Pechenegs. Ship Rus and their strength

75
The soldiers of Svyatoslav in alliance with the Pechenegs crushed the Khazar Kaganate and fought in Bulgaria, with Byzantium. Pechenegs called "thorn Rusians and their strength."

First Danube trip



In 967, the Russian Grand Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich set off on a march to the shores of the Danube. In the annals there are no reports on the preparation of this campaign, but there is no doubt that Svyatoslav prepared himself seriously, just like before the war with the Khazar Kaganate. New professional warriors were prepared, the warriors, which became even more, gathered from the Russian tribes "war" (volunteers, hunters, going to war at will, hunting), built a significant number of rooks, on which it was possible to go along the rivers and cross sea, forged weapon. The Russian army, as in the campaign against the Khazaria, was mostly on foot. The speed of movement was achieved through the use of rooks and the presence of a developed network of waterways in Eastern Europe. In addition, Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich had easy allied cavalry, if the Pechenegs took part in the campaign against the Khazars, now the Hungarians (Ugrians) also became allies.

Pechenegs. It is worth knowing that the Pechenegs, contrary to the myth that distorts the true history The Russian people were not “Turks” (as were the main part of the population of Khazaria and the later Polovtsy and Horde “Mongols”). At the end of the 9th century, the Pecheneg tribes roamed between the Volga and the Aral Sea, and they fought with the Khazars, the Polovtsy and the Oguzes. Then they crossed the Volga, displaced the Ugrians who lived between the Don and the Dnieper, captured the Northern Black Sea coast as far as the Danube. The Pechenegs were mainly engaged in cattle breeding and were at enmity with the Khazars, Byzantium, Hungary, Rus (especially after baptism) and other countries. In this case, the Pechenegs constantly acted as allies with the Rus. Thus, the soldiers of Svyatoslav, in alliance with the Pechenegs, crushed the Khazar Khaganate and fought in Bulgaria, with Byzantium. No wonder the Arab author Ibn-Haukal spoke about the Pechenegs: "The Russian-Russian thorn and their strength." They were the shock force of Russia.

The Pechenegs, like the Rus, were Caucasians. Pechenegs distinguished way of life, different from the northern Slav Slavs, engaged mainly in agriculture and crafts. They preserved the traditions of the Scythians, common to the entire super-ethnos. "The Cossack way of life" - today you are a peaceful farmer and cattle-breeder, and tomorrow you will go to the saddle and go to war. But the Turks (they could have only a small admixture of Turkic blood) and were not representatives of the Mongoloid race. Contrary to the distorted picture of the "classic" history created for Russia by foreigners (Germans) and supported by Russian Westernizers, in the III - XIII centuries. The Black Sea region was densely populated by the clans of the Rus-Aryans, descendants of the Rus-Scythians and Sarmatians. They were not united, often quarreled with each other, like the alliances of the tribes and the lands of the northern Slavs-Russes before their unification by the Rurikovichs. But all were part of a single super-ethnos - with one language (which did not exclude various dialects, dialects), material and spiritual culture. Not surprisingly, the Pechenegs did not leave any traces in the Russian steppes as a special ethnic group, that is, the material culture of northern Rus and Pechenegs was common. At the same time, the excavations of the South Russian steppe burials of the “Pechenezh” period (X-XIII cc.) Show complete continuity with the Alan-Sarmatian tradition: all the same kurgans, and below them the stuffed horse accompanying the host, type-setting silver belts, bone overlays for heavy bows , straight-blade sabers, belt garters, amulets, etc. Much of the Pecheneg burials were made in ancient iron mounds or even the Bronze Age, that is, the Pechenegs considered themselves the heirs and descendants of the former steppe population - Sarmatians and Scythians. The Pechenegs were one of the parts of the superethnos, a fragment of the former Great Scythia, the ancient northern civilization. Therefore, it was easy to find a common language with the Russian princes, they fought together. The same relationship will develop between Russia and the Polovtsy, the same fragment of Scythia.

Thus, the dominant myth that the Pecheneg hordes allegedly constantly waged a fierce struggle with Kievan Rus, does not correspond to reality. On the contrary, the relations of Russia and the Pechenegs throughout the X century were peaceful and allied and became aggravated only after the adoption of Christianity by Kiev. Not without reason, as the main task of the Byzantine policy in the Black Sea region, the emperor Konstantin Porphyrogenitus put a wedge between Russia and the Pechenegs. The only Russian-Pecheneg conflict was noted in the first years of Prince Igor’s reign (920), and then the Pechenegs became part of the Russian army on the march to Constantinople-Tsargrad in 944. In 965, the Pecheneg detachments help Svetoslav Igorevich to crush Khazaria. Then Pechenegs support Svyatoslav in the war with Bulgaria and Byzantium. True, it was the Pecheneg prince Smoking trapped and killed Svyatoslav when he returned to Russia. But there is clearly an internal conflict in Kiev. Obviously, the Grand Duke was the victim of a Kiev conspiracy (led by a provisan and Christian party), and the Pechenegs acted as a tool, not the initiators.

Pechenegs. Ship Rus and their strength

Pechenegs kill Svyatoslav Igorevich. Greek chronicle of John Skylitsa

Serious war with the Pechenegs began only in the reign of Prince Vladimir, but they were part of a general civil war, when "Dobrynya baptized Novgorod with fire, and Putyata with a sword." The baptism of Russia by the Greek missionaries became the beginning of a serious distemper, for many centuries many Russian lands preserved the pagan faith or dual faith - externally Christians, and in fact, pagans. The process of becoming a fiery Russian Orthodoxy took hundreds of years. The Pechenegs took part in the internecine war between Vladimirovichs - Yaroslav and Svyatopolk on the side of the latter. In 1016, they fought in the battle of Lubech, in 1019, in the battle of Alta. In 1036, the Kiev prince Yaroslav will crush the Pechenegs. But not because they were strangers. But because they made raids and did not want to recognize the power of Rurik, and also kept the ancient pagan faith. The surviving birth of the Pechenegs will go to the Carpathians and the Danube. Others will be part of the union of Berendeys (black hoods) and will become the border guards of Kiev. The Polovtsians will come to replace the Pechenegs, the same representatives of the Rus' superethnos as the Pechenegs.

Svyatoslav conducted and diplomatic preparations for the war. In 967, a secret treaty was concluded between the Byzantine Empire and Russia (the Russian chronicler did not say a word about its content). From Byzantium Calokir signed him. The second Rome, in exchange for the security of its possessions in the Crimea and the Northern Black Sea region, yielded to the Russian state the mouth of the Danube. Prince Svyatoslav was to receive the seaside region of the Dniester and the Danube, the territory of the present Dobruja. It was the town of Pereyaslavets on the Danube that was originally the main goal of Svyatoslav Igorevich.

