Manyagin V.G.History of the Russian people from the Flood to Rurik. - M.: Algorithm, Eksmo, 2009. - 382 p.
ISBN 978-5-699-30510-0
Where did the Russian land come from? What secrets does the history of the Russian people hide? What do the Slavs have to do with the Aryans? Is it true that Moscow was founded by the biblical Patriarch Mosoh? This is only a tiny fraction of the questions that can be answered in the pages of this book. The author is a supporter of that historical tradition, which originates from Lomonosov and Tatishchev, explores the formation and development of Slavic-Russian tribes, tracing their history from the 2nd millennium BC.
ON THE ANTIQUITY OF THE SLAVIC-RUSSIANS AND THE PERIODIZATION OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
Fragment from the book “The History of the Russian People from the Flood to Rurik”
“Where did the Russian land come from, and who began to reign in it first?” - same immortal question in Rus', as in “who is to blame?” and “what should I do?” For almost a thousand years, chroniclers and historians have been breaking their spears on this issue, but it seems that the further we move along the scale of historical time, the less hope we have of knowing the truth.
IN school years we are once and for all implanted in our heads with a “sum of knowledge”, composed mainly of the postulates of the dominant historical theory worked out according to the template. And it says that the Slavs entered the historical arena later than other peoples, and this predetermined their lag behind the “civilized world”, that the history of Russia began no earlier than the 8th-9th centuries, and before that savagery and barbarism reigned on the East European Plain and all we received good things - starting with the ABCs - from the West, which we are forever doomed to catch up without the slightest hope of success, because, as we know, “the student is not greater than the teacher” (Luke 6:40). In general, not people, but fertilizer for the growth of “historical nations”. This is exactly what Western teachers have tried to instill in us over the past three centuries, from Kant and Hegel to Marx and Reagan, who called the Slavs either an “unhistorical” or “reactionary” people, or even simply an “evil empire.”
Our “long-bearded ancestors,” as Karamzin called the Great Russians, until the 18th century had national pride, high self-esteem and did not suffer from the inferiority complexes that developed so much among the Russian intelligentsia in subsequent centuries. The self-name “Slavs” - “glorious”, “famous” - testifies to this. The Western tribes (primarily Germanic) who fought the Slavs remade it in their own way: sklavin (slave). So the ideological war did not begin yesterday, or even in the century before last. But after the Westernization of Russia under Peter the Great, it was transferred to Russian territory.
The German-Russian historian Schlozer, according to Karamzin, “a learned and glorious man,” said that Russia began in 862. And before that " great part Europe and Asia, now called Russia, in its temperate climates was originally inhabited, but by wild peoples, plunged into the depths of ignorance, who did not mark their existence with any historical monuments of their own"; peoples who, as Mr. Karamzin believed, were “Russian Tacitus”, official historiographer Russian state - “they drank the blood of killed enemies, they used tanned leather instead of clothing, and skulls instead of vessels.”
It is on such stories about their ancestors that generation after generation of Russian intellectuals were brought up. As a result, servility towards the West developed in the educated Russian community, complicated by contempt for its own people. And it was no longer the Schlezers and Buyers, but the legions of scientists raised in their native land that began to destroy the “love for fatherly tombs” in the younger generation.
"From … brief overview external relations Russian history, one can see that, taking this history from a purely chronological perspective, we must place it only in the second half of the Middle Ages and in modern times, and that it is permissible to speak about the world-historical significance of Russian history only in relation to the last two centuries of modern times "- wrote the famous at the beginning of the twentieth century Russian historian N. I. Kareev. - “And in relation to the first beginnings cultural life, and in relation to the beginning of a major historical role Russia has to equally point out the very late entry of our fatherland onto the path of a broader historical development. The fate of all those who come later is, in general, that they have to experience more influences than to influence themselves, to repeat what others have already experienced rather than to go ahead of others. ... Distance from the main historical scene, purely physical conditions countries, constant struggle with Asian nomads, Tatar yoke, - all this taken together had an extremely adverse effect on Russian life. Having entered the great historical road later than other peoples and moving more slowly along it than others, the Russians had, of course, to lag far behind their western neighbors, and this backwardness is one of the most striking general facts Russian history. But another fact is equally striking, namely the very significant progress made by Russian life in two last century and especially for the second half of XIX century."
This is said about a country that was originally the largest state in Europe, whose rulers from the 9th century were related to royal houses France, Poland, Czech Republic, Denmark, Sweden, England, etc. And how far from Russia was the “main historical scene"? What performances were staged there? Is there a shield on the gates of Constantinople, Battle on the Ice, the Battle of Kulikovo, the Battle of Grunwald, the Livonian War were of less importance for history than the Battle of Poitiers, the Spanish Reconquista, the Hundred Years and Thirty Years' War? Already myself zero point importance countdown historical events, located somewhere in Strasbourg, betrays those who determine this importance.
And current textbooks are compiled from the same Schletzer-Karamzin positions. “The Kyiv chroniclers believed that the tribes Eastern Slavs gathered in ancient times around Kyiv...", write the authors of one of the modern school textbooks history, however, immediately clarifying what kind of “old times” these are. - “The Novgorodians associated the emergence of the Russian state with the invitation of the Varangians and dated this to within one year - 862.”
In general, the authors attribute the entry of the Slavs into the historical arena to the 9th century: “Nestor decided to create a special introduction to his chronicle, which began with a description of the attack of the Russian flotilla on Constantinople in 860.” At best, there was some kind of forest-steppe rustling in the VI-VII centuries. Until that moment, the Slavs were even denied existence. The first three centuries A.D. (“Trojan Ages”) for the authors of the textbook - the times of the “Proto-Slavs”.
So, it can be stated that with late XVIII century and to this day in Russian historiography there is an official point of view on Russian history, according to which the Slavs entered the historical arena only in the second half of the 9th century (that is, after the calling of the Varangians, unambiguously defined in this case as Normans), and “worldwide Russia acquired “historical significance” only from the 18th century, when representatives of that branch of the Romanovs, which, practically without exaggeration, can be called German (not to mention its individual representatives, for example, Catherine II) found themselves on the Russian throne. Thus, Germanic tribes twice pulled the Slavs out of the abyss of “savagery and ignorance”, created (in the 9th century) and reconstructed (in the 18th century) the Russian state, and without their participation there is no need to talk about any historical role of the Slavic-Russians.
