Each exam question can have multiple answers from different authors. The answer may contain text, formulas, pictures. The author of the exam or the author of the answer to the exam can delete or edit the question.
Normantheory- a complex of scientific ideas, according to which it was the Scandinavians (i.e. "Varangians"), being called to rule Russia, who laid the first foundations of statehood on it. According to the Norman theory, some Western and Russian scholars raise the question not of the influence of the Varangians on the already formed tribes of the Slavs, but of the influence of the Varangians on the very origin of Rus' as a developed, strong and independent state.
The very term "Varangians" arose at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th centuries. The Varangians are first mentioned in the "Tale of Bygone Years" on its very first pages, and they also open the list of 13 peoples who continued the clan of Japheth after the flood. The first researchers involved in the analysis of Nestor's story about the calling of the Varangians almost generally recognized its authenticity, seeing in the Varangian-Russians people from Scandinavia (Petreius and other Swedish scientists, Bayer, G. F. Muller, Tunman, Schletser, etc. ). But as early as the 18th century, active opponents of this "Norman theory" began to appear (Tredyakovsky and Lomonosov).
However, until the sixties of the XIX century, the Norman school could be considered unconditionally dominant, since only a few objections were raised against it (Ewers in 1808). During this time, the most prominent representatives of Normanism were Karamzin, Krug, Pogodin, Kunik, Shafarik and Mikloshich. However, since 1859 the opposition against Normanism has risen with a new, hitherto unprecedented force.
Normanists - adherents of the Norman theory, based on the story of the Nestor Chronicle about the calling of the Varangians-Russians from across the sea, find confirmation of this story in Greek, Arabic, Scandinavian and Western European testimonies and in linguistic facts, everyone agrees that the Russian state, as such, really founded by the Scandinavians, i.e. the Swedes.
The Norman theory denies the origin of the ancient Russian state as a result of internal socio-economic development. Normanists associate the beginning of statehood in Rus' with the moment of calling the Varangians to reign in Novgorod and their conquest of the Slavic tribes in the Dnieper basin. They believed that the Varangians themselves, "of which Rurik and his brothers were, were not a Slavic tribe and language ... they were Scandinavians, that is, Swedes."
Within the framework of the chosen topic, I will consider the Norman theory, the opinions of its supporters and opponents. In conclusion, I will try to express my point of view about the Norman theory - whether it is true or not.
2Norman theory and anti-Normanism
The Norman theory is one of the most important debatable aspects of the history of the Russian state. In itself, this theory is barbaric in relation to our history and its origins in particular. Practically, on the basis of this theory, the entire Russian nation was imputed to a certain secondary importance, it seems that, on the basis of reliable facts, a terrible failure was attributed to the Russian people even in purely national issues. It's a shame that for decades the Normanist point of view of the origin of Rus' was firmly established in historical science as a completely accurate and infallible theory. Moreover, among the ardent supporters of the Norman theory, in addition to foreign historians, ethnographers, there were many domestic scientists. This cosmopolitanism, which is offensive to Russia, quite clearly demonstrates that for a long time the positions of the Norman theory in science in general were strong and unshakable. It was only in the second half of our century that Normanism lost its position in science. At this time, the standard is the assertion that the Norman theory has no basis and is fundamentally wrong. However, both points of view must be supported by evidence. Throughout the struggle of the Normanists and anti-Normanists, the former were engaged in the search for these very proofs, often fabricating them, while the others tried to prove the groundlessness of the guesses and theories derived by the Normanists.
Already knowing the correct resolution of the dispute, it is nevertheless interesting to weigh all the pros and cons and come to your own opinion on this issue.
According to the Norman theory, based not on a misinterpretation of the Russian chronicles, Kievan Rus was created by the Swedish Vikings, subjugating the East Slavic tribes and forming the ruling class of ancient Russian society, led by the princes - the Rurikovichs. For two centuries, Russian-Scandinavian relations of the IX-XI centuries. were the subject of heated debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists.
What was the stumbling block? Undoubtedly, an article in the Tale of Bygone Years, dated 6370, which, translated into the generally accepted calendar, is the year 862: In the summer of 6370. Expelling the Varangians across the sea, and not giving tribute to them, and more often Volodya themselves in themselves, and not be in them the truth, and stand up kindred, and often fight for yourself. And they decide in themselves: "Let's look for a prince, who would rule over us and judge by right." And go for Mork to the Varangians, to Rus'; The sister of both is called Varyazi Ru, as if all drksii are called Svie, the friends of Urman, Angliane, the friends of Gyte, taco and si. Resha Russia Chud, and Slovenia, and Krivichi all: "our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it, but go to reign and rule over us. the first, and cut down the city of Ladoga, and gray-haired old Rurik in Ladoza, and the other, Sineus, on Lake Bele, and the third Izbrsta, Truvor. And from those Varangians, they called the Russian land ... "
This excerpt from an article in the PVL, taken for granted by a number of historians, laid the foundation for the construction of the Norman concept of the origin of the Russian state. The Norman theory contains two well-known points: firstly, the Normanists argue that the Varangians who came practically created a state, which the local population was beyond the power of; and secondly, the Varangians had a huge cultural impact on Eastern Slavs. The general meaning of the Norman theory is quite clear: the Scandinavians created the Russian people, gave them statehood and culture, and at the same time subjugated them to themselves.
Although this construction was first mentioned by the compiler of the chronicle and since then for six centuries has usually been included in all works on the history of Russia, it is well known that the Norman theory received official distribution in the 30-40s of the 18th century during the "Bironism", when many the highest positions at the court were occupied by German nobles. Naturally, the entire first staff of the Academy of Sciences was staffed by German scientists. It is believed that the German scientists Bayer and Miller created this theory under the influence of the political situation. A little later this theory was developed by Schletzer. Some Russian scientists, in particular M. V. Lomonosov, immediately reacted to the publication of the theory. It must be assumed that this reaction was caused by a natural feeling of infringed dignity. Indeed, any Russian person should have taken this theory as a personal insult and as an insult to the Russian nation, especially people like Lomonosov.
M.V. Lomonosov subjected to devastating criticism all the main provisions of the "anti-scientific concept of the genesis Ancient Rus'". The ancient Russian state, according to Lomonosov, existed long before the calling of the Varangians-Russians in the form of disunited tribal unions and separate principalities. The tribal unions of the southern and northern Slavs, who “considered themselves free without a monarchy,” in his opinion, were clearly burdened by any kind of power.
Noting the role of the Slavs in the development world history and the fall of the Roman Empire, Lomonosov once again emphasizes the love of freedom of the Slavic tribes and their intolerant attitude towards any oppression. Thus indirectly Lomonosov indicates that princely power did not always exist, but was a product of the historical development of Ancient Rus'. He showed this especially vividly in the example of ancient Novgorod, where "the Novgorodians refused tribute to the Varangians and began to govern themselves."
However, at that time, the class contradictions that torn apart the ancient Russian feudal society led to the fall of the rule of the people: Novgorodians "fell into great strife and internecine wars, one clan rebelled against another to obtain a majority."
And it was at this moment of acute class contradictions that the Novgorodians (or rather, that part of the Novgorodians who won this struggle) turned to the Varangians with the following words: "our land is great and plentiful, but we have no outfit; yes, come to us to reign and own us."
Focusing on this fact, Lomonosov emphasizes that it was not the weakness and inability of the Russians to govern, as the supporters of the Norman theory stubbornly tried to assert, but class contradictions, which were suppressed by the strength of the Varangian squad, were the reason for calling the Varangians.
In addition to Lomonosov, other Russian historians, including S. M. Solovyov, also refute the Norman theory: “The Normans were not a dominant tribe, they only served the princes of native tribes; many served only temporarily; those who remained in Rus' forever, due to their numerical insignificance, quickly merged with the natives, especially since in their national life they did not find obstacles to this merger. Thus, at the beginning of Russian society, there can be no question of the rule of the Normans, of the Norman period.
It was then that the dispute over the Norman problem began. The catch is that the opponents of the Norman concept could not refute the postulates of this theory due to the fact that they initially stood on the wrong positions, recognizing the reliability of the chronicle source story, and argued only about the ethnicity of the Slavs.
Normanists rested on the fact that the term "Rus" denoted precisely the Scandinavians, and their opponents were ready to accept any version, if only not to give the Normanists a head start. Anti-Normanists were ready to talk about Lithuanians, Goths, Khazars and many other peoples. It is clear that with such an approach to solving the problem, anti-Normanists could not count on victory in this dispute. As a consequence, by the end of the 19th century, the apparently protracted dispute led to a noticeable preponderance of the Normanists. The number of supporters of the Norman theory grew, and the controversy on the part of their opponents began to weaken. The Normanist Wilhelm Thomsen took the lead in considering this issue. After his work "The Beginning of the Russian State" was published in Russia in 1891, where the main arguments in favor of the Norman theory were formulated with the greatest completeness and clarity, many Russian historians came to the conclusion that the Norman origin of Rus' can be considered proven. And although the anti-Normanists (Ilovaisky, Gedeonov) continued their polemics, the majority of representatives of official science took Normanist positions. In the scientific community, an idea has been established about the victory of the Norman concept of the history of Ancient Rus' that occurred as a result of the publication of Thomsen's work. Direct polemics against Normanism almost ceased. So, A.E. Presnyakov believed that "the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state has firmly entered the inventory of scientific Russian history." Presnyakov A.E. Wilhelm Thomsen on the most ancient period of Russian history. Also, the main provisions of the Norman theory, i.e. the Norman conquest, the leading role of the Scandinavians in the creation of the Old Russian state was recognized by the vast majority of Soviet scientists, in particular M.N. Pokrovsky and I.A. Rozhkov. According to the latter, in Rus' "the state was formed through the conquests made by Rurik and especially Oleg." This statement perfectly illustrates the situation that prevailed in Russian science at that time - in fact, you can’t imagine worse.
