Slavs on the Danube in the VI century.

How did the Slavs appear on the Danube?


Antes, subordinate to the Huns, entered into their "union." They were forced, voluntarily or forcibly, to participate in the campaigns of the Huns, although there is no direct mention of this in the sources. But there is indirect evidence: Priscus, the author of the fifth century, reported that his embassy to the ruler of the Huns of Atilla was treated to a drink named after the Slavic word honey, and Jordan wrote about Attila’s funeral that “they (barbarians”) celebrate on his barrow "Strava."




"Strava" is an outdated word, but found in almost all Slavic languages, meaning sharing food, eating, eating, funeral commemoration, the analogue of it is "trizny". The presence of such words, found in the vocabulary of the “Huns," may indicate the presence of the Slavs in the army of the Huns.

After the death of Attila in 453, a state association based on the power of the Huns disintegrated:
And it was not otherwise that any Scythian tribe could escape from the rule of the Huns, as soon as with the arrival of the death of Attila desired for all tribes, as well as for the Romans. ("Getica" 253)
.

Associations like the Huns are called “nomadic empires,” usually they exist for a short time, unless sedentary states are captured and the dominant nomadic ethnic group lands on the ground, for example, as was the case with Turks, Bulgarian-Turks, or Hungarians. (Klyashtorny S.G.)

For the Ants - Slavic tribes and clans who were at an early stage of tribal organization, the process of involving them in early state associations, at first ready, and then the Huns, had a positive value, as they, relatively speaking, had an “acquaintance” with other institutions of power .


Slavic warrior of the 6th century Reconstruction of the author.


Already in the IV century, the Ants had a single leader and elders, representatives of tribes. The defeat carried out by the Huns to the population of the forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe, and the subsequent defeat of the Ants from the Goths, caused a regression, which was reflected in the material culture of the Slavs. (Rybakov B.A.)

High-quality pottery earthenware disappears from everyday life, jewelry and blacksmithing decay, tools and household goods are not produced in workshops, but at home, which affects their quality. (Sedov V.V.)

This whole situation caused a degradation of social structures: the Antes, the unification of which began during the Boz period, appear at that time as separate tribes or clans, called “Slavins” a little later in the Balkans.

Social degradation may partially explain the regression that is observed in the new emerging archaeological cultures associated with the Slavs, compared with the Chernyakhov culture.

The Slavs, relatively speaking, divided in the 5th-6th centuries, on the eve of and during the migration to the south, into the sklaven (western branch), Ants (eastern branch) and Venets (northern branch). Jordan wrote about the situation with the resettlement of the Slavs in the VI century:
At their left slope [Alp - V.E.], descending to the north, starting from the birthplace of the Vistula River, a vast tribe of Venets is located in the vast spaces. Although their names now change according to different clans and places, still they are mainly called sklaves and ants. (Schukin M. B.)



Map of the alleged resettlement of the three parts of the Slavs


Ants lived between the Dniester and the Dnieper (Middle Dnieper and Left Bank). Sklavins lived on the territory of central Europe, the Carpathians, modern Bohemia, Volhynia and the upper reaches of the Povisliya, the upper Dnieper, to the Kiev region. Venets - between the Oder and the Vistula, in Belarus and at the source of the Dnieper.

Archaeologically, this corresponds to: Penkovskaya culture - Antam, Prague-Korchak - Sklamen, Kolochino, Sukov-Dzedzitsky and Tushemlin cultures - to Venets.

Of course, there are different opinions about these cultures. There are no special questions regarding ants and slaves. But the correspondence to venets - Kolochinsky, and even more so Sukov-Dzedzitsky archaeological culture raises many questions.

Moreover, many researchers do not see the connection between the cultures of Pshevor and Chernyakhov’s mentioned in previous articles that are clearly defined as Slavic, Penkovsky and Prague-Korchakov’s cultures:

"Slavic cultures of the VIII-IX centuries. had even more in common with the Chernyakhov and Pshevor cultures than the early Slavic monuments of the 6th-7th centuries immediately following in time after the last. ” (Schukin M. B.)


Perhaps this conclusion is the answer to the question. The Hun defeat and withdrawal is ready to the south, gave impetus to regression, overcoming of which was achieved after a serious period of time for one part of the Slavs, and moving to the Roman border - for the other part.
Although, on the other hand, we have continuity in housing and even in dishes (Pastoral settlement) with the Chernyakhov archaeological culture. (Sedov V.V.)

Do not overlook the arguments of ethnographers:
“Primitive societies, or those that are considered primitive, are governed by kinship relations, not economic relations. If these societies were not subjected to destruction from the outside, they could exist indefinitely. ” (C. Levy-Strauss)


From the point of view of the study and subsequent interpretation of archaeological sources, it seems that this issue will be open for a long time.
But written sources give us a lot of material on stories Slavs in the VI century.


Map of archaeological cultures associated with the Slavs


The southward movement or the migration wave of the Slavs, in the wake of many Germanic peoples, to the borders of the East Roman Empire began after 453, after the death of Attila and the internecine war of the tribes that were part of the Hunnic union.

On the Danube border


At the very end of the fifth century. the proto-Bulgarians destroyed the forty-thousand-strong commissar army of Illyric, and other parts from here were transferred to the eastern border, which was more dangerous for the empire. Several wars that occurred at the beginning of the VI century, completely exposed the northern border on the Danube.

