16. Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere, Gumilev
Part Eight, 2nd section, XXXI. Phases of Passionary Rise and Overheating
[In the first part of this section there is a great chronology of ✓how Byzantium Christians formed. In the second half is a great explanation of the ✓fall of Rome. The last part delves into both south and north ✓America, from before Columbus. It was a greater hell that the Spanish wreaked on them.]
BIRTH OF AN ETHNOS.
The simplest version of the beginning of ethnogenesis is the emergence of a new ethnos on the background of the described static state, which cannot change on its own. Firstly, none of the members of the ethnos wants such a change; secondly, no one can even imagine it; thirdly, to change the nature of the process a powerful and purposeful energy impulse is needed, which no self-consciousness can create, for it would contradict the law of conservation of energy. Nevertheless, ethnic groups do emerge from time to time. Let us see how.
Several ethnic groups with different systems of economy and different cultures live side by side, on the same territory. They are accustomed to each other; conflicts between them are constant, but insignificant, and usually pass without noticeable consequences. Since the fluctuations are within strictly delineated limits, it is homeostasis.
But here the region's population moves into a dynamic state, i.e., it begins to develop. The first stage of development is an explosion-like breakdown of established relationships. It always happens like this: in one or two generations, there is a certain number of people who do not accept the restrictions that their grandfathers willingly endured. They demand for themselves a place in life corresponding to their talents, energy, deeds, fortunes, rather than a predetermined one, determined only by the accident of birth in this or that family. The first of them perish because the collective resists them, but if the process of reproduction goes with the necessary intensity, these desperate "discontented" are enough to unite and impose their will on the calm people of the former stock. The foundation of the ancient temple rests on the corpses of martyrs and victims. Such was the case at the founding of Rome, when Latin descendants gathered on the seven hills for war with the kings of Alba Longa; such were the "faithful" of the outlaw shepherd David, who united the remnants of twelve much-abused Jewish tribes (Habiru) and on this basis created a strong kingdom with centralized authority in religion. In both cases the slave-owning formation was preserved. Muhammad's companions, the Muhajirs and Ansars; the Zulus, the heroic warriors of Chaka, Dingan and Segewayo, and the Matebals on the banks of the Zambezi, are no different from those listed. They all resemble not only the Viking warriors, but also the barons of the early Carolingians, the earls of Charlemagne and the knights who were the prototypes of the literary characters of the "peers of the Round Table": they, too, broke with everyday life and saw this not as a sin, but as a deed.
Here is another vivid example of a passionate push and change of the ethnic stereotype of behavior. In the XII century the Great Steppe was inhabited by various peoples, whose social life was regulated by tribal norms of life, which appeared after the disintegration of the military-democratic formations of the hordes. More than half of the nomads professed Nestorian Christianity, but the Mongols in Transbaikalia and eastern Mongolia had an independent religion[11]. In this ethnic substratum a process of selection from the tribes of the so-called "people of the long will"[12], i.e. the most passionate, not getting along in the tribal way of life, took place gradually. At first, they sought sustenance in the mountains and steppes, but inevitably had to resort to plunder, and then their doom was a foregone conclusion. Then they began to form small detachments and finally rallied around Temujin, an impoverished member of the noble Borjigin family, orphaned at the age of nine.
In the second half of the twelfth c. Temujin, thanks to skillful diplomacy and organizational talent, managed to create at first a small horde, and then to unite the whole Great Steppe to the Urals and to reconcile the subjugated tribes with his power so that they participated in distant campaigns on a par with the Mongols.
The focus of their dominance was prompted by the need to respond to an extremely difficult and increasingly complicated situation. The Chinese and Central Asian Muslims behaved toward the Turks and Mongols as the North American colonists did toward the Indians. The Chinese and Muslims systematically attacked the nomads with the purpose of their physical extermination, and spared only small children to be sold into slavery,[13] therefore the nomads, driven by the tribal categories of blood feud and collective responsibility, had an unconscious, but conscious need for war against the aggressors.
The steppe united by Temujin (Genghis), was strong enough to defeat its eternal opponents with a blow back, and, what is especially remarkable, the Christians and pagans acted hand in hand. The further campaigns of Genghis' successors were caused exclusively by hostile acts on the part of the Chinese national empire of the Sun, the "fragments" of the defeated Khoresmians of Jalal-ad-din, the Russian princes who took the side of the Kipchaks (Polovtsians), and the Hungarians who exterminated the Mongolian embassy.
The Mongols retained some of the conquered lands due to the fact that among the local population there were groups who considered an alliance with the Mongol khans as a salvation for themselves. In Western Asia there were Armenians, who felt the pressure of Muslims, and in Russia - Alexander Nevsky, who defended the Russian land from Catholics (Swedes, Germans and their allies - Lithuanians).
A huge territory with a diverse population could not form a single whole and broke up into several states, in which the local population gradually assimilated the small detachments of the Mongol conquerors, creating new ethnic groups with different social structure and different culture: the Golden Horde Tatars, i.e., the Volga urban, of course, multi-tribal population, united by loyalty to the Chinggisid (Chingiss is Ganghis), khans; the steppe Nogai on the Yaik, and eastern nomads, united in Kazakh tribal unions (Dzhuts); Uzbeks, Oirats, Buryats and remnants of the Khalkha Mongols and Barguts.
This example of the emergence of an ethnic system is illustrative because it is simple. The severe drought of the 10th c. barrened the Great Steppe for a century, which was repopulated during the moistening of the arid zone that followed in the 11th c. The process of re-adaptation led to an increase in the steppe population, but not to its integration. Only a passionate push united the disparate tribes of the coastal taiga and Transbaikalia steppes into two mighty creative ethnic groups: the Jurchens in the East and the Mongols in Transbaikalia. The integration was relatively easy, because it arose on the basis of the homeostatic condition of the primary ethnic substrata. The expansion of new ethnic groups was resisted mainly by the foreigners. Despite their huge numerical and technological superiority, they were defeated. This does not mean, of course, that the victory of the Mongols was a foregone conclusion, for the Aztecs and Zulus were defeated in a similar situation. The Mongols simply managed to use the chance to win, but this is no longer ethnogenesis, but political history.
Somewhat more complicated is the case when the passionate push affects the substrates, which are not in a static, but in a dynamic state, already passed the initial phases of ethnogenesis. This situation took place in the 1st century A.D., when a population equally close and equally alien to all of the above emerged within the Roman Empire, at the junction of the Hellenic, Hebrew and Syriac ethnic groups. It was a Christian community that "rendered to Caesar the things that are Caesar's," did not distinguish between the Hellenes and the Jews, and was hated by everyone around it, because its ethnic dominance was foreign and incomprehensible to them.
From the tiny Christian community of the first century grew first an ethnos and then a huge super-ethnos with a culture that we call Byzantine. The mechanism of the formation of the Christian ethnos is outwardly different from those discussed above, but in essence it is identical to them[14]. Preachers and martyrs, apologists and contemplatives behaved like Roland, who died in the Ronseval Gorge, Leonidas of Sparta at Thermopylae, Kitbuka Noyon, captured by the Mamluks, and many other knights. And although the specific actions of the first Christians differed from those of knights and warriors, the dominant behavior, its psychological pattern were fundamentally the same, and the results were the same: the creation of a new collective of people with an original culture, that is, a new ethnos, which three hundred years later, having supported the leper tyrant and murderer Constantine, delivered him victory and diadem, being satisfied only with giving itself the right to legal existence. And then, since 313, a new ethnos, the "Christian-Romans," became a fact of world-historical significance.
RISE OF PASSIONARITY
The rising phase of ethnogenesis is always associated with expansion, just as a heated gas expands. Byzantine Christians are no exception. But it was not warriors and merchants, but monk preachers who carried their indestructible vigor beyond the borders of their native country. Egyptian hermits left Thebaid as early as the third century and went to preach westward, through pagan Rome and druidic Britain, to the green island of Erin, whose inhabitants had never known Roman arbitrariness or civilization.
In the fifth century an independent Christian church emerged in Ireland, categorically recognizing neither the Roman pope nor the Western church calendar, for their tradition was brought from the East, where a new entity had emerged - Byzantium.
The Byzantine ethnos had no ancestors. This, of course, does not mean that the people who made it up did not descend from Pithecanthropes, but ethnos is not a stock of people, but a dynamic system that emerges in historical time, in the presence of a passionary push as a necessary component at; the trigger moment of ethnogenesis, a process that breaks down the old culture.
In ancient times there was a single Hellenistic culture in the Mediterranean, which included in the process of development Lacium and the Phoenician cities. Ethnically it resembled Western European culture, because the basic Hellenistic core did not exhaust all the variants of the diverse Hellenistic culture.
Of course, Rome, Carthage, and Pella had their own local characteristics and represented independent ethnicities, but in a super-ethnic sense they were part of the broad circle of Hellenistic culture. This, however, is not new, but it is important for us as a starting point. Roman domination contributed to ethnic revelation, and the equation of Greek with Latin resulted in almost the entire population of the Mediterranean merging into a single ethnos.
But in the first century A.D. new people appeared in the Roman Empire, forming a new entity over the next two centuries. Already at the beginning of their emergence they opposed the "Gentiles", i.e. all others, and indeed stood out from their number, of course, not by anatomical or physiological features, but by the nature of behavior. However, it was also alien to the Jews, who, far from merging with the Romans and Greeks, were not persecuted for their faith[15].