Svyatoslav did not immediately appear in Bulgaria. At first, the Rus, according to the information of the Russian historian V.N. Tatishchev, who possessed lost chronicles and other materials, moved up the Dniester River. There they were waiting for the Hungarian allies. “From the Ugrians, Tatishchev wrote, he had a strong love and agreement.” Apparently, during negotiations with Kalokir, Svyatoslav sent ambassadors of Pannonia to the Hungarians, revealing to them the plan of the march on the Danube. According to Tatishchev, the Bulgarians also had allies - the Khazars, the Yasys and the Kasogs, whom Prince Svyatoslav defeated during his eastern campaign. Tatishchev reports that the Bulgarians had an alliance with the Khazars even during the Khazar campaign of Svyatoslav. Part of the Khazars survived in Bulgaria. The Khazar factor was one of the reasons which prompted Svyatoslav to bring troops to the Danube.

By the end of spring or summer of 968, Russian troops reached the borders of Bulgaria. According to the Byzantine chronicler Leo Deacon, Svyatoslav led the 60 thousand army. Apparently, this is a big exaggeration. Svyatoslav did not raise tribal militias, bringing only squads, "hunters" (volunteers) and detachments of Pechenegs and Hungarians. Most historians estimate Svyatoslav’s army of 10 to 20 thousand soldiers (along with allied Pecheneg and Hungarian units). Russian Rook flotilla freely entered the mouth of the Danube and began to quickly climb upstream. The appearance of the Rus was a surprise for the Bulgarians. According to Leo Deacon, the Bulgarians set against the Svyatoslav phalanx of 30 thousand soldiers. However, this did not embarrass the Russians, having embarked on the shore, the "tavroskifs" (as the Greek sources were called by the Russians), quickly jumped out of the boats, closed themselves with shields and rushed to the attack. The Bulgarians could not stand the first attack and fled from the battlefield and closed in the fortress Dorostol (Silistra).

Thus, Svyatoslav in one battle secured domination over Eastern Bulgaria. The Bulgarians no longer decided on a direct battle. Emperor Justinian, in order to secure the invasion of the barbarians against the province of Mizia (the so-called Bulgaria) and prevent the enemy from breaking further, built on the banks of the Danube and at some distance from it on the roads, near 80 fortresses. All these fortifications Rusa took over the summer-autumn 968 of the year. At the same time, many fortresses and cities surrendered without a fight, the Bulgarians met the Rus as brothers, expressing dissatisfaction with the policies of the capital. The hopes of the Romans that Svyatoslav would become bogged down in the war with Bulgaria did not justify themselves. In the very first battles, the Bulgarian army was defeated, and Russian troops destroyed the entire defensive system in the east, opening the way to Preslav and to the border of Byzantium. Moreover, in Constantinople, they saw a real threat to the empire that the victorious march of the Russian army through the Bulgarian lands was not accompanied by looting, the ruin of cities and villages, and violence against local residents (as well as the Romans waged wars). The Rus saw in the Bulgarians blood brothers, and Christianity was only asserted in Bulgaria, the common people did not forget their traditions and the old faith, in common with the Russians. The sympathies of the simple Bulgarians and parts of the feudal lords immediately turned to the Russian leader. Bulgarian volunteers began to replenish Russian troops. Part of the feudal lords was ready to swear to Svyatoslav. As previously noted, part of the Bulgarian nobility hated Tsar Peter and his provisant entourage. A union of Rus and Bulgarians could lead the Byzantine Empire to a military-political catastrophe. The Bulgarians, with the decisive leader Simeone, almost took Constantinople themselves.

Svyatoslav Igorevich initially followed the points of the agreement concluded with Byzantium. He did not intrude deep into the Bulgarian state. As soon as the lands along the Danube and Pereyaslavets were occupied, the Russian prince stopped the fighting. Pereyaslavets Prince Svyatoslav made his capital. According to him, there should have been a “middle” (middle) of his power: “... I want to live in Pereyaslavets on the Danube - for there is the middle of my land, all benefits come there ...”. The exact location of Pereyaslavets unknown. Some historians believe that it was then called the fortress Dorostol, where the troops of Svyatoslav will keep defense during the war with the Byzantine Empire. Other researchers believe that this is Preslav Small on the lower Danube in present-day Romania. The famous historian F.I. Ouspensky, who published fundamental works on the history of the Byzantine Empire, believed that Pereyaslavets was the ancient headquarters of the Bulgarian khans, which was located near the modern Romanian city of Isakcha near the mouth of the Danube.

Svyatoslav, according to the chronicles, “to the side of the prince in Pereyaslavtsi, is a tribute on the heights”. Under the terms of the agreement concluded by Kalokir in Kiev, apparently, an agreement on the resumption of the payment of the annual tribute to Russia was included. Now the Greeks resumed paying tribute. Essentially, the military alliance clauses of the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 944 were implemented in the treaty of Svyatoslav and Kalokir. Constantinople and Kiev in various periods of their history were not only enemies, but also allies against Arabs, Khazars and other opponents. Kalokir arrived in Bulgaria with the Russian army and remained with Svyatoslav until the Russian-Byzantine war. The Bulgarian government remained in Preslav. Svyatoslav did not make any attempts on the sovereignty of Bulgaria during the first Danube campaign. It is possible that after approval in Pereyaslavets, Prince Svyatoslav concluded a peace agreement with Bulgaria.


Svyatoslav invades Bulgaria with the Pecheneg allies (from the Chronicles of Constantin Manass)

The deterioration of relations with Byzantium

The world was short. The second Rome, true to its policy, began to take the first hostile steps. Basilev Nikifor Foca ordered to close the Bosphorus with a chain, as the Greeks usually did while waiting for the Russian fleet to appear, began to prepare the army and navy for a performance. The Greeks, apparently, took into account the mistakes of past years, when the Ruses caught them off guard and came from the sea to the very walls of Constantinople. At the same time, Byzantine diplomats began to take steps to normalize relations with Bulgaria in order to prevent the creation of a Russian-Bulgarian alliance. Moreover, the Bulgarian led by Tsar Peter, who dreamed of revenge and was dissatisfied with the appearance of Svyatoslav on the Danube, was still at the head of Bulgaria. The Byzantine embassy led by experienced diplomat Nikifor Erotic and Bishop of Eughaitus was sent to Preslav. Constantinople changed its policy towards Bulgaria in the most fundamental way: there was no more dictatorship and ultimatums, the demands to send royal sons to Byzantium as hostages were forgotten. Moreover, the Second Rome proposed a dynastic union - the marriage of Peter's daughters and Byzantine princes. In the Bulgarian capital, they immediately caught the bait and the Bulgarian embassy arrived in the Byzantine capital. Bulgarians accepted with great honor.

