Military Review

Prince Roman Mstislavich, Byzantine Princess and Foreign Policy

60
Prince Roman Mstislavich, Byzantine Princess and Foreign Policy
In general, this sculpture depicts Irina Angelina, the eldest daughter of Isaac II Angela, but she was the eldest sister of Anna Angelina, because somehow it is quite possible to imagine the second wife of Roman Mstislavich


The first contacts of Byzantium with Roman Mstislavich were probably established in the early 1190s, when he gained strength as one of the most influential princes of Southern Russia. However, the true flowering of these relations began only in 1195, when Alexei III Angel took power in Constantinople, and especially after the unification of the Galicia-Volyn principality under Prince Roman, which made him already a very noticeable political figure and military force outside Russia, especially for the Romans. The latter at all costs tried to improve relations with the prince. The reason was simple: Byzantium at that time was in deep decline, undergoing constant uprisings, but, worst of all, it was subjected to regular raids by the Polovtsians, who thoroughly ravaged its lands and reached Constantinople in their raids. Some kind of force was needed that could stop the steppe attacks on Byzantium, and Prince Roman Mstislavich turned out to be such a force in the eyes of the Byzantine emperor.

Apparently, the negotiations were started long before the capture of Galich, since already in 1200 the first signs of a concluded alliance appeared. After that, one of the main tasks of Roman’s foreign policy was campaigns deep into the steppe against the Polovtsy, which was also a traditional occupation for Southern Russia, and provided considerable support to the Byzantine allies. Already in the winter of 1201-1202, he hit the Polovtsian steppe, striking at the nomads and camps of the steppes. The main forces of the Polovtsy at that time robbed Thrace. Having received news of the campaign of the Russian prince, they were forced to quickly return home, abandoning the loot, including the rich one. For this, Roman deserved a comparison with his ancestor, Vladimir Monomakh, who also loved and actively practiced visits to the steppes as preventive measures. In response, the Polovtsy supported Roman's enemy, Rurik Rostislavich, but failed and were forced several times to encounter unexpected guests from Russia. Winter hikes were especially painful when the steppe was covered with snow and the nomads lost mobility. As a result of this, by 1205 the danger of the Polovtsy for Byzantium was minimized.

However, a curious detail emerges here. In the Byzantine chronicles, for example, the authorship of Nikita Honiat, Prince Roman is given a lot of attention, his victories over the Cumans (Polovtsy) are praised in every possible way, but, most importantly, he is called the hegemon. And according to the Byzantine terminology of that time, only a close relative of the emperor could be a hegemon. And here the legend smoothly approaches probably the most interesting riddle connected with the figure of Roman Mstislavich.

Byzantine princess


About the second wife, the mother of Daniel and Vasilka Romanovich, there is practically no exact news. Even taking into account its important role in the formation of their own children, the annals only remember her as “the widow of Romanov,” that is, the widow of Prince Roman. Which, incidentally, is a completely normal phenomenon, since in the annals and chronicles of that time women might not have paid much attention at all, and in the best case it could be known who the father or husband of this or that woman is. Nevertheless, modern historians have done a tremendous amount of work to find sources and analyze the information obtained. With a high degree of probability, it was possible to establish the origin of the second wife of Prince Roman Mstislavich. It was also possible to determine its intended name and make a probable history life, which in the framework of our legend is of considerable interest.

Anna Angelina was born around the 1st half of the 1180s. Her father was the future emperor of Byzantium, Isaac II, at that time only one of the many representatives of the Angels dynasty (and therefore Angelina: this name is not personal, but dynastic). Nothing is known about the mother at all, but after analyzing all sources, historians came to the conclusion that she was probably from the Paleolog dynasty, the very ones who would become emperors of Nicaea, and then the last ruling house of Byzantium. Isaac had other children, Anna was the youngest of all. For certain reasons, of which it remains only to speculate, from childhood she was placed in a private convent and raised as a nun, which at that time was not the rarest occurrence for Byzantium. Perhaps, in this way, Isaac II, a rather God-fearing person, wanted to protect her from the vicissitudes of fate or to thank God for giving him the imperial throne in 1185, or simply decided to give her the appropriate monastic upbringing. Be that as it may, the girl grew up locked up, while receiving an excellent education. Perhaps it was at this moment that the church name Euphrosyne was added to her secular name Anna, or maybe she became Euphrosyne only at an old age, when she really gave up as a nun after the son of Daniel restored the Principality of Galicia-Volyn, now you can’t say for sure. Or maybe it was all the other way around, and in the world she was Euphrosyne, and Anna became after tonsure. There is also a third version of her name - Maria. That is what the “Romanova Widow” was called in Soviet fiction historical literature. Alas, now this hypothesis does not seem sufficiently substantiated, since it is based on too complicated constructions and does not fit in with foreign sources. Be that as it may, the first option will be used in the future, since it is generally accepted among historians, although far from certain.

Isaac II rules only 10 years. In 1195 he was overthrown by his own brother, Emperor Alexei III. He tried to solve the great many problems that fell upon Byzantium, and began to look for a reliable ally. At the same time, Roman Mstislavich was gaining strength and had recently divorced Predslava Rurikovna. The Russian prince needed a wife, the Byzantine emperor, an ally, so the further course of events was already predetermined - the Greek church ranks in this case were inevitably inferior to the will of the secular authorities, as a result of which the emperor’s niece, suitable for marriage, was removed from the monastery. It is possible that negotiations on Roman’s marriage with the Byzantine princess had begun even before the divorce from Predslava and served as another reason for the act, which was quite rare at that time, which was the divorce. Be that as it may, the marriage was concluded in 1200, shortly after Roman settled in Galich. After the wedding, Anna Angelina bore him a son, and then another one. In order to achieve the maximum possible legitimacy of the second marriage and children from him, the Galician-Volyn prince, most likely, organized a church trial for the former father-in-law, mother-in-law and wife, sending them to the monastery and achieving recognition of the illegality of such closely related marriages. For some time, such a decision turned out to be unique in Russia, since the princes for a long time entered into marriages with those relatives whose marriage was forbidden according to Greek canons, which makes a more significant version of the political motives for violently tonsuring Rurik with his wife and daughter, rather than exclusively religious.

Anna Angelina, having become the founding mother of the Romanovich dynasty, presented her husband, children and the entire Galicia-Volyn principality a huge heritage. It was thanks to her that a large number of Greek names appeared in Russia, which until then had not been recorded by the chronicles among the Rurikovich. It was this Byzantine princess who brought to Russia two Christian shrines - the cross of Manuel Paleolog with a part of the tree from which the cross was made on which Jesus Christ was crucified (now stored in the Notre-Dame de Paris), and the icon of the Mother of God of authorship of the Evangelist Luke, which is now known as Polish Czestochowa icon of the Mother of God. Thanks to Anna's accession to the imperial dynasty, in much later years, Daniil Galitsky in negotiations could “crush the style” before the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, wearing a purple cloak (and at that time only relatives of emperors could have such a cloth). She brought to Russia the cult of Daniel Stolpnik, which later became popular in the North-East of Russia thanks to dynastic ties with the Romanovichs. Because of Anna Angelina, Roman and his children will be close relatives of the Arpad, Babenberg and Staufen, which will expand the possibilities of conducting foreign policy. But the most important thing is that during the childhood of her sons, Anna Angelina will gnaw out teeth for them wherever possible, and thanks to her willpower and mind, Daniil Galitsky will not only become what he becomes, but simply will not die in her infancy from a boyar knife or poison.