The members of the Christian communities formed the nucleus of the "Byzantine" ethnos, and how they succeeded, we shall now see. In 330, Emperor Constantine moved the capital to the small town of Byzantium and turned it into a luxurious Constantinople. Passionarians from everywhere flocked there. Many Goths settled in Thrace, under the pretext of military service. Slavs have broken through the Danube line of fortifications and settled the Balkan Peninsula, including the Peloponnese. The Syrians spread from the Po River valley to the bend of the Huang He. By the 6th century a mixed tribal and multilingual, but monolithic ethnos, which we conventionally call the Byzantine, had emerged. The Greek heritage of antiquity was only a state language and commonly understood, while at home everybody spoke their own languages. Very quickly this "Byzantine" ethnos became a super-ethnos, as Armenians and Georgians, Isaurians and Slavs, Alans and Crimean Goths succumbed to its charm.
The history of Byzantium has been interpreted either as a continuation of the history of the Roman Empire (Gibbon), or as the creation of a Christian "Greek kingdom" (F.I. Uspensky), or as an Eastern European version of the feudal formation. All these aspects have illuminated different sides of Byzantine history, but the problem of the originality of Byzantine culture has remained unresolved. Our point of view also does not claim to be universal, but it fills a gap in the ethnic history of Europe.
Let us call "Byzantium" the phenomenon which emerged as a consequence of the passionate push of the first and second centuries in Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor, which took shape as the Church, with all its deviations and currents, and which acquired a stereotype of relations with secular authorities. This integrity was much broader than the borders of the Eastern Roman Empire and outlived it by many centuries. It is possible to object to the title, but not necessary, because it is understandable and exhausts the problem in the formulation of the question, which is constructive for further reasoning.
SECOND ROME OR ANTIRIM?
If we were describing the descending branch of the ethnogenesis curve, the task would be easy. We would establish the progressive simplification of the ethno-social system, the decline of its resistance and the infiltration of foreign elements. But when we have to describe the ascendant branch, it is much more difficult. In the case of rising passionarity, the dominant is not found immediately. Several directions of development emerge, fighting each other more fiercely than with their natural adversary - the dying tradition of the dying super-ethnos.
In spite of this, however, all rival systems act in the same way in relation to the old one, even if they undertake to defend it. Julian the Apostate tried to restore the Roman faith ... and replaced Christ with Mithras. But mithraism was for the Romans a religion as alien as Christianity, and penetrated into Rome at the same time - under Nero, and the adherents of mithraism were not Roman nobili, and Illyrian soldierly emperors; and initiation in mihraum received mainly legionaries, torn from their homes and relatives, and often - they were foreigners. Even if Julian had defeated and uprooted Christianity, he would have strengthened not the offspring of the god Quirinus and the she-wolf, but a system which would more properly be understood as Antirim, only of a different style than that which the Christian communities had created.
The activity of these communities had been going on unnoticed for three centuries, gradually uniting the passionate elements that had fallen out of the old system, which had not given vent to their frenetic passion for creation. But since the Roman Empire was a single cultural and social political integrity, even with the administrative division into "East" and "West", naturally, both passionary and sub-passionary regional populations coexisted, exchanging entropy and non-entropy with each other. In other words, the bearers of the traditions of ancient moral decline lived side by side with the exuberant mythmakers, the originators of new traditions. Territorial separation would be good for them, but there was no way out, because Rome so offended surrounding ethnic groups that they all hated any Romans.
That is why the process of displacement of one ethnos (Roman) by another (Byzantine) passed through the whole territory of the Roman Empire and was so painful. And that is why we can only conventionally suggest one or another date as the "beginning" of the new process of ethnogenesis and the first phase of its formation.
In the middle of the first century A.D. the apostle Paul's sermons gave rise to consortia which had not yet distinguished themselves from the original ethnic substrata, but the Romans already saw in them something integral, although they perceived it as a form of Judaism.
In the middle of the second century, thanks to the work of Justin the Philosopher, Christians became a distinct sub-ethnos, categorically disassociated from Judaism; Gnostics were counted as Christians by their contemporaries.
By the beginning of the 4th century, Christians were an ethnos within the Roman super-ethnos; Constantine was forced to admit this. Nevertheless, the Eastern Empire he created was not yet Byzantium in the ethnological sense of the term; rather, it should be understood as an area of rivalry between Church Christianity and Mithraists, Neoplatonists, Donatists, Arians, and other divisions of the new ethnic element that was created before the eyes of the historian and became evident to contemporaries.
The once warlike and then freedom-loving ethnic groups of the West, after their subjugation by the Romans, supplied brave horsemen and skilled marksmen for the legions, but by the fourth century this too was over. All were swept away by the inevitable processes of "passionate entropy". Not only Gallo-Romans and Britons, but also Batavians, Frisians, Iberians and Numidians,[16] despite having individual qualities: bravery, physical strength, endurance, etc., they did not have that additional quality which would allow them to defend their property, families and lives against enemies. Similarly, the rich and cultured Alans, who allowed themselves to be conquered by the savage few Huns on the eastern edge of the region, behaved in the same way. Most cowardly of all were the "last Romans," still to be found in the blessed Italy populated by visiting Asians.
The valiant Thracians and Illyrians squandered their passionarity as early as the third century. The mechanism of this process was simple: brave energetic young men went off to legions for "career and fortune", while passive ones started families at home. Thus the extreme trait was removed from the population.
In the fourth century, the most combat-ready and disciplined Roman armies consisted of members of Christian communities. Even Julian the Apostate had to use them. But they categorically refused to fight against their co-religionists, such as the Bagaudians, rebels in Gaul at the end of the third century.
Such adherence to principle can sometimes be inconvenient, but it made legionaries, brought up in the strict rules of Christian communities, more reliable than demoralized citizens of the Roman world, who did not believe in Jupiter and Mars and who had long lost their sense of loyalty and conscience.
It is fruitless to seek explanations for the difference between the eastern and western halves of the Roman Empire in the social order that emerged in the third century. And the racial composition of the population could not matter, because as early as the first century the inhabitants of Greece and Syria were regarded in Rome as degenerated descendants of their once mighty ancestors. And rightly so.
But in the fourth century, the inhabitants of the cities, but not of the villages of the East, seized the initiative. After all, in the cities gathered passionarians who were weighed down by the boredom of village life. The results of the passionary push in the IV c. The place of the citizens of the Roman Empire in Asia Minor, the Balkans and Syria was taken by a new ethnos, conventionally called Byzantine. By its efforts the barbarians were repulsed, a huge city Constantinople was built, crafts were mastered, trade was established not only with its neighbors, but even with China, and most importantly, the landscapes of Syria, Asia Minor, Thrace and Macedonia were preserved. Obviously, the extensive economy of the latifundia, which belonged to the natives of these countries, to some extent curbed the predatory tendencies of the migrants who found themselves in Byzantium in the position of people forced, like everyone else, to obey the existing laws and customs.
Even in Constantinople, the capital of the empire, although its population exceeded one million, it did not destroy nature. The city drowned in green gardens, carefully guarded and fed the families of the inhabitants. The Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara supplied the population with fish, and grain was imported from Egypt, where the soil was annually renewed by the Nile floods, and the Black Earth "Scythia" (the steppes of the northern Black Sea region). It turned out that it was possible to create culture, develop trades and build magnificent structures without destroying nature. This was achieved by using the excess energy (passionarity) of the Byzantines for theological disputes and strife which brought them much trouble but was harmless for the surrounding landscapes.
DECAY AND REBIRTH
In the West, on the other hand, this was not the case. The development of engineering (roads, aqueducts, giant galleys) made it possible to supply Rome's population of two million. Bread was brought in from Sicily and North Africa, wine from Greece and Provence, and wool from Spain. Only fresh meat and flowers were not transportable in those days, and so Italy was turned into pastures for cattle and plantations of violets, for ladies always loved flowers. Rome produced nothing, it only consumed. But while in the first and second centuries Roman officials were able to organize the exploitation of the provinces and reward their plundered populations with a firm order under some legality (far from always respected), in the third and fourth centuries this was no longer the case. The soldierly emperors turned the country into an arena of civil wars for power. And as legionaries had to be rewarded, there were massive confiscations of the possessions of rich latifundists and squeezing money out of poor parcelled farmers. The latter, in turn, raped the land of their parcels, trying to make a living today, for it was frightening and meaningless to think of tomorrow's punishments. The population was steadily falling, and the survivors were losing the will to resist. It was not the living forces of the ethnos, but the social structure and state tradition that held up the grand edifice of the Roman Empire in this era. This could not last long.
The exhausted West easily submitted to the raging East and, after the last attempt at resistance, the conspiracy of 393-394, led by Frank Arbogast, became a periphery of Byzantium, already administratively constituted as an orthodox empire. This action was carried out by Theodosius and had very important consequences: "ethnos according to Christ" expanded so much that it became a super-ethnos, and currents of Christian thought became a symbol of self-assertion for ethnic groups hostile to centralized power, secular and spiritual.
The Goths retained their Arianism, condemned in 381 by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. In this way they distinguished themselves from the Byzantine integrity. The Berbers of Numidia supported the Donatists, not even heretics, but simply schismatics... And Africa fell out of the hands of the emperors of Rome. But the descendants of the pagans of Gaul and Spain appealed for support from the Universal Church and waited for help from the imperial power; alas, to no avail.
Neither was there any extra military power in the East.
Aetius, the son of a Roman and a German, who had defended Gaul against the hordes of Huns and Germans, but who was killed personally by Emperor Valentinian during a conversation about business in 454, lived, won and died in this super-tough environment. In any super-ethnos there are different people. But there were more people like Aetius in the East than in the West. That's why the vile crimes, which were frequent in Constantinople, did not destroy this city, and Rome was destroyed by the Vandals immediately after the death of Aetius - in 455. If there were true Romans? They would have defended their "Eternal City".
Some believe that "the barbarians, in destroying the Roman Empire, did not destroy the Roman people, but merged with them." Did they? Here are the demographics: the population of Italy in the first century AD. - 7-8 million, around 600. - 4-5 million[17].
