Military Review

The death of Byzantium. East and West: an attempt to symbiosis

37
Moscow was called the "Third Rome". And recently a date flashed on which no one paid attention - 560 years ago collapsed "Second Rome" - Constantinople. He reached the highest peak, defeated all enemies, but it was not wars that were disastrous for him, but an attempt to make friends with the West and adjust to Western standards. At all история This power is very instructive, especially for these times.


When the Roman Empire died under the blows of the "barbarians", its eastern part survived. She still called herself the Roman Empire, although it was already another state - the Greek, and another name was introduced into history - Byzantium. This state has shown remarkable vitality. In the chaos of the Early Middle Ages, it remained the main center of high civilization in Europe. Byzantine commanders were victorious, the fleet dominated the seas, and the capital, Constantinople, was rightly considered the largest and most beautiful city in the world.

The empire was the main stronghold of Christianity, created its own world system, the Orthodox - in the X century. Russia entered it. But even in Western countries, poor and fragmented, the church existed thanks to the support of the Greeks - Constantinople allocated money, liturgical literature, and qualified clergy to it. Over time, significant differences have accumulated between the Western and Eastern Churches. Roman theologians were little educated, made serious mistakes in dogma. And most importantly - the popes entered the role of leaders of the "Christian world". They crowned and regulated the kings, began to put their power above the secular.

Nevertheless, the Roman high priests recognized themselves as vassals of the Byzantine emperors - the Greeks patronized them and defended them from enemies. And among the Western rulers, Byzantine authority was unattainable, it was fawned upon, dreamed of intermarrying with the Greek dynasty, and wooing royal daughters and sisters. Very few people received this honor. Usually they answered that they were the kings of the “barbarians” and were not worthy of marrying “born in purr” (as is well known, St. Vladimir forced the Byzantines to such a marriage only by force, taking Chersonesus).

The fabulous riches of Byzantium attracted many, and it lay on the busiest place, covering the border of Europe and Asia. The invasions of Persians, Avars, Arabs, Bulgarians fell upon it. But the soldiers of the empire fought valiantly. The entire population came out to protect the cities. And engineers invented the terrible weapon - “Greek fire”. Its composition is not known until now, from the vessels of special construction, installed on the walls of fortresses or ships, streams of burning liquid were thrown out, which could not be extinguished with water. Byzantium fought off all enemies.

But the West did not experience such powerful blows, gradually crawled out of the confusion, intensified. And the Greeks accumulated internal diseases. Constantinople was buried in luxury and debauchery. Officials were predators, the capital's mob was spoiled, thirsty for lush holidays, shows, hands of money, food, wine. In the XI century. the inertia of greatness broke down. The court groups of nobles and oligarchs began to put their puppets on the throne, to plunder the treasury. In pursuit of sources of income destroyed the army. Military service and the maintenance of troops replaced the additional tax. Announced that it is better to hire professionals. Although the mercenaries were worth five times more expensive than their soldiers, and the collected money did not reach the troops, they spread into the hoppers' pockets. The defense collapsed, with the Pechenegs raiding from the north, the Seljuk Turks from the east.

In Rome, they realized that it was no longer necessary to count on help, and Pope Leo IX found another support for himself — the Norman pirates. Rough and arrogant messages went to Constantinople from the Vatican, and in 1054 the Latin and Greek churches were divided. And among the Greeks disgrace and predation of the nobility angered his subjects, civil strife broke out. This took advantage of the Seljuks, captured almost all of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine.

Alexey Komnin won the troubles. The position of the empire was difficult, but not critical. The Pechenegs were far inferior in power to the Avars or the Bulgarians, and the Seljuk power fell into the Emirates, who were fighting among themselves. But Comnenus was by nature a staunch "Westerner." Instead of mobilizing national forces, he began to build bridges with Europe. Against the attacks of the Normans, the king called the fleet of Venice to the rescue, and for this he bestowed upon her the right of duty-free trade throughout Byzantium. And in 1091, it became known that they were preparing the next raids of the Pechenegs and the Seljuk leader Chah. Alexey panicked, addressed the pope and the kings with the message: “The empire of Greek Christians is strongly oppressed by the Pechenegs and Turks ... I myself, clothed with the rank of emperor, do not see any outcome, I do not find any salvation ... help me and the greek christians ... ”

Help was not required. Pechenegs Byzantines defeated in alliance with the Polovtsy and Russian. But Chah was killed in a fight with other Seljuk leaders, his campaign did not take place. But the emperor continued negotiations with the West about “common threats”, and Pope Urban II had to do this very well, a crusade was proclaimed at the cathedral in Piacenza. In 1096, an avalanche of knights flowed east. On the Greek land they fully showed themselves. Robbed, willful. But the Comnenus humiliated and cursed. He gave the leaders tremendous treasures, if only they were friends with Byzantium, they would recapture its lost territories. And the Crusaders did not refuse the jewels, they even took the vassal oath to the emperor for this. Without much difficulty, they smashed scattered emirs, occupied Syria and Palestine. But they did not take them for the Greeks. They expelled the imperial representatives from their army and became full masters in the Middle East.

The death of Byzantium. East and West: an attempt to symbiosis

Son and successor to Alexei Comnenus, John tried to correct the miscalculations of his father. In contrast to the West, he strengthened the alliance with Russia, gave his daughter for the Suzdal Prince Yuri Dolgoruky. Venetians, who choked the trade, refused to confirm the privileges. Where there! It was too late. Venice immediately sent the fleet, which began to devastate the Byzantine coast. I had to return the privileges, and also pay with an apology “compensation for damages”.

And the heir of John Manuel Comnenus turned out to be a “Westerner” even worse than his grandfather Alexei. He gave foreigners high posts at the court, in the army, the government. Constantinople began to dress in European fashion. Men flaunted in stockings and short pants, ladies put on high caps, squeezed busts with corsages. Knightly tournaments became a favorite sight. In addition to the Venetian merchants, Manuel launched into the country the Genoese and the Pisans, gave them the same broad rights. Western models of management were adopted too. The archons, the governors of the provinces, who were previously only officials of the king, gained greater autonomy, like the dukes. And to collect taxes, the Western payoff system was introduced. Tax collectors paid cash to the treasury, but collected it themselves from the population, with interest.

