Distortion of the history of Rus'. Forgotten Reality
- 14170The main source by which we can judge the history of Ancient Rus' is considered to be the Radzivilov manuscript: “The Tale of Bygone Years.” The story about the calling of the Varangians to rule in Rus' is taken from it. But can she be trusted? Its copy was brought at the beginning of the 18th century by Peter 1 from Konigsberg, then its original ended up in Russia. It has now been proven that this manuscript is forged. Thus, it is not known for certain what happened in Rus' before the beginning of the 17th century, that is, before the accession to the throne of the Romanov dynasty.
But why did the House of Romanovs need to rewrite our history? Is it not to prove to the Russians that they have been subordinate to the Horde for a long time and are not capable of independence, that their destiny is drunkenness and obedience?
The main source by which we can judge the history of Ancient Rus' is considered to be the Radzivilov manuscript: “The Tale of Bygone Years.” The story about the calling of the Varangians to rule in Rus' is taken from it. But can she be trusted? Its copy was brought at the beginning of the 18th century by Peter 1 from Konigsberg, then its original ended up in Russia. It has now been proven that this manuscript is forged. Thus, it is not known for certain what happened in Rus' before the beginning of the 17th century, that is, before the accession to the throne of the Romanov dynasty. But why did the House of Romanovs need to rewrite our history? Is it not to prove to the Russians that they have been subordinate to the Horde for a long time and are not capable of independence, that their destiny is drunkenness and obedience?
Strange behavior of princes
The classic version of the “Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus'” has been known to many since school. She looks like this. At the beginning of the 13th century, in the Mongolian steppes, Genghis Khan gathered a huge army of nomads, subject to iron discipline, and planned to conquer the whole world. Having defeated China, Genghis Khan's army rushed to the west, and in 1223 it reached the south of Rus', where it defeated the squads of Russian princes on the Kalka River. In the winter of 1237, the Tatar-Mongols invaded Rus', burned many cities, then invaded Poland, the Czech Republic and reached the shores of the Adriatic Sea, but suddenly turned back because they were afraid to leave devastated, but still dangerous Rus' in their rear. The Tatar-Mongol yoke began in Rus'. The huge Golden Horde had borders from Beijing to the Volga and collected tribute from the Russian princes. The khans gave the Russian princes labels to reign and terrorized the population with atrocities and robberies. Even the official version says that there were many Christians among the Mongols and some Russian princes established very warm relations with the Horde khans. Another oddity: with the help of the Horde troops, some princes remained on the throne. The princes were very close people to the khans. And in some cases, the Russians fought on the side of the Horde. Aren't there a lot of strange things? Is this how the Russians should have treated the invaders? Having strengthened, Rus' began to resist, and in 1380 Dmitry Donskoy defeated the Horde Khan Mamai on the Kulikovo Field, and a century later the troops of Grand Duke Ivan III and the Horde Khan Akhmat met. The opponents camped for a long time on opposite sides of the Ugra River, after which the khan realized that he had no chance, gave the order to retreat and went to the Volga. These events are considered the end of the “Tatar-Mongol yoke.”
Secrets of the disappeared chronicles
When studying the chronicles of the Horde times, scientists had many questions. Why did dozens of chronicles disappear without a trace during the reign of the Romanov dynasty? For example, “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land,” according to historians, resembles a document from which everything that would indicate the yoke was carefully removed. They left only fragments telling about a certain “trouble” that befell Rus'. But there is not a word about the “invasion of the Mongols.” There are many more oddities. In the story “about the evil Tatars,” the khan from the Golden Horde orders the execution of a Russian Christian prince... for refusing to worship the “pagan god of the Slavs!” And some chronicles contain amazing phrases, for example: “Well, with God!” - said the khan and, crossing himself, galloped towards the enemy. Why are there suspiciously many Christians among the Tatar-Mongols? And the descriptions of the princes and warriors look unusual: the chronicles claim that most of them were of the Caucasian type, had not narrow, but large gray or blue eyes and light brown hair. Another paradox: why did the Russian princes suddenly surrender in the battle of Kalka “under my word of honor” to a representative of foreigners named Ploskinia, and he... kisses the pectoral cross?! This means that Ploskinya was one of his own, Orthodox and Russian, and also of a noble family! Not to mention the fact that the number of “war horses”, and therefore the soldiers of the Horde army, was initially estimated, with the light hand of historians of the House of Romanov, at three hundred. four hundred thousand. Such a number of horses could neither hide in the copses nor feed themselves in the conditions of a long winter! Over the last century, historians have continually reduced the number of the Mongol army and reached thirty thousand. But such an army could not keep all the peoples from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean in subjection! But it could easily perform the functions of collecting taxes and establishing order, that is, serving as something like a police force.
There was no invasion!
A number of scientists, including academician Anatoly Fomenko, made a sensational conclusion based on a mathematical analysis of the manuscripts: there was no invasion from the territory of modern Mongolia! And there was a civil war in Rus', the princes fought with each other. There were no traces of any representatives of the Mongoloid race who came to Rus'. Yes, there were individual Tatars in the army, but not aliens, but residents of the Volga region, who lived next to the Russians long before the notorious “invasion.” What is commonly called the “Tatar-Mongol invasion” was in fact a struggle of the descendants of Prince Vsevolod “ Big Nest" with their rivals for sole power over Russia. The fact of the war between the princes is generally accepted; unfortunately, Rus' did not unite immediately, and quite strong rulers fought among themselves. But with whom did Dmitry Donskoy fight? In other words, who is Mamai?
Horde - the name of the Russian army
The era of the Golden Horde was distinguished by the fact that, along with secular power, there was a strong military power. There were two rulers: a secular one, called the prince, and a military one, he was called the khan, i.e. "military leader" In the chronicles you can find the following entry: “There were also wanderers along with the Tatars, and their governor was so-and-so,” that is, the Horde troops were led by governors! And Brodniks are Russian free warriors, the predecessors of the Cossacks. Authoritative scientists have concluded that the Horde is the name of the Russian regular army (like the “Red Army”). And Tatar-Mongolia is Great Rus' itself. It turns out that it was not the “Mongols,” but the Russians who conquered a vast territory from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean and from the Arctic to the Indian. It was our troops who made Europe tremble. Most likely, it was fear of the powerful Russians that became the reason that the Germans rewrote Russian history and turned their national humiliation into ours. By the way, the German word “Ordnung” (“order”) most likely comes from the word “horde.” The word "Mongol" probably comes from the Latin "megalion", that is, "great". Tataria from the word “tartar” (“hell, horror”). And Mongol-Tataria (or “Megalion-Tartaria”) can be translated as “Great Horror.” A few more words about the names. Most people of that time had two names: one in the world, and the other received at baptism or a military nickname. According to the scientists who proposed this version, Prince Yaroslav and his son Alexander Nevsky act under the names of Genghis Khan and Batu. Ancient sources depict Genghis Khan as tall, with a luxurious long beard, and “lynx-like” green-yellow eyes. Note that people of the Mongoloid race do not have a beard at all. The Persian historian of the Horde times, Rashid adDin, writes that in the family of Genghis Khan, children “were mostly born with gray eyes and blond hair.” Genghis Khan, according to scientists, is Prince Yaroslav. He just had a middle name - Genghis with the prefix “khan”, which meant “warlord”. Batu is his son Alexander (Nevsky). In the manuscripts you can find the following phrase: “Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, nicknamed Batu.” By the way, according to the description of his contemporaries, Batu had fair hair, a light beard and light eyes! It turns out that it was the Horde khan who defeated the crusaders on Lake Peipsi! Having studied the chronicles, scientists discovered that Mamai and Akhmat were also noble nobles, who, according to the dynastic ties of the Russian-Tatar families, had the rights to a great reign. Accordingly, “Mamaevo’s Massacre” and “Standing on the Ugra” are episodes of the civil war in Rus', the struggle of princely families for power.
Which Rus' did the Horde go to?
The records do say; "The Horde went to Rus'." But in the 12th-13th centuries, Russia was the name given to a relatively small territory around Kyiv, Chernigov, Kursk, the area near the Ros River, and Seversk land. But Muscovites or, say, Novgorodians were already northern inhabitants who, according to the same ancient chronicles, often “traveled to Rus'” from Novgorod or Vladimir! That is, for example, to Kiev. Therefore, when the Moscow prince was going to go on a campaign against his southern neighbor, this could be called an “invasion of Rus'” by his “horde” (troops). It is not for nothing that on Western European maps for a very long time Russian lands were divided into “Muscovy” (north) and “Russia” (south).
Grand falsification
At the beginning of the 18th century, Peter 1 founded the Russian Academy of Sciences. Over the 120 years of its existence, there have been 33 academic historians in the historical department of the Academy of Sciences. Of these, only three are Russians, including M.V. Lomonosov, the rest are Germans. The history of Ancient Rus' until the beginning of the 17th century was written by the Germans, and some of them did not even know Russian! This fact is well known to professional historians, but they do not make any effort to carefully review what kind of history the Germans wrote. It is known that M.V. Lomonosov wrote the history of Rus' and that he had constant disputes with German academics. After Lomonosov's death, his archives disappeared without a trace. However, his works on the history of Rus' were published, but under the editorship of Miller. Meanwhile, it was Miller who persecuted M.V. Lomonosov during his lifetime! The works of Lomonosov on the history of Rus' published by Miller are falsifications, this was shown by computer analysis. There is little left of Lomonosov in them. As a result, we do not know our history. The Germans of the House of Romanov hammered into our heads that the Russian peasant was good for nothing. That “he doesn’t know how to work, that he’s a drunkard and an eternal slave.
