Creation of the Galicia-Volyn principality


Roman Galitsky receives the ambassadors of Pope Innocent III. Painting by N.V. Nevrev (1875). Details of this episode will be described in the next article.


Roman Mstislavich is a rather controversial figure, but rather not by itself, but because of some features of the information that has been preserved about him and the lack of, until recently, a comprehensive analysis with cross-comparison of foreign and Russian sources. In the Kiev annals, this ruler is described as a brawler and squabbler, in the chronicles from the Vladimir-Suzdal principality - as clearly a secondary prince, the same brawler (all these are the conclusions of the Soviet historian Tolochko). In short, mediocrity and insignificance, an inconsistent, inept politician and diplomat, incapable of any serious creative work and not possessing any significant political weight in Russia, according to the chronicles as the ultimate truth. He even died stupidly in a random battle. True, the annals in Russia were written under the auspices of this or that prince, and therefore, in the first place, they glorified him, belittling the roles of competitors and enemies, but who cares? And what matters is that the Kiev Chronicle was written under the auspices of the prince, who was seriously in conflict with Roman Mstislavich, and in Vladimir-Suzdal in the first place (and rightly so) magnified their own rulers such as Vsevolod the Big Nest?

However, already in the XVIII century, the attitude towards Roman Mstislavich was revised. True, this revision was connected with the activity of Tatishchev, a well-known in narrow circles, who devoted his life to the search for the “truthful” stories Russia, and not politicized codes written in the interests of individual rulers. Some believe that he simply engaged in fraud, while others claim that he probably had access to a number of sources that have not reached our time, and that, at least in some cases, be right. It was Tatishchev who first granted Roman as a Grand Duke not by title, but by mindset, by a skilled politician and commander, reformer, who sought to stop the strife in Russia and strengthen its statehood. However, officially Tatishchev and his works were declared a lie, and therefore in the future the figure of Roman Mstislavich again acquired the character of complete mediocrity (in the eyes of Russian historians).

And then came the magical XNUMXst century, when many new sources, including foreign ones, suddenly appeared, new work methods and ambitious historians like A.V. Mayorov appeared (leading specialist in the Galicia-Volyn principality in our time, many of his works formed the basis of this cycle articles) that became interested in the issue, began searching - and found a lot of new references about Roman Mstislavich and his activities. When these sources were cross-compared with old ones, a picture quite distinct from former views began to emerge, which was much closer to Tatishchev’s characteristic than to the traditional annals (which makes one wonder how Tatishchev was a storyteller and whether he was at all). Moreover, some of the fabulous assumptions about Roman made by the XNUMXth century historian suddenly began to sparkle with new colors and received confirmation, although indirect, but still confirmed, and the old theories about the mediocre ruler suddenly began to remind us of the now familiar journalistic "chernukha", only authorship chroniclers ... It is from this, the most modern and currently recognized point of view, that will be told about the life of the founder of the Galicia-Volyn principality.

Roman Mstislavich


Creation of the Galicia-Volyn principality

This is how modern Ukrainian artists imagine Roman Mstislavich. It seems to be close to the verbal portrait of this prince, although the emblem of Volyn clearly does not correspond to the time, because it will appear later

Roman was born around 1150 in the family of Prince Mstislav Izyaslavich (which was already described in previous articles) and the Polish Princess Agnieszka, daughter of Boleslav III Krivoustoy. While his father actively participated in the strife and fought for Kiev, Roman was brought up in Poland - however, it is not clear which of his relatives on the mother's side. In the future, his relations with the Poles will remain fairly close, and by the will of fate it is they who will play a fatal role in his life ...

For the first time, Roman established himself as a ruler in Novgorod, being invited there by the inhabitants of the city. There he stayed the prince with nothing at all - from 1168 to 1170, but this period was associated with many events caused by the strife going on in Russia, where Andrei Bogolyubsky was the main opponent of the coalition of princes, which included Roman. Military operations included raids on the Polotsk land, at that time allied with the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, repulsing the return raids and preparing for big battles. Bogolyubsky’s offensive on Novgorod ended with an ever-increasing It is not known what role the young prince himself played in these and subsequent events and battles (perhaps the active Novgorodians themselves did most of the work, but the prince simply did not bother them, or he led the whole preparation for the defense), but this campaign ended in a great defeat for Andrei and his allies. There were so many prisoners that the Novgorodians sold them for nothing, only 2 legs. However, the city could no longer continue to fight because of the increasing hunger, because peace was concluded with Bogolyubsky, and Roman was asked to leave according to the conditions of the world.

In the same year, his father, Mstislav Izyaslavich, died, and our hero suddenly inherited the Volyn principality. And then the stars stood in a row. Roman himself was an active, pragmatic and young man, he had already managed to show himself during a short reign in Novgorod. The Volyn community was ready to make certain concessions and support the figure of the new prince as “his” ruler in exchange for upholding her interests. As far as one can judge this after centuries, Roman agreed.

True, a small “surprise” awaited him upon arrival in the Volyn principality - active relatives managed to pluck the lion's share of his possessions into their inheritance. First, Prince Yaroslav Izyaslavich separated from Lutsk and the eastern lands from the territory of Volyn and did not share power with his nephew. The captured kus was so large that it was him, and not the prince of Vladimir, who was now considered the lord of Volhynia. Secondly, Prince Svyatoslav, the illegitimate son of Father Roman, who had previously been a prince in Berestye and Cherven, decided to go free swimming, and to protect his own interests he swore allegiance to Prince Mazovia Prince Boleslav IV Kudryavy; it is possible that the Pole, in addition to patronage, also took the city of Drogochin (also Drogichin, Dorogochin) from the Beresteans, who at that time was lost by the Russians and passed into the hands of the Poles. Thirdly, Roman’s other brother, Vsevolod, occupied the city of Belz and also sent to hell the “central” power in Vladimir-Volynsky. The situation was awful - the freshly baked Volyn prince under direct control left only the capital city with its surroundings!

And yet he got down to business. Acting through diplomacy, the available squad and the strength of the Volyn boyars with the Vladimir city regiment, he gradually began to return the unity of the principality, which had disintegrated into destinies. Brother Vsevolod was gradually subordinated to his will; Svyatoslav was expelled from Berestye, and cruel punishment awaited the townspeople who supported him. The Poles will later try to return Cherven and Berestye to Svyatoslav, but will fail, and the prince himself will die soon after. Roman's uncle, Yaroslav Izyaslavich, died in 1173, and his children did not manage to seize power - the prince of Vladimir was already right there. Soon, the Volyn principality was restored, and Roman received considerable forces and means at his disposal and could from now on plan “big politics” in Russia and beyond, and most importantly, develop his possessions as a fiefdom, which was to be inherited by his children. At the same time, the local community, together with the boyars, fully supported the prince, and freedom-loving relatives sharply abandoned their ambitions - it is possible that under pressure from both the prince and the communities of their own cities. The long-awaited peace reigned, practically no long wars were waged, and therefore the development of the economy, which was highly dependent on the world, accelerated significantly. By the mid-1180s, Roman Mstislavich had at his disposal a very wealthy principality with a large army, a loyal population and loyal boyars.

