The conquest of Bulgaria by Svyatoslav

127
1050 years ago, in 968, the great Russian prince Svyatoslav Igorevich defeated the Bulgarians and established himself on the Danube.

prehistory



The Khazar campaign of Svyatoslav made a huge impression on the surrounding tribes and countries, especially the Byzantine (East Roman) empire. Russian troops pacified Volga Bulgaria (Bulgaria), defeated hostile Russia and the essentially parasitic Khazaria, which for centuries had robbed Slavic-Russian tribes, took tribute to people to sell them into slavery. Svyatoslav completed a long struggle with the Khazar "miracle Yud", which was also led by Rurik, Oleg and Igor. The Ruses defeated the Khazars, took their capital Itil, and the ancient capital of the Kaganate - Semender on the Caspian Sea (Saber kick of Svyatoslav on the Khazar "miracle-yuda"; 1050 years ago Svyatoslav squads defeated the state of the Khazars). Rus were conquered by the tribes of the North Caucasus - Yasy-Aces-Alans and Kasogh-Circassians. Svyatoslav established on the Taman Peninsula, which became the Russian Tmutarakan. On the way back, Svyatoslav completed the rout of the Khazars, taking her last stronghold on the Don, Sarkel, who became the Russian fortress Belaya Vezha.

The results of the campaign were amazing: the huge and powerful Khazar empire was crushed and disappeared forever from the world map, the remnants of the Khazar usury and merchant elite, who lived through the slave trade and control of the routes from Europe to the East, fled to Crimea or the Caucasus (after Svyatoslav died Khazars-Jews will settle in Kiev). Paths to the East have been cleared. Russia received strong outposts - Tmutarakan and Belaya Vezha. Volga Bulgaria has ceased to be a hostile barrier. The balance of power in the half-Byzantine and semi-Khazar Crimea changed, where Kerch (Korchev) also became a Russian city.

All this alarmed Byzantium, which Russian campaigns had already shaken more than once in the past. The Byzantines (Greeks, Romans) used the ancient strategy of Rome - divide and conquer. Khazaria was necessary for them as a counterbalance to Russia and the steppe people. In general, the defeat of the Khazars suited the Romans, it was possible to include the Khazars in its sphere of influence, to increase its influence on it. However, the complete defeat of the Kaganate and the capture of the important outposts on the Don, Taman and Crimea in Constantinople did not suit the Russians. Most of all, the Romans were afraid of a spurt of Russian troops in Tavria (Crimea). Svyatoslav troops cost nothing to cross the Bosphorus of Cimmeria (Kerch Strait) and capture the flowering region. Kherson was then a rich trading city. Romans did not have the strength to protect the city and especially the whole Crimea. Now the fate of the Kherson theme, which supplied Constantinople with grain, depended on the favor of the Russian prince. The Khazar campaign set free for the Russian merchants trade routes along the Volga and the Don. It was logical to continue the successful offensive and take the gate to the Black Sea - Chersonese. The strategic situation led to a new round of Russian-Byzantine confrontation.

Kalokira Mission

It is obvious that in the Byzantine elite all understood this perfectly. Romans decided to lure Svyatoslav on the Danube to distract from the Crimea. And there you see the warlike prince and lay down his head in one of the fights and save Byzantium from a headache. Around the end of 966 (or the beginning of 967 of the year), the Byzantine embassy arrived in the capital city of Kyiv to the Russian prince Svyatoslav Igorevich. He was headed by the son of Chersonesus stratiga Kalokir, who was sent to the Russian prince by the emperor Nikifor Fock. Before sending the envoy to Svyatoslav, Basileus summoned him to Constantinople, discussed the details of the negotiations, conferred the high title of Patrik and handed over a valuable gift, a huge amount of gold - 15 centenaries (about 450 kg).

The Greek envoy was an extraordinary man. The Byzantine historian Leo Deacon calls him "courageous" and "ardent." Later, Kalokir will still meet on the path of Svyatoslav and prove that he is a man who knows how to play a big game. The main goal of Kalokir’s mission, for which, according to the Byzantine chronicler Lev Deacon, Patricia with a huge amount of gold was sent to Russia, was to persuade him to act in alliance with Byzantium against Bulgaria. In 966, the emperor Nicephorus Fock led his troops against the Bulgarians.

"Sent by Tsarist will to the Tauro-Scythians (as the old memory was called the Rus, considering them to be direct descendants of the Scythians, heirs of the Great Scythia) Patrician Kalokir, who came to Scythia (Rus), liked the head of the Taurians, bribed him with gifts, charmed with flattering words ... and convinced him to go against minis (Bulgarians) with a great ratiu with the condition that he, having conquered them, kept their country in their own power, and assisted him in conquering the Roman state and obtaining the throne. He promised him (Svyatoslav) for delivering the great countless treasures from the state treasury. ” The version of the Deacon is extremely simple. The Byzantine chronicler tried to show that Kalokir bribed the barbarian leader, made him his tool in his hands, a weapon against Bulgaria, which was to become a springboard for a higher goal - the throne of the Byzantine Empire. Kalokir dreamed, relying on Russian swords, to seize Constantinople and hand over to Bulgaria for payment to Svyatoslav.

However, this is a false version created by the Greeks, who were constantly rewriting history in their own interests. Researchers studied other Byzantine and Eastern sources and found out that the Deacon did not know much, or did not consciously mention it, did not mention it. Obviously, initially Kalokir acted in the interests of the emperor Nicephorus Focha. But after the vile murder of Nikifor II Foki - the conspiracy was led by the emperor's wife Feofano and her lover, the commander John Tzimiskes, decided to fight for the throne. In addition, there is evidence that the Ruses, while helping Nicephorus in the struggle with Bulgaria, performed the allied duty. The union was concluded before the reign of Svyatoslav. Russian troops, possibly under the command of the young Svyatoslav, had already helped Nikifor Foke to repel the island of Crete from the Arabs.

The conquest of Bulgaria by Svyatoslav

Vladimir Kireev. "Prince Svyatoslav"

The situation in Bulgaria

Did Svyatoslav see a game of Greeks? Obviously, he guessed the idea of ​​the Byzantines. However, the proposal of Constantinople perfectly corresponded to his own designs. Now the Rus could, without military opposition from Byzantium, establish themselves on the banks of the Danube, capturing one of the most important trade routes that went along this great European river and approached the most important cultural and economic centers of Western Europe. At the same time taking under his protection the Slavs-streets that lived in the Danube. There, according to the Russian historian B. Rybakov, there was an “island of the Rus”, formed by the bend and the Danube delta, the sea and the “Trajan bank” with a moat. This area formally belonged to Bulgaria, but the dependency was small. By the right of the population, its Russians-streets, Kiev could also claim it. The Greeks also had their own interests here, relying on the Greek population of coastal towns and fortresses. Thus, the Danube region was of strategic and economic importance for Russia, Bulgaria and Byzantium.

It is also worth remembering about the civilizational, national-linguistic and cultural kinship of Rus-Russians and Bulgarians. Russ and Bulgarians were representatives of one superethnos, civilization. The Bulgarians had just begun to separate from the single super-ethnos of the Rus. The Rus and the Bulgarians had only recently prayed to the same gods, the Bulgarians had not yet forgotten the old gods, celebrated one holiday, the language, customs and traditions were one, with slight territorial differences. Similar territorial differences were in the lands of the Eastern Slavic Rus, say between the meadows, the Drevlyans, the Krivichi and the Novgorod Slovenes. Slavic unity has not been forgotten. Russ and Bulgarians were another kind. It must be said that even after a thousand years this relationship was felt between the Russians and the Bulgarians, it was not for nothing that the Bulgarians always fraternally greeted the Russians during the wars with the Turks, and the Soviet era Bulgaria was called “16 Soviet Republic”. The separation took place only in the elite - the Bulgarian elite betrayed the people's interests and was transferred to the West.

Therefore, Svyatoslav did not want to give fraternal Bulgaria under the power of the Romans. Byzantium has long tried to bend Bulgaria under itself. Svyatoslav did not want the Greeks to establish themselves on the Danube. The approval of Byzantium on the banks of the Danube and the strengthening at the expense of captured Bulgaria made the Romans the neighbors of Russia, which did not promise the Russians anything good. The prince himself wished to stand firmly in the Danube. Bulgaria could become part of the Russian Empire, or at least be a friendly state.

The Eastern Roman Empire has long tried to subjugate the Bulgarian tribes. But the Bulgarians have repeatedly given a hard answer. Thus, Tsar Simeon I the Great (864 — 927), who miraculously escaped from the “honorable” captivity in Constantinople, himself launched an offensive against the empire. Simeon more than once smashed the Byzantine army and planned to seize Constantinople, to create his own empire. However, the seizure of Constantinople did not take place, Simeon died unexpectedly. The “miracle” that the Greeks so prayed for happened. The son of Simeon, Peter I, ascended to the throne - Peter I. Peter strongly supported the Greek clergy, giving churches and monasteries lands and gold. This caused the spread of heresy, whose supporters called for the rejection of worldly goods (Bogomilism). The meek and God-fearing king lost most of the Bulgarian territories, could not resist the Serbs and Magyars (Hungarians). Byzantium went from defeat and resumed expansion in the Balkans.

While Svyatoslav fought with the Khazars in the Balkans, important events were brewing. In Constantinople, they carefully watched as Bulgaria weakened and decided that the time had come when it was time to take their hands. In 965-966 violent political conflict flared up. The Bulgarian embassy, ​​which appeared in Constantinople for the tribute that the Byzantines had been paying since the times of Simeon's victories, was driven out in disgrace. The emperor ordered the Bulgarian ambassadors to be pushed down the cheeks and called the Bulgarians poor and disgusting people. The Bulgarian tribute was clothed in the form of the content of the Byzantine Princess Maria, who became the wife of the Bulgarian Tsar Peter. Mary passed away in the 963 year, and Byzantium was able to break this formality. It was a reason to go on the offensive.

Everything was prepared for the capture of Bulgaria. On the throne was a meek and indecisive king, more busy with church affairs than with matters of development and state protection. He was surrounded by a craze-minded boyars, the old comrades of Simeon, who saw the threat from the Greeks, were pushed aside from the throne. Byzantium allowed itself in relations with Bulgaria more and more dictates, actively intervened in domestic politics, supported the provantian party in the Bulgarian capital. The country has entered a period of feudal fragmentation. The development of large boyar landownership contributed to the emergence of political separatism, leading to the impoverishment of the masses. A significant part of the boyars saw a way out of the crisis in strengthening ties with Byzantium, supporting its foreign policy, and strengthening Greek cultural, religious, and economic influence. Boyars did not want a strong royal power and preferred dependence on Constantinople. They say that the emperor is far away and will not be able to control the boyars, the power of the Greeks will be nominal, and the real power will remain with the big feudal lords.