Manuel made an alliance with Rome. He sacrificed Orthodoxy, agreed to subordinate the Vatican to the Greek church. And in relation to Russia, the policy has changed dramatically. He aimed to subordinate her to his influence. Supported strife, helped put on the throne of Kiev Mstislav II, who recognized himself as a vassal of the emperor. The Greek metropolis launched an attack on the Russian church, rented bishops, and under a trifling pretext excommunicated the Kiev-Pechersk monastery. But Mstislav II and Metropolitan Kirill in 1169 solemnly met the ambassadors of the Pope. It was supposed to conclude an alliance with him, to send Russian soldiers to the enemy of Rome and Byzantium, the German emperor. To commit apostasy and draw Russia into another's war did not allow St. Blessed Vladimir Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. Sent shelves and captured Kiev. Mstislav II, the Greek Cyril and the papal ambassadors fled, and from the desecrated metropolitan churches the Vladimir inhabitants took away all the shrines (the Pechersk monastery was taken under protection).

Despite this "puncture", it seemed that right now Constantinople had reached the pinnacle of prosperity. The harbor was overwhelmed by alien ships. Wealthy people bought imported costumes, wonders, luxury items. Construction was in full swing — grandee-bribe takers, foreigners, nouveau riche hurried to build new palaces and villas for themselves. But the province was ruined. Tax collectors stripped people clean. The villages were empty and abandoned. The cities declined and were settled by Arabs, Armenians, Persians, who bought houses and land for a pittance. And the Byzantine population flowed to the capital. Only here it was possible to live comfortably at the “foreign firms”, at construction sites, in the port, in the service of the rich. Constantinople turned into a parasite-metropolis, sucking juices from their own country.

The people grumbled, and the crooks, rushing to power, took advantage of it. Son Manuel, Alexei II in 1182, overthrew and killed Uncle Andronicus - declaring himself a defender of popular interests. In 1185, under the same motto, Isaac the Angel threw him from the throne. But it only got worse. Under Angela, according to contemporaries, “posts were sold as vegetables,” “merchants, money changers, and dress sellers were honored for honorable differences.” It got to the point that the prison governor Lagos let out thieves and robbers for the night, and part of the booty went to him.

Angels were friends with the West too. But the West was not a friend of Byzantium. The European kings conducted secret negotiations with the discontented, and a wave of “velvet revolutions” began to roll — Armenian Cilicia, Serbia, Bulgaria, and the Trebizond Empire separated from Byzantium. And the archons of the provinces enjoyed the obtained great rights, did not pay attention to the government, even fought each other.

Meanwhile, the Crusades exhausted. Muslims appreciated the greed and cruelty of Europeans. This was especially distinguished by the English king Richard the Lionheart, who exterminated prisoners by thousands. The population rallied against the occupiers, it became clear that the Middle East can not hold. But after all, the desired wealth and land were much closer! Pope Innocent III with the Venetian Doge Dandolo from 1098 began to prepare the Fourth Crusade - on the collapsed Byzantium.

It took place in 1204, the Crusaders were only 20 thousand! But Byzantium no longer had an army or fleet. Admiral Stryfn plundered and sold ships, timber, canvas, anchors. The "Greek fire" was also lost. Engineers have not been trained for a long time, the staff has been forgotten. Even the population of Constantinople was half a million! But instead of defense, it rallied and squabbled over who would lead the country. Knights easily broke into the city. They killed a little, but robbed thoroughly. Palaces, houses, temples. Young and beautiful people were selected from the inhabitants for sale as slaves, and the rest were torn to the bottom or naked (in the West, even a shirt was considered a considerable value) and expelled.

And when crowds of robbed people wandered along the roads, the people of the province laughed at them! Say, so and it is necessary to you, to "snickering" Constantinople. But soon came their turn. The knights followed, they divided the villages, and the peasants suddenly found out that they were serfs. A serfdom in the West was cool. Build a castle to the owner, pasha in barshchina, pay, beaten or hung for offense. On the site of Byzantium lies the Latin Empire. Persecution of Orthodox priests and bishops took place, the punishers attacked Athos, tortured and executed the monks, demanding to convert to Catholicism.

Nevertheless, the Lord pardoned Byzantium. When the crusaders stormed Constantinople, a group of young aristocrats elected Theodore Lascaris as emperor. He fled to Asia Minor. On the local outskirts of the government has long given up, did not provide them with any protection against the Seljuks. However, the border population has learned to organize itself, to own weapons, like the Cossacks. Lascaris first accepted unkindly. The cities did not let him in, the governors did not want to obey. But the crusaders followed, and Theodore became the banner around which the patriots gathered. Latins rejected ...

The Nicene empire arose, and a miraculous transformation took place. All the worst, corrupt, remained in the Latin Empire, looking for, as it were more profitable to settle down to the occupiers. And Nicaea flocked to the best, honest, selfless. The patriarchy was restored - Russia went under its aegis. Theodore relied on the common people - and defeated all enemies! Latinyans, Seljuks, rebels.

His successor, John Vataci, conducted reforms. On the lands confiscated from the traitors, he created large state farms. He supported peasants, lowered taxes, personally supervised officials. I ordered to buy domestic, not foreign goods, and the result was amazing! The recent wretched outskirts of Byzantium has become the richest country in the Mediterranean! A powerful fleet was built, the borders were covered with fortresses. Even the Tatar-Mongols did not attack this state, concluded peace and alliance. Nicene troops cleared the Crusaders of Asia Minor, began to liberate the Balkans.

But ... the “magnates” were extremely dissatisfied with the “people's kingdom” - it was not the high-born and the rich who were promoted to the Laskars. In 1258, the emperor Theodore II was poisoned. Regent with his 8-year-old son John became the head of the conspirators, Mikhail Paleolog. And in 1261, the Nicaean detachment abruptly beat Constantinople from the Crusaders. Under the noise of the celebrations of the liberation of the capital, Mikhail overthrew and blinded the child, he put on the crown.
Indignation rose, Patriarch Arsenius excommunicated him, and the inhabitants of Asia Minor revolted. But the king had already formed a mercenary army and crushed the rebellion with a cruel slaughter. At the helm of the state again found themselves the oligarchs and crooks. The huge treasury accumulated by Lascari was squandered for the revival of the former court tinsel. The worst Byzantine vices, ambitions, abuses returned.