The decline by half despite the influx of Lombards, Gauls, Rutes, Goths, immigrants from Syria and Asia Minor, i.e. Semitic Christians. It was the latter who formed the basis of the population of the cities of northern Italy: Milan, Verona, Padun, Ravenna, Aquitaine, while the Latin population of Italy declined sharply because most of the poor male population served in the legions after the Reformation of Mary and returned so weary that they did not start families. The rich, the nobility and the horsemen, had concubines as slaves or indulged in unnatural vices. The Roman matrons had not lagged behind them since the time of Caesar[18]. So, the halving of the population together with the recorded immigration from the North and East point to the change of the ethnic groups in Italy in the V-VI centuries: the old one disappeared and was replaced by an ethnic conglomerate.
When the Goths and Lombards conquered the Apennine peninsula, it was sparsely populated; that is why they managed to subdue it. We dwell on this example in such detail in order to clarify the complexity of the problems of ethnogenesis, which cannot be solved outside of ethnic history. This was not the case on the eastern fringe of the former empire, where the Christian stream proved viable and gave birth to an integrity that had no self-name. On the basis of the early Christian community, which by the 5th century had swollen to the entire space of the Roman Empire and a number of neighboring countries, an ethnic group was formed that called itself by the old word "Romans."
From the 6th century Macedonia, Thrace and Peloponnesus were settled by the Slavs, Epirus by the Albanians, south of Asia Minor by the Isaurians, its center by the Galatians, north by the Lazars, east by the Aisors, and Syria, although it had a Greek stratum, was only in the cities and even that was not numerous. The native Greek population held on to the islands longer, but Crete and Cyprus were conquered by the Arabs in the 8th century and their Greek population was sold in slave markets. So, there remains the urban population of Constantinople, where the population was very mixed, but used Greek as a commonly understood and literary language.
So can the Byzantine ethnos be considered a continuation of the Roman or Hellenic ethnos, even though it received a rich cultural heritage from its ancestors: languages with excellent literature, cities with aqueducts, roads, gardens and fortresses on the borders? Some of these goods the new people used, some they neglected, some they lost with sorrow. But the whole attitude of the "Byzantines"-Roman Christians-was different from that of the Hellenes and Latins. And most importantly, with a radical change in ethnic dominance, the system's passionary tension grew, not decreased.
Emerged from Christian confessional consortia, the new ethnos manifested an energy seemingly completely lost in the Roman Empire. This energy pushed the Egyptian monks of Thebaid and the Syrian acolytes from the banks of the Orontes and Euphrates to Ireland, India, Central Asia, and even China. It was a spiritual-intellectual expansion, all the more astonishing because it was not backed by force of arms, nor did it pursue any practical goals or material interests. The reasons for this activity lay in itself. It was an act for the satisfaction of knowing that a duty had been fulfilled. Such sincerity influenced the hearts of the converted, and ensured the preaching of Orthodoxy a success that exceeded immeasurably the actual cost due to the high passionarity of the preachers.
But the same peculiarity within the empire pushed people into religious disputes, which turned into political strife. Why was it necessary that a dispute about the relation of God the Father to God the Son, be interpreted as being so different one with the other, and really so alike, that it was followed by bloody executions, which gave no real advantage to either orthodox or Arians? On the contrary, the economic and political benefits were sacrificed by the Byzantines in the fourth and sixth centuries for the sake of principles, most of which turned out to be nonviable and disappeared.
But some part of them, and presumably the most valuable, survived. They were principles that antiquity did not know, the Christian West did not absorb, and the Muslim East remade in its own way. Byzantium included spiritual elements into the system of state relations, in particular the category of conscience, without which it was very difficult to build internal relations, and found a way to combine them with the needs of the state. The latter did not lose from this.
Byzantium did not know the "pestilence" that corroded Western Europe-the struggle between secular and spiritual authority. Since Constantine the Equal Apostle, the emperor at accession to the throne received the rank of deacon, thanks to which he could participate in church councils and dictate them decisions which were considered obligatory, because "the emperor is the highest master and keeper of the faith for the church"[19]. This put the patriarch in second place, but also gave him opportunities that the pope did not have. After all, the emperor was not only a crowned autocrat, but also a man who was sinful and weak. The patriarch, as clergyman, could impose ecclesiastical penance on him, forbid his entrance into the church, refuse to marry or divorce him. True, the emperor commanded the army, but the army would not go into battle without the blessing of the patriarch. And if the emperor had a bureaucratic administration, the patriarch had an army of monks and theologians. The spiritual and secular forces balanced each other, and as a result the new ethnic unity was strong. But the culture?
PASSIONARY "OVERHEATING."
Both strands of ancient thought: natural philosophy, which gave birth to Hellenistic geography, and the ethics of the Socratics, Stoics, and Epicureans, were no longer relevant to those people who believed in the resurrection from the dead. The afterlife was seen as as immutable as the real, and hence the concern for saving one's soul after death arose. This seemed more important than the preservation of the present brief life, because the afterlife seemed eternal, and it made practical sense to ensure one's well-being in it. Eternal salvation from the sorrows of the world was best provided by martyrdom. This is why, already after the Edict of Milan, some African Donatists, called "circumcellions" (i.e., "wandering around"), formed gangs of fanatics who, when they caught a solitary traveler, demanded that he kill them for the glory of Christ. The man begged to be spared this obligation, because he was afraid to slaughter a chicken, but they gave him a choice: kill them or be killed himself. After all, they were allowed to do anything, for martyrdom atoned for all sins. And the poor man had to take a club from them and beat them one by one on their heads. And they died in the expectation of eternal bliss.
This movement was destroyed through persecution by Blessed Augustine, bishop of Hippo in North Africa. In Syria and Egypt fanaticism took a less acute form, monasticism. People subjected themselves to torture, deprivation, fasting, and celibacy for the sake of eternal bliss. Those of them, who sat in the desert - hermits, did not cause anyone trouble, but wandering monks, of which there were many, were a constant concern of the provincial rulers and even emperors, because they feared nothing and no one, depended on no one, and acted extremely actively on a whim, not always without harm to neighbors. Here was the extreme degree of passionarity, which did not succumb either to their own reason or to the force of circumstances. That is why the monks died quickly, but that is what they wanted.
Fortunately for young Byzantium, the fanatics were still in the minority. The leading role in the church and state was taken by passionate people, but they did not lose their minds. For them, too, the doctrine of salvation was important, but they wanted to understand it. As long as the church was persecuted and Christians lived under the threat of death, they clung to each other. When they were allowed to practice their faith freely, however, it became clear that its basic principles were perceived and understood differently. And the fire of passionarity, which burned the hearts of the people of that time, caused instead of friendly disputes and conversations, fires extinguished by the blood spilled.
In terms of the proposed concept during the development and the growth of passionarity, 300 years after the shock and at the end of the incubation period, there should arise consortia, clothed in social forms. In Byzantium, these forms were sects, which were formed as confessions of certain theses of Christianity. Each confession (sect) had a core of sincere adherents, a shell of those who shared the opinion and sympathized with it, and an environment of indifferent people who used the conflicts for their own personal needs. The latter included almost all the emperors, with the exception of Julian the Apostate, a sincere Mithraist. Julian, however, was a subtle politician. He resorted to no religious persecution, giving the representatives of different currents of religious thought full opportunity to fight against each other, but not against his power.
The most eerie role in this situation was played by the population of the cities. Before Constantine they thirsted for the blood of Christians and wrote so many denunciations against them that Trajan forbade them to take the denunciations into consideration; by his edict a Christian was to be executed only when he himself had denounced himself. After the victory of Christianity these scum began to write denunciations against pagans, Gnostics and heretics, to organize pogroms of philosophers and seditions against the authorities. But they had no confession of faith of their own, nor did they want one.
It is easy to see that neither passionate monasticism nor sub-passionate masses could be used for the needs of the state. And since the situation on the borders was extremely acute, the need for soldiers and officials was great. Foreigners, most of all Goths, had to be taken for these posts, for they were somewhat more delicate than the Vandals, the Gepids and the Heruls.
Gothic youths willingly entered the service of Constantinople, made a career up to general and often carried out coups d'état, because the Gothic commander was supported by his countrymen, who trusted him and he trusted them. They were natural consortia in the urban landscape of the capital. They embraced Christianity in a compulsory manner and adhered to any confession, no doubt ignorant of the theological subtleties, but firmly aware that their opponents were not right in the highest sense, and for some reason theologians know.
Opposing the Germans were the wild Isaurians, descendants of the Cilician pirates. Defeated by Augustus, they broke free from all influence of the Roman authorities during the third century turmoil and resumed plundering on land and sea. Their savage bravery ensured a career in Byzantium, where one of their ataman Zinon became emperor (474-491) and another, the general Leo Isaurus, founded his own dynasty in 717. As rivals of the Goths, the Isaurians held to a different creed, again regardless of its content.
At the beginning of the fourth century a dispute broke out in Alexandria between the presbyter Arius, a man of learning and impeccability, and the bishop Alexander, supported by the deacon Athanasius, an ascetic and sincere fighter for his beliefs. They did not think of the Goths and the Isaurians, but their dispute became a symbol of struggle and an indicator of the processes of ethnogenesis.
Exactly the same craving for independence and originality was shown by Egypt and Syria and Mesopotamia. Here and there arose consortia with confessional overtones. The consequences of these processes determined the history and cultural development of Asia and North Africa for many centuries. But the influence which the level of passional tension had on the dynamics of ethnic systems and the ideological refraction of this process should be explained in more detail.