And most importantly, the ambitions of Roman and the great opportunities of his current possession pushed him to expand and take possession of the immediate territories, the most valuable of which was the Principality of Galicia. Probably, Volyn communities also had certain views of Galich, which did not forget that the Subcarpathian region was once subordinate to them, and its current wealth looked at least seductive. If these two lands of Southwest Russia were united, a strong state formation could appear on the map of the region, capable of pursuing an independent policy and claiming dominance among the other principalities of the Rurikovichs, not to mention protecting their own interests from other external forces. The creation of the Galicia-Volyn principality was just around the corner ...

Galicia-Volyn principality


The Galician principality has already been told about the first attempt to take control of it, earlier, in the corresponding topic. It is worth adding only that this attempt turned out to be big problems for Roman and almost quarreled him with the community in Vladimir-Volynsky. The reason was that, for the sake of Galich, Roman easily abandoned his current possession, transferring it to his brother Vsevolod. For the community, it looked like a betrayal. But, as you know, the venture with Galich failed, and Roman had to return back to the capital city Vladimir ... who refused to accept him, declaring that now their prince is Vsevolod, according to the will of Roman Mstislavich himself. I had to attract the strength of my father-in-law, Rurik Rostislavich Ovruchsky, to regain control of the city. However, a lesson was learned from this event - no special repressions against the Vladimir nobility, which refused to accept Roman, did not follow, and the prince’s agreement with the community was restored. In the future, Roman was wary of such harsh decisions regarding his main internal ally in Volhynia.

A lesson was also learned from the failure near Galich. Realizing that it would not be possible to directly seize Galich, Roman led a much more cautious and long-playing policy. Contacts were established with Vladimir Yaroslavich. It was the Magyars who “fooled” him with Galich, at the same time taking the applicant for the principality into custody, and he was not at all opposed to getting anyone's support. In the future, agreements with Roman, among other things, will provide Vladimir with the marriage of his son from a horse, Vasilka, with the daughter of Prince Volhynia. In addition, it is possible that it was with the help of the prince from Volyn that Vladimir escaped from custody to Germany, where he received support from Staufenov (relatives of Roman!) For the return of his principality. As a result, Galich returned to the hands of the stupid prince, the last representative of the first Galician dynasty, and Roman unexpectedly asserted his influence in this principality.

After that a decade of calm followed. The novel, of course, did not waste time in vain: he joined the fight for Kiev, began to look for new allies, managed to take part in Polish wars, repelled several raids of the Yotvyag and made return trips. The power in Volhynia has further strengthened over time. Finally, when Prince Vladimir Yaroslavich died in 1199 and the Rostislavich Galitsky dynasty was completely stopped, Roman immediately gathered his army, called up the Allied Poles and quickly appeared under the walls of Galich. Apparently, he managed to enlist the support of part of the boyars and the Galician community, from which the large boyars had already completely separated, and he brought with him an ally, the Polish prince Leszek Bely, because he got the city without any problems, and with it the Principality of Galicia. At the same time, Roman did not refuse his past inheritance, and therefore what many had been expecting for a long time happened - Volyn and Galich merged into a single Galician-Volyn principality.

Galich became the formal capital of the principality. The Vladimir community took this with understanding: the Galician nobility was a great danger and required constant control over it. At the same time, the prince was in no hurry to abandon the table in Vladimir-Volynsky and did not even appoint a prince-governor, keeping it under his direct control. The novel launched real repressions against the Galician boyars, trying to suppress their freedom: by using Vladimir’s weakness, by 1199 they seized all sources of income and even tried to invite the descendants of Yaroslav Osmomysl on the female side, princes Igorevich, to reign. The two most active boyars, the Kormilichichi brothers, were expelled from the city and went to Hungary. Crafts, customs and other places of "feeding" the boyars were "nationalized", returning to the hands of the prince, and all those who were dissatisfied were waiting for new deprivation, pads or death. It is significant that the Galician community itself did not show much discontent with the massacres - the boyars in her eyes no longer looked like those “first among equals” who they were before the process of separation of the masses and the aristocracy was finally completed. All this allowed without special excesses to exist a single Galician-Volyn state until the death of Roman Mstislavich.

My father-in-law, my enemy



Prince Rurik Rostislavich, one of the prominent political figures of Southern Russia at the end of the XNUMXth century

In 1170, having become the prince of Volyn, Roman married Predslava Rurikovna, daughter of the Ovruch prince Rurik Rostislavich. In the future, Roman was little interested in the conflicts taking place around Kiev, while Rurik actively joined in them and claimed the title of Grand Duke, now entering into alliances, then declaring war. When it was time to help each other, the princes were not in a hurry to help each other, but they did not become an obstacle either. So, Roman rendered some help to Rurik during the fight with Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich in 1180-1181, and Rurik in response helped his son-in-law to return Vladimir-Volynsky after the failure of the Galician adventure in 1188. In general, their relationship remained good, but not the closest: each had their own areas of interest, goals and battles.

In 1194, Rurik became the Grand Duke in Kiev and donated five cities in Poros to Roman as a reward for his support. The emerging connection between Kiev and Volyn did not like the leading figure in Russia at that time, Vsevolod the Big Nest, Prince Vladimir-Suzdalsky. In 1195, he was able to skillfully drive a wedge between his allies and relatives, forcing Rurik to transfer the cities of Porosia to him, returning two of them in return as compensation to the son of the Kiev prince. To this was added the growing contradictions between Rurik and Roman themselves, as well as the fact that Predslava Rurikovna was unable to provide the male offspring by giving birth to only two daughters. The former alliance came to an end when both princes clearly went into confrontation. In the same year, Roman sent Predslava to his father, having obtained a divorce from her. In search of new allies, Roman had to intervene in the Polish feuds, supporting his immediate Piast relatives in exchange for a promise of future support.

Because of the conflict with Rurik, Roman was drawn into squabbles for Kiev, in which he did not particularly want to participate before. After a short reconciliation in 1196, hostilities resumed. The novel became an ally of the candidate for Kiev, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, and Rurik made trips to Volyn at once of three princes, including Vladimir Yaroslavich Galitsky. Thanks to the support of the communities, the Volyn prince managed to repel enemy invasions, and the retaliatory strike on Kiev land was very painful. However, if Roman himself performed quite well, then his ally was defeated and was forced to abandon claims to Kiev.

