"Idea Olga in the Greeks." Russian-Byzantine relations during the reign of Olga

52
"Idea Olga in the Greeks." Russian-Byzantine relations during the reign of Olga

After the death of the Grand Duke Igor Rurikovich in 945, there was a vague time for the Russian state. The heir to the throne was about five years old, and the Kiev table for him had to be held by mother Olga, who relied on the grand duke's squad, governor Sveneld, Asmud and others. However, Olga, despite her toughness in defending the throne for her son, was still a woman, with a more pliable psyche for the informational impact than the warrior.

The end of 945 and a significant part of 946 of the year was held in the struggle against the Drevlyane, who wanted to restore independence, and their prince claimed the Kiev table. In the same 946 year, Olga, moving with the retinue and her son from city to city, from camp to camp, established "statutes and lessons." As a result, the collection of taxes was streamlined, representatives of the grand duke's administration were seated on the ground, and places of gathering polyudyas — pogosts — were established. Arbitrary requisitions came to an end. Thus, an organized taxation system was established on the Russian land.

Another problem in Kiev was relations with the Byzantine Empire, which retained their ambivalence. On the one hand, the Ruses and the Romans were allies. The 944 Agreement of the Year continued to function properly. Russia was a military ally of the Romans in the fight against the Arab onslaught. Russian soldiers served as part of the imperial troops, who were sent to Crete; Russian garrisons were located in the fortresses bordering on the Arab Caliphate, creating a powerful barrier against Arab pressure from the south. All this happened during the reign of Constantine VII the Porphyrogenitus (945 - 959) and Olga's regency.

However, there was no complete peace and harmony between the two powers. In Constantinople they looked at Russia with suspicion and remembered the horror that caused the arrival of Russian troops under the walls of Constantinople among the local population. From Russia, the Romans waited for new attacks. At the same time, Byzantium faced the question of intensifying the struggle against the Arabs and the Basileus. Constantine undertook vigorous diplomatic and military efforts in the search for allies in the West and the East. Constantinople needed Russian squads to attack the Transcaucasian vassals of the caliphate and the war with the Arabs.

The former level of relations between the two powers did not satisfy Kiev either. Almost a century has passed since the time of “diplomatic recognition”, and the Kiev government has not been satisfied with much. Kiev did not like the exceptional political and religious position of Byzantium. According to the Byzantine concept of power, the emperor basileus was the vicar of God on earth and the head of the entire Christian church. Therefore, none of the foreign lords could not stand on a par with the Byzantine emperor. Constantinople clearly followed the titles, honorary epithets, other signs of dignity, which endowed foreign rulers.

It was possible to change this order only by force, and Russia often succeeded in this matter, from decade to decade raising the level of its diplomatic relations with Byzantium, perfecting the system of Russian-Byzantine treaties, fighting for ever more honorable titles of Russian princes.

An important role in the relationship between Russia and Byzantium was the question of Christianization. Constantinople was going to take advantage of this issue. Byzantines, the Christianization of Russia was viewed as a tool for strengthening political influence. At the same time, some Russian prominent figures viewed Christianization as an opportunity to raise the political status of Russia. This group was opposed by the pagan party, which had support in the Russian priesthood and the people.

Therefore, the first attempt to adopt Christianity at the state level and to spread it from above on Russian soil in the 860s ended in failure. Many researchers believe that Askold and Dir (or one Askold) adopted Christianity and allowed Christian missionaries into their lands after the 860 Russian-Byzantine Treaty - years. This was the first attempt at the baptism of Rus. However, the traces of this process disappeared after Kiev captured the squad of Oleg Veshchego in 882, and Askold and Dir died.

But Christianity continued to attract part of the Russian political and economic elite. This is a feature of the part of the Russian elite at all times - a foreign one seems to be better than its own. Christianity attracted its brilliance and opening up political opportunities. Christianity seemed to be a means of communion with political international heights. Lord of Bulgaria, adopting Christianity, received the title of king. The Christianized Frankish state was called an empire in Byzantium. In addition, part of the already emerging class of feudal lords understood the benefits of Christianity for strengthening their positions in the state. Christianity was more convenient for the Kiev elite than paganism, coming from the times of primitive "communism" (the mythological "golden age"). Saw the benefits of Christianization and the "cosmopolitans" of the time - the wealthy Kiev merchants.

The Christian party gradually became a very powerful force in Russia. Yes, and the Byzantines increasingly tried hard to make Russia part of the Christian world. It was not by chance that in 911, Russian ambassadors in Constantinople Constantinople were taken to Christian churches and tried to introduce them to Christian values. It is not by chance that in the 944 agreement of the year, Russian Christians are fully represented along with pagans and the church of St. Ilya in Kiev. And we are talking about the most influential part of Russian society - the "best boyars", the princely "men", who, unlike Prince Igor, swore loyalty to the treaty on the cross.

