11. Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe, Gumilev
Part three. Geography of the Noosphere of the X-XII centuries; - X. The Era of indecision (966-985).
[I don’t feel it necessary to give a summary. The last time I read this book was a year ago, but still the interest level of each chapter holds high.]
57. The dawn of Slavic Westernism
The Slavic ethnic integrity, that was formed during the era of the Great Migration of Peoples, developed almost unhindered until the IX century. The Germans had gone to the west, Byzantium was burning with the internal fire of the struggle of various confessions, the Arab caliphate was far away. Only the Avars were annoying, but their successes were paralyzed by the Slavs of the Samo state. The Hungarians brought great damage to the Western Slavs, but they, like the Avars, became a barrier separating the Slavic lands from Western Europe.
Until the middle of the tenth century, Western Europe did not pose a danger to its eastern neighbors, but, united by the Saxon dynasty, Germany became a powerful and growing power. The German aggression was not only military, the missionary monks were no less active than the knights, and the object of the claims of both was Eastern Europe. Slavic pagans on the Elbe and in Pomerania resisted the Germans vigorously, often going on a counteroffensive, but their eastern neighbors on the Vistula succumbed to the charm of Western culture and after 965 converted to Catholicism. And this meant vassalage from the emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire of the German nation"[1]. This is how Slavic Westernism began.
Neither Slavic nor Scandinavian mythology, despite all their poetry, could resist the strength and conviction of Catholic missionaries. In the ninth century, the Christianization of Denmark and Southern Sweden took place, then in the tenth century a pagan reaction took place in Scandinavia, and finally at the beginning of the eleventh century. under Knud the Great, Catholicism triumphed in Norway. Then the medieval "Christian world" took shape - a superethnos that was in a phase of ascent.
Precisely because Christianity was winning in Scandinavia so slowly and painfully, Sweden and Norway became hotbeds of militant paganism, steadily surviving from their homeland. The Varangians sought to make up for what they had lost at home in a foreign land.
The rival of the West in the struggle for the souls of the Slavs was Byzantium, which was in the inertial phase of ethnogenesis. The rich, educated Byzantium captured the imagination of the Hungarian leaders who were baptized in Constantinople, and the Russian Princess Olga. This goddaughter of Konstantin Porphyrogenitus decided to compare the Western and Eastern confessions. For this purpose, in 959, she appealed to King Otto I of Germany with a request to send a bishop and priests. The Germans were flattered: after all, they were invited by the Queen of Rugs herself (Helena regina rugorum). In 961, Bishop Adalbert and his retinue arrived in Kiev, and already in 962. he left to go back, "without having had time in anything. On the way back, some of his companions were killed, and he himself barely escaped."[2] How did Adalbert annoy the ancient Russ? But he annoyed so much that the Rus rushed to Orthodoxy, for only not to accept Catholicism. For some reason, a protest against Westernism arose in Russia. We will try to figure this out.
Since information about the tenth century is scarce, it is not possible to give an exhaustive historical and cultural synchronic cross-section of 961. But if we take the available information in total, we will get the desired answer.
In the 9th century, the Carolingian emperors received funds for their harsh policies from the Rachdonite Jews, who bought patronage from them. In 828, Louis the Pious gave the Jewish merchants a security certificate that protected their ships from his own officials.[3] And these ships transported Slavic slaves, often Christians. In vain Agobard, Bishop of Lyon, complained that Jews were selling Christian slaves to Spain (Muslims), and the rulers did not put obstacles in their way.[4] Moreover, it was forbidden to baptize slaves held by Jews in order to prevent their liberation with the help of influential churchmen. This is understandable: the Jews paid one-tenth of the profits in favor of the court, and the Christians - one-eleventh. Why were the Germans rooting for the Slavs!
In the power of the Franks, with the victory of Christianity, slavery disappeared and the word "servus" began to mean a serf who could only be sold with his land plot. But the Slavic lands in the IX-X centuries became a source of slaves for Jews, like Africa of the XVII-XIX centuries. As the Carolingian government weakened its forces in the fight against the feudal lords, it expanded the rights of Jews. In the Bavarian-Slavic customs in Passau in 906, Jewish slave traders were equalized in rights with Christian merchants. Slavic boys and girls went from here through Verdun, Lyon and Narbonne to Spain to the Arabs, to replenish harems and servants [5]. Many of these unfortunate people had already been baptized, but the bishops could only redeem them, and, for example, Bishop St. Adalbert complained that he did not have enough money to redeem slaves from even one Jewish merchant.[6]
The same economic policy was pursued by Otto I [7], as a result of which those Slavic countries in which Catholicism triumphed immediately entered the common Western European economic system. No sooner had the Polish king Mieszko (960-992) established the Latin faith in his kingdom, than the Jews had already started trading salt, wheat, furs and Hungarian wine there.[8] Simple-minded Poles hospitably welcomed foreigners, because the nightmare of the Khazar system did not touch them and they could not imagine the consequences of their hospitality. But the people of Kiev, who had time to understand what was what, categorically refused to repeat the Khazar experiment. Therefore, their attention turned to Constantinople.
The Greeks knew how to trade as well as the Jews, but they traded differently. They needed Slavic youths not as slaves, but as warriors, whom it was more convenient to hire than to buy. And the mediation of Jewish merchants in the tenth century was not necessary for them at all, because Byzantium bordered directly on the East. Venice was the western outskirts of Byzantium in the tenth century. Under the pressure of the Constantinople Synclite in 992, Venetian merchants, who received a number of trade privileges, were forbidden not only to take Jews on their ships, but even to import Jewish goods and declare them as their own.[9] It was the finale of the century-old struggle of the Greeks with the Jews for economic dominance in the Mediterranean. The Jews were left with only Western Europe and Fatimid Egypt, because the triumph of the Berbers and Tuaregs in Africa and Spain and the Seljuk Turks in the Near East had a negative impact on European trade. The warlike steppe dwellers did not need luxury and did not respect financial transactions that they simply did not understand. The Eastern Slavs behaved in the same way, knowing that the political tentacles of Byzantium would not reach them. But her culture was charming and accessible.
But not the West, but the North was the most powerful opponent of Byzantine Orthodoxy. Not Slavo-Rosses, but Normans led the struggle against the new worldview and rallied Olga's opponents around themselves. At the head of these principled pagans was the heir to the throne and the winner of the Khazars, Svyatoslav. What could Olga do?
The simplest thing is to go into private life, handing over the fullness of power to her son.[10] But for some reason the opposite happened: the son went to the enemies in distant countries, and the mother headed the government and raised grandchildren who almost never saw their father.