When Roman united Galich and Volhynia under his command, Rurik took it as a threat and began to prepare a big campaign against his former son-in-law. The Galician-Volyn prince was ahead of the curve and was the first to strike at Kiev. Rurik was forced to flee, and Roman put his cousin Ingvar in the city, who turned out to be a compromise figure between the Volyn prince and Vsevolod the Big Nest. Rurik returned to Kiev in 1203, having entered into an alliance with the Olgovichi and Polovtsy, while the latter plundered the city, which caused great anger from the city community. In response, the novel made a new campaign against the former father-in-law, besieging him in Ovruch at the beginning of 1204. Rurik was forced to make concessions and returned to Kiev only at the cost of abandoning the alliance with the Olgovichi.

It seemed that this was followed by a reconciliation of the two princes, and they, together with other rulers of Russia, went on a large raid against the Polovtsy, but Roman only took time and prepared. The kulbits of Rurik angered not only the Volyn prince himself, but also the Kiev community; Rurik was already disturbing Vsevolod the Big Nest and a number of other Russian princes. As a result of this, upon returning from a campaign over Rurik in Kiev (his own city!), A large trial was held with the participation of church hierarchs who supported the position of Roman (who was completely absent from the trial). By the verdict of this court, Rurik, his wife Anna, as well as the daughter of Predslav were forcibly tonsured as monks. The reason for this was a violation of the church canon, which was widespread in Greece since the 6th century, but was not always fulfilled in Russia - the prohibition of closely related marriages up to and including the 1195th degree, i.e. marriages between second cousins. A “combo” happened here - the second cousin was not only Rurik and his wife Anna, but also Roman and Predslava, as a result of which, from the point of view of church laws, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the Galician-Volyn prince were guilty of double violation. It was this that allowed him to easily divorce Predslava in 1196, and that is precisely why the Kiev hierarchs, dissatisfied with the recent plunder of the city by Rurik, did justice and forcibly tonsured the whole trinity as monks. The novel, however, came out of the water dry - with a new wife, sending its main enemy to the monastery, and, moreover, being recognized as a pious man and an ardent guardian of church canons.

The two sons of Rurik and Anna were taken hostage by Roman, but by agreement with Vsevolod the Big Nest, one of them, Rostislav, was soon planted by the Grand Duke in Kiev. Kiev itself was not interested in Roman as such - in his hands was a strong Galician-Volyn principality, which made it possible to pursue a completely independent policy in Russia and beyond its borders, as well as communicate on equal terms (or almost equal terms) with the most powerful prince of that time, Vsevolod Vladimir-Suzdalsky. The position of the prince was becoming increasingly significant ...

To be continued ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Egoza 7 June 2020 05: 27 New
    • 7
    • 5
    +2
    Thanks to the author for an interesting story, but I still tend to believe P.P. The push. This prince was a scandalist and not very significant in comparison with the Kiev princes.
    1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 09: 58 New
      • 11
      • 2
      +9
      Alas, I personally cannot agree. Such a picture does not fit with the now known historical facts. Even if a brawler, then talented and skilled. The mediocrity in those conditions was shameless too and would not have nearly achieved what Roman Mstislavich achieved. However, this is my personal opinion, and I do not impose it hi
      1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 11: 57 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        But Richard I Platangenet achieved “glory through the ages,” although he was mediocrity and a brawler. laughing
        1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 12: 01 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Richard I had much more favorable starting conditions. As already mentioned in the article, in Roman Mstislavich in 1170 - only Vladimir-Volynsky with its environs, that's all.
          1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 12: 54 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Philip Augustus had roughly the same conditions. Equal figures? (It is just a question)
            1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 15: 53 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Hard to tell. I didn’t dig so deeply about Philip Augustus, and the conditions of France and Russia are still different smile In general, I consider Romana to be at least a successful politician and organizer. And, perhaps, an intriguer, since even Daniil Galitsky could not so effectively drive the Galician nobility into a corner so that it was afraid to squeak for 6 years.
              1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 16: 22 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                I apologize for my idolatry to the "Masters of the West" laughing
                Philippe Augustus did not have a “starting point” at all, just, there were no direct candidates for the throne.
  2. Korsar4 7 June 2020 06: 02 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    “And I, with this, my iron,
    Satisfied ”(c).

    Nevertheless, the memory in the verses is imprinted, it remains in the first place.

    What information Tatishchev had was a big question. It was also not peaceful. He could always get into a conflict.

    Is it good for the prince to have a violent and scandalous disposition?
    The story of the Parrot is not very beautiful for that time either.

    But, again, we return to the question "Who orders the annals?"

    So a lush figure and leaves a lot of traces.
    1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 10: 00 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: Korsar4
      The story of the Parrot is not very beautiful for that time either.

      I don’t remember something, that Roman Mstislavich was amusing himself with his ramps what This is Vladimir, the last Rostislavich Galitsky had such a hobby. Because of which, by the way, his father’s mistress, Nastasya Chagrovna, is also sometimes called a horse laughing
      1. Korsar4 7 June 2020 10: 09 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Yes. Not right. Just messed up.
  3. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 08: 00 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    He even died stupidly in a random battle.
    A dubious argument, especially if we recall the death of his contemporaries: Friedrich Barbarossa, Richard the Lionheart, Henry II.
    Thank Artyom
    1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 10: 01 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      And we will analyze this moment at the end of the legend about Roman Mstislavich. True, it seems that he is so, that he did something wrong, but who is not mistaken?
  4. Rurikovich 7 June 2020 08: 07 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -1
    And here I am reading this cycle, I am very indifferent to those distant "events" request
    If this
    magical XNUMXst century when many new sources suddenly opened

