Annalist Saxo (c. 1140).
- 968 year. Adalbert was approved by the Archbishop of Magdeburg. The letter reminds us that he used to go to the Rugs.
- 969 year. The Magdeburg annals call the inhabitants of the island of Rügen Russians.
- 968-969 years. Ibn Haukal and other Eastern authors talk about the defeat of the Volga Bulgaria and Khazaria by the Rus, after which the Rus army went to Byzantium and Andalusia (Spain). In the annals, these events are dated 6472-6473, which, according to the Constantinopolitan era, should indicate the years 964-965. But in the texts of the 10th century, another space era is often used, which differs by four years from the Constantinople era, and therefore the chronicle indicates the same dates as the Eastern sources. As for campaigns in Spain, we could talk about other Russians.
As can be seen from all these messages of the ancient Rus, Western historians often confused with the Normans (Varangians), because in those days the culture of the northern Rus and the Varangians was very similar (the ties between them were very close), and with the Letto-Lithuanian tribes this connection was even stronger, even the border between the Russians and the Prussians cannot be drawn.
So by 862, Ancient Rus' was basically the same as after 862, only the difference was that during this period there was no strong single centralized state, and the principalities were tribal.
The state itself under the name "Kievan Rus" appeared after the conquest (subordination) of the Kyiv tribal state to another tribal state - Novgorod, and after the transfer of the capital from Novgorod the Great to Kiev.
5. Brief summary of the history of Ancient Rus'
Our work, as it is obviously clear to the reader, does not represent the results of many years of work, where everything is put in order and systematized. We have to print, so to speak, on the go, without waiting for the sometimes necessary polishing, because it is better to give at least something than to give nothing. Circumstances do not allow publishing the work in such a form as we would like (“do not argue against the bullshit”).
The essays-chapters published by us do not follow the order, but the degree of readiness for publication.
However, it has already been published fairly well, so we consider it necessary to sum up some results already in a systematic way - hence the proposed summary. Of course, this summary emphasizes mainly everything new that corrects, supplements and clarifies our usual ideas.
1. The beginning of the history of Ancient Rus' goes back to ancient times. Already from the first centuries of our era, we find on the lands occupied by the Eastern Slavs a consistent and coherent series of material cultures, passing almost without interruption into the culture of Rus', already recorded by history.
If there are some gaps in the archaeological data, they quickly disappear, and the general trend in the accumulation of material in this direction is quite clear.
One can argue about the sequence, time, relationships of these cultures, but that in the first centuries of our era, at least on the Middle Dnieper and the upper reaches of the Dniester and the Bug, the Slavs sat, there is no need to argue.
2. The beginning of the written history of Rus' should be attributed to the end of the 8th century. From this point on, history gives a coherent series of events without major omissions, naming names, places, recounting events, and (indirectly) giving dates. The earliest accurate news about the "Rusyns" refers to 477 (their attack on the city of Yuvava, now Salzburg).
3. It is not possible to indicate at least approximately the date of the beginning of Rus, because there were two "Rus": southern, Kiev, in the region of the Dnieper and Dniester, and northern, Novgorod, in the region of Ladoga and Ilmen. Their original histories were varied, isolated, and traces of their written histories exist in varying degrees of preservation. Therefore, it would be more correct to consider both stories separately until the moment when they merged under Oleg into one common stream.
4. The written history of both Novgorod and Kiev pre-Oleg Rus' can be traced back to the end of the 8th century, however, in previous centuries there are, so to speak, isolated islands of their history, which it is not yet possible to connect with continuous history. However, the hope is not lost that there will be intermediate links and the beginning of these stories will be shifted even further inland.
In essence, no one has yet done this, because only with the publication of this work can a fully justified and meaningful search be started. They did not search because they were convinced that there was nothing to search for.
5. A completely new page in pre-Ascold Rus' is opened by the recently found "Vlesova Book" ("Isenbek's tablets"), a chronicle written on tablets, almost certainly by pagan priests. The text, however, has not yet been fully published, the source itself has not been read, and its reliability has not been examined. The Vlesova Book speaks of events at least 300-400 years before Askold, there are even dates, but how to translate them into our time reckoning has not been clarified. In view of all this, we have not analyzed this period yet.
6. Already the first glimpses of written history catch both Russias in the form of fully formed states, with their own dynasties (in Novgorod, eight generations before Burivoi are noted), they concluded offensive and defensive alliances, various treaties, fought, reconciled, etc.
In both cases, we have before us states that have gone far in the formation of a class society, with a fairly high state of material culture, with their own fairly developed crafts, with international trade, etc. The eighth century, apparently, differs little in this respect from the ninth, when we find both Russias already quite feudalized.
The ideas of Schlözer and others that the Eastern Slavs of the 8th and 9th centuries. were savages, in their mode of life similar to beasts and birds, from the point of view of modern science can be called simply wild, extremely ignorant.
7. History captures Novgorod Rus at the end of the 8th century. defending in the person of Prince Burivoi its independence from the Varangians, apparently Scandinavians. After a long struggle, the Varangians nevertheless captured Novgorod, and Burivoi fled to a remote part of his possessions beyond the reach of the Varangians. It was this very moment of paying tribute to the Varangians by the Novgorodians that was marked, presumably, by the first Russian chronicler.
The Novgorodians, however, did not long endure the yoke of the Scandinavians, having begged his son Gostomysl from Burivoi, they revolted and drove out the Varangians (this is noted in the annals). The long and glorious reign of Gostomysl began.