09/01/2013 05:23
This material was intended as an attempt to answer the question of why our true history is hidden from us. A short historical excursion into the area of historical truth should enable the reader to understand how far from the truth is what is presented to us as the history of the Russian people. In fact, the truth may shock the reader at first, as it shocked me, it is so different from the official version, that is, a lie. I came to many conclusions on my own, but then it turned out that, fortunately, there are already works of several modern historians of the last decade who have seriously studied the issue. Only, unfortunately, they, their works, are not known to the general reader - academicians and the authorities in Russia, well, they really don’t like the truth. Fortunately, there are interested ARI readers who need this truth. And today the day has come when we need it in order to answer - Who are we? Who are our ancestors? Where is the Heavenly Iriy, from which we must draw strength? V. Karabanov, ARI
FORBIDDEN HISTORY OF Rus'
Vladislav Karabanov
To understand why we need historical truth,
we need to understand why the ruling regimes in Rus'-Russia
a historical lie was needed.
History and psychology
Russia is deteriorating before our eyes. The huge Russian people are the backbone of the state, which decided the destinies of the world and Europe, under the control of crooks and scoundrels who hate the Russian people. Moreover, the Russian people, who gave the name to the state located on its territory, are not the owner of the state, are not the administrator of this state and do not receive any dividends from this, even moral ones. We are a people deprived of our rights in our own land.
Russian national identity is at a loss, the realities of this world are falling upon the Russian people, and they cannot even stand up, group themselves in order to maintain balance. Other nations are pushing back the Russians, and they are convulsively gasping for air and retreating, retreating. Even when there is nowhere to retreat. We are squeezed on our own land, and there is no longer a corner in the country of Russia, a country created by the efforts of the Russian people, in which we can breathe freely. The Russian people are so rapidly losing their inner sense of right to their land that the question arises about the presence of some kind of distortion in self-awareness, the presence of some kind of defective code in historical self-knowledge that does not allow relying on it.
Therefore, perhaps, in search of solutions, we need to turn to psychology and history.
National self-awareness is, on the one hand, an unconscious involvement in an ethnic group, in its egregor filled with the energy of hundreds of generations, on the other hand, it is the reinforcement of unconscious feelings with information, knowledge of one’s history, the origins of one’s origin. In order to gain stability in their consciousness, people need information about their roots, about their past. Who are we and where are we from? Every ethnic group should have it. Among ancient peoples, information was recorded by folk epics and legends; among modern peoples, who are usually called civilized, epic information is supplemented by modern data and is offered in the form of scientific works and research. This information layer, which reinforces unconscious sensations, is a necessary and even obligatory part of self-awareness for a modern person, ensuring his stability and mental balance.
But what will happen if people are not told who they are and where they are from, or if they tell them lies and invent an artificial story for them? Such people endure stress because their consciousness, based on information received in the real world, does not find confirmation and support in the ancestral memory, in the codes of the unconscious and images of the superconscious. The people, like people, seek support for their inner self in the cultural tradition, which is history. And, if he does not find it, this leads to disorganization of consciousness. Consciousness ceases to be whole and falls into fragments.
This is precisely the situation in which the Russian people find themselves today. His story, the story of his origin, is fictitious or distorted so much that his consciousness cannot focus, because in his unconscious and superconscious, it does not find confirmation of this story. It’s as if a white boy were shown photographs of his ancestors, where only dark-skinned Africans were depicted. Or, on the contrary, an Indian raised in a white family was shown to be the grandfather of a cowboy. He is shown relatives, none of whom he resembles, whose way of thinking is alien to him - he does not understand their actions, views, thoughts, music. Other people. The human psyche cannot stand such things. The same story is with the Russian people. On the one hand, the story is absolutely not disputed by anyone, on the other hand, the person feels that this does not fit with his codes. The puzzles don't match. Hence the collapse of consciousness.
Man is a creature that carries complex codes inherited from his ancestors and, if he is aware of his origin, then he gains access to his subconscious and thereby remains in harmony. In the depths of the subconscious, every person has layers associated with the superconscious, the soul, which can either be activated when consciousness possessing correct information helps a person gain integrity, or blocked by false information, and then the person cannot use his inner potential, which depresses him. This is why the phenomenon of cultural development is so important, or if it is based on lies, then it is a form of oppression.
Therefore, it makes sense to take a closer look at our history. The one that tells about our roots.
Somehow it turned out strangely that, according to historical science, we more or less know the history of our people starting from the 15th century. Since the 9th century, that is, from Rurik, we have it in a semi-legendary version, supported by some historical evidence and documents . But as for Rurik himself, the legendary Rus', which came with him, historical science tells us more conjectures and interpretations than real historical evidence. The fact that this is speculation is evidenced by the heated debate surrounding this issue. What is this Rus, which came and gave its name to a huge people and state, which became known as Russia? Where did the Russian land come from? Historical science, as it were, leads discussions. As they began to communicate at the beginning of the 18th century, they continue to do so. But as a result, they come to the strange conclusion that this does not matter, because those who were called Russia“did not have a significant impact” on the formation of the Russian people. This is exactly how historical science in Russia rounded off the question. That's it - they gave a name to the people, but who, what and why does not matter.
Is it really impossible for researchers to find an answer? Are there really no traces of the people, no information in the ecumene, where there are the roots of the mysterious Rus' that laid the foundation for our people? So Rus' appeared out of nowhere, gave its name to our people and disappeared into nowhere? Or were you looking poorly?
Before we give our answer and start talking about history, we need to say a few words about historians. In fact, the public has a deep misconception about the essence of historical science and the results of its research. History is usually an order. History in Russia is no exception and was also written to order, and given that the political regime here was always extremely centralized, it ordered the ideological construct that history is. And for the sake of ideological considerations, the order was for an extremely monolithic story, not allowing deviations. And the people - Rus spoiled a harmonious and necessary picture for someone. Only in a short period at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, when some freedoms appeared in Tsarist Russia, were there real attempts to understand the issue. And we almost figured it out. But, firstly, no one really needed the truth then, and secondly, the Bolshevik coup broke out. In the Soviet period, there is nothing even to be said about objective coverage of history; it could not exist in principle. What do we want from hired workers who write to order under the watchful supervision of the Party? Moreover, we are talking about forms of cultural oppression, such as the Bolshevik regime. And to a large extent the tsarist regime too.
Therefore, it is not surprising the heaps of lies that we encounter when looking into the story that was presented to us, and which, neither in its facts nor in its conclusions, is true. Due to the fact that there are too many rubble and lies, and other lies and their branches were built on these lies and fabrications, in order not to tire the reader, the author will focus more on the really important facts.
Past out of nowhere
If we read the history of Rus', written in the Romanov era, in the Soviet era and accepted in modern historiography, we will find that the versions of the origin of Rus', the people who gave this name to a huge country and people, are vague and unconvincing. For almost 300 years, when attempts to understand history can be counted, there are only a few established versions. 1) Rurik, a Norman king, who came to the local tribes with a small retinue, 2) Came from the Baltic Slavs, either the Obodrites, or the Vagrs 3) A local, Slavic prince 3) The story of Rurik was invented by the chronicler
Versions common among the Russian national intelligentsia also come from the same ideas. But recently, the idea that Rurik is a prince from the Western Slavic tribe of the Vagr, who came from Pomerania, has become especially popular.
The main source for constructing all versions is “The Tale of Bygone Years” (hereinafter PVL). A few meager lines have given rise to countless interpretations that revolve around several of the above versions. And all known historical data are completely ignored.
What’s interesting is that somehow it turns out that the entire history of Rus' begins in 862. From the year that is indicated in the “PVL” and begins with the calling of Rurik. But what happened before is practically not considered at all, and as if no one is interested. In this form, history looks only like the emergence of a certain state entity, and we are not interested in the history of administrative structures, but in the history of the people.
But what happened before that? The year 862 almost looks like the beginning of history. And before that there was a failure, almost emptiness, with the exception of a few short legends of two or three phrases.
In general, the history of the Russian people that is offered to us is a history that has no beginning. From what we know, we get the feeling that the semi-mythical narrative began somewhere in the middle and halfway through.
Ask anyone, even a certified historian-specialist in Ancient Rus', or even an ordinary person, as for the origin of the Russian people and their history before 862, all this is in the realm of assumptions. The only thing that is offered as an axiom is that the Russian people descended from the Slavs. Some, seemingly nationally minded representatives of the Russian people, generally identify themselves ethnically as Slavs, although the Slavs are still more of a linguistic community than an ethnic one. This is complete nonsense. It would also look ridiculous, for example, if people who speak one of the Romance languages - Italian, Spanish, French, Romanian (and its dialect, Moldavian) discard the ethnonym and begin to call themselves “Romanes”. Identify yourself as one people. By the way, the gypsies call themselves that - Romals, but they hardly consider themselves and the French to be fellow tribesmen. The peoples of the Romance language group are different ethnic groups, with different destinies and having different origins. Historically, they speak languages that have absorbed the foundations of Roman Latin, but ethnically, genetically, historically and spiritually, these are different peoples.
The same applies to the community of Slavic peoples. These are peoples who speak similar languages, but the fates of these peoples and their origins differ. We will not go into detail here, it is enough to point out the history of the Bulgarians in whose ethnogenesis the main role was played not only and perhaps not so much by the Slavs, but by the nomadic Bulgarians and local Thracians. Or the Serbs, like the Croats, take their name from the descendants of the Aryan-speaking Sarmatians. (Here and further, I will use the term Aryan-speaking, instead of the term Iranian-speaking used by modern historians, which I consider false. The fact is that the use of the word Iranian-speaking immediately creates a false association with modern Iran, in general , today, quite an eastern people. However, historically the word Iran itself, Iranian, is a distortion of the original designation of the country Arian, Aryan. That is, if we talk about antiquity, we should use the concept not Iranian, but Aryan). The ethnonyms themselves are presumably the essence of the names of the Sarmatian tribes “Sorboy” and “Khoruv”, from which the hired leaders and squads of the Slavic tribes came. The Sarmatians, who came from the Caucasus and the Volga region, mixed with the Slavs in the area of the Elbe River and then descended to the Balkans and there they assimilated the local Illyrians.