A serious turn occurred in relations with Russia. Formerly friends, peoples of the same origin, and brother-countries connected by long-time kinship, cultural and economic ties, they more than once opposed the Byzantine Empire. Now everything has changed. The pro-Byzantine party in the Bulgarian kingdom followed with suspicion and hatred the successes and strengthening of Russia. In the 940-ies, the Bulgarians with Chersonese twice warned Constantinople about the performance of Russian troops. In Kiev, it quickly noticed. Bulgaria from a former ally became hostile to the Byzantium bridgehead. It was dangerous.

In addition, at this time, the Second Rome significantly strengthened its army. Already in the last years of the reign of Emperor Roman, the Byzantine armies, under the leadership of talented commanders, the brothers Nikifor and Lev Foki, achieved notable success in the struggle against the Arabs. In 961, after a seven-month siege, the capital of the Cretan Arabs Handan was captured. The allied Russian detachment also participated in this campaign. The Byzantine fleet established dominance in the Aegean Sea. Lev Fok won victories in the East. Having taken the throne, Nikifor Fock, a stern warrior and ascetic man, continued to purposefully form a new Byzantine army, the core of which was the "knights" - catapractic (from the ancient Greek. Κατάφρακτος - armored). The armament of the cataphractarians is primarily characterized by heavy armor, which defended the warrior from head to toe. The cataphractarium wore a lamellar or scaly shell. Protective armor was not only riders, but also their horses. The main weapons katafraktaria was kontos (ancient Greek κοντός, "cattle"; lat. contus) - a huge spear that reached Sarmatian length, probably 4 — 4,5. The blows of such weapons were terrible: ancient authors report that these spears could pierce right through two people. The heavily armed cavalry attacked the enemy in light trot with a close formation. Protected by armor from arrows, darts and other projectiles, they represented a formidable force, and often, overturning the enemy with long spears, broke through his battle formations. The light cavalry and infantry that followed the “knights” completed the rout. Nikifor Fock devoted himself to the war and conquered Cyprus from the Arabs, oppressed them in Asia Minor, preparing for the campaign against Antioch. The success of the empire was facilitated by the fact that the Arab Caliphate entered a period of feudal fragmentation, Bulgaria became dependent, Russia under the rule of Princess Olga also came under the cultural, and therefore political, influence of Tsargrad-Constantinople.

In Constantinople, it was decided that it was time to end Bulgaria, to include it in the empire. It was necessary to act, while in Preslav there was a weak power and a strong pro-Byzantine party. It was impossible to give her the opportunity to escape from the cleverly woven networks. Bulgaria has not yet been completely broken. The traditions of Tsar Simeon were alive. The grandees of Simeon in Preslav moved away into the shadows, but still retained influence among the people. The provisan politics, the loss of previous gains and the dramatic material enrichment of the Greek clergy provoked discontent on the part of the Bulgarian people, part of the boyars.

Therefore, Bulgarian Queen Maria barely died, the Second Rome immediately went to the gap. The Greeks refused to pay tribute, and the Bulgarian ambassadors were defiantly humiliated. When Preslav raised the issue of renewing the 927 peace agreement of the year, Constantinople demanded that Peter’s sons, Roman and Boris, come to Byzantium as hostages, and Bulgaria itself would not let the Hungarian troops pass through its territory to the Byzantine border. In 966, there was a final break. It should be noted that the Hungarians really disturbed Byzantium, passing freely through Bulgaria. Between Hungary and Bulgaria there was an agreement that during the passage of the Hungarian troops through the Bulgarian territory to the possessions of Byzantium, the Hungarians should be loyal to the Bulgarian population. Therefore, the Greeks accused Preslav of treachery, in a latent form of aggression against Byzantium by the hands of the Hungarians. The Bulgarians could not or did not want to stop the Hungarian raiders. Indeed, in the case of resistance, Bulgaria itself became the object of aggression. Part of the Bulgarian boyars who hated the Greeks, with pleasure used the Hungarians against the empire.

Constantinople, leading the incessant struggle with the Arab world, did not dare to divert the main forces for the war with the Bulgarian kingdom, which was still quite a strong opponent. Therefore, in Constantinople decided to use the strategy of divide and conquer, and with one blow to solve several problems at once. First, defeat Bulgaria with the forces of Russia, retaining its troops, and then absorb the Bulgarian territories. Moreover, with the failure of the troops of Svyatoslav, Constantinople won again - two dangerous enemies for Byzantium — Bulgaria and Russia — faced each other’s heads. Bulgaria was repelled by Russia, which could help the fraternal people in the struggle against the Second Rome. Secondly, the Byzantines diverted the threat from their Kherson theme, which was the breadbasket of the empire. Svyatoslav was sent to the Danube, where he could die. Thirdly, the success and failure of the army of Svyatoslav were to weaken the military might of Russia, which after the liquidation of the Khazars became a particularly dangerous enemy. The Bulgarians were considered a strong enemy, and they had to offer stubborn resistance to the army of Svyatoslav.

Judging by the actions of Svyatoslav, he saw the game of the Second Rome. But decided to go to the Danube. Svyatoslav could not calmly look at the place of the formerly friendly Russia of the Bulgarian kingdom, occupied by a weaker, and hostile Bulgaria, that fell into the hands of a provisant party. Bulgaria controlled the Russian trade routes along the western coast of the Black Sea, through the lower Danube cities down to the Byzantine border. Combining hostile Rus Bulgaria with the remnants of the Khazars and the Pechenegs could be a serious threat to Russia from the south-western direction. And with the liquidation of Bulgaria and the seizure of its territory by Byzantium, the imperial armies, with the support of the Bulgarian troops, would already have become a threat. Apparently, Svyatoslav decided to take part of Bulgaria, to establish control over the Danube, including the area of ​​the Rus streets, and to neutralize the Byzantine party around Tsar Peter. This was to bring Bulgaria back into the mainstream of the Russian-Bulgarian alliance. In this case, he could rely on the part of the Bulgarian nobility and people. Later, Svyatoslav, having received a reliable rear in Bulgaria, could already put pressure on the Second Rome in order to make his policy more friendly.

The Byzantine Empire began the war first. In 966, Basileus Nikifor Fock moved the army to the border of Bulgaria, and Kalokir immediately left for Kiev. The Romans captured several border towns. They managed to capture the strategically important city in Thrace, the present-day Plovdiv, with the help of the pro-Quantized nobility. However, this military successes ended. Greek troops stopped in front of the Balkan Mountains. They did not dare to make their way to the internal Bulgarian regions through difficult passes and forested gorges, where a small detachment could stop the whole army. In these mountains in the past, many warriors laid down their heads. Nikifor Fock pretended that he had won a decisive victory and returned to the capital with triumph and again switched to the Arabs. The fleet moved to Sicily, and Basileus himself, at the head of the land army, went to Syria. At this time, in the east, Svyatoslav went on the offensive. In 967, the Russian army marched on the Danube.



To be continued ...
127 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +18
    7 June 2018 06: 02
    Bulgaria is a good country, and Russia is the best)
    Sometimes Svyatoslav forgot about Kievism - in favor of long trips.
    Although ... the Balkan Empire would not have been in the way. Yes, that's just the Macedonian dynasty of the Empire of the Romans against)
    1. 0
      7 June 2018 07: 02
      Winsheim's "Geography" for 1745

      Alane - Slavic people ...



      -Cherkesses are Cherkasy, a map of the 18th century, the Romanovs replaced their old rivals -Cossacks of Cherkasy with the fictional people -Cherkesses, who have the self-name of the Adyghe.
      On the 18vea map we see this
      -The Khvalynsk Sea is a slightly distorted true name of the sea, the Galensky sea i.e. Galsky.



      Circassians are the people in the Russian Federation living in Karachay-Cherkessia [3], as well as in the Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories, Adygea, Kabardino-Balkaria and other regions. The number is about 73,2 thousand people, including in Karachay-Cherkessia - 56,5 thousand people (trans. 2010). They live mainly in 17 villages of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic.


      isn't it funny? A people of 70 thousand people today, but how many were there in the 9th century? Yes, generally not at all, it was not at all in the 19th century. But what a story. The Circassians invented a gun castle, a saber, and a Circassian. All this was stolen by historians from the Cherkasy people in order to hide the true story.
      1. +5
        7 June 2018 08: 15
        isn't it funny? A people of 70 thousand people today, but how many were there in the 9th century? Yes, generally not at all, it was not at all in the 19th century

        according to Russian historians about three million
        Timur, and you about Great Kabarda, have you heard anything?
        There was such a country friendly to Russia and hostile to the Crimean Khan. There were Kabardins and Russian tsarina. And in the Time of Troubles, the Kabardians sent Circassian troops to help Kuzma Minin and Prince Pozharsky
        But in 1763, the Russian Empire began the construction of the Mozdok fortress in Kabarda; the Kabardian embassy, ​​received by Empress Catherine II in 1764, demanded to stop the construction of the fortress, but was refused. This led to a war between Russia and Circassia, which lasted a total of about 101 years (1763-1864). The battles were scary. No wonder the famous Krasnaya Polyana near Sochi bears this name. In addition to everything, a terrible epidemic of plague broke out in Kabarda in the early 1820s, which killed a large part of the population (according to the estimates of the Russian historian Potte, at least 1 million people). In Lesser Kabarda, where the disease was most rampant, almost the entire population died, and its territory actually became deserted. After a significant part of the Kabardians died in hostilities, and the majority of the remaining population died from the plague, Kabarda could no longer continue military operations against the colonialists. And in 1825, Kabarda fell and was finally included in the Russian Empire, and the population was deported: part to the Terek region. and most of them went to Turkey and Asia Minor, where they continued to fight with Russia - the infamous bash-bazouks - these are none other than the Circassians who fled to Turkey. According to the estimates of General Fadeev, more than 250 thousand Circassians fled to Turkey .. According to the 1865 Turkish census, there were 70 families.
        according to the UN General Assembly Convention of July 28, 1951 In the XNUMXth century, the mass extermination and expulsion of Circassians, Circassians, Kabardins, Dzhegetov and Abkhazians (Abaza) in the Ottoman Empire was recognized - genocide - the gravest crime against humanity.

        The Black Sea Cossacks called the Kuban were “planted” on the lands conquered from the Kabardins.
        1. +1
          7 June 2018 08: 44
          Quote: Rich
          Russian historians estimate about three million


          what kind of historians? link?