Thus, the problems of foreign policy and the issue of baptism remained open and could not help but worry both parties. The question was an edge: either Russia in one of the campaigns would crush Constantinople, or Byzantium could carry out the baptism of Russia and make it an obedient tool in its policy, the Russians would become another barbarian people who could be manipulated by sophisticated Byzantine politicians.

It was this question that was decided during Olga's embassy in 955 (957) in Constantinople. It was an emergency case. stories Of the Russian state: the Russian princess herself moved to the Byzantine capital for discussion with the emperor Constantine VII the Porphyry of important issues for Russia. This was the first case in the history of Russia when the head of state went to Byzantium (although it was not full-fledged, it was the regent under Svyatoslav). In the Tale of Bygone Years, this is said simply: “Olga went to the Greeks and came to Tsargrad. Then there was Tsar Constantine, son of Leonov, and Olga came to him. ” Everything was easy and simple under the pen of an ancient chronicler: she got together, got into a boat and arrived in Constantinople. Although in real life there is no such simplicity in politics. It is clear that preliminary negotiations were held between Kiev and Constantinople about the arrival of the Russian princess in the Byzantine capital. Given that the path between the two capitals is not long, and the transport possibilities of that era were far from modern, the negotiations could not be short. We do not know, and who was the initiator of these negotiations.

The reception of the Russian princess himself and the talks are quite well described in the Tale of Bygone Years, and in the book “On Ceremonies”, which belonged to the pen of Constantine VII himself. Teaching his son how to receive foreign ambassadors, the emperor described the techniques of the Russian princess on Wednesday 9 September and Sunday 18 October. Only the 946 and 957 years are suitable for these numbers on these days. But the 946 year was occupied with important domestic political events that excluded a visit to the Byzantine Empire. Therefore, dating 957 year, apparently, is more accurate than in the Russian chronicle - 955 year.

Usually, Russian caravans appeared in the Byzantine capital with the start of navigation. However, it is doubtful that the Princess’s caravan arrived in Constantinople with the very beginning of navigation, in the spring, in unstable weather. Most likely, her ships entered the Court (harbor of Constantinople) in late June - early July. Igor’s embassy fades compared to his wife’s mission. The embassy alone has over a hundred members. This is known from the list by which the Rus received content in Byzantium and which was included in the records of Constantine. The retinue of Princess Olga included 8 of her close, noblest Kiev boyars, possibly relatives, 22 “apocrisiaries,” as the Greeks called the titular representatives from Russian princes and boyars, 44 merchants, people of Svyatoslav, priest Gregory, 6 people from the retinue of the nobility, 2 translators and close women of the princess. Perhaps Svyatoslav was also a member of the embassy, ​​he was 15-17 years old at that time, that is, he was already a very capable young man (in Russia at that time at the age of 15 you could already have a family, a separate farm). The Byzantines on the list highlighted the mysterious figure "anepsia", who was named a relative of the Russian princess. In the list of the embassy, ​​he comes in second place after Olga. It is likely that this was the son of a princess. According to the Byzantine historians, all together with Princess Olga arrived in Constantinople about 1 thousand people, including guards, shipbuilders, servants, etc. As a result, an entire Russian arrived in Constantinople flotilla.

The Byzantines immediately “pointed to the place” by the Russians — forcing them to wait for a rather long period of time. So, the first reception at the emperor was only 9 September, it was a time when the Russian guests, merchants were already going back. Later on, accepting the Byzantine embassy in Kiev, which arrived in Russia with a request for military assistance, Olga threw out the irritated phrase to the ambassador: “If you can, shit, you can also stay at Me Pochayne, then as the Court, . The princess mockingly offered the Greeks to stand in the Pochainov harbor on the Dnieper to receive help, as she waited in the Court for the emperor to receive. The princess waited for reception about two and a half months. It was a serious insult.

Reception of foreign embassies in Constantinople took place according to a long-established ritual. It is obvious that at the preliminary talks the composition of the embassy was determined, the time of his arrival, the level at which the reception will take place, etc. Konstantin VII described in detail the reception ceremony of September 9. The emperor, sitting on a throne in the hall of Magnavre, exchanged ceremonial greetings with Olga through a special official (logofet). Near the emperor was the entire composition of the court. The setting was extremely solemn. Then there was another traditional event for the reception of distinguished guests - a dinner where the ear of the church was delighted by the best church choirs of Constantinople. At the same time various stage performances took place. During lunch on September 9 (and October 18), Olga sat at the imperial table, along with the empress and her children.