The ingenious Greeks, thus, received hostages from the Bulgarian nobility, who were lured under the guise of smotrin brides for Byzantine princes. After that, part of the Bulgarian nobility, voluntarily or involuntarily, was supposed to follow the instructions of the Second Rome. This explains a lot in the behavior of the Bulgarian elite, which, after the departure of Svyatoslav, came out against the Russian garrisons that remained in Bulgaria. To the hostile Rus of the provisan party one can also include the rulers of Pereyaslavets on the Danube.

At the same time, the Byzantines held another campaign against Svyatoslav. The Greeks skillfully used gold to bribe. While in Pereyaslavets, in the summer of 968, Svyatoslav received alarming news from Kiev: the Pechenegs laid siege to Kiev. This was the first appearance of the Pechenegs in Kiev. The secret Greek embassy inclined several steppe leaders to strike in Kiev, while there was no formidable Svyatoslav. The Pechenezhsky tribal union was not united, and if some tribes helped Prince Svyatoslav, others were not obliged to him. Pechenegs flooded the outskirts of Kiev. Svyatoslav Igorevich, quickly assembled an army into a fist, left a part of the foot soldiers in Pereyaslavets, and with a rook’s army and a horse brigade, he marched towards Kiev. According to the Russian chronicles, the Pechenegs began to withdraw troops even before the arrival of Svyatoslav, when they saw that the detachments of voivode Pretich were crossing the Dnieper. The Pechenegs took the forces of Pretich for the squads of Svyatoslav. Pretich began negotiations with the Pechenezh leaders and concluded a truce, exchanging arms. However, the threat from Kiev had not yet been lifted, Svyatoslav arrived here, who was "running the Pechenegs into the poly, and he was the world."

Second Danube trip

Svyatoslav Igorevich triumphantly entered Kiev. Kievans enthusiastically welcomed him. Svetoslav spent the first half of 969 of the year in Kiev near his ill mother. Apparently, Olga took the word from her son not to leave her until her death: “See, I am sick; where do you want to get away from me? ”- for she was already ill. And she said: “When you bury me, go where you want.” Therefore, although Svyatoslav rushed to Bulgaria, where alarm information came from, remained. In July, 969, Olga died. The deceased princess was buried according to the Christian rite, not filling up the mound and not carrying out the rave. Son fulfilled her wish.

Before leaving, the Grand Duke Svyatoslav held a management reform, the value of which soon, after his death, will grow even more. He will transfer the supreme power in Russia to his sons. Two legitimate sons, from the wife-boyar, Yaropolk and Oleg will receive Kiev and restless Drevlyan land. The third son, Vladimir, will receive Novgorod, Northern Russia. Vladimir was the fruit of Svyatoslav’s love for Malusha’s mother's collar house. Malushi's brother and Vladimir's uncle was Dobrynya (one of their prototypes of the hero Dobrynia Nikitich). According to one version, she was the daughter of Malka Lyubechanin, a merchant from Baltic Lübeck (possibly Jewish). Others believe that Malusha is the daughter of the Drevlian prince Mala, who led the uprising in which Prince Igor was killed. Traces of the Drevlian Prince Mala are lost after the 945 year, he probably did not avoid the vengeance of Princess Olga.

Having arranged things in Russia, Svyatoslav at the head of the squad moved to Bulgaria. In August 969, he was again on the banks of the Danube. Here the Bulgarian allies began to join him, the light cavalry of the Allied Pechenegs and Hungarians approached. During the time Svetoslav was absent in Bulgaria, significant changes took place here. Tsar Peter went to the monastery, transferring the throne to the eldest son Boris II. The Bulgarians hostile to Svyatoslav, using the political support of the Second Rome and the departure of the Russian prince with the main forces to Russia, broke the truce and began fighting against the Russian garrisons remaining in the Danube. The voivode who led the Russian forces, the Wolf was besieged in Pereyaslavets, but still held out. According to Leo the Deacon, Preslav requested military assistance from Constantinople, but in vain. Having again confronted Russia and Bulgaria, the Greeks did not want to interfere. Nikifor Fock turned all his attention to the struggle with the Arabs in Syria. The powerful Byzantine army went to the East and laid siege to Antioch. The Bulgarians had to fight with the Rus in private.

Voivode Wolf could not keep Pereyaslavets. Inside the city there is a conspiracy of local residents who have established contacts with the besiegers. The wolf spreading rumors to fight to the last and hold the city until the arrival of Svyatoslav, at night secretly rooded down the Danube. There he connected with the troops of Svyatoslav. The combined army moved to Pereyaslavets. By this time the city was greatly strengthened. The Bulgarian army entered Pereyaslavets, and was strengthened by the city militia. This time the Bulgarians were ready for battle. The battle was hard. According to Tatishchev, the Bulgarian army launched a counteroffensive, and nearly crushed the Rus. Prince Svyatoslav addressed his warriors with a speech: “We already have to graze; Let’s be muzhsky, brothers and friends! ”“ And there was a great slaughter, ”and the Rus Bulgarians overpowered. Pereyaslavets was captured again in two years. The Ustyug chronicle, dating back to the oldest chronicle vaults, reports that taking the city, Svyatoslav executed all the traitors. This news suggests that during the stay of the Rus and after Svyatoslav left for Russia, the townspeople were split: some supported the Rus, others were against them and made a conspiracy that contributed to the departure of the garrison under Wolf.

The calculation of the provisional top of Bulgaria for revenge and help from Byzantium was not justified. The Byzantine army at that time besieged Antioch, which they took in October 969 of the year. This led to a serious change in the situation in Bulgaria. This time Svyatoslav did not stay on the Danube and almost without meeting resistance, he went to Preslav, the capital of Bulgaria. There was no one to protect her. Tsar Boris, who had been abandoned by a pro-byzantine boyars who had escaped from the capital, recognized himself as a vassal of the Russian Grand Duke. Thus, Boris retained the throne, the capital and the treasury. Svyatoslav did not remove him from the throne. Russia and Bulgaria entered into a military alliance. Now the situation in the Balkans has changed not in favor of the Byzantine Empire. Russia was allied with the Bulgarians and Hungarians. The great war between Russia and the Byzantine Empire was brewing.