That's what's remarkable. The prince and the pagan squad are on campaigns all the time, the pagan people pay tribute, and the Christian community of Kiev administers the affairs of the country. And since the political forces are equal, both get along with each other. It was against such a formidable background that events unfolded in which a tiny people, the Pechenegs, played a decisive role, appearing in the Black Sea steppes only in 889, i.e. when another drought associated with the transfer of cyclones to the north turned the steppes around the Aral Sea and the lower reaches of the Syr Darya into a desert.[11]
Not all the Pechenegs moved to the west, but only the most passionate part of them. Others stayed on the shores of Lake Chelkar and engaged in sheep farming. These were the "poor Pechenegs"[12], whom the Khazar rulers caught, enslaved and sold to the countries of Islam. But those who went to the west, to the Dnieper and the Danube, managed to put themselves in such a way that they inspired respect from their neighbors.
58. SECTION OF KHAZARIA
The grandiose victory of Svyatoslav saved Kiev and the Russian land, but the situation of the winners was by no means calm. The entire Dnieper left bank was hostile to the Kiev government. The Seversk land, since the VIII century, was connected with Khazaria. In 965, Svyatoslav went to Itil, bypassing the Seversk land, through a country also unfriendly, but less dangerous Vyatichi. Since the turn of Olga's policy towards orientation to Byzantium, the name of Chernigov disappears from the pages of Russian chronicles, which indicates its loss by the Kiev Kaganate. A few years later, the Northerners let the left-bank Pechenegs near Kiev.[13] In short, the rich and warlike Seversk land was independent of Kiev.
Radimichi (Khazaria) fell away, Vyatichi retained independence, Prince Rogvolod in Polotsk was actively hostile[14]. Loyalty to Kiev was maintained only by Novgorod, Smolensk [15], the Drevlyansky lands and the conquered Tivertsy and Ulichi; but the lands of these latter along the Bug and Dniester were interspersed with nomads of the right-bank Pechenegs who inhabited the watershed steppes.
In the west, the borders were less defined, but only in the late X - early XI century. Kievan princes came to the line of the Western Bug [16]. The territory of the former glades went to the Poles and became the core of the emerging Poland. The reunification of the Lyakhs with the Rus as two branches of the Eastern Slavs was prevented by the political conflict of the mid - tenth century.
Svyatoslav's blow to the Jewish community of Khazaria was brutal, but not final. Returning from the Lower Volga via Sarkel, he passed the Kuban and the Crimea, where there were Khazar fortresses that controlled trade with Byzantium, at the expense of which income was received for the maintenance of a small state, the center of which was in 966-986. Darkness of darkness.
According to information reached by Arab authors, the war in the North Caucasus continued as early as 968-969. Ibn-Haukal saw refugees from Khazaria in Gurgan, who told him about the destruction in Itil and Semender, after which the Rus left "for Rum and Andalus"[17]. Those who went to Rum, i.e. Byzantium, apparently joined Svyatoslav's army in Bulgaria and Thrace, and why did another group of Russ go to Spain?
I would venture to assume that some parts of the Rus were dissatisfied with the Kiev government and emigrated along the way they knew to Spain. Back in 844, the Rus landed troops in Andalusia and plundered the environs of Seville, leaving the Arabs with a bad memory. Therefore, in June 971, Ibn al-Idari wrote: "The cursed al-Majus al-Urdmani stirred and rushed to the western shores of al-Andalus"[18]. The Rus this time did not dare to repeat the raid and landed in Galicia in 968, where they plundered Santiago, killed the bishop and only in 971 were driven away by Count Gonzalo Sanchez [19]. They haven't been heard from since. Russia has lost many brave soldiers and has not weakened, but has strengthened, because potential rebels are harmful to any army.
The Kievan state became less mosaic, although it was far from monolithic. However, in 967 [20] Svyatoslav's small army, reinforced by cavalry from Hungarians and Pechenegs, defeated the Bulgarians, and other troops, allegedly summoned from Bulgaria, completed the conquest of the North Caucasus.
The question arises: who defeated the opponents of Russia on the Lower Volga and on the Terek, if Svyatoslav fought on the Danube? - The same Turkic steppe dwellers who were friends of Russia in 967-968. Ibn-Haukal writes that in the Rus' war with the Khazars, the Pechenegs were the "spearhead" and allies of the Rus.[21] And since it is known from Konstantin Porphyrogenitus that Byzantium used the Pechenegs against all its rivals, then, apparently, the "war for the Khazar inheritance" was completed by their hands. And this is logical, because the Pechenegs took advantage of the loot, and the Greeks got rid of the rivalry of the Jews. Therefore, there is no need to assume the existence of two campaigns of the Slavo-Rosses to Khazaria [22] and the repeated destruction of Semender's vineyards.
Of course, not all the details of this war are described exhaustively enough.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the Jewish power in Khazaria was destroyed, that the pagan Khazars converted to Islam, and that the Russ did not make any territorial acquisitions either in the Volga region or on the shores of the Caspian Sea. On the western shore of the Caspian Sea, the emir of Derbent has strengthened, and on the east, up to the mouth of the Volga, the emir of Khorezm has strengthened. Judaism on the Volga disappeared without a trace, giving way to Islam.
59. DEMONS OR GODS
The synchronicity of the ethnogenesis of the Middle East and Eastern Europe in the I-IV centuries, obviously, caused some parallelism in the phenomena of the spiritual life of newborn ethnic groups. In the eastern part of the Roman Empire in the third century two religions competed: Christianity and Mithraism, both equally distant from the original Hellenic cult of the gods of Olympus. Mithraism lost its position as a leading worldview only with the death of Julian the Apostate. The Arian confession of Christianity won the victory. This will be the starting point for further narration.
The history of Eastern Europe is much worse known, but a similar situation is observed there. The Goths, who had been at war throughout the third century with the Illyrian Mithraic emperors, adopted in 360 the Arian confession of Christianity, which then prevailed in the Roman Empire. Apparently, Arianism existed in Eastern Europe until the tenth century, because in the text of the Initial Chronicle, the Creed contains the Arian dogma of subsubstantiality, and not consubstantiality. Even if it is a relic, but its presence suggests that Christians have lived in the Dnieper region since the IV century.
The Nicene confession was spread among the coastal Goths (Tetraxites), Alans, mountaineers of Dagestan and western Khazars. By the tenth century, Christianity was not an innovation for the peoples of Western Eurasia, but one of the usual forms of worldview. But among the Slavs who lived next to the Fraco-Illyrians, there is a worldview as far from Hellenic or Scandinavian polytheism as from Christianity - one of the variants of ancient Mithraism.
Having no need to go into the details of the pagan cult of the Slavs, which would lead us away from the topic, we note that the Slavs had two categories of deities. Some deities personified nature, the second - the souls of ancestors. The former was benevolent, the latter were terrible and malicious; they were called mermaids, but later this word was replaced by the Turkic name "ubur", or ghoul. However, these categories of deities did not struggle with each other; they seemed to exist in parallel.[23] Others fought: Belbog and Chernobog, in which it is not difficult to see analogues of the Tibetan deities of the Bon religion - the eastern version of Mithraism. The god White Light and the demon Long Arms are antagonists against the background of a personalized cosmos.[24] There is no reason to consider this Mithraic model of the world as an ancient, original form of worldview. Mithraism was the same proselytizing religion as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, and could come to the Slavs by preaching. This can be seen from the fact that along with the described pantheon, in the XII century there was a cult of the Genus, Rozhanits, Shchura, although the idea of their role was already almost erased.[25]
So, after the passionate push of the first century, the evolution of worldviews went the same way, but led to different results. In Rome, Christianity overcame Mithraism, Mithraism triumphed among the Slavs, and Christianity huddled on the outskirts of the area, but in the cruel period of fracture in the IX century. it began to spread again in Eastern Europe, although not immediately, because it had a new enemy - Perkunas, or Perun (Scandinavian)[26].