In short, this is one of the very successful examples of the fact that not everything that is called marriage is something bad.

German politics


There is a Benedictine monastery of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul in the Thuringian town of Erfurt. It is quite old, existed already in the XII century, and enjoyed special status with the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the Hohenstaufen dynasty. According to the traditions of that time, certain representatives of the aristocracy could provide the monasteries with the highest protection, primarily financial, due to which, in addition to purely Christian motives, secular authorities could gain influence on the church life of this institution. In addition, such a ward monastery became a kind of political instrument, a kind of indirect connection with its patron. Having donated a large sum of money to the monastery, it was possible to make up or at least start negotiations with a noble patron, and joint patronage, as a rule, was a sign of an alliance or just friendly or family relations between two or more people.

Imagine the astonishment of historians when they learned that one of the donors of a large amount of silver to the monastery in Erfurt was a certain “Roman, King of Russia”, namely Prince Roman Mstislavich, who supposedly visited Germany somewhere at the turn of the 19th-XNUMXth centuries. After his death, the “King of Rus” was annually mentioned on June XNUMX (the day of death) during the funeral service ... This discovery was the impetus for the study of the issue of Prince Roman Mstislavich’s participation in German politics. The research results are still clearly incomplete, and this topic can be studied for a long time, but the discoveries made are enough to boldly assert an active foreign policy of the Galician-Volyn prince on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire.

And what happened at the turn of the XII and XIII centuries in the Holy Roman Empire? It’s just an ordinary, amusing struggle between two leading dynasties that claimed the imperial crown: the Staufen and the Welfes, into which England, France, Denmark, Poland and many other states of the time intervened, choosing one side or another. At that time, the Welfs controlled the imperial throne, but the Staufen in the person of the King of Germany Philip of Swabia acted as the true heart of Germany, and perhaps all of European politics. It was they who had a great influence on the Fourth Crusade, as a result of which Constantinople fell. On the other hand, Welfa was supported by the Pope ... In general, the good old strife, only in a special, German-Catholic way, affecting almost all of Europe at that time.

Roman Mstislavich’s relations with the Staufen took shape long before the prince’s visit to Germany. Firstly, they were related to each other, albeit distant (the grandmother of the prince was just a representative of the German dynasty). Secondly, the Staufen had certain interests in Southwest Russia and had already intervened in local affairs, having put Vladimir Yaroslavich, who formally was their vassal, to rule in Galich. By the way, from this side, the Staufen’s unexpected support of the last Rostislavich looks completely different - as if they had “agreed” with Roman to prepare the latter a warm little roost after Vladimir’s death ... Thirdly, Philip Swabsky was married to Irina Angelina, Anna Angelina’s sister, wife Roman Mstislavich; thus, the king of Germany and the Galician-Volyn prince were each other's brother-in-law. According to all the customs of that time, such ties were more than enough to establish close contacts and request military assistance without a formal alliance. And this request was directly followed in 1198, when Roman probably personally visited Germany. He could not, and did not want to refuse a powerful relative: an alliance with the king of Germany and the possible emperor of the Holy Roman Empire promised him great political benefits, and such a chance could not be missed.

Polish campaign and death



Leszek White. The fatal figure in the life of Roman Mstislavich, who managed to visit both an ally and the cause of his death

However, Roman Mstislavich was in no hurry to get involved in a distant and not necessary war for him. The man whom some chroniclers and historians accuse of near-zero political and diplomatic talents, soberly reasoned that at the moment he did not really need participation in German swaras and he needed to first gain a foothold in his home. Therefore, he continued to conduct his Russian part of politics, terminated the old and made new marriages, strengthened the borders and developed his princedom. At the same time, he still occupied Galich, significantly strengthening his power. In addition, the situation in Germany itself was precarious, so Roman did not want to take the side of the loser, waiting for Philip to gain a decisive advantage. Only by 1205 did all the conditions exist for Roman to be able to leave his native lands and, together with his army, go to war far to the west.

The plan of the campaign was made together with Philip Swabsky, who acted as the central figure of the upcoming big game. It was planned to inflict several blows on the Welsh and their allies. The main forces of the Staufen were to develop an attack on Cologne, where the main supporters of their opponents were entrenched, while the French were to divert the strength of the British. Roman was given an important task - to strike at Saxony, which at that time was the land of the Welsh and the loss of which was to undermine their military capabilities. The offensive plan itself was kept secret: fearing an information leak, only the most needed people in Germany, France and Russia were informed about the upcoming campaign. Only as he approached Saxony of the Galician-Volyn army did Roman have to notify his people of the main purpose of the campaign.

This secrecy as a result played a cruel joke with the prince. When his troops advanced on a campaign in 1205, they had to go through Polish territories. Roman did not conclude any special agreements with the Poles, fearing an information leak. In the Polish chronicles it is indicated that the prince went to war on them and began to take over the cities, claiming to be Lublin, but now it has already been proved that this is a mistake of the chroniclers of later times, who brought together two completely different campaigns - Roman Mstislavich and Daniil Romanovich. The Galician-Volhynian army did not conduct any seizures, and if it did, it was only for "supply", requisitioning food from the local population. Of course, the Polish princes reacted to this as an invasion. Even before negotiations with Roman, they decided to attack the Russian army, probably not having enough forces to confront the Russians in the open field and believing that they came to them with war, and did not go further, to Saxony. There is a version about the relations of the Poles with the Welsh, but so far it has not been proved. When the army of Roman began crossing the Vistula River at Zavihost, the Poles unexpectedly attacked the vanguard of the Rus. As a result, the small squad, together with the prince himself, was killed. The army, having suffered minimal losses, but having lost the commander, returned home.

So suddenly and ingloriously ended the life story of Prince Roman Mstislavich, the founder of the Galicia-Volyn principality. And although he lived a long and eventful life, the prince did not manage to sufficiently strengthen his power in the new state formation on the territory of Russia - the Galician-Volyn principality. This played a huge role both for his heirs, the minors of Daniel and Vasilk, and for historians, many of whom gave a low assessment to Roman solely because the prince of Galicia-Volyn created by him began to burst at the seams almost immediately after his death. However, it is difficult to negatively assess a person who was trying to build something new, more promising than the traditional state system in the territory of South-Western Russia with constantly crumbling destinies, a ladder, regular change of ruling princes, strife in one place and boyar domination in another. Therefore, the high marks given to him by the Galician-Volyn chronicle, written with his sons, look quite justified, and as the role of this person in history was revised, he was more than once called the Great Roman - not as magnificent as Vladimir Krasno Solnyshko, but certainly outstanding against the background of most of his contemporaries from among the Rurikovich. After tonsuring his former father-in-law, Roman became one of the most influential princes in Russia, a figure who could compare with Vsevolod the Big Nest, but due to his imminent death, this period of maximum influence of the prince often goes unnoticed.