    all intertwining of relations eight hundred years ago is colorfully stated, then for me personally the crisis of historical “science” is obvious. But there was still a magical XIX century, when miraculously there was evidence of the existence of fictional events ...
    So, thinking rumors without blaming anyone ... What are all these tales about Kievan Rus based on? ON LISTS! Who saw the original thread? But no one has canceled the political conjuncture request What changes were made, what was deleted, which team was writing this or that - no one knows ... But historians say it was so ... And, most importantly, archaeological nuances are omitted, where the cultural layer has the ability to change depending from the needs of historians ... Even simple logic is lame in historical fairy tales ... What nuance will come out - immediately silence or think up evidence under "it was, they lived like that" And, interestingly, modern historians refer to the works of authoritative such contemporary historians ... The main evidence base for such works is that you must believe them, because they were written by a SCIENTIST-historian. Those. if an unlearned historian wrote, but a self-taught person who shoveled mountains of materials and produced a completely different version of certain events, this would not be true, because he is not a scientist, and not a historian at all. You read the same A. Tamansky, you don’t want to look at the evidence base of official historians ... it was like that ... We are SCIENTISTS - trust us people, believe our textbooks .... And turn off your brains ... Think impossible - you have to believe ... yes request
    A small example. In my city there is a fortification of the XII century. They unearthed the foundation of a temple of the same period, everything seems to be combined with a fairy tale about Kievan Rus ... Even let’s omit the fact that before the invention of brick again in the XNUMXth century, according to the same official history, the temple should have been built of stone, like its peers in Vladimir , Yuryev-Polsky, although it is built of plinths (logic is already lame).
    To the joy of historians, historians began to dig a pit in a place where there should be remains of the foundation of a round tower, which is colorfully flaunted on mock-ups and was dismantled according to official history in the same XNUMXth century. The result would be a colorful tourist complex of the remains of an ancient city. But they dug up the remains of red brick walls, which are even younger than the same plinth ... Stupor ... Everything is buried under a plausible excuse and there is silence ... There is no money, then diarrhea, then scrofula .... And none of historians do not want to know the explanation of this discrepancy .... Curtain.
    This is so, the chaotic thoughts of one person who recently has a lot of questions to official history, where logic is absolutely contrary to fiction what request
    So lived ... Artists of that time were ignoramuses ... They lost memory for centuries and did not develop ...
    Scientists-historians know better how it was - paper can stand it smile
    Artem, you are a plus, for it is interesting to read the generalized tales of historical science hi
    1. Edward Vashchenko 7 June 2020 08: 28 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      Everyone has the right to any opinion, but every time you read any wise thoughts about historians, you remember the words of a children's song:
      Carpenters sewed trousers - there you go.
      Elephants sang a song - here you have the sounds
      Poured water into the sieve - here you are and hello
      Better still to do what you do master
    2. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 08: 56 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Those. if an unlearned historian wrote, but a self-taught person who shoveled mountains of materials and produced a completely different version of certain events, this would not be true, because he is not a scientist, and not a historian at all.
      Meanwhile, the author is not a historian. Nevertheless, his opinion is not disputed by professional historian E. Vashchenko. The paradox, however !!! wassat
    3. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 10: 09 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Quote: Rurikovich
      What are all these tales about Kievan Rus based on? ON LISTS! Who saw the original thread? But no one has canceled the political conjuncture

      Well, yes, but there is such a funny thing - a cross-analysis of sources. For example, Tolochko almost did not do this - as historian Voitovich claims, in Soviet times foreign chronicles were simply not used on this issue, and besides them there remain official codes of Russian chronicles, and only those that have survived to our time (and some one hundred percent did not reach). It is impossible to falsify pieces of chronicles about the same events at once in Russia and in France. So if something is mentioned there several times in different independent sources, then it’s not just like that.

      And the XNUMXst century has become magical in many respects due to the availability of the sources themselves. There are Byzantine, and French, and Polish, and Hungarian chronicles in addition to domestic vaults. There is more than enough material for cross-analysis, the main thing is not to focus on domestic arches alone.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But historians say it was so ...

      Not the best historians smile I was surprised when I began to work directly with the works of these modern historians, and it turned out that they were building hypotheses, and not "it was like that, I swear to my mother!" Because, fortunately, and perhaps unfortunately, at the professional level, mainly fans of their field are engaged in history, it is more important for them to try to build a logical picture of the world. By building a "true" picture of the world, it is the occupation of state propaganda, which it often fills. Look, it’s profitable to pedal the same GVK theme to Ukraine, and it does it - but at such a stupid level, and even relying on the theses of, probably, Soviet times, that somehow I don’t even have words request
      1. Rurikovich 7 June 2020 16: 39 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Quote: arturpraetor
        It is impossible to falsify pieces of chronicles about the same events at once in Russia and in France.

        So the fact of the matter is that pieces.
        But everyone knows that under Peter the written sources about Russia were deliberately destroyed. It is very interesting to put together and analyze all the data, but again the question arises: could foreign sources rule in favor of politics at different times throughout their existence?
        1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 16: 49 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Rurikovich
          but again, the question arises: could foreign sources rule in favor of politics at different times throughout their existence?

          Of course they could. More precisely, to correct is not a fact, but initially to write with a political foundation is quite. But everyone’s policies are different, and so that the references to the same episode are “edited” equally ... It's already five minutes before the ZOG and foil caps smile In addition, even without politics in each country, chroniclers recorded their own, "national" vision of the issue. In short, one must also be able to work with sources. A concrete mindset and political impartiality are needed here, otherwise interpretation and falsification by contemporaries will begin, for the sake of one or another view.
          1. Shahno 7 June 2020 17: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And, in your opinion, until what year can you work with sources like this ...? In Russia, in Western Europe, in BV.
            1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 17: 08 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              If you're talking about cross-analysis, then you need to expose it to everything. Even a cheburek bought in a store on the way from work laughing In the study of historical sources - even more so. History is an objective process, but its description is subjective. Therefore, mistakes, deliberate excesses and so on may well take place. Because ordinary people write chronicles and annals. Well, or unusual, but still people smile I repeated it more than once in discussions of strangers, and I repeat again - for the historian skepticism, logic and analytical abilities are important. It is impossible to completely believe the sources. But this does not mean that all of them must be declared falsified and false, and begin to make fairy tales on the basis of personal Wishlist - this process will have nothing to do with history at all.
              1. Shahno 7 June 2020 17: 15 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Good. What is your opinion about the lists that have survived to this day containing documents of the early Christian period? Where to find the criteria of objectivity. This process cannot be subjective ...
                1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 17: 22 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Quote: Shahno
                  What is your opinion about the lists that have survived to this day containing documents of the early Christian period?

                  It’s not so simple with the documents of 20 years ago, and you want absolute certainty 2000 years ago smile This does not happen. The historian's task is to establish how it could be and how it could not. Moreover, in the formation of hypotheses, the historian may have a shortage or brute force with some of the important personal skills and abilities, as a result of which the picture may turn out to be controversial and implausible. This is even if you do not delve into the specific qualities of sources and other things, because each source requires an individual approach. You can’t imagine how many analysts I have only seen around the Galicia-Volyn annals - i.e. case studies and hypotheses on how high-quality they are, under what conditions they were written, what they can be trusted in, etc.

                  In general, as I understand it, you want simple answers, but alas - they are not in the history. There generally are not always answers ...
                  1. Shahno 7 June 2020 17: 37 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    What would you understand with whom you are talking ...
                    I graduated from the physics and technology department, Faki.
                    Then he was engaged in systematic data analysis ..
                    Because often still have to delve into the historical docks in search of data.
                    The question was basically simple. How developed are the systemic criteria for evaluating information at the current moment (statistics, expert systems ...) in historical science .. In your opinion. Or is it still a matter of intuition and art, to a greater extent.
                    1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 17: 43 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Quote: Shahno
                      The question was basically simple. How developed are the systematic criteria for evaluating information at the current moment (statistics, expert systems ...) in historical science .. In our opinion.