          Quote: Rich
          Timur, and you about Great Kabarda, have you heard anything?


          look deeper right away
          -Cabarda is a cab Horde
          this is the same Horde, the Horde troops are the Cossacks, who were the troops of the empire. The Romanovs fought with the Horde and Tartaria / Dardaria until the 20th century, the latest wars are the Opium Wars, the Central Asian campaigns of Kaufman and Skobelev and the Caucasian Wars-the struggle against the type of Circassians. In fact, it was a struggle against the Cossacks, Cherkasy, and Kabarda is one of the names of the Cossacks, the Hordes.
          But in order to hide the scale and the most important meaning of these wars, the Romanovs historians simply changed the name of the Circassians to the Circassians, the Mongols to the Mongols, the Dardaria to Tartaria, and it immediately became unclear who these peoples were.
          Alans are a historical people. Who raided Europe, now it’s like the Ossetians-Alans, but in fact they are Slavic people, as Winsheim writes.
          1. +1
            7 June 2018 17: 01
            L.I. Lavrov, referring to the work of I. Barbaro (fifteenth century), speaks of the North Caucasian people of the "Querevets" as the ancestors of the Kabardins. Evliya ебelebi derived this term from the Arabic ethnonym Kabailitai, mistakenly called Kabartai. K.F. Gan points to a possible ethnic connection between the Kabarda tribe, which was part of the Ugrians (Hungarians) who occupied ancient Pannonymy, and Kabardians. The latter assumption is based on the historical news that at the beginning of the 914th century (around XNUMX) in the Khazar state “... three tribes, the main of which were called cabarets, were outraged by the power of the kagan ... Some of them went to the Ugrians in Pannonia , others to the foot of the Caucasus, where we find their descendants under the name of the Kabardians. "

            More details about Kabarda, their language contacts with Ugrians (this is important for understanding the nature of Kabarda), as well as the correlation of the concept of Kabarda with modern Kabardians is said by Semeon Bronevsky with reference to Konstantin Porfirorodny.

            "Under 883 on the river Chr. Emperor Konstantin Profirorodnyi mentions that on the occasion of the internecine strife between the Khazars, three Khazar generations called Kavars and Kabars, being defeated from their fellow tribesmen, retired to the Majars or Ugrians and made up the eightth tribe of the Hungarians under the common name of the Kovars, and introduced the Khazar language between the Hungarians learned yourself in Hungarian. "

            From the historical fact of the Cabaret revolt, the etymology of the word Cabaret is derived, comparing it with the Turk. Kaburd “noise, rebellion”. We give the meaning of the last word according to Radlov.

            However, sources indicate that the Cabaret people chronologically existed in Europe much earlier than the Khazars appeared.

            J. Blashkovich notes that the name of the cabaret is “rebellious” ... three Khazar tribes who were indignant against the kagan and defeated by the latter received after these tribes joined the Hungarian tribal association in Ukraine. Further, the author reports that the common self-name of these three Khazar tribes was “Kabar-kazar”.
        2. +1
          7 June 2018 08: 49
          Quote: Rich
          The Black Sea Cossacks called the Kuban were “planted” on the lands conquered from the Kabardins.


          another myth.
    2. dSK
      0
      7 June 2018 08: 30
      Quote: Streletskos
      Russia is the best
      the god of the “sun”, the god of “thunder”, the god of “wind” ... They created a telescope - a bunch of planets and even more of Mother Earth, myriads of stars turned out to be "suns" with their planets. The question is, who created this "miracle", the god of the "wind"?
      1. dSK
        +1
        7 June 2018 09: 05
        Currently, 2,3 billion Christians and 1,7 billion Muslims live in the world (wikipedia)
        who do not believe in many "gods" and how to call those who call 75% of earthlings "deceived"?
        1. dSK
          0
          7 June 2018 18: 57
          Galatians of the Apostle Paul 3: 26-28

          "For you are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus; all of you who were baptized into Christ are clothed in Christ.
          There is no longer Judea, nor a Gentile; no slave, nor free; no male or female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

          Number of believers Russian Empire, according to the census of 1897 of the year: Christians total - 104448088 people, including: Orthodox - 87 people.
          For the 1870s sources of the Russian Empire provide the following information on the national composition of Russia: Russians - 72,5% (more than 86 million). (wikipedia).
          This is not a fake, but fact. hi
    3. 0
      7 June 2018 21: 00
      From 47: 48 about Svyatoslav’s campaigns in Bulgaria.
  2. +1
    7 June 2018 06: 16
    Byzantium well represented its interests.
  3. +3
    7 June 2018 06: 54
    By replacing the words “Russian” with “Ukrainian” in the article, the Ukrainian “scientists” will receive another “masterpiece” of historical thought!
    1. +3
      7 June 2018 09: 03
      And in what year did the Ukrainians recapture Kiev from the Russians?
      1. BAI
        +5
        7 June 2018 09: 25
        26.12.1991.
        1. 0
          7 June 2018 12: 20
          Some ugly Ukrainian people migrated to the lands around Kiev and occupied the ancient Russian city.
          1. +4
            7 June 2018 12: 31
            In general, yes. Until 1991, back in 1918, the Russian city of Kiev was recaptured from the Russians, and the invasion of the Selyuk-Petliurites was well described in the White Guard at Bulgakov.
            1. 0
              8 June 2018 15: 27
              Quote: Gopnik
              Until 1991, back in 1918, the Russian city of Kiev was recaptured from the Russians,

              interesting. Kiev, someone founded, someone lived there
              In the following centuries, Kiev was the center of administrative units within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Commonwealth and the Russian Empire, which was transformed into the Russian Empire. Then the UNR (directories / getmanat, etc.) Then the USSR and again Ukraine.
              In general, people did not change there. As an everywhere. Only the worldview is changing. Physically, people are the same. There was no great resettlement of peoples, and the "Ukrainians" could not come from the steppes to the "Russian city" and even more so to capture something (the millionth center)
              they have already been there for a long time because they live there.
              The fact that the Russian Federation and Ukraine argue over the historical heritage is understandable. Both fragments of the great states. They pull the blanket over themselves.
              1. 0
                1 July 2018 22: 13
                Quote: Antares
                interesting. Kiev, someone founded, someone lived there

                Historically, in the chronicles, as the founders of Kiev, the Goths were the first to be recorded - this is about the 3 century. hr ("Danparstadt" - "Dnieper shelter"). But it is not clear, maybe they have already taken a convenient settlement on the Dnieper or in the Kiev region with some local tribes (possibly Slavic). But the Gothic creamic is distinctly present there.

                But then came the Huns and the multinational huge empire was ready to end. Probably the Huns also burned what was Kiev. And then he apparently rose in the 4-5 centuries., Already obsessed with Slavs of unknown origin (perhaps not glades) or even the remnants of the Sarmatians. It was a trading point in a convenient location. And soon (approximately in the 6-7 centuries) a trading post was founded there by Jewish Rahdonite merchants, in which the city grew rapidly, becoming a large shopping center. Then came the entry into the Khazar Khaganate, the invasion of Russia, the war of Prince Oleg and already well-known events ...
          2. 0
            7 June 2018 12: 35
            Quote: Severski
            Some ugly Ukrainian people migrated to the lands around Kiev and occupied the ancient Russian city.


            Now imagine how in this connection you can read the name of "ancient" Kiev
            -Kiev- to / g_ and / o_ ev-GOEV.
            it turns out the city of goyim. Maybe Galuta was expelled from the Volga / Don and nailed to the Dnieper to Kiev / Goev?
            1. +10
              7 June 2018 12: 50
              And if you quickly repeat the word train, you get a completely different word. Maybe this is so originally conceived in order to discredit the railway connection in Russia?
              1. +8
                7 June 2018 16: 01
                Oh, these homegrown linguists ... wassat
                Well, at least one of them would take an interest in linguistics as a science, which, by the way, has its own well-recognized and proven laws, one of which says that if in the process of language evolution one sound replaces another, then it replaces it IN ALL words. I am even afraid to suppose what will happen if in Russian all “ki” are replaced by “go” ... Instead of “cinema” there will be “gono”, which is, in general, partly correct, of course ... We turn out to play billiards “goy”, and “great” in its original form will be “veliga” (oh, mother!), the name “Kirill” means “Goril” (aaa, save!), “kilometer” - “holometer” ( -e-e !!!), and what is the great Russthatis superethnos? wassat fool I can't take it anymore.
                Bar1, burn on! For now, we will analyze your nickname by the Fomenkov method.
                Bar unit = bareditsa, the second half of the word is read in the reverse reading (is it possible, right?), We get "barred atsini" = "nonsense rate." Everything is clear, colleagues. The diagnosis is ready. Who else wants to study applied linguistics in Fomenkow? Come today for free. laughing
                1. +1
                  7 June 2018 16: 25
                  Be careful. Shiko also showed how to deal with royal names. And there are enough dreamers here.
                2. 0
                  7 June 2018 17: 13
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  one of which says that if in the process of the evolution of a language one sound replaces another, then it replaces it IN ALL words


                  prove ...
                  1. +4
                    7 June 2018 18: 09
                    You?
                    You can not prove anything. I think you are hopeless.
                    Nevertheless, read or watch the lectures of Andrei Zaliznyak on amateur linguistics. In short, who is looking for, he will find. Personally, I am not well versed in linguistics, to give here a qualified explanation. I don’t want to look like a superintellektualualom, knowing any subject better than all the doctors and professors who have spent decades studying it, as is common among your brethren.
                    1. +2
                      7 June 2018 18: 35
                      http://elementy.ru/nauchno-populyarnaya_bibliotek
                      a / 430720
                      Here, try it.
                    2. +1
                      7 June 2018 18: 43
                      Quote: Trilobite Master
                      You can not prove anything. I think you are hopeless.




                      Well, why, if there are convincing arguments. As for Zalizniak’s article on amateur and professional linguistics, then on our chronology website we have long disassembled his work and I will give you some of the analysis. For example, Zaliznyak said that in the Russian language the letters _B_ do not go into _B_ or in _P_


                      Unlike a professional who considers himself obliged to give a precise explanation of each phoneme in its composition when analyzing the origin of a word, an amateur linguist never shows such exactingness to himself.

                      For example, he considers it entirely acceptable that, instead of the expected b, the word he understands appears in, or n, or;; instead of t - d, or q, or s, or s, or w, or w. When comparing words, he considers it possible to discard any letters, that is, to disregard, some others, on the contrary, to conject; he easily allows the rearrangement of letters, etc.


                      and imagine, the famous linguist, Novgorod grammar, turned out to be wrong. Very much pass.
                      Moisture-swamp
                      war slaughter
                      coarse calico
                      -song-fable
                      Pelican Giant
                      Apple Apple
                      insidious cobra
                      -ship-box-caravel
                      - area - volost
                      -Mare-Cavella-Cavalry-Caballero-Cavalier

                      Zaliznyak puffs his cheeks too much, linguistics is not a science, the rules according to which the development of languages ​​supposedly does not work basically and there are more exceptions in language "laws" in philology than there are confirmations.
                      1. +1
                        7 June 2018 19: 30
                        Quote: Bar1
                        As for Zalizniak’s article on amateur and professional linguistics, on our website chronology, he dismantled his work long ago

                        Andrei Anatolievich Zaliznyak - Soviet and Russian linguist [6], academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Department of Literature and Language (1997), doctor of philological sciences (1965, while defending his thesis). Known for his work in the field of Russian inflection and accentology, as well as research on the history of the Russian language, primarily on the language of Novgorod birch bark letters and "Words on Igor's Campaign". One of the founders of the Moscow school of comparative studies.

                        Winner of the State Prize of Russia 2007. He was awarded the Great Gold Medal named after M.V. Lomonosov of the Russian Academy of Sciences (2007) and many other prizes.