Ancient Christians used to deal with pagan gods, who, with the advent of Christ's preaching, turned into evil and insidious demons. Thus, Apollo, highly revered by the Hellenes, appears in the Apocalypse as the "spirit of the abyss", an analogue of the Jewish Abaddon (Apocalypse IX, II). Therefore, when faced with Perun, Christians quickly determined his place in space. Just as Serapis was destroyed in Egypt at the end of the IV century, and Olympian Zeus was destroyed in Hellas, so it was necessary to put an end to their northern counterpart, Perun, who also demanded bloody sacrifices, preferably people.
At the same time, we must not forget that pagan gods were not considered to be supra-worldly beings, i.e. they were not analogous to the Christian Trinity, the Muslim Allah and even the ancient Persian Ormuzd. No, it was believed that these were living organisms, but more powerful than humans, differently arranged, but commensurate with other organisms inhabiting the Earth. They are simply an order of magnitude more perfect than humans, just as humans are more perfect than ants. This concept was adopted by Christianity already at the end of the second century, and Satan was counted among the beings of this order.
It was hard not to notice that the relationship between God and Satan in the Old and New Testaments is opposite.[27] But the Old Testament concept was closer to the philistine views of late antiquity and therefore was adopted as a basis with the addition of the apocrypha "Revelation of Enoch", dating from 165 BC and containing the doctrine of the devil as an angel who rose up and was cast down from heaven. This by no means Christian concept was accepted without criticism, as it condemned disobedience to the Law, which Jews consider the main sin.
Perun as the Slavic god of thunder and lightning, despite his Baltic name (Perkunas), became known in the VI century.[28], but at first behaved quietly, like his German counterpart Donar (Tor), who specialized in blacksmithing and household management. The war of the ancient Germans was led by Wotan (in Scandinavia - One) and Tiu, the second son of Wotan [29]. They were not analogs of Perun.
But as soon as the passionate impulse passed through Scandinavia, and the genetic drift transferred the irrepressibility and thirst for glory to the southern shore of the Baltic Sea, the image of the ancient deity changed. In the IX century. Perun became cruel, bloodthirsty and belligerent. Its Western counterpart Svyatovit on the island of Ruge (Rugen) demanded the blood of Danish and German prisoners as a sacrifice. Eastern Perun began to do the same. And even more: when there was a shortage of prisoners, he took the blood of his own, selected by lot [30].
For the southern Slavs, accustomed to the Mithraic mysteries and Christian mass, these mores seemed monstrous, and the northern princes and Varangians were losing popularity in the capital, where their gods were called demons [31]. The collision of the Roman Empire of the IV century was repeated with no less acuteness in Russia of the X century and had a similar result - the triumph of Christianity.
So, there was no unity in Russia liberated by Svyatoslav. The war, bloodless or bloody, was not so much on the borders as in the capital city and even above it - in the sky. We can judge about the latter only by its earthly manifestations, but this is quite a lot. The priests of Perun, Latin prelates, and Greek monks encroached on the souls of the Kiev Slavs-Rosses. The appearance of Muslim mullahs was not excluded, but it did not come to that. But there were no representatives of anti-systems, although a sad and hungry spirit, Satan, roamed the scorched fields of Lombardy, the sands of the Sahara and Arabia, the mountain gorges of Iran and the Pamirs, and in the East, he even visited Ordos, calling himself "infinite light" [32]. But neither in Russia nor in Siberia in the tenth century, the Devil did not appear. It was a direct merit of Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich.
However, this prince, having won a brilliant victory, did not give his people a positive program. And the programs were immediately offered by representatives of rival religions. However, there was a certain difficulty in this propaganda.
The choice of faith did not entail material benefits that were obtained in other ways. It was a matter of conscience, and at the level of an ethnic group, conscience is an indicator of ethnic compatibility. They choose to be friends with those who are cute, and you can talk about business without intimacy.
Therefore, along with the active trade between Kiev and Constantinople, the security of which was ensured by the political union of both powers, there was no reason for confessional intolerance, much less religious persecution. This tolerance of the Slavo-Rosses was based on the widespread concept of genotheism at that time, according to which each nation (ethnic group) honors its god and does not allow outsiders to the cult. The pagans could only be shocked by the desire of proselytizing religions to expand. Olga had to hide her baptism, but nevertheless the number of Christians in Kiev grew, especially after the victory over Khazaria.
Of course, Christians were not inert, but passionate Kievans, because they willingly replenished Svyatoslav's army, to the point that Orthodox priests openly served mass in it. The prince did not particularly care about this, because the Byzantine Greeks were still his friends. The victim of the Greek-Russian alliance was supposed to be weakened Bulgaria, which had been a rival of Byzantium for 300 years.
60. ALIGNMENT OF FORCES
It was suggested that it would be beneficial for Svyatoslav to convert to Islam in order to keep the Caspian regions. This is hardly true. You can rely only on a strong ally, and in the 60s of the tenth century, the Baghdad caliph lost all positions inside his country due to the fall of provinces and the growth of Shiite movements that drew strength from the regional separatism of Iran, Africa and even Arabia itself, captured by the Karmats. Reliable friends could not be found in the East. There were none in the West. The Hungarians suffered a crushing defeat from the Germans at Lech in 955. Bulgaria weakened after the death of Tsar Simeon, as it was gnawed by the indestructible anti-system of theology. Friendship with the German king and the German emperor Otto did not promise any benefits, as the example of the Western Slavs clearly showed, and Sweden was shocked by the bloody conversion to Catholicism, which the Swedes resisted as best they could.
But heroic Russia, surrounded on all sides by enemies, was in great need of a reliable ally. Russians, after all, did not win the victory over the Rakhdonites, it was given thanks to a lucky coincidence and showed not the strength of the Russian Land, but the courage and talent of the bearers of Russian weapons. The Rakhdonite Jews still had a chance for revenge. In Kiev, they could not have been unaware of this. Since the Russians had nothing to buy friends with, they had to look for those who would be sincere and interested in reciprocity. Therefore, Princess Olga sent Russian knights to the Greeks. And there, fighting hand in hand, they returned Crete to Byzantium, which put an end to Arab-Berber piracy in the Aegean Sea. The union was beneficial to the Rus themselves.