Mikhail Palaeologus again undertook to build friendship with the West and in order to heighten mutual understanding in 1274, he concluded the Union of Lyons, subordinated the church to the Vatican. For refusing to change Orthodoxy, people were imprisoned and executed, rebellions were drowned in blood, and Uniate punitive again committed atrocities on Athos. The son of Michael Andronik II tried to correct what his father had done, terminated the union. But the ruined country did not give income. I had to disband the fleet, to reduce the army. In the Balkans, she went into complete confusion. Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Latin barons, Italians got bogged down in wars with each other.

And in Asia Minor, a new community emerged from the fragments of various tribes - the Ottomans. There was actually no “Turkish conquest” of the empire. The Ottomans simply settled the land, which the Byzantines themselves devastated during the suppression of the uprisings. Locals joined them. They did not see anything good from the government; they only fought three skins. The Turks also helped their own, guarded. People converted to Islam and turned into full-fledged Ottomans, the community grew rapidly.

Constantinople at first did not appreciate the danger. On the contrary, they began to invite Turks to participate in wars. They took cheap, were content with extraction. Ottoman troops were the best in the Greek army! But one day the Turks in boats began to cross the Dardanelles, settling Thrace, depopulated by strife. Only then did the government clutch its heads, but nothing could be done. Greek archons began to cross over to the Ottomans, turning into Turkish beys. Without a fight, the cities surrendered and won. The decaying Adrianople (Edirne) with 15 Thousands of Residents made Sultan Murad his capital, and it expanded into a luxurious center with a population of 200 Thousands.

For help, the Byzantines turned all the same to the west. In 1369, the emperor John V went to Rome. Lebezil, agreeing to the union, and dad did not immediately accept him, allowed him to kiss the shoe and take the oath of allegiance. Then John went to the French court, but achieved nothing, except for new humiliations. And on the way back, the Venetians arrested him for debts. The blessing the son has gained, has sent money. Well, when John returned, the Sultan nagged at him and pointed out: that outside the walls of Constantinople is yours, and outside the walls is mine. And the emperor humbled himself. He recognized himself as a vassal of Murad, began to pay tribute, and sent his daughter to the sultan's harem.

It was dangerous to argue. The Turks conquered the Balkan peoples fighting each other: the Bulgarians, the Serbs. But Byzantium completely scanty. Pottery was covered with gilding at the courtyard, and rhinestones glittered on the crowns and thrones — genuine stones were laid by usurers. Emperors sold their islands, cities. And Constantinople was destroyed by the inhabitants themselves. They took away stones and bricks of palaces and temples for new buildings, small and crooked. Marble burned to lime. Residential areas were interspersed with vast areas of ruins and wastelands.

About national revival no longer thought. The “Turkophile” party fought, believing that the Sultan should be obeyed, and the “Westernist” party that trusted in Europe. The West has indeed intervened; in 1396, he began a crusade (by declaring in advance which countries and regions will go to whom). But the people of the Balkans already knew what the rule of the Crusaders was. Even the Serbs, 7 years ago, who fought with the Turks on the Kosovo field, preferred to side with the Sultan. Europeans smashed to pieces under Nikopol.

However, the Greek "Westerners" is not taught anything. Emperor John VIII once again went with an outstretched hand to European countries. As a result, a council was convened in Ferrara and Florence, and a union was concluded in 1439. Although the results were deplorable. The city of Rome at this time reached the full disintegration of morals, bribetakers, homosexuals, murderers replaced each other on the papal throne. The Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antiochian patriarchs refused to obey such high priests, they gave the union anathema. Russia did not accept it either, Grand Prince Vasily II arrested and expelled Uniate Metropolitan Isidor sent to Moscow.

Most Greeks also protested. It got to the point that the Uniate Patriarch Grigory Melissin preferred to flee to Rome, and he did not dare to replace him, the country was left without a patriarch at all. Well, in those centuries the Turks patronized Orthodoxy, did not touch the faith. The popes made two more crusades, in 1443 and 1448, but the Ottomans, along with the Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians, thrashed the knights together.


Finally, Sultan Mohammed II decided to eliminate the nest of intrigue, protruding in the midst of his possessions. The reason for the war gave the emperor Constantine XII, a brave military, but useless politician. Again he bore with the West, addressed the Sultan with a bold message. In 1453, the Turks imposed Constantinople from land and sea. The European allies of the Greeks, the Venetians and the Genoese, were quick to assure the Sultan of their loyalty in order to preserve trade gains. And even the brothers of Emperor Thomas and Dmitry, the rulers of the frontiers in Morea, did not help. At that time they were fighting among themselves and agreed to let the Turks help them!

When Konstantin called for the population of the capital to arms, only 200 thousand responded from 5 thousand residents. Apart from them, a squad of mercenaries came to the defense, foreign merchants with servants - to protect their own homes. This handful fought heroically, but the forces were too unequal. 29 May Turks broke into the city. The emperor and his associates died. And the rest of the inhabitants were no longer capable of self-defense. Been home and waited for someone to save or cut out. They were cut, and 60 thousand were sold into slavery.

Although Rome has not yet calmed down, announced a new crusade to "liberate" the Greeks. Worried not about the Greeks, but about saving the perishing union. The papal envoys aroused the hopes of the rulers of the surviving fragments of the empire, the sea Thomas, Trapezund's little David, they rebelled. But the western knights received too well from the Turks, and there were no more volunteers. And the Sultan drew conclusions: as long as there are pieces of Byzantium in his state, the West retains a reason for aggression. In 1460, Mohammed II crushed these fragments.

Thomas fled, died in Rome. His dissolute sons, Andrei and Manuel, sold the rights to the Byzantine throne to anyone who paid (bought by the French). And his father, Sophia, married his Russian Emperor Ivan III, hoping to drag him into the union through his wife, but in vain. But Ivan III after this marriage included the Byzantine double-headed eagle in his coat of arms, and the growing Moscow began to turn into the “Third Rome”. In general, the West and Russia divided the legacy of Constantinople. All material wealth flowed to Europe - something that the Crusaders did not plunder, pumped Italian merchants.