The traditional divide-and-conquer policy didn’t help the Romans to attract the Gepids, the victors of the Huns, and the Eruls who occupied the lands around the city of Singidon (now Belgrade, Serbia) to protect the Danube border.

On the path beaten by the Germans and the Huns, Slavic tribes began to approach the borders of Byzantium. Their invasion of 517 had a devastating effect on the Romance population of the western part of the Balkan Peninsula. They robbed Macedonia, the first and second, Old Epirus, and reached Thermopylae.

One part of the Slavs moved to the Danube from the Ants region, the other from central Europe and the Carpathians. Procopius of Caesarea emphasized that the customs, religion and laws of the Ants and the Slavs are exactly the same.

On the left bank of the Danube, they settled along the borders of the provinces of Scythia (Antes), Lower Moesia, Dacia and Upper Moesia (sklavins). To the west of the Slavs, beyond the Danube, in Pannonia on the Sava River, the bend of the Danube and the lower Tisza, there were gepids. Nearby, in the “Dacia coastal”, were the Heruls, and later here, in the former Roman province of Norik (part of the modern territory of Austria and Slovenia), the Lombards migrated.

Ethnic monolithicity was alien to these territories, the Slavs settled in large numbers on lands controlled by Germanic tribes, and the remnants of the Thracians, Sarmatians and other Iranian-speaking nomads lived here, as well as various groups of the Turkic nomadic population. According to the Greek, Procopius is “bestial tribes”.

The citizens of Byzantium also lived here, on the lands of which newcomers from the north and east began to settle.
The subsequent history of the Slavs who settled in the Danube was associated with both Byzantium and the nomadic tribes who raided the territory of the empire.

The Slavs were at an early stage of the communal-clan formation, when spontaneous collectivism was the basis of society, this is what Prokopius of Caesarea writes about this: “these tribes, Slavs and Antes, are not controlled by one person, but since ancient times have been living in democracy (democracy), and therefore their happiness and unhappiness in life is considered a common affair. ”

He points out that the Slavs have the same laws and worship the supreme god of lightning:
"That only God, the creator of lightning, is the lord over all, and bulls are sacrificed to him and other sacred rites are performed."


The god of lightning or Perun - appears here as the supreme deity, but not yet the god of war. The mistake is to identify it, relying on the material of Ancient Russia, exclusively with the retinue god. (Rybakov B.A.)

Perun, like Zeus, had different "functions", equated to different periods of the formation of society. From the god personifying lightning, through the god - controlling thunder and lightning, to the god of the period of formation of "military democracy" - the god of war. (Losev A.F.)

From the moment the Slavs appeared on the Danube, their endless invasions into the borders of Byzantium began: "... barbarians, Huns, Antes and Slavs, often making such transitions, caused irreparable harm to the Romans."

Byzantine historians record only the largest invasions, not paying attention to minor clashes: “Although now,” says Jordan’s contemporary contemporary of the Slavs, “according to our sins, they are rampant everywhere.” And Procopius of Caesarea in his revealing pamphlet on Emperor Justinian I directly wrote that the Ants and the Slavs, though together with the Huns, had plundered all of Europe to the ground.
In 527, a large army of Ants crossed the Danube and met with the troops of Master Herman, a relative of Emperor Justinian I. The Romance troops completely destroyed the Ants, and the glory of the formidable warrior German thundered throughout the barbaric world of Transdanubia. This victory gave Justinian the opportunity to add to his title “Antsky”.

However, in the 30 years, the Ants actively invaded the territory of Thrace. In response to the increasing attacks of the Slavs, Vasileus Justinian entrusted his squire Hilbudiy with the defense of the Danube border near the capital. It is believed that Hilbudiy was a kind of ant. (Vernadsky G.V.)

He, holding the high post of master of the army of Thrace, over the course of three years completed several successful punitive operations across the Danube, thereby securing the province of Thrace.

At the same time, an attempt was made to attract the Slavs to border protection, an unsuccessful attempt, due to the lack of leaders among the Ants with whom it would be possible to agree. This fact indicates that the Ants did not yet have a tribal union, and "each clan" lived independently. Which, incidentally, did not prevent them from acting together in the event of a military threat. So Khilbudiy, recklessly crossing the Danube with a small detachment, was forced to engage in an open battle with superior ant forces and died in this battle. Since that time, the border has again become available for invasion, moreover, the Slavs begin to settle in the province of Scythia, at the mouth of the Danube.

At the same time, the raids of the nomads continue, and in 540 the Huns reach the outskirts of Byzantium and take the Chersonesus of Thrace by storm. Here it was the first time that nomads took a large imperial city. In the same period, clashes between sklavins and antes took place, the latter were defeated. Emperor Justinian suggested that the Antam take protection of the border in the area of ​​the abandoned city of Turris, built by the Troyan on the left bank of the Danube. Some researchers suggest that the agreement did not take place, while others believe that, on the contrary, Byzantium thereby secured itself for a while: the Huns and Antes did not go on campaigns for several years. At the same time, in Italy, the commander Belisarius has a whole arithmetic of antes (300 warriors) who successfully fight against the Goths.