This idea can be clearly traced from Schletser and Karamzin to modern writers of numerous “histories of the fatherland.” It is worth noting that these historians, both three hundred years ago and today, were in the pay either of non-Russian authorities or of organizations waging an ideological war against the Russian people (such as Freemasonry or the Soros Foundation).
***
A completely different history of the Slavic-Russians appears before us if we turn to the works of those Russian patriotic historians who did not receive monetary compensation for their historical works, and if they were on public service, then according to another (non-historical) department. At the same time, it is worth paying attention to the fact that the closer (counting from us) to the border of the 17th-18th centuries they lived (that is, the less their consciousness was clouded by the Schletzer-Karamzin fables and the more familiar they were with the chronicles and oral traditions of the Russian people) , the more peculiar, vibrant and ancient history of Rus'-Russia they describe.
And the first among them must be named Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750), soldier, scientist, politician, official, researcher. He participated in Battle of Poltava, led metallurgical plants, developed the Southern Urals and Northern Kazakhstan, founded Yekaterinburg. But throughout the centuries his name was glorified by the “Russian History” he wrote, three volumes of which brought to us the priceless treasures of Russian chronicles, which were then destroyed in the Moscow fire of 1812.
In the first volume of his “History” V.N. Tatishchev (referring to such ancient authors as Diodorus Siculus and Herodotus), points to the antiquity of the Slavs, who, in his words, “first lived in Syria and Phenicia,” then on the southern coast of the Black Sea, participated in the Trojan War, after which a significant part of them moved to Europe, occupying the northern and northwestern coast of the Adriatic (modern Albania, Serbia, Croatia and northern Italy).
According to Tatishchev, “in the time of Solon” representatives of the Slavic aristocracy studied philosophy in Athens, and in the 6th century AD. have already “conquered all of Europe”, after which they came “to Northern Rus'» .
For such “incredible” information, Vasily Nikitich was defamed by officials from historical science like a liar who almost wrote chronicles in his spare time. The Germans, led by Biron, Anna Ioanovna’s temporary worker, surrounded royal throne, accused the Russian historian of embezzlement and bribery, of participating in an anti-government conspiracy, and Tatishchev, deprived of awards and ranks, was imprisoned Peter and Paul Fortress. Conducting last years of his life in his native village of Boldino near Moscow, predicted his death a day before and personally indicated where in the cemetery to build his grave. The great Russian historian died on July 26, 1750.
Another greatest Russian scientist, Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov (1711-1765), who can only be compared with Leonardo da Vinci, also thought in agreement with Tatishchev. The son of a Pomor peasant from Kholmogory (one of the oldest northern centers of Slavic-Russian civilization), became the founder physical chemistry, developed the theory of the atomic-kinetic structure of matter, was an artist, chemist, astronomer (discovered the existence of an atmosphere on Venus), philologist, and poet. Lomonosov was also a historian, although they prefer not to dwell on this much.
This is understandable. Not only did this Russian genius completely reject the Norman theory and subject it to crushing criticism. He was one of the first to oppose the doctrine of the unhistorical nature of the Russian people, their “original savagery and ignorance.”
“We have a lot of evidence,” Lomonosov wrote in his “Ancient Russian history...”, - that in Russia there was not the great darkness of ignorance that many external writers imagine. “They will be forced to think differently, having demolished their and our ancestors and compared the origins, actions, customs and inclinations of peoples with each other.”
Unfortunately, this wish of the Russian scientist - to take an unbiased look at his ancestors and honestly assess the degree of their ignorance in comparison with the Slavs - was never fulfilled by “external” (foreign) writers. Which, however, is not so difficult to understand. Just as it is not difficult to understand those “internal”, Russian-speaking descriptors of our Fatherland who walked and are walking in the wake of the “external” ones.
Lomonosov believed that the Slavic “people and language extend into deep antiquity,” reasonably noting that since the “greatness and power” of the Slavic tribes has been the same for more than one and a half thousand years (that is, at least from the 2nd century AD) is great (“stands on the same measure”), it would be strange to think that the Slavs arose in the 1st century and in a hundred years multiplied “to such a great population.”
And just like Tatishchev, with reference to ancient authors, writes about “ ancient habitation Vendian Slavs in Asia”, participation in the Trojan War and resettlement throughout Europe after it.
Another Russian historian, an opponent of the Norman theory, D.I. Ilovaisky dates the beginning of Russian history to at least the 1st and 2nd centuries BC. , leading the Slavic-Russians out of the Roxalans. For his patriotic beliefs, he was “punished” by silencing his works and merits in the field of historical science.
“Serious” historians of the 19th-20th centuries, “forgetting” the works of Tatishchev and Lomonosov, began to say that “the initial chronicle does not remember the time of the arrival of the Slavs from Asia to Europe” and that the beginning of Rus' dates back to the first millennium AD. , unanimously pointing to the creation Kyiv State, as the original starting point of Russian history. Silence has become the main weapon of the anti-Russian party in historical science.
A LITTLE ABOUT FAITH, SCIENCE AND CHRONOLOGY
Disputes about the antiquity of the Slavs and the chronology of Russian history inevitably lead to the question of what periods can be distinguished in it?
If you do not take into account the peculiar and exotic periodizations of Russian history, for example, in the relationship between the forest and the steppe, then it is easy to notice that most historians delimit historical periods by political centers (Kievan Rus, Suzdal land, Moscow kingdom, St. Petersburg period) or political events ( Tatar-Mongol yoke, Time of Troubles, reforms of Peter the Great). However, in any case, they begin the chronological countdown from the calling of the Varangians and the creation of the Kyiv state.
