The true history of ancient Russia. On the true history of ancient Russia

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 Russia.

It is assumed that Russia 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 Russia (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 Russia. 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 think 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 to the 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 Russia 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 Kyiv 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 Russia, 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 Russia.

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 Russia.

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 Kyiv 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, 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 Russia - 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 thresholds 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 Russia, when, after the death of their father, the sons fought for the throne of Kyiv.

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 much such a trifle played a role in Russia 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 Russia somewhere "over the sea". In 980 Vladimir returned with a squad of Varangians, began to take the city, Yaropolk left Kyiv 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 Russia. How Russia was created

For several centuries, Russia experienced ups and downs, but eventually became a kingdom with its capital in Moscow.

Brief periodization

The history of Russia began in 862, when the Viking Rurik arrived in Novgorod, proclaimed a prince in this city. Under his successor, the political center moved to Kyiv. With the advent of fragmentation in Russia, several cities at once began to argue with each other for the right to become the main one in the East Slavic lands.

This feudal period was interrupted by the invasion of the Mongol hordes and the established yoke. In extremely difficult conditions of devastation and constant wars, Moscow became the main Russian city, which finally united Russia and made it independent. In the XV-XVI centuries this name became a thing of the past. It was replaced by the word "Russia", adopted in the Byzantine manner.

In modern historiography, there are several points of view on the question of when feudal Russia went into the past. Most often, researchers believe that this happened in 1547, when Prince Ivan Vasilyevich took the title of king.

The emergence of Russia

The ancient united Russia, whose history began in the 9th century, appeared after Novgorod captured Kyiv in 882 and made this city its capital. During this era, the East Slavic tribes were divided into several tribal unions (Polan, Dregovichi, Krivichi, etc.). Some of them were at enmity with each other. The inhabitants of the steppes also paid tribute to the Khazars, hostile foreigners.

Unification of Russia

Northeastern or great Russia became the center of the struggle against the Mongols. This confrontation was led by the princes of small Moscow. At first they were able to obtain the right to collect taxes from all Russian lands. Thus, part of the money settled in the Moscow treasury. When enough strength had gathered, Dmitry Donskoy found himself in open confrontation with the Golden Horde khans. In 1380, his army defeated Mamai.

But even despite this success, for another century, Moscow rulers periodically paid tribute. Only after in 1480 the yoke was finally thrown off. At the same time, under Ivan III, almost all Russian lands, including Novgorod, were united around Moscow. In 1547, his grandson Ivan the Terrible assumed the title of tsar, which was the end of the history of princely Russia and the beginning of a new tsarist Russia.

The formation of Kievan Rus (839-878)

Rurik and Varangian-Russian rule in Novgorod.

According to the works of D.I. Ilovaisky and G.V. Vernadsky, as well as other historians of the 19th-21st centuries.

Thematic layout of Internet versionsauthor's works by A. Romanchenko.

Archontissa Olga. Drawing from an old book

All of us, studying the history of our Motherland, usually began with pages telling about the calling of the Varangian princes, led by Rurik, to the Russian land, about Oleg's campaign against Constantinople, etc. And what happened before that? Where did the tribe of Slavs and Russ come from, which unexpectedly appeared in the 9th century in the gigantic expanses from the Adriatic Sea to the Volga? Based on the analysis of ancient documents and archaeological discoveries,

DI. Ilovaisky made a statement that even in the prehistoric period there were three Russias: Dnieper (Rus),

Novgorod (Slavia) and

Slavia (Salau) on the map of Idrisi (in the second circle from the left). Black and Azov seas from above.

Tmutarakanskaya (Tamanskaya).

At one time, the Slavs and Russia were pushed back from the South and from many western lands by the Romans and their descendants, wild nomads, Tatars ... Therefore, strengthening its borders and statehood in the 17th and 18th centuries, Russia only returned to its ancestral lands - the Kuban, the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov and the Black Sea, Crimea, the mouth of the Neva, the Dvina ...