Now as for Russian history itself. This story, as I have already indicated, begins, as it were, from the middle. In fact, from the 9th-10th century AD. And before that, in established tradition, there was a dark time. What did our ancestors do and where were they, and what did they call themselves in the era of Ancient Greece and Rome, in the ancient period and during the period of the Huns and the great migration of peoples? That is, what they did, what they were called and where they lived directly in the previous millennium is somehow inelegantly kept silent.
Where did they come from, after all? Why do our people occupy the vast space of Eastern Europe, by what right? When did you appear here? The answer is silence.
Many of our compatriots have somehow become accustomed to the fact that nothing is said about this period. In the minds of the Russian national intelligentsia of the previous period, it seems to not exist. Rus' follows almost immediately from the Ice Age. The idea of the history of one’s own people is vague and vaguely mythological. In the reasoning of many, there is only the “Arctic ancestral home”, Hyperborea, and similar matters of the prehistoric or antediluvian period. Then, more or less, a theory was developed about the Vedic era, which can be attributed to a period several thousand years BC. But in these theories we do not see a transition to our history itself, a transition to real events. And then, somehow immediately, passing a couple of millennia, virtually out of nowhere, Rus' appears in 862, the time of Rurik. The author in no way wants to enter into controversy on this issue and even in some ways divides the theories according to the prehistoric period. But in any case, Hyperborea can be attributed to the era of 7-8 thousand years ago, the era of the Vedas can be attributed to the times of the 2nd millennium BC, and maybe even earlier.
But as for the next 3 millennia, the times directly adjacent to the era of the creation of the historical Russian state, the time of the beginning of a new era and the time preceding the new era, practically nothing is reported about this part of the history of our people, or false information is reported. Meanwhile, this knowledge provides the keys to understanding our history and the history of our origin, respectively, our self-awareness.
Slavs or Russians?
A common and undisputed place in the Russian historical tradition is the approach that Russians are an original Slavic people. And, in general, almost 100% there is an equal sign between Russian and Slavic. What is meant is not a modern linguistic community, but a kind of historical origin of the Russian people from ancient tribes identified as Slavs. Is it really?
What’s interesting is that even ancient chronicles do not give us grounds to draw such conclusions - to deduce the origin of the Russian people from Slavic tribes.
Let us cite the well-known words of the Russian initial chronicle for the year 862:
“We decided to ourselves: let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right.” I went across the sea to the Varangians to Rus'; for all I know, I called the Varangians Rus, as all my friends are called Ours, my friends are Urman, Anglyans, friends of Gate , taco and si. Decree of Rus' Chud, Slovenia and Krivichi: “our whole land is great and abundant, “but there is no order in it: let you go and reign over us.” And the three brothers were chosen from their generations, girding all of Rus', and they came; the oldest Rurik sede in Novegrad; and the other is Sineus on Beleozero, and the third is Izborst Truvor. From those the Russian land was nicknamed Novugorodtsy: they are the people of Novugorodtsi from the family of Varangian, before Slovenia."
It is difficult to learn something new, but in these chronicles, in different versions, one important fact can be traced - Rus named as a certain tribe, people. But no one considers anything further. Where did this Rus' then disappear to? And where did you come from?
The established historical tradition, both pre-revolutionary and Soviet, assumes by default that Slavic tribes lived in the Dnieper region and they are the beginning of the Russian people. However, what do we find here? From historical information and from the same PVL, we know that the Slavs came to these places almost in the 8th-9th centuries, not earlier.
The first completely incomprehensible legend about the actual foundation of Kyiv. According to this legend, it was founded by the mythical Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv, with their sister Lybid. According to the version given by the author of The Tale of Bygone Years, Kiy, who lived on the Dnieper mountains together with his younger brothers Shchek, Khoriv and sister Lybid, built a city on the right high bank of the Dnieper, named Kiev in honor of his older brother.
The chronicler immediately reports, although he considers it implausible, a second legend that Kiy was a carrier on the Dnieper. So what is next!!! Cue is named the founder of the town of Kievets on the Danube!? These are the times.
“Some, not knowing, say that Kiy was a carrier; At that time, Kyiv had transportation from the other side of the Dnieper, which is why they said: “For transportation to Kyiv.” If Kiy had been a ferryman, he would not have gone to Constantinople; and this Kiy reigned in his family, and when he went to the king, they say that he received great honors from the king to whom he came. When he was returning, he came to the Danube, and took a fancy to the place, and cut down a small town, and wanted to sit in it with his family, but those living around did not let him; This is how the Danube residents still call the settlement - Kievets. Kiy, returning to his city of Kyiv, died here; and his brothers Shchek and Horiv and their sister Lybid died immediately.” PVL.
Where is this place, Kievets on the Danube?
For example, in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron it is written about Kievets - “a town which, according to Nestor’s story, was built by Kiy on the Danube and still existed in his time. I. Liprandi, in his “Discourse on the ancient cities of Keve and Kievets” (“Son of the Fatherland”, 1831, vol. XXI), brings K. closer to the fortified city of Kevee (Kevee), which is described by the Hungarian chronicler Anonymous Notary and which was located near Orsov, apparently in the place where the Serbian city of Kladova is now (among the Bulgarians Gladova, among the Turks Fetislam). The same author draws attention to the fact that, according to Nestor, Kiy built K. on the way to the Danube, therefore, perhaps not on the Danube itself, and points to the villages of Kiovo and Kovilovo, located about 30 versts from the mouth of Timok. »
If you look at where present-day Kyiv is located and where the above-mentioned Kladov is with nearby Kiovo at the mouth of Timok, then the distance between them is as much as 1 thousand 300 kilometers in a straight line, which is quite far even by our times, especially by those times. And what, it would seem, is common between these places. We are clearly talking about some kind of insinuation, substitution.
Moreover, the most interesting thing is that Kievets really was on the Danube. Most likely, we are dealing with traditional history, when settlers, moving to a new place, transferred their legends there. In this case, Slavic settlers brought these legends from the Danube. As is known, they came to the Dnieper region from Pannonia, pressed in the 8th-9th centuries by the Avars and the ancestors of the Magyars.
That is why the chronicler writes: “When the Slavic people, as we said, lived on the Danube, the so-called Bulgarians came from the Scythians, that is, from the Khazars, and settled along the Danube and were settlers in the land of the Slavs.” PVL.
In reality, this story with Kiy and the glades reflects ancient attempts not so much to tell as to distort real facts and events.
“After the destruction of the pillar and the division of the peoples, the sons of Shem took the eastern countries, and the sons of Ham took the southern countries, and the Japhethites took the west and the northern countries. From these same 70 and 2 languages came the Slavic people, from the tribe of Japheth - the so-called Noriks, who are the Slavs.
After a long time, the Slavs settled along the Danube, where the land is now Hungarian and Bulgarian. From those Slavs the Slavs spread throughout the land and were called by their names from the places where they sat." PVL
The chronicler clearly and unambiguously says that the Slavs lived in territories other than the lands of Kievan Rus, and are alien people here. And if we look at the historical retrospective of the lands of Rus', it is clear that they were by no means a desert, and life has been in full swing here since ancient times.
And there, in the Tale of Bygone Years, the chronicle conveys to the reader information about the settlement of the Slavs even more clearly. We are talking about movement from west to east.
After a long time, the Slavs settled along the Danube, where the land is now Hungarian and Bulgarian (more often they point to the provinces of Rezia and Norik). From those Slavs the Slavs spread throughout the land and were called by their names from the places where they sat. So some, having come, sat down on the river in the name of Morava and were called Moravians, while others called themselves Czechs. And here are the same Slavs: white Croats, and Serbs, and Horutans. When the Volochs attacked the Danube Slavs, and settled among them, and oppressed them, these Slavs came and sat on the Vistula and were called Poles, and from those Poles came the Poles, other Poles - Lutichs, others - Mazovshans, others - Pomeranians
Likewise, these Slavs came and settled along the Dnieper and were called Polyans, and others - Drevlyans, because they sat in the forests, and others sat between Pripyat and Dvina and were called Dregovichs, others sat along the Dvina and were called Polochans, after the river flowing into the Dvina , called Polota, from which the Polotsk people took their name. The same Slavs who settled near Lake Ilmen were called by their own name - Slavs, and built a city and called it Novgorod. And others sat along the Desna, and the Seim, and the Sula, and called themselves northerners. And so the Slavic people dispersed, and after his name the letter was called Slavic.” (PVLIpatiev list)
The ancient chronicler, whether it was Nestor or someone else, needed to depict history, but from this history we only learn that not very long ago Slavic clans moved to the east and northeast.
However, for some reason we don’t find a word about the Russian people from the chronicler PVL.
And we are interested in this Rus- the people, which is with a small letter, and Rus', the country, which is with a capital letter. Where did they come from? To be honest, PVL is not very suitable for the purpose of finding out the true state of things. We find there only isolated references, of which only one thing is clear: Rus there was and it was the people, and not some individual Scandinavian squads.