It is not difficult to notice that in the works of V.N. Tatishchev and M.V. Lomonosov, Slavic-Russian history has an extensive chronological period preceding the Kyiv period. For example, the first part of “Ancient Russian History...” by Lomonosov is called “About Russia before Rurik” and contains chapters such as “On the distant antiquity of the Slavic people” and “On the migrations and affairs of the Slavic people”, in which the history of the Slavic people is reported. Rus in the 2nd millennium BC. - I millennium AD
V.N. Tatishchev divides his “Russian History” into five parts (periods) in the first of which he wants to “announce the writers and describe the ancient ones relating to our fatherland, the three main peoples and the peoples descended from them, such as the Scythians, Sarmatians and Slavs, every dwelling, war, resettlement and name changes, as far as the ancients told us about them, and this until the beginning of detailed Russian history until 860 years after Christ.” Further Tatishchev describes approximately the same historical period, as Lomonosov did in the first part of his work. Both historians consider this period to end with the calling of Rurik.
Taking into account the data available today, the history of the Slavic-Russians can be traced based on written sources, at least until the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. In this regard, the author of this work, as a supporter of the creation theory of world development and human society, offers the following periodization of Russian history in relation to the Slavs towards the true God, since all history, according to the deepest conviction of the author, is God’s providence for humanity:
I. Prologue (XX-XVIII centuries BC), or from the Flood to the Babylonian confusion of languages.
II. Biblical period (XVII century BC - 1st century BC), or from the Babylonian confusion of languages to the Nativity of Christ;
III. Christian period (I-XVII centuries AD), or from the Baptism of Rus' by Apostle Andrew the First-Called to the Schism of 1666;
IV. Apostasy period (XVII-XX centuries AD), or from the Schism of 1666 to coup d'etat 1993
V. Epilogue (late 20th - early 21st centuries AD), or from the coup d'etat of 1993 to the second coming of the Lord.
Perhaps this periodization will seem “unscientific” and too exotic to some, however, in the author’s opinion, it has no less right to exist than the scientific and no less exotic Eurasian periodizations of Russian history, or the stripped-down and falsified periodizations of the “Normanists” . The author believes that only having a Christian view of the world and society can one create a scientific theory that consistently fits all known historical facts, and which allows you to correctly evaluate them and know the truth.
Before moving on to the presentation of historical events directly, it is necessary to tell the reader a few words about creationism, the relationship between science and faith, and the role Holy Scripture and Christianity in the knowledge of the world and how biblical chronology relates to the real one.
Creationism is the doctrine of the divine beginning in the universe, the creation of the world and man by God, which rejects the theory of evolutionary development. Of course, creationism comes from a premise that lies outside of science (belief in God and that it was God who created the world). Therefore, undoubtedly, creationism requires faith in God as the force that caused the creation of the world.
On the other hand, opponents of creationism, who consider it an “unscientific” theory, need to be reminded that the evolutionary, “scientific” theory of the origin and development of the world also requires a certain belief in certain prerequisites underlying it, which evolutionary scientists themselves agree with :
“The first of the unprovable premises on which science is based is the belief that the world exists objectively and that the human mind is capable of understanding its true nature. The second and most famous postulate underlying the structure scientific knowledge- this is the law of cause and effect... The third basic scientific premise is the belief that nature is one.”
These very premises of science “define and limit scientific way thinking,” while “each of these postulates is either rooted in Christian theology or does not contradict it... Scientific thought separated from theology because it did not postulate any external force, or a force beyond measurable natural forces."
That is, the divergence between theology and science began from the moment when some scientists voluntarily rejected the Existing God and elevated nature to the divine rank. Professor Kapitsa once said wonderfully about this: “Saying that DNA arose in the process of evolution is the same as thinking that a television can arise from the process of shaking parts.”
Essentially, evolutionists have replaced belief in a personal God with pantheism, and their refusal to recognize the scientific nature of creationism is irrational, I would even say, religious in nature. The history of science shows that faith in Christ does not in the least hinder knowledge of the world. Thousands of scientists were Christians, including those who made the greatest discoveries: Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, William Herschel, Johannes Kepler, Mikhail Lomonosov, Louis Pasteur, Carl Linnaeus, Ivan Pavlov, Clerk Maxwell... the list goes on and on.
One of outstanding mathematicians XX century A. Koshin said: “I am a Christian. This means that I believe in God and in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, just as outstanding scientists believed before me: Tycho de Brahe, Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Pascal, Grimaldi, Euler, Gulden, Boskovic, Herschil and other great ones astronomers and mathematicians of yesteryear."
Max Planck (1856-1947), famous professor of physics at the University of Berlin, founder quantum theory, Nobel Prize laureate, in his reports, lectures and writings, carries the thought: “Wherever we turn our gaze, whatever the subject of our observation, we nowhere find a contradiction between science and religion; we rather state their absolute harmony in the main points, especially in the field of natural science. Both religion and science end result, seek the truth and come to confession of God. Religion glorifies God at the beginning, science at the end of all thoughts. The first represents Him as the basis, the second - as the end of every phenomenal representation of the world."
No conscientious researcher would deny that modern science is rooted in the creationist worldview biblical christianity. And although the Bible “is not a scientific book, in the sense of detailed technical and mathematical description natural phenomena... yet the Bible deals with a wide variety of natural phenomena and mentions a huge number of historical events... People have too quickly become convinced that the Bible is unscientific. However, reliable facts of observations and experiments do not contradict the biblical view of the world and history. Biblical cosmology has never been refuted; It’s just that under her influence people felt uncomfortable and rejected her...”
It is impossible for a Christian to believe in God and reject that part of the Holy Scriptures that touches on the most fundamental questions of science and major events stories. “How can a person believe that the Bible tells the truth about salvation, about heaven, about eternity—doctrines that he cannot test by experience—if he has been taught that those biblical facts that can be verified are false?”
Since this book puts forward a hypothesis according to which the entire history of mankind goes back no more than 6,000 years, the Ice Age ended at a time not at all as distant as it is supposed official science, and, in connection with this, geological catastrophes on a planetary scale shook the Earth and changed its face only three to four thousand years ago, the author considers it necessary to say a few words about the age of our planet and methods of dating certain archaeological finds.
If we talk about the age of the Earth, it should be noted that science can only do this based on the study of certain geophysical processes. However, this is done taking into account false assumptions that turn scientific analysis into subjective and voluntaristic. These false assumptions include the following:
1. The geophysical process used to determine the age of the Earth has always proceeded at the same speed as it does today;
2. The system in which this geophysical process takes place has been closed throughout the entire existence of the planet;
3. Famous quantitative composition elements of this system at the moment when the process began to proceed with constant speed.