But the attacks of the Sklavins intensified: in 547 they invaded Illyrik and reached the city of Dirrachia on the Adriatic Sea (modern Durres, Albania). The master of troops in Illyria, having here 15 of thousands of soldiers assembled for Italy, did not dare to repulse the enemies. Two years later, in 549, there was a new invasion of the Slavs by the forces of only three thousand people: part of them went to Illyria, and part to the capital.
The commander-in-chief of all the empire's forces in the area, the master of Thrace and Illyria, entered into battle with one of the Slavic detachments and was defeated, his army, superior in number to the Slavs, fled.

The Slavs were opposed by candidate Asbad, an officer of the bodyguard unit of the emperor. He commanded a detachment of personnel (catalog) riders from the city of Tsurul (Chorlu - East Thrace, Turkey), excellent riders, but the Slavs took them to flight, and they cut belts from the back of Asbad and burned him at the stake. After that they began to devastate Thrace and Illyria, committing all kinds of atrocities, torture and violence. In Thrace, they stormed the coastal city of Toper. 15 thousand men were killed in it, and children and women were taken into slavery. With seized property, prisoners, bulls and small cattle, the soldiers returned unhindered across the Danube.

In 550, the Slavs moved to Thessalonica, but upon learning that in Sardik (modern Sofia, Bulgaria) the legendary commander German was gathering troops for Italy, they turned to Dalmatia to winter there. Herman did not pursue them. The Slavs, already having a collision with him, decided not to tempt fate. Soon, Herman died suddenly, and the Slavs began their campaign again. There were rumors, as Procopius of Caesarea wrote, that they were bribed by the Italian king Gothil Totil.

To those units of the Slavs that wintered in Dalmatia, new ones joined that crossed the Danube, and by all means they began to devastate the province of Europe near Constantinople itself. The threat of the capital forced to gather significant forces of the Romans, who were led by a number of Byzantine commanders, under the command of the palace eunuch Scholastic. The troops met in Thrace near Adrianople, five days from the capital. The Slavs decided to take an open battle with the Byzantine army, but in order to lull the vigilance of the enemy, they were not in a hurry to fight while the ranks of the Romans were growing discontent with the indecision of the commanders: stratiot soldiers reproached them for cowardice and unwillingness to start the battle. And the commanders, fearing rebellion, were forced to yield.

The army of the Slavs was located on a hill and the Romans were forced to strike up, which exhausted them. After which the Slavs went on the offensive and completely defeated the enemy army, capturing even the banner of one of the commanders - Constantian. After which they freely robbed the rich countryside of Astika (modern district of Plovdiv, Bulgaria). On the way back, one of their detachments was attacked by the Byzantines, who saved a lot of people from slavery, and also returned the banner of Constantian, but despite this, the bulk of the Slavs returned for the Danube with prey.

Slaves of the Slavs in the VI - VII centuries.


Numerous evidence of Byzantine authors inform us that the sklavins and antes, in the course of their raids and campaigns on the Byzantine empire, were enriched not only with prey, but also with slaves. Procopius of Caesarea writes that more than twenty myriads of Romans perished and were enslaved, that is, 200 000 people.

And Menander reports that Boyan, who fought with the Slavs, returned many myriads of prisoners from slavery. Among the Slavs, only foreigners became slaves, tribesmen could not be slaves: prisoners of war were the main source of slaves. So, once, during the war between the sklavins and the Ants, the sklavin took into slavery a certain youth of Hilbudiy, after the establishment of peace, he was bought by the ant, having learned that he was his fellow tribe.

The captured prisoners were not the property of individual soldiers or leaders, but of the whole tribe, already on the lands of the Slavs, they were divided by lot between clans. So, the ant who bought the young man Hilbudia, whose name was the same as that of the missing commander of the Romans, tried to return him for ransom to Constantinople, but his fellow tribesmen found out about this, decided that this was the business of the whole people, and demanded to resolve the issue with a pseudo commander to the benefit of all.

The captured women and children adapted within the framework of family groups, and the men were enslaved for a certain, exact time, after which they were offered a choice: either pay off and go home, or remain on the rights of free and friends. Thus, the former slave became a full member of society, he could have property, get married, especially take part in military enterprises. Adult slaves compensated for the loss of warriors and participated in battles along with free ones. Researchers define this stage as "primitive slavery." (Froyanov I.Ya.)

Along with the looting, the most important “source of income” for the Slavs was the return of prisoners for ransom, especially since the Byzantine state paid special attention to this, allocating significant amounts.

To be continued ...

Sources and literature:
Jordan. On the origin and deed of the Getae. Translation E.Ch. Skrzhinsky. SPb., 1997.
Procopius of Caesarea War with the Goths / Translation S.P. Kondratiev. T.I. M., 1996.
Mauritius Strategicon / Translation and commentary by V.V. Kuchma. St. Petersburg., 2003.
Kulakovsky Yu. History of Byzantium (395-518 gg.) St. Petersburg, 2003.
Lovmyansky G. Religion of the Slavs and its decline (VI-XII). Translation M.V. Kovalkova. SPb., 2003.
Rybakov B. A. Paganism of Ancient Russia. M., 1988.
Sedov V.V. Slavs. Old Russian people. Historical and archaeological research. M., 2005.
Froyanov I.Ya. Slavery and tribute to the Eastern Slavs (VI - X centuries.). SPb., 1996.
Khazanov A. M. Decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of a class society // Primitive Society. The main problems of development. / Ans. Ed. A.I. Pershits. M., 1975.
Schukin M. B. Birth of the Slavs. STRATUM: STRUCTURES AND DISASTERS. Collection of symbolic Indo-European history. SPb., 1997.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Angelica 23 August 2019 05: 28 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    If the Huns have so much Slavic, so maybe it was the Slavs who initiated the campaign to the West? And the Huns simply called for themselves. Where does the version about “conquering” the Slavs of the Huns come from? And without a fight, the Slavs do not submit. And after such a massacre, what a joint campaign. Something in the official history does not add up. request
    1. My doctor 24 August 2019 22: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: angelica
      And the Huns simply called for themselves. Where does the version about “conquering” the Slavs of the Huns come from?

