17. Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe, Gumilev

XVI. Golden Autumn, 101. A STEP ALONG THE PATH OF PROGRESS, (Golden Autumn refers to a long period of inertia after the passionate BURNOUT. This is in Gumilev's Ethnogenesis theory.

Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav the Great skillfully coordinated the policy of the subordinate principalities, guided solely by the interests of their country. But since 1132, signs of impending decline have become noticeable: the reigning of Vsevolod Olgovich in Kiev, the actual separation of Novgorod from Russia and the transformation of the appanages into independent states, which led to the intensification of conflicts and the involvement of principalities in European politics. The Russian land gradually began to lose its independence, at first partially by concluding political alliances in the interests of others, and then completely. The obscuration, though slowly, was steadily approaching.

Uneven development and diversity of elements are prerequisites for the stability of any system, including ethnic ones. Consequently, polyethnicity and diversity did not destroy, but strengthened the Old Russian superethnic integrity, so vividly and colorfully described by the author of the XIII century in "The Word about the Destruction of the Russian land"[1]. But by the middle of the XIII century everything had changed. The events of the second quarter of the XIII century were considered by contemporaries as "perdition". What's the matter?

The feuds of the principalities in the XI-XII centuries should be regarded as a "growth disease", a certain phase of ethnogenesis, painful, but not threatening the life of the ethnos. But collisions with other superethnic systems promised much more formidable consequences. At the beginning of the XIII century. Western intervention in Russian affairs was limited to the establishment of military alliances. Since Poland and Hungary were in the Guelph bloc, Volhynia supported the Ghibellines, and Prince Roman in 1205 He fell in battle, and his rivals, Chernihiv and Suzdal, established contacts with the pope and supported Novgorod in its fight against the Livonian Order, which stood on the side of the Hohenstaufen. The pope, taking advantage of the situation, sent Dominican missionaries to Russia, but Yuri II sent them outside his principality, so there was no great harm from these unions.

It always seems to people of such phases of ethnogenesis that they have reached the threshold of happiness, that they are about to complete development, which in the XIX century began to be called progress. And to some extent this is correct. If we understand progress as moving forward in the course of time, then after the evening dawn, blue twilight comes, and after them the black night is coming.

However, this last phase is overlooked by contemporaries, probably for emotional reasons. The ancient Russians were no exception. They, like the Romans of the era of Caracalla, the Byzantines - contemporaries of Isaac the Angel, the Chinese of the Southern Song dynasty and the ancient Persians who flourished in the Achaemenid Empire, imagined that the "beautifully decorated" Russian land would flourish until the end of the world, and no effort would be required from its inhabitants to maintain this well-being.

And how easily they forgot the terrible defeat of Kiev in 1203, the destruction of the Ryazan land, which the Grand Duke Vsevolod "laid waste" in 1208, and more than nine thousand corpses on the banks of the Lipitsa River!

All this seemed to them to be the past, which they could not remember in order not to spoil their mood. [How like today; Lib.] It became easy and pleasant to live, and most importantly - free, because nothing threatened Russia, which means you could relax and not think about the fate of your Fatherland. This blissful state lasted for only 20 years. During this time, the Ryazan princes, who came to the rescue of their Polovtsian allies in order to repel the Seljuk landing in the Crimea in 1222, suffered a crushing defeat. Reducing the passionate tension of the ethnic system, of course, is not good, but with sufficient material resources and an abundance of natural resources, it is possible to maintain the prosperity of the country and the people for a very long time. After all, the Komnenos held out in Byzantium, surrounded on three sides by enemies, for the whole XII century!  However, there was one circumstance that was extremely important for the final phases of ethnogenesis - a well-developed and well-coordinated spiritual culture - Orthodoxy, purified from heresies and remnants of ancient cults, so the Byzantine cliff took the blows of stormy waves: from the east - Seljuks, from the west - Normans, from the north - Pechenegs and Hungarians - and they resisted.

In Russia, the Byzantine culture won, seized command positions, but did not have time to take root in the masses. And the princes themselves and their boyars have not forgotten the beliefs of their people and their own childhood. The culture of Ancient Russia was brilliant, but loose, and foreign and hostile creeds swirled around Russia. In short, the crisis of passionarity and the crisis of worldview in the XII century in Russia coincided. The passionarity of an ethnic group is the engine of a ship, and the culture of an ethnic group is the steering wheel. The ship needs both.