From the preface to the book by D.I. Ilovaisky"History of Russia. Beginning of Russia."

DI. Ilovaisky (1832 - 1920) "History of Russia. Beginning of Russia." 1996

Generation after generation, since childhood, we have been accustomed to repeating the fable about the calling of the Varangians as an indisputable fact and depriving our ancestors of the glory of creating their own state, which, according to the chronicle, they "acquired with great sweat and great labors". We have been repeating the legend about the Varangians for so long that we have completely grown accustomed to it. We even feel some satisfaction that our history, unlike other peoples who had mythical times, begins with a famous year, a famous event and such an original event as a touching federation of Slavic and Chud peoples, sending an embassy overseas!

True, the back thought at the expense of the inability of our ancestors to organize somewhat overshadows this contentment.

Here are the well-known words of the Russian primary chronicle under the year 862:

And they said: "Let's look for ourselves a prince who would rule over us and dress us in order and according to the law." Went across the sea to the Varangians, to Russia. Those Varangians were called Rus, as others are called Swedes, and others are called Normans and Angles, and still other Goths - like these. Chud Rus, Slavs, Krivichi and all said: “Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us." And three brothers were chosen with their clans, and they took with them all of Russia, and came first of all to the Slavs. And put the city of Ladoga. And the eldest, Rurik, sat down in Ladoga, and the other - Sineus - on the White Lake, and the third, Truvor, - in Izborsk. And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed. Two years later, Sineus and his brother Truvor died. And Rurik alone took all the power and came to Ilmen, and set up a city over the Volkhov, and named it Novgorod, and sat down to reign here, and began to distribute volosts and cities to his husbands - to that Polotsk, to this Rostov, to another Beloozero. The Varangians in these cities are nakhodniki, and the indigenous people in Novgorod are Slavs, in Polotsk - Krivichi, in Rostov - Merya, in Beloozero - all, in Murom - Murom, and Rurik ruled over all of them.

After several works on our chronicle (Pogodin, Sukhomlinov, Obolensky, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, etc.), there is no doubt that the so-called Nestor Chronicle in the form in which it has come down to us, there is actually an annalistic code, which grew gradually and was subjected to various editions. Writers were not always content with a literal reproduction of the original, but often added their share of authorship; one was shortened, the other was extended, the language was updated, arguments, interpretations, and even whole episodes were inserted from oneself. At the same time, one should not lose sight of simple errors, typos, misunderstandings, etc. Here are the well-known words of Mnich Lawrence: "Oh, where I will describe, or rewrite, or not finish, honor by correcting God by dividing, and do not curse".

That is why such a variety of lists has turned out that it is impossible to find two copies that are completely similar to each other.
The annalistic code has come down to us in lists that do not go back before the second half of the 14th century; from the Kievan period, not a single chronicle collection of manuscripts has been preserved.
"Behold the tales of bygone years, from where the Russian land went, who in Kyiv began before the prince" - these are the words that our chronicle begins with. This is about Kyiv, not about Novgorod. Positive chronological data also refer the beginning of our history to Kyiv. The first reliable fact entered into our chronicle from the words of the Byzantines is the attack of Russia on Constantinople in 864-865, during the reign of Emperor Michael.

Here are the words of our history: "I will begin to reign for Michael, beginning to be called Ruska land". The Norman theory gave them the meaning that it was from that time that our fatherland began to be called Rus. But inner, real meaning, agreeing with positive events, the one that in the reign of Michael the name of Russia is first made known, proper for the first time draws attention to itself, as a result of the attack of the Russ on Constantinople. Perhaps our chronicler or his copyist himself thought that since then Russia began to be called Rus. It's a very natural delusion. and it is impossible to transfer the requirements of our time to Russian literate people of that era, that is, to expect from them erudition and criticism of their sources. For example, could they, reading the Byzantines, under the names of the Scythians, Sarmatians, etc. to recognize their Russia in them?