In addition, both the system and the process must be universal, not local. Otherwise, the process will allow us to judge only the age of that part of the system in which it occurs.
It is clear that neither the first, nor the second, nor the third can be reliably known to modern science. In addition, in nature, in fact, there are neither completely closed systems nor processes that proceed at a constant speed all the time. Unable to determine initial conditions process, so everything that scientific analysts know is only the result of the process on this moment. Everything else is guesswork from applicants for scientific degrees and Nobel Prizes, like the discovery of “planets earth type» in others star systems based on the fluctuations in the orbits of stars “visible” only through a radio telescope.
The unreliability of the officially recognized five- (six-? seven-? eight-?) billion-year period of the existence of our planet is well illustrated by an example of calculating this period according to the change magnetic field Earth. Magnetic field measurements began almost a century and a half ago and have been carried out regularly since then. Based on these measurements, it was calculated experimental dependence values of the average induction of the Earth's magnetic field over time. It turned out that this dependence is described by an exponential function, the value of which decreases by approximately half every 1400 years. Thus, 1400 years ago the Earth's magnetic field was twice as strong as it is today, 2800 years ago - 4 times, 3200 years ago - 8 times, 4600 - 16 times. The geophysical process of weakening the Earth's magnetic field can be considered to occur at a constant speed, more than any other, since its changes are determined by deep processes in the earth's core.
Based on data obtained over a century and a half, Dr. Thomas Barnes, a professor of physics at the University of El Paso, determined that the maximum possible age of the Earth is 10,000 years, since further the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field will be unacceptably strong. This does not mean that the lifespan of the Earth cannot be less than 10,000 years, it just cannot exceed this period, but it may well be seven or six thousand years.
Just as the lifespan of our planet has been exaggerated many times over, the antiquity of civilizations known to historians has also been exaggerated. First of all, it should be pointed out that there is no reliable written evidence, even relating to the history of the most ancient states, such as Babylon, Sumer, Egypt, which would exceed the time limit of 2000 BC, that is, the border outlined by the biblical flood. This will be discussed in more detail below in a separate chapter.
Secondly, all dating of organic remains - wood, bones, etc. - based on modern “scientific” methods, for example, radiocarbon dating, are stunningly inaccurate and unreliable. The same radiocarbon analysis can be relatively accurate only for the period in the last 3000 years (for example, before the time of the biblical King Solomon (900 BC), but already for the time of the Trojan War (approximately 1200 BC). X.) or the New Hittite kingdom (second half of the second millennium BC), it already gives too much error).
And within three thousand years, the radiocarbon method gives half of the erroneous and dubious datings, that is, its reliability does not exceed 50%. Objective scientists believe: “Regardless of the degree of “usefulness” of the radiocarbon method, it must be admitted that it is not able to provide accurate and reliable results. The contradictions encountered within the framework of this method are enormous, the chronological data obtained are unsystematic and dependent on each other, and the dates considered correct are essentially taken from the air.”
In passing, it is worth noting that the very process of formation of radiocarbon (carbon-14) in the Earth’s atmosphere indicates that it is erroneous to estimate the age of the Earth at several billion years. The fact is that today the decay rate of carbon-14 (1.63x104 per second per 1 square meter earth's surface) is less than the rate of its formation (2.5x104 per second per 1 square meter of earth's surface). Accordingly, the rate of formation is approximately one and a half times higher than the rate of decay. Considering that the two processes - decay and formation - will reach equilibrium when all the carbon-14 atoms that were first formed from nitrogen again turn into nitrogen, which will require a time equal to five to six half-lives (for carbon-14, the half-life is 5730 years), that is, about 30,000 years, it can be argued that since such equilibrium has not yet occurred, then the age of the Earth does not exceed 30,000 years (and in reality - much less).
The conclusion that the Earth is very young, and its age does not exceed several thousand years, allows us to analyze the series natural processes such as alpha decay of uranium and thorium, erosion earth's crust and take-out chemical elements river waters into the ocean, etc. This means that all geological disasters, such as the Ice Age, the flood, the formation of modern coastlines continents and others, happened not millions and hundreds of thousands of years ago, but at a time when the pyramids and the Tower of Babel already existed.
Patented " scientific world"goes to any lengths (this is evidenced by the story of the fake of the so-called "Archaeopteryx", molded from several chicken feathers and lizard bones) to keep the laymen in blissful ignorance about the true history of the Earth and humanity, and not in last resort based on his atheistic views. Having abandoned God, atheist scientists also abandoned the Truth. And this must be taken into account by everyone who considers the words: “I think, means I exist!” to be their motto.
Of course, "give the actual scientific proof creation of the world by the Creator to a non-believer and not seeker of faith impossible, since even if the dead are resurrected, according to the Savior, the unbeliever still will not believe. But to the person who seeks the truth of God, who asks God for wisdom and understanding, God will reveal the wisdom that he has hidden from the wise of this world.”
You can buy the book by Manyagin V.G. From the flood to Rurik in the online store
Encyclopedia of Organisms.
HISTORY OF Rus'
SENSATION: RURIK WAS A RUSSIAN PRINCE!
A.A. Aseev
About the coming of Rurik to Rus', a textbook for the 6th grade by A.A. Preobrazhensky, B.A Rybakov (recommended by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation) reports the following: The Slavs built a new city in the north - Novgorod near Lake Ilmen - for protection from the Varangians. One of the Varangian princes, Rurik, in the second half of the 9th century. began to reign in Novgorod. After several centuries, all Russian princes began to consider Rurik the ancestor of their dynasty.
If you think about what is written in the textbook, it turns out that Rurik was brought to Rus' as a breeding bull, because after some time all the Russian princes began to consider him the ancestor.
There is a lot left in Russian history that those in power did not want to talk about. This is especially true of the ancient history of Rus', before Rurik.
“Before the arrival of the Varangians, the Slavs lived the way animals and birds live,” wrote academician A.L. Shletser. German, historian in Russian service from the time of Catherine II. And the founder of the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state, Bayer G.Z. (1694-1738), even without knowing the Russian language, managed to create, on the basis of the Russian chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years”, about the calling of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus, Truvor to Russia in 862, his own anti-Russian version of history.