During the reception there were some important deviations from the usual diplomatic ritual. Thus, at the beginning of an audience of a foreign representative to the throne for praskiyesa (falling down on the imperial feet), usually two eunuchs were letting their hands. However, this order has been changed. Olga walked alone, unaccompanied, and remained standing and talking with the emperor standing.

Then the Russian princess was accepted by the empress. Their conversation also passed through a special person. After a break, there was her meeting with the imperial family, which had no precedent during the reception of ordinary ambassadors. In a narrow circle of the imperial family, Olga and the emperor had a conversation on important topics. No ordinary foreign embassy enjoyed such privileges in Constantinople.

Apparently, the high level of reception was associated with the need for military support from Russia. According to A. N. Sakharov and some other researchers, Olga wanted to arrange a dynastic marriage for Svyatoslav with one of the daughters of Constantine VII for this help. It was a symbol of recognition of Russia equal to Byzantium. So, at one time the Khazars, who sent a cavalry army to help Constantinople to fight the Avars and the Persians, obtained this right. As a result, the Khazar princess, adopting Christianity, became the wife of the son of Leo IV, the future emperor Constantine V. Later, the Bulgarian Tsar Peter married the princess Maria, the granddaughter of Roman I. In addition, the Byzantine court bore the idea of ​​a dynastic marriage with the empire of the Franks.

However, the Byzantines politely, but persistently rejected, exorbitant, in their opinion, the requirements of the Russian embassy. Perhaps this was one of the knots of the contradictions between Svyatoslav and Byzantium. The young prince did not forgive the arrogance and pride of the Byzantine court. In essence, he dedicated the fight against the “Second Rome”, most of his life. Although of course, that this insult cannot be considered the main reason for Svyatoslav’s dislike for Byzantium. In his policy, he solved important strategic problems.

The second important proposal of the princess, in exchange for the confirmation of the articles of the military-allied character of the Russian-Byzantine treaty, was Olga's baptism. This is what the Tale of Bygone Years reports. It was not just a baptism, but a political act that was supposed to help raise the political prestige of the Russian princess. Speech about the baptism of all Russia was not yet. Most of the squad with the young prince continued to praise the Russian gods and did not feel any reverence for Christian shrines.

At the same time, Constantinople had the experience of the baptism of Bulgaria. At the beginning of the 950-s, two Hungarian princes Gyula and Bulchu were baptized. The remnants of pagan Europe fell into the networks of Rome or Constantinople. Byzantium frantically placed nets for catching not many souls of new parishioners, but rather political benefits, since secular imperial power stood behind the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was the emperor who dictated his political decisions to the church. The church was a tool in the big game.

Olga tried to make an important step towards the Christianization of Russia. Constantine VII in his notes is silent on this issue. But the Russian chronicle colorfully conveyed the history of Olga's baptism. This story is very symbolic. Olga at baptism set the condition that the Byzantine emperor himself be the godfather. This was the case with Bulgaria, when Emperor Michael became the successor of Bulgarian Tsar Boris, who gave him his Christian name. In addition, the Russian princess asked her to be given the Christian name of Helen. That was the name of the wife of Constantine VII and mother of Constantine I, who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Finally, Olga asked Basileus to officially name her his daughter. In the early Middle Ages, such concepts as father, son, brother, daughter, in relations between the monarchs of different states had a great political meaning. In particular, there are cases when foreign rulers tried to get the title of “son of the Byzantine emperor” for children to increase their prestige. To the Bulgarian tsar, emperors treated with the title “son.” Therefore, Olga wanted to seriously improve the status of Russia in relations with Byzantium.

Judging by the Russian chronicles, all its requirements were met: “And the king baptized her with the patriarch. She was baptized her name at the baptism of Helen, as well as the ancient queen, the mother of Great Constantine. ” In conclusion, it is said that the emperor let her go "calling him his daughter" and gave great gifts: gold, silver, pavoloki. Thus, Olga received the title, which the Bulgarian tsar and the Persian Shah wanted before her.

It seems that both sides were unhappy with each other. Olga and Svyatoslav were irritated by the arrogance of the Byzantines, who did not want to see the “Russian barbarians” equal to themselves. This was emphasized by a humiliatingly long wait for reception and the refusal of Constantine VII in a dynastic marriage. This fact is confirmed by Svyatoslav’s actions when he heads Russia and Olga’s interest in Rome. In 959, the Russian princess Olga sent the German King Otto I a request to send a bishop to Russia to preach Christianity (the so-called Adalbert mission). And Olga will not provide warriors with the help of Byzantium immediately, but only after the arrival of the Byzantine embassy in Kiev.