Separately, it is worth mentioning the two historical tales associated with Roman Mstislavich, which are now becoming increasingly believable. The first of them is connected with the papal embassy to Roman, when in exchange for conversion to Catholicism he was offered the crown of Russia, but the Galician-Volyn prince rejected the offer. Historical disputes continue to this day. Set with accuracy whether there was such an event or not until it comes out. To eliminate the possibility of this, contrary to the assertions of some historians, is not yet possible. It can only be argued that in the light of new facts about this prince, such an embassy could well have taken place, as well as his decisive refusal. A similar situation exists with the draft reform of Roman Mstislavich, attributed to him by Tatishchev. According to this reform, all of Russia was to be transformed according to principles similar to the principles of the Holy Roman Empire, with an elected Grand Duke and electoral princes. Previously, it was believed that this was an invention of Tatishchev, and Roman did not offer anything like that. However, in light of all of the above, as well as the peculiarities of Roman’s marriage policy in the case of daughters from Predslava Rurikovna, modern historians come to the conclusion that Roman could at least offer such a project, being familiar with the realities of the Holy Roman Empire firsthand and being a very powerful prince on the moment of his death. However, both of these “stories” have not yet received the status of even firmly based hypotheses, but they can complement the reader’s image of the Galician-Volyn prince Roman Mstislavich.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Creation of the Galicia-Volyn principality
Leapfrog of princes in Volyn. Changes in society in the XII century
Yaroslav Osmomysl and the extinction of the first Galician dynasty
How Rostislavich kept their principality
Volyn land in the X-XI centuries
Southwest Russia: geography, ancient history, sources of information
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 June 2020 05: 35 New
    +9
    Thanks Artyom! Read in one go !!!
    Regards, Vlad!
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 12 June 2020 06: 47 New
    +4
    How confusing and intricate, but damn interesting!
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 June 2020 07: 32 New
      11
      HAU Leader!
      And he is tempted to say - “It was hard for Rurikovich to live in the Russian land. If not a brother with shelves under the walls is standing, then the matchmaker of the boyars is muddying ”!!! laughing
      Try to get out of here, if in your place in the lot is the turn for four generations ahead. So the descendants of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich harassed themselves intensely, applying all available methods.
      Surprisingly, after the troubled times, there was no worthy successor from his descendants on the male line to the Moscow throne !!!
      Although in the same France, from the cousins ​​of the king, too, was not crowded !!!
      Regards, Kote!
      1. Tugarin
        Tugarin 12 June 2020 08: 09 New
        11
        Surprisingly, after the troubled times, there was no worthy receiver from his descendants on the male line to the Moscow throne

        hi Degeneration is evident.
        Thanks to the author - really interesting drinks
      2. Korsar4
        Korsar4 12 June 2020 08: 20 New
        +5
        That's the confusion that breaks the established order.
      3. Sergey S.
        Sergey S. 12 June 2020 10: 50 New
        +3
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Surprisingly, after the troubled times, there was no worthy successor from his descendants on the male line to the Moscow throne !!!

        As far as I remember, Prince Pozharsky from the run-down (small in number) Rurikovich.
        But several thousand thieves' Cossacks did not let him out of the house to the Zemsky Cathedral.
        So the homeland sellers from the seven-boyars elected to their kings ...
        1. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 12 June 2020 11: 47 New
          +8
          Quote: Sergey S.
          Prince Pozharsky from the rundown (small in number) Rurikovich

          "Thin" means "poor." Rod Pozharsky really came from Vsevolod the Great
          The nest was indeed seedy, that is, impoverished, impoverished. The "princely lot" of Dmitry Mikhailovich was the village of Pozharskoe. Any Moscow boyar of that time had more estates.
          By the way, Pozharsky himself knew his own worth and was not going to claim the throne. Moreover, he just supported the representative of the Austrian Habsburgs as a pretender to the Russian throne, and even called on his own behalf (I don’t remember how the candidate was called, he was the brother or nephew of the then emperor) to Russia. But while they were choking in Austria, the Russians managed to hold off their candidate, Romanov. So what - will we spit in the Romanovs?
          1. Sergey S.
            Sergey S. 12 June 2020 12: 21 New
            +3
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            "Thin" means "poor"

            This is today's interpretation.
            In the old days, a thin family - a small number of relatives.
            Quote: Trilobite Master
            So what - will we spit in the Romanovs?

            We will.
            Organized by the seven-boy unrest, there was a terrible civil war!
            Prince Pozharsky saved the Romanovs from popular anger, perhaps in vain.
            And the Russian army would support him.
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 12 June 2020 12: 57 New
              +6
              Quote: Sergey S.
              In the old days, a thin family - a small number of relatives.

              I can cite a dozen dictionaries in which the word "seedy" is defined as "impoverished." Where did you get your interpretation?
              Quote: Sergey S.
              Organized by the seven-boy unrest, there was a terrible civil war!

              Seven Boyars organized a turmoil? And so, the boyars were sitting and thinking - what else would be done to make the troubles come? You yourself are not funny?
              Quote: Sergey S.
              Prince Pozharsky saved the Romanovs from popular anger,

              What? !! wassat Who told you this? But do you enlighten me by what exactly the Romanovs caused "popular anger", what exactly this anger was expressed in and how exactly Pozharsky saved the Romanovs? Could it be that Habsburg called to the Russian throne, and then, due to a misunderstanding, did not manage to arrive on time?
              Quote: Sergey S.
              And the Russian army would support him

              Did you decide that yourself? Or is there someone smarter than you, who has thought you up? No, I really wonder who the author of this dumbest design is. Share the source?
              1. Sergey S.
                Sergey S. 12 June 2020 13: 40 New
                +2
                Quote: Trilobite Master
                I can cite a dozen dictionaries in which the word "seedy" is defined as "impoverished." Where did you get your interpretation?

                In Suzdal, in a monastery at the grave of Dmitry Mikhailovich, a researcher at the Historical Museum spoke about him. She emphasized why the Pozharsky family was called "thin", and she also told who plagued him ... But I don’t remember that anymore.
                1. Trilobite Master
                  Trilobite Master 12 June 2020 13: 51 New
                  +4
                  Ah, the guide ...
                  I don’t want to say anything bad about all the guides, and about the researcher from Suzdal in particular, but some of this fraternity are sometimes able to soak such pearls that you don’t know how to laugh or cry. Especially if you are obsessed with small-town patriotism.
                  In general, you yourself should understand that a reference to the words of an unnamed museum employee cannot be regarded as a serious argument if it is not supported by specific data. There are many legends about Pozharsky, especially in places related to him, but the reality is much more prosaic. And the fact that no one plagued him and that after the election of Romanov as king, the prince served him faithfully and was honored and awarded with land and money - these are historical facts.
                  1. Sergey S.
                    Sergey S. 12 June 2020 14: 56 New
                    0
                    Persecution of the Savior of the Romanovs Porsky - that would be beyond ...
                    And tell me, what ancient Russian princely families survived until 1917.
                    And who plagued them.
                    By 1917, there was not a single alternative candidate left for Russia to continue the monarchy ... And this is the result of the 300-year reign of the Romanovs.
                    1. Senior seaman
                      Senior seaman 12 June 2020 18: 47 New
                      +5
                      Quote: Sergey S.
                      And tell me, what ancient Russian princely families survived until 1917.