In the 60s of the X century the strongest power was Byzantium. Its population consisted of 20-24 million [33] brave inhabitants, organized on the basis of a centuries-old tradition and managed from one center - the Constantinople Synclite. However, the abundance of enemies deprived Byzantium of the opportunity to take the initiative: all the time it was necessary to defend or recover losses. In the east, Byzantium returned Asia Minor, Northern Mesopotamia, Syria, Crete and Cyprus, in the north it repelled the onslaught of the Bulgarians; In the west, having lost Sicily, she retained Southern Italy, where she faced the German emperor Otto I, whose claims were unsuccessful. It is clear that in such a tense situation, there were not enough forces for an active policy in the Black Sea region. It was not the army that decided everything here, but diplomacy and partly ethnic contact.
Chersonesos was a rich and free-loving city. Its inhabitants, upon the arrival of the Pechenegs in the Western European steppe, established good relations with them. They gave the Pechenegs purple, delicacies, rare cloths, pepper, leopard skins and other luxury items, and the Pechenegs rendered various services to the Chersonites, which fully recouped the cost of gifts: "When the Roman Emperor is in alliance with the Pechenegs, neither the Rosses nor the Turks (Hungarians. - L. G.) can go to war on The Roman empire and also cannot demand large and excessive money for the preservation of peace... fearing that if they (the Greeks. - L.G.) will go to war on the Romans, then... The Pechenegs, being bound by friendship with the emperor and obeying his messages and gifts, can easily attack the land of the Rosses and Turks, enslave their wives and children and devastate their country." The same applies to Bulgarians, who "use a lot of effort and labor to be in peace and harmony with the Pechenegs"[34]. But on the other hand, the Guzs who lived on Yaik "can fight the Pechenegs"[35].
The Pechenegs themselves avoided wars with their neighbors, especially with the Rosses, because they preferred to sell them cattle.[36] But the desire to preserve friendship with the Greeks forced them to seek contacts with the Orthodox, and not with the pagan Rosses, friends of the Normans. This was how the balance of power was achieved, which ensured several years of peace, which then led to a brutal war. However, the reason for this war was not on the northern, but on the southern shore of the Black Sea.
Nikephoros II Phokas achieved power through a coup. He was supported by the dowager Empress - the beautiful Theophano, who was looking for a second husband, in the synclite and the common people of Constantinople. But soon the emperor began to lose popularity, as he sought to defend the borders of the empire, and it cost money. Regularly paying salaries to soldiers, Nikephoros reduced other expenses: he cut the salaries of senior officials, increased the duties of peasants, patronized the poor Athos clergy at the expense of rich monasteries and bishops. The price of bread in the capital has increased 8 times. The discontent of the population was growing, and this is the most convenient time for ambitious people, there was no shortage of them in the Byzantine Empire.
It would seem that the regime based on the army, or rather, on its best part - heavily armed cavalry, is unshakable. The army can only be opposed by another army, and this was done by someone "cunning and audacious Kalokir, the son of the head of the Kherson garrison"[37].
61. WHAT CAN ONE PERSON DO
The friendship between Kiev and Constantinople established by Princess Olga was useful for both sides. Back in 949, 600 Russian soldiers participated in the landing on Crete, and in 962 the Rus fought with the Greek troops in Syria against the Arabs. There Kalokir, who served in the troops of his country, became friends with them; and there he learned Russian from his comrades.[38]
The inhabitants of Chersonesos have long been famous for their love of freedom, which was expressed in eternal quarrels with the authorities. Scolding the Constantinople government was a sign of good taste among them and, perhaps, entered into a stereotype of behavior. But neither Chersonesos could live without the metropolis, nor Constantinople - without its Crimean outpost, from where grain, dried fish, honey, wax and other colonial goods were transported to the capital. Residents of both cities got used to each other and did not pay attention to the little things. Therefore, when Nikifor Foka needed a sensible diplomat with knowledge of the Russian language, he gave Kalokir the dignity of a patrician and sent him to Kiev.
This need arose due to the fact that in 966 Nikephoros Phokas decided to stop paying tribute to the Bulgarians, which Byzantium undertook to pay under the treaty of 927, and instead demanded that the Bulgarians not let the Hungarians through the Danube to plunder the provinces of the empire. The Bulgarian tsar Peter objected that he had made peace with the Hungarians and could not break it. Nikifor considered this a challenge and sent Kalokir to Kiev, giving him 15 centinarii of gold so that he would encourage the Rus to raid Bulgaria and thereby force her to comply. In Kiev, the offer could not have been more appropriate. Svyatoslav and his pagan companions have just returned from a campaign against Vyatichi. Here again there was an opportunity to fuse it for a while. Olga's government was delighted.
Prince Svyatoslav was also pleased, because there were Christians in power in Kiev, who were not at all sympathetic to him. He felt much better on the outskirt campaigns. Therefore, in the spring of 968, Russian boats sailed to the mouth of the Danube and defeated the Bulgarians who were not expecting an attack. There were few Russian soldiers - about 8-10 thousand [39], but the Pecheneg cavalry came to their aid. In August of the same year, the Rus defeated the Bulgarians near Dorostol. Tsar Peter died, and Svyatoslav occupied Bulgaria up to Philippol. This was accomplished with the full approval of the Greeks who traded with Russia. Back in July 968 Russian ships were in the harbor of Constantinople.
For the winter of 968/969 everything has changed. Kalokir persuaded Svyatoslav, who settled in Pereyaslavets, or Little Preslav, on the banks of the Vrana River,[40] to put him on the throne of Byzantium. The chances for this were: Nikephoros Phokas was disliked, the Russ were brave, and the main forces of the regular army were far away in Syria, and were connected by a tense war with the Arabs. After all, the Bulgarians managed to introduce the noseless Justinian II into the Blachernae Palace in 703 in a less favorable situation! So why not take a chance? [41]
And Svyatoslav thought about the pointlessness of returning to Kiev, where his Christian enemies would at best have sent him somewhere else. Bulgaria was adjacent to the Russian land - the territory of the streets. The annexation of Eastern Bulgaria to Russia, which overlooked the Black Sea, gave the pagan prince a territory where he could be independent of his mother and her advisers.
Now let's weigh the prospects of all participants in the impending tragedy. Svyatoslav appears in this collision not as a Viking thug, but as a sober and prudent politician who decided to move the capital to a convenient place for himself. The same thing was done 730 years later by Peter I with great success, but also with great expenditure of sweat and blood.
The economic possibilities of the region were carefully weighed: it was easy to bring fabrics, gold jewelry, fruits and wine from Thrace, silver from the Czech Republic, horses from Hungary, furs, honey and slaves from Russia. In short, there was something to feed the squad. Of course, a clash with Byzantium was not part of the plans of the Russian prince, but after all, he did not encroach on Greek lands; he occupied only a piece of Bulgaria, the enemy of Byzantium. Of course, it was necessary to foresee that Nikephoros Phokas would not reconcile himself to the seizure of the Rus, but for this Svyatoslav had a Kalokir, who, if he sat on the throne, would thank the prince of Kiev. And Kalokir's conscience was clear, because thanks to him, Byzantium would have regained the lands that the Bulgarians had torn away from it in the VII century, would have gotten rid of the cruel Phocas and strengthened friendship with Russia. The emperor, the Bulgarian tsarevichs Boris and Roman Petrovich and the Orthodox party in Kiev were to suffer during the implementation of this plan.