                      And I, as it were, are not prof. historian, because I don’t know exactly what exactly is taught on ist. Fakah. However, I can observe the result - those who are prof. historian and is engaged in systematic research on this topic; as a whole, sources are sufficiently qualitatively analyzed. Of course, there is a difference in approaches to the analysis of materials and evaluations, but not so radical. So, I suspect, they are working on specific, well-established methods that are already accepted, and they are taught to do so. fake. But, I believe, dear colleagues with a diploma of historians, who undoubtedly are on the site and even noted in the topic, will answer this question more precisely.
                      1. Shahno 7 June 2020 17: 49 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        My opinion, personally mine ... Do not take to heart. You write very well ... I just wish I, not everyone, had more evidence of your point of view. This will fuel controversy. Do not find?
                      2. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 17: 54 New
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        +4
                        Quote: Shahno
                        I just wish I, not everyone, had more evidence of your point of view. This will fuel controversy. Do not find?

                        The first article of the cycle has a list of primary sources. Incomplete. So, do not take it to heart, but before you demand more evidence - study at least the provided. And then you sewn up, re-read the wagon of materials several times, which even for some reason are not always in the public domain, and then someone, not bothering to familiarize themselves with the already mentioned primary sources on which the cycle is based, requires even more. This is not a claim specifically to you, I have often come across this, you have even expressed the idea in the correct form, which cannot but rejoice hi
                      3. Shahno 7 June 2020 18: 08 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        In the current state of historical science, your article is clearly a plus ... Mikhailo Chernigov? hi
                      4. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 18: 14 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        According to Mikhail Chernigov’s research, he didn’t conduct any research; it will be mentioned in the cycle only in the context of the struggle for Galich under Daniil Romanovich.
  5. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 17: 33 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Damn, Mr. Rurikovich, at least a week later I dig out a DC transformer buried in the courtyard of the Hermitage. Moreover, at the archaeological level of the XVl century. And you will argue that Veliky Novgorod was the progenitor of electrodynamics?
  • Trilobite Master 7 June 2020 14: 10 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    To criticize historians, you need to know at least a little of their work. Unfortunately, not all critics can boast of this. In the best case, certain provisions are taken out of the context of research in such a way as to create a sense of absurdity in the reader, or in general invented theses that no historian has ever written, that is, some kind of rubbish written by people historical science has no relationship. There is a third category of critics who “expose” outdated and rejected by science concepts with such pathos that they break right into a tear. For some particularly odious "whistleblowers" in one "work" all three types of "whistleblowers" may occur.
    As for the annals, it’s already calluses in the language from the repetition of a simple truth - to fake them is unrealistic even now, not to mention such hypothetical attempts of a century or more ago. All amendments and editions of the annals are visible to specialists who can not only state the changes in the canonical text, but also say when exactly these changes were introduced.
    Cross-analysis of annalistic documents compiled independently in different places and telling the same events allows us to reconstruct the events with sufficient accuracy, and auxiliary and related historical disciplines complement the picture created by historians, completely fitting into the general outline of historical thought.
    When they say to me, they say, “historians are hiding” it is funny to me. Even if one historian tries to hide something, there will immediately be a dozen others who right there dig it out just for the fun of dipping a colleague - there is no talk of any “corporate solidarity” in the community of historians, getting a colleague to smash his concept and approve his own is a dream any scientist. And if someone makes a find that can affect the perception of a particular historical event - it’s happiness, a rare scientific success, hiding such a find is the same as consciously and deliberately ruining his career as a scientist, abandoning the discoverer of the discoverer.
    And most importantly, people who believe in a "conspiracy of historians" are not able to answer one simple question: is it necessary to fig? I now do not take into account those who begin to bear nonsense about the Masters of the West and other such nonsense - this is a clinical case - I am talking about people who are able to think soberly and who are skeptical about historical science. Guys, who and why could this "conspiracy" be needed? Even if you forget that it is simply impossible to organize it technically, for example, it turned out to be possible, but tell me - nevermind? Are professors and doctors afraid for their titles? Yes, God bless you, no one will deprive them of these titles, even if they all chorus of all their labors, curse them and burn them. Just like no one will force them to return the fees for their books, even if the contents of these books are one day recognized by some authoritative scientific commission with powers close to those of God, false.
    As for Andrei (will you allow me to address you without a middle name?), Your example of the Turov tower and the temple (as I understand it, you mean them), I don’t see any attempts to hide or falsify something. XII century temple could be built of plinth, in this there is no violation of logic, as could be built of stone. In one region they built like this, in another like that. Why the Turov temple should have been made of stone and should not be made of plinths is completely incomprehensible to me. As for the foundation of the tower, in all directories it is indicated as a brick foundation of the XVI century. Does this mean that until the XVI century. didn’t this place stand? Not at all. A XNUMXth-century tower could stand, as is written in the corresponding chronicles. By the way, it was in the XVI century. most of the fortresses were rebuilt, since there was a need to adapt them to opposing artillery - so why did the Turov tower have to be an exception, why couldn’t it be demolished and in its place to build a new one on a brick foundation?
    Honestly, I don’t see any falsification at all.
    If you want to deal with some issues of history, it is better to study what historians write, and not that someone who is not very smart or not very clean writes about historians.
    1. Rurikovich 7 June 2020 16: 32 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      By the way, it was in the XVI century. most of the fortresses were rebuilt, since there was a need to adapt them to opposing artillery - so why did the Turov tower have to be an exception, why couldn’t it be demolished and in its place to build a new one on a brick foundation?

      In the official version, the tower was built of brick in the 11th century. Of brick, not plinths. It had a circular cross section with a diameter of 1830 meters and a height of several tiers. It was disassembled in the XNUMXs. There is no data on the restructuring thereof, therefore the question is - were they? They were looking for a round foundation. For the round tower was dismantled. So
      historians write
      And again, questions in dating bricks and plinths.
      We can say that, alas, history did not preserve written evidence of perestroika, then it is necessary to somehow dig out more broadly and thoroughly in order to archaeologically fill in the gaps in logical development, for that matter. Of course, no one will.
      Until historians have a clear and precise position in the presentation of history, without double interpretations, there will always be doubters, for “could”, “probably”, “most likely” are not arguments yes request
      Alas hi
      1. Trilobite Master 7 June 2020 17: 10 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Until historians have a clear and precise position in the presentation of history

        Well, that will never happen. No historian will tell you "as it was." In the best case, “as it was most likely” or “how exactly it couldn’t be”.
        Regarding the tower - it is known that the brick was dismantled. The foundation showed that it was built, was in the XVI century. What stood on this place before and whether it was unknown. And if there were no chronicle evidence that the tower was there, nobody would know anything about it. But there is evidence, and one simply cannot dismiss it. Perhaps she was standing in a different place, and her foundation will still be found. Perhaps, and even probably - on the same and then the traces of the old foundation can simply be lost. And maybe they are now there under the new brick, they just have not found them yet, have not gotten to the bottom.
        Large-scale archaeological research is not done, of course, not because historians do not want to do it. Historians would love to dig. Most likely, financial and expediency issues that are not directly related to historical science are of key importance here.
        1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 17: 15 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Most likely, financial and expediency issues that are not directly related to historical science are of key importance here.