POESY OF CONCEPTS
The need for knowledge and understanding is no less strong than the need for food or women. It is more variable and manifests itself in different people as a craving for creativity, or as a thirst for blind faith, but it is always directly proportional to the passionate tension, and its vector is determined by the presence of urgent problems.
Monarchianism, according to which Christ was God the Father, and the teaching of Paul of Samosata, who taught that Christ was a man, graced with divine wisdom, had already been discarded in the fourth century. "How then?" - inquiring minds posed the question. To them the presbyter Arius answered, "Christ is the divine Logos, but since he is the Son of God, therefore there was a time when he did not exist. The Logos was foreknown, but not eternal; he is "less than" the Father, for he has his a "beginning. If the Logos is not begotten, then God the Father is not the father, and God the Son is not the son.
"No," Bishop Alexander and Deacon Athanasius argued to Arius, "the Father and the Son coexist, and the Son is born as a ray of light, from a source of light. The word 'Father' and 'Son' are merely metaphors; in fact the Logos is one person (hypostasis) of the Holy Trinity."[20]
Let us clarify the problem. Arius asserted the subsumption of the Son to the Father, Athanasius the oneness. In the Greek language these words are distinguished only by one letter... Was it worth killing so many people for this one letter for almost three hundred years! Of course it was not worth it, and if they did, it was not for the sake of it, or because of it, but simply under cover of it.
But the choice of occasion shows that not only church thinkers, but the masses of illiterate people were capable of drawing philosophical symbols on their banners and going into battle with them. At that time thought was respected.
The poetry of philosophical concepts drew the entire eastern half of the empire into its circle. The scholarly clergy and the people took an equal part in the disputes. In 321 the local Council at Alexandria condemned the teachings of Arius. The Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 decided the question in favor of the doctrine of Athanasius. Arius was exiled and his writings were burned.
In 335 the stipulated Athanasius was exiled, and a year later the emperor Constantine exonerated Arius, who soon died, either from poison, or at the hands of a secret assassin. Nevertheless, the Arians triumphed at the Council of Antioch in 341. But, as always happens, the victors quarreled: some sought compromise with the Nicene confession, others went further than Arius, demanding that all the dogmas be clear to reason, others offered streamlined formulations to avoid reproaches for wrongdoing.
The official doctrine of Arianism was developed by the Council of 359 at Rimini. In the intervening period the Goths, Burgundians, Vandals, and Lombards were baptized. They constituted the guard of Constantius, who ruled a very troubled country.
And the Nicaeans sat in exile. They were released only by Julian the pagan, who gave freedom of religion so that Christians could fight against each other. It was not until 381 that the Spaniard Theodosius convened the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, which anathematized the Arians and the Macedonians[21]. From that time Arianism became the confession of the Germans, not of the Romans. The philosopheme moved from poetry of concepts to etiology.
Conflicts sometimes arose not over fundamental questions of dogma, but over misunderstandings which were not at all theological in nature. In 439 the patriarch of Constantinople was Nestorius, a Persian, a very strict and learned man. Both touched the capital's clergy, who were no strangers to worldly temptations, against which John Chrysostom fought back in 397-404, also unsuccessfully. In a theological debate, Nestorius uttered a phrase that is canonically indisputable: "God has no mother. His enemies immediately reinterpreted this thesis as blasphemy against the Virgin Mary. They got rid of Nestorius by condemning him at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
It would seem that peace would be established there, but the Egyptian monks favored the negation of the humanity in Christ, and in 449 the same Ephesus hosted representatives of all the churches of the empire, as well as of one direction or another, for an Ecumenical Council. The question was, did Christ have a human substance in addition to his divine one? It was not an idle question at the time. If the Egyptian Monophysites were right, then it was not man who suffered on the cross, but God, who could easily bear the torments and even not feel them. And if so, then he is not an example for us humans, because we are weak and afraid of pain. But, on the other hand, is not the recognition of Christ's human nature a belittling of him? That is why the Monophysites cried out, "Split in two those who acknowledge two natures!" The council promised to be stormy.
The doctrine of two natures was supported by the Greeks and Italians (the patriarch and the pope); they were opposed by the Egyptians. During the session thousands of Egyptian monks, hairless, bearded, in hair robes and with great axes, burst into the council chamber. The monks began to beat the bishops, broke the fingers of the scribes, and stomped on the patriarch. And the guards, sent by a bribed nobleman, did not intervene, because the soldiers lacked spontaneous passion and, therefore, initiative.
Now let us try to analyze the situation. The Syrian peasants were dissatisfied with the Byzantine officials both before Nestorius was elevated to the patriarchal throne, and during his reign in Constantinople, and after his exile. But their discontent had nothing to do with the Immaculate Conception and the Nativity. But the people of Syria favored the views of Nestorius, evidently because they were more familiar and comprehensible to them.
But when the students of the Ephesian theological school and some Antiochian hierarchs, the opponents of Monophysitism, emigrated to Persian Mesopotamia, the popular movement in Syria died out. Unhappiness with the oppression of the Constantinople government, of course, remained, but after the decree of the emperor ("Henoticon") of 482, containing a compromise with Monophysitism, they united with the Egyptians, i.e. changed their ideological position by 180+ to maintain their socio-political position.
Sincere supporters of Nestorius, who venerated him as a righteous man tortured in exile, founded a Christian university at Nisiba, preached Christianity as far as China, and were loyal subjects of the Shah of Iran, i.e. political opponents of Constantinople. But they remained Byzantines by way of thought, mental structure and stereotype of behavior. Thus, Byzantium spilled out beyond its borders, just as a boiling liquid spills out of its reservoir.
A duel between Constantinople and Alexandria, or between the Egyptian church and the Greek patriarchy, ensued. The forces were almost equal. The position of the secular power, which feared the growing influence of the church, solved the problem.
In 451 a new council was convened at Chalcedon under the presidency of Emperor Marcian himself. The Council of Chalcedon reversed the decision of the Council of Ephesus in 449 and called it "the plunder of Ephesus. The Egyptians responded with a schism, banished Greek from worship, and elected a special Coptic patriarch. Their second patriarchate was founded at Antioch by Jacob Baradeus; his followers were called Jacobites.
Emperor Heraclius' attempt to end the schism by compromise only led to the emergence in the seventh century of another sect, the Marconites, which became established in the mountains of Lebanon. Thus, the Byzantine ethnos, that was united in the fourth century, split into four mutually hostile sub-ethnoses. It led to the actual separation of the Roman Patriarchy, and consequently of the whole West, the emigration of the Nestorians to the East and the transition of the Monophysites under the authority of the Arab Caliphs. In the seventh century, the Eastern Roman Empire became a Greek kingdom.
Let us now proceed to analyze the events. Who benefited from the confessional disputes? Only the enemies of Orthodoxy and Byzantium. The Arian-Lombards conquered most of Italy; the Muslim Arabs conquered Syria, Egypt, Carthage, Armenia, and Georgia; the pagan Slavs devastated the Balkan Peninsula and populated it all the way to Peloponnese. Unity was necessary for Byzantium, but it proved elusive. The passionate tensions of the urban population grew and compelled its bearers to manifest themselves by uniting into rival consortia. These, in turn, grew into sub-ethnoses and, after separation from the empire, into ethnoses. Sometimes heretical communities were based on ancient tribes preserved after the Hellenistic Nivellate period, but more often they were consortia that emerged in large cities, genetically heterogeneous, maintaining their unity only through behavioral dominants and complimentarity. In other words, it was an intense process of ethnogenesis, where dogmas played the role of symbols for the participants of events and are indicators for historians.
XXXII Offsets
AND THERE IS A PATTERN.
We have not described the factual side of global ethnogenesis, but an ideal pattern, in fact constantly disturbed by influences external to the ethnos in question. That is why we had to take examples from World History - no one lives alone, and neighbors, now older and more experienced, now younger and hotter, constantly disturb any ethnos. But the ideal curve was necessary in order to interpret the nature of the disturbances of the process as such, for in reality we see more often than not zigzags, mutually compensating over long stretches of ethnic history. Now we know that the inertia of the passionary impulse is lost in 1200 years in any, even the most favorable variant, but only the lucky ethnic groups survive to the natural end. In history, we observe constant breaks of ethnogenesis at different ages. But there is a statistical regularity here as well.
The ethnos, which is in the first phases of ethnogenesis, is practically indestructible and unconquerable, because to conquer it requires such expenses, which any success will not pay off. But an ethnos that changes its phase of development is vulnerable and can fall prey to its neighbor if he is passionate enough. Therefore, let us pay attention to the phase transitions of the curve of the ethnos' passionate tension, especially since they are always smooth, with blurred boundaries. These transitions also have their own imperatives.
The transition from a stable state to ascent is marked by the imperative: "We must fix the world, for it is bad. The latter is always more or less valid, but the risk is great. A newborn ethnos, not yet gaining strength, can be crushed by the strong resistance of neighbors who do not want to be fixed. It happened to the Zulu in the nineteenth century when Chaka (1810-1828) supplied them with modernized assegai, trained them in formation and led them to victory. But Chaka did not take into account the technical progress of Europe. When smoothbore rifles loaded at the muzzle were replaced by rifles, the Boers defeated the Zulus in 1838 and established the Republic of Transvaal on conquered lands.
Another Zulu power, Matabele, which separated from the Chaka power in 1820, held out somewhat longer. Mzilikazi, the commander of an army sent to conquer the south, did not return - he became king himself. In 1888 his son Longengula was defeated by the English troops of Cecil Rhodes. The Zulu's passionate push was drowned in its own blood.
There are so many similar examples that it is more important to note the second danger to the ethnos that arises during the transition from the ascendant phase to the acmatic phase. During this period, the co-subordination of the elements of the structure is broken, everyone wants "to be himself" and for the sake of this breaks the established organization, sacrificing the interests of the ethnos to his own. As a matter of righteousness, there is abundant bloodshed, but the culture does not suffer, but rather flourishes.