It should be noted that in the 18th - early 20th centuries, Western European historians recognized the thesis about the founding of Ancient Rus' by the Scandinavians, but they did not specifically deal with this problem. For almost two centuries there were only a few Norman scholars in the West, except for the already mentioned V. Thomsen, one can name T. Arne. The situation changed only in the twenties of our century. Then Russia, which had already managed to become Soviet, sharply increased interest. This was reflected in the interpretation of Russian history. Many works on the history of Russia began to be published. First of all, the book of the greatest scientist A.A. Shakhmatova, dedicated to the problems of the origin of the Slavs, the Russian people and the Russian state. Shakhmatov's attitude to the Norman problem has always been complex. Objectively, his works on the history of chronicle writing played an important role in the criticism of Normanism and undermined one of the foundations of Norman theory. Based on the textual analysis of the chronicle, he established the late and unreliable nature of the story about the calling of the Varangian princes. But at the same time, he, like the vast majority of Russian scientists of that time, stood on Normanist positions! He tried, within the framework of his construction, to reconcile the contradictory testimony of the Primary Chronicle and non-Russian sources about the most ancient period in the history of Rus'. The emergence of statehood in Rus' seemed to Shakhmatov the successive appearance of three Scandinavian states in Eastern Europe and as a result of the struggle between them. Here we move on to a concept that is well defined and somewhat more specific than those previously described. So, according to Shakhmatov, the first state of the Scandinavians was created by the Normans-Rus who came from the sea at the beginning of the 9th century in Priilmenye, in the region of the future Staraya Russa. It was it that was the "Russian Khaganate", known from the entry of 839 in the Vertinsky Annals. From here, in the 840s, Norman Rus moved south, to the Dnieper region, and created a second Norman state there with a center in Kyiv. In the 860s, the northern East Slavic tribes rebelled and expelled the Normans and Rus', and then invited a new Varangian army from Sweden, which created the third Norman-Varangian state headed by Rurik. Thus, we see that the Varangians - the second wave of Scandinavian newcomers - began to fight against the previously arrived in Eastern Europe Norman Russia; the Varangian army won, uniting the Novgorod and Kyiv lands into one Varangian state, which took the name "Rus" from the defeated Kyiv Normans. The very name "Rus" was derived by Shakhmatov from the Finnish word "ruotsi" - designations for the Swedes and Sweden. On the other hand, V.A. Parkhomenko showed that the hypothesis expressed by Shakhmatov is too complicated, far-fetched and far from the actual basis of written sources.
Also, a major Normanist work that appeared in our historiography in the 1920s was P.P. Smirnov's book "The Volga Way and Ancient Russians". Widely using the news of Arab writers of the 9th-11th centuries, Smirnov began to look for the place of origin of the Old Russian state not on the way "from the Varangians to the Greeks", as was done by all previous historians, but on the Volga route from the Baltic along the Volga to the Caspian Sea. According to the concept of Smirnov, on the Middle Volga in the first half of the 9th century. The first state created by Rus was formed - the "Russian Khaganate". On the Middle Volga, Smirnov was looking for the "three centers of Rus'" mentioned in Arabic sources of the 9th-10th centuries. In the middle of the 9th century, unable to withstand the onslaught of the Ugrians, the Norman-Russians from the Volga region left for Sweden and from there, after the "calling of the Varangians", again moved to Eastern Europe, this time to the Novgorod land. The new construction turned out to be original, but not convincing and was not supported even by the supporters of the Norman school.
Further, in the development of the dispute between supporters of the Norman theory and anti-Normanists, cardinal changes took place. This was caused by some surge in the activity of the anti-Normanist doctrine, which occurred at the turn of the 30s. Scientists of the younger generation came to replace the scientists of the old school. But until the mid-1930s, the majority of historians retained the idea that the Norman question had long been resolved in the Norman spirit. Archaeologists were the first to come up with anti-Normanist ideas, directing their criticism against the provisions of the concept of the Swedish archaeologist T. Arne, who published his work "Sweden and the East". Archaeological studies of Russian archaeologists in the 1930s provided their own materials that contradict Arne's concept. An important role in this was played by the criterion developed by Soviet archaeologists for resolving the issue of the ethnicity of burial sites. It was found that the decisive moment is not the presence of certain things in the burial, but the entire burial complex as a whole. This approach allowed V.I. Ravdonikas, on the basis of the excavations of the burial mounds of the South-Eastern Ladoga region in the late 1920s, to criticize Arne's statements about the existence of Noman colonies in this area and to establish that the burial grounds belonged to the local Baltic-Finnish tribe. A.V. Artsikhovsky criticized the assertion of the Normanists about the existence of Norman colonies in the Suzdal and Smolensklands, showing that here, too, most of the Scandinavian things were found in funerary monuments in which the burial was made not according to the Scandinavian, but according to the local custom.
The theory of the Norman colonization of Russian lands, which Arne based on archaeological material, received, oddly enough, support from linguists in the following decades. An attempt was made to confirm the existence of a significant number of Norman colonies in these places with the help of an analysis of the toponymy of the Novgorod land. This newest Normanist construction was subjected to critical analysis by E.A. Rydzevskaya, who expressed the opinion that it is important to take into account not only interethnic, but also social relations in Rus' when studying this problem. However, these critical speeches have not yet changed the overall picture. The named scientist, as, indeed, other Russian researchers, opposed individual Normanist provisions, and not against the whole theory as a whole.
In the mid-1930s, scientists first developed the "Marxist concept" of the emergence of a class society and state in the East Slavic lands. It was found that the emergence of the Old Russian state was the result of a centuries-old process of socio-economic development of the Eastern Slavs and the result of deep internal changes that took place in East Slavic society in the 9th-10th centuries. Within the framework of this concept, there was no place for the Varangians, the creators of Russian statehood. As B.D. Grekov pointed out: “at the present level of science, one can no longer speak with the old naive views that the state can be created by individual people in a certain year”, “... the state is in no way a force, from outside imposed on society, but is only the product of a long internal process of development of society. - this quote from the classic of Marxism F. Engels accurately reflects the point of view of Marxist teaching.
The classics of Marxism established that the state - "... it is a machine for maintaining the domination of one class over another", is created only when, within a given country, as a result of the decomposition of the primitive communal system, society breaks up into classes and an economically strong class is formed, striving to submit to the main the masses of the population, to the establishment of their class domination. Therefore, we could only talk about some degree of participation of the Normans in the grandiose changes that took place in Rus' in the 9th-10th centuries.
The provisions of the classics of Marxism were the necessary basis for the development of the Soviet concept of the origin of the Old Russian state, which dealt a decisive blow to the Norman theory. It is noteworthy that even the scientists themselves who developed it did not immediately realize that this concept undermines the foundations on which the teachings of the Normanists are based.
After the completion of the fundamental shifts in Russian historiography, V.A. Parkhomenko. He analyzed the main arguments of the Norman school and showed that these arguments are not based on a serious analysis of the totality of sources, and therefore are not at all convincing.
Already by the forties, the positions of Russian scientists on the Norman survey were formulated by M.I. Artamonov: the Varangians penetrated Rus' early, but they were at the same stage of social and cultural development as the Eastern Slavs, and therefore could not bring to Rus' either a higher culture or statehood; they only joined the local process of state formation. Yes, Marxist science admits that in the 9th-10th centuries, as reliable sources testify, mercenary detachments of Norman warriors repeatedly appeared in the Russian lands, serving the Russian princes, as well as Norman merchants who traveled for trading purposes along waterways Of Eastern Europe. However, based on the totality of written, archaeological and folklore and some other sources, Marxist science asserts that the formation of a class society, the formation of the Old Russian state, the beginning of the development of feudal relations, the formation of the Russian people and its material and spiritual culture are the result of deep and lengthy processes of internal development. East Slavic society, without significant influence of the Normans. The process of the emergence of statehood in Rus' was also studied in the forties by V.V. Mavrodin, in particular, considered the question of the participation of the Normans in the formation of the state in Rus'. Although the author acknowledged the participation of the Normans in this process recorded by many sources, at the same time he showed the rather limited nature of this participation. The book acknowledged the Norman origin of the princely dynasty, but at the same time indicated that the dynasty "because it held on in Rus' ... quickly merged with the Russian, Slavic ruling elite" and began to fight for its interests. At the same time, it should be noted that in the text of the monograph there were several formulations that exaggerated the role of the Normans in the formation of the Old Russian state.
IN post-war years anti-Normanist movement developed. First of all, these are articles by B.D. Grekov with criticism of the Normanist works of T. Arne and the Finnish philologist V. Kiparsky: "On the role of the Varangians in the history of Rus'" and "Anti-scientific fabrications of the Finnish "professor", the last of which was published in 1950.
An even more detailed criticism of the Norman theory was contained in the works of S.V. Yushkov.
At the same time, there were some shortcomings in our historiography in the first post-war decade. Some scientists, arguing with the Normanists, generally denied everything connected with the activities of the Normans in Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. Things went to the other extreme: some historians generally denied the scientific character of the Norman theory. For example, according to V.P. Shusharin, now the Norman theory "... has become a means of falsifying history, that is, it has become a concept that lies outside of science." Fortunately, there was another point of view, presented, in particular, by Shaskolsky: the Norman theory is "... a scientific theory based on a long scientific tradition, and criticism of this theory should be in the nature of a serious, deeply substantiated scientific polemic. "Accept the Norman theory only as someone’s malicious intent and an unfounded phenomenon, then, when science had already begun the inevitable process of exposing it, it would at least be unwise - after all, there were real written sources on which supporters of Normanism relied.
A general presentation of the Norman problem from the standpoint of Soviet science is given in the book by V.V. Mavrodina. The author re-examined the argumentation of the Normanists, noted all the main sources of information that testify to the various forms of participation of the Normans in the formation of the state in Rus', but at the same time showed the limited nature of this participation in the grandiose process of the emergence of the state in Eastern Europe, which was the result of centuries of social development. Eastern Slavs.
In general, what happened in science was what should have happened: the controversy between Soviet science and Normanism began to be restructured, from the struggle against the scientific constructions of the last century, they began to move on to concrete criticism of the current and developing Normanist concepts, to criticism of modern Normanism as one of the main currents of foreign Sciences.
By that time, there were four main theories in Norman historiography:
1). Conquest theory: The ancient Russian state was, according to this theory, created by the Normans, who conquered the East Slavic lands and established their dominance over the local population. This is the oldest and most advantageous point of view for the Normanists, since it is precisely this point of view that proves the "second-class" nature of the Russian nation.
2). Theory of Norman colonization, owned by T. Arne. It was he who proved the existence of Scandinavian colonies in Ancient Rus'. Normanists argue that the Varangian colonies were the real basis for establishing Norman dominance over the Eastern Slavs.