      clearly stated
      The defeat carried out by the Huns to the population of the forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe, and the subsequent defeat of the Ants from the Goths, caused a regression, which was reflected in the material culture of the Slavs. (Rybakov B.A.)
      High-quality pottery earthenware disappears from everyday life, jewelry and blacksmithing decay, tools and household goods are not produced in workshops, but at home, which affects their quality. (Sedov V.V.)
      1. Angelica 25 August 2019 15: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        clearly stated

        It is this "clear" and I doubt.
        The Slavs would not have fought on the side of those who carried out their rout. In those days, it was not just a military defeat. Then, as a rule, the destruction of peaceful settlements and their inhabitants followed.
        And after all this, "respected" academic professors claim that the Slavs went to fight for the Huns?
        1. My doctor 25 August 2019 18: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: angelica
          The Slavs would not have fought on the side of those who carried out their rout.

          And what were their options?
          Quote: angelica
          In those days, it was not just a military defeat. Then, as a rule, the destruction of peaceful settlements and their inhabitants followed.
          Just this explains the regression of the culture of the Slavs
      2. There is, however, trouble: "the defeat of the Ants from the Goths" was BEFORE the "defeat carried out by the Huns." And the "defeat by the Huns" was actually, according to sources, only ready (but not Ants, Sklavins, or Wolverines). So there is really no evidence of "subjugation of the Slavs by the Huns" really. As, however, and in general evidence of some parish of at least some tribes from the side.
  2. bistrov. 23 August 2019 06: 13 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    This is so-called "Ants" fought to the waist naked? It is unlikely, most likely in felt or ungulate armor, and the pants weren’t worn then, because the “knife”, the so-called. The “foot sword” was worn precisely in the bootleg, and such a military affiliation as a bow, which, according to Anta, was masterfully owned by every warrior, was obligatory.
    1. SokolfromRussia 30 August 2019 14: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      According to what legend? Why do you think the bow was "required"?
  3. Operator 23 August 2019 09: 24 New
    • 1
    • 10
    -9
    Ants lived between the Dniester and the Dnieper (Middle Dnieper and Left Bank). Sklavins lived on the territory of central Europe, the Carpathians, modern Bohemia, Volhynia and the upper reaches of the Povisliya, the upper Dnieper, to the Kiev region. Venets - between the Oder and the Vistula, in Belarus and at the source of the Dnieper

    And on the northern coast and the Baltic islands up to Jutland, as well as in Ladoga, therefore, the Holy Spirit lived exclusively laughing

    PS The author does not like Slavs to hepatic colic - he calls them the warped word "slavs".
    1. Alex013 23 August 2019 10: 30 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      "And on the northern coast and the Baltic islands up to Jutland, as well as in Ladoga, therefore, the Holy Spirit lived exclusively ..."

      Balts and Finns probably
  4. Engineer 23 August 2019 11: 02 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The long-awaited continuation of the cycle about the Slavs.
    I do not want to criticize yet). Balanced well, and Schukin finally appeared in quotes, thanks to a narrower specialization, he is much better than Sedov’s reviewer as for me.
    Question to the author. In your opinion, did the Slavs participate in the campaigns of the Huns?
    Best regards
    1. Edward Vashchenko 23 August 2019 13: 16 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Denis good afternoon!
      and Schukin finally appeared in quotes
      Thank you
      But there is an opinion about Schukin, but I do not want to go deeper: with a balanced historiographic assessment, he is also quite controversial wink own conclusions.
      In your opinion, did the Slavs participate in the campaigns of the Huns?


      I will not answer my forehead as I wrote: there are no direct data. The "campaigns" of the Huns on the Danube and beyond, after all, are a fleeting operation, and the massive movement of a huge number of tribes, which voluntarily moved together in a wild effort. A good example here is the Alans, some of whom ended up in Africa with vandals, indirectly, judging by the terms, the Slavs were also involved. You can’t say more precisely.
      1. Engineer 23 August 2019 13: 40 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Unfortunately, when I just started to get involved in the era of the Great Migration, I was immediately struck by how "faded" the Slavs of that time looked. The Jordan knows about them perfectly, but he does not mention either in the battle on the Catalunian fields or at Nedao, where the fate of the Hunnic state was decided. Archeology is silent. Traces of the Alans were found in Western Europe, and Jordan wrote directly about them. It’s like the whole “movement” passed without our ancestors)
        1. Angelica 23 August 2019 13: 57 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          Engineer (Denis) Today, 13:40
          It’s like the whole “movement” passed without our ancestors)