The sculptural image of Svyatoslav of the work of Eugene Lancere
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    8 June 2018 05: 58
    Polovtsy, like Pechenegs - Turks, Polovtsy became the basis for the formation of Tatars, Kazakhs and other Turkic-speaking peoples of Central Asia. How much can you "talk nonsense" ...
    1. +1
      8 June 2018 10: 59
      Here, according to the Polovtsians, the truth is there is one question - they eventually disappeared into what is now Russian. And before that they successfully merged through marriages .... And the miraculous genetics say - "the Russian Turkic genes do not have it"))) One thing confuses me .... half of the Russians now generally "have little resemblance to the Slavs."
      1. +3
        8 June 2018 16: 51
        Quote: 1970mk
        they eventually disappeared into what is now Russian


        Where does this data come from?

        Quote: 1970mk
        And before that, they successfully merged through marriage


        Yeah, single marriages of princes.

        Quote: 1970mk
        And Miracle Genetics say - “Russian Turkic genes do not have”)))


        “Turkic” genes do not exist, because Türks are a language family, which includes very different peoples, for example, completely different Yakuts and Turks. Initially, the Türks were Mongoloids.

        Quote: 1970mk
        "little like the Slavs"


        Which Slavs? Bulgarians, Serbs or Poles?
        1. +2
          8 June 2018 17: 19
          Only one question - in your opinion "on which Slavs"? Describe the Russian Slav!
          1. +2
            8 June 2018 17: 28
            Take the "anthropological description of the Russian population" and you will be right now. For instance:
            "A combination of characteristics characteristic of Russian populations (in comparison with the West European central variant):
            Relatively light pigmentation. The proportion of light (about 30%) and medium shades of hair, light shades of the eyes (45–49%) is increased, the proportion of dark ones is reduced;
            Average growth of eyebrows and beard;
            Moderate face width;
            The prevalence of medium horizontal profile and medium-high nose;
            Less forehead tilt and weaker eyebrow development. "
            And so forth and so forth
            1. 0
              8 June 2018 17: 31
              It's ridiculous! In Ryazan, you-indigenous look ... further to Tver and Novgorod the Great .... They definitely look like each other like a bulldog on a rhinoceros .... children of different nations definitely ....
              1. +1
                8 June 2018 17: 38
                Why should I watch something? There are scientific anthropologists who look, because this is their profession, they are paid money for it. And I don’t understand what you specifically don’t like?
      2. 0
        15 July 2018 23: 09
        Quote: 1970mk
        One thing bothers me .... half of the Russians now are generally "little like the Slavs."

        Is that a Slav?
    2. +1
      8 June 2018 13: 03
      Then deal with the Turks. The direct heirs of the ancient ethnic group Türk are modern Kazakhs, and even not all genera. They do not look like sex. So, "talking nonsense" is to take the word for the annalistic nuns, whose one refrain "was a good prince, and the squad loved him," and according to the remnants of the works of which handsome Rusychs, completely with crosses on their belly, for centuries beat waves of variegated swarthy and narrow-eyed steppes - Mongoloids.
      1. dSK
        0
        8 June 2018 21: 53
        Quote: andrew42
        FOR centuries

        provocateurs. Collect and save.
        "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; there is no male or female: for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
        (Galatians 3: 26-28)
        1. 0
          11 July 2018 15: 47
          Yes Yes. All are slaves of the Lord. Heard. Then the Bolsheviks "Jesuit" adopted this mantra: national identity, value system, fatherly traditions - nothing, proletarians of all countries - that's all. The spiritual feat of Christ is not in doubt. But the apostle Saul, I do not need to poke. It is still unknown who actually surrendered Christ.
    3. 0
      13 September 2019 15: 09
      relations between Russia and the Pechenegs throughout the X century were peaceful and allied and escalated only after Kiev adopted Christianity.
      Come on laughing But what about the Pechenegs attack on Kiev when Prince Svyatoslav was on a Bulgarian campaign? Sewed to see Pechenegs drink kvask laughing
  2. +3
    8 June 2018 07: 21
    Or maybe it was worth making friends with Byzantium, even if only as a counterbalance to the steppe predators.
    The Khazars lived by guarding the river caravans, taking appropriate duties. They destroyed Khazaria - they came to the region (a holy place never happens empty) scumbags-Pechenegs - is it any better?
    I have the feeling that with brilliant tactics and operational art, it was with strategy that Svyatoslav had problems.
    No wonder his son Vladimir established allied relations with the Second Rome. But how else, if we were slowly preparing to become the Third Rome?
    1. +4
      8 June 2018 13: 57
      Quote: Adjutant
      Or maybe it was worth making friends with Byzantium? ...

      But Byzantium never needed friends. They needed Slaves.
    2. +1
      8 June 2018 20: 10
      Or maybe it was worth making friends with Byzantium?

      Of course, what did Prince Vladimir, and indeed many subsequent princes good
    3. +1
      10 June 2018 17: 57
      "Or maybe it was worth making friends with Byzantium?" ///

      And they were friends. Therefore, Kievan Rus (before the Mongol conquest) and
      was such an advanced and respected state in Europe.
      Otherwise, European kings would not marry Russian princesses.
    4. +1
      13 August 2018 13: 28
      Quote: Adjutant
      I have the feeling that with brilliant tactics and operational art, it was with strategy that Svyatoslav had problems.

      I do not agree categorically. Without a great strategy to crush such a well-established state system as the Khazar Kaganate, which had indisputable military-technical superiority over Slavic Russians, it was simply impossible.
  3. +10
    8 June 2018 08: 40
    "The Pechenegs were called the" thorn of the Russians and their strength. " - who called at what times? Refer to the source of those years! There is no such? Stop publishing prophetic dreams and publish fantastic fantasies! Delirium of pure water.
    1. +8
      8 June 2018 10: 00
      This phrase is in the book of Ibn-Haukal "Book of ways and countries", but the funny thing is that at about the same place where it says "spike", there is another phrase: "Some of the Turks broke away from their country, and it was located between the Khazars and Rum. They call them Pechenegs. " But for some reason Samsonov not only did not quote her, but even categorically declared that the Pechenegs were not Türks! And here’s another one from the same book about the Pecheneg Turks: “Ships of Rus, Pecheneg Turks and various people from [among] Slavs and Bulgars often go to some populated [regions] of Andalusia, and are angry in its regions, but often leave, having failed "
      1. +6
        8 June 2018 10: 51
        Translations, translations .... There are no "Russians" in the originals, let alone Russian ... It is accepted by wise science fiction writers that they have the same name in the original translation as soon as they are called, right up to Russians .... Svyatoslav Russian Prince))) FUNNY! There were no Russians then. In the Byzantine chronicles Svyatoslav and the hedgehog with him are called Taurus ... why the Wise "historians" translate as "Russians" I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Where did the “Russians” come from?
        1. +1
          13 August 2018 13: 33
          Quote: 1970mk
          In the Byzantine chronicles Svyatoslav and the hedgehog with him are called Taurus ... why Wise "historians" translate as "Russians"