Here it must be said that neither the Norman version of origin Rus' neither Western Slavic is satisfactory. Hence there are so many disputes between supporters of these versions, because when choosing between them, there is nothing to choose. Neither nor the second version allows us to understand the history of the origin of our people. But rather confusing. The question arises, is there really no answer? Can't we figure it out? I hasten to reassure the reader. There is an answer. In fact, it is already known in general terms, and it is quite possible to form a picture, but history is a political and ideological tool, especially in a country like Russia. Ideology here has always played a decisive role in the life of the country, and history is the basis of ideology. And if the historical truth contradicted the ideological content, then they did not change the ideology, they adjusted the history. That is why the traditional history of Rus'-Russia is largely presented as a set of false statements and omissions. This silence and lies have become a tradition in the study of history. And this bad tradition begins with the same PVL.
It seems to the author that there is no need to slowly lead the reader to true conclusions regarding the past Rus'-Russia-Russia, consistently exposing the lies of various historical versions. Of course, I would like to build a narrative, creating intrigue, gradually leading the reader to the correct conclusion, but in this case it will not work. The fact is that avoiding historical truth has been the main goal of most historians, and the piles of untruth are such that hundreds of volumes would have to be written, refuting one nonsense after another. Therefore, here I will take a different path, outlining our actual history, along the way explaining the reasons for the silence and lies that determined the various “traditional versions.” It must be understood that, with the exception of a short period at the end of the era of the Romanov Empire and our present day, historians could not be free from ideological pressure. Much can be explained, on the one hand, by a political order, and on the other, by the readiness to fulfill this order. In some periods it was fear of repression, in others it was a desire not to notice the obvious truth in the name of some political hobbies. As we delve deeper into the past and reveal the historical truth, I will try to give my explanations
The degree of lies and the tradition of diverting from the truth were such that for many readers the truth about the origin of their ancestors would be a shock. But the evidence is so indisputable and unambiguous that only a stubborn idiot or a pathological liar would dispute a completely clear truth.
Even at the end of the 19th century, it was clearly possible to state that the origin and history of the Rus people, the state of Rus, that is, the past of the ancestors of the Russian people, is not a mystery, but is generally known. And it’s not difficult to build a historical chain of times to understand who we are and where we come from. Another question is that this contradicted political guidelines. Why, I will touch on this below. Therefore, our history never found its true reflection. But sooner or later the truth must be presented.
Goths
Indeed, Russian history does not begin in 862, but is a continuation of the history of a strong and powerful people, because a powerful state could not appear on this vast land out of nowhere or by the force of small Norman squads from Scandinavia, and even more so from the completely mythical Baltic encouragers. There was a real basis here, on our historical land, and it was the German Gothic tribes who lived in the territory that later began to be called Russia. Their names have been preserved in history, both under the general name of the Goths, and under the tribal names - Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Gepids, Burgundians and others. Then these tribes became known in Europe, but they came from here.
When historians throw up their hands about the fact that it is not known what was there in Eastern Europe in the territory that later became Kievan Rus, as if suggesting that it was a wild, sparsely populated land, they are at the very least disingenuous or simply lying. The entire territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea was already an integral part of the settlement of the Gothic tribes from the end of the 2nd century AD, and from the 4th century a powerful state existed here, known as the state of Germanaric. The Gothic tribes and the Gothic state located here were so strong that they could challenge the Roman Empire. There is more than enough evidence of this. In the 3rd century AD For 30 years, the empire was shaken by a war that went down in history as the Scythian War, although Roman historians call it the Gothic War. The war was waged from the territory of the Northern Black Sea region, which the Greeks called Scythia, and inhabited by tribes of Gothic origin. That is, the Goths advanced from those territories that we today consider South Russian. The scale of this war can be judged from numerous testimonies from chroniclers.
The war began with the destruction by the Goths of Greek cities subject to Rome in the Northern Black Sea region. Archaeologists clearly trace traces of the beginning of the Scythian War. At this time, the Greek colony of Olbia at the mouth of the Southern Bug and the Greek colony of Tire at the mouth of the Dniester, which was a stronghold of the Romans in the region, were destroyed.
Then large-scale military operations unfolded on the territory of the Roman Black Sea provinces - Moesia and Thrace, as well as Macedonia and Greece.
The Roman chronicler Jordan, himself a Goth by origin, in his history “On the Origin and Deeds of the Goths,” written in the 6th century AD. reports the number of Goths participating in the campaign against the Roman provinces in 248. The instigators were Roman legionnaires dismissed from service and therefore defected to the Goths: “The warriors, seeing that after such labors they were expelled from military service, were indignant and resorted to the help of Ostrogoth, the king of the Goths. He received them and, fired up by their speeches, soon brought out - to start a war - three hundred thousand of his armed people, with the help of numerous tajfals and astrings; there were also three thousand carp; These are extremely experienced people in war, who were often hostile to the Romans.”
This is how the Roman chronicler Dexippus, in a retelling by George Sincellus, describes the campaign of the Goths in 251, when they took Philippopolis: “The Scythians, called Goths, having crossed the Ister River under Decius (Decius Trajan or Decius - Roman Emperor in 249-251, author), devastated the Roman Empire in large numbers. Decius, having attacked them, as Dexippus says, and exterminated up to thirty thousand of them, was nevertheless struck by them to such an extent that he lost Philippopolis, which was taken by them, and many Thracians were killed. When the Scythians were returning home, this same God-fighter Decius attacked them along with his son at night near Avrit, the so-called Forum of Femvronius. The Scythians returned with many prisoners of war and huge booty,..."
The city of Philippopolis, now Bulgarian Plovdiv, was a very large commercial and administrative center. The Goths destroyed there, as another Roman chronicler Ammianus Marcellinus reports, citing contemporaries, about 100 thousand people.
Then the Goths, in the same campaign in 251, defeated the army led by Emperor Decius near Abritto (now the Bulgarian city of Razgrad) . Emperor Decius drowned in a swamp while fleeing.
As a result, the next Roman emperor, Trebonian Gall, concluded a treaty with the Goths on terms humiliating for Rome, allowing them to take away captured prisoners and promising annual payments to the Goths.
Another time the Goths invaded the Roman provinces was in 255 AD, invading Thrace and reaching and besieging Thessalonica in Greece. Like the last time, according to Roman historians, the Goths left with rich booty.
Let me remind you that they carried out raids from their lands in the Northern Black Sea region and retreated there with the booty.
In 258, the Goths, having built a fleet, made a naval expedition along the Western coast of the Black Sea, while the other part moved along the coast. They reached the Bosphorus and crossed there to Asia Minor. They captured and devastated a number of large and rich Roman cities in Asia Minor - Chalcedon, Nicaea, Cius, Apamea and Prus.
The next invasion, also crowned with success, was carried out by the Goths in 262 and 264, crossing the Black Sea and penetrating the internal provinces of Asia Minor. A major naval campaign of the Goths took place in 267. The Goths, along the Black Sea, reached Byzantium (future Constantinople) with 500 ships. The ships were small vessels with a capacity of 50-60 people. A battle took place in the Bosphorus, in which the Romans managed to push them back. After the battle, the Goths retreated a little back to the exit from the Bosphorus into the sea, and then, with a fair wind, headed further to the Sea of Marmara and then took ships to the Aegean Sea. There they attacked the islands of Lemnos and Skyros, and then dispersed throughout Greece. They took Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Argos.
In another extant passage from the chronicler Dexippus, he describes the siege methods used by the Goths during one of their other campaigns in the Roman provinces of Asia Minor: “The Scythians besieged Sida - this is one of the cities of Lycia. Since there was a large supply of all kinds of shells within the city walls and many people cheerfully got to work, the besiegers prepared their vehicles and brought them to the wall. But the residents had enough of this: they threw down from above everything that could hinder the siege. Then the Scythians built wooden towers, the same height as the city walls, and rolled them on wheels to the very walls. They sheathed the front of their towers either with thin sheet iron, tightly nailed to the beams, or with leather and other non-combustible substances.”
And in 268, inspired by victories, the Goths, already on 6 thousand ships (!), which had gathered at the mouth of the Dniester, launched a campaign against the Roman provinces. The Byzantine historian Zosimus writes about this: “Meanwhile, part of the Scythians, very pleased with the previous raids of their relatives, together with the Heruli, Peevians and Goths, gathered on the Tire River, which flows into the Pontus Euxine. There they built six thousand ships, on which they loaded 312 thousand people. After this, they sailed down the Pontus and attacked the fortified city of Toma, but were repulsed from it. The campaign continued overland to Marcianople in Moesia, but even there the barbarian attack failed. Therefore, they sailed further by sea under a good wind.” But this time the Goths fail due to defeat and epidemic.
Why is all this presented here, the reader may ask? And then, so that you can take a close look at the events of that era and understand the scope of military operations against the leading world power, which was then Rome. Year after year, the Goths send hundreds of thousands of warriors and thousands of ships on their expeditions to the Roman provinces. The Goths make deep raids and invade the depths of the empire. This is not possible if the Goths did not have serious rears where they come from - from the Black Sea region and the interior lands along the Dnieper and Don. To ensure such a scale, the Gothic power must have a huge internal population in its lands, which supplies hundreds of thousands of soldiers, arms them, equips them with everything necessary for long campaigns, and also builds thousands of ships and military vehicles. And it doesn’t matter that the ships are small, for 50 people, to create 6 thousand such ships at that time requires the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people over several months. Someone must feed these people at this time, feed their families and somehow compensate for their efforts. Such coordination is only possible for the state.
And it is also clear that such a population should be located inland to the north of the Black Sea coast. Up the Dnieper and Don. This means that we have the involvement of vast territories adjacent to the Northern Black Sea region, and these territories were already inhabited at that time by a large number of people consolidated under a single command, that is, states or proto-states.
