8. Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe, Gumilev
VII. Chimera sprawl (839-898), Chimera is the collision of two or more unlike ethnicities. (More about Khazaria)
[Another chapter, broad ranging and moving fast and furious. It would be nice to have maps and arrows with names and dates, but I don’t have them. I can’t absorb it all, but it reveals the complexity of those ages. Continuous violence.]
37. THE FOUR KAGHANATES
At the end of the eighth century, the initiative of History fell out of the hands of the Arab Caliphs, but it was taken over not by Byzantine or Germanic emperors, but by new ethnic groups, of which no one had ever heard before. At the beginning of the ninth century, the Vikings, fearsome bandits from Scandinavia, appeared on the shores of the North Sea. Within Western Europe, new peoples began to emerge, and in Asturias there was the first, unsuccessful attempt at Reconquista, the reverse conquest of the Iberian Peninsula. If we connect these areas with the synchronous emergence of the emergent activity with an imaginary line (practically a strip), we will get the axis of the new passionary push, which fully manifested itself during the ninth century.
The condition of Eastern Europe at that time was characterized by Ludovic the German in his letter to Basil Macedonian (871) as a coexistence of the four kaganates[1]: Avar[2], Norman[3] (i.e. Russian), Khazar and Bulgarian (on Danube, because Ludovic did not know the Great Bulgars of Kama). These Khaganates, as well as the three empires (including the Caliphate), were the legacy of the past passionate shocks. They were to withstand the shock wave of a new outbreak of ethnogenesis. Therefore, before turning to the story about the main tragedy of the beginning epoch, let's see who were its participants, and weigh their capabilities and aspirations.
The importance of the Avar Kaganate, robbed by the Franks and constrained by the Slavs, was minimal. Still, it was a barrier that restrained the aggression of the German feudal lords at the border of the middle Danube.
The position of the Bulgarian Kaganate was somewhat better, because the first Bulgarian khans, Asparuh and Krum, did not strain relations with their Slavic subjects, but, on the contrary, united with them against the Greeks. Gradually the Bulgarians became involved in European politics, either by supporting the Moravian Slavs against the Germans in 863, or by sending auxiliary troops to Louis the German against the rebellious feudal lords. Boris was hindered only by his pagan religion, and in 864 he changed it to Orthodox Christianity. It made Bulgaria oppose the papacy and the German kingdom, but the alliance with the Byzantine Empire was broken already in 894.
The Bulgarian government tried to re-establish contact with Rome, but its Slavic subjects were more alienated by the Germans than by the Greeks. However, there was a war with the Greeks, victorious, but extremely grueling, with no tangible results for Bulgaria.
A situation developed which made Bulgaria's international position extremely difficult, for it deprived it of sincere allies. Bulgaria fell out of the Eurasian super-ethnos and was not included in the Byzantine super-ethnos. She was left to rely on her own strength and fight not only on the southern border, but also on the northern border, where the Khazar diplomacy dominated.
Big trouble for the Bulgarians were the Magyars, who in 822-826. retreated from the Khazars and their hired Pechenegs in the lower reaches of the Dnieper.
However, the Pechenegs and Khazars lived in peace for a very short time. Persian geographers Ibn-Ruste, Gardizi and the anonymous author of the composition "Hudud al-Alam" report, that Khazars every year make campaigns to the country of Pechenegs to catch slaves and sell them and the country of Islam[4]. About 889 Khazars defeated Pechenegs in alliance with Oguzes [5] and they, retreating to the west on the shores of the Black Sea, where they were forced to engage in mortal war with the Magyars.
Around 893 the Khazar government made an alliance with the Magyars and Greeks against the Pechenegs and Bulgarians. The Khazar king sent an army by sea to Byzantium to fight the Bulgarians. The Greek-Khazar army has been broken, Bulgarian which with special cruelty have treated with Khazar captives - before exchange their noses have been cut off[6]. In reply to it emperor Leo VI in 894 has sent fleet which has transferred Hungarians Arpad and Kursan on the right coast of Danube, i.e. to Bulgaria. The Hungarians defeated the armies of king Simeon, reached Preslavia, plundering and killing, and took many captives and sold them to Byzantium. Simeon asked for peace, but held a grudge, and in 897, when the Magyar horsemen were on the march, the Pechenegs and Bulgarians attacked the country of Levedia and slaughtered the Hungarian men, women, children and old men who remained at home. The Magyar men who returned from the campaign decided to leave the bloody land and went to Pannonia. which became Hungary in 899. There they crushed the Moravian kingdom and took young Slavic women as wives. Thus, a new Hungarian ethnos was formed, which absorbed the remains of the Avars. The whole X century defeated and plundered by the Pechenegs and the Bulgarians, Hungary went from victory to victory, except the defeat at Lech in 955, after which the independence of Hungary nevertheless remained. But in victorious Bulgaria the situation was quite different.
The Bulgarian king Simeon (893-927) knew how to achieve brilliant victories, but not how to win wars. Roman Lekapin raised Serbs and Croats against the Bulgarian king. For the Slavs, Simeon was a stranger - the Bulgarian Khan, a representative of the nomadic world, and they opposed him. But for the Pechenegs, Simeon was a Slav, who had forgotten his steppe life and culture. Since Byzantium had established an exchange trade with the Pechenegs through Chersonesos, they became its allies... and Bulgaria became isolated.
The Magyars on the Tisza were enemies. The Slavic tribes of the Tiberians and Ulics - in the lower reaches of the Dniester and Danube - were not allies of Bulgaria. The victories were bought at too high a price: the best Bulgarian heroes died in battle. And the Danube Slavs... well, those, of course, began to dream of a better life, fixing the world, the total destruction of evil.
Passionate Slavs of the inertial phase of ethnogenesis wanted not to plunder the neighbors, but to think and preach their thoughts. The dream of rearranging the world is always a protest against reality. In the Middle Ages, the basis of this protest were the Gnostic teachings. Thus, as early as the fourth century, many monasteries in Thrace and Macedonia were inhabited and taught by the Euchites, or Messalians. - Gnostics. Their teachings, combined with ancient Slavic dualism, gave rise to Bohumilism, a doctrine that underwent a long evolution and was influenced by Pauline and Manichaeanism. The Bohumilian tragedy began in the 10th century[7].
Here is the difference between Hungary and Bulgaria. Tenth-century Hungary was a fragment of the Great Steppe in the heart of Europe. That is why Hungarians were holding on as best they could, justly believing that their enemies were around. And Bulgaria in the tenth century is not a monolith, but a mixture of different super-ethnoses in different phases of ethnogenesis. Therefore, when the grandsons of conquerors, Asparuh's associates, died in the victorious battles under the banners of Simeon; the Slavs, tempted by the doctrine of Bogumils, said their word - and that was the beginning of the catastrophe about which we are going to speak.
Thus, Bulgaria joined the world process of struggle of ethnic systems against anti-systems and created its original worldview, which only outwardly resembles the teachings of the Middle East known to us.
The Manicheans preached the doctrine of the eternal struggle between God and the Devil, and they called Satan the evil demon, who created the material world. This thesis entailed a nihilistic attitude not only towards the surrounding world, but also towards themselves and their descendants - everything that people sincerely loved. Few people were able to accept such a doctrine. Therefore, in Bulgaria an independent religion succeeded - Bogumilism, a version of dualism, quite different from the Manichaean prototype, strengthened in Macedonia (the community in Drogovichi).
Contrary to the thesis of the eternal opposition of Light and Darkness, the Bogumilians taught that the head of the angels created by God, Satanial, rose up out of pride and was cast into the waters, for as yet there was no land.
Satanil created the dry land and men, but could not animate them, for which he turned to God, promising to become obedient. God blew a soul into men, and then Satanil made Cain. God responded by belching Jesus, a disembodied spirit, to guide the angels, also disembodied. Jesus went into one ear of Mary, came out through the other, and gained the image of a human being while remaining ghostly. The angels of Sataniel twisted him, took away the suffix "il"-"one"-in which lurked power (mystical, of course), and drove him into hell. Now he is not Satanil, but Satan. And Jesus returned to the womb of the Father, leaving the material, Sataniel-created world. The conclusion of the concept was unexpected, but simple: "Beat the Byzantines!"