          In general, the Slavic-Russian warriors of Svyatoslav in the Byzantine chronicles are called "Tavro-Scythians", and not Taurus or Scythians - and this is definitely a term that was used in relation to the Slavic-Russ.
      2. 0
        8 June 2018 16: 17
        The quote is good, no words. But the head must be turned on. I also admit that for the inhabitants of Andalusia, that the Normans, that the Varangians, that are given - one hell, the southern inhabitants did not understand. On small ships with muzzles, bearded, in leather, with straight swords, they drive neither Latin, nor Arabic, nor Greek - it seems to the southern resident all one. But how did the Pechenegs and Bulgars "swim" into Gishpaniya? Here the chronicler’s insanity is evident. "Che hear, I sing."
        1. +1
          8 June 2018 22: 39
          Quote: andrew42
          But how did the Pechenegs and Bulgars "swim" into Gishpaniya?

          Well, if the Goths and Alans arrived (Catalonia = Goto-Alania), and the vandals not only in (B) Andalusia, but even settled in Tunisia - why not? The Huns reached Rome, the Hungarians reached Nimes, the Bulgars of Khan Plzeck settled in southern Italy (in the Benevento region) ...
          1. 0
            11 July 2018 15: 30
            Alans with vandals reached North Africa. But the Alans were not nomads, and they did not rob the ships of the city. There is no such evidence even close.
    2. +21
      8 June 2018 11: 56
      Quote: 1970mk
      Stop publishing prophetic dreams and publish fantastic fantasies!

      Here I’m ready to subscribe directly.
      Really tired of this kaloizjatelstvo on historical facts.
      But today, I want to note, such a phenomenon as Samsonov has surpassed itself. If earlier it wrote something like "the grass is green and the sky is blue, and this is the merit of the superethnos," now now the grass is not green and the sky is not blue, but the superethnos is still present.
      Who, tell me, who and why is this pseudo-historical abomination published in the "History" section? Why should people read this? Are there any supporters of these fabrications among site editors?
      Oh, I’ll add a ban now, but it’s better to ban than a trip to Kashchenko because of a nervous breakdown, due to unspoken emotions.
      Samsonov’s “creativity” is not just a stupid rant “on the subject,” it is really harmful, poisonous. Hardly covered with pseudo-patriotic trash, foul-smelling of Nazism, hastily blinded from real historical facts and someone’s painful fantasies, the author’s contradictory and unstable constructions crumble onto the heads of unprepared readers, leaving traces in their minds like scratches on the camera’s lens. One such thing is still nothing, but when their number begins to roll off the scale, it is impossible to discern anything other than white turbidity in such a lens.
      Samsonov’s articles attract everyone to create an abomination, it is here that supporters of all sorts of different pseudo-historical currents gather, including ideologically close to Nazism, in order to pour their blissful ideas onto neophyte heads. If this happened on a site like "dolboslav rf" or "chronological marriage ru" - hell would be with him, those who go there in advance know what to be prepared for. But this resource positions itself as something serious and, in fact, it is, it inspires confidence among many ... At the same time, for some reason, the section in which Samson’s dregs is published is called “History”, and not “Delusional pseudo-historical theories”.
      To publish such a nonsense in the hope that qualified commentators themselves will put the necessary accents and explain to the neophytes that what they read in the article cannot even be criticized plainly, because it’s below any criticism, it seems to me not too much, or something ... as ethical as In relation to neophytes, and to qualified commentators, of whom there are many, going to the honor of the resource.
      I turn to the site’s administration: publish normal historical articles, let normal people communicate normally, without being distracted by “military operations” against militant stupidity and ignorance. Don’t worry, they’ll burst anyway and will fly like honey flies to discuss a particular topic (they need to eat something), but they fly to Samsonov like flies not for eating, but for to set aside the larva, that’s the main difference. Why give them a breeding platform?
      I am not opposed to clinging to someone on a historical topic, to arrange a polemic, but the topic should be precisely historical, and not provocative. And here, instead of discussing the nuances of the assault by the Ottomans of Constantinople with nice and smart people, one has to prove to the next nunner that the Ottoman Turks are not Russian Orthodox Cossacks from Kazan.
      1. +13
        8 June 2018 12: 31
        Oh, I’ll add a ban now, but it’s better to ban than a trip to Kashchenko because of a nervous breakdown, due to unspoken emotions.

        Michael, most readers will agree with you. I join you. hi
        I am not opposed to clinging to someone on a historical topic, to arrange a polemic, but the topic should be precisely historical, and not provocative. And here, instead of discussing the nuances of the assault by the Ottomans of Constantinople with nice and smart people, one has to prove to the next nunner that the Ottoman Turks are not Russian Orthodox Cossacks from Kazan.

        absolutely right. Anyway, according to your comment, I will subscribe to every word. soldier By the way, a good article would come out! hi
        1. 0
          8 June 2018 14: 37
          Does it not seem strange to you that Kazan is still considered the Volga Bulgaria?
        2. +5
          8 June 2018 14: 51
          Quote: Mikado
          By the way, a good article would come out!

          Do you suggest writing an article criticizing the information policy of this resource? I’m not sure that this will be useful, not a fact, even that they will publish, especially if you do not regret the colors. And then, “History” is just one section and by no means the most visited, and on others in general the hell is going on, obscurantism is some ... They can not be redone.
          I, as a normal Russian intellectual, was indignant, let off steam and sat on the priest again, for raising the revolution is obviously not mine, moreover, I am not ready to build something instead of the destroyed one, and in this case it’s better not to destroy. smile
          1. +5
            8 June 2018 15: 28
            but on others in general, the hell is going on, obscurantism of some kind ... They can not be redone.