          And also questions of the protection of excavations, which are also directly related to financing. I knew from the AI ​​site one, miles sorry, cormorant, who boasted that once with his friends, fans of ideas about Hyperborea and the super race of the Russoarians, he had plundered an archaeological site, which archaeologists had nothing to protect. Of course, everything he found was recorded as confirmation of theories about this Hyperborea, and historians were once again declared arrogant liars and falsifiers. Although I would have torn my hands off for such a thing, the place of excavation that had just begun to be explored is a complete, simply the most complete, indescribable polar beast fool
          1. Trilobite Master 7 June 2020 18: 33 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: arturpraetor
            And also questions of protection of excavations

            As well as conservation issues, etc.
            For the looting of archaeological sites, I believe, it is necessary to put in prison, and for a long time.
            1. frog 8 June 2020 15: 36 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Mmmmm ............. How to say this ....... Of course, it is necessary to plant, no one argues here. But ..... We often don’t even plant those where everything and with the evidence base is not bad, and with "special public danger" ..... We have entire clans that have been hunting black archeology for decades, about Siberian open spaces - just keep quiet .... But with the evidence base everything is there ....... curious. Since you need to attract historians, this is not a clever TV laughing And who needs it? Moreover, very often in this business everything is so cunningly confused .... And that's it repeat Well, maybe not all, but ...... many .......
              1. Trilobite Master 8 June 2020 17: 07 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Subtleties are in any question. Even murder, in spite of its obvious wrongfulness and public danger, can be viewed, let’s say, from a different point of view.
                But for "black archaeologists", especially those who hunt for antiquities, revealing explored and designated monuments, monuments described by archaeologists, the punishment should be severe.
                1. frog 8 June 2020 17: 39 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  There it is much more interesting ..... They are gutting monuments not described by archaeologists. And quite often - and completely unknown to them .....
  • Edward Vashchenko 7 June 2020 08: 15 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Thank you Artem for trying to get through the jungle of the "princely history" of Russia.
    The passage about V.N. Tatishchev. Tatishchev left a huge mark in historiography; the assessment of him in scientific historiography changed: a view from the XNUMXth century. seriously differed with the views later, but he always caused much fewer complaints and questions than our other “Herodotus” - Karamzin.
    1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 10: 15 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Edward Vashchenko
      Thank you Artem for trying to get through the jungle of the "princely history" of Russia.

      It’s always welcome, Roman Mstislavich was always very interesting to me, as I found out that it was not Daniil Galitsky who founded the Galician-Volyn principality hi
      Quote: Edward Vashchenko
      The passage about V.N. Tatishchev.

      Apparently, my personal experience affected it - I met very little Tatishchev's support, and a lot of his criticism. I myself am not closely acquainted with his works, but I have contacted with fragments of his material, and it, in general, is at least logical and not contradictory, albeit wonderful. So personally I have a rather positive attitude towards Tatishchev’s figure, although I won’t take it upon myself to say that he was telling the truth and what wasn’t.

      But Karamzin is not so lucky laughing I, as a true bore, did not forgive him for distorting the numbering of Russian sovereigns, which is why it is customary in modern historiography to consider the Tsar-emperors from Ivan Kalita, although just different numbering was adopted before Karamzin - from Ivan the Terrible. That is, the same Grozny was Tsar Ivan I, for the title of imperial rank was created only with him. In Europe, it was a natural practice, then it was followed by it, and Karamzin decided to distort this business in favor of .... And it’s not even clear what.
      1. Korsar4 7 June 2020 11: 17 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Interesting life of Tatishchev. Some disputes with the Demidovs are worth a lot.

        I have the impression (little reinforced) of a man embraced by passions. Topics and interesting.
  • knn54 7 June 2020 08: 26 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Artem, thanks for the cycle "Circuit of Princes in Russia."
    "And you, buoy Romana, and Mstislav! A brave idea to carry your mind to business. Float high on business, like a falcon expanding, even though you’ll overthrow a bird in a riot. , and many countries of Khinova, Lithuania, Yatvyazi, Deremela, and Polovtsi Sulitsa have their own foe, and their own head has worshiped raising your swords of haraluzhny "...
    "Words about Igor's regiment."
  • Andrei Nikolaevich 7 June 2020 09: 43 New
    • 0
    • 9
    -9
    A spiky country, like a passing red banner, passed from one to another. And everyone used it ..
    1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 10: 29 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      No need to demonize the story.
      1. Phil77 7 June 2020 11: 07 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Well said! hi
        It will be insulting to the lady and she demonizes us. Then. In the process. Historical.
        1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 11: 19 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Well, Clio is, in principle, an illegible lady. "Whoever dines with her dances her." In this regard, my previous comment.
  • 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 10: 48 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    as well as the fact that Predslava Rurikovna could not provide Roman offspring of a male, having given birth only to two daughters. The former alliance came to an end when both princes clearly went into confrontation. In the same year, Roman sent Predslava to his father, having obtained a divorce from her.
    By the way, the normal practice of that time. It became interesting, Roman returned the dowry of the Pre-Glory, or not?
    1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 10: 53 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      By the way, the normal practice of that time.

      Not really. In Europe, they often dabbled in this way, but in Russia, divorces were rare, and, as a rule, the absence of male offspring was not a good reason for issuing permission by the church. Which is pretty funny, because the same Orthodox hierarchs in Byzantium could calmly divorce the secular ruler for the same reasons. But "we have our own atmosphere" was.
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      It became interesting, Roman returned the dowry of the Pre-Glory, or not?

      Yeah, back. And then he caught up, and again returned laughing But seriously - I did not meet such information.
      1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 11: 09 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        It suggests that since the time of Rurik in Russia, the “sword”, and not the “spinning wheel”, has inherited. And in general, solid gender chauvinism! laughing
        In Europe, before the beginning of the XIV century, a woman, with a divorce, could take a dowry (for the second estate - unambiguously), and prove her innocence in court (butts) Here, damn it, and the "dark Middle Ages" !!!
        1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 11: 24 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          It suggests that since the time of Rurik in Russia, the “sword”, and not the “spinning wheel”, has inherited. And in general, solid gender chauvinism!

          Well, this is no longer news that society in Russia was very patriarchal. Of course, women could still afford a lot ... But not always.
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          In Europe, before the beginning of the XIV century, a woman, with a divorce, could take a dowry (for the second estate - unambiguously), and prove her innocence in court (butts) Here, damn it, and the "dark Middle Ages" !!!