3). The theory of political connection between the Kingdom of Sweden and the Russian state. Of all theories, this theory stands apart because of its fantasticness, not supported by any facts. This theory also belongs to T. Arne and can only claim the role of a not very successful joke, since it is simply invented from the head.
4). A theory that recognized the class structure of Ancient Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. and the ruling class as created by the Vikings. According to her, the upper class in Rus' was created by the Varangians and consisted of them. The creation of a ruling class by the Normans is considered by most authors as a direct result of the Norman conquest of Rus'. A. Stender-Petersen was a supporter of this idea. He argued that the appearance of the Normans in Rus' gave impetus to the development of statehood. The Normans are a necessary external "impulse", without which the state in Rus' would never have arisen.
To prove or, conversely, to refute one or another theory from the presented ones, undoubtedly, evidence is needed. Let's try to consider some aspects of the problem in more detail. Any of the following facts, one way or another related to the topic of the Varangians in Rus', plays into the hands of the anti-Normanists, and each of them proves the failure of the Norman theory.
For example, the origin and meaning of the term "Rus". Philologists from Europe - Ekblom, Stender-Petersen, Falk, Ekbu, Myagiste, as well as historians Pashkevich and Dreyer tried to approve and strengthen the construction according to which "Rus" comes from "ruotsi" - the word that the Finns call the Swedes and Sweden. "Rus" in the sense of "Russian state" - meant the state of the Swedes-Rus. Pashkevich said that "Rus" are Normans from Eastern Europe. G. Vernadsky spoke out against these constructions, saying that the term "Rus" is of southern Russian origin, and that the "Rukhs" are the Alanian tribes of the southern steppes of the middle of the 1st millennium AD. The word "Rus" denoted the strong political association Rus that existed long before the appearance of the Varangians, which made military campaigns on the Black Sea coast. If you turn to the written sources of that time - Byzantine, Arabic, you can see that they consider Rus' to be one of the local peoples of southeastern Europe. Also, some sources call him, and this is especially important, the Slavs. The identification of the concept of "Rus" and "Normans" in the annals, on which the Normanists rested, turned out to be a later insert.
Another main point of the Norman theory, the origin of the word "Varangians", has a similar position. Among the various hypotheses, there is one that suggests not the Scandinavian origin of this term, but Russian. Back in the 17th century. S. Herberstein drew parallels between the name "Varangians" and the name of one of the Baltic Slavic tribes - Vargs. This idea was developed by Lomonosov, later by Svistun. The general meaning of their hypotheses boils down to the fact that the "Varangians" are newcomers from the Baltic lands who were hired into the service of the East Slavic princes. Based on the correctness of these hypotheses, it becomes unclear where the word "Varangians" came from in the annals. It is clear that it is completely pointless to look for it in the Scandinavian sagas.
More than fifty scientists have been dealing with the problem of Scandinavian borrowings in Russian for two centuries. Normanists wanted to show that many objects and concepts in Russian are of Scandinavian origin. Especially for this, the Swedish philologist K. Turnkvist did a great job of finding and sifting out Scandinavian borrowings from the Russian language. The result was completely disappointing. In total, 115 words were found, the vast majority of which are dialects of the 19th century, which are not used in our time. Only thirty are obvious borrowings, of which only ten can be cited as proof of the Norman theory. These are such words as "gridin", "tiun", "yabetnik", "brkovsk", "pood". Words such as "narov", "syaga", "shgla" are used in the sources once. The conclusion is obvious. Exactly with the same success, the researcher A. Backlund tried to prove the presence of Scandinavian names on the territory of the Russian state. Another basis of the Norman doctrine is Scandinavian toponymy on the territory of Rus'. Such toponyms are studied in the works of M. Farsmer and E. Rydzevskaya. For two, they identified 370 toponyms and hydronyms. A lot of? But at that time there were 60.000 settlements. Simple calculations show that there are 7 Scandinavian names for every 1000 names of settlements. Too ridiculous figure to talk about Varangian expansion. The Scandinavian names of settlements and rivers rather speak of trade relations.
Proponents of the Norman theory also rested on the abundance of Scandinavian words in Russian. This concerned the field of hydronymy: the concepts of "lahta" (bay), "hank" (way), "fiber" (cape), "litter" (branching) and some others seemed to be Varangian. However, it has been proven that these words are of local, Finnish origin.
In general, if you carefully analyze all the data that seem to support the Norman theory, they will certainly turn against it. In addition, the Normanists use different sources than the anti-Normanists, and for the most part these sources are Western, for example, the three lives of Otto of Bamberg. Such sources are often falsified and biased. The sources, which can be taken on faith, are Byzantine, for example, quite clearly indicate that Rus' should not be confused with the Varangians; Rus' is mentioned earlier than the Varangians; Russian princes and squads prayed either to Perun or to Christ, but not to the Scandinavian gods. Also trustworthy are the works of Photius, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in which nothing is said about the calling of the Varangians to Rus'.
The same can be said about the Arabic sources, although at first the Normanists managed to turn them in their favor. These sources speak of the Russians as a tall, fair-haired people. Indeed, one might think of the Russians as Scandinavians, but these ethnographic conclusions are rather shaky. Some features in the customs point to the Slavs.
The totality of all sources boldly allows us to speak of the failure of the Norman theory. In addition to these irrefutable proofs, there are many others, such as proof of the Slavic origin of the names of the Dnieper rapids, some archaeological data. All these facts debunk the Norman theory.
Conclusion
So, we can say that the Norman theory was defeated under the onslaught of Russian scientists. Consequently, before the arrival of the Varangians, Rus' was already a state, maybe still primitive, not fully formed. But it also cannot be denied that the Scandinavians sufficiently influenced Rus', including statehood. The first Russian princes, who were Scandinavians, nevertheless introduced a lot of new things into the management system (for example, the first truth in Rus' was Varangian).
However, without a doubt, the influence of the Scandinavians on Rus' was quite significant. It could occur not only as a result of close communication between the Scandinavians and Slavs, but simply because all the first princes in Rus', and therefore the legitimate power, were Varangians. Consequently, the first truth in Rus' was Varangian.
In addition to legislation and statehood, the Scandinavians bring with them military science and shipbuilding. Could the Slavs on their boats sail to Constantinople and capture it, ply the Black Sea? Tsargrad is captured by Oleg, the Varangian king, with his retinue, but he is now a Russian prince, which means that his ships are now Russian ships, and for sure these are not only ships that came from the Varangian sea, but also cut down here in Rus'. The Vikings brought to Rus' the skills of navigation, sailing, orienteering by the stars, the science of handling weapons, and military science.
Of course, thanks to the Scandinavians, trade is developing in Rus'. At the beginning, Gardarik is just some settlements on the way of the Scandinavians to Byzantium, then the Varangians begin to trade with the natives, some just settle here - who will become a prince, who will be a combatant, who will remain a merchant. As a result, the Slavs and Varangians together continue their journey "from the Varangians to the Greeks." Thus, thanks to its Varangian princes, Rus' first appears on the world stage and takes part in world trade. And not only.
Already Princess Olga understands how important it is to declare Rus' among other states, and her grandson, Prince Vladimir, finishes what she started by carrying out the Baptism of Rus', thereby transferring Rus' from the era of barbarism, from which other states left long ago, into the Middle Ages.
And although the Norman theory did not receive absolute historical confirmation, with the arrival of the Scandinavians in Rus' appeared: shipbuilding, sailing, navigation, star navigation, expansion of trade relations, military affairs, jurisprudence, laws.
The conclusion from all of the above is as follows: it can be assumed that the role of the Normans in Rus' in the first period of their appearance on the territory of the Eastern Slavs (until the third quarter of the 10th century) is different than in the subsequent period. At first, this is the role of merchants who know foreign countries well, then warriors, navigators, sailors.
A glorified Scandinavian dynasty was called to the throne, glorified, apparently, in the second half of the 9th century or by the time Oleg arrived in Kyiv. The opinion that the Normans played the same role in Rus' as the conquistadors in America is fundamentally erroneous. The Normans gave impetus to economic and social transformations in Ancient Rus' - this statement also has no basis.
Thus, the role of the Varangians in the development of the state is minimal, and the Norman theory is fundamentally wrong.
Formation of the Old Russian state (briefly)
The prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state were the disintegration of tribal ties and the development of a new mode of production. The Old Russian state took shape in the process of development of feudal relations, the emergence of class contradictions and coercion.
Among the Slavs, a dominant layer was gradually formed, the basis of which was the military Nobility of the Kyiv princes - the squad. Already in the 9th century, strengthening the position of their princes, the combatants firmly occupied leading positions in society.
It was in the 9th century. in Eastern Europe, two ethno-political associations were formed, which eventually became the basis of the state. It was formed as a result of the association of glades with the center in Kyiv.
Slavs, Krivichi and Finnish-speaking tribes united in the area of Lake Ilmen (the center is in Novgorod). In the middle of the 9th c. Rurik (862-879), a native of Scandinavia, began to rule this association. Therefore, the year 862 is considered the year of formation of the ancient Russian state.
The presence of the Scandinavians (Varangians) on the territory of Rus' is confirmed by archaeological excavations and records in the chronicles. In the 18th century German scientists G.F. Miller and G.Z. Bayer proved the Scandinavian theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state (Rus).
M.V. Lomonosov, denying the Norman (Varangian) origin of statehood, connected the word "Rus" with the Sarmatians-Roksolans, the Ros River, flowing in the south.
Lomonosov, relying on The Tale of the Vladimir Princes, argued that Rurik, being a native of Prussia, belonged to the Slavs, who were the Prussians. It was this “southern” anti-Norman theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state that was supported and developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. historian scholars.
The first mention of Rus' is attested in the "Bavarian Chronograph" and refers to the period 811-821. In it, the Russians are mentioned as a people within the Khazars, inhabiting Eastern Europe. In the 9th century Rus' was perceived as an ethno-political formation on the territory of the glades and northerners.