"From now on, let's start and put the numbers"- continues our chronicle. "And from the first year of Mikhailov to the first year of Olgov, the Russian prince, 29 years; and from the first year of Olgov, later gray in Kyiv, to the first summer of Igor, 31 years; and from the first year of Igor to the first summer of Svyatoslav, 33 years" etc. In this chronological list, the beginning of Russia is not from the calling of the Varangians, but from that era when Russia was clearly, positively noted by Byzantine historians. Then the chronicler goes directly to Oleg. Where is Rurik? Why did such a remarkable person, the ancestor of the Russian princes, not get a place in this chronology? Only one explanation is possible, namely: the legend about Rurik and, in general, about the calling of princes was included in the annals in order to give some beginning to Russian history, and was originally listed without a year; and later artificially dated to 862.

According to The Tale of Bygone Years, having come to Russia, Rurik settled on Ladoga,

while Sineus took control of Beloozero,

and Truvor - Izborsk.

We have seen that supposed Rurik's brothers probably did not exist, but, most likely, he planted one of his relatives or followers in other cities as his governors or vassals. Having spent most of his life in the west, Rurik must have been well acquainted with the emerging feudal system and apparently was ready to apply its principles to his new possessions in Russia. From this point of view, attention is drawn to the statement of the Joachim Chronicle concerning the organization of Northern Russia under the rule of Rurik, which is known to us in Tatishchev's summary. According to Tatishchev, “Rurik planted princes of either Varangian or Slavic origin in all cities, and he himself was known as a great prince, which equivalent to the Greek titles "archicrator" or "basileus", and those princes were his vassals. Greek titles are, of course, irrelevant here, since Rurik's ideas of suzerainty were copied according to the standards of the Western Empire, with which he was intimately familiar. One can compare the statements of Tatishchev and The Tale of Bygone Years. According to the latter, Rurik's brothers, Sineus and Truvor, died two years after their arrival in Russia. After their death Rurik moved from Ladoga to Novgorod and built a castle there.“And taking over the power of Rurik, and distributing her husband to the city, ovom Polotesk, ovom Rostov, another Belozero. And in those cities the essence of the finds of the Varangians. Busy with the organization of his new kingdom, Rurik apparently did not plan any campaign to the south. And yet, in the hope of facilitating such a campaign, the old Rus colony in Staraya Rusa called Rurik to Novgorod. They probably decided now to try to fight their way to the south without the help of Rurik. From this point of view, we can approach the chronicler's story about Askold's campaign against Kyiv. At the beginning of the story we read the following: “And he has two husbands (Askold and Dir), not of his tribe, but of the boyar, and she asks for the Tsar-city with her family. And poidosta along the Dnieper ... ". Obviously, the initiative in this matter did not belong to Rurik, but to the two boyars themselves. The words "not of his tribe", apparently, should be understood in the sense of "not from his Friesian retinue." They set off "with their family," that is, with members of the old Russian (Swedish) colony. According to the chronicler, Askold's goal was Constantinople, but it sounds more like the chronicler's own commentary than a record of fact. It is difficult to admit that in those days any Novgorodian could think of a campaign against Constantinople..

Why? Obviously, because they ruled on behalf of Olom from his palace, which served as the residence of the ruler. Under the date 6374 (866 AD), the Tale of Bygone Years records that Askold and Dir undertook a campaign against Constantinople. We know from Byzantine sources that the first Russian attack on Constantinople was in 860, and not in 866. Therefore, we should assume that a chronological error of six years was made in the fragment from the Tale of Bygone Years. As for the campaign itself, we do not think that Askold and Dir had a large enough army to undertake this campaign on their own. The Magyars, even if we assume that they agreed to let the Rus pass through the Lower Dnieper region, did not have ships and did not know how to wage war at sea, so they could not provide any real support. Help could be expected only from the Russian Khaganate in the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov. The campaign must have been undertaken by the joint efforts of Askold and Dir and the Russian Khaganate. Apparently, the Tmutarakan Khagan took the initiative in this matter. In any case, establishing a connection with the Tmutarakan Khaganate, as we suggested above,