The land of this state, as Jordanes reports, is located in Scythia and is called Oium. Jordanes describes the exodus of the Goths from Scandinavia and their arrival in Scythia: “From this very island of Scandza, as if from a workshop [making] tribes, or rather, as if from a womb [giving birth] to tribes, according to legend, the Goths once came out with their king named Berig. As soon as they got off the ships and set foot on land, they immediately gave the place a nickname. They say that to this day it is still called Gotiskanza.
Soon they advanced from there to the places of the Ulmerugs, who were then sitting along the shores of the ocean; There they camped, and, having fought [with the Ulmerugs], drove them out of their own settlements. Then they subjugated their neighbors the Vandals 65, adding them to their victories. When a great multitude of people grew there, and only the fifth king after Berig ruled, Philimer, the son of Gadarig, he decreed that the army of the Goths, together with their families, should move from there. In search of the most convenient areas and suitable places [for settlement], he came to the lands of Scythia, which in their language were called Oium."
We can quite definitely glean the size of the territory that was under the control of the Gothic state and its approximate contours not only from chronicles, but also from the vast archaeological material that modern researchers have accumulated. In addition, there is also toponymy and comparative analysis data.
First, let's look at the chronicles and historical evidence. The same 6th-century Gothic historian Jordanes, who served the Romans, reports information about the period of the most prominent Gothic king, Germanaric. We are talking about the middle and second half of the 4th century AD: “After the king of the Goths, Geberich, retired from human affairs, after some time the kingdom was inherited by Germanaric, the noblest of the Amals, who conquered many very warlike northern tribes and forced them to obey his laws. Many ancient writers compared him in dignity with Alexander the Great. He conquered the tribes: Goltescythians, Tiuds, Inaunxes, Vasinabronks, Merens, Mordens, Imniskars, Horns, Tadzans, Atauls, Navegos, Bubegens, sorcerers.”
There are different opinions regarding the peoples listed by Jordan and conquered by Germanaric. But basically, when analyzing the names of these peoples, historians give the following interpretation of the names of the listed peoples, under Goltescythians refers to the peoples of the Urals, under the names horns And tadzans should be understood Roastadjans, which means those who live on the banks of the Volga, under imniskars beekeepers should be understood as Meshchera, who were called that in Rus', and by merens And mordens – modern Meryu and Mordovians.
In another passage, Jordanes mentions the conquest of the Veneti tribes by Germanarich, saying that they are known under the names of Veneti, Antes or Sklavini. We are most likely talking about lands in the Pannonia region, where the Slavs then lived.
In the subsequent part of his work, Jordan, continuing the list of Germanaric’s conquests, writes: “With his intelligence and valor, he also subjugated the tribe of Estonians, who inhabit the remotest coast of the German Ocean. He thus ruled over all the tribes of Scythia and Germany as property.”
Regarding the Estonians, I think no special explanation is needed to understand that we are talking about the Baltic coast, inhabited by the ancestors of the Estonians.
And if you now look at the geographical map, a picture emerges of the huge Gothic state of Germanarich, stretching from the south from the Black Sea coast, to the Baltic coast in the north, and from the Urals and the Volga region in the east, to the Elbe in the west. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that this power was one of the most extensive and powerful states of that era. And again, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to notice that these lands are very similar to the territory of historical Rus', which is passing into Russia.
This state existed 500 years before the arrival of Rurik. Returning to the picture that worthless historians give, describing the lands of Rus' as wild, starting, in general, with the notorious Nestor, we clearly see that this is a complete lie, here it was far from a wild desert.
The historical evidence of chroniclers about the space in which the Gothic state spread out is confirmed by extensive archaeological material and preserved material evidence.
The material culture of that era, which archaeologists call Chernyakhovskaya, and which dominates the same space from the Baltic to the Black Sea and from the Volga region to the Elbe, is defined as the culture belonging to the Goths and related tribes, which have already been mentioned - the Vandals, Gepids, Burgundians and etc.
How developed the state that existed in this territory was can be judged by the monumental Serpentine (Trajan) ramparts - hundreds of kilometers of earthen fortifications 10-15 meters high and up to 20 wide. The total length of the defensive ramparts located from the Vistula to the Don, to the south Kyiv in the forest-steppe is about 2 thousand kilometers. In terms of the volume of work, the Serpentine Shafts are quite comparable to the Great Wall of China.
The topic, of course, was under the strictest taboo, and until a certain point, official historians shrugged their shoulders regarding the time of creation and the creators of the Serpent Shafts. It is interesting in this regard the revelations of the director of the Institute of Archeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician Boris Aleksandrovich Rybakov, whose institute was supposed to answer this question - “The Serpentine Ramparts are one of the greatest and most interesting mysteries of the ancient history of our Motherland. Unfortunately, they were completely undeservedly forgotten by archaeologists, and recently no work has been carried out on them.”(Newspaper “Trud”, 08/14/1969) So, it’s a mystery, but no work is being done to solve the riddle.
It was apparently strictly forbidden to answer an important question, so the famous Ukrainian mathematician A.S. undertook to conduct detailed studies of the shafts. Bull.
While examining the shafts, A.S. Bugai discovered in them coal from burnt logs, the age of which was determined by radiocarbon dating. Based on the data obtained, A. S. Bugai dates the ramparts to the 2nd century. BC. – 7th century AD . The map of the shafts he published shows the dates of radiocarbon analysis in the places where coal samples were taken. A total of 14 dates are recorded for nine shaft lines within 150 BC. – 550 AD, including two dates – II-I centuries. BC, one each - II and III centuries, six - IV century, two - V century. and two - VI century. If we evaluate the obtained definitions objectively, then the shafts date back to the 2nd century. BC e. – VI century AD(Book by M.P. Kucher. Serpentine Shafts of the Middle Dnieper. Kyiv, Publishing House Naukova Dumka, 1987)
Somehow, official science missed the mathematician’s research at some point. They were confused, however, and preferred not to particularly advertise the results, because related questions and corresponding conclusions immediately arose, which categorically did not suit not so much the scientists as their masters from the political leadership of the country.
If we summarize the dating results obtained, then the main time of construction of the Serpentine Shafts is the 2-6th century AD. That is, the time when the Gothic state existed here. The volume of excavation work, as experts estimate, is about 160-200 million cubic meters of soil. All shafts at the base had wooden frames, which served as the base of the shaft. Indeed, such work can only be carried out if there is a serious government center and a centralized plan.
Now a few words regarding archaeological data. It is clear that Soviet scientific managers, such as Academician Rybakov, had a clear instruction not to categorically remember any such people, which they generally did with obvious success. “Success” is evidenced by the fact that no one in the country had heard of any Goths or Germans in Ancient Rus'. All finds, all their systematization was based on the fact that the data of chronicles and archeology were attributed to anyone, but not to the Goths or Germans. However, objective data inexorably accumulated. And already in our time a book was published by St. Petersburg archaeologist M.B. Shchukin, which is called “The Gothic Way”, in which the author summarized archeological data regarding the presence of Gothic material culture in the territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea (see Shchukin M.B. The Gothic Way (Goths, Rome and Chernyakhov culture). - St. Petersburg .: Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg State University, 2005.)
Drawing conclusions from the results of archaeological data regarding the 4th-5th centuries AD, Shchukin writes: “It was by this time that a vast territory, from Eastern Transylvania to the headwaters of the Pela and Seima rivers in the Kursk region of Russia, in an area not much smaller than the entire Western and Central Europe, turned out to be covered with a dense network of settlements and burial grounds, surprisingly uniform in their cultural appearance.”(Shchukin M.B. Gothic Way p. 164 ) . We are talking about the monuments of the so-called Chernyakhov culture, known to archaeologists, which dominates the area from the Baltic to the Black Sea. This culture, as Shchukin convincingly proves, quite obviously corresponds to the settlements of the Goths (although they are trying to attribute it to anyone, even the Slavs, who came 500 years later, only to cross out the Goths). A significant amount of data has been accumulated about this culture, which allows us to build a clear picture of the settlement of the Goths, their trade and cultural contacts.
Regarding the density of monuments of the Chernyakhov culture, Shchukin reports: “Traces of the Chernyakhov settlements sometimes stretch for several kilometers. It seems that we are dealing with a certain, very large population, and the population density in the 4th century. slightly inferior to the modern one.” ( there)
Regarding the quality of objects of the Chernyakhov culture, Shchukin, summarizing the opinion of archaeologists, gives the following assessment: “These are, of course, products of highly qualified craftsmen, sometimes achieving perfection; their creation of masterpieces of applied art is, of course, a manifestation of the “high technologies” of that time. We will not find such a set of forms for this period either among the potters of antiquity or in the Barbaricums of Europe.”(ibid.)
Summarizing the archaeological data, we can safely say that in the territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea, in the territory that we now perceive as the historical territory of Rus', there was a serious center of civilization that had signs of political, cultural and economic unity.
The Scandinavians have preserved epic works about this time. Here it is necessary to recall that the Goths are an East German people, close to the Scandinavian branch of the Germans - the Swedes, Danes, and Icelanders. The Swedes themselves also come from Germanic and Gothic tribes. The Hervör Saga, recorded in the 13th century, speaks of the country of Gardarik and Reidgotland, and the capital of Arheimar on the banks of the Dnieper. It also talks about the battle with the Huns. All this corresponds to historical data, because it was there on the territory of the Gothic power, the future Rus', that the Goths encountered the nomadic Huns, against whom they built the Serpentine Ramparts.
What is interesting is that in the Russian folk tradition, memories of the power of Germanarich have been preserved, which gives us further reason to link this history with the Russian one.
All of the above about the country of the Goths, located between the Baltic and the Black Sea, is only a small fraction of the existing materials and data on this topic, and I will address them in more detail in subsequent chapters.