Most of all, the divergence affected the Slavic world. It was torn in two. The Western Slavs merged with the "Christian world" of Europe, the southern Ones submitted to Byzantium, and the eastern ones absorbed the multiethnic population from the Carpathians to the Volga, mixed with it and became the second center of Orthodoxy, or rather, the dual faith, which turned out to be the glue that cemented many ethnic groups into a superethnic system, the culture of which is still admired.

So, as a result of the split of the ethnic field, the Slavs as an ethnohistorical integrity disappeared, leaving descendants with a relic - the Slavic language - and memories of the past. In the XII century the Russian land itself turned into a superethnos, where the Slavic element was leading, but not exclusive.

102. IN THE RAYS OF THE EVENING DAWN

Slavic Ancient Russia and Byzantium were the same age, because they arose from a single passionate push. They were located in different geographical zones, had different neighbors, and their economic base was different, but the phases of ethnogenesis coincided, with a discrepancy “within the legal tolerance”. In the first third of the XII century Vladimir Monomakh and his son Mstislav the Great, like Alexei and John Komnenos, solved all the political tasks facing the Kievan state. Ancient paganism was crushed both among the Vyatichs on the Oka and the Polovtsians on the Donets and Dniester. Polotsk was annexed to the Kievan state. Peace had to be concluded with Byzantium, as the last clash on the Lower Danube ended in another defeat. It turned out that it is much more profitable to have friends than enemies. Brilliant culture, saved in Byzantium by the Komnenos, flowed in a wide stream into Russia. It was easily perceived, and it might seem that Kiev had become a cultural colony of Constantinople. However, the situation was much more complicated.

Political successes were achieved not due to a passionate excess in Kiev, but due to a decline in passionarity in other cities, from which Kiev sucked energetic youth, but, of course, not all of them. And in the capital, as in any big city, the rate of annihilation was much higher. Such an entropic process inevitably had to lead to a convergence of the energy levels of the capital and the estates, and then the advantage of the capital disappeared, the reasons for the unity of the country were lost, which promised in the near future the collapse of the political system even while maintaining ethnic and ideological uniformity. In the social aspect, this process is called "feudal fragmentation", but under slavery or capitalism it would be the same. The old age of the system is a natural phenomenon, and there is no escape from it. And an ethnos is a system, like an organism or a supernova, and is also subject to the laws of nature. The problem of culture, an anthropogenic phenomenon, is somewhat more complicated. We will spare no effort to clarify this issue.

It is generally believed that the Byzantine culture, obtained together with Christianity, was opposed to "the primitiveness and anarchy of the Slavic tribes of the preceding prehistoric period" [2].

So, P. Muratov in 1923 wrote: "Among other nations, we have assumed the historical role of discipleship. As students of civilization, we have adopted Christianity and, as students of industrial Europe, we are now trying to assimilate social materialism (! - L. G.). Two Russian art stories are also conditioned by two sufferings of our apprenticeship: the ancient one - in Byzantium and the new one - in Europe of the XVIII century. . . Both ancient Russia and new Russia accepted, each in its turn, foreign art at the moment when it reached the highest point of development (Byzantium of the Komnenos), or even when it began to decline brilliantly (Europe of the XVIII century.). Therefore, Russian art history has never known the trends of archaic art, in other words, art, conquering his form and his means of expression. Ancient Russia and new Russia did not participate in the formation of some emerging artistic tradition, but both lived by a great tradition that had already developed outside of them." Here is a concept that at the beginning of the XX century seemed so undoubted) that the question was whether it was possible to talk about "Russian art" at all, and not about "art in Russia", since according to this concept, only foreign art borrowed from other peoples has always developed within it, only refracted by-their local environment[3].