                      There were 16 of the most notable boyar clans.
                      Cherkasy. Preceded. The daughter of the last prince Cherkassky married Sheremetev
                      Vorotynsky. Preceded. The daughter of the last one married Prince Golitsyn
                      Trubetskoy Descendants are still alive
                      Golitsyn. Descendants are still alive.
                      Khovans Descendants are still alive.
                      Morozovs The main clan was cut short, but earlier they had separated from them: Sheins, Tuchkovs, Scriabin and others.
                      Sheremetev Descendants still live.
                      Odoyevsky The male line died out. The surname was given to descendants on the female side.
                      Pronsky. Preceded.
                      Sheina Presek.
                      Saltykovs A very extensive clan. Several branches died out, but others are still alive.
                      Repin Ugas in the 19th century.
                      Prozorovsky Ugas in the 19th century. But the surname is transferred to descendants on the female line who still live in Brussels.
                      Buinosov Presek.
                      Hilkov Descendants live to this day.
                      The Urusovs are also very ramified. Most branches survived to the 20th century.
                      Quote: Sergey S.
                      By 1917, there was not a single alternative candidate left in Russia to continue the monarchy ...

                      and why alternative, if by that time the legal representatives of the dynasty had a carriage and a small cart?
                  2. 3x3zsave
                    3x3zsave 12 June 2020 17: 26 New
                    +2
                    Ah, the guide ...
                    Michael! hi
                    I, for the last few years, have not been trying to oppose them. I just ask tricky questions and answer them myself.
                2. 3x3zsave
                  3x3zsave 12 June 2020 17: 20 New
                  +1
                  Yeah, tour guides broadcast a lot of things.
                  1. Sergey S.
                    Sergey S. 12 June 2020 18: 56 New
                    +1
                    Quote: 3x3zsave
                    Yeah, tour guides broadcast a lot of things.

                    Before you speak derogatoryly about a woman, you would figure out who you are trying to joke about.
                    I am the author of a post in which I retold one of the thoughts of her story.
                    I didn’t call her a guide. Here are my words:
                    Quote: Sergey S.
                    In Suzdal, in a monastery at the grave of Dmitry Mikhailovich, a researcher at the Historical Museum spoke about him.

                    Have you personally had to listen to field trips by scientists?
                    I got on this tour by chance.
                    In the winter of 1979, my wife and I, after graduation ... on the Golden Ring ...
                    And already having been tired of hearing an unusual story, the woman was telling two, as it seemed to us, friends. Attached. asked to listen. then just talked ...
                    Impressions so far!
                    1. 3x3zsave
                      3x3zsave 12 June 2020 19: 31 New
                      +1

                      Have you personally had to listen to field trips by scientists?

                      It was necessary. Repeatedly. It happened that my uncomfortable remarks surprised scientists so much that they showed me exhibits of “storerooms”.
              2. Sergey S.
                Sergey S. 12 June 2020 13: 53 New
                0
                Quote: Trilobite Master
                Seven Boyars organized a turmoil? And so, the boyars were sitting and thinking - what else would be done to make the troubles come? You yourself are not funny?

                It would be funny ...
                But then there are clever people who claim that the communists destroyed the USSR. This is really funny.
                As for the seven-boyars, there is every reason to say so.
                Read the pre-revolutionary historians.
                At one time, he made extracts, but could no longer find them.
                Therefore, from memory.
                Leave out the poisoning of Skopin-Shuisky.
                Korolevich called !?
                Tsar Vasily Shuisky (Rurikovich) and his brother were given to the Poles for blinding and death !? - An unprecedented betrayal. - A sort of collective Gorbachev + EBN.
              3. Sergey S.
                Sergey S. 12 June 2020 14: 09 New
                +1
                Quote: Trilobite Master
                Quote: Sergey S.
                Prince Pozharsky saved the Romanovs from popular anger,

                What? !! wassat Who told you this? But do you enlighten me by what exactly the Romanovs caused "popular anger", what exactly this anger was expressed in and how exactly Pozharsky saved the Romanovs?

                Read Russian historians (pre-revolutionary).
                November 7 - on the day of the liberation of Moscow from the Poles, when the bastards left the Moscow Kremlin, where the Cossacks of Trubetskoy stood, they surrendered robbed (and correctly) and killed (contrary to agreements).
                "Clever homeland sellers" went to the army, led by Prince Pozharsky. He did not allow robbing and killing ... He gave a convoy that guarded the bastards and sent them to distant estates. So the Romanovs ended up in the Kostroma forests, where Ivan Susanin did not find them.
                In the front row of the boyars who surrendered and awaited popular anger, stood the heir Mikhail novels with his mother.
                They stood and waited for the people's court. As it was not so long ago before them, for example, with the Miloslavskys.
              4. Sergey S.
                Sergey S. 12 June 2020 14: 17 New
                0
                Quote: Trilobite Master

                Quote: Sergey S.
                And the Russian army would support him

                Did you decide that yourself? Or is there someone smarter than you, who has thought you up? No, I really wonder who the author of this dumbest design is. Share the source?

                This is a simple logic multiplied by the people's love for Pozharsky, tested over 4 centuries.
                Agree, a rare character in Russian history.
                It was just that the war with the Poles continued, and the Zemstvo militia was where it was needed.
                And in Moscow gathered a lot of Zamoskvoretsky, or rather,
                "thieves" Cossacks, the very ones that served the False Dmitry for the time being ...
                So they surrounded the house of Pozharsky in the days of the election of the new king, and he was not at the Zemsky Sobor ...
                So call me the dumbest. And I will end up in a good company of great Russian historians.
                Although the copyright of this theory is clearly not for me.
                1. Trilobite Master
                  Trilobite Master 12 June 2020 16: 30 New
                  +7
                  I will try to answer briefly all at once.
                  You make a mistake typical of a modern person brought up on such concepts as "patriotism", "people", "Homeland". In the time of Troubles, no one knew such words. Instead, the concepts of "land", "faith", "king" were used. Feel the difference? And God stood above all this. The troubles began and continued because the earth lost faith in the king. The earth was looking for a king - how many False Dmitriyevs were there? - and did not find. And to a simple Russian peasant, but to a peasant, a nobleman, a landowner who had never seen this tsar and had never hoped to ever see one thing, it was important that the tsar was there, that he was of our faith. Nothing else matters.
                  All the ups and downs of that political struggle, all the facts are significant and not very, you will be misunderstood, if you do not understand the main thing - the earth needed a king, raised from God.
                  What you wrote is partly true, partly someone’s fiction, but this does not change the essence of the matter. It must be understood that not one of the protagonists of the Time of Troubles could be a traitor, such a concept also did not exist. You could become a traitor, but for this you had to first take the oath, then change it. And the oath was not made to the land, not to the people, not to the state, but to a specific person, moreover, this person did not have to be a king, there could be a boyar. At the same time, violation of the oath by the boyar did not mean the abolition of all oaths taken by servicemen to this boyar. Such was the concept of honor and fidelity.
                  There is no king - no oath - no fidelity - each for himself. The king, on the other hand, is a deeply sacred figure; they become one by birthright with the blessing of heaven.
                  Neither the Romanovs, nor the Shuisky-Trubetskoy-Vorotynsky and other boyar families were traitors - they all together and each individually tried to equip the land entrusted to them in their own way, interfered with each other like a swan, cancer and pike, pushed their elbows, tricked, lied, snapped, in the end, they killed each other - it was not a sin for them, they just did their job, what their ancestors did from time immemorial - they controlled the land. How could.
                  And the earth was looking for a king, the king was needed by everyone, including the most senior boyars. They tried to push him out of their ranks - it did not work out, they looked on the side - it did not work out. What is their betrayal? To whom is treason? There is no king. Nobody cheated on faith. To the earth? So, for starters, no one swore allegiance to her, and for that matter, they tried for her. How could. How could.
                  Pozharsky was no different from the others. I did not look deeper, I did not see further. He just did his job as governor - defeated the Poles, drove the Gentiles out of the capital. Then he just like the rest did not know what to do. I need a king, but where to get it? As a result, they chose Mikhail Romanov. Young - he has not had time to sin yet. Dad is a church cone, also a plus. Not Rurikovich - it’s good, there are plenty of Rurikovich, but until now there has been no sense. And the new dynasty is not burdened either with the sins of the former, or with obligations - just wonderful. Land without a king is tired - let it be.
                  And why did Skopin-Shuisky or Lyapunov be killed, which Boris Lykov-Obolensky and Ivan Romanov intrigued about? This is, in general, an interesting but not so important, if you do not understand for what they did it.
                  And you somehow try to evaluate them from the modern bell tower. For a layman, this is still excusable, so I’m not calling you the “dumbest” one. Just a common methodological error, quite excusable. But if some professional historian or just an advanced amateur had put forward this concept, then apart from contempt and hostility, nothing would have arisen for him, since this is either a sign of dense stupidity, or an attempt to deliberately mislead people.
                  And the last
                  Quote: Sergey S.
                  And tell me, what ancient Russian princely families survived until 1917.