Since then, it has been said that before the arrival of the Varangians, Rus' was a backward country incapable of independent state building, and the Normans brought “Western values” by force, colonized Rus', dominated its development, influenced its economy, culture, etc., and that even the name Rus' itself was brought by the Varangians.
Lomonosov also spoke out against this version, but his voice was drowned out in the “big” German chorus of experts on Russian history. And today the West adheres to this theory, humiliating for Russians. In modern Russian schools, textbooks for the 6th grade teach, to a greater or lesser extent, the same German theory, with which Lomonosov fought, is, at best, hushed up.
Isn’t this where the Russians’ self-deprecation comes from, the tossing between the West and the East, the inability to find true path, because fundamental historical truths are still hidden from the people? A people that does not know its history has no future.
Let's try to figure out together what really happened.
In the Tale of Bygone Years (PVL) it is written: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it, so you will come to reign and rule over us,” said the envoys of the Novgorodians to the Varangian Rus. The translation was made as follows: “but there is no order in it,” meaning that the Russians have chronic disorder, which they themselves are not able to cope with. Based on these words, it was largely built Norman theory.
If we assume that this was exactly the case, then the question arises: what exactly should we turn to the Varangian-Germans for? After all, literally nearby was the German empire of Charles, which occupied half of Europe, and beyond the Kyiv lands was Byzantium. These were two influential powers that would certainly have sent their protege to the Russian lands rich in furs, ores, etc. use it for free.
But everything worked out, on the contrary, the Russians had constant military clashes with the Germans in the coming centuries, remember Alexander Nevsky. Why would they suddenly fight with them, just go straight under their roof and that’s all?
According to the Norman version, the Varangians are Scandinavians; at that time they were not at the height of their development. Here are some facts: Scandinavia, originally a poor country, was forced to earn its blood by serving as military mercenaries in richer and more developed countries. They called Rus' “gardariki” - a country of cities; at that time they themselves had only 7 cities.
All the achievements of civilization came to them a hundred years late compared to Russia, namely: the arch judicial laws“Russian Truth”, the potter’s wheel, coinage, Christianity, which was then considered a sign of civilization and even then became stronger among them a hundred years later than in Rus'. Those. If we translate that situation to today, it would be equivalent to the fact that Russia would now make the same request to Albania. But for some reason our ancestors turned to the Varangians?
Let's return to PVL: “outfit” does not mean the word order, power. According to V.I. Dahl’s dictionary: Order, summons, notification, order to send people to work from Ch. dress up. Moreover, in some lists of chronicles, instead of the words “and there is no dress in it,” it is written “and there is no dresser in it.” Why the Novgorodians turned to the Varangians for a dresser can be understood by reading the data from the Novgorod chronicles.
In Novgorod, before Rurik and his brothers were called to Rus', there was a dynasty of princes, numbering 9 generations. Rurik's great-grandfather, the Novgorod prince Burivoy, fought difficult wars, including with the Varangians; in one of the battles his army was defeated, and he was forced to hide on the outskirts of his possessions.
The Varangians took advantage of this and imposed tribute on Novgorod. The Novgorodians did not endure the Varangian yoke for long and called Burivoy’s son, Gostomysl, to reign. He led the uprising and defeated the Varangians “by beating them, expelling them, and denying tribute to the Varangians.”
Gostomysl had 4 sons and 3 daughters. All sons died or died without leaving heirs male line. The daughters were given in marriage to overseas princes. Gostomysl was left without an heir. Shortly before his death he had a dream (in ancient times dreams were considered great importance, they saw the command of the gods) that from the womb of the middle daughter Umila grew a wonderful tree, the fruits of which fed the people of his country. The dream-prediction was reported to the people, who were pleased with it, because for some reason the people did not like the son of Gostomysl’s eldest daughter.
Rurik was the son of Umila, daughter of Gostomysl, and Prince Godlav (Godslav) of the West Slavic tribe of Obodrites (about Odra, i.e. living on the Odra River). In Slavic Rurik (Rorik, Rereg, Rereg, Rarog) means falcon. There is confirmation of these events in the West. The Frenchman Marmier (X. Marmier) published in 1840. in Paris, the book “Letters about the North”, where he wrote down in Mecklenburg (the former capital of the Obodrites Mikulin Bor) the legend of the calling to Rus' of three sons of the Slavic prince Godlav. Now it has become clear why the choice fell on the “Varangian brothers”, and why they were told plural“Yes, go”: all three were the legal heirs of the deceased prince, the decision was made according to the will of the late Gostomysl.
The Novgorod Chronicles fully answered all the questions: who, why and where, but the PVL does not speak about these events, although most of the PVL was rewritten from Ipatiev Chronicle, with the exception of family ties Rurik, why?
And the reason is quite simple: as in subsequent centuries and under other regimes, the chronicler carried out the political order of the ruling dynasty. He wrote history Kievan Rus.
If you tell the truth, it turns out that the northern dynasty is the original one, and its capital has always been in Novgorod. Novgorod has always laid claim to its independence, only Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century, with great bloodshed, turned it into an ordinary regional center. And the chronicler himself lets slip that he knows much more than he said, i.e. he shortened the older text he was copying.
For example, in Nikon Chronicle about the calling of the Varangians they write: “And therefore, those who had gathered decided for themselves: let us look among ourselves, so that someone might be a prince among us and rule over us; We will look for and remove one from us, or from Kazar, or from Polyan, or from Dunaichev, or from Voryag. And there was a great rumor about this: we love this, we love something else; also conferred with the dispatch to the Varangians.”
According to this text, the Novgorodians not only sent to the Varangians, but chose nai the best option, and began to search among themselves, but apparently internal contradictions by that time they had reached their peak and began to look for a neutral candidate who would suit everything local groups influence. Why are the Khazars, Polyans, Danubians, Varangians named, and not Byzantium, Rome or other authoritative powers of that time?
Glades: another name for Rus', it passed to them, with the remnants of the Russian state of Ruskolan destroyed by the Huns, called Roxolans in foreign sources (self-name Rus).