This point of view is most clearly expressed by N.P.Kondakov, who argued "the need to study Russian-Byzantine antiquities on the basis of the antiquities of Byzantium as a source of the most important forms of personal ceremonial dress and related social relations... Russian culture” The most important phenomenon of the Russian-Byzantine environment is the internal relation of the barbarian world to civilization, the connection of external and internal Russian life with the Byzantine culture and its civil society. We called these relations internal in the sense that they are not immediately visible, you discover them only by studying, but once they are proven and accepted in principle, they lead, so to speak, into the whole of this external world of things, they allow us to comprehend its inner content...

Undoubtedly, the life of a fresh, barbaric nationality in the neighborhood of civil society directs all its sensitive receptivity towards borrowing, assimilation, and then rivalry, and all these relations penetrate deeply into the entire national life, carried from the city, the life of the upper classes into the life of the village and the common people. Such was the influence of Byzantium on ancient Russia, while Byzantium was its immediate neighbor in Chersonese, Temutarakan (in the XI century) and while the Byzantine influence on Russia was brought by Orthodox Georgia, Galich, the banks of the Danube, free trade relations and communications with Tsaregrad..."[4]. Based on these considerations, N. P. Kondakov calls the second half of the Grand ducal period - the XI-XII centuries - the period of Russian-Byzantine art.[5]

Map "Kievan Rus in the X-XII centuries (55 KB)"

http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/maps/args11.gif

Objecting to the stated concept, A.S. Gushchin rightly writes: "No one can, of course, dispute the fact that Christian art came to ancient Russia together with the new official religion from Byzantium in a fully developed form and that on a new basis it developed from these borrowed artistic foundations... But is there any reason to consider this borrowed art of the Christian Church as art that immediately determined the general process of artistic development of ancient Russia, and to associate the beginning of all Russian art with the moment of its appearance?

What was the environment in which it got and developed in the future? How reasonable is the statement about the complete suppression of the local process of artistic development by this rich and magnificent art?. . Finally, do we have the right to consider the process of development of early feudal art in Russia as a process of the addition of "Old Russian" art, i.e. to consider, as has been done so far, this art as a product of artistic creativity of the East Slavic nationality alone? Is not this general artistic process as much a matter of Finnish, Khazar, nomadic, Turkic, as well as Slavic peoples proper? Here are the questions to which... it is necessary to look for certain answers"[6]. He points out below that searches in this direction were carried out,[7] but the main features of ancient Slavic art remain in the sphere of "interesting assumptions, and no more." Let it be so, but we are not interested in culture, but in ethnicity.

The phases of the Byzantine and Slavic ethnogenesis coincided, but the destinies of both ethnic groups differed. Byzantium was a mighty country that withstood blows from the east, north and west and preserved the core of its landscape region in Anatolia and Thrace. Therefore, cultural values accumulated in it until the XIII century, and the ethnos was only enriched by the inclusion of southern Slavs, Armenians, Georgians and Goths. In other words, Byzantium is a vivid example of orthogenic, undisturbed development. And the fate of the Eastern Slavs, as we have seen, turned out less favorably, and although the golden autumn of both ethnic groups came at the same time, the Greeks, rich in intellectual and aesthetic values, had the opportunity to share their excess with the brave, strong and energetic Eastern Slavs, who threw off the Avar, Khazar and Varangian oppression and managed to absorb descendants into their ethnic element Rossomonov - Rus, Eastern Balts - Goliad, Finns - Veps and Ugrians of the Upper Volga region.

The objects of art are created by artists, but are perceived by the masses, whose tastes depend on the ethnic tradition and the phase of ethnogenesis. The ancient Russians were not enthusiastic about Muslim arabesques, Catholic statues and stained-glass windows and ancient sculpture, still preserved in Asia Minor. But Byzantine art was complimentary to them. It corresponded to their spiritual makeup, but did not oblige them to change the stereotype of behavior. Therefore, the cement that held Byzantium and Russia together was disinterested sympathy. This determined the similarity of both cultures.

103. "SAD TIME. EYES OF ENCHANTMENT"

The epoch created by the will and courage of Vladimir Monomakh is considered to be the heyday of ancient Russian culture. And there are many reasons for this. But in terms of ethnogenesis, this is an inertial phase, when accumulated wealth provides comfort and even luxury, after which acquisitions are replaced by losses. However, how much can you spend without making up for the damage?