8. Nestor completely kept silent about this reign (having mentioned only the fact itself, muffledly), and one can understand why: he wrote the history of southern, Kievan Rus and the history of the north did not interest him, besides, this led him deeper from his immediate tasks. That this was so is evident from the indisputable fact that he considered Oleg the first prince in Rus', he does not consider Rurik a Russian prince, because Novgorod was not considered a Russian state at that time, but was considered “Slovenian”. It is possible that Nestor would not have mentioned Rurik at all if it were not for his son Igor, about whom it was impossible not to say who his father was. By the end of his life, Gostomysl lost all four sons, and he faced the difficult question of succession to the throne. His choice fell on Rurik, the grandson of his middle daughter Umila, who was married to one of the overseas princes. His desire (in a veiled form - in the form of a dream-foreshadowing) became known to everyone and was met favorably.
After the death of Gostomysl, however, troubles began, ending with an agreement between the northern tribes on the choice of a common prince. They hesitated between the following proposals: 1) elect a prince from among themselves; 2) invite from the Danube Slavs; 3) from Kyiv, from glades; 4) invite from the Khazars; 5) elect a prince from overseas Varangians. The last proposal prevailed: the desire of Gostomysl was fulfilled, and the old Slavic dynasty was restored, but along the female line.
10. With the current state of our knowledge, it is no longer possible to doubt the following: 1) the calling of the Varangians is certainly a historical fact, confirmed by three independent sources - Russians such as Nestor, the Joachim Chronicle, the Mecklenburg tradition (see below); 2) the chronicler called “Varangians” not only the Scandinavians, but also the inhabitants of the western part of the Baltic coast in general, including the Western Slavs (that they sent for the prince not to the Swedes, not to the Norwegians and not to the Gotlanders, it is quite clear from the annals) : in this case, we could only talk about the Western Slavs; 3) the names Rurik, Sineus, as we have shown, are Slavic names, and that Rurik's mother was a Slav, the daughter of Gostomysl, is clearly shown by the Joachim Chronicle; 4) in 1840, the Frenchman Marmier, while exploring Mecklenburg, recorded a local legend that the prince of the Slavic Obodrich tribe, Godlav, had three sons, Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, went to Rus', drove out other Varangians and began to reign there. This testimony of a Frenchman, who has nothing to do with the dispute about the calling of the Varangians, shows that Rurik was a Slav by his father. It turns out that the “calling of the Varangians” is noted from two sides: in the Russian chronicle, that is, in the country where Rurik came, and in folk tradition in Mecklenburg, that is, in the country where Rurik came from. The Norman theory has absolutely no foundations - let us recall that not a single source, written or preserved by the people's memory among the peoples of Germanic roots in the West, knows anything about the calling of the Varangians, and this is understandable: the calling concerned Slavic, not Germanic tribes. Now only a complete obscurantist can defend the Norman theory.
11. For 17 years of his reign (first in Ladoga for four years, then in Novgorod), Rurik managed to consolidate the tribes of Northern Russia, but in Novgorod he had to use force: Vadim the Brave, the leader, and others were killed, while other Novgorodians fled to Kiev, away from Rurik's regime, which seemed to them slavery (it is quite natural that Rurik brought with him the management methods he had learned under a less democratic state system).
Rurik also managed to help Kievan Rus in liberating the Khazars from the yoke - he sent Askold to help them, but the Novgorod and Kyiv states did not merge.
12. Death captured Rurik at a time when his son Igor was still a boy carried in his arms. Oleg, a Norwegian, Igor's uncle by his mother, who was a Norwegian princess, became the regent of Northern Rus'. Since Oleg was governor of Rurik and at the same time he actually reigned in the state, various chronicles call him either governor or prince.
Having received the news that the people of Kiev were dissatisfied with Askold (because of his Christian sympathies, presumably), Oleg went on a campaign to the south, taking with him the young Igor as material proof of his rights to reign. Askold was betrayed by the people of Kiev, killed, and Oleg occupied Kyiv without a fight.
Then Oleg took a step of great importance - he moved the capital of the united East Slavic state to Kyiv. From that moment on, Northern Rus' began to gradually take on the name "Rus" ("from the Varangians, more nicknamed Rus"), this moment, both in essence and formally, is the beginning of that Rus that we know from our chronicles. The founder of this united state turned out to be quite by accident the Norwegian Oleg because of Igor's infancy. This is the only grain of truth in the entire Norman theory, but we must not forget that the presence of a foreign prince on the throne does not mean that the country where this prince comes from determines the course of development, culture, organization, etc. of this state - Russian culture, the Russian state was created by its own, East Slavic or, in simpler terminology, Russian hands.
13. The very word "Rus", "Rusin" came from the south and then spread to the White Sea. There is every reason to think that it appeared on the Middle Dnieper already in historical times from somewhere in the south. In any case, in 477 the famous Odoacer, ruler of Rome, was at the same time "rex ruthenorum". The memory of this was preserved among the people even in the time of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, for he, addressing the people with an appeal to rise against Poland, considers Odoacer the direct ancestor of the Cossacks.
Taking into account the existence among the Central European and southern Slavs of the legend about Czech, Lech and Rus, we can assume with a certain probability that Russia, as the name of the state, is borrowed from the name of the leader like Ital (Italy), Hellas (Ancient Greece, hence the "Hellenes" ), Pelops (Peloponnese), etc., to which we have hundreds of examples in history up to at least Amerigo Vespucci, who gave the name to America. The very name Rus is probably just a nickname - he was Rus, that is, he had light brown hair.