From ready to russian
Now, perhaps, we should move on to the main question, what does the power of the Goths have to do with the people? Rus, to historical Rus', to Russia and to the current Russian people. The most direct. And here, in fact, there are no mysteries for a long time. True, from the side of the so-called historical science, official, it is believed that there is ambiguity, however, in fact, these are not mysteries, but only silence or outright lies. Probably, as happens with many things, in this case we have the largest falsification in history.
Indeed, there is no doubt about the information reported by eastern and western chroniclers, merchants, and travelers of that time about the “Rus” people, with the official dating according to which they called Rus with Rurik only in 862 to Novgorod, either from Denmark, or from the lands of the Baltic Wagrians. Let's start with the fact that Novgorod itself, as has already been proven, was founded at least 50 years later. Large-scale trips undertaken Rus, territories that Rus occupies, trade operations and embassies, which Rus organizes, there was no way a handful of aliens could do it. Moreover, a lot of things, again according to officialdom, they should have done earlier than they arrived according to the official dating. And at the same time it is clear that Rus These are not Slavs, as official historians are trying to portray.
Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who reigned from 945 to 959, in his essay “On the Administration of the Empire” in the chapter “On the Dews departing with Monoxyls from Russia to Constantinople” reports the names of the Dnieper rapids in Russian and Slavic, calling the Slavs pactiots of the Rus “The Slavs, their paktiots, namely the Kriviteins, Lenzanins and other Slavinians...”. What is not clear here, what are the difficulties? Paktiots means subordinate allies, and judging by the names of the tribes, we are talking about the Krivichi and Lusatian tribes, then living in the upper reaches of the Dnieper. The Byzantines could perfectly distinguish the Rus from the Slavs. Well, the names of the rapids themselves in Russian - “Ess(o)upi”, (O)ulvorsi, “Gelandri” “Aifor” “Varouforos” “Leandi” “Strukun”, as all researchers admit, have obvious Germanic roots.
In fact, the most probable, and most likely the only correct version of the origin of the ethnonym Rus put forward back in the 19th century by the dean of the Faculty of History at the University of Warsaw, Professor A. S. Budilovich. At the 8th Congress of Archaeologists in 1890, he read a report where he outlined an explanation of the origin of the ethnonym. The epic nickname of the Goths, Hreidhgotar, is known, for which the more ancient form Hrôthigutans ("glorious Goths") has been restored. He both historically and ethnologically connected Rus' with the Goths, and its name with the Gothic basis hrôth, “glory.” If we translate the transcription, it sounded like hrös with a German umlaut, where the sound ö is something between Russian е and о, and in Russian it sounded like ryus with a soft “s” at the end and the first aspirated sound х, which is in the Slavic language missing and therefore lost. Actually we have an exact match rus or grew up, which in Slavic sound was reproduced with a soft “s” like Rus' or grow up. Rus, grew up, this is a self-name coming directly from Gothic. And this is absolutely logical - Rus continues the history of the ancient Gothic state, the people of Gothic origin, but in the next historical period.
The modern historian Egorov in his work “Rus and Rus' Again” writes: “So, not the legendary, but the historical state of Reidgotaland was created in the 3rd century AD. Black Sea Goths, who called themselves and are known to us in foreign language transmission as: hros / hrus, ros / rus, rodi, ‛ρω̃ς. On East Slavic soil, the aspiration [h] that was absent in the Old Russian language inevitably had to disappear, and [θ] should have moved similarly to the Greek language into [s]: → → ros/rus. Therefore, it can be justifiably stated that linguistically transformation in Old Russian language ethnonym Greuthungi in Russia it’s quite natural.”(V. Egorov “Rus and Rus' again”)
This is how the mystery was revealed. And everything falls into place, for the history of Kievan Rus naturally follows from the previous history of the Goths, which in turn follows from the ancient history of Scythia. It is immediately clear where the people Ros, Rus, Eros come from in the early medieval chronicles of Byzantine and Arab authors of the 6th and 7th centuries. And another question is resolved, which baffled even the Normanists, the question of where so many Varangians came from in Rus' that they gave it a name, a name for the people, constituted the ruling layer of the ancient Russian state and filled its considerable army that went on formidable campaigns. It was impossible for so many people to migrate from Scandinavia overnight. Indeed, it couldn't. Everything is very simple, the Varangians-Russ have lived here from time immemorial, and the state has been here from time immemorial. And then, the people of Rus' became the basis of Kievan Rus, its state-forming people, and Kievan Rus itself was the heir to the state of the ancient Goths.
Just like the Goths, who subsequently took other names and went down in history under them - Burgundians, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Gepids and so on, so here in Eastern Europe they adopted a new ethnonym, which became known to us as Russian.
Nestor talks about the fact that the Slavs and Rus' are different peoples, and about the secondary role of the Slavs in the PVL when describing the campaign of the Prophetic Oleg to Constantinople in 907, when Oleg orders the distribution of the sails: “And Oleg said: “look for the (sails) pavolochiti (thick embroidered silk) of Rus', and the word kropiinnyya (cheap silk)...".
Indeed, people Rus already present in chronicles from the 6th–7th centuries. The Syrian chronicler known as Zechariah of Mytilene contains a passage about the Eros people. The Rus are mentioned by the 10th century Arab historian, At-Tabari, in the History of Prophets and Kings, when describing the events of 644. The ruler of Derbent, Shahriyar, writes to the ruler of the Arabs: “I am between two enemies: one is the Khazars, and the other is the Rus, who are enemies of the whole world, especially the Arabs, and no one knows how to fight them except the local people. Instead of paying tribute, we will fight the Russians ourselves and with our own weapons and we will hold them back so that they do not leave their country.”
In the 9th-10th centuries, eastern chroniclers report that the Rus organized a series of campaigns in the Caspian Sea. In 884, according to the information of the 13th century historian Ibn Isfandiyar in the “History of Tabaristan”, it is said that during the reign of the Emir of Tabaristan Alid al-Hasan, the Rus attacked the city of Abaskun in the Gulf of Astrabad (the southern part of the Caspian Sea, now modern Iran). In 909 and 910, a Russian fleet of 16 ships again raided Abaskun. In 913, 500 ships entered the Kerch Strait and, having ascended the Don, with the permission of the Khazars, they then crossed to the Volga and, descending along it, entered the Caspian Sea. There they attacked the Iranian cities of the Southern Caspian - Gilan, Deylem, Abaskun. The Rus then moved to the west coast and launched attacks in the territory of Shirvan (modern Azerbaijan). Then we went up the Volga to Itil to return. The Khazars, having received part of the spoils, decided to destroy the weakened army of the Rus. The pretext was revenge for the murdered Muslim co-religionists. The Khazar cavalry attacked on a portage from the Volga to the Don. According to information, about 30 thousand Rus were killed. Five thousand managed to escape. The next campaign took place in 943/944. The city of Berdaa was taken by the forces of a 3,000-strong detachment led by Helgu.
And again we see the same ships and the same tactics as during the Scythian wars against the Roman Empire.
In general, historians have always noticed that among ancient authors the people rus is perceived as autochthonous, although it was known that the Slavs came to the Dnieper region in the 7-9 centuries. In the 19th century Ilovaisky wrote “ already in the second half of the 9th and first 10th centuries the Arabs knew Rus'Howa numerous, strong people, whose neighbors were the Bulgars, Khazars and Pechenegs, who traded on the Volga and in Byzantium. Nowhere is there the slightest hint that they consider Rus' not a native, but an alien people. This news is completely consistent with the campaigns of Russovto the Caspian Sea in the first half of the 10th century, with campaigns that were undertaken by several tens of thousands of warriors." (Ilovaisky D.I. The Beginning of Rus' (“Research about the beginning of Rus'. Instead of an introduction to Russian history.”) It was, in general, clear that there could not be any autochthonous Slavs in the Crimea and the Black Sea region.
Ilovaisky writes there: “Bishop Liutprand of Cremona was twice ambassador to Constantinople in the second half of the 10th century and mentions the Russes twice. In one case he says: “In the north of Constantinople live the Ugrians, Pechenegs, Khazars, Russians, whom we otherwise call the Nordmans, and the Bulgars, their closest neighbors.” In another place, he recalls his stepfather’s story about the attack of Igor’s Rus' on Constantinople and adds: “This is a northern people, which the Greeks call Russ by their outward quality, and we call Nordmans by the position of their country.”
We can safely assume that the Bishop of Cremona knew well the subject of which he spoke.
For clarity, we can cite several excerpts from numerous chronicles, notes and chronicles that baffled followers of the official versions.
“In former times there were many Gothic tribes, and there are many of them even now, but the largest and most significant of them were the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths and Gepids, formerly called Sarmatians, and the Melanchlenians. Some authors called them getae. All these peoples, as has been said, differ from each other only in names, but in all other respects they are similar. All of them are white in body, have brown hair, tall and good-looking.....” Procopius, “War with the Vandals”, book 1, 2.2
The modern historian V. Egorov, who has already been mentioned here, gave an accurate assessment of the PVL (“Tale of Bygone Years”) as a source of misconceptions and insinuations: “Centuries passed, but its status as a chronicle was not shaken by either obvious inconsistencies in its own chronology or obvious discrepancies with “foreign” sources, neither a contradiction to the objective data of archeology, nor outright fantasy, which was bashfully omitted and kept silent even by the primary historians who canonized it. This status for PVL is still preserved, although sometimes it seems that the absolute majority of our contemporaries involved in history treat it, to put it mildly, with distrust. But due to the inertia of tradition and corporate unity of interests, historians never dared to say directly that our queen is naked. Only the bravest of them allowed themselves to hint at the indecent appearance of this high-ranking person, sometimes even very expressively, as, for example, the historian D. Shcheglov did back in the century before last: “ Our chronicle, or, more precisely, our saga about the beginning of the Russian state, included in the subsequent chronicle, knows what did not happen, and does not know what happened ».