Not all Bulgarians became Bohumils, but some did, and that was enough for the terrible consequences that caused Bulgaria to lose its independence in the 11th century.
The third Khazar Khaganate is described in detail, and in this connection, we can only mention that it was the most active and successful in the IX century. Khazar Kaganat deftly used the Byzantine iconoclastic emperors, whose hands in 834 erected the fortress Sarkel on the Don. By 866 the first Latin mention of Judaism in Khazaria. It means that the kings had ceased hiding behind the broad back of the Khagans. The latter retained their throne only because their mothers and grandmothers were Jewish, and the Khagans themselves, having been circumcised, were a part of the Jewish community of Itil. An outline of the Khazar Khaganate of the ninth century. - of this majestic structure - is quite clearly delineated.
Less is known about the Russian Khaganate, there is no trace of it. With a lack of information, it is customary to look for it in the authors (mainly geographers) of the neighboring peoples. Such information is available, but also very scarce. In 839 the ambassadors of the "Kagan of Rus" were identified in Ingelheim at the court of Louis the Pious. They got there by a circuitous route from Constantinople, for the direct route was closed by some enemies, perhaps the Magyars, or perhaps the Uliches and Tiberians, the enemies of the Magyars. These ambassadors were mistaken for the Swedes, with whom the Frankish emperor was at war at the time. The further fate of the ambassadors is unknown. It is necessary to consider, that Russ Haganat was isolated from the countries which had written geography: Khazar Haganat separated it from the Muslim East, Bulgarian - from Byzantium, Avar - from Germany. That is why the information about the Ruses in the IX century was so incomplete and fragmentary. And that's why German authors IX could confuse forgotten Russomons [8] with Swedes: both were Scandinavians, though ancestors of Russomons left their homeland in I-II centuries.
Attitudes between Russ and Slavs in IX century were frankly hostile. About it inform the Arabian-Persian geographers which data have successfully been picked up by A.P.Novoseltsev [9]; on his work, at the method accepted by us, it is expedient to rely on. On similar messages of Ibn-Ruste, Mukadassi, the author Hudud al-Alam, Gardizi and Marvazi, Russ " attack on Slavs, come to them by the ships, land, took them away into captivity, carry to Khazaran and Bulkar and there sell" [10]. At the same time, the anonymous author of the "Collection of histories" (Mujmal at-Tavarikh, 1126) considers the attacking party to be Slavs: "...and Slavs came to Rus, to settle down there. Russ answered him that this place is narrow (for two of us). The same answer was given by Kimari (?! - LG) and Khazar. A quarrel and fight broke out between them. The Slav fled and reached the place where the land of the Slavs is now. Then he said: "Here I shall settle down and easily take my revenge"[11]. But relations Russ and Khazars in IX century were at first peaceful. The same Persian source informs: "Rus and Khazar were from one mother and one father. Then Rus grew up, and since he had no place to his liking, he wrote a letter to Khazar and asked him for a part of his country, in order to settle down there"[12]. And settled in the Crimea, near Simferopol, which was called the Scythian Naples.
It is easy to notice, that the ancient population of Eastern Europe was Russ - "barbarous people"[13], living aside Bulgarian (Kama), between them and Slavs (more precisely, "Sacaliba"), on the river Itil (Volga)[14], and "Kujaba", i.e. Kiev, was not city Russ, and, probably, belonged to Volyn Slavs - Duleba, tsar whom, on Masudi, had a name Dir, i.e. Dir [15].
From here A.P.Novoseltsev draws a conclusion that "island" [16] or more correctly, country Rus', was placed "somewhere in northern part of Eastern Europe". But at the end of IX century Kiev was grasped by Russ, at first by Askold, then by Oleg[17]. Other sources are devoted to this epoch, paying much attention to Rus', divided into three groups. The first - with the center in Kiev, headed Askold, made attack to Constantinople in 860 and subordinated Oleg in 882. The second - Slavija, area of Slavs Ilmensky; she has left a trace in toponymy -Staraya Russ. The third is Arsa (unclear and disputable subject, in A.P.Novoseltsev opinion), which lived between modern Rostov and Belozero[18].
In IX century Russ and Slavs had little in common. In X-XI centuries, Slavs were well known to all European and Byzantium geographers, and who such Russ, readers of chronicles should be explained. Bishop Adalbert in 959 has named Olga queen Russ [19], and English prince Edward (989-1017) has informed on Yaroslav the Wise, that that is "King of land Russ which we call Russ "[20]. And who were Russ, except for that in II-V centuries they were at war against Goths, it is not clear[21]. Their mutual relations with Rossomons in IV century, allies of Huns and, probably, Antes, are also not clear.
Half a millennium has passed... Russ appeared as the enemies of Slavs, vassals of Khazars and friends of Vikings, in the teams of which they willingly joined. But there is no basis for identifying the Scandinavian Vikings with the aborigines-Russes. On the contrary, by the tenth century intensive mestization took place between the victorious Russians and Slavs, Kievan and Novgorod, and Slavic customs and language prevailed. The Old Russian state was Slavic, having inherited from the Russes only the ethnonym "Polyans, who are nowadays called Russ" and the Rurikovich dynasty. Joint life has rallied Russ and Slavs in uniform ethnos though process of mutual assimilation was not easy and has borrowed more than hundred years, rather uneasy as neighbors of Slavs-Russ were artful Khazars and predatory Vikings. Even in the tenth century contemporaries described Russ and Slavs as two different ethnic groups, acting, as a rule, together. So here was a situation similar to that of the Turks and Khazars, with one, very important, difference. Turkuits brought a passionarity to Khazars, while Russomons and Slavs were equally passionate at meeting and contact, because they formed in the habitat of a single passionary push. Therefore, Turkuits remained guests in Khazaria, while the Polyans and Rossomons merged into a single ethnos.
Such is the "connection of times," or the "logic of events. The Ante, or Polanian, tribal union, which included the Rossomonians, arose as an East Slavic ethnos because of the passionate push of the 2nd century, simultaneously with Byzantium, and with it entered an acclimatic phase, ending with a victory over a severe enemy, the Avars, after which the Slavs spread to the Black Sea coast. Unlike Byzantium, the Polanian ethnos survived the transition crisis from phase to phase safely, but then received a blow that almost became fatal.
About 800-809 the second resettlement of Slavs from the banks of Elba to the East took place[22]. A.A.Shakhmatov assumed, that Slavs escaped from Charles the Great's Franks[23]. It is difficult to accept this version. The successes of Charles and his barons are extremely exaggerated by chroniclers and subsequent historians. We have seen that the Franks failed to gain a foothold neither on the Ebro, nor on the Tisza, nor on the right bank of the Elbe. Therefore, to move the Slavs to a country with a completely different climate, where winter frost (January isotherm is below zero) and summer heat prevail, we should look for other motives.
The integrity of an ethnos, let alone a super-ethnos, is maintained by the level of passionate tension. When the tension subsides, the ethnos disintegrates, most often along territorial lines. In this case, a part of the energy is released and goes towards migration. This was the case with Anglo-Americans in the 17th century and in some other cases.
Here is the reason (lying in terms of ethnic history), because of which Vyatichi and Radimichi changed their habitat.
Eastern Slavs in the eighth century were still at a high level of passionate tension. Paucity of sources forced to resort to chronological interpolation, but this method gives good results. The descendants of the 4th c. Ants, who defeated Goths together with Rossomons and Huns, by the beginning of the 9th century have their own "Kaganate", i.e. a sovereign state with a center in Kiev, and a king named Dir. If we consider that the rise of this branch of Slavs is comparable to the passionary impulse, which caused the Great Migration of the peoples, and to the creation of Byzantium out of the confessional communities of the Asia Minor, then in the 8 c. the phase of superstition falls, and in the 10 c. the phase of inertia. So it was.
The high level of passionarity gave the Slavs an advantage over the Eastern Balts (Jatvyags, Golyads) and Finno-Ugrians (Merya, Muroma, Vse) and entailed a merger of Slavic tribes into a single Old Russian ethnos, which took place at the end of the 10th c. But Slavs and Khazars did not encounter each other and were not a danger to each other yet.