14. Having united the forces of Novgorod and Kievan Rus, Oleg quickly subjugated almost all the other tribes of the Eastern Slavs and close Finno-Ugric peoples and, having gathered a huge army, made a successful campaign against Byzantium in 907. The treaty of 907 restored peaceful relations and determined the conditions for further existence. However, in 911 a very detailed treaty was concluded, this time exclusively relating to peaceful relations and regulating them on all aspects of their relationship.
All this time, Igor remained in Kyiv. In 911, Oleg arranged Igor's marriage with a Pskovian Olga from the Gostomysl clan, his relative. Her Slavic name was Prekrasa.
Oleg died, apparently, during his trip to his homeland in his old age.
15. The history of Kievan pre-Oleg Rus' proceeded in a completely different way and in isolation from the Scandinavians. First of all, it was much more turbulent than the history of Northern Rus'. In the north, the political situation was much simpler: the neighbors of Rus' were at a very low level of culture (mainly hunting) and did not pose a serious danger to the Novgorod “Slovenes”.
The only factor that could play some role were the Scandinavians, but their role was temporary, insignificant and superficial.
The situation was quite different in the south. Rus' for centuries was here under the economic and cultural influence of Byzantium and partly of Rome. In addition, almost every century a new wave of newcomers from the east dramatically changed the situation in the Black Sea region and indirectly influenced Rus'.
If statehood originated in the south earlier than in the north, the line of its development was much more discontinuous. Rus' (so to speak) was created here and disintegrated many times, because the waves of newcomers were sometimes of great strength. Hence the absence of a continuous line of development of the state in the south.
We cannot now specify when, but Kievan Rus, apparently, began to be called Rus here not from time immemorial, but after some tribe of Ruthenians who approached from the south and captured the meadows with Kiev. We have evidence that already in the first half of the 7th century. Southern Rus' extended its influence even to the distant Caspian. The ruler of Derbent, Shahriar, already in 644 definitely said that the Rus and the Khazars were his two main enemies and that the Rus were “enemies of the whole world” (implied in Arabic).
If Theophan's message is interpreted correctly, and this, apparently, is the case, then in 774 we find Rus' already in certain relations with Byzantium.
Finally, in the first half of the IX century. (839) we find Rus' concluding a treaty of friendship with Byzantium, and its ambassadors are received with great caution (this fact was not included in the Russian chronicles, but is mentioned by Western European chronicles).
When South Rus' fell under the political domination of the Khazars - not specified. Apparently, it was not very long and largely nominal (it all came down mainly to the payment of tribute). At least, there is evidence indicating that Southern Rus' had sufficient autonomy: it fought and concluded peace treaties without involving Khazaria in them at all. Most likely, Rus' simply paid off its neighbor, that is, it did what Byzantium and Rome did.
In 860, Rus' undertook a punitive expedition to Tsargrad for the violation of the treaty by the Greeks, the murder of several Russians, etc. The revenge was terrible. The Russians returned home, fed up with revenge and with a huge amount of loot. This event got into the Russian chronicles from the Greek chronicles, but in a distorted form and with a chronological error (the campaign took place not in 852, but in 860).
Soon, however, peaceful relations were restored, and by 867 an event of great cultural significance took place: Rus' received a bishop from Byzantium and partially adopted Christianity, a few years later there was already an archbishopric in Rus'.
The 874 campaign of Askold against Byzantium was unsuccessful, and one might think that this made it easier for Oleg to capture Kyiv.
16. After Oleg, the first prince of united Rus', a Norwegian, who reigned only because of his infancy, his nephew, the legitimate heir, Igor, the latter reigned. Igor's father Rurik is a Slav, his mother is a Norwegian princess, Igor was born in Rus' and was married to Pskov Olga, a Slav from the Gostomysl clan. His reign was not very successful. Although he kept the tribes united by Oleg in subjection, his campaign against Byzantium ended in failure. The second campaign, although it did without the shedding of blood and brought an indemnity from the Greeks, was nevertheless completed with an agreement less profitable than Oleg's agreement with the Greeks. His murder by the Drevlyans led to the regency of Olga and her war with the Drevlyans, for her son Svetoslav was still a little boy.
It should be noted that the murder of Igor was due to his greed - having received tribute from the Drevlyans, he began to demand it a second time: this already aroused the indignation of the Drevlyans. It is interesting that the Russian chronicles are silent about the cause of Igor's death, while Byzantine sources speak about this in more detail: Igor was captured by the Drevlyans, tied to two fir trees bent down, then the fir trees were released, and Igor was torn apart.
The legends of the annals about Olga's revenge reflect her anger at such an inhuman reprisal against her husband.
17. Olga was a purebred Slav, a Pskovite, the sleigh she rode was kept for a long time in Pskov, which even the chronicle noted. Having avenged the Drevlyans for the death of her husband, she managed to keep all the other tribes in subjection, put things in order within the state and did not engage in external wars. The state, under the reasonable management of Olga, grew stronger and followed the path of prosperity.
Olga's baptism took place, apparently, in 955 in Tsargrad. Her conversion to Christianity was private and apparently secret. Christianity did not have any noticeable success under her, she did not manage to convert her son Svetoslav to Christianity, despite all her efforts. The people in the mass still stood on the side of paganism.
18. Shortly before her death, Svetoslav, a pure Slav by blood, came to the throne, walking firmly in line with the people in his paganism. Strong in body and spirit, Svetoslav was a typical conqueror, for whom the real interests of the people were alien. In the struggle, in the booty taken in the war, he saw the purpose of life and neglected the interests of the state.
In vain, modern Soviet historians see in his actions the steps of a reasonable, useful statesman - Svetoslav was an adventurer like Richard the Lionheart, whose all aspirations were to fight.