Nikifor Foka was not asleep either. He received information about the plot and immediately took action. In the autumn of 968, arrow-throwing machines were installed on the walls of Constantinople, and the entrance to the harbor was blocked by a chain. The Greek ambassadors offered the Bulgarian princesses a marriage alliance with the sons of the late Emperor Roman Vasily and Konstantin, and along the way they made military intelligence and promised the Bulgarian nobles help to expel the Rus. Further, since the Hungarians and the right-bank Pechenegs were part of Svyatoslav's troops, the Greek agents prompted the left-bank Pechenegs to raid Kiev. And all these enterprises, not needed by either the Greeks, nor the Rus, nor the Bulgarians, became inevitable because of Kalokir's claims.
62. THE AVALANCHE ROLLED
In the spring of 969, the left-bank Pechenegs besieged Kiev. For Olga and the people of Kiev, this was completely unexpected, because the reason for the violation of the peace was unknown to them. Kiev was in a desperate situation, and the troops that Voivode Pretich brought to the rescue of the elderly princess on the left bank were clearly not enough to repel the enemy. But when the Pecheneg leader entered into negotiations with Pretich, it turned out that the war was based on a misunderstanding. The Princess's party did not even think of war with Byzantium, and "retreated [42] Pechenezi from the hail," otherwise it was impossible even to water the horses in the Lybedi river. After this successful outcome, Olga recalled her son from Bulgaria. He, having put his army on horses, returned to Kiev; during this time the Pechenegs went to the steppe, and "there was peace" [43].
However, Svyatoslav was uncomfortable in Kiev. Nestor attributes this to his quarrelsome nature, but one must think that the situation was much more tragic.
On July 11, Olga died and was buried according to the Orthodox rite, and her grave was not marked, although "... people weep great for her." In other words, Olga behaved like a secret Christian, and there were many Christians and pagans in Kiev. Passions were heating up.
What Svyatoslav did after his mother's death, the chronicle does not report, or rather, it is silent. But from the subsequent events it is obvious that Svyatoslav did not just leave Kiev, but was forced to leave it and go to the Danube occupation army, which was commanded by his faithful companions: Sfenkel, Ikmor, Sveneld. The names are not Slavic and not Christian, therefore, Rossomonsky. This indicates which of the ethnic components of Russia supported the pagan prince.
Olga's grandchildren were placed on the princely tables: Yaropolk - in Kiev, Oleg - in the Drevlyansky land, and Vladimir, the son of the housekeeper Malusha, captured during the conquest of the Drevlyans, - in Novgorod, because no one wanted to go there because of the violent temper of the Novgorodians. But there was no place for Svyatoslav himself on his native land. This is not speculation. If Svyatoslav in July 969 was going to fight the Greeks, he would not have lost pace. If he had felt solid ground under his feet, he would have returned the army from Bulgaria. But he did neither... and a series of losses began.
Empress Theophano fell in love with the handsome John Tzimiskes. On the night of December 10-11, the conspirators, with the help of the Empress's servants, entered the palace and brutally murdered Nikephoros Phokas; Tzimiski, becoming emperor, exiled Theophano, who risked everything for him, and Nikephoros' direct murderers, distributed his huge fortune to the surrounding farmers and lepers, entertained the people with holidays and removed the followers of Phokas from their posts. The main trump cards of Kalokir and Svyatoslav were knocked out.
Svyatoslav transferred to Thrace a detachment of allies - Hungarians and Bulgarians [44]. The commander of Tzimiskia, Varda Sklir defeated this detachment at Arkadiopolis, after which the Hungarians went home, and the Bulgarians were disappointed in the Rus. Nevertheless, in the winter of 970/971 Svyatoslav sent a detachment to Macedonia, apparently in order to gain a foothold for the supporters of Kalokir. But there were none. Worse, incited by Greek emissaries, the Bulgarians rebelled against the Rus. Svyatoslav had to take Pereyaslavets again, where he left a detachment led by Sphenkel, Kalokir and Tsarevich Boris, and himself in the lower reaches of the Danube fortified the city of Dorostol, which lay on the border of Bulgaria with the land of Ulich.
Svyatoslav's new plan was quite real. Having lost hope of holding all of Bulgaria and ensuring the victory of Kalokir, he decided to gain a foothold at the mouth of the Danube, on the outskirts of Russia, where he could become independent from the Kievans. If Bulgaria had been restored as an independent kingdom, reflecting the onslaught of the Greeks, then the mouth of the Danube would have remained behind pagan Russia. For this, Svyatoslav entered into negotiations with Tzimiskes, which he conducted in a threatening tone, demanding, as was then customary, tribute. But John Tzimiski was an experienced diplomat and the first commander of his time. He lulled the vigilance of the Russian prince with negotiations that took the whole winter, and in the spring of 971 he began the campaign quite unexpectedly for Svyatoslav. 300 Greek ships with flamethrower machines entered the Danube, and the land army - 15 thousand infantry and 13 thousand horsemen - passed through the narrows not guarded by the Rus in the Balkans and besieged Pereyaslavets. On the third day of the assault, the fortress fell. A small part of the Rus, led by Sphenkel, broke through and went to join the main forces. Kalokir also left with them. Tsarevich Boris surrendered to the Greeks. Tzimisces celebrated Easter in the conquered city.
After that, the whole of Bulgaria rebelled against Svyatoslav, who, for lack of cavalry, could only lock himself in Dorostol. The Greeks surrounded the Rus from the land and from the Danube, but the Rus fought so desperately that only the attack of the armored cavalry saved Tzimisces from defeat. Finally, hunger and losses forced Svyatoslav to make peace for the free passage of Russian rooks from the blocked Danube and the delivery of food to the starving garrison. In August 971, the Russ left Bulgaria.
63. COMMENT
Emotions in science generate mistakes. There is, and has already become generally accepted, the assumption that Tzimisky, having released the Rus from Dorostol, agreed with the Pechenegs on their subsequent extermination. This opinion seems to be biased. Why was it necessary to spend gold on bribing nomads when a squadron of 300 ships with flamethrowers could burn the wooden boats of wounded Rus on the way from the mouth of the Danube to the Dnieper estuary. Cheaper and more radical!
Then, how could the Pechenegs from the autumn of 971 to the spring of 972 abandon cattle grazing, nomadism, hay harvesting and other urgent matters, just to guard the Russian detachment? Well, if the Russ had gone to Kiev on horseback along the Bug Valley, i.e. through the lands of the Tivertsy, then all the waiting would have been in vain.