                  Full! Mass, many hundreds. Nobody plagued them, half of the aristocratic families of imperial Russia are descended from Rurik, at least according to the documents. smile
                  1. 3x3zsave
                    3x3zsave 12 June 2020 17: 32 New
                    +1
                    Bravo, Michael!
                  2. Sergey S.
                    Sergey S. 12 June 2020 18: 36 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Trilobite Master
                    You make a mistake typical of a modern person brought up on such concepts as "patriotism", "people", "Homeland". In the time of Troubles, no one knew such words. Instead, the concepts of "land", "faith", "king" were used. Feel the difference?

                    Can we take up the Russian annals?
                    Or will the words about Igor’s regiment be enough to justify disagreement with you?
                    Or maybe the correspondence between Ivan Vasilyevich and Andrei Kurbsky will revive the idea of ​​patriotism in the Middle Ages?
                    I'll pay you back about the same.
                    In what you are right.
                    Consideration of the philological features of the century should be.
                    But one should also understand what meaning was put into words.
                    If instead of "Homeland" they said "Russian Land," does this change something in thoughts and feelings?

                    My ancestors are from the northwest, still pre-revolutionary Petersburgers. We have a cult of respect for Mr. Veliky Novgorod, Pomors ... Here the tsar was not respected, neither in the old days, nor now ... But the concept of "people" personifies power to a greater extent than just "power".
                    Of course, the derivative of the Latin word "patriotism" was not pronounced, but in reality they were patriots.

                    Finally, think what words Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky thought when making a choice regarding an alliance or confrontation with the Latins and the horde. Or when the Novgorodians called on him to lead the army? Did he really think about the “tsar,” and not the whole Russian people, not the whole Russian land, not about what we now call the Motherland?

                    Relative to faith, too, is not easy.
                    The Orthodox faith was preserved and defended, but the words Orthodox and Russian were confused for a long time even in state documents ...
                    The reduction of the concepts of “faith”, “tsar” and “Fatherland” into a single dominant slogan occurred much later than the events that we are discussing here ...
                    1. Trilobite Master
                      Trilobite Master 12 June 2020 19: 23 New
                      +5
                      Quote: Sergey S.
                      If instead of "Homeland" they said "Russian Land," does this change something in thoughts and feelings?

                      Of course it does. The original meaning of the concept of “Russian land” is “land of Russia”, that is, land belonging to Russia - that Russia, which was formed by the merger of the newly arrived Vikings and the Slavic nobility. The term designated affiliation, property. Both kings and princes considered this land their property. Instead of the concept of “homeland,” the concept of “fatherland,” was previously used, and even earlier, including during the time of unrest, the patrimony, the fatherland, again, the concept that characterizes possession. Princes and tsars loved Russian land just as you love your home, your apartment, your car, your property and fought for it, and not for patriotic convictions. People living in the "Russian", that is, their land, are as dear to them as your personal property. In any case, the nature of their love for their people was just that - it is mine, that I will protect and increase.
                      If your surname would be Ivanov, for example, and you would have owned a large farm with a bunch of household members, workers, etc., it would have been called “Ivanov Khutor”, and when any farm would have attacked it some bandits, you would lead your wards into battle with the cry "For land Ivanоvsku! ”and they would have fought frantically until the last breath.
                      I will exaggerate, of course, but this is just an illustration of the general principle - why there was no patriotism, homeland and other ephemeral (even in our time and necessary) concepts on which modern man grows.
                      And, in fact, that is why the boyars, princes and other kings cannot be considered traitors and their actions cannot be measured from the point of view of today's man.
                      And Alexander Nevsky, of course, was not thinking about his homeland, but about his fatherland, which the Russian land was for him. About own possessions, wanting to save and increase them.
                    2. Operator
                      Operator 12 June 2020 19: 30 New
                      -10
                      You are trying to explain things that are obvious to every Russian, Russophobic Tatar historian (whose qualifications are also at the level of an Arab doctor).
          2. Mikhail Ya2
            Mikhail Ya2 15 June 2020 08: 47 New
            0
            And after 150 years, the Romanovs left Russian blood, like the Habsburgs wink
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 15 June 2020 10: 20 New
              +2
              She was no more in Rurikovich, if she was there at all. smile
              1. Mikhail Ya2
                Mikhail Ya2 15 June 2020 14: 05 New
                0
                It turns out that the Russians ruled Russia from Mikhail Fedorovich to Elizaveta Petrovna (and then she is 50%)
                1. Trilobite Master
                  Trilobite Master 15 June 2020 14: 27 New
                  0
                  Russians are those who speak Russian, profess Russian culture, customs, and have the mentality of a Russian person. Genetic origin is practically unacceptable here.
                  In my opinion, Vladimir the Baptist was already completely Russian, despite the fact that his father was a purebred Scandinavian by blood. By mentality, Svyatoslav was already more Russian. And further after Vladimir, all the princes were Russian, despite the fact that they married some Greek women, some Germans, some Polovians. As for the Romanovs, Paul the First was by all indications unambiguously Russian, like all subsequent kings.
                  1. Mikhail Ya2
                    Mikhail Ya2 15 June 2020 14: 29 New
                    0
                    That is, it’s okay if Habsburg came to the throne, in the next generation they would Russify
                    1. Trilobite Master
                      Trilobite Master 15 June 2020 15: 03 New
                      +2
                      I think yes. He would come and bring with him his friends and relatives, European fashion, some customs, and at the same time, masters: blacksmiths, foundry workers, architects, as well as a couple of three generals-generals ... and dynastic rights to European thrones. smile
                      Well, I would speak Russian with an accent (if I had learned), who would be interested in this? He would be immediately baptized, married to a Russian hawthorn, children would be raised as needed. Well, the newcomers and the locals would have a bit to add, then all the same, all the same, they would get married ...
      4. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 12 June 2020 11: 37 New
        +7
        Greetings, Vlad.
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Surprisingly, after the troubled times, there was no worthy successor from his descendants on the male line to the Moscow throne !!!

        Yes it was full, take at least the same Pozharsky. It was just that there were so many of them and their right to the throne were so identical that to choose one alone meant to offend the rest - they somehow were no worse! Therefore, they chose first, not Rurikovich (this is important), and secondly - the son of the spiritual master - in any way, closer to God. smile
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 June 2020 11: 47 New
          +6
          Michael.
          Therefore, they chose first, not Rurikovich (this is important), and secondly - the son of the spiritual master - in any way, closer to God. smile

          So the conclusions suggest itself!
          The Moscow boyars chose, since the "spiritual Father of the fatherland, he is also the biological youth of Misha" sat far away (captured by the Poles), and the "initiators" themselves sat in the Kremlin in 1612 with the tsar and the "Poles" !!!
          Porridge in one word!
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 12 June 2020 11: 50 New
            +7
            Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Porridge in one word!