The affairs of Novgorod did not interest him at all, he directly stated about Kyiv that he “disliked” living there. History has long since pronounced its true verdict on him through the mouths of Kievan contemporaries. “Prince,” they said, “you are looking for someone else’s land, but you neglect your own.”
The positive thing in his attempt was that he annexed some of the East Slavic tribes more firmly and completely defeated the Khazars. Under him, the borders of Rus' approached its ethnographic borders.
Ambitious dreams led Svetoslav to even think about capturing Constantinople, but the war with Byzantium in Bulgaria ended in failure, and on the way to Kiev he was killed by the Pechenegs in an ambush on the Dnieper.
19. Yaropolk was the son of Svetoslav, apparently from a Hungarian princess. Probably, under the influence of his grandmother Olga, he had a great disposition towards Christians, this caused great dissatisfaction with the people of Yaropolk, whom the chronicles portray as a gentle and fair person. He was not a Christian, but his obvious sympathies for Christianity gave rise to the fact that the bones of him and his brother Oleg were subsequently baptized.
We do not know what caused his collision with his brother Oleg, but as a result, Oleg died during his flight, being thrown along with his horse into a ditch on a narrow bridge.
In the death of Oleg, Vladimir, the middle brother of Yaropolk, but from a different mother, saw a danger for himself and fled from Novgorod across the sea for military help from the Varangians.
Returning with the Varangians (who they were by nationality, in fact, is unknown), Vladimir occupied Novgorod. In Polotsk, during a clash with the Polotsk prince Rogvolod, he captured the daughter of the latter, who refused him a matchmaking and was already married to Yaropolk, made her his wife by force and thereby aggravated the strife with his brother.
Thanks to the bribery of the governor Yaropolk Dobrynya, Vladimir's maternal uncle, Vladimir gained the upper hand in the battle. From further events it is clear that Vladimir promised the governors of Yaropolk a firm course towards paganism. When Yaropolk was treacherously killed (it should not be forgotten that Vladimir was a fratricide), Vladimir finally sat down in Kyiv and began to erect idols, fulfilling the promise.
20. Vladimir was the illegitimate son of Svetoslav and Malusha, the housekeeper of Princess Olga.
The transformation of the Slavic Malusha by the Normanists into the Scandinavian Malfred is an example of a shameless scientific lie: her father was Malko from the city of Lyubech - an obvious Slav, her brother was Dobrynya, whose name clearly speaks of his nationality, she herself was Malusha, a local yard girl, and not without reason a proud Polotsk Princess Rogneda refused to marry Vladimir, the son of a slave (“I don’t want Rosuti Robichich”), but accepted the proposal of Yaropolk, a son from the same father, but from a noble mother.
21. Vladimir was a true son of the Russian people both by origin and by his policy. Waging numerous wars, he united all the East Slavic tribes, including Chervona Rus (Galicia) and extended the borders of his state to ethnographic borders.
In contrast to his father, he did not wage aggressive wars and, having brought the borders of the state to ethnographic limits, he was entirely engaged in consolidating the forces of the state.
By marrying a Byzantine princess, the first bride of all of Europe, whose hand was denied to the son of the German emperor, Vladimir covered up his semi-plebeian origin and put the dynasty on a par with the most noble dynasties of Europe.
There is evidence that allows us to think that he achieved a higher rank from Byzantium in the ladder of the ruling hierarchy. At least on the coins he was depicted in a crown and royal vestments.
22. A huge role in the life of Rus' was played by Vladimir's adoption of Christianity as the state religion. This step was taken after a long weighing, testing of various faiths, and was an exclusively political step that promoted Rus' to the ranks of the paramount states of Europe.
Vladimir's baptism took place in Korsun (in the Crimea) in late autumn 989 or early spring 990.
The Baptism of Rus' in Kyiv took place in 990 (and not 988!). The discrepancy in the dates and place of Vladimir's baptism in different sources is explained by the fact that religious sources sought to hide the fact that Vladimir converted to Christianity not from moral, but from state considerations. These sources strove for the canonization of Vladimir to depict the matter in such a way that baptism was Vladimir's personal desire, in this case they saw the basis for canonization, which Byzantium denied and refused. Therefore, they called the year of baptism the 988th, and the place - Rus'.
The new religion served as a powerful tool for uniting a heterogeneous state into one whole, created a common language (the language of a religious cult) and thereby led to the Russification of non-Russian tribes and strengthened the position of the prince (God was the autocrat in heaven, the prince was on earth), 23. Vladimir introduced remarkable innovations: compulsory literacy education and, in general, science for children of the wealthy classes, care for the sick and infirm, reasonable, humane laws were issued (for example, the death penalty was abolished, apparently for the first time in Europe). The desire to learn and borrow something good from other peoples gave Vladimir reason to send special embassies to Constantinople, Rome, Egypt, Jerusalem, Babylon, etc., precisely for the “peeping” of foreign laws, customs, etc., thereby Rus' on the path of rapid cultural development.
Vladimir himself was a man with an extremely broad outlook, but at the same time he was not a dry, "head" person: he loved feasts, fun, art, women, etc. Moreover, his feasts were not an act of a person closed in his contentment, - he feasted with all the people and was exceedingly generous.
It was this closeness to the people that created him a gentle nickname - the Red Sun, the people loved him wholeheartedly and conveyed this love in epics to the present day.
During the existence of Rus', and then Russia, there were only two giants: Vladimir the Great and Peter the Great. Both abruptly changed the whole life of the people: one by the introduction of Christianity and humanity, science, the other by a secondary rapprochement with Europe after 300 years of Tatar darkness.