And Russia inherited spiritual and cultural treasures. She adopted the best achievements of Greek history, philosophy, architecture, icon painting, and inherited the role of the world center of Orthodoxy. By the way, Pope Sixtus IV was greedy with Sophia's dowry. I didn't want to shell out, but many books were evacuated from Byzantium to Italy. Dad, they were unnecessarily, and in the dowry loaded a huge train. This was the only thing that survived the colossal baggage of Byzantine literature. Everything else was soon destroyed by the Inquisition as a “heretic.” Rev. Maxim Greek, who saw the collection of books that came to Russia, admired: "All Greece now has no such wealth, nor Italy, where Latin fanaticism has turned the creations of our theologians to ashes."
Author:
Originator:
http://zavtra.ru/
37 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Strashila
    Strashila 9 July 2013 08: 19 New
    12
    And she was first actually plundered when accepting Western values ​​and betrayed for the sake of their greed ... centuries have passed and everything is repeated, but already in the third Rome-Russia.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 9 July 2013 10: 38 New
      +2
      No, what you write was not the cause, these are symptoms. The reasons are rather the life cycle of the Gumilyov / Toynbi civilization and, accordingly, the decrepitude of the people.
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 9 July 2013 11: 27 New
        +6
        Tales are all. I'm talking about Toynbee and Gumilyov.
        The peoples of the east will be older than the Geyropeans, but they have nowhere to do with passionarity.
        And strictly speaking, Byzantium is the longest-lived empire in all of human history.
        Byzantium was destroyed by an internal systemic crisis, which began with the persecution of Arians, then continued in iconoclasm and ended with the crisis of the XIII, XIV-XV centuries.
        If the government then could consolidate society and repel external threats, then the state would still be there. fellow
        1. Uncle
          Uncle 9 July 2013 16: 52 New
          +4
          Quote: Iraclius
          The peoples of the east will be older than the Geyropeans, but they have nowhere to do with passionarity.

          Precisely, the Chinese and the Israelis are older than the Russians and Europeans and are not going to die out.
  2. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 9 July 2013 09: 34 New
    +8
    Despite this "puncture", it seemed that right now Constantinople had reached the pinnacle of prosperity. The harbor was overwhelmed by alien ships. Wealthy people bought imported costumes, wonders, luxury items. Construction was in full swing — grandee-bribe takers, foreigners, nouveau riche hurried to build new palaces and villas for themselves. But the province was ruined. Tax collectors stripped people clean. The villages were empty and abandoned. The cities declined and were settled by Arabs, Armenians, Persians, who bought houses and land for a pittance. And the Byzantine population flowed to the capital. Only here it was possible to live comfortably at the “foreign firms”, at construction sites, in the port, in the service of the rich. Constantinople turned into a parasite-metropolis, sucking juices from their own country.

    Something so familiar. As if not 1000 years ago and not in distant Constantinople, but somewhere closer. Nativeer. Sadly (((
    1. Alexandr2510
      Alexandr2510 9 July 2013 10: 21 New
      +7
      Get ahead of me! Indeed, it reminds me of something with us. smile
      "Constantinople has become a parasite metropolis, sucking the juices from its own country"
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 9 July 2013 10: 56 New
        +5
        Constantinople is one of the largest commercial and industrial centers of the Middle Ages.
        The level of technological development at that time did not allow the development of production evenly in all parts of the empire. Logistics was primitive even considering the chic network of Roman paved roads. Hence the provincial specialization. Egypt - wheat, Gothic Climate - salted fish, Opsikiy - forest and ships, Cappadocia - horses for cavalry, etc.
        Therefore, a comparison of Constantinople and modern Moscow, to put it mildly, is not correct.
        Although bright, yes.

        PS In fact, Constantinople of the later period is no longer an empire, but a provincial medieval city. All values ​​and works of art have already settled in Italy for two hundred years. request
      2. Kolya
        Kolya 10 July 2013 05: 02 New
        0
        Russia also inherited a tolerant attitude towards embezzlers and bribe takers.
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 9 July 2013 10: 41 New
      +3
      There is a series of books by Harry Turtleldav (the entire Videese cycle).
      It seems like a fantasy, but actually God forbid there 5%.
      The rest is an extremely detailed description of life, politics, famous events of Byzantine history.
      The author himself is a doctor of history, specializing specifically in Byzantium. I have read little books with such an accurate description of life, military affairs, politics, culture of Byzantium and Persia of the century from V to XIII-XIV.
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 9 July 2013 10: 50 New
        +3
        Fantasy is fantasy. The best book about Byzantium is the History of the Byzantine Empire by the Russian Byzantine scholar F.I. Uspensky. Edition in five volumes.
        Here, everything is definitely there - life, politics, army, and reforms. Starting with Julian the Apostate and ending with Konstantin XII Paleolog.
        Moreover, Western European history is also covered in detail, because in isolation from it the history of Byzantium cannot be considered.
        And fantasy ... Fantasy cannot be used to study history, so do not blame me, cdrt. Sincerely. hi
      2. FRIGATE2
        FRIGATE2 9 July 2013 17: 28 New
        +1
        Quote: cdrt
        There is a series of books by Harry Turtleldav (the entire Videese cycle).
        It seems like a fantasy, but actually God forbid there 5%.
        The rest is an extremely detailed description of life, politics, famous events of Byzantine history.
        The author himself is a doctor of history, specializing specifically in Byzantium. I have read little books with such an accurate description of life, military affairs, politics, culture of Byzantium and Persia of the century from V to XIII-XIV.