Rurik, who took control of Novgorod, sent his squad led by Askold and Dir to rule Kiev. Rurik's successor, Varangian Prince Oleg(879-912), who took possession of Smolensk and Lyubech, subjugated all the Krivichi to his power, in 882 he deceived them from Kyiv and killed Askold and Dir. Having captured Kyiv, he managed to unite the two most important centers of the Eastern Slavs - Kyiv and Novgorod, by the power of his power. Oleg subjugated the Drevlyans, Northerners and Radimichi.
In 907, Oleg, having gathered a huge army of Slavs and Finns, undertook a campaign against Tsargrad (Constantinople), the capital of the Byzantine Empire. The Russian squad devastated the surroundings, forced the Greeks to ask Oleg for peace and pay a huge tribute. The result of this campaign was very beneficial for Rus' peace treaties with Byzantium, concluded in 907 and 911.
Oleg died in 912, and became his successor Igor(912-945), son of Rurik. In 941, he attacked Byzantium, which violated the previous agreement. Igor's army plundered the shores of Asia Minor, but was defeated in a naval battle. Then in 945, in alliance with the Pechenegs, he undertook a new campaign against Constantinople and forced the Greeks to conclude a peace treaty again. In 945, while trying to collect a second tribute from the Drevlyans, Igor was killed.
Igor's widow Duchess Olga(945-957) rules for the infancy of his son Svyatoslav. She brutally avenged the murder of her husband by devastating the lands of the Drevlyans. Olga streamlined the size and places of tribute collection. In 955 she visited Constantinople and was baptized into Orthodoxy.
Svyatoslav(957-972) - the most courageous and influential of the princes, who subjugated the Vyatichi to his power. In 965, he inflicted a series of heavy defeats on the Khazars. Svyatoslav defeated the North Caucasian tribes, as well as the Volga Bulgarians, and plundered their capital Bulgar. The Byzantine government sought an alliance with him to fight external enemies.
Kyiv and Novgorod became the center of formation of the ancient Russian state, East Slavic tribes, northern and southern, united around them. In the 9th century both of these groups united into a single ancient Russian state, which went down in history as Rus'.
The emergence of the Old Russian state is traditionally associated with the unification of the Ilmen and Dnieper regions as a result of a campaign against Kiev by the Novgorod prince Oleg in 882. Having killed Askold and Dir, who reigned in Kiev, Oleg began to rule on behalf of the young son of Prince Rurik - Igor.
The formation of the state was the result of long and complex processes that took place in the vast expanses of the East European Plain in the second half of the 1st millennium AD.
By the 7th century East Slavic tribal unions settled in its expanses, the names and location of which are known to historians from the ancient Russian chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years" by St. Nestor (XI century). These are the meadows (along the western bank of the Dnieper), the Drevlyans (to the north-west of them), the Ilmen Slovenes (along the banks of Lake Ilmen and the Volkhov River), the Krivichi (in the upper reaches of the Dnieper, the Volga and the Western Dvina), the Vyatichi (along the banks of the Oka), northerners (along the Desna), etc. The northern neighbors of the eastern Slavs were the Finns, the western ones were the Balts, and the southeastern ones were the Khazars. Of great importance in their early history were trade routes, one of which connected Scandinavia and Byzantium (the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" from the Gulf of Finland along the Neva, Lake Ladoga, Volkhov, Lake Ilmen to the Dnieper and the Black Sea), and the other connected the Volga regions with the Caspian Sea and Persia.
Nestor cites a famous story about the calling of the Varangian (Scandinavian) princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor by the Ilmen Slovenes: “Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it: go reign and rule over us.” Rurik accepted the offer and in 862 he reigned in Novgorod (that is why the monument "Millennium of Russia" was erected in Novgorod in 1862). Many historians of the XVIII-XIX centuries. were inclined to understand these events as evidence that statehood was brought to Rus' from outside and the Eastern Slavs could not create their own state on their own (Norman theory). Modern researchers recognize this theory as untenable. They pay attention to the following:
- Nestor's story proves that among the Eastern Slavs by the middle of the 9th century. there were bodies that were the prototype of state institutions (the prince, the squad, the assembly of representatives of the tribes - the future veche);
- the Varangian origin of Rurik, as well as Oleg, Igor, Olga, Askold, Dir is indisputable, but the invitation of a foreigner as a ruler is an important indicator of the maturity of the prerequisites for the formation of a state. The tribal union is aware of its common interests and is trying to resolve the contradictions between the individual tribes by calling the prince who stands above local differences. The Varangian princes, surrounded by a strong and combat-ready squad, led and completed the processes leading to the formation of the state;
- large tribal superunions, which included several unions of tribes, were formed among the Eastern Slavs already in the 8th-9th centuries. - around Novgorod and around Kyiv; - external factors played an important role in the formation of the Ancient T. state: threats coming from outside (Scandinavia, the Khazar Khaganate) pushed for unity;
- the Varangians, having given Rus' a ruling dynasty, quickly assimilated, merged with the local Slavic population;
- As for the name "Rus", its origin continues to cause controversy. Some historians associate it with Scandinavia, others find its roots in the East Slavic environment (from the Ros tribe that lived along the Dnieper). There are other opinions on this matter as well.
At the end of the 9th - beginning of the 11th century. The Old Russian state was going through a period of formation. The formation of its territory and composition was actively going on. Oleg (882-912) subjugated the tribes of the Drevlyans, Severyans and Radimichi to Kyiv, Igor (912-945) successfully fought with the streets, Svyatoslav (964-972) - with the Vyatichi. During the reign of Prince Vladimir (980-1015), the Volhynians and Croats were subordinated, the power over the Radimichi and Vyatichi was confirmed. In addition to the East Slavic tribes, the Finno-Ugric peoples (Chud, Merya, Muroma, etc.) were part of the Old Russian state. The degree of independence of the tribes from the Kyiv princes was quite high.
For a long time, only the payment of tribute was an indicator of submission to the authorities of Kyiv. Until 945, it was carried out in the form of polyudya: from November to April, the prince and his squad traveled around the subject territories and collected tribute. The murder in 945 by the Drevlyans of Prince Igor, who tried to collect a second tribute that exceeded the traditional level, forced his wife, Princess Olga, to introduce lessons (the amount of tribute) and establish graveyards (places where tribute was to be brought). This was the first example known to historians of how the princely government approves new norms that are obligatory for ancient Russian society.
Important functions of the Old Russian state, which it began to perform from the moment of its inception, were also the protection of the territory from military raids (in the 9th - early 11th centuries, these were mainly raids by the Khazars and Pechenegs) and foreign policy(campaigns against Byzantium in 907, 911, 944, 970, Russian-Byzantine treaties in 911 and 944, the defeat of the Khazar Khaganate in 964-965, etc.).
The period of formation of the Old Russian state ended with the reign of Prince Vladimir I of the Holy, or Vladimir the Red Sun. Under him, Christianity was adopted from Byzantium (see ticket No. 3), a system of defensive fortresses was created on the southern borders of Rus', and the so-called ladder system of transfer of power finally took shape. The order of succession was determined by the principle of seniority in the princely family. Vladimir, having taken the throne of Kiev, planted his eldest sons in the largest Russian cities. The most important after Kyiv - Novgorod - the reign was transferred to his eldest son. In the event of the death of the eldest son, his place was to be taken by the next in seniority, all other princes moved to more important thrones. During the life of the Kyiv prince, this system worked flawlessly. After his death, as a rule, more or less a long period the struggle of his sons for the reign of Kiev.
The heyday of the Old Russian state falls on the reign of Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054) and his sons. It includes the oldest part of Russian Pravda, the first monument of written law that has come down to us (“Russian Law”, information about which dates back to the reign of Oleg, was not preserved either in the original or in the lists). Russian Truth regulated relations in the princely economy - the patrimony. Its analysis allows historians to talk about the established system of state administration: the Kiev prince, like the local princes, is surrounded by a retinue, the top of which is called the boyars and with whom he confers on the most important issues (a duma, a permanent council under the prince). Of the combatants, posadniks are appointed to manage cities, governors, tributaries (collectors of land taxes), mytniki (collectors of trade duties), tiuns (managers of princely estates), etc. Russkaya Pravda contains valuable information about ancient Russian society. It was based on free rural and urban population(People). There were slaves (servants, serfs), farmers dependent on the prince (purchases, ryadovichi, serfs - historians do not have a single opinion about the situation of the latter).
Yaroslav the Wise pursued an energetic dynastic policy, linking his sons and daughters by marriage with the ruling families of Hungary, Poland, France, Germany, etc.
Yaroslav died in 1054, before 1074. his sons managed to coordinate their actions. At the end of the XI - beginning of the XII century. the power of the Kyiv princes weakened, individual principalities gained more and more independence, the rulers of which tried to agree with each other on cooperation in the fight against the new - Polovtsian - threat. Tendencies towards the fragmentation of a single state intensified as its individual regions grew richer and stronger (for more details, see ticket No. 2). Last prince of Kyiv Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) who managed to stop the collapse of the Old Russian state. After the death of the prince and the death of his son Mstislav the Great (1125-1132), the fragmentation of Rus' became a fait accompli.
direction in Russian and foreign historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) the founders of the state in Ancient Rus'. Formulated in the 2nd quarter of the 16th century. G. Bayer, G. Miller and others.