However, as individuals, they are incomparable - Vladimir is fanned by the love of the people and grateful memory, the people are silent about Peter, and not without reason, because Peter was not distinguished by humanity.
24. We know very little about Svetopolk the Accursed. After the death of Vladimir, he immediately committed a triple fratricide and seized power in his own hands. Yaroslav, warned in time by his sister, survived and won the fight that followed. Svetopolk fled somewhere abroad and died in a fever no one knows where.
The desire of some Catholic historians to portray Svetopolk as a bright person because of his sympathy for Rome clearly shows the depth of their moral fall: they count the person cursed by all the people as their friends and are proud of being close to the triple fratricide.
25. Who was Yaroslav's mother has not yet been established with certainty. The chronicle claims that he was the son of Rogneda. To what extent the repulsive picture of mastering Rogneda corresponds to reality, we do not know. We know, however, that, having taken possession of her by the right of a conqueror, he made her a real, lawful wife, probably because of her princely family. There is information that, having married Anna, Vladimir officially informed Rogneda about his conversion to Christianity and marriage, that is, he showed full respect for her. Whether Rogneda was Scandinavian or Slavic is unknown. It is only known that her father was Rogvolod "from across the sea", but he could also be an overseas Slav, like Godlav, Rurik's father.
The statements of the Normanists are only a guess, far from indisputable, especially since the name Rogvolod (an analogy: Vsevolod) is a Slavic name, and Rogneda herself was so “Scandinavian” that she used the most typical Slavic detail in her refusal to Vladimir (not a Slav would have put it that way).
Yaroslav's whole life passed in close contact with Novgorod. Having become the Grand Duke in Kyiv, he gave special rights to Novgorod, unfortunately, history has not preserved what they consisted of. Novgorodians were very proud of these rights and kept them until the very defeat of them by Moscow, first by Ivan III, and then finally by Ivan IV.
In general, Novgorod was the second capital in Kievan Rus, and the prince who sat in Novgorod was usually a candidate for the throne in Kyiv.
Yaroslav fought quite a lot, but it was mostly a war for power. He almost did not wage external wars of conquest. Under him, Rus' occupied one of the most brilliant places in Europe. First of all, wide dynastic ties contributed to this: Byzantium, France, Hungary, Poland, Norway, Germany, etc. were connected with Russia by marriages with members of Yaroslav's family. Suffice it to say that his daughter Anna ruled France.
Kyiv under him was expanded, fortified and decorated. Foreigners saw in him a rival of Tsargrad. Crafts and trade flourished. Culture reached a very high degree of development, it was the apogee of Ancient Rus'.
This is where we will stop the summary for now.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the actual picture of events in Ancient Rus' was significantly different than it is usually presented. How and why could it happen that historians have created the wrong picture?
The first reason: insufficient development of Russian primary sources. Russian chronicles and other sources such as Russkaya Pravda, treaties, charters, various records and inscriptions, etc., have been studied very insufficiently. There are hundreds of places that are understood differently, or rather, completely misunderstood. Naturally, having such source material, historians have a poor command of it and cannot take from the historical heritage what is actually there.
Not only individual words, expressions or phrases remain obscure, for various reasons the whole context often turns out to be obscure as well. The chronology of events is often shaky, and sometimes not at all correct. Many passages are misinterpreted, but these misinterpretations have already become canon, and no one turns to the original source to find out the truth. There is no summary of the annals, where the text would be verified according to all available lists, and we still do not have the opportunity to read it without omissions, insertions, errors, slips of the pen, etc. A summary of all annals has not yet been published, a lot has been done, but not completed. There are chronicle lists that have not yet been published. Finally, many works, such as Tatishchev's "History", which contains extracts from original but now disappeared manuscripts, have become a bibliographic rarity. Many works published in Latin or even German in the 18th and 19th centuries have remained untranslated.
For all this colossal rough work, historians do not have enough hands, and help from philologists, dialectologists, geographers and, in general, just people who are interested in history, is extremely necessary.
The second reason: insufficient development of foreign primary sources relating to the history of Rus'. The huge Latin, Greek and other languages heritage has not been translated or commented on, and yet from these sources we sometimes learn much more than from Russian chronicles, for example, about the wars of Svetoslav. Rus' did not live in a void, but among other peoples, therefore, without the most detailed knowledge of chronicles, acts, treaties, histories, hagiographic literature, traveler reports, etc. of neighboring peoples, it is impossible to write the true history of Rus'. We find the most interesting information from Muslim writers, but apart from the outdated work of Harkavy, which has become a bibliographic rarity, we have nothing. Długosz's "History of Poland" in Latin, written using the ancient Russian, now dead chronicles, has not been translated at all, etc.
There is no set of Georgian, Armenian authors - a set of passages about Ancient Rus'. Who should do this if not Russian historians and philologists: to fish out at least brief passages about Rus' from foreign sources, not to foreigners? Meanwhile, we see that the data of foreign sources are sometimes extremely important, for example, in the question of the time and baptism of Vladimir the Great.
Publication of a collection of foreign authors has not even begun. Of course, neglecting such material, it is impossible to write true, genuine history, just as it is impossible to entrust this matter to foreigners, it is enough to look at the writings of Baumgarten, Taube, Stender-Petersen and others.