The experience of ethnic history shows that such flourishes are short-lived, because the leading place in life goes to people of consumer psychology who do not know how, and do not want to look ahead. And Russia, despite exceptionally favorable conditions, did not escape the common fate of all ethnic groups.

The last success of Kiev was the capture of Polotsk in 1127. The son of Monomakh, Mstislav the Great captured the princes of Polotsk and exiled them to Byzantium. But already in 1132 the princes returned, and Polotsk was liberated. After Polotsk, Novgorod separated from Kiev and the Rostov-Suzdal land was separated, and in 1139 Vsevolod Olgovich Seversky took Kiev, pushing back the Monomashichs. Since 1146, the war for Kiev began between Suzdalians and Polovtsians, on the one hand, and Volynians, Ugrians and Lyakhs, on the other, and meanwhile the Galician land was isolated. The people of Kiev did not like the Suzdalians so much that the legitimate Prince Yuri Dolgoruky was poisoned by them. For this, his son Andrew in 1169 gave Kiev to the plunder of his army. These facts show that the unity of Russia has been lost. Russia has turned from an ethnos into a superethnos, politically fragmented, like Western Europe.

But while the clashes took place between individual principalities or only between princes, the integrity of the Russian land did not cause doubts to anyone. But by the beginning of the XIII century, these wars had changed their character: from intra-ethnic, they became inter-ethnic. And this happened not because of the strengthening of the provinces, but because of the weakening of the center, which lost the passionate element that had accumulated in Kiev under Vladimir and Yaroslav.

Russia ceased to be a khaganate.[8] In the process of ethnic disintegration, it naturally turned from a monolithic power into a confederation of eight "semi-states"[9], in which the Byzantine culture more or less successfully supplanted pagan Slavic traditions, including the sacrifice of people and animals by the Magi to the dark gods[10]. It is not worth regretting the loss of such traditions, but the rivalry of the Monomashichs and the Olgovichs is also an ancient tradition. And it's not about the character of the princes, but about the moods of ethnic groups. The Davidovichi (the children of David Svyatoslavich) betrayed the Olgovichi, but they resisted, because, apparently, the Chernihiv people did not want Monomashichi. But if so, then there is not only a feudal war, but also the rivalry of two subethnoses: Kiev-Volyn and Chernihiv-Seversky, and both are based on different ethnic substrates, i.e. former tribes forcibly united into the Old Russian ethnos by Kiev princes, and now striving for independence.

Of course, it is absurd to equate the Kievans of the XI-XII centuries with the glades, and the Chernihiv people with the Northerners, but it is impossible not to notice that in place of the tribes, i.e. ethnic groups that disappeared due to ethnic integration into a single Old Russian ethnos, subethnoses with territorial names arise, but they behave the same as the tribes before. Let Suzdalians were formed from Krivichi, Meri and Murom, Novgorodians - from Krivichi, Vesi and Slovenes, Ryazan - from Vyatichi and Murom, Polochans - from Krivichi, Livs and Letts, but these new ethnic groups, even having lost the traditions of their ancestors, maintained the integrity of a large ethnic system - Russia - in ways they knew, including the number of civil strife.

It sounds paradoxical, but let's think about it. Constant interference in each other's affairs excludes indifference, and only the latter leads to alienation. It was thanks to constant interaction, which at that time was not thought of without a struggle, isolated ethnic groups maintained their own ethnos, and on the basis of it, a superethnos, because the concept of "Russian land" includes Ugric, Finnish, Baltic (Goliad) and Turkic tribes, which were components of superethnic integrity. For example, an alliance with the Torcs was a tradition of the Kiev and Volyn princes, and an alliance with the Polovtsy was a tradition of the princes of Chernigov. The latter are condemned for this not by the chronicler, but by the poet - author of the "Words about Igor's Regiment". He called Oleg Svyatoslavich Gorislavich and attributed to him the blame for the "offense" of the Russian land. It seems that his opinion was biased.[11]

Let us pay attention to the fact that in the second half of the XII century the traditional enmity of the Monomashichs and the Olgovichi recedes into the background, and the isolated Polotsk principality almost does not take part in the "feudal wars", although the line of descendants of Rogneda and her son Izyaslav, who was not part of the "Yaroslavl series", reigned there. If it were a matter of the sympathies of the unauthorized princes, then it would be natural for them to interfere in the quarrels of their rivals, but it is equally obvious: if the Polotsk princes did not have close contact with their fellow citizens, they would rot at the Golden Horn, eating alms and scraps.