From Odin to Kievan Rus
In this way we can try to build a sequence of historical events.
At the beginning of the 2nd century AD, the Gothic tribes, or rather a significant part of them, and their relatives - the Vandals, Gepids, Burgundians, etc., took action to return to their historical homeland - the Black Sea steppes, from which they were taken away 200 years ago leader Odin (Odin's exodus to the north, presumably in the 1st century BC, is another episode of Gothic history, which was substantiated by Thor Heyerdahl . - « The source on which Thor Heyerdahl was based was the “Saga of the Ynglings,” created by the Icelandic chronicler Snorri Strulson - here is the testimony of the scientist himself: “The “Saga of the Ynglings” tells in some detail about the land of the Aesir, located in the lower reaches of Tanais, as it was called in ancient times Don River The leader of the Aesir in ancient times was a certain Odin, a great and wise leader who mastered the arts of witchcraft. Wars with the tribes of the neighboring Vanir people took place with varying degrees of success: the Aesir either won or suffered defeat. For me, this proves that Odin was not a god, but a man, because gods cannot lose. In the end, the war with the Vanir ended peacefully, but the Romans came to the lower reaches of Tanais, and the Aesir, weakened by long wars, were forced to retreat to the north.
I carefully read the sagas and calculated that thirty-one generations passed from Odin to the historical figure - Harald Fairhair (10th century). Everything agrees: the Romans conquered the northern Black Sea region in the 1st century BC. In addition, I was simply amazed when I learned that the Aesir and Vanir tribes were real peoples who inhabited these places BC! And when I looked at the map of the lower reaches of the Don and saw the word “Azov”, I simply could not read it otherwise than “As Hov”, because the ancient Norse word “hov” means a temple or a sacred place!” (Quoted by A. Gaisinsky The unknown history of Rus'. Three components.).
Therefore, returning to their ancient homeland, having landed in the Baltic Pomerania at the beginning of the 2nd century, the Goths, by the end of the 2nd century AD. reached the Northern Black Sea region and settled there. Along the way, the Goths settled and asserted their control over territories from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Most likely, their fellow tribesmen still remained in the Black Sea region, who had not once gone north with Odin.
By the beginning of the 3rd century, the Goths already had a semblance of a center and came into contact with outposts of the Roman Empire. By the middle of the 3rd century, the Scythian (Gothic) wars with Rome broke out, which lasted 30 years and as a result of which both sides suffered heavy losses. By the 4th century, the Gothic power had regained its potential. The area of control included Sarmatian, Ugric and Slavic tribes. By the time of Germanarich, towards the end of the 4th century, the Gothic power of Reidgotland had reached the peak of its power. The population of the country, which can be conditionally called Gothic Rus', is numerous and numbers in the millions. A small number of Goths accept Arianism.
And during this period, at the end of the 4th century, a new terrible enemy appeared from the steppe, from the East - the Huns. Germanarich, who is 110 years old, at this time has a conflict with the Roxalan tribe, because of a young wife from this tribe. ( Based on the name of the Roksalan tribe, some have built a whole version about the tribe of Rus Slavs, etc. Unfortunately, there could not be any Slavs there, Roks-Alans, can mean Alan tribe, and if in another extant version - Rosso-mons, then by the root of Mona or mana - that is, people in Gothic, then this is more likely a Gothic tribe . The plot was reflected in the sagas, the girl’s name was Sunilda, and her brothers, who wounded Germanarich, were called Sar and Ammius, which is clearly not similar to Slavic names). Perhaps the Gothic power collapsed due to the enmity that arose. Meanwhile, the Huns inflicted a series of defeats on the Goths, split into hostile camps. The country is devastated and defenseless. After the death of Germanarich, part of the Goths went to the West. Later they carried out the complete defeat of the Western Roman Empire and founded a number of states in Europe, giving rise to a new era in the West. The other part of the Goths submitted to the leader of the Huns, Attila.
Then, over the course of 2 centuries, the Goths who remained on the territory of Reidgotland restored their potential. During this time, some of them adopted another ethnonym ros/rus, perhaps by the name of some tribe. Most likely, the descendants of the Sarmatians and Alans living in this area were integrated with the Goths. At this time, the integration of Finno-Ugric peoples into the Gothic area continued. In the 8th-9th century, the integration of the Slavs began, who moved from the Danube to the Dnieper, from the oppression of aggressive nomads - Avars, Magyars. The Slavs, immigrants from the West, apparently make up 20-25% of the population of the area under Gothic influence. The Khazars began to control part of the territory of Gothic Rus'. By the 8th-9th century Rus has accumulated potential for assembly. Integrated Slavs who moved into the area Rus', under their protection, became involved in the economic and military activities of the Russian princes, and later, by the end of the 10th century, adopted the ethnonym Rus. In the 10th century, the Slavic language began to be widely used for communication due to increased trade.
However, the military-political elite was Rus. It is worth recalling the list of names in the text of the 911 treaty with the Byzantine emperor given in the PVL: “We are from the Russian family - Karls, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid - sent from Oleg, the Grand Duke of the Russians...”. As you can see, these are all German names.
At the end of the 10th century, in 988, as a result of the agreement between the Kyiv prince and Byzantium, Kievan Rus officially adopted Byzantine Christianity. Clergymen from Bulgaria poured into rich Rus', bringing books, written and linguistic culture based on the Church Slavonic language, that is, the Bulgarian language. Intellectual activity, which is concentrated in monasteries, correspondence, everything is conducted in Bulgarian. As a result, Church Slavonic, actually Bulgarian, becomes the administrative language. Without participation in church ceremonies, that is, without knowledge of the Bulgarian language, access to positions is excluded. The Slavic language is already used by a third of the population of Kievan Rus - Slavs by origin, and was already partly the language of communication. Under such administrative conditions, there is a rapid decline in the use of the Gothic language Rus'(especially since due to fears of turning to Arianism, the Gothic alphabet and language are prohibited by the Byzantine church). By the end of the 11th century, the population completely switched to a language with a Slavic base. Then, in the 13th century, during the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars, a significant part of the elite, who preserved the memory of their past, was destroyed. The ancient centers of the most compact habitation were destroyed Rus'- Azov-Black Sea Rus' - Korsun, Tmutarakan Principality, etc. The remnants flee north. Under the control of the Orthodox Church, which has received privileges, there is a complete erasure of historical memory and trampling down the remnants of the Gothic past of Rus', since, according to Orthodox ideologists, this may contribute to the trend of transition to Catholicism. The Church considered the fight against Catholicism to be the most important thing. In the 15-16 centuries, family books and records preserved in princely houses, which could preserve the memory of the non-Slavic past of Rus', were successively destroyed. By the 16th century, the process of erasing memory seemed to be completed. But the roots still remained. Both in the soul and in everyday life.
To understand why we need historical truth, we need to understand why the ruling regimes in Rus'-Russia needed historical lies. After all, as is clear, by the end of the 19th century there was already a certain clarity.
In fact, despite the fact that the truth has been erased for a millennium, this past, even leaving archeology aside, is present with us. And in what we use every day and in what makes its way to us from the depths of the subconscious.
You can cite a lot of words that have been preserved in the Russian language from the Gothic base.
think - goth. domjan "to judge"
debt - goth. dulgs "duty"
sword - Gothic mēkeis
bread - Gothic hlaifs
barn - Gothic hlaiw
banner - hrungō
boiler - katils
dish/dish, - Gothic. biuÞs "dish"
buy - kaurōn “to trade
kusiti (hence Russian: tempt) - Gothic. kausjan "to try";
interest (interest, growth) - Gothic. leiƕa “loan, loan”, leiƕаn “to lend”
flattery “cunning, deception” - Gothic. lists "trick"
cattle - Gothic skatts "state"
salt - goth. salt "salt"!}
glass - gothic stikls "cup"
vineyard - Gothic weinagards "grapevine"
Also, the most important words related to military affairs came to us from Gothic helmet, armor,knight, regiment, with social relationships prince, hetman, ataman, guest, with a house hut,gates, hut, with church affairs church, fast, with land cultivation plow and many more words included in the basic conceptual apparatus associated with home, food and war. Just words bread, salt mean that these almost main concepts in human everyday life came to us from this past. Despite the fact that the Bulgarian language was harshly enforced, the most important words of the modern Russian language were left to us from Rus'. Although some of the words found their way into other Slavic languages, apparently during the reign of Germanaric. Now hundreds of such words are known, the origin of which is easily determined, but there are still a lot of words whose etymology is confusing, and among which there is probably a huge layer that we inherited from Rus'.
The loss of a language, the transition to another language base due to administrative influence or some historical events, is not something out of the ordinary. The German-speaking Franks began to speak the language of the conquered Gauls, who had previously switched to corrupted Latin, now French. The Celts of Ireland switched to English, and the Slavs of Pannonia, 95% of whom were completely switched to the language of 5% Magyars, Hungarians. This happens in history.
However, let's continue with the roots. There are other interesting points reflecting the preserved elements of historical memory.
If you pay attention to the history of the Cossacks, then they firmly understood their connection with the history of the Goths and Sarmatians. Even in the 16th century, among the Cossacks, the memory of the Gothic past, reflected in their names, was preserved. Here is what the famous Cossack historian of the early 20th century, Evgraf Savelyev, writes: “In the 5th century, Priscus mentions Aspar among the Alanian leaders, one of whose sons was called Erminarik, which name is identified with the name of the Gothic leader of the same time Ermanarik. Consequently, the name Ermi, Christian Ermiy 46), Erminarik, or Ermanarik, was not alien to the ancient Royal Scythians, i.e. Black Bulgarians, or Alano-Goths. The ancient original form of this name is Herman, or Geriman (German), i.e. a man from the ancient sacred Gerros (Ger-ros); hence the diminutive versions of this name: Germanik, Germinarik, or Erminarik, Ermanarik, Ermik, and the magnifying version in the popular pronunciation is Alano-Gotov, i.e. Azov Cossacks, Ermak...”