The plans of Olga and Byzantium for the careful Christianization of Russia ran into the iron will of Svyatoslav. When Olga began to cautiously but persistently persuade Svyatoslav to adopt Christianity, he, although he did not prevent others from accepting another faith (pagan Russia was tolerant), he did not want to be baptized and scoffed at Christians: there is". To other persuasions of his mother, Svyatoslav also refused, appealing to his retinue: “What do you want to inject into law? But the squad of mose laugh start. ” When mother again raised this question: you are baptized - others are baptized too. Svyatoslav stood his ground.

Apparently, the question of Christianity led to the appearance of a certain crack in the relationship of Olga and Svyatoslav. In Kiev, two political parties will be clearly formed: Christian, led by Olga, who stood for the baptism of Russia and orientation to the West (Byzantium or Rome); Pagan led by the husband of Svyatoslav. This crack will clearly manifest itself when Bishop Adalbert arrives in Kiev to preach the western version of Christianity (and possibly the second attempt to baptize Russia). Svyatoslav will head the pagan party and force out this informational aggression.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    12 March 2013 09: 38
    The baptism of Russia (the adoption of Orthodoxy) meant accepting the Eastern Christian Church, and not the Western.
    Byzantium is the East. Rome is the West.
    1. Earthman
      0
      12 March 2013 09: 50
      Quote: radio operator
      Baptism of Russia (adoption of Orthodoxy)

      Well or orthodox
    2. +7
      12 March 2013 10: 39
      radio operator,
      First, they accepted not the Orthodox, but the Orthodox Eastern Christian Church. Orthodox she began to be called much later and only in the territory of Russia. The whole world still calls us Orthodox Christians (Russian Orthodox Church) or Orthodox (that is, they believe correctly, unlike others).
      1. +2
        12 March 2013 11: 03
        The term "Orthodoxy" is a Slavic translation of the Greek "orthodoxy". So in essence, in this context, they are synonyms.
      2. 120352
        +7
        12 March 2013 11: 17
        Gentlemen "historians"! Each of you somewhere once heard one word, but the thought did not work out for one. I am reporting. The word "Orthodoxy" in Greek is "Ortodoxia", i.e. it is the same word. Means "correct judgment", "correct teaching", "correct wording". This is the direction of Christianity, which took shape in the east of the Roman Empire in Byzantium, in the I millennium from the birth of Christ, or rather during the first (Nicean) Ecumenical Council of 325, the Second Ecumenical Council of 381, the Third (Ephesian) Ecumenical Council of 431 years under the leadership and the main role of the CHAIR OF THE BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPOL - New Rome (or second Rome). The date of birth of Orthodoxy is associated with the Nikkei (Nikkeo-Constantinople) Cathedral of 325! So Eastern, Byzantine Christianity = Orthodoxy = Orthodoxy (directness, honesty). Russia was baptized into Orthodoxy, for Eastern Christianity was originally Orthodoxy.
        The earliest written use of the word "Orthodoxy" in Russia is recorded in the "Word of Law and Grace" (1037-1050) by Metropolitan Hilarion.
        Perhaps you remember the words of the old man Filofei: Moscow is the third Rome (already the second, Byzantium, was Orthodox), and the third should not happen.
        1. Earthman
          +2
          12 March 2013 11: 28
          Quote: 120352
          Perhaps you remember the words of the old man Filofei: Moscow is the third Rome (already the second, Byzantium, was Orthodox), and the third should not happen.