          This is a taboo for European historians. In no case do not mention the Slavs.
          After all, official science presents us with the idea that the backward tribes were supposedly tribes. And so on. Although the fact is that the Slavs actively influenced the history of Europe and the world, a lot. The Slavs built cities, and the states abolished and created, long before the Old Russian state (Kievan Rus).
          1. Nadir shah 29 August 2019 00: 44 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            The fact of the matter is that they did not influence, and yes, the Old Russian state does not exist (then there were no Russes either). You can talk about “history hides” as much as you like, but the facts are clear - they did not do anything significant until the arrival of the Scandinavians.
        2. Edward Vashchenko 23 August 2019 14: 44 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Denis
          I do not see this as a problem. On the contrary, while working on the topic, and during the discussion with you, the chakras somehow open.
          The Slavs embarked on a path of historical development much later than the Western Germans related to them in the linguistic group, and so what?
          What is the problem (I rhetorically)? I am writing about this in another cycle at the Russian Civilization Higher Educational Establishment, yes, later, respectively, and Russia began to form later.
          Let me remind you a bit of historiography. Pre-revolutionary, without exception, considered, in addition to some authors (Polevoy, Sergievich), that in Russia there was some special specific formation or its modifications.
          And here Pavlov-Selevansky - said no, it was not like that, there was feudalism and all institutions as in Western Europe, but seriously later. The problem of Soviet historiography, from this point of view, was that the offensive began: feudalism almost in the 6 century (the Ukrainian comrades tried: Kotlyar and others like them), and they began to search for capitalism in the 17 century. Like we with a mustache.
          The mistake was that the Slavs as a whole and Russia followed the same organic path, but in different geo-climatic conditions, and in a different period. Someone like Russia went this way, having carried out two modernizations and once defeating Western Civilization, while someone fell under the colonization heel of the neighboring west (Czechs, Poles), the Western Slavs without a state were completely destroyed.
          But the essence of the problem is that they later embarked on a development path than others, probably, therefore, there are really no Slavs in the Battle of the Catalun Fields,
          It’s like the whole “movement” passed without our ancestors)

          and from the VI century, campaigns on Byzantium, and then Avars: did not pass laughing
          1. Engineer 23 August 2019 15: 02 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            The "problem" is that the audience expects heroic achievements from our ancestors. And historians depict how they consistently become the prey of the Goths, Huns, Avars, Bulgarians, Magyars. The average reader is shocked and the thoughts “historians hide” are born)
            The Slavs really entered the arena later than the same Germans. And for a long time they were in the shade. But even a comparison of time intervals is not in favor of the Slavs. The Germans, under the name Teutons, were first mentioned at the turn of the 1st – 2nd centuries AD. After 500 years, they took Rome. Slavs are mentioned in the 1st century AD (Venets of Tacitus). After 500 years they took .... Toper. About Avar in general, it’s better not to talk again. The most tragic chapter in our history.
            Why does the commentary constantly refer to the 3000-year-old Slavic state a la Asov associates? Because historians do not want what you wrote in this commentary to make especially popular articles in the preface. And regularly remind. )) The most serious rebuke to you))).
            1. Edward Vashchenko 23 August 2019 15: 41 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              And regularly remind. )) The most serious rebuke to you))).

              Of course, accepted !. Alas, in another way it is difficult:
              "historians hide")
              everything is stubborn, in the secret archives of the Vatican, well, where else))
              and earlier in the archives of the party)
              But, through thorns, literally, to the stars!
              1. 3x3zsave 23 August 2019 19: 45 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                I'm afraid in this case, “winged” Latin sounds differently: “Per rectum, ad astrum”
            2. 3x3zsave 23 August 2019 20: 11 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              The “problem” you mentioned is really a problem, for those who 10 years ago only talked on the television “raped and mastered the Internet a few years ago.” And there, all sorts of “pioneers” from history that level cognitive dissonance between “legitimate being” and “great past”.
              1. Edward Vashchenko 25 August 2019 17: 28 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Anton good afternoon!
                And there, all sorts of “pioneers” from history that level cognitive dissonance between “legitimate being” and “great past”.
                hi
            3. IGOR GORDEEV 27 August 2019 09: 24 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Engineer
              The Slavs really entered the arena later than the same Germans. And for a long time they were in the shade. But even a comparison of time intervals is not in favor of the Slavs. The Germans, under the name Teutons, were first mentioned at the turn of the 1st – 2nd centuries AD. After 500 years, they took Rome. Slavs are mentioned in the 1st century AD (Venets of Tacitus). After 500 years they took .... Toper.