                        "And who are the judges?" (c) The same "engineers" as you? lol Why did you suddenly come to the conclusion that the truth in science (any) should be established by a majority of votes of "engineers" who have nothing to do with this field of knowledge?
                      2. +3
                        7 June 2018 20: 42
                        Quote: Bar1
                        Well, why, if there are convincing arguments

                        So I say - you can’t prove anything. After all, the degree of persuasiveness of the arguments you yourself determine. Moreover, this definition is based on the principle "does not fit into my system of views - not convincing" laughing
                        Those words that you quoted - are you sure that they are generally related? Me not. What Zaliznyak is talking about (blessed memory of man!) You have now demonstrated - exactly as he describes. Only in the last chain are there many unnecessary entities. Need "mare - mare - cavalier." laughing
                        Well and so, for absolutely too much fun. Where did you read at Zaliznyak that replacing the sound “b” with “c” is impossible? Read carefully. It is possible, only by certain rules, in certain conditions, exclusively in one direction and for all words of the language. Read, study.
                        Quote: Bar1
                        there are more exceptions in linguistic "laws" in philology than there are confirmations.

                        Oh-ho-ho ... If you would still be familiar with these laws ... Yes, you would know how to apply them ... You know, Zaliznyak - I believe in a professional. I and Fomenko will believe when he starts talking about mathematics, not about history. And if the words of Fomenko and Zaliznyak diverge, I will believe Zaliznyak in the field of linguistics, and Fomenko in the field of mathematics. In the field of history, and only in certain issues, I can already afford not to believe, that is, to doubt, verify, because I know which sources to contact with verification, I can analyze, compare and possess sufficient knowledge for this, I am familiar with the methodology historical knowledge, some auxiliary historical disciplines, which were interested in the subject. But, even at this level, I’m not trying to put myself on a par with doctors and candidates of historical sciences, because I perfectly understand the difference between a professional and an amateur, whom I am in the field of history.
                        Therefore, forgive me, your personally, and all the other new age-old opuses, can not cause me anything but evil irony and mocking compassion for the wretched mind and aggressive ignorance of their creators.
              2. +2
                7 June 2018 16: 23
                And the nationality of this custom can be seen at most crossings in different regions of the Russian Federation and neighboring countries. As the representativeness of these philological calculations shows.

                But censorship is unlikely to miss photos. But this is because they are satraps.
  4. +2
    7 June 2018 08: 01
    The author accurately noted that in Byzantium there was a tradition to rewrite history with any change of power and to justify their own treachery. These traditions are still alive. There is no Byzantium, but there are Christians who reverently keep traditions. And today, churchmen are editing history, * correcting *.
    One of the traditions of Byzantium was the poisoning of the unwanted. The fact that Svyatoslav and his warriors Byzantines poisoned is beyond doubt. Well, do not believe the Christian chroniclers that the experienced commander * did not take something into account * and ended up at the Dnieper rapids without supplies and with * a small squad *.
    In RUSSIA, Christians lie about the events that occur today, and about the events of * baptism * RUSI for them generally sanctified by the lies of Gundyaev himself.
    1. dSK
      0
      7 June 2018 08: 24
      Quote: Vasily50
      but the Christians remained

      which are under the banners One god overcame endless inter-war wars and created the Russian Empire from the Black and Baltic Seas to the Pacific Ocean.
      Secretary of the Security Council of Russia Nikolai Patrushev during a retreat in Saratov (June 6, 2018) declared the need to strictly suppress attempts to involve minors, including sports fans, in destructive organizations. He attributed to them including totalitarian sects that profess ideas of neopaganism, occultism and satanism, reports the agency "RIA Novosti".
      To stop, according to Patrushev, it is necessary to try to involve minors in illegal public events. “Among the main factors forming the prerequisites for the emergence of extremist manifestations in the youth environment, include the activities of special services and organizations of foreign states and the Russian opposition structures supervised by them", - explained the Secretary of the Security Council.
      1. +1
        7 June 2018 17: 44
        Under the banners of the “One God” in the history of mankind, the most bloody wars were fought. And each time the next "monotheists" earnestly committed robbery and genocide. If the Russian empire were created exclusively by "Christians" (and not Muscovites, Horde, Cossacks, "Germans" of the Romanov era), then in 1917-24, churches would not be broken throughout the entire Empire, with the indifference of the bulk of the people. Christianity in Russia brought peace through humility, but in fact led to the inability to defend its state and its foundations, with full justification and service to those in power.
    2. +3
      7 June 2018 08: 57
      dsk
      Do not lie so frankly. Even today in RUSSIA there are those who can read. And about how the churchmen tore apart the ancient Rus for their inheritance and about how they seated the Romanovs on the throne. and about how they participated in the February Revolution, and then participated in the Civil War and how today they are trying to appropriate the VICTORY in the GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR.
      Today, the danger from the church is that they are eager to educate the younger generation. Until raking under the church orphanages and schools.
      1. dSK
        +1
        7 June 2018 09: 10
        You should not lie so frankly about how the churchmen tore apart the ancient Rus for their inheritance.
      2. 0
        1 July 2018 22: 18
        Quote: Vasily50
        And about how the churchmen tore apart the ancient Rus for their inheritance and about how they seated the Romanovs on the throne. and about how they participated in the February Revolution, and then participated in the Civil War and how today they are trying to appropriate the VICTORY in the GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR.
        Today, the danger from the church is that they are eager to educate the younger generation. Until raking under the church orphanages and schools.

        Dear Dmitry, when I read your posts, I get the feeling that you are raving.
        1. “Churchmen” did not tear Ancient Russia into destinies. Read the preserved chronicles and other works of the Middle Ages - everything is filled with lamentations about the mutual dislike of the princes and stories of constant attempts to reconcile aristocrats who are just quarreling because of worldly goods.

        2. "Seated on the throne of the Romanovs." You apparently didn’t read anything at all about the Russian National Council, which reassured the country after the Troubles and which the whole people chose the king?

        3. The February Revolution was recognized by some of the church leaders, but a huge minority. Moreover, they in no way participated in it. And the October Revolution, as a coup, which ensured the coming of the enemies of Russia to power, was rejected by the vast majority of the priesthood.

        About spiritual strength, the valor of the new martyrs of Russia to tell?
    3. +1
      7 June 2018 10: 43
      Quote: Vasily50
      The fact that Svyatoslav and his warriors Byzantines poisoned is beyond doubt. Well, do not believe the Christian chroniclers that the experienced commander * did not take something into account * and ended up at the Dnieper rapids without supplies and with * a small squad *.

      I mean, they poisoned some drug, and they stumbled on high everywhere and without supplies? wassat What a conspiracy theology! laughing
    4. +2
      7 June 2018 13: 24
      Quote: Vasily50
      One of the traditions of Byzantium was the poisoning of the unwanted. The fact that Svyatoslav and his warriors Byzantines poisoned is beyond doubt. Well, do not believe the Christian chroniclers that the experienced commander * did not take something into account * and ended up at the Dnieper rapids without supplies and with * a small squad *.

      Excerpt from epic:
      "... Caesar the Greek cunning Tzimiskes repeated many times to his subjects:
      “Slavic swars are much more profitable, even if you pay with gold for them, than a war with this terrible enemy, who has threatened the Empire for seven hundred years.”
      Theophilus, an Orthodox nun was sent to the Pechenegs on a mission. He came to Kurea for a wake, and he bought from Khan for gold, the death of a pagan - the death of Svyatoslavov. He promised, according to Sveneldov, that Svyatoslav would be at the threshold with a small and weak squad, and a large team and cavalry would be taken away from the thresholds by a Varangian. He beckoned to the Pechenegs and the dowries, all the booty that was loaded into the plows, the one that the Greeks and Russian warriors had cried for leaving Bulgaria.
      Sveneld knew what to count on, he knew only Svyatoslavov's weakness, this weakness was in his valor, his head he would slip into the insatiable mouth of the Pecheneg. And he will pull the plows along the drags, with his small squad, waiting for the Horde attack. An ambush regiment will be sent in advance, as always under the command of the Sveneldov. With him he will send Russian cavalry and a detachment of weakened combatants .. "
      1. 0
        7 June 2018 15: 05
        And why would the vigilantes be weakened? Even the Byzantines themselves did not hide the ability of the Byzantines to make poisons and use them. In Dorostol itself, it was not possible to poison the RUSICH. What Tzimiskes regretted.
        1. +1
          7 June 2018 15: 38
          Quote: Vasily50
          And why would the vigilantes be weakened?

          As Yegor Ivanovich Klassen taught: "... The actions attributed to traditions by some people are, as usual, always exaggerated; but we don’t care about that; if we meet the name of Yaroslav in the Scandinavian saga, then ignoring all the actions attributed to him, we can safely conclude about any relations between the Russes and the Scandinavians in his time or about the memorial of his actions, which preserved his name in the legends of foreigners. - If the saga talks about the battles of the Scandinavians with the Russians, we do not believe the details of these battles but we don’t dare to deny either the existence of the Russes at that time, or their wars with the Scandinavians, and if the locality is mentioned in the legend, then we also know where the Russes had their settledness.
          But if, for example, in the legend of the Scandinavian Attila is described as a truthful and wise man, and in the history of the Romans as a villain, then we will believe the legend, not the history that the haters of Attila wrote, and at a time when it was considered not only an ordinary thing, but even it’s necessary to humiliate your enemy to the point that an epigram or satire is made of history. "
      2. +4
        7 June 2018 16: 07
        Quote: Bully
        Excerpt from epic:

        Oh, bravo! Do you write it yourself? If so, continue, you do.
        1. 0
          7 June 2018 16: 36
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Oh, bravo! Do you write it yourself? If so, continue, you do.