            I agree. But a portion of subtle criticism would not hurt. Although .. well him, Michael. hi One hell, eat poop from the possessed. what
        3. 0
          8 July 2018 12: 58
          ... licked well ..
  4. +8
    8 June 2018 10: 10
    And the dinosaurs were also from the superethnos of the Rus-Aryans?
    1. +1
      8 June 2018 14: 36
      Well, there was such a civilization of the Hyperboreans, and somehow they were not denied in either the Ancient Ages or the Renaissance. Well, there are none now, and what !? And still a couple of professors are looking for them on our Kola Peninsula. and even found something ... Do you propose to give them a fight by kayla with permafrost?
  5. +4
    8 June 2018 11: 46
    Thanks to the author for an interesting series of articles on Svyatoslav’s campaigns in Bulgaria. I will make some critical notes. Attempts to present Svyatoslav’s aggressive campaigns in Bulgaria as “the beginning of a centuries-old Russian-Bulgarian friendship” diverge from the facts. A campaign is pure aggression on a foreign state, which had no similar intentions to Kievan Rus.
    Svyatoslav presents Preslavets as a true paradise: a place where “All kinds of blessings flow down: from the Greek land gold, silk, wine and various fruits, from Czechs and Ugr - silver and horses, from Russia - leather and wax, copper and slaves”.
    Lev Dyakon testifies that after the attack on Bulgaria Svyatoslav and his entourage “They didn’t want to return to their country, but, desperate for the prosperity of this land, they completely forgot about the contract with Nicephorus and considered that it was more profitable for them to remain and take possession of this country”
    Svyatoslav’s campaigns in Bulgaria are typical predatory, conquering campaigns.
    About that, Svyatoslav distinguished himself with his atrocities, which he committed over the Bulgarians. It is a fact that in 971, Svyatoslav in Drastr executes more than 300 Bulgarian boyars. As a comparison, the Turks having conquered Tarnovo in 1393, the boyars are executing around 100. When Filipopol / Plovdiv / refuses to submit to Svetoslav, the Russians attack and take the city. The brutal conquerors beat the stakes of thousands of ego residents. The cruelty and barbarism of Svyatoslav is amazing, even the unfriendly to the Bulgarians Vizintiyans!
    There is evidence of an extremely cruel attitude of Svyatoslav to the local population and during the capture of the Preslav. For the Bulgarian people Svyatoslav is such an enemy as the Byzantines.
    As a result of the aggression of Svyatoslav, Bulgaria is plundered, devastated and weakened. This is the reason for which, shortly after the departure of Svyatoslav, Bulgaria falls into the 2 century under the Byzantine rule. The blow to the Bulgarian Kingdom has been dealt to him, Svyatoslav, is fatal to his existence.
    1. +6
      8 June 2018 12: 01
      Quote: pytar
      I will make some critical notes.

      Boyan, I agree with you completely. hi
      I’ll even say more sharply: the article is complete nonsense, but the author is not cold, not hot. He spit on us all from a high mountain and it is useless to polemize with him, anyway, the next article will also distort the story, like this one.
    2. +3
      8 June 2018 16: 24
      Yes of course. Svyatoslav is worse for the Bulgarians than basileus. Right now, Putin will withdraw troops from Syria, and then they will also say that the Russian Syrians were robbed and the cities were destroyed. And the most interesting partly they will not lie. What "Syrians" will not say. So about Svyatoslav’s campaign with the Ugrians and Pechenegs, they will not say that in fact it was a retaliatory blow against Christianization. Such wars have been going on in Europe since the 6th century. This is the tormenting of the Saxons by Charlemagne, and the Viking raids on the "enlightened" France of the Carolingian times and Christianized Saxons of Britain (the Vikings loved to ruin monasteries). This and subsequent wars against the Slavic Slavs, until the complete extermination of the Bodrich, and then the Lutichs. So the national aspect of that war is in last place, the imperial one is in the middle, and the religious / worldview is the basis.
      1. +3
        8 June 2018 17: 21
        What kind of retaliation, what friendship? Nicephorus Foka sent the son of Kalokir from Kherson with money to hire a Kiev prince to attack Bulgaria. All! No Scythian superethnos, no friendship - all in the spirit of the times. That is how Simenon, together with the Pechenegs, ravaged the Hungarian camps in Ethelkuzu and set them on Kiev.
        No need for fiction.
      2. +4
        8 June 2018 17: 25
        You made an unimaginable compote! Svyatoslav, Bazileus, Putin, Syrians, Ugrians, Saxons, Carolingians, Vikings, Charlemagne, Lyutichi, religions ... laughing And the Aztecs have forgotten! belay
        1. +2
          8 June 2018 21: 08
          Historic vinaigrette seasoned with turbulets wassat
    3. 0
      8 July 2018 13: 12
      ..About Svyatoslav distinguished himself with his atrocities, which he perpetrated over the Bulgarians. The fact that in 971 Svyatoslav executes more than 300 Bulgarian boyars in Drastar. As a comparison, the Turks, having conquered Tarnovo in 1393, execute about 100 boyars. When Filipopol / Plovdiv / refuses to submit to Svetoslav, the Russians attack and take the city. The brutal conquerors beat the stakes of thousands of ego residents. The cruelty and barbarism of Svyatoslav is amazing, even the unfriendly to the Bulgarians Vizintiyans!
      ... for the gifted - the Ottoman Empire is a product of the 15th century .. The Turks could not conquer Tarnovo in 1393 .. Donskoy founded Constantinople after the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 .. Moses, Prince of Tver, founded the Bulgarian kingdom, came to Constantinople and founded the Ataman Empire, which later became the Ottoman Empire - in the 15th century ..
  6. +4
    8 June 2018 12: 20
    It has become fashionable now to rewrite history. Someone is rewriting the Second World War, someone is taking on antiquity. Some manic craving became noticeable among some scribes to prove that the Mongols did not conquer Russia and in general they were almost Slavs, Polovtsy with Pechenegs are now almost Slavs too. Probably, soon someone will write that the Oghuz are also Slavs and spoke the same language with the Russians. Where does this nonsense come from? Obviously only from the head of the scribbler. A lot of evidence is about the appearance of the same Polovtsy Oguzes. Earlier in Soviet history, there was no access to documents of the same China and Asia. Now take and read, Fill in the gaps in knowledge, but no, scribes do not read, they write ... I don’t even want to talk about the far-fetched arguments justifying the attack on Bulgaria.
    1. +2
      8 June 2018 13: 17
      It has become fashionable now to rewrite history ... Some manic craving became noticeable among some scribes to prove that the Mongols did not conquer Russia and in general they were almost Slavs, Polovtsy and Pechenegs are now almost Slavs too.