              But Mavro Orbini writes about the Slavs in a different vein. And in his "Slavic Kingdom" he writes that their merits are undeservedly forgotten or are silent about them. Who to believe?
        3. fuxila 23 August 2019 17: 51 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Simply, the Slavs in this period preferred not to conduct active military operations against the empire, but to engage in a more practical matter - to occupy the lands that had been empty after the Germans left, right up to the Elbe in the west, which is why they "fell out" of history. This process is not only visible to the Slavs. So, on the border of the empire, hepids settled, one of the most powerful Germanic tribes, but the information about them is also fragmentary and they are mentioned in those cases when they showed some kind of military or diplomatic activity associated with Byzantium - then they came to the attention of chroniclers that time. That is, at the side of the empire, and partially within its borders, there was a powerful barbarian kingdom, about which almost nothing is known to historians!
          Also, the Slavs, when they came into conflict with the empire, as Byzantine diplomacy immediately noticed. The author also forgot to mention the invasion of 6 thousand. troops of the Slavs and Gepids to Italy around 549. At first they decided to help the Ostrogothic king Totila in the struggle against the empire and even defeated the army sent against them under the command of Lazarus, but then they suddenly changed their minds, turned around and left the Danube.
          1. Engineer 23 August 2019 20: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I do not agree here. Gepids are little known except here. Regularly I stumble across the network on thick monographs on them. Unfortunately, all in Goethe’s language. But ancient authors know them very well. The Gepids participated in many significant showdowns, especially their key role in the Battle of Nedao. It is said about their king Ardarich that he was almost on equal footing with Atilla. About the Slavs there is nothing like it before the 6th century. And after that, the same gepids behave as masters of the situation in contact with the Slavs. They transport their troops across the Danube, charging a fee., For example.
            As far as I know, in the 6th century the Slavs did not reach Elba yet.
            1. fuxila 24 August 2019 04: 02 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              There is one major monograph of Diculescu, which in the early 20s. summarized all the information about gepids, no new written sources have since been discovered and the new monographs simply supplement the data of archeology, so even little is known about Ardarich you mentioned, neither when he ascended the throne, nor when he died, where his capital was located . Nothing is known about his predecessors, nor about his successor. The next king known to us, Traustila, became famous only because he was beaten by the Ostrogoths in 488, as well as his son Trazarich in 504, and then again a failure until the middle of the VI century: again, it is not known who ruled them at that time and where was their capital. The ancient history of gepids is just as vague: they came out with the Goths in the III century. to the Danube, rounded up to the full and again disappeared before the arrival of the Huns. As a result, we even know much more about the vandals living in isolation in Africa than about the Gepids located under the nose of the Byzantines.
              But the Slavs reached Elba, wrote about this to Procopius of Caesarea, when he reports that they were defeated at the beginning of the VI century with the Lombards, the Geruls decided to return to their ancient homeland in Scandinavia and, retreating, went through the lands of the Slavs.
  5. asay63 23 August 2019 12: 45 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Thanks, interesting! So much for the plowmen ... laughing
    Belisarius obviously would not have taken to the service of half-naked poor peasants, and even smashed the emperor's bodyguards, and put their boss on their belts, as the Slav war does not fit in with the picture
    1. Edward Vashchenko 23 August 2019 13: 22 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Alexander,
      this image - reconstruction - literally from the words of Procopius of Caesarea, who, as I wrote, as secretary of Belisarius, saw the Slavs in the Romanesque army in Italy, and Mauritius the Strategist.
      Details will be in the article on the weapons and tactics of the Slavs in the VI-VII centuries. in a couple of articles.
      Probably wrong what I posted now.
      I repeat - this is an exact, literal reconstruction, and not my or other guesses.
      It can be assumed that the Slavs fought like that in hot Italy, I also have doubts that you can fight like that all the time, even on the Danube or Greece: the weather is not the same.
      But, I repeat, this image is precisely on the sources of the VI century, we simply do not have other information.
      All sources are attached, available.
      Yours faithfully,
      Edward
      1. Engineer 23 August 2019 13: 35 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Here you can clarify:
        Procopius has the original Aspidium. Translated according to the authors of the "code of written news about the Slavs", ed. Gindina's SMALL SHIELD. In contrast to the "scutaria" in Mauritius, a large shield. Therefore, according to this interpretation, the shield in the figure must be reduced.
        1. Edward Vashchenko 23 August 2019 14: 19 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Denis
          Mauritius Stratig wrote strong, but difficult to tolerate shields (Mauritius Strategicon / Translation and commentary by V.V. Kuchma. St. Petersburg, 2003. C.190.).
          Procopius does not have aspidium, but aspis. I wrote on VO in an article about the infantry of the Romans, you can see. Initially, unlike the scutum, the aspis, like the clypea, is an all-metal round shield, the aspis in general is a hoplite shield of the classical period.
          Procopius of Caesarea, who uses the term aspis to designate a shield, also translates Kliphea hill from the Latin name as Mount Shield, but this does not mean that it is a classical aspis, in Procopius it is just a shield.
          About shields in detail by John Lead, author of the 6th century, in Russian, unfortunately, there is no translation. By the way, I checked all VIc texts against Greek and Latin originals by weapons.
          On the shields of the Romans of the 6th century, I will repeat my detailed analysis in an article about infantry in the VO laughing
          1. Engineer 23 August 2019 14: 34 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Original Procopius ασπιδια. Just checked.
            It’s not me who writes this small shield, but Gindin and Litavrin.
            Mauritius has a scutum. Here I do not argue at all.

            It seems to me that the passage Procopius on weapons and equipment of the Slavs deserves to be brought in the article in its entirety. Below, during the siege of Toper, he says that the Slavs bombarded the defenders with arrows. It seems to me that this important information is just on the subject of HE.
            1. Edward Vashchenko 23 August 2019 15: 35 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              It seems to me that this important information is just on the subject of HE.