The word "Rus" means light brown, light. In Sanskrit (the language of the ancient Aryans, the Rig Veda and other Vedic books of the Aryans were written in it), the root ruksh-/ ruc-/ is pronounced like rush or rus and also means bright, clear.
Like the Slovenes in Novgorod, the Polyans had the Vedic faith, the oldest existing religion on earth, brought from the ancient Aryan ancestral home of Arctida.
They lived according to the laws established by their ancestors for thousands of years. And since after the death of Gostomysl, the princely family was interrupted, and it was impossible to call a direct heir who could rule according to the law of the Russian “rule,” the Novgorodians lived for some time according to the laws of ancient democracy, deciding necessary questions on people's meeting, according to Russian concepts. Such a tradition, with amendments to Christianity, will exist for centuries - the Novgorod Republic.
Moreover, as the chronicles indicate, at this time the Varangians came from across the sea, having learned that Gostomysl had died, to take advantage of the opportunity and resume receiving tribute, but the envoys were driven away.
Danubians: related Slavic tribes living according to the same worldview and laws.
Khazars: Khazar Khaganate, the main religions are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Russian Vedism. The attitude of religions towards each other is quite tolerant, the courts are represented by judges of each of the faiths, some of the Slavs occupied high government posts, and enjoyed influence in the country.
By sending to the Khazars, the Novgorodians, just like the Polyans, wanted to invite a respected person who knew the laws of the Russian “government”. Varangians: Samson Grammatik directly says that the gangs that attacked England, i.e. Varangians consisted of Danes and Slavs.
Varangians are not a nationality, but a profession. “And I went overseas to the Varangians to Rus'. Sitsa is called Varyazi Rus'. Yako se druzii are called Svie (Swedes), druzi Urmane (Norwegians), Anglyans, druzii Gote (Gotlanders), tako and si.
From this it is clear that part of the Varangians were of Russian origin, and other components were: Swedes, Norwegians, Gotlanders, Angles, i.e. peoples inhabiting the coast of the Baltic Sea. Slavic settlements in those days were much further west than now, reaching as far as Denmark, and there were settlements on the coast of England. That's why our ancestors went to call from Rus' to Rus'.
And the last: during the entire reign of the Rurikovichs, no one in the West ever declared rights to the Russian throne, citing kinship with Rurik. But a holy place is never empty, and there were always enough poor relatives. This was because in the 9th century. The Obodrite tribe ceased to exist, was partially destroyed, and partially Germanized.
Everyone needs to know the history of their country, their people. cultured person. This idea has been expressed by many famous people present and past. In a generalized form, it sounds like this: a people who does not know their past has no future.
Do we know our history? Do we know the history of the Russian people, the history of the Slavs, the history Novgorod Rus', the history of Kievan Rus? Who was Rurik? What is the history of our people before the arrival of Rurik?
If you ask these questions to any citizen of Russia, the answer will be almost the same and approximately the following.
Rurik was a Varangian, a foreigner, either a German or a Swede, whom the Novgorodians invited in 862 to reign in their lands. Many will add to this a translation into modern language text from the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years,” written by the Kyiv monk Nestor in 1112: our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it.
And no one can say anything definite about the history of our country before Rurik, since we were not taught this history in educational institutions.
And this is very sad, since the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state is fundamentally erroneous and pseudoscientific.
Rurik was a pure Slav; no foreigners had a significant impact on the identity, culture and language of the Russian people, which has a centuries-old and many thousands of years of great and glorious history.
Why did this happen? There are a number of reasons for this.
First, let's talk about what is written in the chronicles.
"The Tale of Bygone Years"
This is what Nestor wrote in this chronicle (translated into modern language):
They drove the Varangians overseas, and did not give them tribute, and began to control themselves, and there was no truth among them, and generation after generation arose, and they had strife, and began to fight with each other.
And they said to themselves: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right. And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, as others are called Swedes, and some Normans and Angles, and still others Gotlanders - that’s how these were called.
The Russians, the Chud, the Slavs, the Krivichi and all said: Our land is great and abundant, but there is no outfit in it, so you will come to reign and rule over us.
This is what the envoys of the Novgorod tribes said when they came to Rurik.
Word outfit does not mean order, A power, control, order. Even now there is an expression outfit for firewood, outfit for the apartment, that is order.
In some chronicles, instead of words: but she has no outfit, written: and there is no dresser in it. That is, no power, no boss.
And the words: and went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus' does not mean at all that Rus' is some kind of overseas, Varangian tribe.
Varangians are not a nation, but a profession. At that time, Varangians were the name given to warriors and traders who came from other lands with a sword or to trade. Military detachments of the Varangians were recruited from mercenaries different nationalities, including the Slavs.
The Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state became established in our country because our history began to be written by the Germans, invited to the newly formed Russian Academy Sci.
They knew the Russian language poorly and did not have many ancient chronicle sources, and for whom it was beneficial to humiliate the Russian people, to show that before the foreign prince the Slavs had no culture, and they lived like animals. But more on that later.
Further. "The Tale of Bygone Years", that is Laurentian Chronicle, which has become the most famous chronicle among historians, describes mainly the history of Kievan Rus, and very little is written about the northern tribes of the Slavs.
And nothing at all has been written about Rus' before Rurik. Or Nestor did not have such a goal, and he did not use Novgorod chronicles; or was there some kind of rivalry in the “seniority” of the southern and northern peoples, and information about the history of the northern peoples was not specifically included in the chronicle.
And such information was in the form of 14 different Novgorod (Resurrection, Nikon, Joachim, etc.) chronicles.
Novgorod Chronicles
These chronicles, as primary sources, were used by our first Russian historian V. Tatishchev (1686 - 1750), who wrote “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” for more than 20 years.
For example, the Joachim Chronicle (now lost) was written almost 100 years earlier than the Tale of Bygone Years, but without chronology. It tells the story of 9 generations of Novgorod princes who ruled for several hundred years, whose dynasty ended at Gostomysl.
In these chronicles it is written in detail about the reasons and why the Novgorodians went to Rus'.
The names of the Novgorod princes, according to various Slavic and foreign sources and legends, have been known since the end of the 5th century AD. e, when Slaven, a descendant of the biblical Japheth, founded the city of Slavyansk.