And finally, Kedren and Zonara report that Tzimiski, striving for a speedy peace, offered the Pechenegs an alliance with Byzantium if they promise not to cross the Istria (Danube), not to ruin Bulgaria, which became a Byzantine province, and "allow the Rus to pass through their land to their homeland." The Pechenegs agreed to everything except the last one, since "they were bitter against the Rus for making peace with the Romans"[45]. No, the Pechenegs don't look like greedy savages selling their services for handouts. It is clear that they had their own political goals, which are not yet clear to us, but may be clarified later. Therefore, having saved Tzimiskes from the unfounded accusation of Svyatoslav's betrayal, let us turn to the consideration of those facts that our predecessors did not pay attention to, and those connections that, due to the lack of accounting of facts, remained unnoticed.
The Pechenegs were weak compared to the Rus. Their federation, spread over a large territory, was virtually defenseless against the regular troops of Byzantium and against the squads of the Kiev princes. Wandering in the steppes, the Pechenegs did not interrupt the communication of the Rus with their Black Sea possessions and did not disrupt trade with the Greeks.[46]
Moreover, in 969 Ibn-Haukal wrote that the Pechenegs are the "spearhead" and allies of the Rus. And the union of the Pechenegs with the Greeks was described by Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. Therefore, the reason for the bitterness of the Pechenegs against Svyatoslav, and not against the Rus, should be sought in the nearest major center - Kiev.
It has already been noted that the attitude of the people of Kiev to Svyatoslav was ambivalent. On the one hand, he is a prince, a hero, and on the other... Here are some quotes from the chronicles: "If you wish, destroy your own" (The Uvarov Chronicle); "Looking for Chuzhikh, destroy your own" (Ermolinskaya); "We feel more than strength, and destroy our own Si for his great lack of satiety" (Lviv); and finally, the reproach thrown to Svyatoslav by the people of Kiev: "You, prince, are looking for someone else's land and are looking for your own, but you are saving your own" [47]. That's where Svyatoslav's true enemies were, and not in Constantinople, as the late admirers of this imposing prince would like to think.[48] And I must say that many Kievans who prospered under the wise Princess Olga had enough grounds for a negative attitude towards her son. They knew him too well.
64. THE EXPLOSION OF DARKNESS
In the last days of fighting at the walls of Dorostol, after the brave knight Ikmor died and the hope of victory was lost, the Russ went out at midnight with a full moon on the bank of the Danube. First, they collected the bodies of the fallen fighters and burned them at the stake, and then, performing the massacre, put to death many prisoners and captives. But the most original thing was that they drowned infants and roosters in the waters of the Danube.[49] This was how sacrifices were made to evil gods, to Perun.
Even more terrible scenes took place in the White Coast (Berezan Island) after returning from Bulgaria. The prince and his pagan nobles attributed the blame for the defeat inflicted on their co-religionists to the Russian Christians who fought in the same army, explaining it by the anger of the gods against Christians. Svyatoslav tortured his brother Uleb (Gleb) to death, and his soldiers did the same to their comrades who suffered from wounds and needed a doctor, not an executioner. The priests who were in the Russian army for the parting words of the Orthodox Rus had a particularly bad time.
Before 971 Svyatoslav was tolerant and generous. After the defeat, the noble character of the prince changed polar, perhaps due to a mental shock caused by disappointment and regret for mistakes that were irreparable. Even his intellect betrayed him: he sent an order to Kiev to burn churches and promised to "ruin" all Russian Christians upon his return.[50]
With this statement, Svyatoslav signed his sentence. The surviving Christians and voivode Sveneld fled across the steppe to Kiev. The Pechenegs missed them. But when in the spring of 972 Svyatoslav with faithful pagan warriors went by the river route, the Pechenegs attacked him at the rapids and exterminated the entire Russian detachment.
The version proposed here is preferable to the one contained in the "Tale of Bygone Years". Nestor does not explain why Svyatoslav's army, suffering from hunger in the White Bank, was not helped by the Kievans, although the steppe path along the Bug was open. Someone had to inform the Pechenegs about the time of Svyatoslav's passage through the rapids, otherwise they would not have been able to gather there in sufficient numbers. And it could not be "Pereyaslavians", i.e. Bulgarians from Preslav, since they could not have such information, because their country was occupied by the Greeks. But the people of Kiev were extremely interested that the distraught prince with the brutal soldiers did not come home to them. And it was easy for them to communicate with the Pechenegs, especially since the voivode Pretich exchanged weapons with the Pecheneg leader, maybe with the Kurei himself or with one of his henchmen.
Then Nestor reports that the Russ in the White Coast bought horse meat at "half a hryvnia for a horse's head." Who could sell them horsemeat, except the Pechenegs? And if so, then Svyatoslav's conflict with the Chicken did not arise immediately, but after something that Nestor is silent about. In short, the version of The Tale of Bygone Years is full of insoluble contradictions, which contradictions Joachim's version lacks, which also explained the further collisions. The end of the hopes of Old Slavic paganism is also connected with the death of Svyatoslav and his squad. It seems strange: the whole country and most of the people of Kiev remained pagan; so why can we draw such a conclusion? Because the most passionate part of the zealots of the ancient faith rallied around Svyatoslav. Their death meant the loss of the initiative, intercepted by the Kiev Christians - the entourage of Prince Yaropolk. Slavic paganism tried several more times to regain its lost positions, but in vain. In a rudimentary form, it survived until the XX century. - pancakes for Shrovetide, fortune-telling, fear of dark rooms, etc., but for ethnogenesis it no longer mattered.
And now let's think about what could have happened if Svyatoslav had defeated the Kievans. Apparently, Kiev would have turned from a rich and cultured city into a robber knight's castle like Branny Bor (now Brandenburg) or a pirate base with a cult of Svyatovit, as it was on the island of Ruge. But then the Russ would have suffered the fate of the Luthiers, Bodrichs and Pomorians, who spent their passion fund in constant wars with their neighbors. For these brave Slavs, not only the Germans and Danes, but all the neighbors were enemies, and you can't live without friends.
Of course, friends should be able to choose, but even here for Svyatoslav there was only a choice between Orthodoxy and Islam, because the Catholicism of Kiev was firmly rejected, and the hope for Perun led to defeat. However, the countries of Islam in 970-972 were experiencing a severe crisis. In 969, the caliph of Baghdad lost Egypt, captured by the Fatimids,[51] and after that Syria and Northern Mesopotamia, returned by Byzantium. The Caliph himself needed help and was not suitable as an ally.
At the same time, Russia needed unification. The phase of the breakdown of the passionate tension turned out to be associated with an alien invasion, which claimed more lives than it could have been under other circumstances. But Russia had enough vitality to recover. It was only necessary to decide how this should be done. Here, as often happened in Russia, there was no consensus.
65. CREATING AN EMPIRE
Once in a dead end, the most reasonable thing is to return to the fork and move another way. Here the conflict with Byzantium turned out to be a dead end, and its consequence was the polarization of Orthodoxy and militant paganism, displaced by victorious Catholicism from Sweden and Denmark to the east. Therefore, there was no peace in Russia, no single-mindedness, no common ideal of the future.