Great Definition
NORMAN THEORY
direction in historiography, supporters of which consider the Normans (Varangians) the founders of the state in Dr. Rus'. N. t. was formulated by him. scientists working in St. Petersburg. AN in the 2nd quarter. 18th century, - G. Z. Bayer, G. F. Miller, and others. A. L. Shletser, who arrived in Russia, later became a supporter of N. t. The basis for the conclusion about the Norman origin of Dr.-Rus. The state-va was served by the story "The Tale of Bygone Years" about the calling to Rus' of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor in 862, which, as established by the researchers of the annals, is a later interpolation. This news was brought, apparently, in the 12th century. with the aim of countering the desire of Byzantium to impose political politics on Rus'. dependence together with the dependence of the church on Byzantium. Already in the period of the formation of N. t., its politic was revealed. meaning, aimed at presenting dr. Rus' is an extremely backward country, the Slavs and their descendants are a people incapable of self-sufficiency. ist. development, and the Germans and Normans - by force, edges from the very beginning of Rus. History is called upon to guide Russia, its economy and culture. All R. 18th century N. t. was criticized by M. V. Lomonosov, who in connection with this study of the history of the East. Slavs. He pointed to the the inconsistency of N. t. and its political hostile to Russia. meaning. In the nobility-monarchy. historiography 18-19 centuries. the views of the "Normanists" acquired the character of an official. versions of the origin of Rus. state-va. H. M. Karamzin even saw the special virtues of the East. with the Lavians in that they allegedly themselves voluntarily elected a monarch. form of government and called foreign sovereigns to themselves. To a greater or lesser extent, most of the bourgeois were "Normanists". historians. S. M. Solovyov, without denying the calling of the Varangian princes to Rus', refused to see this as evidence of the underdevelopment of the East. Slavs and transfer to the 9th century. concept of national dignity of modern times. The struggle between the "Normanists" and the "anti-Normanists" became especially acute in the 1960s. in connection with the celebration in 1862 of the millennium of Russia. Opponents of N. t. were made by certain nobles and bourgeois. historians - D. I. Ilovaisky, S. A. Gedeonov, V. G. Vasilevsky and others. They criticized the department. specific provisions of N. t., but could not reveal its anti-science. In the owls the historiography of N. t. was overcome in the 1930s and 1940s. as a result of the work of a number of owls based on the Marxist-Leninist methodology. historians and archaeologists. B. D. Grekov, B. A. Rybakov, M. N. Tikhomirov, S. V. Yushkov, V. V. Mavrodin and others established that the East Slavs. society reached in the 9th century. the degree of decomposition of the communal system, when ripe ext. prerequisites for the emergence of state-va. The presence of some other Russian. princes of Varangian origin (Oleg, Igor) and the Norman-Varangians in the princely squads does not contradict the fact that the state in Dr. Rus' was formed on the inside. social-economic basis. They left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Dr. Rus'. The Normans-Varangians, who were in Rus', quickly merged with the indigenous population, became glorified. Starting from the 20s. 20th century the provisions of N. t. became an integral part of the bourgeois. Russian concept. history, which is followed by historians Zap. Europe and USA. The most prominent representatives of N. t. in the west are: in the USA, G. Vernadsky; in England, G. Pashkevich, A. A. Vasiliev, and N. Chadwick; in Denmark, the philologist A. Stender-Petersen; Arne, X. Arbman, in Finland - prof. V. Kiparsky. Norman views are expressed in general works and school textbooks of the countries Zap. Europe and USA. N. t. acquired a particularly acute political. sounding in the atmosphere of the "cold war" against the USSR and other socialist. countries after the end of World War II. Version about ist. "non-independence" Rus. people served as an argument to justify aggressive plans against the USSR and the spread of hostile Rus. people's ideas about their past and present. There were many monographs and articles on the department. questions of N. t. For modern. Normanism is characteristic in general of defense. position in relation to the works of owls. scientists. Supporters of N. t. questions: on the composition of the ruling class in Dr. Rus', about the origin of large land ownership in Rus', about trade and bargaining. ways dr. Rus', about archeol. monuments of other Russian. culture, etc., in each of which the Normanists consider the Norman element to be decisive, defining. Modern "Normanists" also claim that there was a Norman colonization of Rus' and that Scand. the colonies served as the basis for establishing the rule of the Normans. "Normanists" believe that Dr. Rus' was politically dependent on Sweden. Regardless of subjective intentions scientists, supporters of N. t., and their relationship to the USSR and owls. people, N. t. is untenable in scientific. relation and used bourgeois. propaganda in politics. purposes hostile to the interests of the USSR. Lit .: Tikhomirov M. H., Rus. historiography of the 18th century, "VI", 1948, No 2; his own. Slavs in the "History of Russia" prof. G. Vernadsky, ibid., 1946, No 4; his, Chadwick's Revelations about the beginning of Rus. history, ibid., 1948, No 4; his own. The origin of the names "Rus" and "Russian Land", in Sat.: SE, 1947, v. 6-7; Grekov B. D., Kievan Rus, M., 1953; his own, On the role of the Varangians in the history of Rus', Izbr. works, vol. 2, M., 1959; his own, Antiscientific. fabrications of the Finnish "professor", ibid.; Rybakov B. A., Craft Dr. Rus, M., 1948; his own. Dr. Rus, M., 1963, p. 289-300; Yushkov S. V., Socio-political. system and law of the Kyiv state-va, M.-L., 1949; Mavrodin V. V., Education of Old Russian. state-va, L., 1945; his own. Essays on the history of the USSR. Old Russian. state-in, M., 1956; Shaskolsky IP, Norman theory in modern. bourgeois science, M.-L., 1965; Lowmlanski H., Zagadnienie roli norman?w w genezie panstw slowianskich, Warsz., 1957. Works of the Normanists: Thomsen V., Nachalo Rus. state-va, M., 1891; Vernadsky G., The origins of Russia, Oxf., 1959; Paszkiewicz H., The origin of Russia, L., 1954; his own. The making of the Russian nation, L., 1963; Stender-Petersen A., Varangica and Aarhus, 1953; his own, Russian studies, Aarhus, 1956 ("Acta Jutlandica", t. 28, No 2); his own, Geschichte der russischen Literatur, Bd 1, M?nch., 1957; his own. Der ?lteste russische Staat, "HZ", M?nch., 1960, Bd 91, H. 1; Arne T. J., La Su?de et l'Orient, Uppsala. 1914; his, Die Varägerfrage und die sowjetrussische Forschung, "Acta archeologica", 1952, t. 23; Arbman H., Svear i?sterviking, Stockh., 1955. A. M. Sakharov. Moscow.
In the 9th century, vast areas developed in Eastern Europe, which were inhabited by various peoples, where the Slavic population most of all prevailed. One part of the Slavs settled along the Dnieper in the northeast, and the other along its tributaries. It is from them that the people of Russian nationality originate.
The prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state were created by the ethnic and economic community of the Eastern Slavs. Because the collapse of tribal ties created a number of difficulties in order to resist the enemies. So, in the development and formation of the ancient Russian state, two main theories stand out: Norman and anti-Norman.
Briefly about the anti-Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state
The anti-Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state was once presented by Lomonosov, it was he who resolutely opposed the existing Norman theory. The anti-Norman theory was based on the following principles:
- Normans and Varangians are completely different peoples.
- Scandinavians were Balto-Slavs.
- The Prussians and Prussia are Poruses who live next to the Russes.
- The name Rus comes from the name of the river Ros.
- "Gradorika" ("country of cities") - this is how the Normans called the lands of the Slavs. The Normans themselves did not yet have cities at that time. Based on this, we can conclude that they could not teach the Russians "statehood".
When creating this theory, Lomonosov relied only on internal factors. To date, many scientists can say with confidence that in his theory there are many unproven factors and a large number of speculation.
For example, the anti-Norman theory says that the term "Rus" arose in the pre-Varangian period. But in the "Tale of Bygone Years" there is data that completely contradicts the well-known legend about the calling of three brothers to reign. The instruction of 852 states that the Russian land already existed in Byzantium during the reign of Michael. The arguments of the anti-Norman theory were taken exclusively from written sources.
IN early XIX century, not only compatriots, but also foreigners began their struggle with the Norman theory. Storch (1800) and Ewers (1814) collected quite solid material against the adherents of the Norman theory. But, the anti-Normanists began to act decisively only at the end of the 1850s.
Briefly about the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state
The founders of the Norman theory are German historians and scientists: Gottlieba Bayer, August Schlozer and Gererd Miller. These scientists proved the Norman (Varangian) origin of statehood. The main factor describing the Norman theory is that the Scandinavians created the Russian people. It was they who gave him statehood and culture, so to speak, subjugated him to themselves. The Russian scientist Lomonosov generally perceived this theory as an insult to the entire people of Russian nationality. They were sure that the Norman theory was based on an erroneous interpretation of the Russian chronicles. To this day, the Norman theory is one of the most controversial issues in the entire history of the origin of the Russian state. Researchers have already been able to prove the illegitimacy of this theory.
« Who controls the past controls the future;
who controls the present controls the past»
J. Orwell.
Norman theory is an instrument of political struggle, in different time used by various forces to achieve their goals.
Everything in the world is interconnected, one follows from the other. To talk about that time, one must imagine what territories were then inhabited by the Slavs, what the Vikings were like, whether there was a state formation on the territory of the future Rus'. And we cannot reliably judge these facts because of an event that happened a little later, namely: because of the adoption of Christianity in Rus'.
Rus' fell under the “biblical project”, and, accordingly, the whole “history” was written under this concept (that is, a certain historical myth corresponding to it was created). Nestor wrote The Tale of Bygone Years in the 12th century, that is, 300 years after the "calling of the Varangians." But on one phrase from there the whole Norman theory is built:
« Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it; Yes, and go to reign and rule over us».
Was it all clear? Consider this article, which was created with the active participation of the readers of the Information and Analytical Center.
NORMAN THEORY: BIRTH
The Norman theory itself was born in the 17th century, when the Swedes justified their claims to a number of northern territories (that is, until the 17th century such an interpretation of the formation of the Russian state simply did not exist)
A striking example of ideological manipulation is the Norman theory, according to which the Varangians who arrived in Rus' in 862, led by Rurik, were Swedes. This idea of the beginning of Russian statehood, which has absolutely no basis, is an invention of Swedish politicians. It was first formulated by the Swedish diplomat Peter Petrei in 1615, to justify the rights of Sweden to the Russian lands captured during the Time of Troubles.
The position of Petreus, whom the German historian Evers called empty-handed, became the general line of Swedish historiography of the 17th century: it was then developed by scientists Widekind, Vereliy, Rudbeck. With even greater activity, Petreus's thought was cultivated and propagated throughout Europe by his compatriots in the 18th century, especially after the catastrophic defeats of Sweden in the wars of 1700-1721 and 1741-1743, inflicted on it by Russia. But the political background and lack of evidence for this anti-Russian theory were so clear that many German scientists did not accept it - they either directly refuted it (Pretorius, Thomas), or simply ignored it, arguing that the Russian Varangians came from the Slavic South Baltic (Hübner, Leibniz , Kluver, Baer, Buchholz).
