History claims that the first Slavic states arose in the period dated to the 5th century AD. Around this time, the Slavs migrated to the banks of the Dnieper River. It was here that they split into two historical branches: Eastern and Balkan. The eastern tribes settled along the Dnieper, and the Balkan tribes occupied the Balkan Peninsula. Slavic states in the modern world occupy a vast territory in Europe and Asia. The peoples who live in them are becoming less and less similar to each other, but common roots are visible in everything - from traditions and language to such a fashionable term as mentality.
The question of the emergence of statehood among the Slavs has been worrying scientists for many years. Quite a few theories have been put forward, each of which, perhaps, is not devoid of logic. But in order to form an opinion about this, you need to familiarize yourself with at least the basic ones.
How did the state arise among the Slavs: assumptions about the Varangians
If we talk about the history of the emergence of statehood among the ancient Slavs in these territories, then scientists usually rely on several theories, which I would like to consider. The most common version today of when the first Slavic states arose is the Norman or Varangian theory. It originated at the end of the 18th century in Germany. The founders and ideological inspirers were two German scientists: Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738) and Gerhard Friedrich Miller (1705-1783).
In their opinion, the history of the Slavic states has Nordic or Varangian roots. The pundits made such a conclusion after thoroughly studying The Tale of Bygone Years, the oldest opus created by the monk Nestor. There really is a reference, dated 862, to the fact that the ancient Slavic tribes (Krivichi, Slovenes and Chud) called for Varangian princes to reign in their lands. Allegedly, tired of the endless internecine strife and enemy raids from outside, several Slavic tribes decided to unite under the leadership of the Normans, who at that time were considered the most experienced and successful in Europe.
In the old days, in the formation of any state formation, the military experience of its leadership was a higher priority than economic. And no one doubted the power and experience of the northern barbarians. Their combat units raided almost the entire inhabited part of Europe. Probably,Based primarily on military successes, according to the Norman theory, the ancient Slavs decided to invite the Varangian princes to the kingdom.
By the way, the very name Rus was supposedly brought by the Norman princes. In Nestor the Chronicler, this moment is quite clearly expressed in the line "… and three brothers got out with their families, and took all of Russia with them." However, the last word in this context, according to many historians, rather means a combat squad, in other words, professional military men. It is also worth noting here that among the Norman leaders, as a rule, there was a clear division between the civil clan and the military clan detachment, which was sometimes called the “kirch”. In other words, it can be assumed that the three princes moved to the lands of the Slavs not only with fighting squads, but also with full-fledged families. Since the family will not be taken on a regular military campaign under any circumstances, the status of this event becomes clear. The Varangian princes took the request of the tribes seriously and founded the early Slavic states.
Where did the Russian land come from
Another curious theory says that the very concept of "Varangians" meant in Ancient Russia precisely the professional military. This once again testifies in favor of the fact that the ancient Slavs relied on the militarized leaders. According to the theory of German scientists, which is based on the chronicle of Nestor, one Varangian prince settled near Lake Ladoga, the second settled on the shore of the White Lake, the third - in the city of Izoborsk. It was after these actions, according tochronicler, and the early Slavic states were formed, and the lands in the aggregate began to be called the Russian land.
Further in his chronicle, Nestor retells the legend of the emergence of the subsequent royal family of Rurikovich. It was the Ruriks, the rulers of the Slavic states, who were the descendants of those same legendary three princes. They can also be attributed to the first "political leading elite" of the ancient Slavic states. After the death of the conditional "founding father", power passed to his closest relative Oleg, who, through intrigue and bribery, captured Kyiv, and then united Northern and Southern Russia into one state. According to Nestor, this happened in 882. As can be seen from the chronicle, the formation of the state was due to the successful "external control" of the Varangians.
Russians - who is this?
However, scientists are still arguing about the real nationality of the people who were so called. Adherents of the Norman theory believe that the very word "Rus" came from the Finnish word "ruotsi", which the Finns called the Swedes in the 9th century. It is also interesting that most of the Russian ambassadors who were in Byzantium had Scandinavian names: Karl, Iengeld, Farlof, Veremund. These names were recorded in agreements with Byzantium dated 911-944. Yes, and the first rulers of Russia bore exclusively Scandinavian names - Igor, Olga, Rurik.