            Well, yes, porridge. Novgorod called the Swede on his own behalf, Pozharsky sent for Habsburg, and the smartest took, and shoved at least his own, even Russian, all right. laughing
        2. Sergey S.
          Sergey S. 12 June 2020 12: 29 New
          -1
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Greetings, Vlad.
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Surprisingly, after the troubled times, there was no worthy successor from his descendants on the male line to the Moscow throne !!!

          Yes it was full, take at least the same Pozharsky. It was just that there were so many of them and their right to the throne were so identical that to choose one alone meant to offend the rest - they somehow were no worse! Therefore, they chose first, not Rurikovich (this is important), and secondly - the son of the spiritual master - in any way, closer to God. smile

          But you do not mind that the spiritual master was appointed False Dmitry and sat by the Poles.
          Filaret himself was horrified when he learned about the election of Michael ...
          It turned out again the Russian Tsar on a short leash by the Poles ...
          It was a terrible time.
          It was then that the Zemsky Sobor showed that it was not able to act positively for the people and the state.
          And Russia has lost almost 90 years in development ...
          1. Sergey S.
            Sergey S. 12 June 2020 14: 08 New
            0
            Quote: Sergey S.
            It was a terrible time.

            Members of the Seven Boyars:
            F.I. Mstislavsky.
            THEM. Vorotynsky
            A.V. Trubetskoy
            A.V. Golitsyn
            B.M. Lykov
            I.N. Romanov
            F.I. Sheremetev

            That's who needs to shout anathema daily.
          2. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 12 June 2020 18: 56 New
            +5
            Quote: Sergey S.
            But you do not mind that the spiritual master was appointed False Dmitry and sat by the Poles.

            This did not bother Patriarch Hermogenes, so why should confuse us?
            Quote: Sergey S.
            Filaret himself was horrified when he learned about the election of Michael ...

            Did he tell you about this?
            In general, conspiracy theorists are encouraging. Some on a blue eye claim that Fedor Nikitich, who was languishing in captivity, almost steered the election himself (via Skype, not otherwise :)) Others, that he pushed his arms and legs ...
            It turned out again the Russian Tsar on a short leash by the Poles ...

            Yeah. And the leash was so short that the MPF fought with the Poles twice.
            Quote: Sergey S.
            It was then that the Zemsky Sobor showed that it was not able to act positively for the people and the state.

            I’m even afraid to guess where such a conclusion comes from ...
            1. Sergey S.
              Sergey S. 12 June 2020 19: 12 New
              0
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              This did not bother Patriarch Hermogenes, so why should confuse us?

              Germogen behaved differently at different times.
              In the end, he twisted out from under Filaret ...

              Quote: Senior Sailor
              I’m even afraid to guess where such a conclusion comes from ...

              Do not be afraid. Unfortunately, the fate of zemsky cathedrals turned out to be historically insignificant.
              1. Senior seaman
                Senior seaman 12 June 2020 19: 29 New
                +3
                Quote: Sergey S.
                In the end, he twisted out from under Filaret ...

                To that light from hunger?
                Quote: Sergey S.
                Unfortunately, the fate of zemsky cathedrals turned out to be historically insignificant.

                This is what you think.
                Quote: Sergey S.
                Do not be afraid.

                Watching what. Illiteracy is necessary!
        3. arturpraetor
          12 June 2020 15: 32 New
          +4
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Yes it was full, take at least the same Pozharsky. It was just that there were so many of them and their right to the throne were so identical that to choose one alone meant to offend the rest - they somehow were no worse! Therefore, they chose first, not Rurikovich (this is important), and secondly - the son of the spiritual master - in any way, closer to God.

          By the way, the situation is very similar to the Polish one several centuries earlier - when the main branch of the Piasts was suppressed (after the death of Casimir III), the owners could decide among themselves that it would be better to take the closest relative of the last king from other dynasties than to look for the next Piast. By that time, the remaining Piasts had already been crushed a lot, and were mainly represented by the princes of Mazovia - and among those, among other things, the glory of the extremely frostbitten children from the principality, where the EMNIP was represented by the gentry, which subtly hinted at the features of the local economy. In short - the poor, but the greyhounds are not moderately princes with the same gentry at hand. Who needs them in Krakow ?.

          In Russia, it was somewhat different, but the essence is the same - a large number of princes with ghostly rights to the throne due to a very distant relationship with the main branch of the Rurikovich. Therefore, they chose to choose someone closer to the power elite. In the same way, Godunov earlier became the ruler, and Shuisky, as Rurikovich, after that became king rather by coincidence - he, without a rich pedigree, was an advantageous candidate for the boyars.
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 12 June 2020 16: 41 New
            +4
            Quote: arturpraetor
            Shuisky as Rurikovich

            He was not a sovereign prince, he was not even a serving prince, if I remember correctly. He was a boyar, albeit of princely origin. T. n. "enchanted."
            1. arturpraetor
              12 June 2020 16: 53 New
              +8
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              He was not a sovereign prince, he was not even a serving prince, if I remember correctly. He was a boyar, albeit of princely origin. T. n. "enchanted."

              Duc about that and speech. IMHO, the fact that he Rurikovich, when he was elected, did not play a special role. But the fact that he was part of the political elite of the state was already much more important. The usual situation, by the way, for any state - the top picks mainly from their own, not letting the "strangers" into the common cause (common feeding trough). Even if they are relatives of the monarch. What is already different from the medieval "only Rurikovich" can be a prince - that is, a clear sign of a change in the social and political structure of power in the state.
  3. Korsar4
    Korsar4 12 June 2020 08: 18 New
    +4
    Traditionally interesting.

    And analogies come to mind with a subsequent story with Solomonia Saburova and Elena Glinsky.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 June 2020 12: 04 New
      +5
      Quote: Korsar4
      Traditionally interesting.
      And analogies come to mind with a subsequent story with Solomonia Saburova and Elena Glinsky.

      Good day Sergey!
      The institution of dynastic marriages is such an unpredictable thing that can be compared with “manna from heaven”, “atomic mine”!
      For example, the 100 year war of France and England !!!
      How did it all start?
      On the other hand, Princess Olga is the mother of Svyatoslav, as she turned.
      So that! “What a woman wants, God dreams of!”
      Regards, Vlad!
      1. Korsar4
        Korsar4 12 June 2020 12: 42 New
        +4
        Looking back, I suppose that it was the story of Princess Olga that instilled interest in history. For all the fabulousness of the execution of the drevlyansky ambassadors. After all, fairy tales are based on life.
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 June 2020 12: 45 New
          +5
          Quote: Korsar4
          Looking back, I suppose that it was the story of Princess Olga that instilled interest in history. For all the fabulousness of the execution of the drevlyansky ambassadors. After all, fairy tales are based on life.

          She brought her son into the light and saved the power !!!
  4. Operator
    Operator 12 June 2020 13: 02 New
    -8
    "... after the unification of the Galicia-Volyn principality under the leadership of Prince Roman, which made him already a very noticeable political figure and military force outside Russia," the Bavarian amateur continues to diligently pull the owl onto the globe, inflating the provincial prince Galich / Volyn (where all of him the predecessors fled, sparkling with their heels, to capital Kiev) to the sizes of Yaroslav the Wise, Vsevolod the Big Nest or Ivan Kalita.