The third reason (and perhaps the main one): the imperfection of the scientific method of historians. This is expressed as follows:
1) Historians do not strive primarily for accuracy, one example with the main date of Russian chronology is enough. The chronicle takes the year 6360 “from the Creation of the world” as the beginning of Russian chronology; it is natural to find out what this year is in the reckoning "from the Nativity of Christ." There are several opinions: some believe that Christ was born in 5500, others in 5506, and others, finally, in 5508 - "from the Creation of the world." Any researcher who follows an exact, logical method will first of all ask himself the question: what kind of reckoning was adopted by the Russian chronicles? A few lines below this is said indirectly, you just need to do two arithmetic operations - addition and subtraction. Not a single historian did this, as a result, instead of 860, 852 was taken as the basis. The difference of 8 years for the main date is serious, further errors resulted from it. They also did not notice that the Greek preacher, telling the history of the world to Vladimir, directly said that the latter was born in 5500, and not 5508 from the Creation of the world. Where there is no precision, there is no science.
2) Historians perceive facts somehow pointlessly, out of touch with time, space and conditions, examples: a) when listing events from the Creation of the world, the reckoning “from” and “to” is always going on in the annals; if we sum up all the figures, we will not get the necessary 6360, but 54 years less; this has been noticed, but the reason for this has not been disclosed. Meanwhile, the text says: "From David and from the beginning of the kingdom of Solomon." How can there be a period from the reign of two kings at once? It is clear that there was a scribal omission in the text: the period from David to Solomon was indicated, but the scribe jumped over 2-3 words, and there was a 54-year gap. Such an elementary thing has not been discovered, although it is accessible to every quick-witted boy; b) it is well known that the meaning of many Russian words has changed over time, which means that when reading ancient texts one must be extremely careful, especially when it comes to the Church Slavonic language, this was not taken into account, hence the false readings: “beginning to call the Russian land” at all does not mean that from that time the Russian land got its name (this is just illogicality, stupidity), but it means that the Russian land was first mentioned in the Greek chronicle; further: “gird all Rus' by itself” does not mean at all “they took all Rus' with them”, but “took for themselves”, that is, they divided all Rus' among themselves, - after all, in ancient times they said “give a wife after yourself”, what did it mean "to take for oneself"; finally - “from the Varangians more nicknamed Rus” does not mean at all that because of the Varangians, the Slovenes began to be called Rus, and they began to be called Rus by the Varangians, because the newcomers did not distinguish between Novgorodians and Kievans, for them it was a single tribe, etc. Our history is full of such false readings; c) historians do not make a difference between supposed and proven, it is enough for someone, especially an authority, to make a probable assumption, as it is done by the canon, and no one thinks that this is only a probable hypothesis; d) historians are prone to uncontrollable fantasy and do not feel any responsibility for what they say; it is enough to tell someone that the Russians of Egyptian origin, as they begin to reckon with this, begin to comment on one hundred percent stupidity, pay attention to it and even pick it up; f) historians do not have what exists among representatives of the exact sciences: they are not punished for their mistakes; it is enough for a historian to defend his doctoral dissertation, i.e., to prove his ability for scientific research, as he opens up the widest field for uncontrolled activity, interpreted as freedom of scientific thought.
As a result, history is littered with thousands of absurd theories, assertions, false interpretations. It is different for representatives of the exact sciences, where, after a scientist has made a number of major mistakes, they cease to reckon with him, and he is soon almost automatically thrown out of the circle of scientists. It cannot happen among representatives of the exact sciences that, writing (for example, as a comparison) the history of Ancient Russia in the Normanist spirit, the scientist does not say that there are also anti-Normanist schools, does not discuss all the “pro” and “contra”, etc. - his scientific conscience, his scientific "credo" cannot allow this; historians do this easily and with impunity.
The fourth reason: the unusual susceptibility of historians to the pressure of the powers that be. Once upon a time, historians in general were praisers, of course for money and honors, of their overlords. In the present era, when we already have universities and academies of sciences, it would seem that historians should find objectivity, if only to present what happened a thousand years ago, but this is not the case, and a heavy legacy still weighs on the historical science.
If personal servility no longer has as much place as before, there are other forms of servility: political, national, religious, etc. What, for example, is the religious servility of the renegades Baumgarten, Taube and others worth before Catholicism. Meanwhile, they are believed as scientists, although they sometimes descended to the level of scientific fraud. Their investigations are so tendentious that they cannot be taken into account by true science.
The Norman theory was also purely political, that is, satisfying the interests of German chauvinism, which had taken refuge at the throne in Russia. Investigating our history objectively, we see that the Scandinavian-Germans have played absolutely no role worthy of attention in it. They were neither conquerors nor organizers. They appeared as a mercenary military force and were immediately removed when internal military conflicts ended. In domestic politics, they also never played any role, for example, we do not know of a single palace coup in which the Scandinavians would play a role.
Everything was invented by idle pro-German historians who did not want to pay attention to the indisputable fact that in foreign sources, which were primarily supposed to talk about the conquest of Rus', about the rights of the Germans to the throne, etc., there is not a word about the foundations of the Norman theory .
Nowhere in Rus' did the Scandinavians form separate settlements and there were no Scandinavian groups of women, the elderly and children. There were only visitors, or immigrants, but in absolutely negligible numbers.
The whole Norman theory is based only on a false interpretation of the Russian chronicles. Normanists quite arbitrarily inserted or threw out words, replaced letters in words, thereby completely changing the meaning, arranged their own punctuation, etc., in a word, they got what they wanted to get. All their writings are just a bunch of worthless, scribbled paper.