The legend of Rurik, the leader of the "Varangians-Russians", summoned to Novgorod by certain Gostomysl to calm the turmoil, has now received some confirmation. It is supposed, that under an expression of the annals: " Grad on hail " - it is necessary to understand the expulsion of Vikings from Ladoga about 850 year[24], and Rurik is identified with Rurik Jutland, owning a princedom, bordering with the grounds of Frisians, Scandinavians, Germans and Slavs[25]. According to this version Rurik in 870-873 returned from Novgorod to the West, where he negotiated with Charles the Bald and Louis the German[26]. Apparently, negotiations were not successful, because in 875-879. Rurik again reigned in Novgorod up until his death. Only the last fact is doubtless.
I wish that this hypothesis was confirmed. It is a pity to part with the views perceived from childhood. But if it is correct, then we are confirmed of the definitions of the medieval authors, who considered Rurik and his dynasty neither Swedish nor German, but descendants of the ancient people Rugs, the enemy of Goths, and apparently representative of that spiral of ethnogenesis, which preceded the Great Migration of Nations (in the 3rd century this people was already a relic-percipient). Perhaps future studies will confirm the above hypothesis, which we have neither the reasons nor the desire to reject.
38. RUSSIAN KAGANATE
At the turn of VIII and IX centuries Khazars have stopped on border of the land Russ, which center was in Crimea. Russ at this time showed considerable activity, making sea attacks on coast of Black Sea. About 790 they have attacked the fortified city of Surozh (Sudak), and then have thrown on southern coast and in 840 have taken and have plundered Amastrid, the rich trading city in Paphlagonia (Asia Minor). But in 842 the Russians returned some of their spoils by treaty and freed all their prisoners. "All that lay on the shores of the Euxine (Black Sea) and its coast was ravaged and devastated in raids by the fleet of the Rosses (the "Ross" people are Scythian, living near the North Taurus, rude and savage). And here the very capital it has subjected to terrible danger "[27]. In 852 Russ has taken the Slavic city of Kiev.
On June 18, 860 Russ on 360 ships besieged Constantinople, but on June 25 had removed a siege and have left for home. More successful campaign Russ to Byzantium didn’t happen; all the later ended with defeats [28] (except for a campaign in 907 about which Greeks chroniclers did not know). The idea that then the trading contract subsequently attributed by chronicler to Oleg is suggested. But it is only a supposition, the check of which is not included into our task.
The further events have developed not in favor of Russ. Soon after 860 occurred, apparently, not very successful war with Pechenegian, which in that year could act only as mercenaries of the Khazar king. In Kiev "there was a famine and great lamentation",[29] and in 867 Orthodox missionaries, sent by patriarch Photii, converted a part of Kiev citizens to Christianity[30]. This meant peace and alliance with Byzantium, but complete conversion was not realized because of the resistance of renewed paganism and aggressive Judaism.
The Christian colony of Kiev, however, survived. For one hundred and twenty years it grew and strengthened, so that at the right moment it could say the decisive word, which it did in 988.
In the ninth century the Russian power had few friends and many enemies. One should not think that the most dangerous enemies were necessarily the neighbors. On the contrary: constant petty skirmishes, vendettas, and mutual raids for the purpose of plundering, of course, cause a lot of trouble for individuals, but usually do not lead to extermination wars, because both sides see their opponents as people. On the other hand, foreigners, representatives of other super-ethnoses, see their opponents as objects of direct action. Thus, in the 19th century, Americans paid a premium for the scalp of an Indian, same as a wolf’s tail, or likened Negroes to pack animals. And in the tenth century, super-ethnic differences were not moderated even by the degree of humanity that existed in the nineteenth century. Therefore, wars between super-ethnic entities, which adorned themselves with lavish confessional labels, were waged mercilessly. The Muslims declared "jihad" against the Greeks and slaughtered men in the captured towns and sold women and children in slave markets. The Saxon and Danish knights massacred the Lutychs and the Baudricians, and the Anglo-Saxons massacred the Celts in the same way. But even the conquerors could not expect mercy if military fortune turned away from them.
At first, Russia was relatively lucky. For three quarters of the 9th century, just when the activity of the Western European super-ethnos was growing, the Bulgars were holding back the Greeks, the Avars were holding back the Germans, the Bodricians were holding back the Danes. Norwegian Vikings rushed to the west, because the ways "from the Varangians to the Greeks" and "from the Varangians to the Khazars" passed through the narrow rivers Lovo or Mologa and across watersheds, where the rooks (boats) had to be dragged by hand - "by drag", while being completely detached from their homeland - Norway. Conditions for war with the local population were extremely unfavorable.
In this political balance of power, the Khazar Judeans have won. They made peace with the Magyars, directing their militant energy against the peoples of Western Europe, where the last Carolingians were least concerned about the safety of their peasants and feudal lords, usually dissatisfied with the imperial regime. The Khazar government was able to make the Tiberians and Ulics its allies, thereby securing an important trade route for Jewish merchants from Itil to Spain. Finally, in 913 Khazars defeated with the help of Oguzes those Pechenegs, who lived on Yaik and Emba, and controlled the section of the caravan route from Itil to China.
The last unresolved problem for the Khazar government was Russian Khaganate with a center in Kiev. War with Russ was inevitable, and complete victory boded incalculable benefits for the Itil merchant organization, but not, of course, for the enslaved Khazars, who did not participate in this activity. The rulers kept them firmly in subjection with the help of hired troops from Gurgan and forced them to pay enormous taxes. Thus, they kept expanding the exploited territory, increasing their income and increasingly detaching themselves from their subordinated peoples.
The relationship between this merchant octopus and Russia could not be unclouded. Hints of clashes began in the ninth century, when the government of Khazaria built a fortress Sarkel against the Western enemies. Further events up to 860 are very poorly reflected by the sources. It is clear that "not once did their side fall under the thunder, and then our side", but the details of the course of events are unknown. We can only approximately reconstruct the balance of forces and the direction of events, but no more. But after 860 a multicolored canvas of events is before us, subject to analysis and interpretation.
39. FRIENDS OF THE RENEWED KHAZARIA
The government of Obadiah and Hanukkah, together with the throne, inherited a dangerous tradition of international relations and influences. The Turkic khans of the Ashina dynasty and their Karaite ally Bulan did not understand the complex economic problems. They simply defended their people from the Muslims attacking from the south, and from the Pechenegs attacking from the east, from the Trans-Ural. A natural ally of the Khazars in the 8th century was Byzantium, which also fought the Arabs and Asparuh Bulgarians who fled from the Khazars. Therefore, the spread of Orthodoxy among the Alans and Khazars met no resistance. In the middle of the VIII century the Khazar-Khorezmian (Doros) metropolitanate existed, to which seven bishop cathedrals were subordinated[31]. Cultural contacts were a consequence of the political union[32], with the Far East; and the Far West Turkic-Khazars did not support relations. On the borders of China until 745 there were persistent and bloody wars between the Türkic Kaganate and the Tang empire. Then the revolt of An Lushan in 756- 763 disgraced China, and after that Tibet and Uiguria entered the war. There was nothing attractive in the Far East at this time.
It was no better in the West, where the Merovingian Frankish power and the Lombard kingdom were rotting alive, and in Britain the Angles and Saxons were slaughtering the Celts. But there the situation had changed by 800, for Charlemagne, having conquered the Saxons and Lombards, had assumed the imperial crown. The last years of his reign coincided with the coup of Obadiah In Khazaria, and then the two empires which had arisen came into friendly contact, expressed in the fact that Charles, by a special decree, allowed the Jews to live according to their customs[33]. The Jews continued their alliance with the Carolingians until their fall in the tenth century.
The southern ethnic groups were the most active at this time. The growth of the passionarity of the descendants of the Arab conquerors exploded the Abbasid caliphate from within, but its fragments proved more terrifying to its neighbors than the cumbersome centralized sociopolitical system. For the Berbers and Tuaregs of Africa, the Turks of Central Asia, and the highlanders of the Pamirs and Hindu Kush, Islam ceased to be a symbol of oppression and robbery, because it became possible to use a variety of Shiite currents as banners for the struggle against Sunni Baghdad.
The Africans, who broke away from the Caliphate, conquered Sicily and invaded Italy, where they ousted the Lombards and defeated the army of Louis II of France, and in 840, the African fleet entered the mouth of the Tiber and almost conquered Rome. In the same year, the Muslim Persians, the Samanids, conquered Isfijab (today Sayram, near Chimkent), and the Baghdad Caliphs spent their resources on suppressing the uprisings of their subjects, co-religionists and tribesmen, and on the endless war with Byzantium.