        I would like to ask, have you read the books by Olzhas Suleimenov "The Language of Writing"?
  3. The comment was deleted.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 9 July 2013 11: 08 New
      0
      The coat of arms of the Palaeologus ("the boiled chicken"), in my opinion, is also not the best borrowing of Byzantium. In general, one gets the impression that after 988 all the filth flowed from Byzantium to the nascent Russian state.
      Byzantium after the closure of the Academy in 529 by Justinian I was increasingly slipping into obscurantism. Many cannot resist the temptation and tend to romanticize that period.
      In fact, science as such in the empire has disappeared. A short heyday - from Vasily Bolgaroboytsy to Alexei Komnin - 867 — 1081 - and that's it! Few lights, like Cyril and Methodius, Patriarch Photius and Princess Anna Komnina. In recent periods, personalities such as Plifon seem more like an incredible miracle. Doubtful miracle. For Plifon is the personification of Westernism and Hellenic national idea. One of the ideologists of the death of Byzantium. A kind of Bear Hunchback of the late Middle Ages.
      But flattery, court intrigues, competitors, blinded and exiled to distant monasteries, goblets with poison, church obscurantism - yes, it blossomed in Russia in a violent color.
    2. erg
      erg 9 July 2013 11: 08 New
      +4
      The double-headed eagle is not a Byzantine symbol. Byzantium did not have an official emblem or coat of arms, as it did not know heraldry and everything connected with it. The two-headed was only one of the emblems, which was used to indicate belonging to the imperial house, to state power, etc. Even if he was the emblem of the ruling dynasty, Sofia Paleolog did not have the right to him, since she had older brothers. At best, he could be her personal emblem (included in the composition of the personal emblem). But, as I already wrote, heraldry did not have time to take root in Byzantium. As in the Moscow kingdom of that time. True, in Western Europe, the double-headed eagle of Byzantium was often mistaken for the coat of arms of the Paleologists. The appearance of this emblem in the Russian kingdom occurred 20 years after marriage to Sophia. It was used as a state seal, along with a seal depicting a horseman striking a serpent with a spear (but not St. George. This emblem was identified with a saint under the influence of Europeans, already under Peter 1). Moreover, long before this, the double-headed eagle can be found on Russian coins and what is surprising on the coins of the Golden Horde. The eagle itself, a rather ancient symbol, is hard to say how it appeared. One of the many versions is two eagles looking in different directions, and the body of one covers the body of the other. In western heraldry, the double-headed eagle appeared more along the heraldic path. That is, wanting to more fully express the full power of the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, the second beak, then the second head was gradually attached to the one-headed Roman eagle, which became the emblem, until the two-headed version was finally formed. Since the Holy Roman Empire was the largest Christian state, the two-headed eagle was identified with the Christian world and served as a common symbol of independence, fullness of power, a symbol of equality among sovereigns. And it was a fairly popular emblem (they would say fashionable now). Therefore, it was adopted in some countries, including the kingdom of Moscow, as a state emblem or coat of arms of the ruling dynasty. Simply put - in imitation of the Roman emperors. Accepting this emblem, Vasily 3, simply declared in the then manner that the Russian state was independent, independent, etc. Since we had no heraldry then, the eagle was not a coat of arms. More often portrayed in a Byzantine manner: gold on a red field. Over time, he teamed up with a rider killing a serpent, which began to be depicted on a shield on the eagle’s chest, supplemented by a scepter and a power and three crowns, which under Peter 1 took the form of the so-called Russian imperial crowns. (crowns, a scepter and a power denote independence, full power and integrity of a state, not a monarch.) Under Peter 1, when heraldry was officially recognized in Russia, it became a coat of arms, changing colors to the colors of the holy Roman Empire (black eagle on a gold field). Under Paul 1, the image of a horseman is permanently fixed in a shield on the chest of an eagle.
      1. Iraclius
        Iraclius 9 July 2013 11: 17 New
        0
        Quote: erg
        The double-headed eagle is not a Byzantine symbol. Byzantium did not have an official emblem or coat of arms, as it did not know heraldry and everything connected with it.

        It seems to me that mutually exclusive paragraphs have been discovered. wink
        This is an imperial standard. About 14-15 centuries.
        In addition, hell knows from what time, but the two-headed eagle is a symbol of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. So it goes.
        So do not be shy and honestly admit - steal, steal Rurikovich double-headed eagle in Byzantium.
        1. erg
          erg 9 July 2013 11: 44 New
          +1
          Eagle is one of the emblems used in Byzantium. But never when was the main or only. Byzantium did not have a national emblem, just as the representatives of the ruling dynasty did not have a common emblem, just like the church. Live Byzantium longer, probably heraldry took root in it and we would now talk about the official emblem. But he remained ONE OF THE USED SYMBOLS. In Europe, a double-headed eagle was also common. And it is not a fact that in Russia he appeared under the influence of precisely or only Byzantium.
          1. Iraclius
            Iraclius 9 July 2013 12: 09 New
            +1
            After the adoption of Christianity, the imperial badges of the SPQR and the eagles of the legions (aquilae) were gradually replaced by banners with the faces of the saints and the corresponding inscriptions.
            In the battles, analogues of Italian gonfalons with the symbols of the ruling dynasty or duka were used. So the Paleolog eagle is no exception. The rudiments of heraldry were developed in Byzantium at about the same level as in the West.
            Heraldry itself arises in the area of ​​the first crusade and takes shape only when Byzantium has not existed for 200 years.
            Muscovite Russia borrowed symbolism most likely in Byzantium. Still, the cultural exchange with her was much more dense than with the West. In addition, do not forget about religion. The meaning of the Orthodox ruling house to borrow the coat of arms of the Latins? Then you won’t wash yourself from shame!
            1. erg
              erg 9 July 2013 12: 50 New
              0
              First, they did not borrow the emblem, but simply a figure from the emblem, which attached the common Christian meaning (the personification of the Christian world). Not all emblems can be called a coat of arms, nor is it always the image of one figure from the coat of arms that can be equated with the coat of arms. For example, the image of a griffin is found in Western Europe and in Russia, exactly like a unicorn. Secondly, heraldry is a purely Western European invention, by the time of the fall of Byzantium it was already flourishing. The term heraldry can only mean what existed at that time in Europe, and obeying certain rules. The presence of emblems among other peoples or in earlier centuries is not disputed, but this cannot be called heraldry. Heraldry itself arose before the Crusades, but developed largely thanks to them. The meaning of heraldry was to show the place of a particular armiguer (owner of the coat of arms) in the estate structure of that society. And to a lesser extent, it was of an applied military character. In addition, the eagle in Russia did not appear as an emblem of the ruling house. Confirmation of this is its use in the subsequent Romanov era and the creation of the family coat of arms of the Romanov dynasty in the end (without an eagle, although it was present in personal emblems of a reigning family). And then, what about the repainting of the Russian (at that time) double-headed eagle, the color of the Latins under Peter 1. This says that the double-headed eagle, symbolized primarily the entire Christian world, as well as the independence of the sovereign, equality among other sovereigns.
              1. Iraclius
                Iraclius 9 July 2013 13: 25 New
                0
                Initially, it was about a symbol (two-headed eagle). I do not argue that the eagle itself cannot be called a coat of arms. I say that coats of arms existed in Byzantium.
                I say that heraldry in the East has also developed.
                Although there was no official State flag (until the 17 century it was not in the West either), but there were symbols and coats of arms. By the time of Aleksey Komnin, society was strongly feudalized, and after the introduction of hereditary possession of the land of Duka, the patrician (for distinguishing court ranks) simply had to have patrimonial distinctions.
                It is also known that since the time of Constatin the Great there was a state (imperial) banner - the palladium, which was an analogue of the emblems of the Roman legions (the cloth was mounted on a cross-shaped pole).
                The double-headed eagle was in circulation in the Komnin dynasty. Long before the Paleologists.
                However, neither then nor later did the eagle become a coat of arms; on the seals of Byzantium the double-headed eagle was never used. But. 1327 of the year there was established a different emblem - with four letters "B" between the ends of the cross.
                In addition, here is such an interesting quote:
                Subsequently, coats of arms of several other states originated from the Roman and Byzantine eagles: the Holy Roman Empire, Russia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Albania. Austrian, Germanic and Spanish eagles “budded” from the eagle of the Holy Roman Empire (since 1521, when the Spanish king Charles V became emperor). The Albanian eagle - without imperial signs of power, claws and an open beak - is a symbol of the struggle against the Turkish yoke. According to some reports, the reliability of which, however, is not universally recognized, the black eagle was granted by the late Byzantine rulers to some feudal lords of Northern Epirus (the territory of modern Albania) and through them was established in Albania under Skanderbeg.
                The double-headed eagle is found on the coins of the Bulgarian Tsar Mikhail Shishman and the Trebizond emperors Alexei III and Manuel III. Apparently, he was also a coat of arms in the Mores despot. There was a double-headed eagle and on coins.
                A 15th-century German engraving depicts a view of Constantinople. On all towers there are shields with the coat of arms of the Paleologues (a cross with four letters B) and only on one, main, shield with a two-headed eagle.