          Since Roman times, they have had developed jurisprudence and respect for the institution of the treaty, so it is not surprising.
          1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 11: 50 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            1.Not news, of course. But why, under the same incoming conditions (Norman expansion), the echoes of matriarchy in Europe have survived much longer than in Russia? This despite the fact that Russia was at the same stage of socio-political development with Scandinavia.
            2. I think you should not appeal to "Roman law" in relation to the Middle Ages.
            1. Korsar4 7 June 2020 11: 58 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              The conditions were less severe. So they behaved as they like.

              "The cave and the hearth have not been cleaned, -
              You spoiled the matriarchy! ” (with).
              1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 12: 03 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                "Where are you going, Odysseus? From the wife, from the children?"
                -Oh, would you go home, Penelope !!! " (WITH)
                1. Korsar4 7 June 2020 12: 13 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  “Argo! Is your way closer
                  Than the road is milky ”(c).
                  1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 12: 32 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    I do not really like Trier, but I agree with his conclusions about the adventures of Iasson.
                    1. Korsar4 7 June 2020 12: 36 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      What was there? Is it worth watching?
                      1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 12: 48 New
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        +4
                        Worth it. The tragedy of a woman who chose honor, instead of the "basic instinct." I do not recommend watching with women.
            2. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 12: 06 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: 3x3zsave
              But why, under the same incoming conditions (Norman expansion), the echoes of matriarchy in Europe have survived much longer than in Russia?

              This is a topic for separate historical studies. smile
              Quote: 3x3zsave
              I think you should not appeal to "Roman law" in relation to the Middle Ages.

              Nevertheless, the Roman Empire even influenced the "barbarian" states after its death. An institution of a treaty was formed and settled there early. The same "barbaric" Spain for a very long time essentially lived on Roman laws. And when they already had a contract, even with a capital letter, we were still engaged in cross-kissing. What seems to be also from the same opera, but in fact it is much easier to violate than a piece of paper certified and confirmed by third parties with signatures and any kind of guarantees.
              1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 16: 05 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2

                This is a topic for separate historical studies.

                Probably mine. For gender sociology, in the framework of historical processes, didn’t bother anyone.
                Meanwhile, only one woman all European poetry owes its existence in its current form. Including Russian.
                1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 16: 12 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Here the casket can and simply opens - strong women in the Western world were during antiquity. When Christianity came, this was already the norm, and therefore women were much more allowed, and in general they were more actively included in social and cultural life. But after the creation of a single politicum and society, Christianity immediately began to plummet, and outstanding women had to break through ... A lot of things. Who can I recall before the arrival of Batu? Euphrosyne of Polotsk, Princess Olga, who else? Moreover, the first many do not know smile Women did not play prominent political roles, did not shine much in public and cultural life, and therefore a certain stereotype and tradition regarding their occupation developed.

                  That’s why our queens sat in small houses, gave birth to children to the tsar and could do nothing else, and in Europe the best queen was recognized as the one who played a prominent role in political and public life, not to mention the mandatory fad in the form of charity and the like. There, the Arpadov had an overwhelming number of holy women in the dynasty, and clearly in the case - and yet the Magyars had recently been nomadic pagans, and had quite a patriarchal society!
                  1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 17: 04 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    and therefore women were much more allowed,
                    You will not believe it, but women in Paris, model 1400, were allowed much more than men.
                    1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 17: 10 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      This is France, Monsieur. They always knew a lot about these laughing The court title of the official lover of the king and open-top fashion (in the case of EMNIP the very first of her mistress - in the most direct and complete sense) is clear evidence of this bully
                      1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 17: 59 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        Let me doubt it, sir!
                        The topless fashion with open nipples entered Paris 350 years later.
                      2. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 18: 05 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        Agnes Sorel disagrees with you repeat

                        However, you are right. The fashion for open nipples appeared much later. And Agnes Sorel in the XNUMXth century opened all her breasts at once. laughing
                      3. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 18: 34 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        This particular Messir
                        At sunset of the Middle Ages, Christina of Pisa steers !!! The first feminist!
                      4. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 18: 59 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: 3x3zsave
                        This particular Messir

                        Imagine that in the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the mistress of the Grand Duke walks with open chest at court. I can’t do it no So it’s quite a sign of greater female freedom in the West. Although the patriarchal system in Russia did not later prevent Yelena Glinskaya from reigning as a son in her infancy, it is true that she did not grow up in the VKM, but in Lithuania mores were more free.
                      5. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 19: 18 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        And what, Cristina of Pisa sunbathing "topless" on the French Riviera?
                      6. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 19: 26 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        No, of course, but this does not change the essence. France in general was very free for women even by European standards. But in Russia, the opposite is visible. The same Euphrosyne of Polotsk went to the monastery in order to avoid the secular life of her time, because a woman in the monastery could live more freely than in marriage. Also, you know, a kind of feminism, only already domestic.
                      7. Korsar4 7 June 2020 20: 19 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Given the miracle with the relics of Euphrosyne of Polotsk, I completely admit leaving to the monastery for ideological reasons. And the inner watchman is the most sensitive.
                      8. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 20: 28 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        To be honest, according to Euphrosyne of Polotsk, I read the study for a very long time, and I don’t even remember the author. There he gives a version that is reasonably understandable in human terms, according to which, in general, one does not interfere with the other. Those. Euphrosyne was indeed religious, but no one would have hindered her from believing in God and praying in a marriage that everyone insisted on. And she went to the monastery, discarding the secular life - the decision is quite radical. So, probably, all these marital troubles and life completely dependent on her husband just abhorred her. In the monastery, though, she lost some worldly opportunities, but on the whole she remained free and could devote herself to God more and do what her soul was striving for more. In the same study, there were mentions that leaving the monastery from a marriage imposed by parents at that time did occur, and not so rarely. Only in the monastery could women breathe freely from the patriarchal order, albeit at the cost of abandoning married life. So I am still inclined to believe that the idea acted as an additional incentive, but the root cause was precisely the rejection of the existing social order and the marriage imposed on it.

                        However, the debate about the life of the saints is a completely different story. hi
                      9. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 20: 37 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Yeah, and Pskov was somehow more lucky with the patroness, yes, if you think about it, Peter, too.
                      10. Korsar4 7 June 2020 20: 53 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Duchess Olga. A book read in childhood. And which is still in memory.