    In fact, the depressed Galich and Volyn could somehow sound in the history of Ruska Zemlya only after relegating Kiev to the level of a small town as a result of local feudal showdowns. By the time of the assault by the Tatar-Mongols, Kiev was a settlement with a population of several thousand people.

    It is with this small town of Kiev that the author measures the “great and terrible” Galicia-Volyn principality despite the fact that the center of Ruska Earth had already moved to the North-East by that time, where the prosperous and crowded Vladimir, Suzdal and Novgorod had formed, which they put on Kiev and, especially, the seedy Galich and Volyn.
  5. Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 12 June 2020 13: 28 New
    +7
    Artyom, welcome, thanks for the next material.
    About the novel.
    Still, you can’t refuse him a certain gouging. Yes, an energetic, smart, not bad administrator, a talented commander. But at the same time, I think, those who consider him too unauthorized, capricious and quick-tempered are right. In this, he is more reminiscent of the representatives of the Olgovichi - always sharp, decisive, but rarely able to comprehensively think over the consequences of their actions.
    For example, I had a very definite opinion that his last quarrel with Rurik after a joint victorious campaign in the Steppe was not a pre-planned political act, but the result of an instant outbreak. The princes quarreled stupidly for some reason (sharing the spoils, returning the dowry received from the marriage with Predslava, political disagreements, just a careless word) and Roman simply cracked down on his opponent. Trying to get out, he inspired a process that supported the Kiev clergy, which, as you know, Rurik did not like. Roman got into a rage, dispersed - not to stop. Then, when it cooled down, he looked around and quietly fell into his Galich, away from sin. And when he realized that none of the princes approved of his methods and that everything could end for him in a not very pleasant way, especially if Vsevolod the Big Nest wanted to punish him (he should be given his due, still soberly assessed Roman as the least dangerous he feared much more of the rival, the Olgovichi and the Smolensk Rostislavichi), he quickly tried to fix it and dumped him to fight in Poland.
    And the circumstances of his death also indicate that he was fully aware of himself as the coolest guy on his street and did not consider anyone to be his equal.
    In general, he ruled Galich for only five years and a little - to lay any traditions in such a short time is simply impossible. Here, hold it in your hands and Galich and Volhyn are still twenty years old, until his son grows up, then he could be considered the founder of the GVK. And so it was at the time of his death, after all, two different principalities, united by a personal unity, so to speak.
    1. arturpraetor
      12 June 2020 15: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      For example, I had a very definite opinion that his last quarrel with Rurik after a joint victorious campaign in the Steppe was not a pre-planned political act, but the result of an instant outbreak.

      Well, I don’t know, for the whole set of facts, this situation does not look like this to me. More precisely, the date of Rurik's tonsure could have been random, but getting rid of a political opponent (at that time - the main opponent of Roman in Russia) was thus asking for a long time. "Nothing personal, just business."
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      And when he realized that none of the princes approved of his methods and that everything could end for him in a not very pleasant way, especially if Vsevolod the Big Nest wanted to punish him (he should be given his due, still soberly assessed Roman as the least dangerous he feared much more than the rival, the Olgovichi and the Smolensk Rostislavichi), he quickly tried to fix it and dumped him to fight in Poland.

      The problem is that the princes did not cause much indignation, since from the point of view of church law everything was as it should. And absolutely improbable is his departure to fight west because of fear of the princes' reaction - a campaign in Saxony was planned long before Rurik was tonsured, but EMNIP only became free from Roman in 1204. And not because of Rurik smile There, in the next article, a treaty with the Hungarian king Andras II on mutual support of each other’s heirs will be mentioned in passing. He was imprisoned only in 1204, after the end of the civil war in Hungary (where the Volyn prince supported Andras), before that, Roman did not want to get involved in big wars with anyone, fearing that in case of his death the young sons would simply be swept away, and committed only trips to the Polovtsian. In addition, a favorable situation for the war, with a clear superiority of Hohenstaufen, also developed just in time for 1205. The point was to hurry up to this, when is there a chance to get into a big losing hole?

      In general, there is more evidence in favor of a pragmatic calculation than for impulsive behavior. The main evidence in favor of impulsiveness in these cases is the statements of the Russian chronicles, but these are no longer facts, but value judgments that are not “hard” and undeniable.
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      And the circumstances of his death also indicate that he was fully aware of himself as the coolest guy on his street and did not consider anyone to be his equal.

      That is yes. He clearly had a certain amount of impulsiveness - he considered that his Polish allies and relatives would let his army through without any questions, without really bothering. And the Poles behaved exactly the way they should have behaved in a similar situation - an army is coming against us, we must beat it, and then ask something.
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 12 June 2020 17: 08 New
        +4
        Quote: arturpraetor
        In general, there is more evidence in favor of a pragmatic calculation than for impulsive behavior.

        Then in Roman a new feature opens up for us, previously unknown - cunning and duplicity. Rurik was taken without a fight, without an ambush, therefore at the time of detention he did not suspect what was going to happen. It is known that at the time of the capture of Rurik both princes were returning from a successful campaign, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich was already behind them, remaining in his Pereyaslavl, who was there with them? Vladimir and Rostislav Rurikovich, from the Olgovich people, in my opinion, I don’t remember anyone from Smolensk. Is not Mstislav Udatny? Someone else was for sure. From Pereyaslavl to Kiev the distance is already small, but Rurik and his sons drove up to Kiev already in custody.
        If we are talking about the intent of Roman, then he was traveling from the steppe, along with the other princes, having fun, and having waited for the moment when the fourteen-year-old Yaroslav was hiding behind the gates of Pereyaslavl, attacked Rurik and tied him up. Since there was no battle, then there was no squad next to Rurik or she was immediately disarmed. The rather big squad of the Kiev prince is unlikely. Attacked the sleeper? Perhaps, if we assume that on the way from Pereyaslavl to Kiev, the princes decided to stop. But then there would still be a battle. There is only one option left - he invited to visit him or talk about this, detained, tied and put the squad before the fact, forcing Rurik to give her the appropriate orders. After which he entered Kiev without hindrance, where Rurik was not liked and was not going to intercede for him. Then everything is clear.
        Question: so who was Roman - a sharp and hot-tempered nobleman with steep drifts in the image of Karl the Bold or a two-faced cunning politician-fox in the style of Louis XI?
        Personally, it seems to me that the first option is closer.
        1. arturpraetor
          12 June 2020 17: 25 New
          +6
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          Then in Roman a new feature opens up for us, previously unknown - cunning and duplicity.