                According to the European armorials of the XNUMXth century, the coat of arms of Constantinople was a golden cross in a red field, supplemented by four large golden letters "B"; the coat of arms of "King Romea" - in a red field, a golden two-headed eagle or in a red field, three gold letters E. heraldry developed there as well, but, of course, not without Western influence.
                1. erg
                  erg 9 July 2013 14: 14 New
                  0
                  You confuse emblems in general and heraldry. Heraldry is not just the art of creating coats of arms. It is inextricably linked with certain legal norms, the legal status of the coat of arms and arms of the owner, the procedure for creating, using, granting, transferring rights, etc. And it is invariably associated not only with cultural, but also with legal traditions, as well as with the features of the social structure of society. Up to a certain point, there was nothing like this in the east, nor in Byzantium, nor in the countries of eastern Europe. It is also important that heraldry is inextricably linked with the supreme power, which regulates social relations in the heraldic field. That is, without recognition of the supreme power (state power), heraldry in a particular region cannot exist. It was in this concept that emblem-making developed in Western Europe, later called heraldry. I repeat once again, emblems, including those officially approved by many peoples, had no emblems. All this was subsequently borrowed from Western Europe and supplemented by local traditions. In Byzantium, the penetration of heraldry began, but did not have time to develop, unlike us. You have to understand - the emblem is an emblem created according to certain rules and has a certain legal status already upon its appearance. So the clan to which the emblem belongs can be interrupted, but the emblem remains and no one has the right to use it until those who have the appropriate authority have decided on the fate of the emblem. As for the mention of the coats of arms of Byzantium and other things, the European heraldists had a bad tradition to compose coats of arms for everyone without getting into, for example, Jesus Christ, mythological characters, etc. Today, many countries, such as the United States, do not have a coat of arms, although they speak of a coat of arms in conversation. The USSR did not have a coat of arms either. It would be correct to call the state emblem. And the double-headed eagle was still an emblem, not a symbol. A symbol is what a certain concept means (honor, courage, valor, etc.), an emblem and a coat of arms indicate belonging to something. Although there is a bad manner, to attribute some kind of emblem some sense, especially in modern Russian emblem-making (see the website of the Ministry of Defense, section of military heraldry).
                  1. Iraclius
                    Iraclius 9 July 2013 14: 38 New
                    +1
                    State emblems were not in Western Europe until the 17 century. Therefore, some conceptual differences do not make sense - Byzantium then had sunk into oblivion.
                    From TSB:
                    Coat of arms (Polish herb from German Erbe - inheritance) - emblem, distinctive sign...

                    Oil, oil ...
                    Linking heraldry with state power is incorrect. Feudal Lenas were not states. In a broad sense, after the death of Charlemagne, the power of app. the emperor was rather nominal. In this sense, Byzantium was just a centralized state.
                    About the coat of arms of Byzantium (in a red field, a gold cross supplemented with four large gold letters "B") - this is the letter from Patriarch Paisius to Nikon. And the Church of Constantinople adopted Byzantine symbolism.
                    Asia Minor despots also had their seals with their own symbols.
                    Although not in the Western European sense, the coats of arms also existed in Byzantium.
                    1. erg
                      erg 9 July 2013 15: 15 New
                      -1
                      Coats of arms and heraldry is an invention of Western Europe and it is not necessary to call this terminology emblems that existed among other peoples. For example, not all flying devices with a propeller are called a helicopter, but only those built according to a certain scheme. Your knowledge of heraldry is minimal, so there is no point in arguing. Read for a start Lakier, Tipolsky, Lukomsky. From modern Medvedev, Vilinbakhov. From foreign Pasturo, Mazzini, Fryer, Ferguson. Unfortunately, I don’t remember everyone. I can advise the Heraldry portal today. There are other thematic publications and accessible literature.
                      1. Iraclius
                        Iraclius 9 July 2013 15: 44 New
                        +1
                        My knowledge is enough to know about the existence of heraldic traditions in Byzantium, and also to see the continuity of state symbols of modern Russia and the medieval Byzantine Empire.
                        Algebra is an invention of the Arabs, but is used everywhere.
                        I don’t understand why you so zealously defend the primacy of Western Europe on the invention of heraldry, especially since no one disputes it.
                        Thanks for the literature, I already read some.
                        If you really find fault with the presence of fields, enamel or hints, then you just need to limit yourself to the purely estate meaning of the coat of arms, and in relation to state symbols apply the terms "symbol", "emblem", "picture" and so on. But, isn't it absurd? request
                      2. erg
                        erg 9 July 2013 22: 48 New
                        0
                        I’m sorry, you still don’t understand what heraldry, coats of arms and what they eat. There is no difference between a national emblem, personal or tribal. The emblem always has a single structure. But different owners, depending on their status, may have status elements approved by the supreme authority. However, this is not important for you, since you do not even understand the difference between a symbol and an emblem, a coat of arms. Although I tried to explain it. Do not think that I am trying to expose you to absolute ignorance, but please, before discussing anything, try to find out more about this better from specialists. With regard to heraldry, I pointed to the portal.
                      3. Iraclius
                        Iraclius 9 July 2013 22: 58 New
                        0
                        I’m not offended by anything. I always eagerly try to learn new knowledge. Alas, I haven’t received this from you yet.
                        I have to return to your very first post. I quote:
                        The double-headed eagle is not a Byzantine symbol.