A striking example of this variant is the disintegration of the Arab Caliphate into emirates in the tenth century. The coincidence of political collapse with the flowering of Muslim multi-ethnic culture, noted by all experts, is obviously not accidental. The recognition of the value of a unique creative personality put scholars who wrote in Arabic in a special position. Sultans and emirs did not see them as rivals, and valued their works, allowing them to "be themselves" in the intellectual and aesthetic sphere. Sometimes, however, this "displacement" produces tragic results, as will be shown below.
Much more dangerous for the ethnos is the third shift, from the acmatic to the fracture phase. This is where the imperative "We are tired of the great ones" arises, on the basis of which not only redundant but also necessary passionaries, and sometimes even harmless originals, perish.
The Athenians, in an era of declining passionary tension in the ethnos, massacred Socrates and Alcibiades. The death of Socrates covered them in disgrace for centuries, which they could neglect, but the double expulsion of Alcibiades ensured defeat in the Peloponnesian War with the ensuing troubles. Sad examples did not fix the Athenian demos. After they "got rid" of Plato and Aristotle, as well as a number of other active fellow citizens who were deprived of property, by voting - ordering a merchant who supplied Athens with Scythian bread to pay for a theatrical performance or to build a trireme - Athens lost its independence. Alexander the Great spared the beautiful city, but the subsequent conquerors - the Romans dealt with the Athenians according to the customs of their time: some were killed and some even sold into slavery.
The ancient, Greco-Latin super-ethnos went through a fracture phase in the second to first centuries B.C. At that time, the Hellenic passionarians could only serve the Republic either as soldiers or as teachers of the word, with no hope of improving their place in life. But the Romans did not have it easy either. The era of civil wars, which lasted without interruption for more than 100 years, had emaciated the people and the Senate. The Gracchaean revolution, the war of Marius and Sulla, the genocide of the first triumvirate and the proscription of the second brought the Roman state into crisis. Only the transition to the inertial phase marked by the activities of Augustus and his supporters brought some calm.
The price, however, was great: the triumphant imperative "Be like me" left no stone unturned in the traditional "Roman freedom”. All republican institutions became a pompous decoration to cover the will of the princeps. Ovid died in exile, and Horace and Virgil became court servants and sycophants. Seneca died from the envy of Nero, and the number of simple, but talented people who drew attention to themselves and therefore were killed, is incalculable. The nature and direction of these massacres against defenseless and innocent countrymen were vividly described by Suetonius in his Life of the Twelve Caesars and by H. Boissier in The Opposition of the Times of the Roman Caesars.
The system of killing the best not by nobility and wealth, but by personal qualities, was a sign of the times, a natural outcome of the waning process of ethnogenesis. The same symptoms of the same disease can be observed in Byzantium under the Dukes (11th century), in Iran at the end of the Mongol period (14th century), and in Central Asia after the Timurids (16th century). So, it is a disease of age. Noticing this, let us return to Rome.
PASSIONARY IMPOVERISHMENT.
While the "East" of the former empire was boiling, the "West" was steadily cooling down. At the beginning of the fifth century, the frontier along the Rhine and Danube was breached. In 402 the Visigoths invaded Italy, but were defeated at Verona. In 405 hordes of Sveves, Burgundians, Vandals and Alans invaded Italy, but were defeated at Florence in 406 and surrendered. They were shown the way to Gaul, where the Franks and Alemanni had already seized the banks of the Rhine. They defeated the Vandals, but saved themselves, not Gaul, which was devastated. The Gauls did not defend themselves, but only prayed: who could have imagined that they were the descendants of the heroic Celts! The same thing happened in Spain: where the Sèves decided to settle, in Galicia, the Alans in Lusitania, and the Vandals in Betica, which has since been called Andalusia. In 410 the Goths took Rome, robbed it, sparing only the churches, and in 412 occupied southern Gaul, in 419 drove the Vandals out of Spain to Africa, and received Aquitaine as a gift in return. The Burgundians settled on the left bank of the Rhone, and the Alemanni settled on the left bank of the Rhine. In 430-439 the Vandals, driven out of Spain by the Goths, took possession of Africa, where they were supported by the Moors and Numidians, and in 455 took Rome and subjected it to wanton destruction. In 449 the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes entered Britain, from which the Romans withdrew their legions. The British Celts were little better than the Gauls and allowed themselves to be outnumbered.
In 476 the Gauls, in Roman service, took over and abolished the Western Empire. Ten years later the last islet of civilization, Suisson, was destroyed and seized by the savage Franks. The last heroic Roman, Siagrius, died in an unequal struggle.
In 489 the Ostgoths left the shores of the Danube and Lake Balaton, moved to Italy and in 493 defeated those Germans who were defending it. All these Germans were subjected to the action of the passionate push of the I c. and, therefore, were in the ascendant phase.
And what is remarkable: the Western and Eastern empires had the same social order, the same religion, they had the same opponents - the barbarians, who pressed on both with equal force. But the East fought back, and the West fell, for it was in a phase of obscuration. This is what gave the renewal of the ethnos, achieved by the forces that emerged in the population as a consequence of the passionate push. And that is why Rome was defended by people from the East: Stilicho the Vandal and Aecius the half-German. Men of this stock are unknown in the West, but in the East they are illustrious; from Velizarius to Alexius Murzuflus and John Cantacuzenus.
This brief memo is necessary to make clear how terrible the loss of passionarity is, without which it is impossible even to defend oneself successfully. After all, there were very few barbarians, such as the Vandals - only 80 thousand, of them 16 thousand warriors[22]. And they devoured Rome! The lands conquered by the Germans were considered a great loss for a long time.
In the 6th century Justinian made an attempt to restore the Roman Empire. He managed to destroy Vandal and Ostgoth kingdoms and tear Visigoths in Spain, but in Constantinople he did not have enough money, people and ideas to complete the conquest successfully. What a fight with the Goths when the Slavs and Persians pressed home, and the Goths were replaced by the Langobards, who were followed by the even more ferocious Franks!
On the latter, preaching worked better than weapons, but a clear consciousness of purpose and internal unity ensuring mutual assistance of missionaries are essential for intellectual pressure. And the latter never existed in Byzantium, which even got rid of the Gnostics and Neoplatonists.
The invasion of Italy by the Lombards, conquered by Byzantine generals from the Ostgoths, took place in 568. Thus, the boundary between Byzantium and the lost lands, where the Germanic kingdoms were located and where the Roman citizens were turned into subjugated peoples and oppressed classes, was established.
So, the Great Migration of Peoples is explainable: it was a consequence of the passionate push, which ruined the Dacians and Jews, forcing them to rush to Rome too early, when they still had their own forces, and which ensured the victory of the Christian communities that created Byzantium. So in the East the passionate potentials were equal and hence the conquest did not take place, but in the West, where the difference in potentials was considerable, the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, Sveves, Alans, Lombards and Franks kind of spontaneously flocked to the civilized regions. They were few in number, but passionate, i.e., each of them thought not only of his own skin, but also of his tribe, family, leader, glory and the future.
Having mastered the beautiful shores of the Mediterranean Sea, the inhabitants of the Baltic forests and the Black Sea steppes were not adapted to the new conditions. They could not manage the economy themselves, but being the winners, they took the best of everything. However, even that was not possible without the participation of the aborigines. That is why the barbarian kingdoms of the V-VI centuries turned into chimerical wholes, predatory but unstable. In the seventh century the Arabs subjugated Africa and Spain, encountering resistance only from the highlanders of Atlas and Asturias, i.e., where the landscapes had been minimally influenced by Roman civilization. There survived the ancient ethnic groups, the Berbers and Basques, who lived in harmony with nature. The nature of their land had saved them.
But the descendants of the Roman colonists, those who used the forests to build luxurious villas and temples, who reared sheep in the devastated expanses of Spain, and in the southern foothills of the Atlas trampled with the government herds a thin layer of humus, not recovered to this day, were defenseless before the cruel invaders, as the northern - the Scandinavians, and the eastern Avars and southern - the Muslims (Arab-Berbers). These unfortunate people were no longer waiting for bailouts from the East. During the last V-VII centuries the Greeks and the Welski (people who spoke Latin, aka Volohi) ceased to see each other as compatriots. Historical destiny, or the "force of things", led them down different paths.
IMPACT
For a long time, the victors - the Teutons and the conquered -coexisted alike, not merging, but hating and despising each other. Western Europe from a super-ethnos turned into a zone of ethnic contacts with all the negative consequences. All the barbarian kingdoms which emerged on conquered lands crumbled with terrific speed, taking with them the culture of Rome and the courage of the ancient Germans which turned into ferocity and cruelty in the 7th century[23]. In ethnic displacement, the processes of destruction are equally accelerated for the victors and the vanquished.
In the 8th century, when Byzantium was undergoing a cruel internal breakdown expressed in iconoclasm, and in Asia the super-ethnoses which emerged in the 7th century - Arabic-Muslim, Tabgha (medieval China), Turkic-Tibetan (they can be united on the basis of their genesis and territory), were prospering and expanding. Western Europe was in a deep decline. It became an object of expansion. The Arabs reached the Loire, the Avars raided the Rhine, the Slavs took over the right bank of the Elbe and even forced it in its lower reaches.
The economic system inherited from Rome had completely decayed, so that a virgin forest was restored to the territory of France[24]. The latter indicates an exceptional decline in passionalism, as the most conservative class, the peasants, reduced the intensity of cultivation to a minimum that only allowed them not to starve to death. The kings of the Merovingian dynasty even at that time were nicknamed "lazy", and their vigilantes competed in wild licentiousness and neglect of traditions of loyalty and duty. The harm of combining the two super-ethnoses was mutual.