As subterranean magma flows out of the tectonic fractures of the earth's crust through cracks, so at the turn of two super-ethnoses and two great cultures arose movements that seemed forgotten and buried: the Hurramites in Azerbaijan and the Peacobites in Asia Minor. There was no organized connection between the two, nor any common political orientation. Some were simply staunch Mazdakites, while others, in their ideological principles and ultimate goals, went back to the ancient teachings of the Manicheans: the division of the world into black and white and the desire to achieve, through bloody exegesis, the victory of the light beginning, which they considered themselves to be.
How should the Khazar government respond to this? The Hurramites were descendants of the Mazdakites, allies of the Khazar Jews in 494-529, and the Arabs were persecutors of the Jews in 690; the Greeks had forced the Jews to renounce their faith as early as 723. It would seem that it was payback time. But the government of Obadia and Hanukkah preferred trade with Baghdad and the help of Byzantine engineers in building Sarkel to loyalty to historical traditions and former friendships, which the Turkic-Khazars would never give up. Now the system of values has changed: profit has taken the place of loyalty and valor. And the most profitable situation for the Jews was the war of the Greeks against their enemies, the Bulgarians and Arabs. Theophilus succeeded in regaining the city of Samosata in 837, but Caliph Mutasim defeated the Byzantine army at Dazimon, and in 838 took the largest city of the empire after Constantinople, Amoria (in the center of Anatolia). The war proceeded with incredible bitterness, with the Hurramites allied with the Greeks and the Pavlikians [34] helping the Arabs. The Bulgarians of khan Persian struck at the rear of Byzantium, breaking into Macedonia, while the Khazars, once enemies of the Bulgarians and friends of the Greeks, did nothing. The khans of Ashin would never leave their friends in trouble.
40. ON TO BYZANTIUM
There in 843 ended the passionate breakdown that led to the tragedy of iconoclasm. It cost Byzantium dearly. Bulgarian Khan Krum in 813 reached the walls of Constantinople. Spanish Arab-Berber pirates in 826 seized Crete and made that island a base for raids on the islands and coasts of the Aegean. In 827 the Berbers of Atlas invaded Sicily and then transferred their conquests to southern Italy. The Bulgarians devastated Macedonia. And in Constantinople the emperor was busy destroying icons and persecuting monks. But all things come to an end, and by 843 the passions began to fade.
The reduction of passional tension did Byzantium good. The establishment of peace between the secular power and the church, achieved at the Council of Constantinople in 843, made it possible to channel the enormous forces of the system in a certain direction. In 860 St. Cyril converted a group of the Khazars to Orthodoxy, and in 864 he and his brother Methodius introduced Orthodoxy to Moravia. The Bulgarian king Boris was baptized in 864-865, and finally the long and fierce war with the Pavlikians in 872 ended in victory for the Byzantines. But everything had to be paid for, even the salvation of one's own country. And the price was very high.
Byzantium was the recognized center of Christian culture until the middle of the ninth century. This recognition did not mean political supremacy over the other Christian states of the East and West, but it gave them the assurance that they were their own and that in case of danger they had to help against Muslim infidels. Even if these duties were not always carried out, they still mattered, especially in those areas of southern Italy where African Muslims, the warlike Berbers, who engaged in the slave trade and looting, had invaded them.
Even during the violent years of iconoclasm, the popes were involved in Byzantine ecclesiastical affairs, supporting the defenders of icons as much as they could. The de facto independence from Constantinople given to the Roman-See by the Carolingians did not prevent the existence of a super-ethnic unity: the Greeks were at home in Rome and Paris, and the Franks in Thessalonica and Ephesus. The theology both there and there was the same - semi-Pelagianism, i.e., orthodoxy.
But in 858 Photius became patriarch of Constantinople and was not recognized by Pope Nicholas 1. The dispute was followed by the excommunication of Photius in 863, which was not recognized in the East. In 867 the Council of Constantinople anathematized the pope, declaring his interference in the affairs of the Eastern Church illegal. Thus, a schism of the churches arose.
It is not necessary to suppose that the intransigence of Photius and Nicholas, or the dispute over filioque, or the claim of the popes to jurisdiction in Illyria and Sicily were the cause of the schism. All these trifles were quickly settled. The usurper Basil I of Macedonia deposed Photius, and the obstinate pope Nicholas I died in the same year, 867. The theological dispute was put aside and forgotten for a time. Sicily was taken over by the Berbers, Illyria by the Hungarians. The official reconciliation of the Byzantine church with the papal throne around 900 changed nothing.
The ecclesiastical schism was not only important in itself. It became a symbol of the separation of the West, where ethnogenesis exploded in the ninth century, from the orthodox East. The Franks and Latins became strangers to the Greeks. They followed a new, original path of development. The ethnoses which emerged in this century on the shores of the North Sea and the Bay of Biscay discovered unprecedented forms of sociability and perception of nature and history, and preferred them to the former, not because they were better, but because they were their own. The inertia of a common Christian culture still long seduced the souls of contemporaries who stubbornly refused to notice the sad reality.
So, Byzantium was transformed from the empire with pretensions for a leading role in the legacy of Rome into a small kingdom of Asia Minor, where the emperor was an Armenian, who attracted his countrymen to the service. And since the Armenians were used to heroically defend their freedom and faith against the Muslims, the friends of the latter, the Jews, became enemies of Byzantium.
Now we can summarize the observations. Judeo-Khazaria was in friendship with all the imperial regimes: the late Tang, the Carolingians and their successors in Germany, the Saxon nations; the Armenians, the Georgians, the Shiites of the Caliphate, because they represented the interests of conquered tribes, the Pechenegs, the Turfan Uighurs and the Slavs, that is, the Kiev Khaganate.
And that is not by chance. Here takes place the social proximity of despotic regimes, opposed by the course of history to the natural processes of the formation of ethnic diversity. The struggle between these two principles was the leading antagonistic contradiction of the VII-X centuries. Here again the Judeo-Khazars were lucky.
A new partner came into play, the Vikings, recruited from the Scandinavian Vikings.
41. RAHDONITES AND NORMANS
Although the Vikings were Scandinavians or Balts by birth, they were not representative of their own peoples. A passional push caused ethnic divergence. Young men who left their homeland for Greenland or Normandy, the green island of Erin, or the shores of the azure Mediterranean Sea, formed independent ethnic consortia, sometimes perishing, sometimes triumphant. And because they were dispersed throughout Europe, their meeting with the Judeo-Khazars was foreseen. And its nature was determined by the historical background in which it occurred. There are no sources covering this page of history; therefore, again, we need to look at the balance of power in order to grasp at least the general direction of events.
The collapse of the integrity of the Abbasid caliphate did not diminish the conquering fervor of the Western Muslims: The Spanish Arabs and the Berbers of North Africa. Recall: The Spanish Arabs seized Crete and made it a pirate base on the Aegean Sea. In 842 the Tunisian Berbers, operating in Sicily, took Messina, and in 878. - Syracuse. In 902 the Greeks lost all their positions in Sicily, and in 904 the Arabs sacked the empire's second city, Thessalonica, and transferred their aggression to the mainland, Calabria. It became difficult for the Greeks. As has been shown, already in the ninth century, after the actual split of the church, Byzantium became an Eastern kingdom, isolated from all its neighbors, which turned first into rivals and then into enemies. Bound by permanent war with Bulgaria and unsuccessful attempts to keep southern Italy from the onslaught of the Arabs, Byzantium could not actively resist the strengthening of the Khazar kings, so Orthodoxy lost its positions in Dagestan and the North Caucasus, barely keeping the southern coast of Crimea.
Charlemagne's attempt to create a super-ethnic Christian empire of the Germans in the West, just as in the East there was a similar empire of the Greeks, was not promising, but the growing passionarity in the IX century toppled this grand structure, as if it was a house of cards. By 888 the "territorial revolution"[35] had taken place, i.e. the ethnic groups called "nations" by O. Thierry appeared: Breton, Aquitaine, Provençal, French, Burgundian, Italian and German, the latter consisting of sub-ethnic "tribes" of Saxons, Francons, Bavarians, Swabs (Alemans) and Thuringians. All of them spent their forces fighting each other, and therefore resisted the attacks of the Arabs and Normans very poorly. For the Khazars, they were not dangerous.