          Everything was fine until they said this.
        2. 0
          12 March 2013 12: 14
          Correct judgment ... is that what turns out to be correct wakes up the translation
          1. +1
            12 March 2013 12: 19
            Below I have already written - ὀρθοδοξία - correct glorification (judgment).
            Greek δόξα - generally accepted opinion; clаwa.
        3. 0
          12 March 2013 14: 50
          For some reason, historians always miss the dialectic of the baptism of Russia. After all, not only Byzantium exerted a spiritual influence on the Slavs, but also the Slavs exerted a considerable influence on Byzantium. The emergence of the Trinity dogma in Orthodoxy is directly related to the views of the Slavs, who by that time had populated half of the empire and had not yet forgotten their pagan past. The German Chronograph twice describes the destruction of Slavic temples (in Poland and the Czech Republic), and in both cases the idol had three faces, one below the other (see sites on paganism). The Slavs did not distinguish between God and the Devil separately, their god was one in several persons (in one of the interpretations of Belobog and Chernobog). Russia could not know about these mutual influences and it was much more comfortable for her to accept Christianity from the hands of Byzantium, and not from the hands of Rome.
          1. +2
            12 March 2013 16: 14
            Jurkovs RU Today, 14:50
            Not true. The Trinity is spoken of in the Gospel. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Our objections to borrowing from paganism or Hinduism are absurd. If you are interested, find "On the Trinity" from Professor of Theology A.I. Osipov. Impartially and reasonedly.http: //yandex.kz/yandsearch? Text =% D0% 9E +% D0% A2% D1% 80% D0% BE% D0% B
            8%D1%86%D0%B5.+%D0%90.%D0%98.+%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2.&lr=164
          2. Yashka Gorobets
            +2
            12 March 2013 16: 17
            Forgive me, but you are delusional. Read the Gospel, "go and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" - this is what Christ said before the Ascension. Why the Slavs?
        4. +3
          12 March 2013 15: 57
          A small refinement to 1054. The church was a single Catholic, i.e. ecumenical, division into Western and Eastern was only in the hegraphic concept. Somewhere from the 8th century in the west, the church, in order to please the political situation, began to make changes in dogma, that is, a departure from the canons of the Ecumenical Church and the regulations of the seven Ecumenical Councils, which resulted in a break with the Ecumenical Church in 1054, and the establishment noncanonical, i.e. heretical innovations: the primacy of the infallibility of the pope, philocia and so on.
        5. Yashka Gorobets
          +4
          12 March 2013 16: 13
          Two Rome fools, the third stands, the fourth does not happen.
        6. 0
          14 March 2013 12: 02
          In fact, the phrase sounded like this: "Moscow is the third Rome, and there will be no FOURTH!" That is, Moscow, as a stronghold of Orthodoxy, has stood, is, and will stand!
    3. GG2012
      -5
      12 March 2013 17: 02
      Quote: radio operator
      The baptism of Russia (the adoption of Orthodoxy) meant accepting the Eastern Christian Church, and not the Western.


      With all due respect to your religious beliefs, but History did not develop as you say ...

      The split of the Christian church took place in 1054, (the Great split and the Great Schism) - a church split, after which the Church was finally divided into the Roman Catholic Church in the West with a center in Rome and the Orthodox (Orthodox) Greek one - in the East with a center in Constantinople .

      And the so-called Baptism of Rus - occurred in 986-988 ...

      And the reforms of Nikon (Bloody) are connected with the fact that Christianity in Russia could not penetrate into the village and village, where Rodnoverie, which Christians contemptuously called Paganism, continued to dominate ...
      Therefore, the term Orthodoxy was borrowed from Rodnover.
      After that, the Christian Church in Russia did not officially begin to call (but only during the reign of Nikon) the Greek Orthodox Church of the Greek sense ...
      After the removal of Nikon, the original name was returned, the Russian Christian Church of the Greek sense ...
    4. 0
      13 March 2013 00: 57
      radio operator,
      At the time of the baptism of Rus there was still no separation of Christian churches. Orthodox means Orthodox, not Orthodox! Orthodox Church of Greek Law,
  2. Earthman
    +1
    12 March 2013 09: 51
    An article in the spirit of "Alexander Samsonov", so to speak, a mixture of folk history
    1. Slav
      +3
      12 March 2013 10: 09
      It’s fashionable to interpret the story in your own way.
      We have freedom! From common sense too.
      1. Earthman
        -1
        12 March 2013 11: 23
        Quote: Slav
        It’s fashionable to interpret the story in your own way.
        We have freedom! From common sense too.

        I don’t understand what Alexander Samsonov wants to achieve with such articles.
    2. 120352
      +4
      12 March 2013 11: 19
      Do not want to undergo heresy, read the source! And folk - history - nonsense and heresy!
      1. Earthman
        +3
        12 March 2013 11: 25
        Quote: 120352
        Do not want to undergo heresy, read the source! And folk - history - nonsense and heresy!

        That's right, and let everything go through logic, otherwise everyone becomes not himself but a distributor of GIGabyte thought of the Falkists
      2. +2
        12 March 2013 12: 20
        The source must also be trusted to half the current ... take at least Nestor where he wrote about the baptism of Russia ... there are enough inconsistencies.
      3. Nesvet Nezar
        +2
        12 March 2013 15: 10
        Are books written by Catholic monks considered primary sources?
        1. +1
          12 March 2013 20: 08
          Monks usually kept records and censuses ... paperwork was shorter, for example, I remember there was a Plano Karpini so he made such a horror in his notes, they say the Slavs ate dogs, foxes and in hunger years they didn’t disdain humanity and there In the neighborhood with us lived ethnic groups with volley or bear heads ... and in those days, all this was taken seriously ... and we are still surprised at what they call us barbarians ... a sick fantasy gives birth monsters.
  3. Slav
    +1
    12 March 2013 10: 07
    Long before the baptism of Rus, the Slavs who converted to Orthodoxy occupied high posts, not to mention the middle link, in the Byzantine bureaucratic hierarchy.
    The Slavs knew firsthand about Christianity firsthand.
    1. Earthman
      +1
      12 March 2013 11: 26
      Quote: Slav
      Long before the baptism of Rus, the Slavs who converted to Orthodoxy occupied high posts, not to mention the middle link, in the Byzantine bureaucratic hierarchy.
      The Slavs knew firsthand about Christianity firsthand.