Campaign of Askold and Dir to Constantinople. Drawing from the Radziwill Chronicle, XV century

was Askold's original goal, and he probably sent envoys to Tmutarakan shortly after arriving in Kyiv. It was possible to get from Kyiv to the Azov coast by ships using the steppe rivers and portage. One of these river routes was the way up the Orel River (a tributary of the Dnieper), and from its upper reaches it was dragged to the tributaries of the Donets, and then down the Donets and Don. However, this path was blocked by the Khazars. Therefore, most likely, a different path was used: up the Samara (the southern tributary of the Dnieper) and its tributary Volchya, then dragged to Kalmius, and along it to the Sea of ​​Azov. There is little information about the situation in the Russian Khaganate in those years. As we have seen, the envoys from the Khaganate who arrived in Constantinople in 838 were not allowed to return and were sent to Germany. We do not know if they managed to return to Tmutarakan by a circuitous route - from Ingelheim to Novgorod and so on. In any case, the detention of envoys by the Byzantine emperor meant a break in diplomatic relations between the Russian Khaganate and Byzantium, and this may have been the reason for the Russian raid on Amastris in 840 (or thereabouts),

if we admit that such a raid actually took place. There is no evidence of further Russian activities on the Black Sea between 840 and 860. While the alleged raid of 840 was directed at Asia Minor, in 860 the Russians decided to attack Constantinople itself. It appears that the campaign of 860 was well prepared, and for her

the right time was chosen. The empire at that time was in the midst of a war with the Arabs. In 859, the latter inflicted a crushing defeat on the Byzantine troops, and the emperor himself barely managed to escape capture. Beginning in the early spring of 860, the empire began to intensively prepare the army for a new campaign against the Arabs, and in early June the emperor and his assistant, Kuropalat Bardas, led the Byzantine army into Asia Minor. This was exactly the case the Russians were waiting for in order to attack Constantinople. It is not known which route the Russians chose to deliver their fleet from the Cimmerian Bosphorus (Kerch Strait) to Fra to yansky Bosphorus (Bosphorus Strait). Undoubtedly The Byzantines were taken by surprise, having no thought of the approach of the Russians, until their ships appeared in the Bosphorus. On the other hand, it is equally obvious that the Byzantine fleet was watching both the Crimean coastline and the coast of Asia Minor in order to prevent any active Russian actions, especially after the raid on Amastris in 840. Therefore, we are right to think that the Russians appeared from the direction from which the Byzantines did not expect them at all. Perhaps they used a circuitous route through the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov and Northern Tavria to the mouth of the Dnieper; that is, they first crossed the Sea of ​​Azov, and then from its northern coast they headed up the Berda River and down the Konskaya River, a tributary of the Dnieper. It is quite possible that in the area of ​​the lagoon formed at the confluence of the Konskaya River with the Dnieper, below the modern city of Zaporozhye, the expeditionary forces of the Russian Khaganate reunited with the detachment of Askold and Dir, coming from Kyiv. The combined flotilla of Russian ships must then have gone down the Konskaya and the lower Dnieper into the Black Sea, and along it headed straight south to the Bosporus. 18 June 860 united Russian Navy, consisting of two hundred ships,

appeared before the walls of Constantinople. Both the authorities and the population were completely confused. If the Russians immediately stormed the city, they most likely would have captured it without encountering resistance from the inhabitants. But instead they began to plunder the palaces and monasteries in front of the city walls. Meanwhile, Patriarch Photius rallied the population and hastily formed a people's militia to defend the city. An envoy was sent to the imperial headquarters in Asia Minor with a message about the critical situation of the capital. To raise the spirit of the people, Photius organized a religious procession to the Embankment of the Golden Horn, the inner bay of Constantinople. The holy relic, known as the Shroud of the Holy Virgin, was lowered into the water, after which, according to legend, a storm broke out, scattering the Russian ships.