On the other hand, the Khazar Jews were a danger to France, because by coming with a lot of money to Provence they bought the patronage of the king and the nobles and protection from persecution by the clergy and the people. The exasperation on both sides grew. The Jews retained more vestiges of ancient learning than the French, and so defeated the Christians in the disputes that arose over the Old Testament. Their propaganda was successful.
A young monk from Alemania converted to Judaism in 847, married a Jewess, went to Spain, and there incited the Arabs to persecute the Christians. The bishops of Gaul complained that the Jews bought Christian slaves and forced them to perform Jewish rites, that they kidnapped Christian children and sold them to Muslims, that the Jews, out of hatred for their rivals, helped Muslims and Normans by opening to them, the gates of besieged cities, and that they called pork "Christian meat," to which Christians took great offense[36].
It is hard to say what was fair in these accusations, but what is important for us is that the mutual bitterness and animosity between the natives and the Jews on the Rhone threatened the French with the same consequences as the Jewish infiltration of the Volga. Provence could easily have turned into a semblance of Khazaria, especially since the military strength of the Berbers, who willingly recruited troops from neighboring countries, was no less than that of the Khoresmians. But for this to happen, apart from a lot of money, time was needed, and that was exactly what the Jews lacked. Why not? This we shall now see.
Beginning in 800, all the coasts of Western Europe began to be attacked by Scandinavian Vikings. More than that, the Normans entered the rivers, penetrating deep into the continent. The booty was plentiful. But it turns out that besides gold and silver, cloth and, and women's jewelry, and expensive weapons, the Vikings took prisoners and sold them into slavery[37]. To whom? Not to the Hevdings, the well-to-do peasants from whom they fled to the sea after leaving their homeland. To Iceland? But there, slaves ran away from their masters or were given freedom, so that "slavery played no essential role in Icelandic society."[38] Indeed, it only made sense to take prisoners at the risk of their lives if they could be sold easily and profitably.
And here arises the second question: how could the Normans, not having data of intelligence, conduct military operations, moving away from the saving sea? But they went up the Rhine, the Weser, the Elbe, the Seine, the Loire and the Garonne. They sacked and burned Cologne, Aachen, Bonn, Trier, Worms, Tours, Orleans, Angers, Troyes, Chalons, Dijon, not to mention the cities of England.
This far from complete list of prey cities shows that the Vikings could plunder far more than they could carry on shallow-draft ships, the only ones fit to navigate rivers. Such ships have been found in Denmark. They were not designed for long voyages, but for sailing in shallow coastal waters[39]. But if so, the Normans evidently had buyers of loot, and were apparently rich enough to buy prisoners in the hope of a future profit, and powerful enough to transport Christian slaves from the shores of the North Sea to Spain, where the Caliphs of Cordoba bought slaves for large sums of money. Could these be the Rahdonites we know! Could there be such a thing?
Let us compare the facts. In 768-772, the Jews in Narbonne are major landowners, and Christian serfs work in the fields and vineyards[40]. Seventy years later, after the final unification of Western Europe by Charlemagne, we see the same picture in Lyon (849). Thus, in the richest regions of the Holy Roman Empire, the Jews constitute the ruling class, dictating their own orders. Thus, at the request of the Jews, the market day in Lyons was moved from Saturday to Sunday, against which the bishops, especially the famous bishop Agobard, protested in vain[41].
In Spain, Jewish merchants in 854-874 traded Andalusian girls and had a trade route from Morocco to Egypt for this purpose[42]. In Egypt under Ahmad ibn-Tulun there was abundance, and Spaniards were bought for harems. We must assume that the Christians resisted where they could and did. So, the Jews, not content with the administrative support of the Carolingian emperors, used the Gentile Normans. In the early ninth century a squadron of ships approached the shores of southern France, which the coastal inhabitants mistook for Jewish and fell victim to Norman pirates[43]. It cannot be assumed that the mistake was a matter of chance. The coastal inhabitants are skilled in the rigging of ships. Apparently, the Jews simply lent their ships to the Normans, of course for a share of the spoils.
The first mention of Jews in England is dated 833, just after the Vikings' successes.[44] In 848 the Normans sacked and burned Bordeaux thanks to the treachery of the Jews there,[45] who had suffered no harm from the Vikings. This could only be the case if there was a connection between them and the others. And the text of the "Tale of Bygone Years" explains what it was. The two predators, the Rahdonites and the Vikings, agreed in 859 to divide the spheres of future conquests to be made[46]. The Russian Kaganate also had to fall prey to these predators. And indeed, all the next century Kiev was an arena of a brutal war, which the Slavic-Russians were forced to endure. This is what we are going to talk about.
The conclusion offered here at first glance seems paradoxical. We are used to seeing the Jews and the Normans as antagonists, for they are indeed very different from each other. But in political conflicts, especially those dictated by elementary greed, sympathies based on the similarity of psychological dispositions give way to calculation, even the most cynical. Sincerity in such cases is not only unnecessary, it is harmful. And so, the Rahdonites quietly used the Vikings, leaving them confident that they were not a toy in the hands of an experienced partner. Moreover, when the Jews lost their bid for hegemony in world trade, the Normans who attacked England took the Jews with them,[47] and they held the credit operations of the English kings and their vassals in their hands from 1100[48]. The customary alliance was broken only by Edward I in England and Philip Augustus in France, but this page of history is beyond the chronological scope of our topic.
42. THE SEARCH FOR A CONSISTENT VERSION
So, following the version of "The Tale of Bygone Years", we constantly stumble upon irresolvable contradictions, to put it mildly, reticence’s and inaccuracies, ranging from the "calling of the Vikings" to the story of Olga's massacre of the Drevlyans.
It seems that the chronicler gives a deliberately false scheme of events. Judging by his hints, the Vikings and Khazars were sworn enemies, and not allies. The facts that we have gathered indicate to the contrary, and I prefer not to believe the chronicler. Nestor, who wrote his work in 1100-1113, - a supporter of Grand Duke Sviatopolk II, who was a friend of German and Danish feudal lords, an opponent of the Greek metropolis and its defender Vladimir Monomakh, the enemy of the destroyer of the last Khazar Jews - Chernigov Prince Oleg Sviatoslavich.
In addition, the events described by him were more than 200 years removed from him. Can a historian, our contemporary, without any special training set out the history of the reign of Catherine II, taking into account the mores, fashions and personal relationships? Even with an abundance of sources it is difficult. And beyond that, Nestor, like M.N. Pokrovsky, understood history as "politics turned to the past" and defended the interests of his monastery and his prince, for which he sinned against the truth. D.S. Likhachev described the Tale of Bygone Years as a brilliant literary work in which the historical information is either transformed by the creative insight of the author, such as the legend of the invocation of the Vikings, or replaced by inserted novels, some of which are derived from stray plots. He quite critically parses A.A. Shakhmatov's considerations, and this makes it possible to establish a sequence and connection of events in Old Russian history on the basis of both works, albeit not in detail, but in that approximation which for our story is necessary and sufficient. Therefore, in what follows we shall be based not on the annalistic version, but on that which is obtained by a bona fide historical critique.
Having established the existence of the alliance of the Rahdonites with the Vikings in Western Europe, we can consider the situation in Eastern Europe from this point of view. The analogy is paradoxical at first glance, but let us consider the facts and draw a conclusion.
The history of Viking penetration into the Slavic grounds is dark because details of these events are deliberately obscured by chroniclers XII century[49]. It is generally admitted, that in 862 (the chronology is confused) Vikings conning Rurik have appeared in Novgorod and, having broken resistance of Anti Varyag party headed by certain Vadim Brave, imposed a tribute on northern Slavs. But Rurik refrained from the invasion of the Russian land.
In IX century the Southern Dnepr[50] where two ethnoses - Russomons and Slavs - in IV century were at war with Goths on the party of Huns. The history of them before IX century is unknown. It is clear only that the Kyiv Kaganate was a strong and independent state, along with the Hungarian, Bulgarian and Khazar Kaganates. In 860 Russ has made a victorious campaign to Constantinople (incorrectly dated by Nestor 866)[51], has forced Byzantium to conclude the world favorable for them and is partially accepted in Orthodoxy.