The same processes were going on in other lands and cities. The attempt of the Olgovichi to seize Kiev in 1135 ended in disaster in 1146, because the Kievans declared: "We do not want the Olgovichi." Igor was brutally murdered. This was followed by a half-century war won by the Chernihiv people. They took Kiev twice and subjected it to a brutal defeat.

104. THE REASON FOR CHAGRIN IS UNCERTAINTY

In Russia, along with the division of Slavic integrity, there was a rapprochement of new Slavic subethnoses with foreigners. When they didn't merge, they were friends, and sometimes it was even more profitable. The Novgorodians opposed the Swedes together with "korela", Izhora, vesya (Veps), and the Polochans were friends with the militant vodya. The armies of the Suzdal princes multiplied Merya and Murom; the Goliad conquered by Yaroslav - the Baltic tribe that lived near Mozhaysk and Gzhatsk - merged with the Russians without a trace.

So, with local tribes, not necessarily Slavic and not at all Orthodox, the ancient Russians got along well. But there are two types of ethnic contacts: 1. The neighborhood of two or more ethnic groups living on their native lands and "fitting" into the landscapes that contain them is usually carried out with benefit for both sides (symbiosis). 2. Meetings with migrants, for whom both the country with its nature and the people formed in these conditions are only a field of activity, almost always selfish and self-serving. These latter were disliked by the ancient Russians. And they gave their sympathies to the Monomashichs in Kiev and the Olgovichs in the Seversk land.

The "Westerners" in the XII century, having lost popularity in the broad strata of society, did not receive support from the Catholic "Christian world". From the German "onslaught to the east" Russia was protected by a reliable barrier - the Polabian Slavs, Prussians and Estonians; from Poland, which adopted the Latin faith in 965, the Yatvyags; from Sweden, the Karelians; and from the "east", equally alien, though less aggressive, the Polovtsy. The vanguard of fighters for Islam - the Khorezmians who captured Khazaria in 977-985 - never reached the border of the khaganate of Vladimir and Yaroslav.

When there is no excess of energy, there comes indifference to everything, first of all to historical traditions. Even just protecting them seems unimportant and unnecessary. Then, in place of pronounced ethno-cultural types, a gray impersonality appears, submissive and monotonous. Thus, in place of the ethnic mosaic of the IX century. by the end of the XII century, an ethnic monolith was formed with rare and insignificant inclusions of relic societies, politically fragmented and passionately devastated. But it was easy to live in it. So, after 1113, all foreign policy tasks were solved with amazing ease. In two years of a light war, Vladimir Monomakh subdued the Polovtsian Koshi to the Black Sea and the Don, and concluded an honorable peace with the Zadonsk nomads. Vyatichi were conquered, Polotsk was annexed, the militant Yatvyags, who annoyed both Poles and Russians, were defeated and dispersed, which ensured the security of the borders.

The country's economy developed, culture and literacy spread, wonderful cathedrals and mansions raised their stone crowns in cities, and wooden, but no less luxurious - on the banks of rivers and lakes. The "wonderful time has come, the enchantment of the eyes", i.e. the golden autumn of civilization, the age of brilliance and charm, deserved by the ancient Russian ethnos, who heroically withstood terrible trials.

And there is nothing surprising in the fact that the golden autumn is followed by a rainy autumn, and after a quiet evening, the twilight of the ethnos comes. In such, at first glance, sad epochs there is a deep meaning that lies in all natural processes and deserves neither approval nor blame, because it is absurd to praise or condemn Nature, which knows neither good nor evil.

But to understand the phenomenon is simple: what burned easily burned out, and what survived turned into cooling coals and ashes. In the XIII century. obscuration - the senile disease of each ethnic group. And only a new passionate impulse, manifested in the XIV century, allowed the cultural tradition inherited from Byzantium not to end. But in order for a passionate explosion to cause a long-lasting gorenje, it is necessary that there is a "combustible material", i.e. a healthy and diverse population. Fortunately, it survived.  These were relict Slavic tribes that preserved their identity in the XII century. [12].