      Well, the Karakalpaks and Polovtsy spread everywhere with their conquests
    2. +4
      12 March 2013 12: 22
      Even before the baptism of Rus in Kiev, there were Christian missions and netoka.
  4. andsavichev2012
    0
    12 March 2013 11: 09
    Why retype textbooks for middle-level universities ????
  5. +1
    12 March 2013 11: 10
    Oh, the Byzantines! It was necessary to unite in a single state, and all other Orthodox states to include, maybe then there would not be a Mongol yoke with us, and the fall of Constantinople from the Turks, and what a beautiful St. Sophia Cathedral! And now the mosque.
    1. +4
      12 March 2013 11: 37
      r_u_s_s_k_i_y "Eh, Byzantines! It was necessary to unite into a single state, and to include all other Orthodox states."
      Will they unite with the Greeks? They sold their empire with giblets ... and we would have been surrendered, together with the annexed Slavs.
      Somehow I read how they flooded the Black Sea Fleet under Lazarev in the 19th century. So our sailors went hungry. The supply chain of the proud Elins were ... everything was stolen under the net. They barely kicked them out of there. No!!!! Better let them live in Europe ... they live there ... along with the Poles, Hungarians and other Europeans. I applaud them as they lower them ...
      1. +1
        12 March 2013 13: 16
        Do you want to say that Russia has only two allies — the army and the navy?
        Well, I don’t know, the times were troubled, Russia did not yet have a single core, and Byzantium was already beginning to grow loose, if it could unite all this under a strong hand and make a strong monarchy, it would be a very strong country.
        Although you may be right, our "brothers" - the Slavs have always expected free help from us, and they themselves have never supported us in an amicable way, the entry of most of them into the NATO bloc is a sad confirmation of this.
        1. Yashka Gorobets
          +1
          12 March 2013 16: 21
          Now we have four allies: the army, navy, air force and missile forces. wink
      2. +2
        12 March 2013 18: 57
        Read the circumstances of the capture of Constantinople, your opinion may change, as well as how the Balaklava Greeks fought in the Crimean War and do not need to go around to smear all the people, glorious since ancient times.
    2. +2
      12 March 2013 11: 49
      You repeated the dream of many Russian tsars and emperors. Perhaps the last such dreamer was Alexander II, who dreamed of restoring ancient Byzantium and uniting the Slavic Balkans.
      In fact, the decisive role was played, oddly enough, by the great-power arrogance and "vanity of the progressor". By the end of the 10th century, the very principle by which it was able to withstand the blows of the barbarians began to come to naught in the Greek Empire - the formation of the empire not on a national, but on a release basis. Hence, such a scattering of talented military leaders and administrators in the role of emperors. I remember the Emperor Heraclius, and Justin, and Justinian, and Vasily the Bolgar fighter ...
      But by the period under review, the sovereign nobility and the big magnates were getting out of the control of the central government, forming their own private armies and beginning to decisively influence the politics of the empire, shaking its unity and dispersing the shock forces and demonstrating stunning disdain for neighbors and potential allies.
      Everything ended quite predictably - Roman I Diogenes in the battle of Manzikert in 1071 suffered a crushing defeat from the Seljuk Turks led by Alp Arslan. This bitter defeat and the loss of the granary of the empire - Cappadocia - was the beginning of terrible events in the loss of power by Byzantium, the bloody looting during the 4 Crusade and the infamous Union and, ultimately. a harbinger of the fall of Constantinople in May 1453.
      If a long-term alliance on rights, as it is now fashionable to say, of partnership with Russia took place, then history could go in a completely different scenario.

      But, as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus wrote - "πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει" καὶ "δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης". Everything flows, everything changes, and we can no longer enter the same river.
      1. +2
        12 March 2013 12: 46
        Correct: Roman Diogenes was not the first Roman, but the fourth. The first is Lakapin, the second is the youngest, the third is Argir.

        In addition, Roman was betrayed by his subordinates - the commanders of Duka.