From 977 to 980, the Russian land, from Ladoga to Kiev, did not know peace. And it was not in the personalities of the princes that was the cause of the disorder. The princes were young men, behind whom stood experienced men, warriors and politicians. Those who swore by the name of Yaropolk were supporters of peace with Byzantium, alliance with the Pechenegs and the spread of Orthodoxy. This party was supported by the people of Kiev; harsh border guards, hardened in wars with the Yatvyags, residents of Polotsk and Turov, leaned to its side.
They were opposed by the Novgorodians, who used for their own purposes the young Vladimir, the son of Svyatoslav and the Drevlyanka Malusha. There was a lot of money in Novgorod, which means it was possible to hire Varangians. The bad thing was that together with the Varangians, very evil gods came to Russia, for example, the Lithuanian Perun (Perkunas), and demanded human sacrifices, promising victory for this. The evil gods fulfilled their promise by organizing a betrayal in the fortress of Rodne in 980. Prince Yaropolk was stabbed during negotiations with Vladimir, and the latter became a prince in Kiev. But betrayal is an exciting activity. Vladimir betrayed the Varangians, did not pay them for their service and drove them to the Greek land, sending a warning there that these robbers should be dispersed into detachments, otherwise they would cause trouble there.
Vladimir's act was treachery in relation to the Varangians, but only after him did the people of Kiev agree to recognize Vladimir as a prince and helped him to repeat (once again!) the conquest of the Slavic tribes: the Chervensky cities - in 981, the Vyatichi - in 981-982, the Yatvyags - in 983, the Radimichi - in 984. And in 985, a great war began with the Kama Bulgarians and Khazars [52].
The war with the Kama Bulgarians, despite the support of a mounted detachment of Guzs (Torks), was unsuccessful. After the "victory", the head of the campaign, Vladimir's maternal uncle, Dobrynya, made a strange decision: the Bulgarians, shod in boots, will not give tribute; we must look for lapotnikov. Eternal peace was concluded with the Bulgars, i.e. the government of Vladimir recognized the independence of Kama Bulgaria.
But the war with Khazaria ended in victory. Jacob Mnich (mentioned in the chronicle under 1074) wrote: "And shed on the goats, win, and put a tribute on them"[53]. The same event is reported by Mukadassi, who finished his work in 988-989. Russian Khazaria was occupied by the troops of Khorezm Shah Mamun that year, and since there was no clash of the Khorezmians with the Russians, it should be assumed that the victim of Vladimir was the remnant of the former Judeo-Khazar power, after which in 988, Temutarakan turned into a Russian city - the residence of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich [54]. Mstislav was less than six years old when he entered the reign, but the age of the prince did not matter. The prince in this era is only a representative, and there have always been true rulers, only their names have remained unknown to history.
The proposed version differs from the one adopted by M.I. Artamonov, but it explains the subsequent relations between Russia and Derbent and the sea campaigns of the Russ to Shirvan in 1030 and 1032, which could not have been realized if the Russ did not own the North Caucasus, because the lower reaches of the Volga belonged first to the Khorezmians, and then to the Guzes. Obviously, the Russian troops got to the Caspian Sea through the Kuban and Terek, based in the darkness of Tarakan.
If the population of Prikuban - kasogi (Circassians) - behaved quite independently, which caused Mstislav's clash with Prince Ridade [55] and their famous duel mentioned in the "Word about Igor's Regiment", then the Terek Khazars behaved quietly. Semender was ravaged by the soldiers of Svyatoslav, and "in any of the gardens and vineyards there was no alms left for the poor... there were no grapes, no raisins"[56]. This defeat was supposed to harden the Khazars against the Rus, and probably it did, but at the end of the tenth century. the situation in Russia changed radically, and with it the mood of the Terek Khazars could not but change. As soon as Russia became a Christian country, it ceased to be an enemy for the Orthodox Khazars of the Semender neighborhood. In the tenth century, confessional differences were more important than ethnic ones, because they determined belonging to one or another superethnos. And inside the superethnos, it was always possible to negotiate.
That is why the choice of confession was so important at that time, but it would be wrong to think that this choice was determined only by political or economic calculations. No, it was impossible to force people to accept the religion of the enemy, as well as to refrain from assimilating the faith of a friend. In other words, the principle of complementarity, which is an order of magnitude higher than the conscious decisions of princes and kings, played a decisive role in the adoption of the new faith. The choice that is free at the organizational (personal) level, at the population (ethnic) level is determined by the nature of the mental warehouse, traditions, memory of historical events of the recent past and the level of passionate tension of the system, and the latter depends on the phase of ethnogenesis or ethnic age.
And if so, then the question of the baptism of Russia in 986-989 is not limited to mentioning "nearby" events, but can be resolved only by a broad comparison of the characteristics of the four world religions: Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Judaism and Islam - and the fifth - the renewed Baltic-Scandinavian cult of Perun - against the background of departing pagan worldviews. In the second half of the tenth century. in Western Eurasia, there was a struggle not for land, not for wealth, not for political power, but for the souls of Slavs and Turks. And the result of this struggle determined the fate of the peoples of Eastern Europe and the Great Steppe for half a millennium ahead.
And since theological and philosophical disputes do not relate to physical geography, but to the history of culture, in order to clarify their role and significance, it is necessary to apply a different methodology based on the 3rd biogeochemical principle of V.I. Vernadsky: "Mind is not a form of energy, but produces actions that seem to respond to it"[57]. This is a paradox, but its validity will be seen from the analysis of theological problems related to the fact of the baptism of Russia.
NOTES:
[1] The official name of the empire founded by Charlemagne in 800 is Saneta Imperia Romana Hermanonim.
[2] Cit. by: Priselkov M.D. Essays on the church-political history of Kievan Rus of the X-XII centuries. St. Petersburg, 1913. pp. 12-13.
[3] See: Schipper And. The emergence of capitalism among the Jews of Western Europe (until the end of the XII century). St. Petersburg, 1910. p. 22.
[4] Agobardus. De insolenlia Judaeorum (cit. by. Schipper. I. Decree.op.C. 22).
[5] See: Schipper I. Decree. op. p. 26.
[6] See ibid.
[7] Archive of Marx and Engels. T. V. S. 65.
[8] See: Schipper I. Decree. op. p. 26.
[9] Ibid. p. 27.
[10] M.D. Priselkov (Decree. op. p. 14) believes that this was the case. A detailed analysis of the events shows that it was the opposite.
[11] See: Gumilev L.N. The origins of the rhythm of the nomadic culture of Central Asia. pp. 85-94.
[12] For an analysis of information about the Pechenegs, see: Artamonov M.I. History of the Khazars. pp. 350-352.
[13] See: Shevchenko Yu.Yu.Decree.soc.P.51.
[14] See: Alekseev L.V. Polotsk land//Ancient Russian principalities of the X-XH centuries. p. 218.