Some attempt to restore order was the policy of the early Carolingians: Pepin the Long, Charles Martel, and Pepin the Short, who stopped the Arab onslaught and allied themselves with the pope. Their efforts culminated in the empire of Charlemagne, which collapsed under his grandchildren. Everything in this empire was imported. Ideology from Byzantium, education from Ireland, military technology (cavalry) from the Avars, medicine from the Spanish Arabs and Jews. All of this together is called the Carolingian Renaissance.
The Carolingian Empire is viewed in traditional historiography as a French dynasty, with the counting of kings beginning with Charlemagne. A more thorough conception was offered by O. Thierry, who pointed out that the Carolingians exercised their dominion in the territory of modern France exclusively by brute force. Brittany, Aquitaine, Provence and Burgundy only recognized their power because they could not assert their independence. Conversely, the Eastern Franks, the ancestors of the Francons, were inseparably linked to the Carolingians. Thus, this dynasty and the ethnic group that supported it, the Franks, should be attributed to the Germanic super-ethnos of the Great Migration. So it is, and from this point of view their military successes can be easily explained.
Against the general background of the waning passionalism of the Germanic settlers mixed with the descendants of the Gallo-Romans, the bunch of vigilantes gathered around Charles Martell, Pepin the Short, and Charlemagne was a force because their opponents were even weaker. The Carolingians destroyed the independence of Provence (737-739), Aquitaine (760-768), Lombardy (774), Bavaria (788), the Saxon tribe (797), took Barcelona from the Arabs (801) and defeated the Avars (802-803). But with the exception of the last two operations these were victories over their own: "the Germans beat the Germans." And under Charlemagne's successors even these successes were nullified: the Danube and Elbe valleys were taken over by the Slavs, the "Spanish Brand" was separated from the empire, and the latter disintegrated into its component parts.
So, it is fair to consider the empire of Charles not as the beginning of the European medieval super-ethnos, but as the end of the inertia of the Great Migration of Peoples.
As a rule, the growth of a system creates an inertia of development, slowly lost from the resistance of the environment, as a consequence of which the descending branch of the ethnogenesis curve is much longer than the ascending one. Even when the vitality of an ethnos declines below the optimum, social institutions continue to exist, sometimes outliving the ethnos that created them. Thus Roman law took root in Western Europe, although ancient Rome and proud Byzantium have become a memory.
The ethnological periodization does not at all coincide with the socio-economic one. The early feudal states in Gaul arose in the fifth and sixth centuries under the Merovingian, Burgundian and Briton conquerors who divided this rich country. This means that the beginning of French ethnogenesis is separated from the emergence of feudal formation by four centuries, hence these processes are functionally unrelated. Moreover, the emergence of feudalism on this land is typologically distinct[25].
The five types of feudalism correspond to the five ethnic regions which arose there as a result of barbarian invasions. The Franks established in the Seine and Marne valley a "harmonious mixture of barbarian and antique elements"; the Burgundians, former federates of Rome, took from the natives '/z serfs, '/2 estates, 2/3 of the arable land and, being Arian, did not merge with the natives for a long time; Provence, where the Visigoths, Ostgoths and Arabs succeeded each other, retained so many traditions of ancient cities that it 'resembled Byzantium' rather than the Western world; Aquitaine, where the Visigoths dominated for less than a hundred years (from 418 to 507), differed sharply both from neighboring Provence and from the Frankish lands. A special place is occupied by Brittany, i.e. the ancient Armorica, conquered by the Britons from the Romans in the mid fifth century and defended by them against Frankish expansion until 845, after which the independent kingdom of Brittany and the separate archbishopric of Dol.
Thus the contours of the processes of ethnogenesis peer through the fabric of social development.
ANOMALYA
And here we come to an exciting problem: the relationship between culture as an ideological and technical wholeness and ethnos as a biospheric phenomenon. Early Christian culture (a notion quite definite in the period under consideration - the IV-VII centuries) embraced not only the entire territory of the former Roman Empire, but also the surrounding lands: Armenia, partly Arabia, Abyssinia, Germany, and the green island of Erin. The fate of the latter is especially remarkable.
The Celts received the Christian tradition in 461-482 from Syria and Egypt, not from Rome. On the green island the penniless monks created a new Thebaid, the only difference being that instead of caves they lived in thatched huts. They had no pompous ecclesiastical hierarchy, but their influence on the people was enormous. They had nothing to do with Rome. Even the celebration of Easter did not follow the Julian calendar, but was timed to a certain day in spring. Until the end of the eleventh century, the Irish monks were the most cultured Christians in Western Europe and defended their independence (from the popes) as steadfastly as their flock did from the Saxon and Norman kings of England.
Consequently, considering the collision in the aspect of cultural history, we should classify the Celts as one of the early Christian. i.e., Byzantine, integrity as one of its variants. The Carolingian Renaissance and Visigothic Spain should also be included. This would be a logical and coherent solution to the problem. But every historian sees that it is insufficient, and therefore unsatisfactory. And can it be otherwise, if we do not take into account that the bearers of this (as well as any other) culture are people, and on Earth there is no man without ethnos and no ethnos without homeland, which should be understood as an original and unique combination of landscapes and geobiocenoses.
We have already noted that the passionate push only affected a strip of Eastern Europe and the Middle East, from Sweden to Palestine. Consequently, the Celts were beyond it, and apparently that is why the Britons, abandoned by the Romans in 406-407, lost wars with the Picts and the Anglo-Saxons, who exterminated all the Celtic men. Only the western regions of Britain held out against the cruel enemy for a long time. The Celts often counterattacked, won small victories, and even moved to the continent, turning Romanized Armorica into Celtic Brittany, independent of, and hostile to the Frankish kings.
Another Celtic tribe, the Scots, moved from Ireland to northern Britain in Roman times and frequently raided and terrorized the Britons who submitted to Rome. They continued this struggle with Anglo-Saxons and Normans until the 10th century. In short, the Celts, as it were, gained sudden strength, but is it so simple? Let's find out.
Wales, Cornwall and even more so Ireland were minimally affected by Roman culture. They retained their tribal traditions and the relatively small stock of passionarity they had left from the era of conquest. This stock was insufficient for Gaul and Britain to successfully resist Roman and Germanic expansion, but when both squandered their passion, the Celts reaffirmed the balance of power, and the culture they borrowed from Byzantium neither added to nor detracted from their momentum. Instead it helped them to define their ethno-psychological dominant, even if negative, but effective: "We are not Germanic and we do not want to be like them". Such an opposition was enough for Wales to resist the English until 1283, and for Ireland much longer, despite the total loss of its Byzantine traditions.
The explanation offered is tentative. It is also possible that at the beginning of our era there was a special passionary push on the shores of the Atlantic, which went from Erin southward, through Basconia, Atlas, the Sahara to the Gulf of Guinea. In this case, the outbreaks of the Tuaregs (Almoravids), Berbers (Almohads) and the beginning of the Bantu expansion can be explained. But this assumption needs detailed verification and is offered here as a working hypothesis.
THE LAMENESS OF YOUTH
That the young peoples of Europe coped with a dilapidated Rome, became infected with its vices and perished is not surprising. But it is strange when ethnoses entering an acmatic phase perish at the hands of a weaker opponent. Obviously, any transition from phase to phase is dangerous for the ethnos. Just as a snake is defenseless while it changes its skin, so the ethnos is powerless while it "changes its soul," i.e., the stereotype of behavior and the social imperative.
It is widely believed that the Spanish conquistadors discovered an ancient civilization in Central and South America and massacred it. And all who love the Indians, and to such people belongs the author of these lines, mourned the Aztecs and Incas as the best representatives of their race and bearers of centuries-old culture.
Fortunately, it has recently been possible to establish some milestones of American ethnogenesis. It turns out that the ancient cultures of the Indians of Mexico and Peru faded not very long ago, but radically. The Olmecs, who lived on the Gulf of Mexico, disappeared in the 6th century, giving way to the newcomers, the Totonacs. The Toltecs, creators of the culture in Anahuaca, established their power around 720, but what was before that? In Peru, the ancient archaeological cultures of Mochica and Tiahuanaco, the pre-Indian culture of the Aymara ethnic group, disappeared in the eighth and tenth centuries. Along with the archaeological ones, the ethnic formations disappeared because in the Americas, wars were fought to exterminate the enemy. Some exception was the Incas,[26] but they were not there yet. These ancient ethnic groups treated the Incas and Aztecs the way the Romans treated the French and Spaniards, who inherited from the Romans some traditions of linguistic culture, part of the gene pool, ruins of cities and scraps of knowledge. But they were not Romans. The Aztecs and Incas also became new ethnic groups after their migrations.
But in the ninth and tenth centuries, the French, the Provençal, the Spanish (in Asturias), the Germans, the Lombards and the Piedmontese had already begun to form a new type of ethnos, and in America the "Great Migration of Peoples" came later.
Only in the eleventh century did the first Incas appear in the south of Peru, if legend is to be believed:
Manco Capac and Mama Ocllo, and then, around 1068, Aztec ancestors crossed the Rio Grande and moved south among other tribes. In the twelfth century the Chichimecs (lit. "savages") conquered the remnants of the Toltecs, whose cultural tradition broke off as the Roman one did in Gaul and Spain. It was not until the 14th century that the Aztecs founded Tenochtitlan (1325) and took over the remnants of Toltec culture. In the same XIV century Inca Viracocha created the empire, which was conquered by the Spaniards, but the historicity of Viracocha is questionable. It was not until 1437 that Inca Pachacutec defeated the Chancas, worthy opponents of the Incas, executed their ruler and forced the remnants of that ethnic group to flee to the Amazon rainforest to certain death [27]. He then seized the throne, executed the scholars who knew Inca history, forbade the study of writing, and instituted the police of manners, thus establishing Inca civilization. He was a contemporary of Joan of Arc, Jan Hus, Petrarch, and Giotto. And in terms of his place in ethnogenesis, or the age of the ethnos, Viracocha is equivalent to Charlemagne, and Pachacutek to Louis the Pious and Lothair, who gave the feral Europe the possibility of a "Carolingian Renaissance," education and creative thought.