In Russian historical science, the Varangians, as Scandinavians, were discussed in 1735 by Gottlieb Bayer and in 1749 by Gerhard Miller. But the latter was given a reasoned rebuff by Lomonosov, Fischer, Strube de Pyrmont. However, in the 19th century, Normanism in Russian science was willingly accepted due to Westernist sentiments and under the influence of the works of Schlozer, the leading scientists of Russia: Karamzin, Solovyov, Klyuchevsky, and others. The same Normanism continued to dominate in our country. Soviet time(only then it was considered, recognizing the Varangians as Normans, that they played a very insignificant role in Russian history).
Now Normanism triumphs in our science without any reservations. In 2012, when the 1150th anniversary of the birth of Russian statehood was celebrated, archaeologist Sergei Shchavelev solemnly reported:
A "handful" of Vikings, who, in comparison with the "natives", "carriers of a more complex culture" and possessing the mentality of "leaders", led by Rurik "founded a whole state, even at the beginning of its development, equal in area to the average European kingdom."
That is, the position is the same, nothing changes: all civilization is from the “west”, and in Rus' “barbarism”, even the Vikings built a state for us.
True, it follows from the Scandinavian sagas that the Swedes begin to appear in Rus' only at the end of the 10th century, i.e. 120-130 years after the calling of the Varangians. In addition, the Viking pirates, specializing exclusively in robberies, were not engaged in state building. In this area, experience has been gained for centuries, which is why, in fact, only by the time of the collapse of Rus', the Swedes were able to create their own state. Yes, and they learned to build the first cities only by the end of the 13th century, while our Varangians massively “chopped” them, giving them Slavic names, four or three centuries earlier.
Of course, the roots of the Norman theory go back to The Tale of Bygone Years, and are associated with the struggle of the "elite" groups, and the Norman theory was a tool to justify the right of the "elite" to exploit the population. This struggle entered the active phase after the death (murder) of Ivan the Terrible (that is, the suppression of the dynasty of the Rurikovichs themselves) intensified under Peter I, due to the appearance of an increasing number of "Germans" at the "court", and finally formed after the death of Peter, "thanks to ” to the notorious Miller, Schlozer and Bayer, who finally formulated the Norman theory, and, in fact, wrote Russian history.
At the beginning of the 18th century, the future creators of Russian “history”, who later became academicians, G.F. Miller, A.L. Schlozer, G.Z. Bayer and more. etc. In the form of Roman “blanks” in their pockets they had: both the “Norman theory”, and the myth of the feudal fragmentation of “Ancient Rus'”, and the emergence of Russian culture no later than 988 AD, and other purely ideological developments. In fact, foreign scientists proved with their research that "the Eastern Slavs in the 9th-10th centuries were real savages, saved from the darkness of ignorance by the Varangian princes." Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer brought the Norman theory of the formation of the Russian state to the forefront. According to his theory, “a handful of Normans who arrived in Rus' turned the “dark country” into a powerful state in a few years.”
Lomonosov waged an irreconcilable struggle against the distortions of Russian history, and he found himself in the thick of this struggle. In 1749-1750, he spoke out against the historical views of Miller and Bayer, as well as against the "Norman theory" of the formation of Russia imposed by the Germans. He criticized Miller's dissertation "On the origin of the Russian name and people", as well as Bayer's works on Russian history. Lomonosov often quarreled with foreign colleagues who worked at the Academy of Sciences. Here is a quote from him:
“What vile dirty tricks such a beast allowed in them will not roam in Russian antiquities!”
It is alleged that the phrase is addressed to Schlözer, who "created" Russian "history". Mikhailo Lomonosov was supported by many Russian scientists. Member of the Academy of Sciences, outstanding Russian machine builder A.K. Martov filed a complaint with the Senate about the dominance of foreigners in Russian academic science. Russian students, translators and clerks, as well as the astronomer Delisle, joined Martov's complaint. It was signed by I. Gorlitsky, D. Grekov, M. Kovrin, V. Nosov, A. Polyakov, P. Shishkarev.
The meaning and purpose of their complaint is quite clear - the transformation of the Academy of Sciences into Russian, not only in name. Prince Yusupov turned out to be at the head of the commission created by the Senate to investigate the accusations. The commission saw in the speech of A.K. Russian scientists who filed a complaint wrote to the Senate:
“We have proven the charges on the first 8 counts and will prove the remaining 30 if we get access to the cases.”
“But… for “stubbornness” and “insulting the commission” they were arrested. A number of them (I.V. Gorlitsky, A. Polyakov and others) were shackled and "put on a chain." They stayed in this position for about two years, but they could not be forced to retract their testimony. The decision of the commission was truly monstrous: to reward Schumacher and Taubert, to execute Gorlitsky, to severely punish Grekov, Polyakov, Nosov with whips and exile to Siberia, to leave Popov, Shishkarev and others under arrest until the decision of the case by the future president of the Academy.
Formally, Lomonosov was not among those who filed a complaint against Schumacher, but all his behavior during the investigation period shows that Miller was hardly mistaken when he stated:
“Mr Adjunct Lomonosov was one of those who filed a complaint against Mr Counselor Schumacher and thereby caused the appointment of a commission of inquiry.”
Probably not far from the truth was Lamansky, who asserted that Martov's statement was written for the most part by Lomonosov. During the work of the commission, Lomonosov actively supported Martov ... This was what caused his violent clashes with the most zealous minions of Schumacher: Winzheim, Truskot, Miller. Synod of the Orthodox christian church also accused the Russian scholar of distributing anti-clerical works in manuscript according to Art. 18 and 149 of the Military Article of Peter I, which provided for the death penalty. Representatives of the clergy demanded the burning of Lomonosov.
Such severity, apparently, was caused by the too great success of the free-thinking, anti-church writings of Lomonosov, which testified to a noticeable weakening of the authority of the church among the people. Archimandrite D. Sechenov - the confessor of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna - was seriously alarmed by the fall of faith, the weakening of interest in the church and religion in Russian society. It is characteristic that it was Archimandrite D. Sechenov who, in his libel on Lomonosov, demanded that the scientist be burned. The commission stated that Lomonosov "for repeated discourteous, dishonorable and nasty acts both in relation to the Academy, and to the commission, and to the German land" is subject to death penalty, or, in extreme cases, punishment with whips and deprivation of rights and fortune.
By decree of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Mikhail Lomonosov was found guilty, but was released from punishment. He was only halved his salary, and he had to "for the insolence committed by him" to ask for forgiveness from the professors. Gerard Friedrich Miller personally compiled a mocking "repentance", which Lomonosov was obliged to publicly pronounce and sign. Mikhail Vasilievich to be able to continue Scientific research forced to renounce his views. But the German professors did not rest on this. They continued to seek the removal of Lomonosov and his supporters from the Academy. Around 1751, Lomonosov began work on Ancient Russian History.
He sought to refute the theses of Bayer and Miller about the "great darkness of ignorance" that allegedly reigned in Ancient Rus'. Of particular interest in this work of his is the first part - "On Russia before Rurik", which outlines the doctrine of the ethnogenesis of the peoples of Eastern Europe and, above all, the Slavs-Rus. Lomonosov pointed to the constant movement of the Slavs from east to west. German professors of history decided to remove Lomonosov and his supporters from the Academy.
This "scientific activity" unfolded not only in Russia. Lomonosov was a world-famous scientist. He was well known abroad. Every effort was made to discredit Lomonosov in front of the world scientific community. At the same time, all means were put into play. Every effort was made to belittle the significance of Lomonosov's works not only in history, but also in the natural sciences, where his authority was very high. In particular, Lomonosov was a member of several foreign Academies - the Swedish Academy since 1756, the Bologna Academy since 1764.
"In Germany, Miller inspired speeches against Lomonosov's discoveries and demanded his removal from the Academy."
This was not possible at the time. However, Lomonosov's opponents managed to achieve the appointment of Schlozer as an academician in Russian history.
“Schlozer… called Lomonosov “a rude ignoramus who knew nothing but his annals.”
So, as we can see, Lomonosov was accused of knowing Russian chronicles.
“Despite the protests of Lomonosov, Catherine II appointed Schlozer an academician. at the same time, he not only received for uncontrolled use all the documents in the academy, but also the right to demand everything that he considered necessary from the imperial library and other institutions. Schlozer received the right to present his works directly to Catherine ... In a draft note compiled by Lomonosov “for memory” and accidentally avoided confiscation, the feelings of anger and bitterness caused by this decision are clearly expressed: “There is nothing to protect. Everything is open to the crazy Schlozer. There are no more secrets in the Russian library.”
Miller and his associates had full power not only in the university itself in St. Petersburg, but also in the gymnasium that trained future students. The gymnasium was run by Miller, Bayer and Fischer. In the gymnasium
“The teachers didn’t know Russian… the students didn’t know German. All teaching was exclusively in Latin… For thirty years (1726-1755) the gymnasium did not prepare a single person for admission to the university.”
From this the following idiotic conclusion was made. It was stated that:
“The only way out is to send students from Germany, since it is supposedly impossible to train them from Russians anyway.”
This struggle continued throughout Lomonosov's life. "Thanks to the efforts of Lomonosov, several Russian academicians and adjuncts appeared in the Academy."
However, “in 1763, on the denunciation of Taubert, Miller, Shtelin, Epinuss and others, the already different Empress of Russia Catherine II “even completely dismissed Lomonosov from the academy.” But soon the decree on his resignation was canceled. The reason was the popularity of Lomonosov in Russia and the recognition of his merits by foreign academies. Nevertheless, Lomonosov was removed from the leadership of the geographical department, and Miller was appointed instead of him. An attempt was made to "put Lomonosov's materials on language and history at Schlozer's disposal." The last fact is very significant. If even during the life of Lomonosov attempts were made to get to his archive on Russian history, then what can we say about the fate of this unique archive after the death of Lomonosov.
As expected, Lomonosov's archive was immediately confiscated immediately after his death and disappeared without a trace. We quote:
“The archive of Lomonosov confiscated by Catherine II has been lost forever. The next day after his death, the library and all Lomonosov's papers were sealed by order of Catherine. Orlov, were transported to his palace and disappeared without a trace.
Taubert's letter to Miller has been preserved. In this letter, without hiding his joy, Taubert announces the death of Lomonosov and adds:
“The next day after his death, Count Orlov ordered the seals to be attached to his office. Without a doubt, it must contain papers that they do not want to release into the wrong hands.