In 864 Russ was at war with Bulgarian, in 865 - with Polochans, in 867 - with Pechenegian (?! - LG), in 869 - with Krivichi. However, with such an active foreign policy there were no clashes with the Khazars: the mission of St. Cyril to Khazaria in 860 was held in a peaceful environment. This speaks not about the peacefulness of the Khazar government, but about the power of Kiev, the alliance of Russ with the Magyars and the complexity of the situation on the Caspian Sea. In 860-880 the Kyiv government of Askold and Dir was so strong, that could not be afraid of Khazar aggression. Moreover, the Kievers expanded the area of their influence in the north without fear of conflict with the Swedes.
There were several kings in Sweden around 859: Bjorn Priholmny, his co-rulers Emund and Olaf. Emund's son Erik, in 854, went east and imposed tribute on the Kurs, Estonians and Finns, but, as the list shows, he was only interested in the shores of the Baltic Sea, while the Krivic, Meri (Cheremisses) and Veps lived in the forested watersheds of Eastern Europe. If any of the Swedish kings had subjugated such vast lands, this would have been noted at least in the sagas. Nor does the Catholic missionary St. Ansgar, who preached in Sweden in 849-852 and maintained relations with the Swedes until his death in 865, mention it.[52]
And even if the Swedes wanted to subjugate the northern lands of Eastern Europe, it was beyond their capabilities. Like all Scandinavians, they moved by rooks (small boats), and consequently only the banks of rivers were within their reach. Lacking horses, they could not go far from their floating bases, and it was impossible to carry horses and the necessary forage on light boats. In addition, any raid made sense only in autumn, when the inhabitants of the settlements could not hide in the woods. Roads and reliable aboriginal guides were necessary for such a raid. And in the IX century there were neither roads into the woods nor the necessary number of traitors, if only because the Swedes had nothing to pay for their services.
It must be admitted that the desire to attribute to the ancient Swedes the foundation of a vast empire in the northern forests encounters insurmountable obstacles, mainly related to physical geography. But since the Scandinavians took possession of the lands of the Russians and Slavs in the ninth century, there was obviously an additional factor to be found.
If it was not the Swedish kings and the Greek basilevs who were interested in the destruction of the Kievan Kaganate, then there remains only one neighbor, which wanted it and had the means to carry out their goal. It was the Khazar Kaganate, which in 834 came to the border of the Don. The fortress Sarkel built there was supposed to serve as a base for an attack to the west, but this action for some reason was delayed for half a century. Khazar Jews managed to include only northerners into their political-economic system, which is proved by the distribution of the eastern coins of the IX century on the left bank of the Dnieper[53].
And then, having no way to establish sincere relations with the ethnic groups, the "chimera" used "free atoms" - the Scandinavian Vikings, who captured Kiev in 882.
Recall that Rurik was a Viking (this is a profession not an ethnos, a pirate) of the ethnos "rusi" (rossomon). Not getting along at home, he accepted the offer of "Gostomysl" (or a party of "Gostomysl") and strengthened in Novgorod. According to the Primary Chronicle, the Tale of Bygone Years, he controlled a small and sparsely populated territory: Ladoga, Beloozero and Izbork. Polotsk and Smolensk in 864-869 were ruled by the Rus, i.e. Kiev, where Rurik's enemies Askold and Dir were seated. Rurik could replenish his army in only one way - by hiring Vikings from overseas. And that's how they captured Kiev for his son, called Igor the Old in the annals.
And here a new obscurity arises: why did the cunning invader, killing only two rulers of the city, did not meet resistance in the masses of people? Apparently, the Vikings had such strong support that the Slavic-Russians didn't risk to repeat the attempt of Vadim the Brave, who tried to expel Rurik from Novgorod in 864. The chronicle is silent about it.
The gap is partially filled by the brief note of Masudi, that "Russ and Slavs make servants of Khazar tsar"[54]. And as we shall soon see, so it was.
The change of power in Kiev entailed a change in politics. Oleg subdued Drevlyans in 883, Northerners - in 884, and Radimichi - in 885, and the latter were paying tribute to the Khazars before that. This could not but cause a war with the Khazars... and in the annals there is a gap of 80 years! Isn't that great?
So, in fact, the Varangian konungs were enemies of the Slavic-Russians and at first allies, then rivals, and then vassals of the Jews-Rahdonites. Proud of their bellicosity, the Varangians constantly suffered defeats in which the Slavs subordinated to them, who were mobilized for campaigns to the Caspian and Pontus (the Black Sea), perished. Viking commanders had no pity for the Slavic soldiers.
The Russian land endured a lot of suffering caused by the constant failures of untalented rulers. This is what the sly chronicler Nestor[55] has obscured.
And still how did Slavic-Russians come to such a humiliating situation? If the history does not answer this question, we shall address to ethnology.
Byzantium and Russia are the same age. In Byzantium the over-break occurred in the VIII c., and the inertial phase began in the middle of the IX c. In Russia the over-break, apparently, came later, and delayed till the end of the IX c. At the over-break the split of the ethnic field takes place. That is why the Varangians found their supporters, the "Gostomysl" or the first "Westerners", sympathized by the Grand Prince Sviatopolk II and chronicler Nestor 250 years later. And since only Nestor's version survived the centuries, it was accepted without criticism by historians of New Age.
But the Jewish community of Khazaria should have degenerated and weakened by the law of ethnic entropy, as it was a closed system, which was not replenished even by those bastards who became Karaites (children of Jewish fathers and Khazar mothers). And it kept getting stronger. For this there must be a scientific explanation.
It has been noticed that if individuals of a certain population simplify their morphological structure, they sharply increase their biogeochemical energy (for animals it is reproductive energy), i.e. biogenic migration of their atoms, which improves their chances in the struggle for existence[56].
The first stage of the evolutionary process is the transition from the organismal to the population level and we conclude that the beginning of degeneration, or structural simplification, leads to the emission of free energy manifested in the striving for the expansion of the habitat. Examples of this are the Han aggression of the 2nd-1st centuries B.C., colonial invasions of European countries in the 19th century and the clash on the warpath between Judeo-Khazaria and Kievan Rus' that interests us. In the 9th century, the results of this clash were impossible to foresee.
According to the "Tale of Bygone Years", Oleg in 907 accomplished his main feat - a campaign to Constantinople "on horses and by ships". Russian landing force as if had devastated suburbs of Constantinople, having killed or having tortured captured by surprise the Greeks. Then Oleg has put the ships on wheels and, having supplied them with sails, with a fair wind has reached city walls. Scared Greeks have given the huge ransom and have concluded the contract, very favorable for Russia. Then Oleg has hung up the shield on a gate of Constantinople[57].
In the annals all has turned out very beautifully, but here’s the trouble - Greeks did not know about this campaign; they simply have not noticed it.
Russian historiography of XVIII century accepted Nestor's version uncritically, thanks to what this story, despite all its incongruity, was fixed in the school textbooks. A.A. Presnyakov, S.P. Obnorsky, S.V. Bakhrushin, D.S. Likhachev and many others took a skeptical attitude to this fact. The treaty of 907 reminded too much of the historically fixed treaty of 911[58]. However, the dispute proceeds to the present day, for though the fantasy of the details described by Nestorius is obvious, but the question has gone on the legal side of the problem - the text of the treaty. The concept about preliminarian character of the contract of 907, renegotiated in 911 has arisen. This compromise solution was supported by B.D.Grekov, M.V.Levchenko, V.T.Pashuto, the third version defended the universal significance of the 907th date, and G.Ostrogorsky and A.A.Vasiliev, considering Oleg as a Varangian leader, accepted the annalistic version. In such confused dispute the constructive offer of A.N.Saharov to separate questions about reality of Oleg's campaign and about authenticity of the text of the contract[59]. The second question lies outside of our interests, and the first it is possible to consider as solved by the majority of the quoted works with what the author of these lines agrees also. Nestor seems to have attributed to Oleg a campaign of Askold in 860, the authenticity of which is incontestable[60]. But what was in the beginning of X century? Let's see and think.