Map "Dynamics of ethnocultural systems of Eurasia I-XII centuries" (30 KB)

http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/maps/args12.gif

[This I don’t think is understandable without reading the Russian names. I can’t. But I include it to show there were many elements that had a glory and a defeat. Lib.]

Why did the chronicler under 1132 write: "And the whole Russian land was distributed..."? After the death of Mstislav the Great, all the principalities of Russia broke out of obedience to Kiev. It would seem that the current situation cannot be considered a progressive evolution in any way, but there is also such a consideration: "Feudal fragmentation was, paradoxically at first glance, the result not so much of differentiation as of historical integration" - and an explanation to it: "Kievan Rus was the grain from which the ear grew, numbering several new grains-principalities"[13], but this cannot be considered fragmentation, disintegration, regression, a backward movement [14], although Vladimir I strictly followed the unity of Russia[15]. Apparently, he is acting "not progressive", because already "for the era of Yuri Dolgoruky, the unity of Russia is only a distant historical tradition"[16].

There is probably no chronicler of the XIII century who was more right, stating with pain in his heart the natural collapse of the Russian land as its decline, than an academician of the XX century who wants to see only progress in everything, although the facts he cited speak against his concept. It is hardly advisable to call the disintegration an "integration".

105. TWILIGHT

Ancient Russia was ethnocultural integrity, but ethnic processes were going on rapidly in it, the influence of which on the socio-political history of the Rurik state has not yet been considered. And it's a pity, because a lot remained unclear. In an effort to fill this gap, we are forced to deviate from the accepted narrative manner of presentation, so as not to re-write the history of Russia, which is not necessary. It is simpler and easier to describe the process of ethnogenesis in the inertial phase with a constant decrease in the passionate tension of the ethno-social system of Ancient Russia, up to the new passionate explosion of the XIV century. And let the presentation become dry and concise - the meaning is more significant than the delights of the form.

In the XI century. Russia overcame the consequences of internal fracture, coped with the Varangian penetration and stood on its feet, winning the war with Khazaria. The weakening of Russia's eastern neighbors and the remoteness of the western ones kept external conflicts to a minimum. The real scourge of the country was in the XII and especially in the XIII century. civil strife, which we now call feudal wars. But unfortunately, they were not only feudal.

War is always an expensive matter, and the appanage princes had little income of their own. In order to maintain a 50,000-strong army, and at a later time, the resources of a large country were required.[17] And with such an army, Andrei Bogolyubsky marched to Kiev in 1169, and Mstislav Volynsky put up the same amount against him. This great war was unthinkable without the participation of the population of Suzdal land and Volhynia. And it is no coincidence that in historiography, the dispute between the older and younger Monomashic line was considered the beginning of the division of Russia into North-Eastern and South-Western. However, the situation was even more complicated.

A.I. Nasonov describes Russia of the XI-XII centuries. as a system of "semi-states"[18], standing an order of magnitude lower than the "Russian Land". These are: 1) Novgorod Republic with suburbs; 2) Polotsk Principality; 3) Smolensk Principality; 4) Rostov-Suzdal land; 5) Ryazan Principality; 6) Turov-Pinsk land: 7) Russian land, which included three principalities: Kiev, Chernihiv and Pereyaslav; 8) Volhynia; 9) Chervonnaya Rus, or Galician Principality (at the beginning of the XIII century. united with Volhynia). To this list it is necessary to add the Polovtsian steppe conquered by Vladimir Monomakh between the Don and the Carpathians.

The Great Bulgar, the Zadonsk nomads of the Polovtsians, the Alan lands in the North Caucasus and Khazaria lay beyond the border of Russia.

If in the XI century the princes conducted military operations with the forces of their small squads [19], then in the second half grandiose armies appeared, to which the cities taken were given to plunder. This shows that "feudal" strife has been replaced by interstate wars; and this in turn means that Russia has turned from a mono-ethnic state into a multi-ethnic one.