The death of Mikhail Lomonosov was also sudden and mysterious, and there were rumors about his deliberate poisoning. Obviously, what could not be done publicly, his numerous enemies completed covertly and secretly. Thus, the "creators of Russian history" - Miller and Schlozer - got to the Lomonosov archive. After that, these archives, of course, disappeared. But, after a seven year delay was finally published - and it is quite clear that under the complete control of Miller and Schlozer, and therefore edited by them - Lomonosov's work on Russian history. And that's just the first volume. Most likely transcribed by Miller in the right key. And the rest of the volumes simply “disappeared”.
And so it happened that the "Lomonosov's work on history" at our disposal today, in a strange and surprising way, is consistent with Miller's point of view on history. It is even incomprehensible - why then did Lomonosov argue so violently and for so many years with Miller? Why did he accuse Miller of falsifying Russian history, when he himself, in his (though posthumously) published History, so obediently agrees with Miller on all points? Obsequiously agrees with him in every line? The history of Russia published by Miller based on the Lomonosov drafts, one might say, was written as a blueprint, and practically does not differ in any way from Miller's version of Russian history. Does death really change people?
The same applies to another Russian historian - Tatishchev, again published by Miller only after the death of Tatishchev! Karamzin rewrote Miller almost verbatim, although Karamzin's texts after his death were more than once edited and altered.
But there is an inaccuracy in the video: Russian court historians could not speak Russian so well.
Thus began the "victorious" procession of the "Norman theory" in Russian historiography, which, unfortunately, continued into the Soviet era.
This is due to the fact that the ideology of the USSR was Marxism. And according to Marxism, history was divided into 5 periods:
- from the primitive communal formation to the most progressive and evolutionary - communist.
But the period of Russian history before the adoption of Christianity did not fit into any "standard" template - it did not look like a primitive communal system, nor a slaveholding, nor a feudal one. But rather it was like a socialist.
And this was the whole comedy of the situation and a great desire not to pay scientific attention to this period. This was also the reason for the dissatisfaction of Froyanov and other Soviet scientists when they tried to understand this period of history.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? THERE ARE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF WHO WERE RURIK AND THE VARYAGS
Grandson of Gostomysl
One of the early lists of the Novgorod Chronicle, dating from the middle of the 15th century, contains a list of local posadniks, where the first is a certain Gostomysl, a native of the Obodrite tribe. In another manuscript, which was created at the end of the 15th century, it is said that the Slovenes, having come from the Danube, founded Novgorod and called Gostomysl to the elders. The Joachim Chronicle states:
“This Gostomysl was a man of great courage, the same wisdom, all his neighbors were afraid of him, and his people loved trials for the sake of justice. For this sake, all the close peoples honored him and gave gifts and tributes, buying peace from him.
Gostomysl lost all his sons in the wars, and married his daughter Umila to some ruler of a distant land. Once Gostomysl had a dream that one of Umila's sons would be his successor. Before his death, Gostomysl, having gathered “the elders of the earth from the Slavs, Rus, Chud, Vesi, Mers, Krivichi and Dryagovichi,” told them about a prophetic dream, and they sent to the Varangians to ask their son Umila to be princes. Rurik and his relatives came to the call, that is, his own grandson returned to his homeland.
Descendant of Emperor Augustus
In the XVI century, Rurik was declared a relative of the Roman emperors. Metropolitan of Kiev Spyridon, at the direction of Emperor Vasily III, was engaged in compiling the genealogy of the Moscow kings and presented it in the form of the "Message on the Monomakh's Crown". Spiridon reports that the “governor Gostomysl”, dying, asked to send ambassadors to the land of Prus, who was a relative of the Roman Caesar Gaius Julius Augustus Octavian (Prussian land), in order to call on the prince “Augustus of the clan”. Novgorodians did so and found Rurik, who gave rise to the family of Russian princes. Here is what the “Legend of the Princes of Vladimir” (XVI-XVII centuries) says:
“... At that time, a certain governor of Novgorod named Gostomysl, before his death, called all the rulers of Novgorod and said to them: “Oh, men of Novgorod, I advise you to send wise men to the Prussian land and call the ruler from the local clans to you” . They went to the Prussian land and found there a certain prince named Rurik, who was from the Roman family of Augustus the Tsar. And envoys from all Novgorodians begged Prince Rurik to go and reign to them.
Rurik is a Slav
At the beginning of the 16th century, the hypothesis of the Slavic origin of the Varangian princes was put forward by the Austrian ambassador to Russia, Sigismund Herberstein. In Notes on Muscovy, he claimed that the northern tribes found their ruler in Wagria, among the Western Slavs:
“... In my opinion, it was natural for the Russians to call the Vagrians, in other words, the Varangians, as sovereigns, and not cede power to strangers who differed from them in faith, customs, and language.” The author of the "History of the Russian" V.N. Tatishchev saw northern peoples in general in the Varangians, and by "Rus" he meant the Finns. Confident in his rightness, Tatishchev calls Rurik "Prince of Finland."
Position M.V. Lomonosov by Rurik
In 1749, the historian Gerhard Friedrich Miller wrote his dissertation "The Origin of the Russian People and Name". He argued that Russia "received both tsars and its name" from the Scandinavians. M.V. became his main opponent. Lomonosov, according to whom, "Rurik" was from the Prussians, but had the ancestors of the Roksolani Slavs, who originally lived between the Dnieper and the mouth of the Danube, and after several centuries moved to the Baltic Sea.
"True Fatherland" Rurik
In 1819, the Belgian professor G.F. Holmann published a book in Russian
"Rustringia, the original fatherland of the first Russian prince Rurik and his brothers", where he stated:
“The Russian Varangians, from whom Rurik descended with his brothers and retinue, lived on the banks Baltic Sea, which Western sources called German, between Jutland, England and France. On this coast, Rustringia was a special land, which for many reasons can be recognized as the true fatherland of Rurik and his brothers. The Rustrings, who belonged to the Varangians, were from time immemorial seafarers who traded on the sea and shared dominance over the sea with other peoples; in the 9th and 10th centuries, they considered Rurik between their first surnames.
Rustringia was located on the territory of present-day Holland and Germany.
Rurik of Jutland
In 1836, F. Kruse, a professor at Dorpat University, suggested that the annalistic Rurik is a Jutland hevding, who in the middle of the 9th century participated in Viking attacks on the lands of the Frankish Empire and had a fief (possession for the life of the master) in Friesland. Kruse identified this Viking with Rurik of Novgorod. Old Russian chronicles nothing is reported about the activities of Rurik before his arrival in Rus'. However, in Western Europe his name was well known. Rurik of Jutland is a real historical person, not mythical hero. Historicity of Rurik and his vocation in Northern Rus' are considered quite probable by specialists. In the monograph "The Birth of Rus'" B.A. Rybakov wrote that, wanting to protect themselves from unregulated Varangian extortions, the population of the northern lands could well invite one of the kings as a prince so that he would protect him from other Varangian detachments. Identifying Rurik of Jutland and Rurik of Novgorod, historians rely on the data of Western European chronicles, discoveries in the field of archeology, toponymy and linguistics.
There is only one conclusion: “it is still impossible to speak reliably about this today.” All pre-Christian sources were destroyed. The first chronicles that have come down to us were written centuries after the events and subsequently were repeatedly edited to please the current political situation, and therefore do not deserve trust.
To try to answer the question of who Rurik could be, one must imagine what territory the Slavic “tribes” occupied by the time Rurik was “called”. Did the Slavs have a state education before the advent of Rurik?
There is every reason to believe that at that time the Slavic lands included all of Eastern Europe (approximately along the lines of the Warsaw Pact), including East Germany and the southern coast of the Baltic Sea (but this is a topic for a separate article) where most of the sources bring Rurik's "homeland". Answering the second question, it is worth paying attention to the Serpent Shafts, stretching for hundreds of kilometers on the southern borders of Rus'. The construction of such complex defensive structures is impossible without the involvement of huge resources and the coordinated work of many people for a long time, that is, without the existence of the state.
We also note the campaigns of Russian princes against Byzantium already at quite a historically fixed time. Imagine the situation: the “newly” formed state in Rus' and the strongest power of that time are fighting each other. But there were campaigns against Byzantium under Oleg, and under Igor, and under Svyatoslav, and even earlier. It is incorrect to compare this with the Viking raids on Britain - the scale is incomparable, England of that time is far from Byzantium, the number of troops participating in the campaigns too. That is, Rus' of that time is comparable in power to Byzantium.
WHAT SOCIETY WAS IT?
In the period before the baptism of Rus', the Rus undoubtedly had their own state, and at the same time there was no class society, in particular, feudal society. And the inconvenience was that the "classical" Soviet ideology claimed that the feudal class creates the state as an instrument of its political domination and suppression of the peasants. And then there was the confusion...
Moreover, judging by the military victories of the Rus over their neighbors, and that the “queen of the world” Byzantium herself paid tribute to them, it turned out that the “original” way of society and the state of our ancestors was more effective and advantageous compared to other ways and structures of that period from other peoples.
And here it should be noted that the archaeological sites of the Eastern Slavs recreate society without any clear traces of property stratification. An outstanding researcher of East Slavic antiquities I.I. Lyapushkin emphasized that among the dwellings known to us
“... in the most diverse regions of the forest-steppe belt, it is not possible to indicate those that, in their architectural appearance and in the content of the household and household equipment found in them, would be distinguished by wealth. Internal organization dwellings and the inventory found in them do not yet allow dismembering the inhabitants of these latter only by occupation - into landowners and artisans.
Another well-known specialist in Slavic-Russian archeology V.V. Sedov writes:
“It is impossible to identify the emergence of economic inequality on the materials of the settlements studied by archaeologists. It seems that there are no distinct traces of the property differentiation of the Slavic society in the grave monuments of the 6th-8th centuries.
“All this requires a different understanding of the archaeological material”
Notes in his study I.Ya. Froyanov.
That is, in this ancient Russian society, it was not the meaning of life to accumulate wealth and pass it on to children, it was not some kind of ideological or moral value, and this was clearly not welcomed and contemptuously condemned.
The same Swedish view of Russian history triumphs in education. So, in the textbook E.V. Pchelov "History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 16th century" for the 6th grade (2012, directors of two institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences: archeology and Russian history go to his "godfathers"), which, according to the annotation, contributes to the awareness of schoolchildren " their civic-national identity”, the Varangians are represented by Scandinavians, Normans, Vikings. Moreover, this idea is imposed on children by another question: “Why do you think a monument to the first Russian princes was erected in Sweden?”