The miraculous salvation of Constantinople with the help of the robe of the Mother of God. Fresco from the Church of the Deposition of the Robe in the Moscow Kremlin. 1644

Photius himself, however, said in one of his sermons that the Russians began to retreat even before the storm. For some time they still lingered in nearby waters, where they were soon attacked by a Byzantine fleet sent by the emperor, who himself also hurried back to the capital with ground troops. The Russians undoubtedly suffered heavy losses, and only a few ships managed to escape.

In the whole historical literature, probably not a single legend was as lucky as the one I cited above. For several centuries, she was believed and repeated in a thousand ways. A number of respectable workers of science have spent a lot of learning and talent to explain, frame this legend and establish it on historical grounds; Let me remind you of the distinguished names of Bayer, Strube, Miller, Tunman, Stritter, Schlozer, Lerberg, Krug, Fren, Butkov, Pogodin and Kunik. In vain did certain opponents appear to them and, with more or less wit, object to their positions; these are: Lomonosov, Tatishchev, Evers, Neiman, Venelin, Kachenovsky, Moroshkin, Saveliev, Nadezhdin, Maksimovich, and others. In the field of Russian historiography, the field has hitherto remained behind the system of Scandinavians; I will name the works of Karamzin, Polevoy, Ustryalov, Herman, Solovyov. I'm not talking about more detailed works that deal with the Norman period and the Scandinavian influence on Russian life. As far as Western literature is concerned, the Scandinavian system reigns there without any opposition; so that if it comes to the Russian state, the beginning of the Russian nationality, then they are inevitably associated with the vocation of the Varangians.
The mere fact that doubts about the truth of the Scandinavian theory and objections to it never ceased among scientists-historians and lovers of history points to its insufficient persuasiveness, to the presence of strains and contradictions in it, to its artificial construction. Indeed, the deeper you delve into this issue, the more the strains and contradictions of the Norman system come out. If it still retains its dominant position, it is mainly due to its external harmony, its positive tone and the relative unity of its defenders; meanwhile, as the opponents dealt blows to her loosely, they hit some individual evidence; but little has been touched upon its most essential basis. This basis is the above legend about the calling of princes. The opponents of the Normanists for the most part believed in the calling or in general in the coming of princes, reduced the question to where these princes came from, and on this occasion built systems even less probable than the Scandinavian. News of Arab Writers.

I will try to show the failure of the Norman system on all of the above points.

5. Brief summary of the history of Ancient Russia

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 Russia 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 Russia, 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 Russia 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, Kyiv, 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 Kyiv pre-Oleg Russia 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 Russia 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 rather 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 very fact, 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 Russia, 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 (which was 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 recorded, while exploring Mecklenburg, a local legend that the prince of the Slavic Obodrich tribe, Godlav, had three sons, Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, went to Russia, 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 Kyiv, 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 Russia. 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 Russia 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 Bohdan Khmelnitsky, for he, appealing to 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 Russia 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 Russia. In the north, the political situation was much simpler: the neighbors of Russia 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. Russia 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 Russia.

If statehood originated in the south earlier than in the north, the line of its development was much more discontinuous. Russia (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 Kyiv. We have evidence that already in the first half of the 7th century. Southern Russia 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 Russia already in certain relations with Byzantium.

Finally, in the first half of the IX century. (839) we find Russia 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 Russia 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 Russia had sufficient autonomy: it fought and concluded peace treaties without involving Khazaria in them at all. Most likely, Russia simply paid off its neighbor, that is, it did what Byzantium and Rome did.

In 860, Russia 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: Russia received a bishop from Byzantium and partially adopted Christianity, a few years later there was already an archbishopric in Russia.

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 Russia, 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 Russia 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 Olga's regency 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. Interestingly, 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 East Slavic tribes more firmly and completely defeated the Khazars. Under him, the borders of Russia 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 Kyiv 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 of the people with 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 betrothed to Yaropolk, made her his wife by force and thereby exacerbated 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 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 Russia was played by Vladimir's adoption of Christianity as the state religion. This step was taken after long weighings, tests of various faiths, and was an exclusively political step that promoted Russia 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 Russia 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 a personal desire of Vladimir, 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 - Russia.