According to our accepted methodology, should be considered a panorama, the history of the whole area, connected with Khazaria, for 907, or rather, from 904 to 910. Thus, we will make a chronological cross section, which will allow to discard most of the unfit versions.
Let's put the question this way: who was for Byzantium, and who was against it? Byzantium was surrounded by three super-ethnoses: Muslim, Romano-Germanic, and nomadic (Eurasian), but none of them represented unity. The Muslims were divided into Sunnis, who were hostile to Byzantium and bought furs from Khazaria; Deylem Shiites, who were hostile to Sunnis, and Carmats, who were enemies of all as a prime example of anti-system. In the West there was a feudal revolution going on against the Carolingian emperor, who relied on Jewish communities to supply them with money; that was the only reason the Carolingians could hold on; they paid off with privileges, and very generously.
In the Steppe, the Pechenegs drove the Hungarians into Europe, where they fell upon Moravia, Italy, and Germany.
Thus, the enemies of Byzantium were the Sunni Arabs, the popes of Rome, the emperors of the West and, of course, the Khazar Jews; their friends were the Deilem Shiites, the feudals of France (they were of little use) and the Pechenegs, which Constantine Porphyrogenitus noted. And Russians were given a free choice... and they made it in 904, which will be discussed.
43. WAR OF THE RUSSIANS WITH THE GREECES IN 907
Was there such a war? Reporter spares no praise for Oleg, which as if for successful siege of Constantinople and conclusion of trade contract enslaving to Greeks received from Kiev inhabitants the name "believe": "[61] Behi boe people poganii and neveiglasi.
The attitude of the chronicler to the prince is dual: on the one hand, it deserves glory as the winner, on the other hand - it praised ignorant pagans, that from the point of view of the monk of Kievo-Pechersky Laurels, is not good. And it is not clear, how did the supposedly suffered Greeks treat him, because they simply did not notice Oleg's feats. Searches of indirect information about events of 907 have led V.D.Nikolayev to the analysis of the chronicle of Pseudo-Simeon [62] (X century), and here there came time of surprises.
In June 904 the Arab naval commander Leo of Tripolitania made an attempt to attack Constantinople, but was driven back by the Byzantine fleet of Admiral Imerius. And then Byzantium was also attacked by the Ross-Dromites,[63] defeated by another Byzantine naval commander, John Radinus. Some of the Ross-Dromites were saved by the supernatural abilities of the wizard Ross. Others were lost by the fire of the Greeks at cape Trixphalos in feme [64] Opsikias.
Chronicle Pseudo-Simeon has caused sharp polemics, critically analyzed in the quoted article of V.D. Nikolaev. The defenders of Nestor's version - a victorious campaign of Prophetic Oleg - lost the argument. Now, the most convincing conclusions of V.D. Nikolaev are the following: "... it is obvious that the 'Rus-Dromitas'... was not Oleg's army, but a Slavic-Vikings freemen, who lived in the mouth of the Dnieper and on the coast of the Black Sea... These freemen made predatory raids on the Byzantine possessions... under the leadership of "divinely illuminated leader”. Coincidence of a campaign Russ-Dromitas with campaign of the Lion of Tripolitans is not casual. The Dromites took advantage of the absence of the imperial fleet near the capital. Having sailed at night not to be noticed by Kherson stratigue, Dromitas moved along the Bulgarian coast because Bulgarians hated Greeks: then they have plundered vicinities of capital and have been scattered by the Byzantium fleet. And this happened in 904. - Three years earlier than Oleg's campaign. And if such small events are fixed in the history of Byzantium, "the shield on the gates of Tsaregrad" – is on conscience of Nestor.
And then two questions arise, the second being the answer to the first. Nestor could not fail to know that in 860 Russ almost won Constantinople by military methods, very similar to those which Oleg in 907 allegedly applied. Here could be simply transfer of events of a campaign despised by chronicler Askold onto a campaign of favorite Oleg, for which glorification it was enough only to change date. In fact, the annals were written 200 years after Oleg (1100-1113), and hardly all readers of that time paid attention to such a longstanding chronology.
But if so, critics of a source are right, proved, that here was not a victory, but defeat, and not in 907, but in 904, and Byzantines described events of the history, instead of glossed over it. Let's accept this version [65] and let's see to what results the defeat of Leo of Tripolitano and his allies should lead.
It is easy to imagine, what feelings were gnawed Russ-Dromitas in the autumn 904, both escaped from Greek fire, and the relatives of the lost. The dream of reckoning with Tsargrad became ethno-psychological dominant. It is even possible to imagine that this was the time when the legend of reprisals against the Greeks was created, which did not and could not actually happen, but as a patriotic story it was suitable, and perhaps it was used as a set piece in the compilation of the early chronicles.
But there was also a brutal reality. Revenge on the Greeks with the help of the Arabs proved unrealistic. We had to look for another anti-Christian ally, i.e., to choose between the Hungarians and the Khazars. The Hungarians, who had just conquered the Danube valley, turned their attention to Western Europe: Germany, France, Italy and even Spain. Therefore, they had no time. But the Judeo-Khazars hated the Greeks with all their hearts. Their states bordered in the Crimea, and their trading interests overlapped on all seas.
Russ-Dromitians, who were a stronghold of militant paganism,[66] and their supporters in Kiev and Novgorod, naturally, saw in Itilian king a reliable ally. They decided to use his forces and... turned out to be the used themselves.
Yes, it is dangerous to make insincere friends, but, once started, the chain of events naturally unraveled for half a century, until the inertia of the deed ran out and was replaced by another, as often happens in ethnic history.
But even if the traditional version is correct, we must admit that Oleg's success and the abundance of booty are exaggerations, typical of the authors of that era, and the conclusion - the alliance of Oleg with the Khazar king against the Greek autocrat - remains valid. Such a collision was beneficial to both partners, but at the expense of whom? As we have seen, the "Dromitas" for all their bravery and maneuverability could not compete with the regular, trained troops. Khazar mercenaries from Gurgan and Tabaristan were a resilient army, but very expensive. Besides, they refused to fight against Muslims, and conflicts between Jews and Muslims sometimes occurred. But there was one more efficient army - Slavic "warriors" and their Finno-Ugric neighbors, which could be easily mobilized and thrown against Greeks and Deylemites not just gangs of robbers, but against the whole armies.
The fighting ability of the Slavs was well known. "The people of the country of the Rus... warlike”. They fight all the infidels around them, and come out victorious. Their king is called Hakan of the Russes. Among them there is a group from Morovvat , - writes the Persian anonymous in IX century[67]. By the latter were understood warrior-professionals, making with militia one whole [68]. Here this Slavic army have decided to use Rahdonites and Normans, having forced the Slavic young men to pay a tribute by blood. Slavs themselves campaigns on Caspian Sea and on Pontus (Black Sea), were not necessary. But Khagan of Khazaria and the konung of Kiev found ways to make them go to their deaths for their own selfish purposes. Yes, it is hard to live under the rule of foreign tribesmen!
NOTES
[1] Khagan (Qayan - Turk.) - sovereign ruler. Literally: "great" in Sioux-Dakota language (wakan). See: Karimullin A. G. On the issue of genetic affinity between separate languages of American Indians and Turkic languages // Voprosy geografii US. Л., 1976. С. 116; Gumilev, L.N. The Dakuts and the Huns// Ibid. С. 123-125.
[2] These Avars continued to live in Pannonia under the power of their own Hagan in the middle IX century (see: Weber G. General History, vol. V, p. 432).
[3] German chronists in X century identified Russ with Rugs (see: I 27). E.Ch.Skrjinskaya supposes, that Russ has left Skandza before Goths (see: Jordanes. P.192, 254). In II century, the Rugs lived near Baltic Sea, where they left a trace in the name of the island Rugi (Rügen). They were attributed to the Germanic group, i.e. to the sedentary ethnic groups, instead of the Sarmatian nomads. It is difficult to say if the Rugs were Germanic-speaking, but even if so, it was an archaic, pre-Germanic layer, ascending to the Indo-European community. But the fact that they are not Slavs is certain.
[4] See: Artamonov M.I. History of the Khazars.
[5] Constantine Porphyrogenitus. "About Femas" and "About Peoples" // Readings at the Society for the Study of Ancient Manuscripts. М., 1899. С. 15; cit. by: Artamonov M.I. Ibid: P.349.