One of the most serious arguments in favor of the Norman theory about which states are Slavic is the mention of Russians in Western EuropeanAnnals of Bertin. In particular, it is noted there that in 839 the Byzantine emperor sent an embassy to his Frankish colleague Louis I. The delegation included representatives of the “people of the people”. The bottom line is that Louis the Pious decided that the "Russians" are the Swedes.
In 950, the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his book “On the Administration of the Empire” noted that some names of the famous Dnieper rapids have exclusively Scandinavian roots. And finally, many Islamic travelers and geographers in their opuses dating back to the 9th-10th centuries clearly separate the “Rus” from the “Sakaliba” Slavs. All these facts, put together, helped German scientists build the so-called Norman theory of how the Slavic states arose.
Patriotic theory of the emergence of the state
The main ideologist of the second theory is the Russian scientist Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov. The Slavic theory of the origin of the state is also called the "autochthonous theory". Studying the Norman theory, Lomonosov saw a flaw in the arguments of German scientists about the inability of the Slavs to self-organize, which led to external control by Europe. A true patriot of his fatherland, M. V. Lomonosov questioned the whole theory, deciding to study this historical mystery himself. Over time, the so-called Slavic theory of the origin of the state was formed, based on the complete denial of the facts of the "Norman".
So, what are the maindid the defenders of the Slavs bring counterarguments? The main argument is the assertion that the very name "Rus" is not etymologically connected with either Ancient Novgorod or Ladoga. It refers, rather, to Ukraine (in particular, the Middle Dnieper). As proof, the ancient names of the reservoirs located in this area are given - Ros, Rusa, Rostavitsa. Studying the Syrian "Church History" translated by Zakhary Rhetor, adherents of the Slavic theory found references to a people called Hros or "Rus". These tribes settled a little south of Kyiv. The manuscript was created in 555. In other words, the events described in it took place long before the arrival of the Scandinavians.
The second serious counterargument is the lack of mention of Russia in the ancient Scandinavian sagas. Quite a few of them were composed, and, in fact, the entire folklore ethnos of the modern Scandinavian countries is based on them. It is difficult to disagree with the statements of those historians who say that at least in the early time part of the historical sagas there should be minimal coverage of those events. The Scandinavian names of ambassadors, which supporters of the Norman theory rely on, also do not completely determine the nationality of their bearers. According to historians, the Swedish delegates could well represent the Russian princes in the far abroad.
Criticism of the Norman theory
Scandinavians' ideas about statehood are also doubtful. The fact is that during the described period, the Scandinavian states as such did not exist. It is this fact that causes a fair amount of skepticism thatVarangians are the first rulers of the Slavic states. It is unlikely that visiting Scandinavian leaders, not understanding how to build their own state, would arrange something like that in foreign lands.
Academician B. Rybakov, speaking about the origin of the Norman theory, expressed an opinion about the general weak competence of the then historians, who believed, for example, that the transition of several tribes to other lands creates the prerequisites for the development of statehood, and for some dozen years. In fact, the process of formation and formation of statehood can last for centuries. The main historical basis, on which German historians rely, sins with rather strange inaccuracies.
Slavic states, according to Nestor the chronicler, were formed over several decades. Often, he equates the founders and the state, replacing these concepts. Experts suggest that such inaccuracies are due to the mythological thinking of Nestor himself. Therefore, the peremptory interpretation of his chronicle is highly doubtful.
Variety of theories
Another noteworthy theory of the emergence of statehood in ancient Russia is called the Iranian-Slavic. According to her, at the time of the formation of the first state, there were two branches of the Slavs. One, which was called Russ-encouraged, or Rug, lived on the lands of the present B altic. Another settled in the Black Sea region and originated from the Iranian and Slavic tribes. The convergence of these two "varieties" of one people, according to the theory, allowedcreate a single Slavic state Rus.
An interesting hypothesis, which was later put forward in theory, was proposed by Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine V. G. Sklyarenko. In his opinion, the Novgorodians turned for help to the Varangians-B alts, who were called Rutens or Russ. The term "rutens" comes from the people of one of the Celtic tribes who took part in the formation of the ethnic group of the Slavs on the island of Rügen. In addition, according to the academician, it was during that time period that the Black Sea Slavic tribes already existed, the descendants of which were the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks. This theory was called - Celtic-Slavic.