                        And on the second point - Ksenia of Petersburg means?
                      11. 3x3zsave 8 June 2020 07: 23 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Absolutely.
          2. Korsar4 7 June 2020 20: 17 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            “You will see everywhere in Moscow
            Churches, images, crosses,
            Domes with bells,
            Women painted like dolls
            Whore and vodka and garlic ....
            They scurry about the market idly,
            They stand in front of the bathhouse with a bang ”(c).
  • Edward Vashchenko 7 June 2020 12: 00 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Anton,
    Good afternoon, an interesting question.
    There are two points. The first thing I constantly write about is the period under review - the transition from a clan community to a neighborhood. This, by the way, is good, in Russian truth. And Monomakh’s “legislative initiative” is compared with Solon in Athens: there is only one transitional period.
    Those. unlike feudal rights, we had a tribal institution, yes, often similar to feudal, but still different.
    The second point is that they inherited? The prince of this period did not have real estate, sometimes the "villages" or "traps" mentioned, and around the sea of ​​communal lands - the lands of cities. The prince, in general, sways between the lands, lives entirely on the maintenance of the land, where he is the "executive branch", lives off the land and the right to collect tribute from the nearest foreigners. So, probably, the inheritance was just a “sword” and was, I exaggerate, but something like that.
    Let's look at the "wills" of the specific period, in particular the Moscow princes? when were the lands already in the possessions? There is something to compare.
    1. 3x3zsave 7 June 2020 12: 19 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Let's get a look!!! We enter the path of historical psychology. (At least in Russian-language interpretation)
      I am extremely interested !!!
  • Trilobite Master 7 June 2020 14: 33 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Artem, as always, thank you, I personally was interested.
    It is felt that Roman Mstislavich is your favorite character and that you breathe to him with some interruptions, which, however, you do not hide. smile
    By the way, maybe I was lucky or vice versa, unlucky, but I did not meet any derogatory assessments of this historical character in the historical literature from the word at all. Everything that came across to me about him was extremely correct and came down to the opinion that he was a capable ruler, a talented commander, and in general one of the outstanding statesmen of medieval Russia, successfully pursuing a policy of centralizing power and creating powerful military and economic sense. state (principality). In any case, its unflattering characteristics that you cited in the article were a revelation to me.
    In relation to this article, I would also especially emphasize that, being Prince Galitsky, Roman Mstislavich really somehow, for the most part, was indifferent to affairs in Russia, paying more attention to the showdown with "Western partners." In the endless fights between the Olga and Rostislavichs for Kiev, he refused to accept, and even did this with some defiantness. Although there were no less chances for a Kiev table than the same Rurik Rostislavich, Vsevolod Chermny or his dad Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich.
    It is curious how the fate of the son of Rurik Rostislavich Vladimir later develops. After the violent tonsure of his father, he spent some time with Roman in Galich as a captive or a hostage and probably cared for his young brothers Daniil and Vasilk. And then he will become the great Kiev prince and will first fight with Daniel, and then become his most faithful ally in the fight against Mikhail Chernigovsky ...
    1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 16: 04 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      It is felt that Roman Mstislavich is your favorite character and that you breathe to him with some interruptions, which, however, you do not hide.

      I would not say that my favorite, but .... Let's just say that after I read it (or even did not read it, because I found little information, and very briefly), a thorough study of the issue revealed completely distinguishable facts. And, again, Tolochko addressed the Roman rather derogatoryly, with reference to the annals. Of the "old" historical works, only Kripyakevich perhaps spoke of Roman in a positive way, although I met Mayorov with the most interesting details. For example, like Maiorov (I don’t remember exactly, I can be mistaken), he suggested that Galich was able to capture so simply in 1199 because Roman brought Lesha Bely with him, who began to lay claim to the city. To be under the Poles for the Galicians at that moment was a wild sackcloth, and they themselves rushed into Roman’s hands, if only he would protect them from the Poles. I did not include this material in the text of the article, because I can’t even retell this hypothesis with accuracy, and I don’t remember exactly where I got it from - but you must admit, such a cunning political move clearly suits the great statesman smile And meanwhile, if you do not dig deep into the topic of Russia, until recently no one has talked much about it. In Ukrainian school textbooks, for example, in my time GVK began with Daniil Galitsky, about Roman, at best, there were a couple of paragraphs. In short, I was so fond of Roman not least because he deserves much more attention than he usually pays.
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      In relation to this article, I would also especially emphasize that, being Prince Galitsky, Roman Mstislavich really somehow, for the most part, was indifferent to affairs in Russia, paying more attention to the showdown with "Western partners."

      And here, probably, he had a cold, sober political calculation. The fight for Kiev really took a lot of time and effort, and the winner in it has already become more years than it was — it ruled for a couple of years, and you are overthrown. Sense to fight for this challenge prize now? Let others fight for it, but in the meantime you can strengthen your patrimony, gain allies, authority, prepare - and when the rest are exhausted by the struggle, come and take this challenge prize once and for all. About the same way, as I understand it, those princes who turned the VSK into their patrimony reasoned. A great game for the long term, but as practice has shown, that was the only way to unite Russia under itself. But Roman didn’t refuse to fight for her at all, he simply felt that it was not necessary to participate in every strife.
      1. Trilobite Master 7 June 2020 16: 24 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Yes, Roman and Vsevolod the Big Nest, apparently, thought in a similar way. Having established unconditional control over Galich and Novgorod, respectively, having got rid of competitors in the struggle for these tables, they did not rush headlong into the battle for the last “ownerless” Kiev table, but were engaged in expanding and strengthening their own possessions. Moreover, their children completely repeated the policies of their fathers.
        If it weren’t for the Mongols, I’m sure, already under the grandchildren of these princes, the hottest battle for dominance in Central Russia between the north-east and south-west would have awaited us after Smolensk and Chernigov completely exhausted each other in the mutual struggle. smile
        1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 16: 41 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          If it weren’t for the Mongols, I’m sure, already under the grandchildren of these princes, the hottest battle for dominance in Central Russia between the north-east and south-west would have awaited us after Smolensk and Chernigov completely exhausted each other in the mutual struggle.

          Moreover, the slaughter would obviously be epic, because on the part of the GVK, Roman’s grandson is Lev Danilovich, the prince-commander, who in real life ate a dog. Plus the father’s army. And from the side of Vladimir-Suzdal, the grandson of Vsevolod the Big Nest - Alexander Nevsky, is also a good commander, but at the same time a very cunning and skilled politician. And somewhere on the outskirts, somewhere else, Lithuanians hang out, who, if not touched, then at the beginning of the XNUMXth century, Gedimin comes to power there, and the great Lithuanian conquest begins. Plus the crusaders, the steppes ... Porridge would have turned out to be one!
          1. Edward Vashchenko 7 June 2020 16: 46 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Yes, probably.
            But in conditions when the Russian principalities were not weakened, Lithuania would not have dreamed of anything. Lithuania entered the stage of activity, against the background of the old Russian pogrom.
            1. arturpraetor 7 June 2020 16: 52 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Who said that the pogrom will not come after the epic rally of the Northeast and Southwest? And the Lithuanians themselves can participate in the process. Nevsky is a pragmatist, Lithuanians are primarily opposed to the nearest principalities - i.e. those that will be under Romanovichi ... Here the union becomes very likely. True, the Romanovichs can also bring allies - primarily Poles, who do not need to strengthen Lithuania at all.