          Oops ... lol Bored, girls ...
  5. +8
    7 June 2018 08: 23
    The hard work of washing the story continues. In terms of the publication of these "works" in the "History" section, the question arises - and what, in fact, is understood as history by those who put all this in this section.
    And the second question is whether an article will be published about the ancient Ukrainians and their heroic epic on clearing the territory under the Black Sea with the subsequent excavation of this sea, if this process is presented as an insidious plan of the Masters of the West?
    1. +6
      7 June 2018 09: 53
      What are the Ukrainians, Viktor Nikolaevich? You read the comments of one ... The horde was, but the Russian, who were Tartars, were also Russian, and those Russians who went to the West, it is clear that the Russians ... are all Russians, and the Ukrists are a myth. So the Russians also dug the sea. But the “masters of the West" are again trying to deceive. Someone says that these are the "masters of the West", someone that it was the Freemasons who came up with the name, someone the Romanovs. But Peter and Catherine - everything, everything was rewritten with them to deceive the poor Russians who are not in the West, not Tartars and not the Horde. It was they who survived in the middle, like r ... into an ice hole that did not sink and did not float, so they got everyone that for several centuries everyone had been deceiving them, and she was walking with noodles on her ears and did not believe anyone. Although the noodles are, but those who remove ... waiting for fate is inevitable. Oh, they bury them alive in the hot asphalt. By the way, you know that Quetzalcoatl is also ... Russian and samurai - "yourself from Amur." It is not clear how the term "saburahi" refers to Amur. Well, it changed, "b" to "m" was replaced and all became Russian. Including the Japanese. Do not believe it? Now you will find a portrait of the Japanese Europeanoid! And you will be proud that you belong to a great nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean!
      1. +5
        7 June 2018 12: 16
        So the Russians also dug the sea.

        about the pyramids, just don’t tell him what the Russians built, Vyacheslav Olegovich. wink After all, he’ll take for the “living”! good the pollsite will smash with intelligence!fellow laughing
        And you will be proud that you belong to a great nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean!

        the Poles dreamed of “from mozh to mozh”, the Finns dreamed of “Great Finland to the Urals,” the Hyperboreans dream more globally - from ocean to ocean! fellow
        1. +4
          7 June 2018 16: 26
          Quote: Mikado
          from ocean to ocean!
          What kind of pettiness, Nikolai? Phi. The true Dolbaslav patriot has long known that Russia is the first and most correct name of our PLANET. Oceans ... In those glorious pores, our ancestors to Mars and Venus flew on a pea engine, and the oceans we carried with spoons for the day. While the Ukrainians were digging their sea, the Russians did everything else for the week, they flew to Venus and had time to return. You are not aware of the scale of the greatness of our ancestors.
          1. +3
            7 June 2018 16: 35
            Duc, I once said to Viktor Nikolaevich, they say, "Wall of China - your doing"? request He is in denial, in no way: "No, we don’t have a stranger to us! Pyramids, we know, were digging; the sea was poured, so; and with the Chinese wall, highly cultured Hyperboreans fenced off from the naked Chinese!" stop laughing men, you are dear to me, at least we laugh, and laughter, as you know, prolongs life! drinks By the way, there is an article about the card case on the arsenal, go read! good
        2. +2
          7 June 2018 22: 26
          I'm afraid more. Apparently, Musk is also a hyperborean.
      2. +4
        7 June 2018 13: 09
        No, Vyacheslav Olegovich! There is information that Kratet Mullsky created his first globe after traveling to the Berezan settlement. But the Berezans didn’t get the idea of ​​a globe from both ancient ukrov from anyone. The sea was dug around the globe. And the island of Berezan turned out in the process of digging. Then the Masters of the West destroyed this information, and slipped the German Behaim (then someone else doubts that the Germans redid the story), like it was he who created the first globe. So the globe and the sea are ours, Ukrainian.
        1. +3
          8 June 2018 15: 31
          Quote: Curious
          So the globe and the sea are ours, Ukrainian.

          do not take away the hope of the "super-Russians." laughing (Samsonov)
          and that sea of ​​oceans, it's all the little things, but the planets and the universe ..
          1. 0
            9 June 2018 13: 29
            But, but. Enough of pseudo-histories)) Everyone knows that Russians are Mordvin - Erzya (see: for example, the work of a certain A. Sharonov), and their neighbors helped them - the Sumerians, they are also proto-Chuvash. winked (See: Chuvash Sumerologist Egorov) wink
  6. +5
    7 June 2018 09: 06
    Another tale, a la Samsonov about the Russian superethnos.
    1. +5
      7 June 2018 10: 11
      It would probably be more correct to publish such articles not in the "history" section, but in the "opinion" section.
      1. +2
        7 June 2018 12: 22
        Agree with you
  7. +7
    7 June 2018 10: 03
    That's what Samsonov (we will call this phenomenon as it calls itself) cannot be denied, because it is in perseverance and dedication. Nails would make of these people - more would become blunt wooden nails. And in fact, despite the obvious primitiveness and stupidity of interpretations of well-known historical facts, their apparent inconsistency in relation to each other and to common sense, are "brothers in mind" from the author, every time they are.
    What surprises me most is the fact that some commentators (Novokhronolozhtsy, for example), who a priori cannot share the author's views on history, because they do not correspond to the fabrications of their gurus, leave him benevolent comments and do not rush to prove their the truth, as it happens in disputes with normal people. By the smell of some kind of mental, they smell their own, or something ...
    How can you not remember the unforgettable Bulat Shalovich Okudzhava with his immortal
    "Du.raki love to gather in flocks
    Ahead is the main in all its glory "
    That's right about the article Samsonov, do not give, do not take.
    1. +1
      7 June 2018 16: 28
      And the caravan is coming.

      I’ll wait for the Feast of Peter and Paul, and also, without the page set out, I will not allow myself to walk.
  8. +4
    7 June 2018 10: 33
    Bulgarians have just begun to separate from the single superethnos of the Rus. Rus and Bulgarians only recently prayed to the same gods, the Bulgarians have not forgotten the old gods, celebrated only holidays, language, customs and traditions were one, with small territorial differences.
    But is it nothing that the Bulgars were Türks (with the language closest to modern Chuvash) and before the adoption of Christianity they prayed to Tangra (among other Türks - Tengri)?
    1. +3
      7 June 2018 12: 46
      I was in Bulgaria back in 1968 and saw a procession of cookie makers - their national cattle gods. I was very surprised by their appearance, and my peer, a boy from Bulgaria, explained to me well in Russian how and why. Then he read literature at the institute. In general, there are no analogies with our pantheon, although the cattle god Veles was also with us.
      1. +2
        7 June 2018 13: 42
        He lived in Bulgaria for two years. He was familiar with Plamen Pavlov. Not that close, but communicated in a "warm, friendly atmosphere." It would be interesting to hear his comments on this delirium.
    2. +3
      7 June 2018 15: 58
      But is it nothing that the Bulgars were Türks (with the language closest to modern Chuvash) and before the adoption of Christianity they prayed to Tangra (among other Türks - Tengri)?

      The thesis of the "Turkism" of the old Bulgarians is categorically refuted by ALL genetic studies!
      The thesis of the belief of the old Bulgarians in Tangra, too, has no confirmation in any of the sources or artifacts. It arose on the basis of an inaccurate read of one single stone inscription from the time of Kan Omurtag.
      1. 0
        7 June 2018 21: 15
        Quote: pytar
        The thesis of the "Turkism" of the old Bulgarians is categorically refuted by ALL genetic studies!

        and what, in your opinion, is the "typically Turkic" genotype? "Mongolian" haplogroup C?
        Bulgarians: 23% I2 (Old European), 22% E1b (African - mass migration to the Balkans 35 centuries ago), 17% R1a (Aryan), 11% R1b (Western European), 11% J2 (Mediterranean), 0,5% N1 (Finnish )
        Chuvashs: 11% I2, 12% E1b,, 28% R1a, 2% R1b, 14% J2, 28% N1. The only major difference is the large "Finnish" component, but they mixed with them already in the Volga region. And so - Aryan blood is even more than that of the Bulgarians, but quite a lot of typical I2, J2 and even African E1b typical for southern Europe.
        1. 0
          7 June 2018 22: 31
          It’s too lazy to write for a long time. I'll give you a link to the video. It is in Bulgarian, but can understand what the speech is about. I don’t know what the Chuvashs are. But the dudes are very beautiful! Yes
      2. 0
        8 June 2018 17: 21
        Türks are a language group, no “genetic research” defines it and cannot determine it.
    3. +4
      7 June 2018 17: 01
      Quote: Weyland
      And nothing, that the Bulgars were Turks

      Bulgarians - Slavs. But they got the name from the newcomers - the Bulgars, who settled in their lands and quickly assimilated with the local Slavic population. A similar story, as I understand it, occurred in Russia. Russia, according to one of the hypotheses, which personally seems to me the most convincing - the distorted Finnish "Ruotsi" - the aliens on boats, as the Finns called (and still call) the Swedes. The Danube Slavs had a Turkic top - they are Bulgarians, among the Dnepr Slavs - Scandinavian, they are Rus, Russians. But in the end, both those and others quickly assimilated, leaving only their names and very few genes to the peoples and, perhaps, the very smallness of the gods.
      1. +1
        7 June 2018 18: 38
        Maybe you are right. For example, Greeks are very offended when they call them Greeks, they call themselves Greeks, but modern Greeks are a mixture of southern Slavs and Albanians. Or modern Italians, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, this deserted territory was settled by Syrian peasants. Or Russians - Slavs, Turks, Meria, all - all in one glass.
      2. +2
        7 June 2018 19: 59
        Bulgarians are Slavs ... The Slavs of the Danube had a Turkic elite - they are Bulgarians