But how would they know that it was installed only under the influence of petreev idlers, including Russians? About the Varangians-Scandinavians already speaks for future teachers - students of history - and the textbook V.G. Vovina-Lebedeva "History of Ancient Rus'" (2011).
Trying to materialize their phantasmagoria, "our" archaeologists, according to their own diagnosis, "terminally ill with Normanism", achieved, for example, the inclusion of the Rurik settlement ( 2 km south of Novgorod) to the UNESCO list recommended for visiting the route "On the roads of the Vikings", the creation of the archaeological museum "Knyazhaya Gora" on the Peredolsky churchyard ( near the Novgorod hills of the IX-X centuries.), which "will be of an Old Norse character" ( moreover, this project was supposed to receive a grant of 300 thousand euros from the European Commission for Cultural Development, which probably does not affect the direction and reliability"historical reconstruction").
According to the prominent Novgorod archaeologist Sergei Troyanovsky:
“The Vikings on the Novgorod land were different - they did not fight, did not capture cities, they were forced to negotiate. If we show this to the Europeans, all of Scandinavia will be here as tourists.”
Troyanovsky emphasizes the huge difference in the actions of the Vikings and the Varangians, but does not notice that this fact means only one thing: the Varangians and Vikings are completely different people (if not nations), who have fundamentally different types of behavior.
CONCLUSION
We measure everything out of habit by the “Western” approach to the structure of the state, as well as by the “Marxist” theory of the change of formations, however, the structure of Rus' of that time on other principles that carry other stereotypes of relations within the state, rules of conduct within society is quite acceptable. And there is even historical evidence of this - this is the meeting of Svyatoslav and the emperor of Byzantium.
Svyatoslav began peace negotiations with John Tzimisces. Their historical meeting took place on the banks of the Danube and was described in detail by a Byzantine chronicler who was in the emperor's retinue. Tzimiskes, surrounded by close associates, was waiting for Svyatoslav. The prince arrived on a boat, sitting in which he rowed along with ordinary soldiers. The Greeks could distinguish him only because the shirt he wore was cleaner than that of other warriors, and by an earring with two pearls and a ruby, worn in his ear.
At that time in Rus', with the unity of moral and ethical norms for all, there was no personal hierarchy, although the professional specialization of people in the community was inevitable. Therefore, in some periods, professional managers - a prince or a priest - could perform the functions of an ordinary rower on a boat, unquestioningly obeying the helmsman, and in other circumstances the same helmsman unquestioningly carried out the orders of the same prince or priest, and at the same time they were in the aspect of each other personal dignity - an equal.
So, Prince Svyatoslav, sitting with an oar in a boat along with other rowers, talked with the emperor of Byzantium Tzimiskes, who was on horseback on the banks of the Danube, who was accompanied by his retinue. This surprised the Greeks very much and was incomprehensible to them, since it did not correlate with the social norms of Byzantium: Svyatoslav did not descend to their emperor? Is the emperor forced to talk about international relations with a plebeian? Or is it with the prince? The prince is in the ranks of the plebeians and is indistinguishable from them? These Russians are such savages that they don't know any etiquette? - the loyal subjects of the "sovereign lackeys" from such a "roof" can easily move out ...
It is beneficial for the "West" to shorten our history, to present us as "barbarians", to whom the statehood was brought by the Vikings, and "spirituality" - by the Greeks. Everything is the same as it is now… Little has changed in a thousand years. And we learn this “history” at school.
AFTERWORD ABOUT DNA GENEOLOGY
Here is an opinion from the book “The Origin of the Slavs. DNA genealogy against the "Norman theory".
Those whom we consider Rurikovich, the Russian princes named above, are of Slavic origin, have nothing to do with the Scandinavians. Those who are considered Gediminids are not the descendants of those Ruriks, these are two different DNA lines.
In the Slavic countries, the descendants of the Scandinavians are not observed. In the haplogroup R1a, for example, there is the so-called Scandinavian subclade R1a-Z284, which is typical for the Scandinavian countries, and those where the Scandinavians went. There is a lot of it not only in Scandinavia, but also in the British Isles.
And here's the bad luck - there is no such subclade either in Russia, or in Ukraine, or in Belarus, or in Lithuania. That is, there are no descendants of Scandinavians in these countries, at least in statistically significant quantities.
How is it - the Normanists say that they were there, apparently, invisible, and no offspring. That doesn't happen.
The answer is simple - they were not Scandinavians, but Slavs.
In connection with this circumstance, a completely legitimate question arises about the ways in which the Old Russian state arose. The traditional point of view on this problem is that the beginning of this long-standing discussion, which has been going on for almost three hundred years, was laid by the famous German scientists Z. Bayer and F. Miller, who in the middle of the 18th century. published a number of their scientific works in Russia: "On the Varangians" (1737), "On the Origin of Rus'" (1737) and "The Origin of the Name and People of the Russian" (1749), which laid the foundation for the notorious "Norman theory" of the origin of the Old Russian state. Although, according to the fair opinion of a number of modern authors, in particular, Professor A.G. Kuzmin and his students V.V. Fomina, V.I. Merkulov and L.P. Grotto, the Swedes themselves became the real founders of Normanism, in particular, the Swedish historians and diplomats P. Petrey, Yu. Videkind and O. Dalin, who created back in the 17th-18th centuries a number of obviously tendentious historical treatises (“Moscow Chronicles”, “History of the Swedish State”) with a purely political context, in which they put forward the thesis about the Scandinavian origin of the chronicle Varangians. And only then, during the period of the famous "Bironism", this old concept was taken out of the chest, smelling of mothballs, and put into motion again.
The essence of the “Norman theory” itself, as they presented it, was that statehood was introduced into the lands of the Eastern Slavs from outside by the Viking Normans, who in Rus' were called Varangians, since the Slavs themselves, by virtue of their natural qualities, including low intelligence (“barbarism”), were simply not able to create their own state and manage it without outside help.
The basis for the emergence of this theory was the chronicle story of the famous "Tale of Bygone Years" about the calling in 862 to reign in the lands of the Chud, Krivichi and Ilmen Slovenes of three Varangian kings - the brothers Rurik, Sineus and Truvor. As is clear from the chronicle, exhausted by mutual enmity, these tribes met for advice and decided to look for a prince on the side. By sending an embassy "Across the sea to the Varangians, to Rus'", Slavic ambassadors told the rulers there: “Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it, but go and rule over us.” At the same time, the Laurentian Chronicle stated that the newcomer princes sat down to rule in Novgorod, Beloozero and Izborsk, and the Ipatiev Chronicle named Ladoga, Beloozero and Izborsk as such princely residences.
Until the middle of the XIX century. all historians treated this legend with full confidence and argued only about the ethnic nature of the Varangians. All Normanists (N. Karamzin, M. Pogodin, A. Schletser, A. Kunik) considered them Norman-Vikings, that is, ancient Scandinavians, and anti-Normanists (M. Lomonosov, N. Venelin, S. Gedeonov) - one of the Slavic or Baltic tribes close to them, who lived on the southern coast of the Baltic (Varangian) Sea. In the second half of the XIX century. famous Russian historian professor N.M. Kostomarov during the famous dispute with Academician M.P. Pogodin, in a number of his articles, for the first time questioned the authenticity of the Varangian legend, stating that it was pure fiction, since it reflected some events not of the 9th, but of the beginning of the 12th century, when the PVL was actually created. Later, this point of view in his treatise "Investigations about the beginning of Rus'" (1876) was substantiated by Professor D.I. Ilovaisky.
A new stage in the study of this problem began at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, when several landmark works by Academician A.A. Shakhmatov, in particular, his famous work "Research on the most ancient chronicles" (1908). Having created an original scheme of ancient Russian chronicle writing, he convincingly proved that the legend about the calling of the Varangians is a later insertion into the PVL, and its inclusion in the all-Russian annalistic code pursued certain political goals.
Later, already in Soviet historiography, this conclusion of an outstanding Russian scientist was tried in every possible way to substantiate.
Some authors (B. Grekov, V. Mavrodin) believed that the appearance of the “Varangian legend” was due to the need to justify the illegal (despite seniority) calling of Vladimir Monomakh to the throne of Kiev in 1113.
Others (D. Likhachev) believed that the inclusion of this legend in the PVL pursued two main goals: 1) to establish in the public mind the tribal unity of all the princes of the “Rurik House” and put an end to the bloody civil strife and enmity, and 2) to cool the unfounded claims of Byzantium to the role patron of the Kiev state, since the legend convincingly proved the northern, and not the southern, origin of the grand ducal dynasty.
Still others (B. Rybakov) argued that the appearance of this legend in the PVL was associated with the aggravation of the political struggle between Kiev and Novgorod for hegemony in Rus', and called Novgorod chroniclers who wanted to emphasize the northern, rather than southern, origin of the Russian grand ducal dynasty as the authors of this legend.
The fourth (V. Pashuto) associated the appearance of the "Varangian legend" in the PVL with the marriage of Vladimir Monomakh to English princess Gita.
Finally, the fifth group of authors (A. Kuzmin, I. Froyanov) suspected that the very appearance of this legend in the PVL was associated with a regional confrontation between the two largest urban centers of northern Rus' - Ladoga and Novgorod. Professor I.Ya. Froyanov believed that this was due to changes in the nature of the princely power itself and the strengthening of the veche system in all Russian lands, including Kiev itself.
At the moment, there are three main approaches to assessing the "Varangian legend":
1) complete trust in this legend, which is demonstrated by all Normanists, both of the past (F. Miller, N. Karamzin, M. Pogodin, A. Kunik, V. Thomsen), and the present (L. Klein, R. Skrynnikov, V. Petrukhin, E. Melnikova, T. Jackson, E. Pchelov);
2) complete denial of the authenticity of the legend, which was typical mainly for Soviet historians (V. Parkhomenko, B. Grekov, S. Yushkov, B. Romanov, D. Likhachev);
3) partial trust in the legend, since it reflected some real events of that time, and this legend itself is a complex and multi-layered work, created over a long time, and containing echoes of various eras of East Slavic and Old Russian history (A Kuzmin, I. Froyanov, V. Fomin).