Seeking a compromise
It should be noted that from time to time there are compromise theories of the formation of the Slavic statehood. This is the version proposed by the Russian historian V. Klyuchevsky. In his opinion, the Slavic states were the most fortified cities at that time. It was in them that the foundations of trade, industrial and political formations were laid. Moreover, according to the historian, there were entire "urban areas" that were small states.
The second political and state form of that time were the same militant Varangian principalities, which are mentioned in the Norman theory. According to Klyuchevsky, it was the merger of powerful urban conglomerates and the military formations of the Varangians that led to the formation of Slavic states (the 6th grade of the school calls such a state Kievan Rus). This theory, which was insisted on by Ukrainian historians A. Efimenko and I. Krypyakevich, receivedthe name of the Slavic-Varangian. She somewhat reconciled the orthodox representatives of both directions.
In turn, Academician Vernadsky also doubted the Norman origin of the Slavs. In his opinion, the formation of the Slavic states of the eastern tribes should be considered on the territory of the "Rus" - the modern Kuban. The academician believed that the Slavs received such a name from the ancient name "Roksolany" or bright Alans. In the 60s of the XX century, the Ukrainian archaeologist D. T. Berezovets proposed to consider the Alanian population of the Don region as Rus. Today, the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is also considering this hypothesis.
There is no such ethnic group - Slavs
American professor O. Pritsak proposed a completely different version of which states are Slavic and which are not. It is not based on any of the above hypotheses and has its own logical basis. According to Pritsak, the Slavs as such did not exist at all on ethnic and state lines. The territory on which Kievan Rus was formed was a crossroads of trade and commercial routes between East and West. The people who inhabited these places were a kind of merchant warriors who ensured the safety of the trade caravans of other merchants, and also equipped their carts on the way.
In other words, the history of the Slavic states is based on a certain trade and military community of interests of representatives of different peoples. It was the synthesis of nomads and sea robbers that later formed the ethnic basis of the future state. A rather controversial theory, especially considering that the scientist who put forward it lived in a state whose history is hardly 200 years old.
Many Russian and Ukrainian historians came out against it with sharp criticism, and even the very name “Volga-Russian Khaganate” jarred at them. According to the American, this was the first formation of the Slavic states (the 6th grade should hardly get acquainted with such a controversial theory). However, it has the right to exist and was named Khazar.
Kyiv Rus in brief
After considering all the theories, it becomes clear that the first serious Slavic state was Kievan Rus, formed around the 9th century. The formation of this power took place in stages. Until 882, there is a merger and unification under the single authority of the glades, drevlyans, slovenes, ancients and polots. The Union of Slavic States is marked by the merger of Kyiv and Novgorod.
After Oleg seized power in Kyiv, the second, early feudal stage in the development of Kievan Rus began. There is an active accession of previously unknown areas. So, in 981, the state expanded across the East Slavic lands up to the San River. In 992, the Croatian lands that lay on both slopes of the Carpathian Mountains were also conquered. By 1054, the power of Kyiv had spread to almost all East Slavic tribes, and the city itself began to be referred to in documents as the “Mother of Russian Cities.”
Interestingly, by the second half of the 11th century, the state began to disintegrate into separate principalities. However, this period did not last long, and before the generaldanger in the face of the Polovtsians, these tendencies ceased. But later, due to the strengthening of the feudal centers and the growing power of the military nobility, Kievan Rus nevertheless breaks up into specific principalities. In 1132, a period of feudal fragmentation began. This state of affairs, as we know, existed until the Baptism of All Russia. It was then that the idea of a single state became in demand.
Symbols of the Slavic states
Modern Slavic states are very diverse. They are distinguished not only by nationality or language, but also by state policy, and the level of patriotism, and the degree of economic development. Nevertheless, it is easier for the Slavs to understand each other - after all, the roots that go back centuries form the very mentality that all known "rational" scientists deny, but which sociologists and psychologists confidently speak about.
After all, even if we consider the flags of the Slavic states, you can see some regularity and similarity in the color palette. There is such a thing - pan-Slavic colors. They were first discussed at the end of the 19th century at the First Slavic Congress in Prague. Supporters of the idea of uniting all Slavs proposed to adopt a tricolor with equal horizontal stripes of blue, white and red as their flag. Rumor has it that the banner of the Russian merchant fleet served as a model. Is it really so - it is very difficult to prove, but the flags of the Slavic states often differ in the smallest details, and not in colors.