        Hi Michael! For a long time, historians thought so. But genetics came and collapsed all the hypotheses. The obtained surprising and converging results, with several large-scale studies. This is for the last 5-7 years. I will say very briefly: The genetic material was obtained from the skeletons of the oldest agricultural Neolithic / pre-Thracian civilization in Europe - it is on the Balkans / identical on 80-90% from the Bulgarian. He is not Thracian and not Slavic. Current Bulgarians have 50-70% Pra-Bulgarian genetic benefit. Obviously the proto-Bulgarians were numerous. Absolutely no presence on the genes characteristic of the Turkic peoples was found. It turns out that the great-Bulgarians are the autochronous population of the Balkans. They did not come, but returned. Moreover, they probably had hundreds of years of contact with the Slavs and their language was close to Slavic. There is no historical information about any problems in communication. This explains a lot of conflicting facts. For example, the one that Bulgarian is the Slavic language, but with features characteristic only for it, which the rest of the Slavic languages ​​do not have. Let me remind you that only the modern Bulgarian / and the Macedonian ego / are analytical, and all other Slavic languages ​​- synthetic. All languages ​​were once synthetic. From time to time they go over to analytic ones. This has happened in a few thousand years. Modern analytic languages ​​are older than synthetic ones.
        1. +1
          7 June 2018 22: 16
          Your point of view is interesting, but not certain. I am not such an expert on this issue, but I know one major specialist in ethnology and geography. Why geography, because the ethnos' habitat is very important for its development or degradation. I recommend that you read Leo Gumilyov: Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe: In this book, the laws of the development and death of an ethnic group are described in an accessible language. And the topic of this article is fully covered. But of course this is one of the views on history.
          1. +2
            7 June 2018 22: 33
            Read Leo Gumilyov. But with complex incidents, one must rest on the whole complex of science. Using at the same time its different directions and the most advanced research technologies! "That which was silent yesterday, will speak tomorrow!" A complex puzzle, the only way to fully assemble. Otherwise, only separate elements are obtained, but you will not see the whole picture.
            1. +1
              7 June 2018 23: 54
              No need to quote Gumilyov. I ask - do not need fiction. Better Vasilevsky and Zlatarsky with Koledarov.
              1. 0
                8 June 2018 14: 05
                For me, Gumilev is not an authority. From the word at all. I read it as an example for studying manipulations with political and ideological implications.
                1. 0
                  8 June 2018 18: 26
                  I do not understand the phrase: political and ideological implication :. Gumilev was repressed, he was not allowed to defend his doctoral dissertation in the USSR, although all his colleagues and friends called him a professor. He was a practitioner all his life, participated in many archaeological expeditions. What is not what Gumilev did not please you. It is difficult to name a larger specialist in the Great Steppe, and from there the Bulgarians in Europe drew Hungarians. By the way, his works became more or less available only in the 80s of the last century. It was difficult to find such an unbiased scientist in the USSR.
                  1. +1
                    8 June 2018 19: 37
                    Gumilev lived and worked in the previous century. Died in 1992. All his studies are limited by the possibilities of that time and that political system. Living in the USSR and just physically being 20 years in the GULAGs could not work exchanging with scientists from other countries of the world. The ego biography clearly states that he adhered to ideology Eurasianism. I do not want to enter into meaningless disputes with his supporters. No answers yet. Find them to be. Over the past 30 years, science and technology have made a huge leap. The toolkit of researchers has grown at times. With the help of genetics, archeology and other areas of science, new facts and knowledge have appeared. Many old hypotheses do not hold. Old ideas change, new ones are born.
                    1. 0
                      29 June 2018 19: 29
                      And here is the political system for the study of the Sarmatians and Huns in the USSR, and not the United States. Many great Russian scientists sat in the Gulag, but this did not stop them from making great discoveries. Your arguments are not clear to me and biased. Gumilev is not only a theorist, he is a practitioner. Okay, let's end this debate. You like other theories and that’s your right. Be healthy.
              2. 0
                8 June 2018 18: 18
                Dear, that is the genius of Gumilyov, because for you it is fantastic. His theory of passionarity does not fit into the framework of the story that has been written for hundreds of years. Contemporaries did not understand Copernicus, Tesla, Einstein for them it was fantastic. Or maybe it’s better to read Vernadsky, Kostomarov, Karamzin, Grum-Grzhimailo. What is better in your concept, that they were contemporaries of the described events.
                1. +1
                  8 June 2018 19: 51
                  Dear, personally for Gumilyov such a historian as Fomenko. Nobody accepted his theory of Pasionality. And this means that she did not pass the strength test.
                  Contemporaries of these events also left us with narrative sources, not documents. So it’s better to read the works of historians, who collected everything that is possible bit by bit, than revolutionary theories and “calculuses” of history.
                  1. 0
                    29 June 2018 19: 15
                    Gumilyov and his theories are being talked about more and more. They begin to recognize her. At least in Russia. Gumilev himself wrote that he does not know what is, what factors are for passionate impulses, but future generations and the development of science will help in this. These are his words. I am attracted to his theory by IRON LOGIC in connection with the development of ethnic groups with geography and climate change. In any case, all sorts of theories are a matter of taste for everyone. And I respect your opinion.
                    1. +1
                      1 July 2018 16: 04
                      They say, they don’t say the weather does not. Any, ANY theory on the field of history must find its confirmation in archeology, documents, etc. So far, Gumilyov’s theory, apart from iron logic, is not confirmed by other facts.
                      Therefore, breaking spears around a nude theory is a thankless task.
                  2. +1
                    1 July 2018 22: 20
                    Quote: Mac Simka
                    Dear, personally for Gumilyov such a historian as Fomenko. Nobody accepted his theory of Pasionality. And this means that she did not pass the strength test.

                    Desk scientists may not accept the theory of passionarity, only life itself shows its correctness.
        2. +3
          8 June 2018 09: 01
          Hello Boyan.
          I heard something similar from the Albanians a few years ago. They are sure that they are the only indigenous inhabitants of the Balkan region, the descendants of the ancient Illyrians, the only ones who preserved their language and culture. The Slavs who came and squeezed them (Serbs, Montenegrins, Croats, Bulgarians, Macedonians and others), in their opinion, if not the invaders, then certainly undesirable guests on their land.
          I am not familiar with the latest research in the field of the genesis of the Bulgarian ethnic group, so I will not argue with you, I will just take your information into account. However, I note that the thoughtless transfer of any research, scientific data to a political platform, can lead to an explosive growth of nationalist and revanchist sentiments among the people and, as a result, unnecessary conflicts with neighbors on nationalistic grounds. Be careful. In my opinion, such studies are of interest exclusively to historians, and not to politicians.
          1. +1
            8 June 2018 13: 57
            As for the Albanians, it may be debatable how much they are the descendants of the ancient Ilyrians. Probably yes. Albania geographically falls away from the migration flows of tribes and peoples, thus being an island of auto-synchronization on the Balkans. Moreover, the Albanians are characterized by a mentality and they are almost not assimilated with others.
            For the Albanians, the truly Slavs are the aliens who drove their ancestors to the inaccessible mountains of Albania. In the Albanian epos preserved stories, songs and legends about these events. You are right that the political component always eats! We can’t do without it. For example, the former population of present-day Kosovo, really was not Slavic, which gives the Kosovars a reason to be considered masters of the pavo ancestors in this area. The first Serbian state was formed on the territory of present Bosnia, and Rasa / another Serbian tribal education / occupied the current Montenegro and a small part of Kosovo. Throughout their history, the Serbs carried out (creeping / or active) expansion to the East to the Bulgarian land and to the south to the Albanian.
            Present Serbia is located at 100% in the old Bulgarian territory. Even Belgrade, built by the Bulgarian Tsar Boris Michael I / baptizer of the Bulgarians in Orthodoxy /. In the Latin chronicles of that time / 9 century /, the city was called Alba Bulgarica. Now south of Belgarad is a Bulgarian village that has been healed for thousands of years.
            They use stories in politics, it’s very dangerous, at least everyone does it! After all, everyone can make everyone claim for this reason!
            History must be removed from politics. But unfortunately this is unlikely to ever happen.
            1. +2
              8 June 2018 14: 09
              Quote: pytar
              They use stories in politics, it’s very dangerous, at least everyone does it! After all, everyone can make everyone claim for this reason!

              Thank you for understanding me correctly. hi
            2. 0
              8 June 2018 18: 49
              Old song. The great migration of peoples led to the collapse of the Roman Empire. In the 4th century, Slavs also began to advance, leaving the territory between the Vistula and Tisza and subsequently spreading from the Baltic in the north to the Adriatic and the Balkans in the south, from the Elbe in the west to the Dnieper in the east. I’m why, in your opinion, the damned Serbs live all their history on Bulgarian and Albanian soil. The Bulgarians and Albanians from where you came to these lands cannot be said. In this discussion, you remind me of Ukrainian nationalists, everything and everything that comes, we alone are eternal and our lands. There is such a thing as aberration of proximity, and so, look at the story more broadly, a thousand for two years, and then all the obvious will not be so obvious.
              1. +1
                8 June 2018 19: 55
                And let’s first decide which lands and which Serbs and Taldychim. In the Middle Ages, Serbs “lived” on Bulgarian land only during the time of Stefan Dusan. But in the same way it can be stated that the Russians lived on Khazar land.
                But the situation in the 19th and 20th century is completely different.
              2. 0
                9 June 2018 12: 47
                Strange way of thinking you have Eugene! Nowhere did I say this - "according to you damned Serbs all history live on Bulgarian and Albanian soil."!!! These are your frivolous interpretations of what I said! Correspondingly, all the rest of your “investigations” based on that basis are incorrect. That’s why I didn’t, but you remind Ukrainian nationalists! Through the crooked mirror of nationalism, all the evidence is distorted by the lonely.
  9. +3
    7 June 2018 10: 37
    It should be noted that the Hungarians really bothered Byzantium, freely passing through Bulgaria. There was an agreement between Hungary and Bulgaria that during the passage of Hungarian troops through Bulgarian territory to the possessions of Byzantium, Hungarians should be loyal to the Bulgarian population. Therefore, the Greeks accused Preslav of treachery, in a latent form of aggression against Byzantium by the hands of the Hungarians. The Bulgarians could not or did not want to stop the Hungarian raiders. Indeed, in the event of resistance, Bulgaria itself became the object of aggression. Part of the Bulgarian boyars, who hated the Greeks, gladly used the Hungarians against the empire.
    But at the same time, according to the author, the Byzantines are vile and treacherous, and the Bulgarians are “white and fluffy”!
    1. +3
      7 June 2018 16: 01
      But at the same time, according to the author, the Byzantines are vile and treacherous, and the Bulgarians are “white and fluffy”!

      Hungarians and Bulgarians never really feuded. With the exception of a few episodic cases. There were no insoluble conflicts or contradictions between them. Byzantium has always, for all its existence, remained a mortal, implacable enemy for the Bulgarian state and people.
      1. 0
        7 June 2018 23: 52
        In fact, they were in conflict, but since neither our nor Hungarian sources were preserved, and the Greeks wrote what interests them - therefore there is little information. And the Bulgarians hardly gave away the solo mines and the gold and silver mines of Transylvania to them without a fight. They are real money, and even Avars lived in Transylvania. And they are closer to the Bulgarians than to the Hungarians.
        1. 0
          8 June 2018 14: 10
          They co-talked like everyone else. No less and no more. But here we compare them with the Byzantines / Konstantin raised this topic /, so there was nothing ideologically in conflict between the Bulgarians and the Hungarians.
    2. +1
      7 June 2018 23: 56
      What do you think - who were the Hungarians in the 9th century? They burned Paris 5 times and reached Spain with fights. Maybe you should not conflict with them.
      1. +1
        8 June 2018 15: 36
        Quote: Mac Simka
        What do you think - who were the Hungarians in the 9th century? They burned Paris 5 times and reached Spain with fights. Maybe you should not conflict with them.

        Is it also a “great” (according to Samsonov) view of the super-Russians?
        Their cavalry, which knew no obstacles, invaded Bulgaria and Byzantium, broke through the Rhine and Rhone, reached Paris and Northern Italy. But most of all, Germany suffered from the raids of the Hungarians, which they ravaged almost every year, taking away a lot of prisoners who they turned into slavery. Only after the middle of the X century. German and Czech forces inflicted a decisive defeat on the Hungarians at the Battle of Lech (955), and the intensity of Hungarian invasions began to weaken. From the middle of the XNUMXth century Hungarian nomads began to move to agriculture and a settled way of life, and at the end of the century they formed an early feudal state. Since the beginning of the XI century. Hungarian raids on neighboring countries completely stopped.
        A short course on how climate affected human societies and transformation. To whom the climate is very bad, he wins.
        1. 0
          8 June 2018 16: 24
          I totally agree. The settling of nomads immediately reduces their aggressiveness. It happened to everyone - from the gunas to the Turks.
          1. 0
            8 June 2018 17: 55
            Quote: Mac Simka
            Deposition of nomads immediately reduces their aggressiveness

            Yes, they moved from unfavorable conditions to the plain with favorable ones, and that’s all, the need to survive-destroying the local disappeared, they themselves became "local"
  10. +3
    7 June 2018 12: 47
    Quote: Weyland
    A part of the Bulgarian boyars, who hated the Greeks, gladly used the Hungarians against the empire.
    But at the same time, according to the author, the Byzantines are vile and treacherous, and the Bulgarians are “white and fluffy”!

    This is such cognitive logic!
  11. +1
    7 June 2018 15: 34
    Quote: Rich
    The Black Sea Cossacks called the Kuban were “planted” on the lands conquered from the Kabardins.