Finally, there is a special kind of distortion of historical truth, which mainly satisfies personal pride. It is especially used by people of foreign origin, but educated in Russia. These persons, having returned to their homeland after 1917 and knowing the Russian language perfectly, enjoy great prestige, but direct their activities towards the falsification of the history of Rus', either because they wish to flatter their national chauvinism, or to satisfy their feeling of hatred for those who deprived them of a warm, familiar place. Both ways bring them fame and money.
The fifth reason, or rather, a consequence of all four previous ones taken together: ignoring sources that contradict the Norman theory. The Joachim Chronicle, which contains the history of Northern Rus' before Rurik, was declared unreliable and relegated to the shadows, many fragments of the Nikon, Tver and other chronicles are not actually included in the history, at most they are given with a state remark: “The origin of this news in this chronicle is unknown ". The “Vlesova book”, the discovery of which was announced at the very beginning of 1954, has not yet aroused enough interest, professional historians are silent about it. Why? Because it blows up all the roots of their historical creed. Let's assume that "Vlesov's Book" is a fake, but this must be proven! In fact, we see complete indifference.
It is quite natural that, without using all historical sources, it is impossible to write a true story.
Here it is necessary to say about Russian chronicle writing. It was a long and complex process, it can be divided into four stages:
1. The era of pagan chronicles, the era of the "Vlesovaya book". This chronicle, apparently, was used only to the smallest extent, for subsequent chronicles were all Christian and the use of pagan ones was a religious crime. Not only referring to such a source, but even holding it in one's hands was a punishable matter. The Christian chroniclers were obviously aware of the existence of this chronicle, but not directly, but indirectly, through folk traditions. This era is completely unstudied by science, but it will probably make huge changes in our history.
2. The era of the chronicle, i.e., the weather record of events in a very brief form. Only traces remain of this era in southern records. We called this era conditionally Askold's, because there are absolutely exactly dated weather records with small, purely Kyiv events from the time of Askold. It made no sense for later chroniclers to invent such news as heavy rains, locust raids, etc., such news is certainly authentic.
3. The era of the first chronicle, the era when an attempt was made for the first time to give the history of Rus', that is, a consistent and detailed presentation of events, often with an explanation of the conditions and motives for actions, and all this is already against the backdrop of universal history. This era should be called Joachim's. The first chronicle, apparently, was Novgorod, but it is in Joachim's record, all the same, other Novgorod chronicles are basically only an abbreviated presentation of Nestor's (see below).
Therefore, Joachim should be considered the first chronicler, and not Nestor, who lived almost a hundred years after the writing of the Joachim Chronicle. Joachim, being a bishop († 1030), an envoy of Byzantium, by nationality, of course, a Slav, for only persons with knowledge of the Russian language could be sent to convert the Novgorodians to Christianity, was undoubtedly a highly educated person. Hence the broad plan of the chronicle, and references to Greek sources, and the adoption of the reign of the Greek emperor as the basis for the chronology, and the mention of the spread of Christianity among the Central European and southern Slavs, etc.
4. The era of Nestor, the era of tendentious history based on the "bulging out" of the Rurik dynasty, obscuring the existence of several ancient East Slavic states (at least Novgorod, Polotsk), obscuring the history of a long and stubborn struggle against paganism, etc.
Nestor, a simple monk, with a horizon undoubtedly narrower than that of Bishop Joachim, borrowed from the latter the entire introduction to the chronicle and threw out everything that concerned Novgorod and could interfere with his main task - the exaltation of the Kievan princes.
To this, he added a number of folk legends about historical figures, not particularly caring about their accuracy and consistency, used some official documents, old chronicles and ... a vinaigrette from Russian history, suitable for the mass reader, was ready.
Being ideologically purposeful, this vinaigrette played into the hands of the Kyiv princes and therefore was recognized as official history. The chronicle of Joachim and documents similar to it were moved far into the archives and gradually withdrawn from circulation. Only a happy accident saved the old Joachim Chronicle within the framework of the little learned monk and handed over part of it into the hands of Tatishchev.
Historiographers did not understand the essence of Russian chronicle writing and took the Nestorian version, undoubtedly tendentious, for real history.
The Joachim Chronicle was simply not believed, for it completely destroyed the established canon.
The testing exploratory thought was suppressed by political tendencies.
Now there is no need to talk about the calling of the Varangians-Scandinavians (they invited the Western Slavs, who were also called "Varangians"), therefore the Joachim Chronicle pops up by itself, and with it the rest of the historical truth is restored.
Justice requires us to note that the restoration of truth belongs entirely to us. Before us, not a single historian understood the true meaning of the Joachim Chronicle.
So, historians have not understood the relative value of various primary sources - hence the further errors. Chronicle records already existed under Askold. 872 can be considered the first exact date of the original Russian chronicle, which mentioned the murder of the son of Askold by the Bulgarians.
With the appearance of the Rurikids in Kyiv, which apparently caused the destruction of primary Christianity there, the chronicle record probably ceased, resuming only almost 100 years later. Only this can explain the amazing poverty and vagueness of the information of the chronicle in the era of the first Rurikovich.
In the epoch of Volodymyr the Great, chronicle records apparently begin again, and then, presumably around 1000, the first real (Joakimov's) chronicle appears. It is hardly worth adding that there was no Shakhmatov's "Initial Code" or Likhachev's "Tale of the Spread of Christianity in Rus'" - these are scholarly fictions not confirmed by facts. Finally, the impartiality of the chronicle is a pernicious myth which the historian must not allow himself to be stupefied with.
We now turn to some general conclusions of our abstract. Our former historians were completely silent, and modern historians (mainly Soviet ones) are just beginning to talk about the ancient, pre-Rurik history of Rus'. Until now, Rus' has appeared on the arena of history quite unexpectedly, unjustifiably, like a meteor falling from the sky.