        In addition, Roman was betrayed by his subordinates - the commanders of Duka.
        1. +1
          12 March 2013 12: 55
          Yes, Deniska999, thanks - Latin V was not imprinted, but I did not pay attention. hi Of course, Roman IV Diogenes.
          It’s not even a betrayal - it’s a systemic crisis in the Empire. The army was gathered for all the themes - from the world on a string. That did not catch the patricians. Her equipment was disgusting. Well, betrayal, of course, played a role.
          I bent on the idea that Russia already represented serious military force and losing such powerful help was a big mistake with far-reaching consequences.
          1. 0
            12 March 2013 15: 07
            But betrayal Dook should not be discounted.
      2. 0
        12 March 2013 20: 24
        Actually very clear. Great empires cannot be a nation-state for a long time - only on the basis of a certain idea (Rome, Christianity, communism)
    3. Nesvet Nezar
      +1
      12 March 2013 15: 13
      And who said that there was a Mongol yoke? Catholic monks? Miller? THEORY Norman is taught as history ... The Golden Horde - where is its capital? Khazar Kaganate - what is it? The Order and the Horde are one root word?
      1. +1
        12 March 2013 21: 58
        Andrei: Was the Catholic Golden Order centered in Sarajevo, and the BATU HAN is very similar to the VATICAN?
  6. -2
    12 March 2013 11: 40
    Quote: radio operator
    Baptism of Russia (adoption of Orthodoxy)

    paganism is Orthodoxy (the right is glorified), and Christianity is an orthodox faith! our priests confused us because after 1000 years we remember Orthodoxy! With Shrovetide! smile
    1. +1
      12 March 2013 11: 57
      abeluk, Orthodoxy, as already mentioned above, is the eastern branch of Christianity, the dogmatic differences between which were finally found out after the events of the 1054 schism. Mutual anathemas, by the way, were lifted only in the 1964 year.
      The word "Orthodoxy" is a tracing paper (literal translation) of the Greek word - ὀρθοδοξία - correct praise (judgment).
    2. Nicotine 7
      0
      13 March 2013 02: 44
      SW abeluk, you are wasting time: unfortunately for some members of the forum, the Byzantine religion is the true Russian faith.
  7. +3
    12 March 2013 12: 25
    The author very cleverly placed accents - they say no one really wanted to be baptized, but the "politician" forced .... But Svyatoslav is a "real guy", no compromises for the sake of politics.
    To paraphrase a well-known saying, we can say that the story that drew where it turned turned out there.
  8. +2
    12 March 2013 12: 42
    Hmm ... There are always neophyte volunteers, but they are a vanishing minority.
    With what fright did the squad and slaves have to run together to be baptized? The first gingerbread beckoned. The second was forcibly dragged to the Dnieper.
    The point is that Christianity then began to take on the shade of a powerful political instinct, which Olga politician skillfully took advantage of.
    But the conservative "party" led by Svyatoslav dragged its own line, in which all power was not in the hands of the Grand Duke and the clergy, but the military aristocracy. Everything is very simple. hi
    1. +1
      12 March 2013 12: 52
      Do you think that there was an exceptionally pragmatic calculation by the princess?
      1. 0
        12 March 2013 12: 58
        I believe that yes - exclusively pragmatic. She, too, saw in Christianity a powerful tool that would allow to unite the disparate pagan tribes of Russia, who worshiped various idols.
        Actually, the formation of Russia began with this.
        1. +1
          12 March 2013 13: 21
          But I don't know how to decide. I suppose there coincided the desire to "promote" the then Russia, and their own, changed beliefs.
          “God willing, if God wants to have mercy on my family and the Russian people, then he will put in his heart the same desire to turn to God that he gave me. And, saying so, she prayed for her son and for people every night and day ”(PVL)
        2. +1
          12 March 2013 16: 35
          The Vedic culture of Russia had no relation to paganism. Idols? I do not know much - Jesus Christ, the Prophet Muhammad, and WE made them idols, but the Bible clearly says - do not make yourself an idol.
          1. +1
            12 March 2013 17: 42
            The Vedic culture of Russia had no relation to paganism

            Of course it doesn’t, because folk history has no reality for the history of Russia.
            You are careful to contact information.

            But the Bible clearly says - do not make yourself an idol.


            The complete commandment is:

            Do not make yourself an idol or any image of what is in the sky above and what is on the earth below, and what is in the waters below the earth. Do not worship them and do not serve them; for I am the Lord, your God, a jealous God, who punishes the children of the third and fourth kind, who hate me for the guilt of the fathers, and who creates mercy to a thousand [childbirths] who love me and keep my commandments
            . (Deut. 5: 6-21)

            God asks (requires) that a man worship only Him - the Creator of the World of everything.
            Since Jesus is the Son of God and the incarnation of God on earth in the Christian tradition, there is no idol worship and cannot be.