    Well, well, marvel at your knowledge. According to the story you 2-
  12. 0
    7 June 2018 17: 05
    Quote: Rich
    Russian historians estimate about three million

    Why historians, not demographers? Historians, what are specialists in counting the population from the opposite?
  13. 0
    7 June 2018 17: 07
    1050 years ago, in 968, the great Russian prince Svyatoslav Igorevich defeated the Bulgarians and established himself on the Danube.

    How beautiful everything is. With accuracy right up to a year. That's just something even historians will not decide, but when did this Svyatoslav still be born hi
    1. +2
      7 June 2018 17: 45
      This accuracy is based on a comparative analysis of Russian chronicles and Byzantine documents. But the date of birth of the next "barbarian leader" for the Byzantines was of little interest.
      1. 0
        8 June 2018 17: 23
        "The Tale of Bygone Years" - a manuscript, respected by everyone, which infringe upon - blasphemy, calls the date of birth of Svyatoslav - 942. It was reported that in 945, when Igor died, Svyatoslav was three years old. He participated in the battle with the Drevlyans - he threw a spear at them, which, slipping past the horse's ears, fell to the horse under its feet. The ritual was observed - the prince “started” the battle. We have no right to dispute this fact.

        So, we will choose another date that everyone agrees with: on July 15, 1015, the Grand Duke of Kiev Vladimir Svyatoslavich died.
        Titmar reports that he died, "aggravated by years."
        The chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal (Complete collection of Russian chronicles. Vol. 41) specifies the number of years the prince lived - 73.
        If you trust Titmar and the annals, then the year of Vladimir's birth: 1015 - 73 = 942.
        Dad and son were born at the same time. hi
  14. +4
    7 June 2018 17: 20
    "Superethnos of the Rus."
    Here it is necessary to correct something in education or in the head laughing
  15. +2
    7 June 2018 18: 44
    Svyatoslav and his squad were pagans, and in Kiev the Christian elite, led by Olga, already ruled. Kiev did not take Svyatoslav and his squad for violent disposition. Europe sent this passionate youth to the Crusades, and Svyatoslav rafted away from Kiev. In Bulgaria, he wanted to create his principality, but failed. Of course, he did not think of any fraternal Bulgarians. To put it mildly, a bad person was.
    1. 0
      7 June 2018 19: 29
      It is probably no coincidence that Svyatoslav was between Olga and Vladimir - nevertheless, the law of negation of negation holds.
    2. 0
      8 June 2018 20: 28
      It seems that Svyatoslav was the only person with a Slavic name in his squad. All other names are Scandinavian. Svyatoslav was a talented commander, but a zero politician. And he did not particularly try to turn the results of his spectacular military victories into state conquests. Khazaria disappeared not after a defeat from Svyatoslav (which was), but for some other reasons. Perhaps he was conquered by people from the Caucasus. Historians and archaeologists argue about this.
  16. +5
    7 June 2018 19: 54
    The article is fantastic ... Not by facts, but by names and interpretation. Tell me what's wrong? "the great Russian prince Svyatoslav Igorevich" .... who will give the name of the name taken? The source "Great Russian" - give! No, this cannot be. In Byzantium, this character and the hedgehog with it is called "Taurus". "Russian troops" are generally fantastic! 1000 years ago, "Russian troops"? That laugh at Ukrainians with their "ancient Ukrain" .... we have the same rushing)))
  17. 0
    7 June 2018 21: 17
    Trilobite Master,
    So I say - you can’t prove anything. After all, the degree of persuasiveness of the arguments you yourself determine. Moreover, this definition is based on the principle of "does not fit into my system of views - not convincingly


    what nonsense? This is demagoguery.

    Those words that you quoted - are you sure that they are generally related? Me not.


    those. are war and slaughter different things?

    Well and so, for absolutely too much fun. Where did you read at Zaliznyak that replacing the sound “b” with “c” is impossible?


    I quoted Zaliznyak as quoted from his article - "... he considers it permissible instead of the expected letter B, C was made ..."

    what is not clear?

    . And if the words of Fomenko and Zaliznyak diverge, I will believe Zaliznyak in the field of linguistics, and Fomenko in the field of mathematics.


    and believe the accountant Schliemann?

    In the field of history, and only in certain issues, I can already afford not to believe, that is, to doubt, verify, because I know which sources to contact with verification, I can analyze, compare and possess sufficient knowledge for this, I am familiar with the methodology historical knowledge, some auxiliary historical disciplines, which were interested in the subject.


    You don’t believe yourself anymore.

    But, even at this level, I’m not trying to put myself on a par with doctors and candidates of historical sciences, because I perfectly understand the difference between a professional and an amateur, whom I am in the field of history.


    this is noticeable, therefore the story, as science has petrified once and for all, because historians themselves do not believe in themselves, and doesn’t allow raising their voices to the idols of science, or false modesty or courage is not enough, they will ridicule, excommunicate, so instead of you must always examine yourself if you look at the opinion above, that's all, but not science.

    Therefore, forgive me, your personally, and all the other new age-old opuses, can not cause me anything but evil irony and mocking compassion for the wretched mind and aggressive ignorance of their creators


    Well, since there is no more neck and no way to look at the stars, then this phenomenon is called traditional history, but in fact, the complete degradation of your science. hi
    1. +3
      7 June 2018 22: 03
      You would do better in your business with the diploma you received. They taught you something, right? No need to go where you understand a little. You look silly and funny, is it really unclear. They already wrote to you that you are interested in history ... you can’t forbid that this is even commendable. But there are certain rules in science. Before you say anything, you need to show that you have the right to do so. How to achieve this? Education, self-education, simply reading. And not just one, but various sources. Different! Because history is not a matter of FAITH, but KNOWLEDGE. That is, you need to start with the HISTORIOGRAPHY of the issue. You once wrote that you already wrote something amazing. Fine! But there is a question: what is the historiographical basis of this work. Links to what? If all the links to the works of Fomenko and K, as well as maps from the Internet, then this is not historiography. And Zadornovskaya replacing the mother with a b ... t will not work here either. So what is there? Young enthusiasm - “I will prove to everyone” ?! You will not prove anything to anyone until you follow the accepted rules. This is more complicated, you need to know a lot, but also more interesting. Try, does anyone interfere? I’ve been engaged in tanks for 10 years before I started writing articles about them for the British, because I thought - in Russia and so everyone knows that. I was engaged in my first book on knights for three years, and in essence it is ... a compilation of books by several authors, translated from French and English, unfamiliar to the then Russian reader. And what can you offer of something that Fomenko and K did not write about yet, and that Zadornov did not popularize (peace be upon him, but he did not render a good service to our culture), but based on solid sources and with a serious evidence base. You understand that a man is ridiculous who has never seen the pyramids of Egypt, but who writes about plates where the knife does not enter, a person who has never worked in the archive, not to mention the archive of ancient acts, but who claims about the degradation of science. To begin with, it would be nice to read PSRL, and then take up Latin, huh? At one time, all the red-bellied ... youth, who had cited quotes from Marx, also tried to change the world in Russia. They were told that it’s necessary to start small, first learn to hold the fork in your left hand, and the knife in your right, teach others this ... you look and ... But no, well, it’s inconvenient. And should we learn? And what happened in the end? Full losery. So here you are - becoming a specialist means spending tens of years, but since you are doing it, it’s only to make people laugh. Soon people here will simply stop answering, it will become uninteresting even to laugh at you and you will have to spend time with the same ones, but this is not at all so interesting. So either ... by the rules or ... with like-minded friends. And you wrote in vain about the feeding trough. Give a coherent text with and page links, and a "feeder" will be put in front of you. But just do not interfere with a bunch of philology, history and other sciences. Or specialize in each separately. Only in this way can something be seriously achieved. Otherwise, it’s only to make people laugh!
      1. +1
        7 June 2018 22: 48
        Quote: kalibr
        No need to go where you understand a little. You look silly and funny, is it really unclear.


        no, it’s not clear, history is not such a complicated thing when you look at things with your own eyes, and not strangers. In any field of knowledge, common sense must be used and everything will work out.

        So the article is ready, I'll try to throw it. There are a lot of things.
        1. +4
          7 June 2018 23: 26
          "In any field of knowledge, common sense must be used and everything will work out."
          And with the help of your mighty common sense, which acts in any field of knowledge, you can answer why the mass of the t-quark is so close to v / ✔2
        2. +2
          7 June 2018 23: 39
          Quote: Bar1
          In any field of knowledge you need to use common sense and everything will work out.

          Yes? Those. for understanding (at least as a first approximation) of what is written, for example, in this TEXTBOOK: Landaushitz vol. 4 "Quantum electrodynamics" http://alexandr4784.narod.ru/landau_04.html is needed, simply, "common sense" and no special training? lol So, here, easily, they graduated from high school, opened a little book, included “common sense” in the head, and that’s it - we read and enjoy! wassat laughing
          1. +1
            8 June 2018 08: 31
            Here, dear Igor, once again I am convinced, as it is correctly said: "Let ... (well, to whom it is clear) speak, and he will say everything to himself!"
      2. +1
        7 June 2018 22: 54
        Why are you so hurt? Superfluous.

        By the way, the world is changing fast. Information is accumulating. And I admit that you can collect information on a specific issue without even leaving home. Although it’s so easy to hit fantasy.

        And by the timing. Remember - Umberto Eco published a book "How to write a diploma?" He assigns a term - from six months to 3 years. But that was in the pre-Internet era.
        1. +3
          8 June 2018 08: 24
          So this is for those who already have knowledge and experience. And just like that ... Will you undertake to write a diploma in the same Russian truth? At least it is necessary to know it, to compare it with the Salic truth, the Ripuar truth, and give, as a result, the Truth of the Yaroslavichs ... all this must be at least read. There is no "common sense" will not help.
          1. 0
            8 June 2018 08: 58
            I won’t take it. If I suddenly took up historical topics, even in the form of a popular article, I would choose those associated with what I understand.
          2. +3
            8 June 2018 09: 07
            The question is, what will you compare? Originals ? They are not here !!! First copies? They are not there either !!! There are allegedly some thirtieth copies that are already in book format. So what will you have a dissertation about? On a comparative analysis of the artistic merits of these "documents"?
            History is no more a science than astrology. It is all based on conjectures once expressed and accepted by most “professional historians” as “correct conjecture” by some people, the consequence of which is that the next generation of “professional historians” has this “conjecture” acquiring the status of “fact”. What do historians learn? Authentic documents? Yeah, no matter how! Take Egyptologists with their "Ancient Egypt." The most important source for them is the “Works of the priest of Manetho”. And did any of the professional historians see these “works” in their eyes even in photocopies? No! The originals of the Manetho’s works are not in nature. But for professional historians it does not matter. They say that there is a list (copies or extracts from the writings of the Manetho) made by a certain "ancient Greek" Eusebius. Well, but maybe one of them was holding or saw a photocopy of the original of this Eusebius? No, and Eusebius does not exist in the scripts either. But for professional historians, this does not matter. They say that there is a list (excerpts from the works of Eusebius, which contains excerpts from the works of Manetho), made by some ancient Latin Jerome. You will certainly laugh, but the originals from this Jerome also did not remain !!!! There is a list (copy) of the medieval Byzantine George Sinkeloss, who cites the “works of Jerome”, which refer to the “works of Eusebius,” which in turn contain a reference to a certain “ancient Egyptian Manetho and something of which he allegedly wrote or what he said "
    2. +2
      8 June 2018 09: 55
      Quote: Bar1
      I quoted Zaliznyak as I quoted from his article