              Denis,
              this continuation ... a separate article, after the Slavs and Avars
              1. Engineer 23 August 2019 15: 37 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Open end with an eye on the next sequel?). Historians in trend
                No collision.
                1. Edward Vashchenko 23 August 2019 15: 46 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  You are strong, simple: to be continued.
                  Only the middle of the VI century)))
            2. Edward Vashchenko 23 August 2019 15: 42 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Original Procopius ασπιδια. Just checked.
              It’s not me who writes this small shield, but Gindin and Litavrin.
              Mauritius has a scutum. Here I do not argue at all.

              I will check, thanks
              1. Engineer 23 August 2019 15: 54 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                This place (a set of written information about the Slavs)
    2. fuxila 23 August 2019 17: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In fact, the Gauls also liked to go into battle half-naked ...
  6. kalibr 23 August 2019 16: 37 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: angelica
    This is a taboo for European historians. In no case do not mention the Slavs.
    After all, official science presents us with the idea that the backward tribes were supposedly tribes. And so on. Although the fact is that the Slavs actively influenced the history of Europe and the world, a lot. The Slavs built cities, and the states abolished and created, long before the Old Russian state (Kievan Rus).
    Reply

    Who told you that? You list the works of Western historians about the Slavs to lay out or are you able to find on the Internet?
  7. acetophenon 23 August 2019 19: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Figase, how the Albanians moved ...
  8. paul3390 23 August 2019 20: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Engineer
    Germans named Teutons

    It is not at all a fact that they were Germans. Like the Cimbri. It is much more likely that these are the Celts. Kim is still called Welsh, and Tuatha, Tevata - in Old Irish means simply the people .. Tuatha Dé Danann - the people of the goddess Danu, the mythological people of the hills, Sides.
    1. Engineer 23 August 2019 20: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I know about this point of view.
      Suppose this is so, then it turns out that the Slavs and Germans are almost the same age. In comparison, we get the civilizational failure of our ancestors in the first 600 years of history, which cannot be explained only by geography. Here you have to either accept as a fact and come to terms, or look for an answer further
      1. paul3390 23 August 2019 22: 38 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Yes, they simply knew the Slavs under other names, that's all .. It is highly unlikely that when dealing with the Greek Black Sea colonies from the XNUMXth century until. AD - our ancestors remained golimy Papuans, as the bourgeoisie claim ..
        1. Nadir shah 29 August 2019 00: 49 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          "highly unlikely" and the facts are somewhat different things. the Slavs did not deal with the Greeks, as nomads from the Iranian highlands constantly settled on the coast, and the Slavs lived fairly north (and west too. At some point it was important to Jutland). At that time, almost all were Papuans compared to China, Rome or the Persians.
          1. paul3390 29 August 2019 09: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Should the Greeks understand bread also traded with nomads? But it was the grain trade that served as the initial reason for the establishment of colonies there.
  9. nafanal 24 August 2019 02: 04 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    First things first, I began to look for the author .. this opus .. I did not even read ...
  10. kalibr 25 August 2019 16: 30 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Nathanael
    First things first, I began to look for the author .. this opus .. I did not even read ...

    You are an expert, I see ...
  11. Engineer 25 August 2019 20: 59 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Judging by the number of comments, the article went almost unnoticed at VO. But in vain, because the VI century is essentially the entry of Slavic tribes onto the stage of the Great History. In order to show that when speaking about the Slavs of that time, you cannot be sure of anything I will give an alternative (from the author of the article) point of view.
    We look at the colorful map with "reliable" (ha ha) Slavic archaeological cultures. The article talks about going beyond the Danube, and the article itself is called the Slavs on the Danube. We look at the Danube, and on the Danube we have ... Ipestesti-Kindesti. Not Prague culture (sklavins), not Penkovsky (antes). Question: What is the ethnic attribution of this “Slavic” culture? Slavs or antes? (Other tribes of the Slavs of Procopius, our main source does not know about the events of those years). Indeed, judging by the map, it is precisely this culture that should come into collision with the Byzantines, the Prague and Penkovtsy are too banal too far, and our map is quite “canonical” for Russian science.
    Reasonable objection: what stuck with these mortgagees ?. Maybe sklavins, maybe antes, maybe a contact zone of both of them. Cultures usually do not have clear boundaries and often “flow” into each other. Do you see arrows in the direction of cultures? Well, yes, they don’t reach the Danube from a word at all, so now?
    And the fact that the hypothetical culture is located approximately on the territory of the former Roman province of Outer Moesia, and the descendants of the Thracians who survived the powerful Roman cultural influence have long lived there. They lived and did not go anywhere. Here Romanian archaeologists believe that the hypothetical culture naturally follows from those times, and accordingly represents the descendants of these same Thracians. Like the Slavs they live in semi-dugouts, but the foci are mostly not stone, but clay, Pottery dishes, but several other forms. Plus, in addition to stucco, pottery is found. And the similarity is just convergent. But if the ipotestins are descendants of the Thracians with fragments of Germanic and Sarmatian tribes, then purely geographically they are the main candidate for the right to be called the “Slavs” of Procopius. After all, it was they who were sitting on the left bank of the Danube. Slavic cultures according to the map are too far.
    Stop-stop, what other Thracians with impurities, if Procopius clearly wrote “slavs”? Almost "Slavs." And here again, complexity. Regarding the etymology of the words Slavs-Sklavins, there is an unimaginable amount of literature. But some conclusions are generally accepted. 1. The word "Slavs" in ancient times sounded like "Slovene." 2.No where does Procopius follow that he tried to convey the Slavic self-name. Sklavins are simply a Greek nickname (possible meanings are given in the literature). The consonance itself seems rather random. It turns out that the sklavins are the collective name that originally called the non-Slavic tribes of the left bank of the Danube?
    Regarding the campaigns of the Slavs. A great attention of historians was attracted by the campaign of the Slavs of 549. Really painfully they dealt with superior forces, including the elite. Compilers of the "Code of News of the Slavs", ed. Gindina and Litavrina, by indirect signs, see the work of the cavalry here. But our beloved Procopius with Mauritius about the cavalry among the Slavs stubbornly silent. Cavalry could not just appear and disappear. And again the question is, were they the Slavs (sklavins)? Maybe Procopius let the informant down? Or did the Slavs have allies, the same gepids that "helped"? Here, the Lombard refugees of Ildigis come to mind, who were placed by the gepids in the Slavic lands and later exposed 6000 soldiers, Lombards and Slavs. Or maybe we are showing such skepticism in vain and the Slavs had cavalry already then and they did without "friends"?
  12. Nadir shah 29 August 2019 21: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: paul3390
    Should the Greeks understand bread also traded with nomads? But it was the grain trade that served as the initial reason for the establishment of colonies there.