      You are right! This phenomenon is observed. For it are purely political motives. The pragmatic goal is to appear almost as an heir to the Mongols, but in general of those peoples who inhabited the Asian expanses. After all, this is their former territory, to which there have never been any Russians, Tartars, Hyperboreans, etc. there was no nonsense. All found ancient archaeological artifacts are represented as Old Russian, although they have nothing to do with Russia, except that they are now in its territory. Moreover, they do not shun from extremely primitive folshifications. “Antiquity”, as conceived, should “prove” the autonchronicity of the current state structure, and accordingly its historical rights as a creator, not a conqueror.
      I apologize if I give myself too sharply. I don’t want to offend anyone. hi
    2. +2
      8 June 2018 14: 42
      Well, there was already a precedent when Ukraine turned to Mongolia for compensation yoke
      1. +1
        8 June 2018 21: 09
        Mongolia did not refuse. Just asked to provide her with a list of victims.
    3. +2
      10 June 2018 17: 51
      "the Mongols did not conquer Russia, and in general they were almost Slavs, Polovtsy with the Pechenegs are now almost Slavs too." ////

      These fantasies have a common ideological meaning. If all-all the peoples of Eurasia are Aryan-Rus, as the author tries to imagine, then all wars and defeats from the Tatar-Mongols and other peoples turn into cute internal quarrels.
      And the true enemy is the terrible West. These are the Vatican, the Anglo-Saxons and other Khazars that joined them. wassat
      Which from the time of the pyramids (also Aryan-Rus, if you do not know)) and to this day are plotting the peoples of Eurasia.
      The author is a pan-Eurasist. And in order to reconcile all the peoples of Eurasia, he wrote everyone in a row to the invented pra-nation.
      1. 0
        10 June 2018 19: 08
        Briefly and clearly said! good Respect from me, Alex! hi
      2. 0
        15 June 2018 12: 39
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And the true enemy is the terrible West. These are the Vatican, the Anglo-Saxons and other Khazars that joined them.

        But what’s wrong? smile
  7. BAI
    0
    8 June 2018 13: 12
    The Pechenegs, like the Rus, were Caucasians.

    looking at
    The sculptural image of Svyatoslav of the work of Eugene Lancere

    I would say that Svyatoslav is a Mongoloid.
    The author’s articles, probably in Ukraine, differ on quotes. As an example of historical insanity. With the words: "And after that they still run into our historians."
    1. 0
      9 June 2018 09: 17
      So after all, the restoration of the appearance of Ilya Muromets shows that he had Mongoloid features. :)))
  8. +3
    8 June 2018 13: 27
    "It is worth knowing that the Pechenegs, contrary to a myth that distorts the true history of the Russian people, were not" Türks ""
    This phrase is quite enough to understand that the author in questions of history is wooden to the waist (upper body).
    He did not even bother to read publicly available literature on this subject.
    No one ever claimed that all polls were Mongoloid, including Soviet archaeologists and historians, it is enough to read Pletnev. The Türkic-speaking and Mongoloid are not synonyms, gentlemen Samsonov and others like them. Though lie learn how to lie.
    1. 0
      8 June 2018 16: 31
      I would ask to express less categorically. It was enough to say that the Mongoloidness of the ancient Turks is disputed and questioned. That is why the term Turkyuts are used in relation to the Turkic Khaganates, and not the Turks (in a modern interpretation). It is possible that the Arab chroniclers considered the Slavs to be part of the Turks, and therefore it is quite possible to reverse the ratio, considering the ancient Turks to be part of the Slavs. This is of course a metaphor, but the truth is somewhere in the middle, and Alexander adheres to it. Otherwise, it is possible to defame Gumilyov in all of Ivanovo, with his Great Scythia, but it is unlikely that the language will turn on the adequate. But Samsonov apparently can be blasphemed. Read the literature? - You and the author read MISCELLANEOUS literature. And the "literature" of these as seeds in the market, and 90% biased.
      1. +2
        8 June 2018 18: 42
        "I would ask to express less categorically. "
        Categorically this work is forbidden to characterize the rules of the site, so I am as correct as possible. So ask in vain ....
  9. +1
    8 June 2018 14: 09
    Finished reading on "Polovtsy is Russo-Aryans."
  10. +2
    8 June 2018 14: 40
    In general, Alexander is not worth throwing beads before us was at the beginning of the era one such apostle Thomas and God had to personally witness to him his resurrection ....
  11. 0
    8 June 2018 16: 03
    How much evil did the carriers of the cross bring!
    1. +2
      8 June 2018 17: 23
      How much did they bring?
      1. 0
        23 July 2018 13: 03
        To hell and bring so far! I don’t do horseradish, they’re fattening, and they laugh at the patsva which carries the loot, and they have fun, servants of the cross)))
    2. dSK
      0
      8 June 2018 21: 18
      Quote: GEV67
      How much evil brought
      descendants of those who crucified Christ!
      1. 0
        23 July 2018 13: 02
        Italians? Descendants of the Romans?
    3. 0
      8 July 2018 12: 46
      ... a pectoral cross - a rune - a charm ..
  12. +1
    8 June 2018 22: 14
    It is worth knowing that the Pechenegs, contrary to a myth distorting the true history of the Russian people, were not “Türks”
    And the names of the khans Kuchuk, Temir, Kildar, Baptchar are, of course, originally Slavic! wassat
  13. 0
    8 June 2018 22: 28
    Others believe that Malusha is the daughter of the Drevlyansky prince Mala, who led the uprising in which Prince Igor was killed. Traces of the Drevlyansky prince Mal are lost after 945, probably he did not escape the revenge of Princess Olga.
    But this is more than likely, only if he had not avoided the revenge of Princess Olga - they would have mentioned this in the annals, then it was customary to boast of such things! The name Mal got for growth, and he had another similar nickname - Niskinya. (from here "Dobrynya Niskinich / Nikitich"). Vladimir had about a thousand concubines - and therefore, at least hundreds of sons from them. But in the "fraternal showdown" after his death, only sons from "legal wives" participated - that is, sons from the concubines did not have the right to the throne, and did not even try to rip! So if Vladimir were the son of an ordinary housekeeper - no one would just follow him, and even Novgorod during the life of Svyatoslav would not agree to accept him as a prince. But if he is the son of a captured Drevlyansky princess, then this is a completely different calico!
    1. 0
      8 July 2018 12: 42
      ... in any case, to Vladimir the Red Sun (John the Baptist), relatives of the relative were cut off .. when he arrived to save his niece (Christ) .. (there was no need to drink at the banquet) ..
  14. +1
    9 June 2018 06: 06
    Why on such a serious site, they print such nonsense.
  15. +2
    9 June 2018 19: 43
    And where about the Great Tartary and the Slav of Christ?
  16. 0
    11 June 2018 16: 44
    The Bulgarians under the decisive leader Simeon, and they almost took Constantinople.