      You are even unable to read the article normally. It seems that after reading the paragraph to the end, you forget what happened in the beginning. Zaliznyak talks about the rules and conditions when such phoneme replacements occur in the language and warns of inadmissibility arbitrary replacing phonemes that ignore these same rules. In addition to "b" - "c" are more examples, but these are only examples. If you prove the correctness of such a replacement, that is, by all the rules and laws of linguistics with analysis and examples, you prove that in such and such a century, in such and such a language, the phoneme X has transformed into a phoneme, the honor, and praise you - write a candidate. Everything else, namely, what you and your entire new-age company is personally engaged in is amateurism of the highest degree on the verge, but rather, beyond utter stupidity.
      I don’t like to get personal with disputes, but still I’ll ask you a couple of questions. Are you a professional in any field? I do not ask which one, I ask any? Have you achieved any heights in your profession, comprehended its subtleties, nuances, can you say about yourself: "I am a successful professional in ..."? If you can, then the second question. How do you feel about a person who, being in your professional field a complete ignoramus, will first announce all your knowledge and skills in this field as nonsense, and then begin to give completely amateurish advice as “from the point of view of common sense” to do your work correctly, blaming you , at the same time, in inertness and dullness?
      Honestly, if such a militant ignoramus had invaded my professional field and started to teach me how to do what I have been doing with success at a decent level for many years, nothing but contempt, pity, and, probably, annoyance in case of extreme importunity He wouldn’t call me.
      How would you react?
      1. 0
        8 June 2018 11: 05
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        You are even unable to read the article normally. It seems that after reading the paragraph to the end, you forget what happened in the beginning. Zaliznyak talks about the rules and conditions when such phoneme replacements occur in the language and warns of the inadmissibility of arbitrary phoneme replacements ignoring these same rules. In addition to "b" - "c" are more examples, but these are only examples


        you are just one of those who use words not to describe reality, but to play a wild and not mundane imagination. The meaning of words because of people like you is lost. That is, when it is said that _b_ does not go into _w_, as you mean by that anything, but not what is specifically written. So did Zaliznyak say that these letters do not go one into another? -, blah-blah-blah -in response that in Russian -> damn pancake
        , and what was Zaliznyak talking about then? I already do not expect an answer from you, it will not be.
        But that’s not the point, because, using an expanded understanding of the word, we, those who don’t like your story, see that the “Portuguese” caravels are really just Russian boxes, and the luminous cavaliers of the clerk guard are just horse riders. Compared with the official etymology, let us say from Max Fasmer it gives an understanding of the real story within the framework of the concept of HX.

        Quote: Trilobite Master
        Are you a professional in any field? I do not ask which one, I ask any? You have achieved any heights in your profession, comprehended its subtleties, nuances, you can say about yourself: "I am a successful professional in.


        you are a funny person, what are you waiting for an answer? What can I say that I am not a professional? As in the joke about the Chinese, are you Chinese? Something doesn’t look like ...

        Quote: Trilobite Master
        How do you feel about a person who, being in your professional field a complete ignoramus, will first declare all your knowledge and skills in this field nonsense, and then begin to give completely amateurish advice as “from the point of view of common sense” to do your job correctly, blaming you , at the same time, in inertness and dullness?


        we are in polar different areas of human activity, my work results are always checked easily, if it works, then right, if not wrong. And your vector of forces is not confirmed either visually or empirically, in any way. For example, the method of radiocarbon dating from the point the point of view of physics and chemistry is not accurate, at least, and its calibrations are only suspicious. And this is something that you are not able to understand, because you do not have a natural, real education. But the chronology, the question is WHEN? -it is most important.
        In general, the main thing that becomes clear from the works of the “great” linguists like Zaliznyak or the “great” etymologists like Vasmer is one thing, to be within the framework, to stay in line and follow the precepts of the creators of TI to the Milyubayerushleletser. For this, such a complicated, contrived science was created as linguistics, where academics prove that letters do not pass one another when they pass, and so on


        .
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        How would you react?

        I already answered you, my work is easily checked, but yours is not, therefore, it is in a stream of criticism.
        1. +3
          8 June 2018 12: 19
          Quote: Bar1
          my work is easily verified, but your not

          Well, you know as little about my work as I do about yours. However, you see, I do not judge yours, and you please mine laughing This precisely characterizes your attitude to linguistics and history, and I’m afraid that you don’t know and understand anything, but allow yourself to make categorical judgments. laughing
          Tell me in what technical area to give you advice and I will do it with pleasure. "From the point of view of common sense." And try my advice not to follow and disagree with his wisdom - I’ll immediately call something like “stubborn,” “traditional,” “don't raise my head up” ... laughing
          1. +2
            8 June 2018 12: 34
            Michael, and hunting for you in this verbal dung to look for particles of common sense. I come to the conclusion that such individuals should simply be ignored and they will either begin to think constructively or go where they notice them.
  18. 0
    7 June 2018 22: 44
    Quote: Weyland
    E1b (African - mass migration to the Balkans 35 centuries ago)

    The Hamits of E1b migrated to the Balkans from Asia Minor about 150 centuries ago. They are the second most populated by the people of Europe after the extreme ice age (the first is the Illyrians I1 and I2 350 centuries ago, the third is the arias of R1a 120 centuries ago).
  19. +1
    8 June 2018 08: 28
    Quote: Bar1
    There are a lot of things.

    Sad They didn’t tell you that you should start small, but take big steps - break your pants. Take one question, but consider it deeply? Based on what has been done before you, detailed coverage of the historiography of the issue. With this, usually everyone starts ...
  20. 0
    8 June 2018 08: 46
    Quote: HanTengri
    "And who are the judges?" (c) The same "engineers" as you? lol Why did you suddenly get the idea that the truth in science (any) should be established by a majority of votes of "engineers" who have nothing to do with this field of knowledge?

    Well, let's remember Leonid Ilyich. The great writer of our time .. classic .. wrote a trilogy (remember, at least some ??), a great commander who was deservedly awarded the title of Marshal of the Soviet Union.
    So what ?
    In fact, everything is the same here. All of them, and Zaliznyak and Yanin, and others, while still alive, are bronzed authorities, in their sphere are small Brezhnevs.
  21. +1
    8 June 2018 08: 51
    Quote: kalibr
    Because history is not a matter of FAITH, but KNOWLEDGE.

    Just the opposite. History is a matter of faith, not knowledge.
    Once again I ask. Here is an example. All professional historians (and you are probably including) are sure that such a character as Julius Caesar could simultaneously write different texts with both hands and still maintain a conversation on a third topic.
    Now the question. Have you personally seen a photocopy of at least one line written personally by this same Caesar?
    Did not see !!!
    And can you personally cite as an example a person who stated that he was holding in his hands the original of something written by Caesar?
    You can not. For there are none.
    Nevertheless, you believe that Caesar was and he wrote a lot.
  22. +1
    8 June 2018 08: 57
    Quote: evgeny68
    Kiev did not take Svyatoslav and his squad for violent disposition.

    According to the traditional version of history, the army of Svyatoslav totaled ... well, according to various sources, from 40 to 80 thousand people.
    But how many pro historians counted the population in Kiev "of that time"? Although making such calculations is the business of demographers, not historians.
    But in any case, it’s even more suitable that this army of Svyatoslav could not take Kiev and smash it in logs in half an hour. And not vice versa.
    1. 0
      27 August 2018 23: 46
      Quote: Seal
      According to the traditional version of history, the army of Svyatoslav totaled ... well, according to various sources, from 40 to 80 thousand people.

      ===
      to collect / pay / teach / feed such an amount !? very doubtful
  23. +1
    8 June 2018 09: 01
    Quote: Lord_Raven
    This accuracy is based on a comparative analysis of Russian chronicles and Byzantine documents.

    Oh really. Well, and what specific "chronicle" is considered intravital? That is, written not after 400 years, but during the life of Svyatoslav?
    What specific Byzantine document is this? Name, date of manufacture of the document, who made it, who signed it.
    Let me remind you that historical books published in Europe in the Middle Ages do not channel documents.
  24. +1
    8 June 2018 12: 47
    Quote: Curious
    Michael, and hunting for you in this verbal dung to look for particles of common sense. I come to the conclusion that such individuals should simply be ignored and they will either begin to think constructively or go where they notice them.

    Nnda people when they go to the forum in order to communicate, and you go to the forum to discourage communication.
    1. +1
      8 June 2018 20: 35
      Unfortunately, you are seriously interested in pseudo-scientific theory. Opponents try to draw your attention to this.
      1. 0
        9 June 2018 06: 42
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Unfortunately, you are seriously interested in pseudo-scientific theory. Opponents try to draw your attention to this.


        if the facts fit into this theory, then it is not bad.
  25. 0
    20 June 2018 15: 06
    In my opinion, the question is why the natural Viking "Svetoslav" did a lot from what it made very simple, all so creating in ancient Russia is a trip to the Vikings from the cold north to the wealth of Constantinople. The Vikings, as a warrior and a Targovtsy, followed a path where they could at first rob and then trade with the Romans. Byzantium managed to neutralize their predatory campaigns, so they began to think more about trade, and then they worked as mercenaries of the Roman rulers, Basil II specially owned the second most successful ruler of eastern Rome after Justinian I, and he managed to do it thanks to the fact that he strengthened own power with help on the "Varga Guard". Specifically, “Svetoslav” had the opportunity to claim the Bulgarian throne, because his mother was the Bulgarian princess Elena (who reigned under the name Helga / and then she was christened “Olga” for many years). In the second half at 10v. the Bulgarian kingdom was in crisis, so the Viking king Svetoslav managed to reach the mountains of the Balkans. There is a very interesting story about the Roman emperor Nikifor Genik, after the invasion of Bulgaria he was broken, and his head served for a glass from which Kan Krum drank, it was exactly the same with Svetoslav 150 years later, it also turned into a glass. And someone will be interested - the Bulgarian name for Kiev is Kyoba, with the name brother in Kan Kubrat, he founded this hunting village in the middle for 7 centuries. In principle, no one should be offended, but such a concept as “Slavs” did not exist until the end of the Middle Ages, they never existed, the reason for entering the Slavic people was the desire for the Croats to be freed from the authority under which they were, the Croatians thought about this people and they also created the idea of ​​"pan-Slavism", it happened at the end of the 17th century. p.p. About the ancient faith in the Bulgarians, it is clear that they, as an integral part of the nomads from this period, clearly understand that they believed in Tangra.