After Slaven, Prince Vandal gained fame, who ruled the Slavs, went to the north, west and east by sea and land. He conquered many lands on the sea coast, and subjugated the peoples.
After Vandal, his son Vladimir ruled, who had a wife from the Varangians Advinda- a beautiful and wise woman whom Novgorodians praised in songs for many years.
The penultimate Novgorod prince Burivoy (beginning of the 9th century) waged difficult wars with the Varangians, repeatedly defeated them and began to possess all of Karelia up to the border with Finland. In one of the battles, his army was defeated, he himself barely escaped and lived out the rest of his days on the outskirts of his possessions.
The Varangians took advantage of this and imposed tribute on the Novgorod lands. The Novgorodians did not endure the Varangian yoke for long; they begged Burivoy for the reign of his son, Gostomysl, who expelled the Varangians from Novgorod land (ovy beating, ovy expulsion, and tribute to the Varangians renounce).
This is what the chronicle says about Gostomysl:
This Gostomysl is a great man, very brave, very wise, feared by all his neighbors, and loved by people, reprisals for the sake of justice. For this reason, everyone honors him and gives gifts and tributes, buying the world from him.
Many princes from distant countries come by sea and land to listen to wisdom, and you see his judgment, and ask for his advice and teaching, for by this he has become famous everywhere.
Gostomysl had 4 sons and 3 daughters. The sons all died - some from diseases, some died in battles, and the daughters were given to neighboring princes as wives. Gostomysl became concerned about the heir and gathered the soothsayers.
The prophets told him that the gods promised to give him an heir from his woman. Gostomysl did not believe them because he was old and could no longer give birth.
But one day he had a dream that the son from his middle daughter Umila, who was married to the prince of the Slavic Obodrichs (that is, living on the Odra River) Godoslav, would be the prince of Novgorod.
Gostomysl gathered elders and soothsayers from the Slovenes, Rus', Chud, Vesi, Meri, Krivichi, Dregovichi and told them his dream to decide what to do next.
Since his eldest daughter, Miloslava, was married to a Scandinavian, and her descendants were undesirable to the Novgorodians, the Council of Elders almost agreed with Gostomysl, but did not have time to send ambassadors to Godoslav, since Gostomysl soon died.
The Nikon Chronicle about the calling of the Varangians says that after the death of Gostomysl, the elders decided to first look for the prince tell yourself, who would be the prince in us and own us; we will look for and remove such one either from us, or from the barracks, or from the glades, or from the Danube, or from the voryags.
This means that the Novgorodians tried to find a better option, since there was no direct heir to Gostomysl. And at first they wanted to find a candidate among their closest fellow Slavs, who knew local customs, culture and language, and not from the Germans, Romans or Scandinavians.
According to the Joachim Chronicle, published in the 18th century by the Russian historian, geographer and statesman V.N. Tatishchev, “The Tale of Sloven and Rus” and the city of Slovensk» ( see on the website) and data modern archeology, before the appearance of Rurik in Rus' already existed centralized state. Its founders, according to the Legend, were the sons of the prince Skifa– brothers Slovenian And Rus.
In 3099 from the “creation of the world” (2409 BC), the princes of Sloven and Rus with their families and subjects began to leave in search of new lands from the Black Sea coast and spent 14 years looking for land to settle. Finally, 2395 BC. The settlers came to the great lake, it was initially called Moisko, and then Ilmer - after the sister of the princes - Ilmer. The elder brother Sloven with his family and subjects settled near the river, which they called Mutnaya (Volkhov) and built the city of Slovensk (the future Novgorod the Great). From that moment on, the Scythians-Skolots began to be called Slovenians. The river flowing into Ilmer (Ilmen) was named after Sloven's wife - Shelon. Prince Rus founded the city of Rus - Staraya Russa. On behalf of their princes, the people inhabiting these lands began to be called Slovenes and Rus. Sloven, Rus and the princes who succeeded them ruled a vast territory that reached the Northern Arctic Ocean in the north and the Urals, the Ob River in the east. Mention is made of the Russian campaigns against Egypt, Greece and other countries.
One of Sloven's descendants was a prince Vandal(other pronunciation options for his name are Vend, Vened). It was under Prince Vandal that it was actually created Russian state, which the Rurikovichs then took control of. It included “Slovenian”, Russian tribes and Finno-Ugric peoples (Ves, Merya, Chud, Muroma, Mordovians). Vandal conquered significant areas in the west. Vandal had three sons: Izbor, Vladimir And The pillar is dedicated, each had its own city. The dynasty of the descendants of Sloven and Vandal ruled the North all the way to Rurik. Descendant Vladimir the Ancient(the middle son of Vandal - Vladimir, who lost the war in the 5th century to Attila) in the ninth generation Burivoy was the father of the prince Gostomysl.
Gostomysl was able to restore order in the North, defeated the Varangians and expelled them (his father was defeated on the banks of the Kumen River and was forced to retreat to the city of Byarma, perhaps Perm). The prince became famous not only as great commander and a brave warrior, but also a wise and fair ruler who enjoyed the love of the people. However, none of his three (four?) sons and grandson Izbor (Sloven's son) lived to the end of Gostomysl's reign to inherit his power. The period was brewing new Troubles. It was then that the wise Gostomysl told people about a dream where from his daughter’s belly Umily(she was married to the prince of Obodrit Godoluba, other pronunciations of the name - Godlav, Godolb) a huge tree grew, under whose branches he could hide the whole city. The magician priests unraveled the meaning of the prophetic dream: the princess’s son would take power and create great power. Later, the grandson of Gostomysl, the son of Umila and Godlav, was called to the throne of the northern power. Rurik.
The history of Rus' is usually traced back to the “calling of the Varangians.” But what happened before the arrival of Rurik is rarely said. But this does not mean that the Russian land was in a state of anarchy or chaos.
Before the "calling"
Official domestic historiography says that statehood in Rus' arose in 862 after the Rurik dynasty came to power. However Lately many researchers question this point of view. Many sources speak about the centralized Russian state before the Rurikovichs, in particular the “Joachim Chronicle”, published in XVIII century Vasily Tatishchev.