                        All my further attempts to tell that the symbol was borrowed from Byzantium were perceived as an attempt to steal from Western Europe the primacy of the invention of heraldry and the term "coat of arms". Which I didn't try to do at all.
                        However, there are quite intelligible points of view on the borrowing of Byzantine symbols from the later West European heraldry, and I already wrote about them. Thanks for the dialogue.
                        It seems that we speak different languages.
                      4. erg
                        erg 10 July 2013 09: 12 New
                        0
                        Professional opinion on the subject of the dispute: http://sovet.geraldika.ru/page/14586
                2. FRIGATE2
                  FRIGATE2 9 July 2013 18: 35 New
                  +1
                  Quote: erg
                  Coats of arms and heraldry is an invention of Western Europe and it is not necessary to call this terminology emblems that existed among other peoples. For example, not all flying devices with a propeller are called a helicopter, but only those built according to a certain scheme. Your knowledge of heraldry is minimal, so there is no point in arguing. Read for a start Lakier, Tipolsky, Lukomsky. From modern Medvedev, Vilinbakhov. From foreign Pasturo, Mazzini, Fryer, Ferguson. Unfortunately, I don’t remember everyone. I can advise the Heraldry portal today. There are other thematic publications and accessible literature.

                  Have you read Olzhas Suleimenov?
                3. erg
                  erg 9 July 2013 22: 55 New
                  0
                  No, I haven’t read it, but I have indicated authors who are recognized experts in heraldry. And here the people's writer of the Kazakh SSR, when the dispute is about a specific subject.
  • makst83
    makst83 9 July 2013 10: 37 New
    +2
    "Constantinople reached the pinnacle of prosperity. The harbor was overflowing with foreign ships. Wealthy people bought imported costumes, curiosities, luxury goods. Construction was in full swing - nobles-bribe-takers, foreigners, nouveau riches rushed to build new palaces and villas for themselves. But the province was ruined. Farmers ripped off people. Villages were ripped off. Cities fell into decay and were inhabited by Arabs, Armenians, Persians, who bought houses and land for a pittance. And the Byzantine population flowed into the capital. Only here it was possible to comfortably feed themselves at “foreign firms”, at construction sites, in the port, in the service of the rich Constantinople has turned into a metropolis-parasite, sucking the juice from its own country! Replace Constantinople in the text with Moscow, and Byzantium with Russia .......
  • washi
    washi 9 July 2013 10: 40 New
    +3
    what turned out to be disastrous for him was not war, but an attempt to make friends with the West, and to adapt to Western standards
    For more than half a century, nothing has changed.
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius 9 July 2013 10: 42 New
    +4
    The history of the Byzantine Empire is a prime example of how politics should not be pursued.
    The last years of life is a miserable fragment of past greatness. Looted by the Crusaders, occupied by the Turks. The Florentine Union as the apotheosis of national humiliation and trampled imperial pride.
    All trade in the hands of strangers, in the army - Italian mercenaries. And it all began much more quietly than the author writes. Even before the tragic and catastrophic in its consequences defeat at Manzikert.
    The first disease that struck Byzantium was nationalism. When the concept of "Romei", "Roman" began to be replaced by the concept of "Greek". This gave rise to a split in society into two parties - pro-Western and pro-Eastern.
    After the restoration of Byzantium, these centrifugal processes only intensified.
    What do we see in modern Russia? What is the essence of modern sovereignty? I see that the national problem in our country is becoming increasingly acute. And I see in the bitter example of Byzantium what this might lead to.

    PS The policy of the empire was far from the Platonic ideal. And, to be honest, the very term "Byzantine politics" implies serpentine cunning and intrigue. After its death, Byzantium managed once again to shit hard on its successor. I'm talking about Nikon's reform, which was indirectly initiated by Patriarch Paisiy.
    Thanks to the author of the article! hi
    1. omsbon
      omsbon 9 July 2013 15: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: Iraclius
      The history of the Byzantine Empire is a prime example of how politics should not be pursued.

      The first and second Rome have fallen, the third is standing, and the fourth cannot be!
      The history of the second Rome we do not need to repeat.
  • pinecone
    pinecone 9 July 2013 12: 41 New
    +3
    The first disease that struck Byzantium was nationalism. When the concept of "Romei", "Roman" began to be replaced by the concept of "Greek". This gave rise to a split in society into two parties - pro-Western and pro-Eastern.

    It is unclear how it happened that in Byzantium "infected with nationalism" all trade ended up in the hands of foreigners.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 9 July 2013 13: 05 New
      +3
      Nationalism and stupidity do not contradict each other.
      The bottom line is that customs duties were the main sources of income for the empire in addition to trade. Constantinople is a mediator between Europe and Asia, the Middle East.
      When the Crusades began, already in the 1096 year, Venice and Genoa established trading posts in Palestine. Constantinople was no longer needed. There is evidence that the trade of the Empire in the first 50 years after the start of the Crusades was reduced by a third or even half.
      But this is not so bad.
      Pasta took possession of internal trade in the Empire. This happened after the emperor Alexei Komnin in the 1081 year began to distribute the privileges of duty-free trade in exchange for help against the Normans.
      What does nationalism have to do with it? But very simple. By this time, the feudalization of society had ended, and the large landowners of Cappadocia and other large females had turned into local kings with their own court and armies, the size of which was sometimes larger than that of the emperor. And who did not give a damn about the autocrat and his problems. Especially if he was not Greek. The demarcation of the empire on a national religious basis led first to the loss of Arian Egypt, then Asia Minor, which the Turks assimilated at a phenomenal rate.
  • knn54
    knn54 9 July 2013 13: 52 New
    +3
    - Byzantine authority was unattainable ...
    -In the XI century. the inertia of greatness has broken. The court groups of the nobility and the oligarchs began to plant their puppets on the throne, plunder the treasury.
    -But Komnin was a convinced “Westerner” by nature.
    Emperor Vasily II Bolgaroboeets (958-1025 gg.) - One of the most successful rulers, seemingly foreseeing everything - the richest treasury, and the army armed with "Greek fire", and the magnificent metropolitan architecture. Suppressed the uprising of the Asia Minor nobility in 976–979. and 987–989 He conquered Bulgaria (hence the nickname) in 1018. In 995 he made a successful campaign in Syria against the Fatimids, captured part of the Georgian and Armenian lands.
    He did not create the MAIN THING - the mechanism of succession of power, and everything was wasted in the blink of an eye!
    Recalls the tragedies of the times of Ivan the Terrible, Peter1 ...
    And the popes only thought about this, taking advantage of the difficulties and calamities of the kings, to encourage them to alliance with Rome and subordinate the Greek church to the papacy. The Catholics betrayed Constantinople because they hated the Orthodox Byzantines more than the Turks.
    Reckoning in the form of campaigns of the Turks against Catholic Europe will not take long.
  • pinecone
    pinecone 9 July 2013 19: 24 New
    +2
    Nationalism and stupidity do not contradict each other.