In fact, the history of Rus' (even with the very name "Rus") can be traced several centuries deeper.
Under other names, the Slavs (including the eastern ones) appear already in the first centuries of our era, and there is nothing surprising if, over time, it will be finally proved that the “Scythians-plowmen” of Herodotus were eastern Slavs.
Thus, all pre-literate and a significant part of written history has been taken away from us. The tragedy is that the completely Norman theory still reigns in Western European science, the era of medieval prejudices still reigns there, and a number of brilliant minds stand completely aloof from working out the true history of Rus' in the aspect of all of Europe. The saddest thing is that there even petty charlatanism is mixed with obscurantism.
Further, on the basis of the latest historical, archaeological and other data, it can be considered irrefutably established that the culture of Ancient Rus', its entire standard of living, was much higher, richer, more diverse and, most importantly, more independent than the Normanists claimed.
At the time of the appearance of Rurik in Northern Rus' (or rather, Slovenia), the East Slavic tribes from the mouth of the Volkhov to the mouth of the Dniester, from the Carpathians to Rostov and Suzdal were already at a very high stage of development. These were sedentary, predominantly agricultural tribes, which had numerous cities and a significant population.
A number of crafts were widespread, and many of them were at a very high level. Art, its own, local, did not lag behind other aspects of life, testifying to significant material well-being. Now there is no doubt about this, because molds for casting various complex ornaments, the material for this casting, defective specimens and the products themselves were found right next to each other in Rus'. No one can say now that defective things were brought from abroad.
It is very likely that already in the time of Rurik in Rus' there was a special kind of writing, as evidenced by the birch bark letters of Novgorod, the Vlesov Book and other material monuments.
From the book A Short Course in Russian History author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich From the book Ancient Rus' through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants (IX-XII centuries); Lecture course author Danilevsky Igor NikolaevichTopic 3 ORIGINS OF ANCIENT Rus' CULTURE Lecture 7 Pagan traditions and Christianity in Ancient Rus' Lecture 8 Ordinary representations of Old Russian
From the book True History of Russia. Notes of an amateur authorAbout the early history of Ancient Rus' So, the Russian state began with Rurik. Was he Norman or Slavic? The Norman version appeared from the pen of Miller. Lomonosov immediately rebelled against such a version, and as a result of his actions, Miller was banned
From the book History of Russia the author Ivanushkina V V3. Ancient Rus' in the period X - early XII centuries. The adoption of Christianity in Rus'. The role of the Church in the life of Ancient Rus' Olga's grandson Vladimir Svyatoslavovich was originally a zealous pagan. He even placed near the princely court idols of pagan gods, to whom the people of Kiev brought
From the book True History of Russia. Notes of an amateur [with illustrations] author Guts Alexander KonstantinovichAbout the early history of Ancient Rus' So, the Russian state began with Rurik. Was he Norman or Slavic? The Norman version came from Miller's pen. Lomonosov immediately rebelled against this version, and as a result of his actions, Miller was banned
From the book Rus and Varangians author Vasilyeva Nina Ivanovna From the book National Bolshevism author Ustryalov Nikolay Vasilievich From the book Domestic History: Cheat Sheet author author unknown8. ACCEPTANCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE BAPTISM OF Rus'. CULTURE OF ANCIENT Rus' One of the biggest events that had long-term significance for Rus' was the adoption of Christianity as the state religion. The main reason for the introduction of Christianity in its Byzantine version is
From the book The Road Home author Zhikarentsev Vladimir Vasilievich From the book of the USSR: from devastation to world power. Soviet breakthrough author Boff Giuseppe"Short course" of the history of the CPSU (b) On this basis, the main Stalinist ideological and political action was carried out. A book appeared under the title “History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Short Course. She came out at the end of the summer - the beginning of the autumn of 1938, that is
From the book To the origins of Rus' [People and language] author Trubachev Oleg NikolaevichFrom the history of the language of ancient and new Rus' 1. From the history and linguistic geography of the East Slavic development The topic included in the title concerns several related sciences, including history, archeology, and linguistics. It is probably rightly considered that the first two of them
From the book History of the Russians. Varangians and Russian statehood author Paramonov Sergey YakovlevichSignificance of the "Vlesovaya Book" for the history of the culture of Ancient Rus' The significance of the "Vlesovaya Book" for the history of culture of Ancient Rus' is enormous. First of all, we must accept that the writing of the Eastern Slavs existed long before the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet. Moreover: the Cyrillic alphabet itself
From the book Russia, Poland, Germany: the history and modernity of European unity in ideology, politics and culture author Team of authorsWojciech Kriegseizen (Warsaw) Discourses of Catherine II on the history of Ancient Rus' On the question of the concept of the second division of the Commonwealth In 1793, in commemoration of the second division of Poland, Catherine II ordered that a medal be struck with her image on one side and
From the book Complete Works. Volume 10. March-June 1905 author Lenin Vladimir Ilyich2. Brief summary of the report on the provisional revolutionary government 1. Strange at first glance, the formulation of the question: the implementation of the provisional revolutionary government is not so close. The question is imposed on us by literary controversy. Martynov and his reasoning up to 9.1. 1905
From the book Complete Works. Volume 15. February-June 1907 author Lenin Vladimir IlyichII. Brief summary of the actual history of the St. Petersburg split At the November (1906) conference of the RSDLP, it was unanimously decided that in the matter of elections, everyone is subject to the decisions of the local Social-Democrats. organizations. Lenin at the same conference declares: “Let the Vyborg region (report