          These features, with a detailed analysis of his life, are traced regularly. He is pragmatic, sometimes to outright cynicism. "There is nothing permanent but personal interests." Machiavelli delighted smile In those difficult conditions, the quick-tempered, quarrelsome prince simply could not have achieved the similar success that Roman had achieved, it just needed the enchanting level of luck and stupidity on the part of the opponents - and the same Rurik was far from stupid. The novel showed a high degree of adaptability to changing conditions and political dexterity. For example, no one so quickly and simply failed to pacify the Galician nobility, like Roman, from 1199 until his death, he did not shine at all, while even under Daniel almost every year they got into trouble - although he generally would be a more successful ruler. At the same time, the Volyn boyars in Roman did not aspire - except for a short episode in 1189, there is no information about conflicts with the boyars of Vladimir-Volynsky. Here, a cunning and duplicitous prince, a clever politician and a pragmatist, a man of logic, is much more clearly traced than a quarrelsome and impulsive ruler, whose actions for some reason regularly lead him to success in such an environment where many skilled, good princes (like the same Osmomysl ) were defeated. Too many accidents request Although it is possible that he used the guise of a squabbler and an unbalanced prince for protection, such a prince will be less afraid than someone who clearly and with special cynicism spreads his neighbors, rapidly strengthening his own estate. But for his actions. if you look in the system, these features are by no means visible.
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 12 June 2020 18: 47 New
            +4
            Interesting. My novel is associated more with Carl the Bold than with Machiavelli. But if he is nevertheless Machiavelli, then the following question arises: what, in fact, was he pursuing a goal, organizing Rurik tonsured? What goal did he achieve? Judging by the uncontested legality of his heirs, he and his first wife were divorced for a long time, by all the rules, otherwise the emperor’s relative would simply not have been given for him. He did not manage to seize the principality of Kiev, he returned the hostages, put his relations with Vsevolod at risk, until then even and even friendly ... The act itself, in terms of preparation and consequences, is more like an impromptu than a deliberate action.
            Still, it seems to me that he testifies precisely to the impulsiveness of Roman, his “coolness”, and not to thoughtfulness and calculation. And indeed, his entire policy is based not on intrigues, alliances and betrayals, but rather on the energy, quick reaction and talent of the military leader. A sort of lone wolf, in which everything rested on his own personality, charisma. Which, in fact, is confirmed by the events after his death, when all his affairs instantly went to dust, and the principality created by him instantly collapsed.
            1. arturpraetor
              12 June 2020 19: 17 New
              +5
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              My novel is associated more with Carl the Bold than with Machiavelli.

              It's not about Machiavelli himself, but about his image of the ideal sovereign. At one time, Machiavelli himself called Ferdinand the Catholic, a very controversial and peculiar figure, who, at first glance, is an ordinary hot-tempered soldier, but in fact a pragmatist and schemer to the marrow of his bones, who took advantage of everything that was possible. The Spaniards, for example, have a very popular version that it was Ferdinand the Catholic who killed his son-in-law, Philip the Beautiful, who was disadvantageous to him as the king of Castile. Another analogue can be called Lorenzo the Magnificent from the Medici dynasty, who ruled Florence just in the young years of this Machiavelli, and with seeming external simplicity he was so dexterous and cynical politician that even taking into account all his descendants, it was considered to be the most successful and a great representative of the dynasty.
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              and what, in fact, was he pursuing, organizing Rurik's tonsure?

              Rurik as a prince of Kiev was unpredictable, and at any moment he could find himself in a hostile state to France. Thus, he removed the competitor from the big game in Russia, simultaneously demonstrating his supposed piety and reverence for church canons. In addition, it is important to understand that not only Rurik, but also his daughter and wife were tonsured, which added more legitimacy to the divorce of Roman from Predslava (and divorces in Russia at that time were an exceptional event), and therefore to Roman’s children from Anna Angelina. Moreover, the blame for violating church laws also fell on Rurik with his wife, and not on Roman, who agreed to an illegal marriage. And only three of them were tonsured - while Roman later used the sons of Rurik as puppets, with full agreement with Vsevolod the Big Nest. The benefit points are more than enough.
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              Judging by the uncontested legality of his heirs, he and his first wife were divorced for a long time, by all the rules, otherwise the emperor’s relative would simply not have been given for him.

              Dear colleague, there is some difference between Russian and Greek church practice. If for the Romans, divorce is a commonplace, then in Russia it is a rarity. Even the already divorced Predslava could be an insufficient occasion in the eyes of the Russian princes to recognize the new marriage of Roman, and therefore his heirs. It could be used against his children, it could be used against Roman himself in intrigues. And here a big court with the participation of church hierarchs, with the tonsure of the Preslava and the laying of blame for the illegal marriage on Rurik with his wife, looks like an extremely successful event, since after this the second marriage of Roman became simply undeniable.
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              He did not manage to seize the principality of Kiev

              He did not try. On the contrary, the refusal to fight for Kiev only added points of political influence to him, first of all, in his patrimony, where the local communities wanted the prince to protect their interests, and not fight for the possession of Kiev.
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              jeopardized relations with Vsevolod, until then even and even friendly ...

              Is this taking into account the fact that Vsevolod essentially quarreled Rurik with Roman, giving a start to the conflict between them? No, the relationship between them was good, but both rulers were pragmatists. Rurik at that time already began to enter the sphere of influence of Vsevolod, which was fixed by the marriages of children, as a result, Roman put everything so that they chose the new prince of Kiev with Vsevolod together. As equals. And Vsevolod had a choice - to agree with what happened, and to allow a similar alignment, or because of Rurik and his children to start a war with Roman, disputing the results of the trial. However, the court decision was made by the will of the church hierarchs - i.e. Vsevolod would go against the church, which was much less profitable for him than the de facto condominium over Kiev, when hostile princes were simply not allowed there. The latter was in the interests of Roman, and in the interests of Vsevolod.
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              And indeed, his entire policy is based not on intrigues, alliances and betrayals, but rather on the energy, quick reaction and talent of the military leader.

              I do not know. Dear colleague, when I evaluate him from this angle, I get the impression that he was too lucky and too much. A huge set of various kinds of accidents that always or almost always brought Roman. Moreover, his military achievements are predominantly "numbered", and his political achievements alone cannot explain it. And in the field of politics, that impulsive and quarrelsome ruler, with whom he is traditionally painted, could not have achieved such successes. Here we need a cold calculation, and a certain amount of cynicism.
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              Which, in fact, is confirmed by the events after his death, when all his affairs instantly went to dust, and the principality created by him instantly collapsed.

              Themselves said above that no one in such a short time would have been able to successfully glue Galicia and Volyn into a single state smile
  6. Etherion
    Etherion 12 June 2020 20: 09 New
    +1
    Leszek Bely - is it not from his portrait of jacks that they draw on the cards?
    1. arturpraetor
      12 June 2020 20: 41 New
      +2
      It seems like not, the Russian deck on the Russian aristocracy of the late XIX - early XX centuries was drawn.
  7. 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 12 June 2020 21: 53 New
    +2
    Artyom! Many thanks for the work!
    In addition, with great interest I am following your polemic with Mikhail!
    In addition, Franco spread rot on the neighboring branch of the "patriotriot" ...
    1. arturpraetor
      12 June 2020 22: 17 New
      +5
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      Artyom! Many thanks for the work!

      Thank you for reading hi
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      In addition, with great interest I am following your polemic with Mikhail!

      I’m most interested in discussing many issues with respected Mikhail, but here, alas, I don’t have much time, and the presentation of the topic turned out to be very concise to me, many facts and hypotheses are simply omitted there. There, only on the same tonsure of Rurik, in order to cover the topic as fully as possible, it is necessary to write a separate article, or even a cycle. Because of this, there is less discussion topics, and therefore the voiced basis of my position may not seem to be significant enough. There were thoughts of writing additional articles on this topic, but for now I will abstain.
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 12 June 2020 23: 09 New
        +3
        Thank you for reading
        My attitude to your research, Grebenshchikov displayed well: "There are people who grind cobalt alloy."
  8. Smirnoff
    Smirnoff 13 June 2020 10: 59 New
    +3
    Thank you Artem. It turns out so many strangers among the rulers, and not only here.
  9. And Makarov
    And Makarov 14 June 2020 08: 33 New
    +3
    Thank. Very interesting.