            The Exodus is even cooler (Ex. 34: 14-26) ...., well, you will find it yourself.

            In Islam, by the way, they also worship Allah, and the Prophet Muhammad only expresses the Words of Allah. Idolatry also does not fit. Moreover, fanaticism in Islam leads to devastating consequences for all previous pagan monuments. There, in Egypt there were statements to demolish the pyramids nafig ...

            P.S. I foresee .... wink
  9. +1
    12 March 2013 14: 33
    The tradition of taking an impregnable Drevlyansky fortress with the “help of birds” is passed down from generation to generation ...
    Being in a hopeless position under the walls of Iskorosten, Olga turned to Byzantium for help. The ambassadors of the Kiev princess secretly arrived in Constantinople, concluded an agreement and received weapons - Greek fire. The agreement was not fixed anywhere, for it violated the law “prohibiting the sale of weapons to barbarians.” Princess Olga was the first and last exception to this rule, which confirms her authority in the eyes of Byzantium.
    1. Nesvet Nezar
      +1
      12 March 2013 15: 23
      Strange Russian barbarians .... It seems worse than white people, but they have no problems with weapons even when))))))))
  10. Zhzhuk
    +1
    12 March 2013 14: 36
    The most interesting thing is that all historians refer to the tale of bygone years and there are no other sources, and check the truth or falsehood.
    Surprisingly then, problems with the east are where the legs are growing from and the caliphate then, by chance, not the Americans were in charge laughing if not they then who the villain
    1. +2
      12 March 2013 15: 09
      There was such a historian if I was unmistakable Tatishchev, so he doubted the veracity of the Tale of Bygone Years and he had good reason ....
      1. kamakim
        +1
        12 March 2013 18: 52
        Yeah, things are the same with Aristotle ...
  11. _Forgiven_
    0
    12 March 2013 20: 59
    --- "Thus, the problems of foreign policy and the issue of baptism remained open and could not but worry both sides. The question stood squarely: either Russia will crush Constantinople in one of the campaigns, or Byzantium will be able to baptize Russia and make it an obedient instrument in its policy , the Russians will become another barbaric people who can be manipulated by sophisticated Byzantine politicians. "---

    One can argue endlessly on this topic, the history is written by the winners. Only scraps of truthful and not very actions reach us. And the subject of "Christianization of Rus" is generally a sensitive issue. Now it will be extremely difficult to get to the bottom of the truth. I liked Mikhail Zadornov's film about Rurik. Even though everything is not so smooth there, as Mikhail Nikolayevich says, I think there will be people competent in this area who can argue on some points. This is not the point ... The point is that we Slavs need more such materials so that we are looking for our real roots.
    And regarding the adoption of Christianity I will only say my opinion, briefly, so to speak. I think everyone remembers how they baptized Russia) The teams drove people into the water, people did not want to accept someone else's faith. And I do not think that our ancestors did not live well under Perun. So there were good reasons for that Svyatoslav and the people accepted this idea with hostility. This is purely my personal opinion, so I ask you not to obscure me with nonchrist, and so on. Now they have simply made ordinary business out of religion. It is a matter of people's faith, and each has its own. Thanks for the post, there is something to ponder
  12. -1
    12 March 2013 22: 39
    There was no Mongolo Tatar yoke! That's how it does not fit with logic and logistics. Why did you count how many bricks in the pyramids and at what speed they were laid but did not count how many factors must converge for the yoke to take place ??? So apart from how to take place, it had to be supported for 300 years !!! The tale of bygone years is not an accurate source of information, it was written not by a historian but a monk. It turned out recently that the place where Rurik supposedly came from in those days was under a glacier ... Draw your own conclusions ...

    There was no Mongolo Tatar yoke! That's how it does not fit with logic and logistics. Why did you count how many bricks in the pyramids and at what speed they were laid but did not count how many factors must converge for the yoke to take place ??? So apart from how to take place, it had to be supported for 300 years !!! The tale of bygone years is not an accurate source of information, it was written not by a historian but a monk. It turned out recently that the place where Rurik supposedly came from in those days was under a glacier ... Draw your own conclusions ...
  13. +5
    13 March 2013 01: 01
    How many times in history have our troops taken advantage of other countries
  14. predator.3
    0
    13 March 2013 08: 20
    I can not get into the news
  15. predator.3
    0
    13 March 2013 08: 20
    I can not get into the news

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"