Pachacutec's successor, Inca Tupac Yupanqui conquered the state of Chinu (northern Ecuador) in 1476 and established a regime of brutal exploitation of the Indians, forcing them to till government fields and to build roads in the Andes in winter. It seems certain that he who sympathizes with the Indians must hate the Incas; this is only logical.
In the same fifteenth century, when the Renaissance came to Italy, the Aztec king Itzcoatl (1420-1440) and his advisor, the thinker Tlacaelel, revived Toltec culture. Itzcoatl and his successor Montezuma I (1440-1468) conquered Anahuac (southern Mexico), and Tlacaelle introduced the "cult of flowers", i.e. human sacrifices to save the earth from the coming disaster. It was murder for murder's sake, evil in its purest form.
The Indians defended themselves as best they could. The Huastecs and Tarascas defeated the Aztecs who tried to get young men from them for sacrifice. The Araucans repulsed an Inca army that had come to plant civilization among them. Atahualpa, a half-legitimate son of the Inca Tupac Yupanqui (by an Indian concubine), was used by tribal leaders around Quito, Ecuador, against Huascar, the Inca's legitimate heir. In 1527 the rebels defeated and killed all the Incas who surrendered. Women and children were especially brutally tortured. Few of the Incas survived. At this tragic moment the Spaniards appeared. In 1532 Pizarro captured Atahualpa, plundered the riches of the temples, embezzled the ransom, executed the prisoner... ... and no one moved.
And who was there to stand up for him? To the Incas he was a tyrant and a traitor; to the Indians he was the offspring of the Inca oppressors. When the last Grand Inca Manco Capac called for a war of liberation, only a few followed him, a few hundred Spaniards of Almagro's detachment (1535) were enough to defeat him.
The Muisca power in modern Colombia was just as easily crushed. It was the same "Eldorado" to which the greedy and dreamy conquistadors aspired. Luck fell to Gonzalo Quesada in 1536, who offered very little resistance to the Muiscos. It turns out that this was also a relatively new ethnic group, as only in the early 2nd millennium A.D. the ancient cultures of the northern Andes had disappeared. The invading tribes from the north exterminated the natives[28]. The victorious Spaniards caught such a mockery of the superior over the inferior in this country that they themselves could not reproduce even half of it.
For example, an Indian who looked at a superior muisca was thrown into an underground lake teeming with poisonous snakes. The unfortunate swam there until he bumped into a snake and was killed by its bite. And to address his superiors on business was allowed only by sitting, with his back turned to him and his face tucked into his knees. It is easy to see that the Indians did not protect their rulers.
But the southern Araucans showed such valor that the conquistador Pedro Valdivia fell in 1553, and his entire band perished. In 1598 the Araucanas pushed the Spaniards behind the Bio Bio, and in 1744 Spain recognized Araucania as an independent power and received its ambassador at Santiago de Chile. But the Araucanas were not a "civilized" people. They kept ancient traditions. This means that they were not affected by the passionate push of the 13th century, nor by the "Great Migration of Peoples" of the 12th century America, for in the early phases of ethnogenesis the ethnos is as weak as in the final phases.
Likewise Cortes, with one thousand Spaniards in 1521, defeated the brave 30,000 Aztecs of Cuauhtemoc, for the Totonacs and Chichimecs of Tlaxcala fielded 50,000 warriors to destroy Aztec hegemony. The Indians deliberately preferred the Spaniards, whom they perceived as one of their equals. Perhaps they miscalculated; after all, the Inquisition, which the Spaniards brought to America, was an institution of which no good can be said. But you could have stayed out of its court because, in theory, the Inquisition was designed for defense, not for offense.
Explanation. In 1529 the Turks took possession of Algeria. Spain's coastline was open to the landing of Muslims, and there were many Moriscos and Jews living within the country who dreamed of such an opportunity. The Spanish government, rightly doubting the loyalty of the infidels, forbade them to hold military and civil offices, but it could not forbid them to be baptized. Since a baptized Moor or Jew was entitled to a career on an equal footing with a Spaniard, many accepted baptism hypocritically and continued to observe the rites of the old faith. It was these who were exposed by the Inquisition and punished for apostasy. So, in order not to have to deal with the tribunal, one could simply not accept Catholicism.
In America, the Inquisition severely punished sacrifices, especially the killing of children. This, of course, was an assault on the conscience of the Indians, but it was a pity for the children. An Indian, who refused to make sacrifices, could be safe for his life. The Aztecs, on the other hand, were more difficult to protect. They would drag any prisoner they could get their hands on to the teocalli. And if he was wise, brave and handsome, the more likely he was to fall under the obsidian knife. That is why the Spaniards gained a foothold in America for 300 years. If we consider the history of Europe and America in the proposed diachronic aspect, we will see that in America there was its own "Great Migration" and "death of ancient culture", but the passionary push, which caused a new explosion of ethnogenesis, occurred 500 years later - in the XIII century. Consequently, at the beginning of the 16th century the Aztecs and Incas were of the same age as the French, Spaniards and Italians in the 10th century. Hungarians, Berbers, and Scandinavians plundered the Carolingian Empire and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as successfully as the Spaniards and Portuguese plundered their future colonies in the 16th century. Apparently, the Aztecs and Incas were caught by the invasion at the turning point of growth, at the transition of the dynamic phase of ascent to the acmatic phase of flourishing, which did not come because of the interference from the outside (see Table 4).
Table 4: Phases of ethnogenesis in Western Europe and America in the 7th-16th centuries.
[NOTE: I don’t think this chart will be readable on Substack? We’ll see how it comes out. It really isn’t readable even in Word.)
Ages Anahuac Andes Northeastern Europe America
VII Totonaki at the end of the Great Olmec Migration to Europe
VIII First rulers Disappeared Spread of the Arabs in Aquitania.
America: Toltec culture in Tollana Mochika Eskimo culture in the South Avars in Pannonia. (c. 720) and East
Lopari in Scandinavia. Celts in Brittany. Almost doom!
IX First Dynasty Empire of Charlemagne the Mixtecs (800-809)
America: Tilatongo (838) Ethnoterritorial revolution.
Viking campaigns. X
America: Quetzalxatl fled
Disintegration of Normans Feudal to Yucatan (947), by the ethnos from its substrates, there are violent vagrant soldiers - the product of the departure of the inertial phase. They deftly deal with the harmonious individuals and simplify the ethnos.
America: pre-Inca reached revolution.
Founded the Mayapan cultures of the Aymara Vinland Education (987) and introduced ethnic human kingdoms.
America: Decay of sacrifice in the Maya
Carolingian Empire XI
America: Beginning of the "Mayan First Inca: Atapascas vs Po6eud Renaissance.
America: The Aztecs of Manco Capach and the Eskimos of the "Christian World" moved south of Mamo Ocllo over their neighbors (1068).
America: The Kulua conquered the Toltas. The Huastecs came to the Gulf of Mexico XII
America: The Chichimecs defeated the Chinas by the arrival of the Atapasca Expansion:
the Crusades of the Toltecs.
Junah on rafts, infiltrated the Reconquista campaigns
America: Keel of Mayapan founded Arizona Took Chichey-Itsu n power in Peru. united Yucaten Chincha infiltrated (1194) into Peru. Inca Cincha Roca attacked the Aymara tribes XIII "Itza people" took the Incas conquered the Eskimos
Conquest of Andalusia
America: Mayapan and expelled the Aymara, Stakes, met "foreigners" from the mountains" Quechua and Chunk Normans in (1104-1244). The Aztecs of Greenland conquered by the Kuluakans.
The dominion of the Kokom people in Mayapan.
America: XIV Founding Creation Eskimos Eerie wars of Tenochtitlan Tauantinsuyu
kings won with feudal lords. (1325).
The Chichimecs of the Normans (1362)
The Hundred Years' War
Were perceived to have spilled over into culture. Spain
America: The rise of the Tepanecs. Mayans repelled the "cannibals."
XV Itzcotal Inca Pachacutec Eskimos
Unification of Spain.
America: (1428-1440) defeated defeated the Chancas took possession of the Discovery of the Americas Tepansko". (1437), Greenland.
Tlacaelle introduced the seizure of power Creation of the Union
the cult of "flowers." and executed the Iroquois ruler and
America: Ah Shupan defeated the scholars. Inca Mayapan (1441).
America: Tupac Yunanqui Montsuma I conquered Chima conquered Anahuac (1476) (1440-1468). The Huastecs and Tarascas defeated the Aztecs
__________________
But as soon as the Spaniards encountered the tribes in sustained phases, they were defeated and turned to defense. Moreover, the Comanches in the eighteenth century began to push the Spaniards beyond the Rio Grande, and the Seminoles conquered Florida, already mastered by the Spaniards. In Mexico and in the Andes, the mestización between Spaniards and Indians proceeded so intensively, with great passionate tension in both components, that new ethnic groups emerged, achieving independence in 1810-1822. In place of the Spanish colonies arose the Anti-Spain, which accomplished the subjugation of the Indian ethnic groups of Yucatan, Chile, Patagonia, and Tierra del Fuego, which had not been possible in North America, in place of the Amerindian super-ethnoses, a contact zone of ethnic groups coming from Europe and Africa was created.