    It is about king Simeone (893 - 927, Caesar from 913). The first who was titled as Caesar, that is, the king was Khan Tervel (in 705), who defeated the Arabs besieging Constantinople.
    1. +1
      18 June 2018 04: 15
      ... I know one Simeon the Proud - Alexander Nevsky ... Otkel appeared in those years? A complete mess in history .. Constantinople was founded by Dmitry Donskoy after the Battle of Kulikovo ..
      Quote from dsk
      Quote: GEV67
      How much evil brought
      descendants of those who crucified Christ!

      ... Christ - Bogolyubsky was crucified by his own boyars with the help of his wife - Kuchkova .. Well, such a boyar contingent was corrupt in the time of Christ - and now it’s the same - why be surprised ... Earth is such a walk the field ...
  17. 0
    12 June 2018 14: 02
    Sorry for the question, what kind of nonsense is this article?
  18. 0
    8 July 2018 12: 24
    Quote: Curious
    "It is worth knowing that the Pechenegs, contrary to a myth that distorts the true history of the Russian people, were not" Türks ""
    This phrase is quite enough to understand that the author in questions of history is wooden to the waist (upper body).
    He did not even bother to read publicly available literature on this subject.
    No one ever claimed that all polls were Mongoloid, including Soviet archaeologists and historians, it is enough to read Pletnev. The Türkic-speaking and Mongoloid are not synonyms, gentlemen Samsonov and others like them. Though lie learn how to lie.

    ... Mongolia (Mongolia) was born through the efforts of Ulyanov = Lenin = Blanca and his burry comrades only in 1920 .. Therefore, there were no Mongols and Mongoloids until 1920, and no one could write about them earlier than this date ...
  19. 0
    8 July 2018 12: 36
    Quote: Pecheneg
    Sorry for the question, what kind of nonsense is this article?

    .. someone wanted to get a lot of points right away ..
  20. 0
    8 July 2018 12: 53
    Quote: Curious
    "It is worth knowing that the Pechenegs, contrary to a myth that distorts the true history of the Russian people, were not" Türks ""
    This phrase is quite enough to understand that the author in questions of history is wooden to the waist (upper body).
    He did not even bother to read publicly available literature on this subject.
    No one ever claimed that all polls were Mongoloid, including Soviet archaeologists and historians, it is enough to read Pletnev. The Türkic-speaking and Mongoloid are not synonyms, gentlemen Samsonov and others like them. Though lie learn how to lie.

    .. what kind of Mongoloids can you talk about at all - the territory of modern Mongolia belonged to the Scythians and * the Great Wall of China * - their business was the wall protected the Scythians from * Mongoloids * - The Chinese are - Mongoloids, or rather Mongols - these are Chinese scholars .. ( 1920 - the foundation of Mongolia) ..
  21. 0
    8 July 2018 13: 24
    Quote: Alexander Trebutsev
    It has become fashionable now to rewrite history. Someone is rewriting the Second World War, someone is taking on antiquity. Some manic craving became noticeable among some scribes to prove that the Mongols did not conquer Russia and in general they were almost Slavs, Polovtsy with Pechenegs are now almost Slavs too. Probably, soon someone will write that the Oghuz are also Slavs and spoke the same language with the Russians. Where does this nonsense come from? Obviously only from the head of the scribbler. A lot of evidence is about the appearance of the same Polovtsy Oguzes. Earlier in Soviet history, there was no access to documents of the same China and Asia. Now take and read, Fill in the gaps in knowledge, but no, scribes do not read, they write ... I don’t even want to talk about the far-fetched arguments justifying the attack on Bulgaria.

    ... for the gifted - Mongolia - a piece of the Qing empire - China, * bitten off * by Ulyanov = Blank = Lenin in 1920 and named MPR .. No Mongols existed earlier than this date - search for help to you ..
  22. +1
    8 July 2018 20: 20
    The self-name of the Pechenegs is Bozhanak, which in Türks translates as - brother-in-law. The main role in the defeat of the Khazar Khaganate was actually played by the Pechenegs and Oguzes. These two tribal unions had a protracted conflict with Khazaria. And the military insubordination of the Volga Bulgars also had an important role in the subsequent fall of their Khazaria, which was related to them.
    1. 0
      11 July 2018 15: 38
      Interesting transcription, bozhanak. It is difficult to disagree with the role of the Pechenegs and Oghuzs. The ubiquitous Khazaria (by the way, the former possession of the Western Turkic Kaganate) was nomads like a sickle at the throat. Only here is something wrong with the "kinship" of Khazaria and Bulgaria. The Bulgars were so afraid of the Khazar Khaganate of the time of the Judean coup that with a fright they went to distant lands to bow to the Baghdad caliph and converted to Islam. What kind of people are there?
  23. 0
    14 July 2018 22: 38
    and here the nomad’s hairstyle is imposed on Svyatoslav, and even without a beard


    Image of Prince Svyatoslav from the Radziwill Chronicle


    Zlatnik Vladimir Svyatoslavovich. A small beard is also clearly visible (while the prince's cheeks are shaved).
  24. +1
    21 November 2019 07: 13
    in the III - XIII centuries. The Black Sea coast was densely populated by the clans of Rus-Aryans, descendants of Rus-Scythians and Sarmatians
    Gee! Where does this data come from?
    The Russo-Aryans owned the Black Sea, undividedly, until 1395. Is the date talking about anything? Tamerlane's invasion of Russia. At the head of the army of Turks, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, etc. The Rusov genocide produced by the Central Asian Turks. The cities of the Volga region, Terek, the entire North Caucasus were ravaged, the kingdom of Alan was destroyed, Tauris, Don, Kiev, etc. were plundered. 1399 - Battle of Vorskla (near Poltava) - The Ruska army was defeated, and the governor of Tamerlane, Beklyarbek Edigey, controlled Arda until 1419.
    That's when the Turks came to Russia and captured the Steppe!
    And they captured Tauris, finally, in 1475. The landing of the Ottoman Turks, the destruction of the Principality of Theodoro, Gothia, the expulsion of the Genoese and the Russians. Which first settled on Perekop and were nicknamed Perekop Cossacks, and then went to the Don and Dnieper.