The new religion served as a powerful tool for uniting a diverse 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 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 nations gave Vladimir reason to send special embassies to Constantinople, Rome, Egypt, Jerusalem, Babylon, etc., precisely for the "peeping" of foreign laws, customs, etc., thereby prompted Russia 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 Russia, 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 the mother of Yaroslav, 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. The 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 was sitting in Novgorod was usually a candidate for the throne in Kyiv.

Yaroslav fought quite a lot, but they were for the most part power wars. He almost did not wage external wars of conquest. Under him, Russia 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 Russia.

This is where we will stop the summary for now.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the actual picture of events in Ancient Russia 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 true. 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 Russia. 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. Russia 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 Russia. 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 Russia. Who should do this if not Russian historians and philologists: to fish out at least brief passages about Russia 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, extreme care must be taken, 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 since 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 Russia by itself” does not mean at all “they took all Russia with them”, but “took for themselves”, that is, they divided all Russia among themselves, - after all, in ancient times they said “give a wife after yourself”, what did it mean "to take for oneself"; finally, “Rus was nicknamed from the Varangians” 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, while 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 were generally 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, at least for presenting 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 Russia, about the rights of the Germans to the throne, etc., there is not a word about the foundations of the Norman theory .

Nowhere in Russia did the Scandinavians form separate settlements and there were no Scandinavian groups of women, old people 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 persons 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 Russia, 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 Russia 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 Russia, 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 Novgorodian, but it is in Joachim's record, all the same, other Novgorodian 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” of the Rurik dynasty, obscuring the presence 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 annals 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"), so 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 primitive 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 Russia" - 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 Russia. Until now, Russia has appeared on the arena of history quite unexpectedly, unjustifiably, like a meteor falling from the sky.

In fact, the history of Russia (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 Russia 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 Russia, 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 Russia (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 Russia. No one can say now that defective things were brought from abroad.

It is very likely that already in the time of Rurik in Russia there was a special kind of writing, as evidenced by the birch bark letters of Novgorod, the Vlesov Book and other material monuments.

author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

From the book Ancient Russia through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants (IX-XII centuries); Lecture course author Danilevsky Igor Nikolaevich

Topic 3 ORIGINS OF ANCIENT RUSSIA CULTURE Lecture 7 Pagan traditions and Christianity in Ancient Russia Lecture 8 Ordinary representations of Old Russian

From the book True History of Russia. Notes of an amateur author

About the early history of Ancient Russia 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 V

3. Ancient Russia in the period X - early XII centuries. The adoption of Christianity in Russia. The role of the Church in the life of Ancient Russia 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 Konstantinovich

About the early history of Ancient Russia 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 unknown

8. ACCEPTANCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE BAPTISM OF RUSSIA. CULTURE OF ANCIENT RUSSIA One of the biggest events that had long-term significance for Russia 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 Russia [People and language] author Trubachev Oleg Nikolaevich

From the history of the language of ancient and new Russia 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 Yakovlevich

Significance of the "Vlesovaya Book" for the history of the culture of Ancient Russia The significance of the "Vlesovaya Book" for the history of culture of Ancient Russia 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 authors

Wojciech Krigseizen (Warsaw) Discourses of Catherine II on the history of Ancient Russia On the question of the concept of the second division of the Commonwealth

From the book Complete Works. Volume 10. March-June 1905 author Lenin Vladimir Ilyich

2. 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 Ilyich

II. 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

The 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 Russia. 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 Russia, 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 formation 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 Russia, 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 Russia 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 Russia, 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 activities. 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 Russia 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. Russia 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 Russia an internecine struggle for the Kyiv 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 Russia, 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 Russia 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 underlay the worldview of a person, 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 Russia ... 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 Kyiv 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 Russia along the Dnieper between two capitals, Kyiv 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, Russia flourished at its maximum. The Pechenegs were defeated. Russia 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 Kyiv 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 Russia 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 Russia 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.