Such disintegration indicates a decline in the passionarity of the ethnic system, which began in the middle of the XII century and led to the catastrophe of the XIII century. Morale dropped, and it was necessary to make up for its lack by recruiting soldiers from the population of cities [20]. But if so, then the initiators of the internecine strife were not the princes of Rurik's house, but their surroundings, feeding them and demanding from them quite a certain work for this, i.e. wars with neighbors! But that's how it was! And not only in Novgorod and Galich, where the subordinate position of the princes is recorded by history, but also in all other semi-states of Ancient Russia. Andrei Bogolyubsky was killed by boyars, but betrayed by slaves; a crowd of Kievans tore Igor Olgovich to pieces; Smolyans did not give Rostislavich to offend the Kievans and together with the Chernigov residents dealt with the "mother of Russian cities", who preferred Volynians. Here is how the chronicler describes this fact: on January 2, 1203, Rurik, in alliance with the Olgovichi and "all the Polovtsian land," took Kiev. "And great evil was created in the Rus of the earth, but there was no evil from the baptism over Kiev... Podillya was taken and pozhgosha; ino the Mountain was taken, and the Holy Sophia was plundered by the Metropolitan and the Tithe (church)... plundered and monasteries all and icons odrasha... then put it in your pocket." It goes on to say that "Rurik's allies, the Polovtsians, chopped up all the old monks, priests and nuns, and took the young chernits, wives and daughters of the Kievans to their camps."

Of course, it's terrible, but who is to blame? Polovtsy, who were allowed to rob instead of payment, Prince Rurik Rostislavich or his inspirer Vsevolod the Big Nest? And after all, besides the Polovtsians, the Chernigov people, brought by the Olgovichi, took Kiev; so what, … they had not robbed?!

And the most unexpected thing here is that the creation of the anti-Kiev coalition, the diplomatic preparation of the war, the hiring of the Polovtsy for the promise to allow them to plunder the "mother of Russian cities" was carried out by Igor Svyatoslavich himself (who became the Prince of Chernigov from Novgorod-Seversky), the hero of the "Words about Igor's Regiment" [21].  This fact says that the ancient tradition of intertribal enmity between the Poles and the Northerners, which grew into the rivalry between Kiev and Chernigov, turned out to be so tenacious in the XIII century that the border accounts of the Rus and Polovtsians faded in comparison with it.

And on the other hand, Roman Mstislavich, to protect Kiev, attracted the Turks, who courageously defended the capital of Russia, fighting with their sworn enemies, the Polovtsians. This shows that Russia and the Steppe conquered by it formed a single, although not centralized state, which was in a state of deep crisis, expressed in the intensification of internecine wars, which took on the character of interstate conflicts at the end of the XII - beginning of the XIII century.

Here I am relying on the book by B.A. Rybakov, analyzing the text "Words about the destruction of the Russian land after the death of Grand Duke Yaroslav" - "And in your days, the disease to the peasants..." This "disease", according to B.A. Rybakov, "is not connected with either the Polovtsian threat or the Tatar invasion; the disease leading to perdition, - internal discord, corroding "the light-bright and beautifully decorated Russian land." The crisis will come already in the XIII-XIV centuries.

The problem of ethnic decline is therefore complicated because the current interpretation of history is at the level of the beginning of the XIX century. At that time, straightforward mechanistic evolutionism prevailed in all sciences, now discarded even in zoology and replaced by mutagenesis. Since the deaths of huge "civilizations" were inexplicable from such positions, then barbarians, Christians, slaves and slaveholders were considered to be to blame for the death of, for example, the Roman Empire, but not the Romans themselves. But the reason for the death of the Roman Empire and its culture nested in them, although it is also wrong to consider them guilty: after all, you can't blame an old man for not doing boxing or mountaineering, referring to a sick heart.

The Romans in the IV century forgot how to fight and even defend themselves. Suffice it to recall that after the destruction of Rome by vandals in 455, the Romans discussed not how to restore the city, but how to arrange a circus performance; they were no longer capable of anything more. And they submitted to the leader of the Heruli, Odoacer, in 476 without resistance.