    You may be surprised, but you can trade anything with nomads. In addition, they all settled in the region over time (except for the Huns), the same Scythians at some point divided into three important categories, and the sedentaries were there too, and they traded not only bread and bread, including the Hellenes . Plus, it’s worth clearly recalling that there were always all sorts of Bosporus kingdoms, Mithridates and other interesting citizens (sometimes even at the same time) in the region, and then the Byzantines came there (or rather, at first they were just Romans, then they inherited them). The Slavs, at the time of maximum expansion, occupied gigantic territories from modern Ukraine (not the whole, but a fair part of it) and the European part of Russia to modern Denmark, and we must think that in the Baltic region they traded with someone, and even with specific characters, but they were cut off from the Black Sea for a long time (not entirely, of course, the way from the Varangians to the Greeks and that’s all, but they did not directly own the coast). Something like this.
  13. andrew42 10 October 2019 17: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "Already in the XNUMXth century, the Ants had a single leader and elders, representatives of the tribes. The defeat carried out by the Huns to the population of the forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe, and the subsequent defeat of the Ants from the Goths, caused a regression, which was reflected in the material culture of the Slavs." - Dear author, is this a direct quote from Rybakov? If not, where is it? - I can’t believe my eyes. Did Rybakov write about the "defeat of the Ants by the Huns", and even BEFORE the defeat by the Huns of the "empire" of Germanaric? - I have never seen such a sequence of events before anyone (the Huns defeated the forest-steppe, that is, including the Ants, and then the Goths finished off the Ants - fantastic) ..
    1. venaya 10 October 2019 18: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      no one has ever met such a sequence of events

      And in this article I was very surprised by the inserted color map, there are "Finno-Ugric tribes" and some "Balts" on it. Let me remind you that the term "Balts" itself appears only at the end of the XNUMXth century, earlier on the entire coast of this sea, which had once been called the Venetian Sea, had the name Venetian coast and lived there previously dominantly naturally Venets, although subsequently the Karelians settled, that is, came Karelian-Finns and not Ugro-Finns as on the map. It is advisable to rank the Avar tribe as Ugoro-Finns, this will be much more accurate and the lands of Bavaria still exist, though the language of this Ugro-Finnish tribe is now used in Hungary, a locality traditionally populated with venets. So now the Baltic coast, previously called the Venetian coast (the Gulf of Riga had the name - Vendian Sea), and it was also inhabited by Venets. So little by little the many peoples of today's “Europe” are misleading!
      1. andrew42 15 October 2019 09: 42 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Yes, "Finno-Ugric" is generally a classification sucked from the finger, and also offensive to the classified themselves. As the colonel from the movie "Avatar" said, the classic "nonsense of scientists impotent." Further only "crocodile-hippos." It’s the same with the “Balts,” they combed their tongue, pretending not to know that the Baltics are the self-name of the dynasty of Gothic (!) Leaders from the Baltic family. One word, "istoria," is like cutting, like it, the main thing is to grab a degree, but the "recognition of colleagues" in the shop.
        1. venaya 17 October 2019 07: 11 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The Baltics are the self-name of the dynasty of Gothic (!) Leaders from the Baltic family ... the main thing is to grab a scientific degree, and the "recognition of colleagues" in the shop.
          I'm afraid the thing will be more serious here. Grabbing another piece of Russia and giving it the Polish name "Ukraine", in the sense of "outskirts, or rather the colony of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth," someone fools went too far, for the name "Europe" in the sense of direction (west-east) suggests that it is also the outskirts, and besides, it is also a full-fledged COLONY, that is, in ancient times, a part of Russia. And as for the term “Balt” itself, this is how the linguists give out again the occupation, that is, the Latin term (as usually taken from the Russian-speaking root), and what does the term “bolt” mean, roughly the same as bond (bond), tape (Russian-language "bond" is a metal ring on a wooden barrel), hence the gang and the Bundas (Germany) and the band and James Bond, etc., that is, a lot of values ​​that are about the same or similar in meaning. Linguists are already giving out a lot of interesting things, it is a pity that few people still know about this.