North America was populated by ethnoses relatively ancient, returning homeostasis. The exceptions were the Iroquois, who, shortly before the arrival of Europeans, had entered the Great Lakes region from the west,[29] and the Athapaskans in the foothills of the Cordilleras. Only these latter were the fruit of the explosion of ethnogenesis and participants in the "Great Migration of Peoples" in the Americas. Around the twelfth century, some of the Atapascas pushed the Eskimos into the tundra, while others spread south to Arizona. In the south, however, they failed to establish a mighty power because the vastness of the prairies was inaccessible to foot hunters. The Athapas, like their eastern neighbors, the Comanches, huddled along the banks of river valleys, where food was scarce, and population growth stalled. But once the Spanish horses that had fled onto the prairies and feralized turned into herds of mustangs, the steppe Indians mastered horse breeding; the Navajo and Apache tribes became world-famous.
But it was too late. Squatters, trappers, and cowboys, descendants of colonists who had had time to adapt to the New World, "crushed" the Indians with numbers and equipment. Here is another example of aborted ethnogenesis, but, unlike the southern version, the process did not resume. The Spanish were not racists, and mixed marriages did not shock them. But Anglo-Saxons, especially women, boycotted "squaw husbands" and banished them from society; and their husbands were guided by the rule, "A good Indian is a dead Indian. The tragedy of the Northern Indians ended in the 1870s with a massacre called the Indian War. In its aftermath, Native American ethnicities were left as relics in the United States.
YOUTH RESTORED.
Spain held colonies in South America and Mexico unchallenged while it seemed invincible to the colonists. But when Napoleon arrested the royal family in Bayonne in 1808, placed his brother Joseph on the throne in Madrid, and launched a war against the Spaniards, who defended the traditions and independence of their fatherland, the colonies were laid aside. From 1810 to 1821-1822 Spain tried to subdue the rebels, but without success. Only some Indian tribes supported the colonial regime, and that only because they hated the rebellious Creoles more than they hated the distant Spaniards. Let us focus on Mexico, for here the restoration of the process of ethnogenesis displaced by the conquest was most evident.
In the sixteenth century, Spaniards and Indians mixed rapidly, and it seemed that a local version of the Spanish ethnicity would emerge in Mexico, but the opposite happened: by the end of the eighteenth century, instead of two ethnic groups there were four that hated each other. It is believed that this division was the result of bad administration, but the reasons seem to lie deeper - contact occurred at a super-ethnic level, with all the consequences that this entailed.
The highest social stratum, which concentrated in its hands all the highest positions and trade, were the natives of Spain, who had the nickname "gachupins" - people with spurs[30]. Their number was small and the attitude towards them was negative. But the gachupin held the army and the clergy in their hands, which ensured their privileges quite reliably.
One social step below were the Creoles (about 1 million people), natives of Mexico, descendants of the conquistadors, often with an admixture of Indian blood. They were the rich owners of the haciendas on which the Indians worked. The Creoles lived in luxurious idleness, loyal to the king and the church and hating the Gachupin bureaucrats.
But by the early 19th century there were passionate individuals among the Creoles who were looking for a use for their powers. These people began to read French literature and found a purpose in life that led many of them to a violent death.
Three or four million Indians either worked on the haciendas as peons (labourers) or in the mines, or lived in their villages under caciques (chiefs). In the sixteenth century their situation improved, since the Spanish officials did not exceed the requirements of the Aztecs, and children did not have to be sacrificed to the Uncilopotchli. But in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Creole landowners began to encroach on the lands of the Indian tribes, and the corrupt Gachulin officials did not protect them well[31].
The monks converted many Indians to Catholicism, but the conversion was so superficial that the Indians retained their customs and their idols. In schools, however, Indian children showed a higher ability than Spaniards, and it happened that Aztec descendants, having become teachers, taught Latin and Catholic theology to conquistador descendants[32].
As the culture grew, they were expelled from their midst by the Creoles and forbidden by the Gachupins to live among the Indians, lest they incite them to rebellion. Only hard labor or robbery was available for the Métis, but a special police force was organized against them, killing them without trial. But their numbers grew, and so did the passionate tension, for in the Mestizos the genes of the conquistadors and the Aztecs were combined. Therefore, they did not perish, but were separated into a special sub-ethnic group that had prospects for development.
Thus, by the beginning of the nineteenth century Mexico had returned to the boom phase, interrupted in the sixteenth century by the conquest of Cortes.
In 1808 all these ethnic groups fought with the Gachupinas and among themselves because they hated each other. They were unanimous in one thing - they called themselves Americans, but otherwise there was no agreement between them. Therefore, the first Indian uprisings of 1810-1817, led by priests Hidalgo and Morelos, were defeated by the regular army, where officers were Creoles and soldiers - mestizos and mulattoes. But as early as 1821 Colonel Iturbide, a Creole with an admixture of Indian blood, joined the supporters of independence and drove the Spanish troops out of Mexico. The Gachupinas had fallen from the scene, but the Mexican conservatives, of which Iturbide was one, had taken their place.
The balance of power was as follows. The conservatives relied on the clergy and the army; they were mostly Creoles, descendants of Spaniards. The moderate liberals, the Creoles, wanted a liberal parliamentary republic with the preservation of their estates; the extreme liberals, the Métis, were enemies of the church and army; the Indians wanted the whites to go away and leave them alone. Civil wars and coups lasted until 1920 and ended in a Métis victory that embraced the social institutions of the Indians - Kasikism. The Indians as an ethnic group could not win because they did not represent integrity. In fact, each tribe was a separate ethnos.
That is why Indian pasionarians, such as Juarez, by birth and upbringing a bootheek, educated himself, joined the Métis, the extreme liberals, and defeated the French regulars.
American diplomats scoffed at Mexico, saying that the country could not bring order to itself. But at the end of the acmatic phase, their English ancestors also waged the Scarlet and White Rose War. Mexico simply survived that phase three centuries late.
Passionary "overheating" usually takes away many valuable monuments of art and elements of culture. Mexico is no exception. Luxurious temples with beautiful sculptures perished during the Pronunciamento, which took place with a ferocity that surpassed the European Middle Ages. The Métis were enemies of everything European, including Catholicism. The Indians were devout, but they wanted churches), not clergy. They came to temples on their holidays, decorated statues of saints with garlands of flowers like ancient idols, and danced before them as before gods. In defense of the clergy, the Creoles, who in 1926-1927 formed the Cristeros. The revolt was brutally suppressed, with innocent peasants suffering.
Thus, the Spanish conquest of Mexico had an enormous influence on the material culture and ideology of the ethnic groups living there (use of iron; changes in fauna and flora caused by horses, cows, sheep, pigs, grapes, olive trees; Catholicism, etc.). But the direction of ethnogenesis returned to its course. The three hundred year period of Spanish domination is best seen as a zigzag on the ethnogenesis curve. About the future we dare not judge, because the acmatic phase of ethnogenesis of Latin America is not over yet, and one can make prognoses only when the general pattern of the phenomenon is understood.
NOTES
[11] For more details see: Gumilev L.N. Pursuit of fictitious kingdom, P. 229-304.
[12] History of the countries of foreign Asia in the Middle Ages / Edited by A.M. Goldobin. М., 1970. С. 207.
[13] Vasiliev V. P. History of antiquity of the eastern part of Central Asia from X to XIII century. SPb., 1857. С. 227.
[14] The Christian community was considered in different aspects: as a social movement of slaves, as a sect, as the formation of an "inner proletariat" (A. Toynbee). We suggest an ethnological aspect which sheds light on the problem from a different angle.
[15] Zelinsky F.F. Rivalries of Christianity. Saint Petersburg, 1910; Nikolaev Y. In Quest of Deity. Saint Petersburg, 1913.
[16] Mommsen T. History of Rome: In 4 vol. Т. 5. М., 1949. С. 440.
[17] Kozlov V. Ya. Dynamics of the Number of Peoples. М., 1969. Table 12.
[18] Mommsen T. History of Rome. Т. 3. М.. 1941. С. 440.
[19] Dim Sh. Main problems of Byzantine history. М., 1947. С. 71.
[20] History of Byzantium: In 3 volumes / Edited by S.D. Skazkin. Т. 1. М., 1967. С.168.
[21] Macedonius taught that the Holy Spirit is not a person of the Trinity, but created.
[22] Martial R. Vie et cons lance des Races. Paris, 1939. P. 80.
[23] O. Thierry has written about this beautifully in Tales from the Merovingian Times. He showed what happens "when the ground lies fallow".
[24] Dorst J. Before Nature Dies. С. 39.
[25] For more details see: Shevelenko A. Я. To the typology of genesis of feudalism / / Voprosy historii. 1971. - 1. С. 97-107.
[26] The literature on this question is very extensive, but the necessary summary data can be found in the following books: Diego de Landa. Report on the affairs in Yucatan, 1566 / Translated, introductory article and notes by Yu.V.Knorozov. M.; L., 1955; Inka Gorsilaso de la Vega. History of the Inca State / Translated by V. A. Kuzmischeva; Edited by Yu. L., 1974 and many others. For a useful, though incomplete, summary see: Stingle M. Indians without tomahawks. М., 1971.
[27] The heroic Chunks in this green hell have survived. Their descendants have been found in the upper Amazon after these lines were written.
[28] Bashilov V. A. Ancient civilizations of Peru and Bolivia. М., 1972. С.196-197.
[29] See: Averkneva Y.P. Indians of North America. М.. 1974. С. 172] The attempt to refute this concept by using archaeological data is not convincing by the nature of the argument (see: Ibid. P.174-176).
[30] Parke G. History of Mexico. М., 1949. С. 93.
[31] Ibid. С. 102-103.
[32] Ibid. С. 97.
[33] Ibid. С. 123.
.