[6] See: M.I.Artamonov, Ibid, P.347.
[7] Not in XI century as it is sometimes thought, as still on the advice of Patriarch Feognost (933-956) Tsar Peter put Bogumils in prisons. Source: Presbyter Kozma. A Conversation on the Newly Appeared Heresy of Bogumil (see: History of the Macedonian People. Skopje, 1975. P. 37-38).
[8] The Rossomons are mentioned by the Gothic historian Jordanes (IV c.) as opponents of Goths and allies of the Huns. In VIII century Greek and Arabian authors name them Ross or Russ.
[9] See: Novoseltsev A.P. Eastern sources about East Slavs and Russ VI-IX centuries // Ancient Russian state and its international importance. С. 355-419.
[10] Ibid. С. 397-401.
[11] Ibid. С. 391.
[12] Ibid. С. 401.
[13] Ibn-Haukal's characteristic; see: Novoseltsev L.P. Ibid. P. 404.
[14] According to Biruni, who called the Volga "Nahr as-sakaliba". A.P.Novoseltsev disputes this identification (see: Novoseltsev A.P., Ibid p 370), because he translates the name Sakaliba as Slavs, and there were no Slavs in the Middle Volga in IX-XI centuries. However, his translation is arbitrary because the ethnonym "Slavs" was spelled "Slavia" (see 28. Rahdonites).
[15] See: Artamonov M.I. Ibid: P.367- 369.
[16] The term "island" was understood as any isolated region.
[17] Apparently, the conquest of Kiev Russ it is possible to date 852 for in this year " began to name Ruska land " (STY. 4.1. Page 17).
[18] See: Novoseltsev A.P. Ibid: 417-419.
[19] See: Shusharin V.P. Old Russian state in Western and Eastern European medieval monuments // Old Russian state and its international importance. С. 422.
[20] Ibid. С. 429.
[21] Jordan. С.192-193.
[22] The ethnonyms of old Slavic ethnoses had the ending "not": Polyans, Drevlyans, Northerners, Slovenes; newcomers - "ichi"; Krivichi, Radimichi, Dregovichi; an exception to the rule - Tiverians.
[23] See: Shakhmatov A.A. "The Tale of Bygone Years" and its sources / / Works of the Department of Old Russian Literature (TODRL). VOL. IV. L., 1940. С. 29; cit. by: STY. CH.II. P.108. Artamonov M.I. Questions of the Eastern Slavs' settlement and "Soviet archeology" / / Problems of Universal History: Collection of Historiographers. Л.. 1967. С. 29-30.
[24] See: Lebedev G.S. Age of Vikings in North Europe, L.1985, p.214.
[25] See: Lovmyanski G. Rerik Jutland and Rurik Novgorod // Scandinavian collection. Tallinn, 1963, Quoted from: Lebedev G.S. Op. cit. p. 214.
[26] See: Lebedev G. S. С. See: Lebedev G.S. op. cit. p. 214.
[27] Skilitzis; quoted from: History of Byzantium, vol. VOL. II. С. 228.
[28] See: History of Byzantium. VOL. II. С. 230 and note 19.
[29] Full Collection of Russian chronicles (hereinafter; PSRL).Vol. IX. M.;L. 1965. С. 9.
[30] See: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian church. М., 1901. Vol. 1. Period one. The first half of the volume. С. 51-52.
[31] See: Tolstov S.P. On the traces of the ancient Khorezmian civilization. М., 1948. С. 229.
[32] Yakut attests that Khazars were Christians and Muslims, and partially pagans; only a few practiced Judaism (see: Artamonov M.I. History of Khazars. P.280). Dimashki specifies that Khazar soldiers were Muslims and citizens were Jews (see, Ibid), but, apparently, he means only the population of the capital.
[33] See: Weber G. Op. cit. Vol. V. P. 342.
[34] If we speak about the religious doctrine of the Pavlikians, their difference with the Manicheans, their similarity with the ancient Gnostics and their extremely negative attitude to Mazdaqism and Judaism are striking. But the theological subtleties which agitated the minds of the theologians were alien and incomprehensible to the masses whose task was war against Byzantium. To oppose themselves to Orthodoxy, it was enough to recognize that matter is not a creation of God, but an eternally evil beginning. This thesis is akin to the Manichaeans and Cathars, but the origin of the doctrine from the lost treatise of Marcion left an indelible mark on their ideology. The Pauline Christians, like the Manichaeans, cannot be considered Christians, even though they did not reject the Gospel. The Pauline Christians called the cross a symbol of damnation because Christ was crucified on it, did not accept icons and rites, did not recognize the sacraments of baptism and communion, and considered all material things to be evil. Consistent, the Peacledonians actively fought against church and authority, parishioners and subjects, making it their business to sell captive young men and women to the Arabs. At the same time, there were many rabble-rousing popes and monks, as well as professional military men who led their cohesive, disciplined bands. Even the spiritual leaders could not restrain these sectarians from atrocities. Life took its toll even when the slogan of the struggle was the denial of life. And one should not blame Marcion, who in theology was a philologist who showed a fundamental difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, for these murders. The ideological basis of the anti-system might have been based on another concept.
[35] Thierry O. Selected Essays. М., 1937. С.247.
[36] See: Weber G. Op. cit. С.487-488.
[37] See: History of Norway. М., 1980. С. 101.
[38] Steblin-Kamensky M.I. Culture of Iceland. С.19.
[39] See: Kogan M.L. Bold mariners of medieval Norse. Л., 1967. С. 13.
[40] See: Tyumenev A.I. Ibid, op. cit. P 249 (letters of pope Stefan III).
[41] See Ibid. P.276 (Agobardus. De insolentia Judaeorum.P.5).
[42] See ibid. P.268-269 and 271-272.
[43] See ibid. С. 272.
[44] See ibid. С. 143.
[45] See: Weber G. op. cit. С.489.
[46] Vikings from Overseas levied (or were going to charge) the tribute from Chud, Meri and Krivichi, and Khazars - from Polans, Northerners and Vyatichi (STY. Ch.1 P.18).
[47] See: Tyumenev A.I. Ibid: P.243.
[48] See: Ibid. С. 280.
[49] See: History of the USSR. Т. 1. М., 1966. С. 482.
[50] See: Shakhmatov A.A. Investigations on the most ancient Russian annalistic vaults. SPb, 1908. С. 338.
[51] STY. VOL. II. С.247.
[52] See: Henning R. Ibid. vol. II. С.165-173.
[53] See: Shevchenko U.U. On the borderline of two ethnic substrates of Eastern Europe in 8th - 10th cc. / / Ethnography of Eastern European peoples. L., 1977 P.46-47; Gumilev L.N. Ancient Rus and its neighbors in the system of international trade and natural exchange / / Izv. Vol. 119, Vyp. 3. 1987. С. 223-234.
[54] Artamonov M.I. History Khazars.P.383.
[55] It is obvious tendentiousness chroniclers who count victories Russ lead with Oleg, moving Askold and Dir in the shadow (Sakharov L.N. Diplomacy of Ancient Russia... Page 78.).
[56] See: Vernadsky V.I. Ibid: op. cit. С.285.
[57] STY. CH.I. P.25.
[58] Analysis of the versions, see: Sakharov A.N. Dirkbekov: Sakharov A.N. Diplomacy of Ancient Rus... С. 84-89.
[59] See there. С. 89.
[60] See ibid. С. 48-56.
[61] PVL. CH. I. С. 25; S.M.Soloviev is also skeptical about Oleg's "achievements". In his opinion, they were limited to robbery of defenseless Slavic tribes.
[62] Nikolaev V.D. The evidence of chronicle of Pseudo-Simeon about Russ-Dromitas and Oleg's campaign to Constantinople in 907 // Byzantine times. VOL. 42. M., 1981. С. 147-153.
[63] Drom (Greek) - run. These bandits were so fast to run away from the regular troops, they deserved their nickname by this (see Ibid, P.151).
[64] Thema (Greek) - military district in Byzantium during the Macedonian dynasty.
[65] See: Byzantine Chronicle. Т. 42. С. 152.
[66] See: Ibid. С. 150.
[67] Novoseltsev A.P. Ibid, p.399.
[68] See: Froyanov I.Ya. Kievan Rus. L.1980, p.185-195.
.