If we assume that the Varangians were “called to reign” in the Russian lands, then the conclusion arises that there were not scattered Slavic tribes here, but a people who had an idea of centralized power. However, if we accept as correct the idea of the historian Boris Rybakov that Rurik began to reign after the conquest of Novgorod, then in this case we see possessions subordinate to a single capital.
Gardariki
Greek and Latin sources name large cities around which the ancient Russian population was concentrated. In addition to Kyiv and Novgorod, Izborsk, Polotsk, Belozersk, Lyubech, Vyshgorod are mentioned there. For example, the Bavarian geographer of the 9th century counted up to 4000 cities among the Slavs!
One of the signs of statehood is the existence of writing. It is now clear that it existed in pre-Christian Rus'. For example, the 10th century writer Ibn Fodlan speaks about this, as an eyewitness who claimed that the Russians always wrote the name of the deceased on the grave pillar, as well as the prince to whom he obeyed. The Byzantines and Scandinavians not only mentioned that the Slavs have their own letters - initial letters, but also called them an educated people.
Moreover, in Byzantine sources, when describing the life of the Rus, obvious signs of their state structure were reflected: the hierarchy of the nobility, the administrative division of lands, small princes were also mentioned, over whom the “kings” stood.
State of Slovenia and Rus
According to the generally accepted version, the first ruling dynasty in Rus' was founded by Rurik. However, modern researchers suggest that the Rurikovichs overthrew or at least replaced the dynasty that already existed here. Historian Alexander Samsonov speaks of the close continuity in Rus' of other developed cultures - Scythian and Sarmatian, from where the first princes of the Russian lands could have come.
“The Tale of Sloven and Rus” tells the story of two brothers, the sons of Scythian, who moved up from the Black Sea lands in search of new territories. They reached the banks of the Volkhov River, where they founded the city of Slovensk, which later became known as Veliky Novgorod.
Further, as it is written in the chronicle, “Sloven and Rus lived together in great love, and the princess there, and took possession of many countries in those regions. Likewise, according to them, their sons and grandsons became princes according to their tribes and gained eternal glory and much wealth for themselves with their sword and bow.” The sources also mention close ties between the state of Slovenia and Rus, both with barbarian peoples, and with developed countries of the West and East.
Proof of the authenticity of this story can be found in Arab-Persian sources of the 12th century, who wrote about the Rus and Slavs, referring to the eponyms Rus and Sloven. The Byzantine Simeon Logothetes in the 10th century also mentions Rus as the ancestor of the Russian people. And the Greeks, calling these lands “Great Scythia,” essentially confirm that the descendants of Scythia ruled here.
Based on the chronicles, the lands of Slovenia and Rus were repeatedly abandoned, but the ruling dynasty survived. A descendant of the first princes was Gostomysl, who, after the death of four sons, became the last in the family. The Magi, having interpreted one of Gostomysl’s dreams, predicted that the new ruler in Novgorod would be the son of his daughter Umila and Varangian prince Godoslava. This son is the legendary Rurik, who was called to replace (or continue, given the relationship) the Novgorod dynasty.
However, historians have ambivalent views on this version of dynastic succession. In particular, N. M. Karamzin and S. M. Solovyov questioned the reality of Gostomysl. Moreover, some archaeologists are not sure of the very existence of Novgorod before the 9th century. Excavations of the “Rurik settlement” confirmed only traces of the late Scandinavian and West Slavic presence in these lands.
Chernyakhov culture
If the reliability of the “Tale of Sloven and Rus” can be questioned, then the fact of the existence of the “Northern Archonties” has been recognized by historians. This is how the Byzantines called the rebellious land-states located in the Northern Black Sea region, which in the 6th and 7th centuries were a serious threat to Constantinople.
Excavations in central Ukraine have confirmed the existence of once developed territories here. Historians unite these proto-state formations under the concept “Chernyakhov culture”. It has been established that ironworking, bronze casting, blacksmithing, stone cutting, as well as jewelry making and coinage developed on these lands.
Historians note high level management and active trade of representatives of the “Chernyakhov culture” with large ancient centers. According to Academician V.V. Sedov, the main population of these places were the Slavs-Antes and Scythian-Sarmatians.
Cue
Later, somewhere from the 5th century, it was in the center of the “Chernyakhov culture” that Kyiv began its rise - the future capital of the Old Russian state, the founder of which, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, was Kiy.
True, the historian N.M. Tikhomirov pushes back the founding of Kyiv to the 8th century. Although other researchers object and find a new date in the 4th century, citing as an example one of the medieval chronicle sources: “It was founded in the year of Christ 334.”
A supporter of an earlier version of the founding of Kyiv, historian M. Yu. Braichevsky, relying on the works of the Byzantine writer Nicephorus Grigora, argues that Kiy, like many rulers neighboring countries, received a symbol of power from the hands of Constantine the Great. In the text of Grigora there is a mention of the “ruler of Rus'”, to whom the emperor awarded the title of “tsar’s keeper”.
Thus, having received the go-ahead to reign, Kiy became the founder of the ruling dynasty of a young power with its capital in Kyiv. In the “Veles Book” (which, of course, cannot be considered a reliable source), Kiy is described as outstanding commander and the administrator, who united under his leadership a large number of Slavic tribes, created a powerful state.
Polish historian Jan Dlugosz, noting the role of Kiy in the formation of ancient Russian statehood, believes that Kyiv prince founded the line of dynastic succession: “After the death of Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv, the heirs in the direct line, their sons and nephews dominated the Rusyns for many years, until the succession passed to two siblings Askold and Dir.”
As we know from the Tale of Bygone Years, in 882, Rurik’s successor Oleg killed Askold and Dir and took possession of Kiev. True, in the “Tale” Askold and Dir are called Varangians. But if we rely on the version of the Polish historian, then Oleg interrupted the legitimate dynasty coming from Kiy, and laid the foundations for the rule of a new dynastic branch - the Rurikovichs.
Thus, in a surprising way, the fates of two semi-legendary dynasties converge: the Novgorod one, originating from Sloven and Rus, and the Kyiv one, originating from Kiy. But both versions reasonably suggest that the ancient Russian lands could have been full-fledged states long before the “calling of the Varangians.”