    Stupid, narrow-minded nationalists, and of course, not Jewish, or Armenian, but Orthodox Greeks, and some highly intellectual "foreigners". Familiar song.
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius 9 July 2013 19: 33 New
    0
    Do you have an alternative version? Do not share? And then there are many vicious questions on the forum ...
  • DZ_98_B
    DZ_98_B 9 July 2013 20: 47 New
    0
    YOUR SHIELD AT THE GATES OF CAREGRAD! Do you remember that?
    1. Corneli
      Corneli 10 July 2013 02: 41 New
      0
      Quote: DZ_98_B
      YOUR SHIELD AT THE GATES OF CAREGRAD! Do you remember that?

      Extremely "dull" described campaigns of my namesake and Igor, with an unknown outcome ...
      P.S. And for me, in due time, it was a shock! that Svyatoslav, for the war with the "Slavic brothers" - the Bulgarians, was hired ... by the Byzantines (and as a child I read that he came to protect them ()! But he was so carried away (and "protection" as well) that the Bulgarians they themselves ran to the Byzantines to ask for mercy and remove the “defender.” The Byzantine emperors had to curtail much more “interesting” wars in Syria and go to drive Svyatoslav back to Kiev (otherwise he wanted to make the capital in Bulgaria))
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 9 July 2013 23: 49 New
    -1
    A little bit about the other: Emperor Constantine in 312 declared the religion of the Huns as Tengrianism as the first state religion. Tengrianism was the religion of the nomads of the steppes of modern Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China. Until 325, the Greeks worshiped Tengri, and only then, after the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, converted to Christianity. From Tengrianism a cross (a symbol of the sun), psalms, an altar and much more migrated to Christianity.
    1. Corneli
      Corneli 10 July 2013 02: 32 New
      +2
      Quote: Asan Ata
      A little bit about the other: Emperor Constantine in 312 declared the religion of the Huns as Tengrianism as the first state religion.

      OMG! Where did such information come from ?! In this year (and in the next 100 years), the Huns next to the Roman Empire (eastern Byzantium, appeared only in 395, under Theodosius).
      P.S. Under the table from the article ... more precisely, from how easily and not intricately the author "threw out" 600 years of its existence)
      1. Actually, the dawn of the power of Byzantium fell on 527-565 (Emperor Justinian) it was under him that the "codes of Justinian" (the basis of modern Roman law), the Hagia Sophia Cathedral (now the "Ayasofya Museum" in Istanbul) and others were created. Under him, Byzantium reached its maximum expansion: Italy (Ostrogoths), Africa (Vandals) and half of Spain (Visigoths) were destroyed and captured, and this was during a fierce war with the Persians (whom the Byzantines feared like fire) and an army of as much as 150 thousand people. (for the whole empire ... and by the way ... almost all of them were mercenaries ...)
      2. 602-610 rebel imp. Fock, the guy is just handsome! actually asked ... the whole empire to the Avars and Persians (it got to the point that the Avars besieged Constantinople, and on the other side the Persians were trampling on the strait), all this was saved by one Heraclius, the son of the governor of Africa (I feel sorry for this dude, 10 years just monstrous wars for survival, when a guy from the Empire had only Constantinople and a distant "native" province ... broken Avars, broken Persians, and in old age Arabs come ... for everything ready and goodbye Persians, goodbye Egypt, Syria, Africa. ..)
      3. Actually 3 dawn began in 867 with the coming to power of the Macedonian dynasty. A whole galaxy of fairly successful leaders stabilized the empire for 150 years (and wars were fought on all fronts: Arab pirates, the German emperor, Bulgarians and Slavs, Sicilian Normans, Asia Minor emirates and just civil war non-stop)
      4. Basil II of the Bulgar fighter (958 -1025) In addition to the "ruins of Chersonesos", he became famous for the merciless extermination of the Bulgarians (as a result of the wars against them ... but there the Byzantine guys just forgot), captured 15 Bulgarians, ordered them all to be blinded and then released them, leaving in each hundred one guide with one eye. This shocked the Bulgarians ... and they sat quietly while Vasya was alive (well, they gave him a nickname)
      In short, to describe the history of a huge state that existed for a thousand years, you can long and tedious ...
  • Xnumx kopeek
    Xnumx kopeek 10 July 2013 02: 37 New
    0
    Quote: Asan Ata
    A little bit about the other: Emperor Constantine in 312 declared the religion of the Huns as Tengrianism as the first state religion. Tengrianism was the religion of the nomads of the steppes of modern Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China. Until 325, the Greeks worshiped Tengri, and only then, after the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, converted to Christianity. From Tengrianism a cross (a symbol of the sun), psalms, an altar and much more migrated to Christianity.
    -
    -what za heck belay -
    -Konstantin only equalized the Christianity in rights with other religions in Rome / thereby ending the persecution of Christians / -Already by the 3rd century many lands were beaten by Christians-the Caucasus-from the 3rd century. Russia-from the 1st- / Krim, Tauris / Ap. Andrew brought.-The cross didn’t migrate anywhere — the cross is a late thing. They beat with symbols of Christ: a rib, a pelican, a peacock, etc. The Star Cross appeared in the sky before Constantine before an important battle, and the words “With this you will conquer!”
    Psalms? I didn’t know that King David beat Kazakh. Live and learn.
  • Caucasian
    Caucasian 14 July 2013 21: 37 New
    0
    Watch the film, Archimandrite O. Tikhon (Shevkunov) about Byzantium, and everything will become clear to you.