The Roman example is not the only way to destroy "civilization". Byzantium died courageously and tragically. Therefore, death can be chosen, although the choice itself is always prompted by the course of events of the distant past. All systems that have arisen during a negentropic explosion - a passionate push, disintegrate, but each in its own way. Having reminded the reader of this, let's return to our topic and see where the "beautifully decorated" Ancient Russia has gone? And how did this happen? And how did a young and powerful Russia appear in its place?

NOTES

[1] See: Begunov Yu.K. Monuments of Russian literature of the XIII century. M.; L. 1965. pp. 154-155, 182-184.

[2] Gushchin L.S. Monuments of the artistic craft of Ancient Russia of the X- XIII centuries. M.; L., 1936. P. 11 A.S. Gushchin himself does not share this concept.

[3] Nikolsky V. History of Russian Art. Berlin, 1923. For similar statements, see: Kuslaev F.I. Comparative views on the history of art in Russia and in the West//Soch. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1880. pp. 3-41; Novitsky L.P. History of Russian art of ancient Russia.Moscow, 1924; Sychev N.P. Art of medieval Russia//The history of all times and peoples. Issue 4. L., 1929.

[4] Kondakov N.P. Russian treasures. Vol.1.St. Petersburg., 1896. p.81. He. About the scientific tasks of ancient Russian art. St. Petersburg, 1899.

[5] See: Gushchin L. S. Decree. op. p. 13.

[6] Gushchin L. S. Decree. op. p. 13-14.

[7] See: Paplinov L.M. The prehistoric time of art on the soil of Russia//Bulletin of Fine Arts. 1887. Vol. V. Issues 1 and 4.

[8] The last "kagan" was Prince Oleg Svyatoslavich. So, he is named in the "Word about Igor's regiment". His contemporary and rival Vladimir Monomakh was figuratively called tsar - a nickname borrowed from the Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX.

[9] See: Nasonov A. II. "Russian land" and the formation of the territory of the Old Russian state. M., 1951.

[10] See: PVL.Part 1. p.117: cf.: NVL.Part 11.P.402- 405.

[11] See: Gumilev L.N. The search for a fictional kingdom.

[12] The cities of Vyatichi are mentioned under 1146 (see: Solovyov S.M. History of Russia ... Book 1. Vol. II. p. 434). The land of the southern Dregovichi was taken away by Yuri Dolgoruky from Izyaslav Davydovich in 1149 (see: Solovyov S.M. History of Russia ... Book 1. Vol. II. p. 447). The craniological type of the Drevlyans, and not the Polyans and Northerners, formed the basis of the modern Ukrainian type (see: Alekseev V.P. In search of ancestors. M., 1972. pp. 299-300).

[13] Rybakov K.A. Kievan Rus and the Russian Principalities of the XII-XIII centuries. M., 1982.P. 472. The cited author gives the following data: in the middle of the XII century. - 15 principalities, and the beginning of the XIII century. - about 50, in the XIV century. - about 250 principalities. Contemporaries had ironic sayings: "In the Rostov land there is a prince in every village", "In the Rostov land seven princes have one warrior" (Ibid. Pp.469-470).

[14] Ibid. p. 470.

[15] Ibid. P. 404.

[16] Ibid. P. 65.

[17] Edward III landed in Normandy in 1346, having a thousand knights, 4 thousand horsemen and 10 thousand Anglo-Saxon and Welsh riflemen. With these forces, he won the Battle of Crecy (Maurois A. Histoire d'Angleterre. Paris, 1937. P. 222). Henry V repeated the operation in 1415, having 2.5 thousand men-at-arms and 8 thousand riflemen, with staff and transport - about 30 thousand people... and won the Battle of Azincourt (ltrid. P. 262). But these are the largest operations of England - the whole kingdom.

[18] See: Nasonov A.N. "Russian land" and the formation of the territory of the ancient Russian state.

[19] Svyatoslav Yaroslavich in 1068 defeated the Polovtsians on the Snovi River, having only 3 thousand warriors against 12 thousand.

[20] V.V. Kargalov estimates the number of Russian military forces at the beginning of the XIII century at 110 thousand people (see: Foreign policy factors of the development of feudal Russia. M., 1967. P. 79).

[21] See: Rybakov B.A. "The Word about Igor's regiment" and his contemporaries. M., 1971.With.288-290.

.