[15] See: Sedov V.V. Smolenskaya zemlya //Ibid.p.249.
[16] See: Tolochko P.P. Kiev land //Ibid.p.10.
[17] See: Pashuto V.T.Decree.soc.P.95.
[18] Ibid. p. 140.
[19] See: Muller A. History of Islam. Vol. IV. St. Petersburg, 1896. p. 109; Weber G. Universal History. Vol. IV. M., 1893. p. 500.
[20] Chronicle under 6475 (967) (see: Rybakov B.L. Kievan Rus and the Russian Principalities. Moscow, 1982. p. 378: criticism of the text and interpretation of the date: p. 380).
[21] See: Minorsky V.F. Where did the ancient Russ go?//Oriental sources on the history of the peoples of Eastern Europe / Edited by L.S. Tveretinova. M., 1964. p. 26.
[22] See; Moshin V. Rus and Khazaria under Svyatoslav//Seminarium Kondakowianum. T.IV. Praha. P. 193- 195; Pashuto V.T. Decree. op. P.95 (paragraph written by A.P.Novoseltsev); Kalinina T.M. Ibn-Haukal's information about the campaigns of Russia in the time of Svyatoslav// The oldest states on the territory of the USSR: Materials and research. 1975.M., 1976. pp.92-98. For criticism of the stated point of view, see: Sakharov A.P. Diplomacy of Svyatoslav. pp. 45-48.
[23] See: Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus//The history of the USSR from ancient times to the present day. T. I. S. 502-503.
[24] See: Gumilev L.N., Kuznetsov B.I. Bon//Reports of the VGO. Issue 15. L., 1970. pp. 72-90; Gumilev L.N. History of discovery by art//Staroburyatskaya painting. M., 1975. pp. 19-24.
[25] See: Komarovich V.L. The Cult of the Year and the Earth in the princely environment of the XI- XIII centuries. //TODRL. T.XVI. M.:L., 1960. pp.94-104.
[26] See: Anichkov E.V. Paganism and Ancient Rus. SPb., 1913.P.319; Rybakov B.A. Paganism of the ancient Slavs. Moscow, 1981.P.19-20.
[27] Cf.: "And there was a day when the sons of God came to appear before the Lord, Satan also came among them..." (Job 1, 6), and then their conversation follows, after which an experiment is performed on Job. And Jesus Christ in a similar situation said: "... get away from Me, Satan" (Mt. 4, 10). The devil is gone! Where to? Apparently, "into outer darkness" (Mt. 8, 12), which physicists of the XX century call a vacuum. In the same place, according to the word of Jesus Christ, the "sons of the kingdom" will be cast out (ibid.). Which one? Presumably, the Hasmonean kingdom of Judea. i.e., the bearers of tradition.
[28] See: PVL.Ch.II. pp.324-325.
[29] Weber G. Decree. Op. Vol. IV. pp. 136-137.
[30] See: PVL. Ch. 1. pp. 58-59 (under 983).
[31] It should be remembered that "paganism" (literally - tribal cults) is not something as a whole. These cults differ from each other no less, and often more, than monotheistic world religions, which is why the ancient question is legitimate: "Which god do you believe in?", followed by the second question: "What do you believe in?" - orthodox or heretical?
[32] See: Gumilev L.N. Staroburyatskaya painting. M., 1975.pp.40-43.
[33] See: Litavrin G.G. Byzantine society and the state in the X-XI centuries, Moscow, 1977 - pp. 160-161.For comparison, I present demographic data for 1000 c.. (see: Urlanis B.Ts. Population growth in Europe. M., 1941): France - 9 million (p. 37); Italy - 5 million; Sicily - 2 million (p. 64-65). Kievan Rus - 5.36 million (p. 89; in 970 there was less than half of this); Poland, Lithuania, Estonians - 1.6 million (p. 89); Steppe, from the Don to the Carpathians,-0.48 million (p. 89); England in 1086 - 1.7 million (p. 52).
[34] Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. "About the Femes" and "About the peoples". pp. 67-68.
[35] Ibid., p. 75.
[36] Ibid., p. 66.
[37] Leo the Deacon. Book IV. pp. 61-63; cit. by: Chertkov A. Description of the war of the Grand Duke Svyatoslav Igorevich against the Bulgarians and Greeks. M. 1843.
[38] See: Chertkov A. Decree. op. p. 155.
[39] See: ibid.169-170; PVL.Part 1.P.50.
[40] There were two Preslavs in Bulgaria: one - Megalopolis - on the banks of the Danube, the second, small - Marcianopolis - was founded by Trajan and named after his sister Marciana.
[41] Kedren and Zonara write: "Kalokir, the culprit of this war..."; cit. by Chertkov A. Decree.op.C.71.
[42] D.S.Likhachev, pointing out the vagueness of the text of the chronicle, suggests reading "the retreat", etc. (see: PVL. Ch.II. p.314). But, peace was already concluded by Pretich; therefore, it is more correct to assume that the situation that was during the siege was meant. Thus, the reading of the "indent" is preserved.
[43] For some reason, all the authors believe that Svyatoslav defeated the Pechenegs, although peace had already been concluded with them. But in the chronicle, it is worth "banishing the Pechenegs in poly". Apparently, one military demonstration was enough for the Pechenegs to retire to the steppe inaccessible to the Rus, thanks to which peace was achieved, desired by everyone except Kalokir.
[44] See: Chertkov L. Decree. op.217-220.
[45] Ibid. pp. 112-113.
[46] See: Belyaev I. About the northern shore of the Black Sea and the steppes adjacent to it before the Mongols settled in this region//Zpisks of the Odessa History and Antiquities. 1853. Vol. 3. p. 10-II.
[47] PVL. Ch. II. P. 319.
[48] See: Pashuto V.T. Decree. op. p. 108.
[49] Leo the Deacon. Book IX; see; Chertkov A. Decree. op. p. 85.
[50] The Chronicle of Bishop Joachim in the book: Tatishchev V.N. Russian History. Book 1. Part 1. M.. 1768. P. 36 Chertkov A. Decree. op. P. 105. I don't see the need to neglect late compilations if their versions allow us to give a constructive, consistent solution.
[51] Commander of the Fatimid Caliph Muizza. Jauhar, took Old Cairo (see: Bosworth K.E. Muslim Dynasties.P.79).
[52] See: Artamonov M.I. History of the Khazars. pp. 434-435.
[53] Ibid., p. 435.
[54] See: PVL. Ch. 1. p. 83.
[55] Lopatinsky A.G. Mstislav Temutarakansky and Rededya according to the legends of the Circassians//News of the Baku State University. University. No. 1. 2nd half volume. Baku, 1921. pp. 23-26.
[56] Karaulov N.L. Information of Arab geographers of the IX-X centuries A.D. about the Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan//Collection of materials for describing the localities and tribes of the Caucasus. Issue 38. Tiflis, 1908. p.114; Artamonov M.I. History of the Khazars. P. 445.
[57] Vernadsky V.I. Chemical structure ... p.272.
.