As you know, Ermak was from the so-called Azov Cossacks. Here is another “riddle” that all sorts of academics have been circling around, which, as it turns out, has an answer for a long time. Evgraf Savelyev further directly calls Ermak a goth.
We must also remember the Novgorod ushkuiniks who remembered their origins from Rus' They also preserved ancient Germanic names, such as Aifal Nikitin, a famous Novgorod boyar of the 15th century, ataman of the Ushkuy freemen.
Well, it would not be superfluous to recall the history of the Cossack campaigns against Istanbul and the shores of Asia Minor. They repeat the tactics and routes of the Gothic sea campaigns of the Scythian wars. The prefect of Cafa, Emiddio Dortelli d'Ascoli, in 1634, characterized the Cossack plows (gulls, oaks) in battle: “If the Black Sea has always been angry since ancient times, now it is undoubtedly blacker and more terrible due to the numerous seagulls that devastate the sea and land all summer. These seagulls are long, like frigates, can accommodate 50 people, and row and sail.”
The seagulls are the same monoxyls that the Goths used to attack Byzantine cities - the monoxyls also accommodated 50 soldiers. Here are literally a few episodes of Cossack campaigns - In 1651, 900 Donets on 12 large plows entered the Black Sea and attacked the Turkish city of Stone Bazaar near Sinop. They took 600 prisoners and many slaves. On the way back, three large merchant ships carrying wheat to Istanbul were captured and sunk.
The following year, a thousand Donets on 15 plows, led by Ataman Ivan the Rich, again broke into the Black Sea, devastated the shores of Rumelia and visited Istanbul, taking rich booty. On the way back, the Cossacks were caught up by a Turkish squadron of 10 galleys, but the Cossacks defeated it.
In May 1656, atamans Ivan Bogaty and Budan Voloshanin, on 19 plows with 1,300 Cossacks, plundered the Crimean coast from Sudak to Balykleya (Balaklava), then crossed the Black Sea and tried to take Trabzon in Turkey by storm. The attack was repulsed, and then the atamans plundered the smaller city of Tripoli. On August 18, the Cossacks, after a 3-month campaign, returned to the Don with rich booty, from where three days later a new batch of those wishing to annoy the Tatars and Turks emerged on the same plows. One part of them attacked Azov, and the other immediately headed to the coast of Crimea, where Temryuk, Taman, Kafa and Balakleya were devastated.
So it wasn’t just names that reflected the past.
Not only among the Cossacks, but also in the people's memory, images of Ancient Rus' were preserved. The great Russian poet and writer Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin drew his amazing stories from his nanny, Arina Rodionovna. This has always aroused interest in its origins. Unfortunately, literary scholars puzzled over where the Russian peasant woman got such images from, and they came up with the idea that she was supposedly a “Chukhonka,” that is, a Karelian or Izhorian. Recent studies of metric books prove that her ancestors were Russian. That is, Arina Rodionovna was the bearer of the Russian folk oral tradition, which reflected Gothic Rus', its stories and images. Therefore, we meet there something that the Slavs could not have had. These are the stories Rus', who lived on the shores of the Russian Sea, what is now called the Black Sea. “An old man lived with his old woman. At the very blue seas" - This is how The Tale of the Old Man and the Goldfish begins. Anyone who has been to the Baltic understands that no matter how much one wants to call this sea blue, at the same time there is, as the song says, “the bluest in the world – my Black Sea.” And if you carefully look at the plots, the names of the heroes - Chernomor and 33 heroes emerging from the sea, Tsar Saltan, Guidon, Ruslan, Rogdai, Farlaf, then images of the Varangians, sea warriors arise, which reflect a special world. This world is not like the landscapes of the forests near Moscow; there is not even a hint of Slavicism in it. And this world fits surprisingly well into our consciousness as a national epic. Pushkin, a great artist, could read the ancient images of Gothic Rus' and embody them in his works.
Another famous story about Kashchei the Immortal is preserved in Russian fairy tales, and which no other nation has. As the researchers figured out, the plot is based on the story of Germanarich. For people of that era, when life expectancy was not long, a king who was 110 years old was perceived as immortal. Indeed, what could a 70-year-old man say to his grandchildren when he, as a young man, remembered the old Germanarich? In the real past, Germanarich also married a young girl. This is how, in folk tradition, we find a connection with our past.
Now readers probably have a question about who we should consider ourselves to be - German Goths, Slavs, Sarmatians or Finno-Ugric peoples. In fact, the question is not posed correctly, therefore, none of the answers are acceptable. We are Russians, descendants of all these peoples who are intertwined in historical destiny. But if we put the question differently, whose heirs are the Russian people, whose land, whose history, whose glory we are inheriting - the answer is clear, we are the heirs of Rus', and through them, the heirs of the GLORIOUS GOTHS. And we have no other options, when we realize, then we will awaken.
Another question arises: what was the interest of the ruling classes of Russia in hiding the true history of the Russian people? More than one monograph can and should probably be written on this issue, but I will try to answer briefly. The fact is that the designation of the Goths and Germans as historical ancestors, the presence of Gothic Rus' made our people and their elite equal to the free peoples of Europe, many of whom traced their origins to the Goths. In such a situation, it was in no way possible to build an eastern despotism. This is an important and even key point. It is impossible to force a person to put up with his slave position if he knows that he is a descendant of free people. Therefore, in tsarist historiography the Cossacks were persistently declared to be the descendants of runaway slaves.
Before unfinished chapters
This work, of course, is only a small review, and in my opinion it requires continuation. Much has been left behind the scenes in order to more fully build our story. And the name of Prince Vladimir’s mother, whom Nestor called Malferd – that is, Malfrida. And about the beautiful Gothic maidens from “The Tale of the Regiment.” And the history of Azov-Black Sea Rus'. Relationship with other Gothic clans. And the epic of the Nibelungs. And the history of Russian princes. And the participation of the Sarmatians. And consider DNA genealogy.
But the main thing that is needed is to sort out issues related to the faith of our ancestors, to the pantheon of Gods. Perun, Veles, Semargl, what Heavenly powers have we inherited......
But due to the importance of the topic, I decided not to wait for the end of the work and give general information in this material.
The work will continue. Maybe I'll try to make a film.
In this situation, you, the reader, can take part and at the same time express your opinion at your own discretion. Write about your donation to [email protected], and we will include you in our mailing list. If there are enough funds, a book will be published and it will be sent to you.
P.S. On the evening of Wednesday, January 9, there will be a discussion of this material on ARI Radio and it will be possible to discuss the topic and answer your questions.
In contact with
Classmates
We are being erased from world history. Everyone knows about the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Cathay, India, Babylon, and admires ancient Greece and mighty Rome. We are not on this list. We open any book and read: the thousand-year history of Rus'. Even a monument to the millennium of Rus' has been erected. Where were we two, three thousand years ago?
What was on one sixth of the land when the Parthenon was being built in Greece, the pyramids in Egypt, when Rome was withdrawing its legions, and the Chinese were building the Great Wall?
“But nothing happened,” Western historians declare with aplomb. “It was sheer savagery,” echoed domestic singers. Hegel, for example, wrote that the Slavs are not a historical people. “The Slavs are not capable of state building.”
The history of Rus' usually begins with the moment of baptism
This tradition was laid by our first historians Tatishchev and Karamzin, who viewed the history of our country primarily as the history of the state, but not the history of Rus'. And the history of the state, in turn, is the history of autocracy. Prince Vladimir baptized Rus' and from that moment the clock of Russian history began to tick. But there were centuries before that.
Ancient authors write about countless tribes of Ants who roamed in the north and east. Ancient Syrian books speak of a certain mysterious people, the Hros, or Eros, in whom they also see the ancestors of the Russian people. One thing is certain: the Slavs had their own customs, their own traditions, their own beliefs and their own gods. The myth that our history began with the calling of the Varangians and the baptism of Rus' was so ingrained in the consciousness that almost no one seriously tried to trace our ancestry back thousands of years.
Our faith comes from Byzantium, writing and literacy are also not our own - it was created by foreigners Cyril and Methodius. Statehood is also alien - from the Varangians. In other words, there is nothing. And there is nothing to study here. Even the father of Russian history, as they would say now, the official chronicler of the Kremlin Karamzin wrote: “This great part of Europe and Asia, now called Russia, in its temperate climates was inhabited from ancient times, but by wild peoples, plunged into the depths of ignorance, who did not mark their existence no own historical monuments.”
Who wrote the history of our country and how?
Court historians, including Karamzin, wrote the history of the state, the history of power, but not the history of Rus'. Church chroniclers - theirs. And no one tried to write the history of the people. It is preserved only in oral traditions and fairy tales. Unfortunately, under the guise of fighting paganism, numerous evidence and cultural monuments of the people were destroyed. In the ancient sources that have reached us, the pre-Christian history of Rus' is covered very sparingly.
It’s as if some tribes of the Drevlyans, Polyans, Krivichs are jumping out of oblivion, who, due to their savagery and inability to develop independently, decided to call on the Varangians, who, according to the Norman theory, are an alien Scandinavian tribe. Russian statehood began with them, with its capital in Novgorod, and later in Kyiv. In both Tsarist and Soviet times, there was an unspoken ban on pagan Russian history.
Along with the Russians, dozens of other Slavic and Turkic peoples who inhabited the vast expanse of the empire were deprived of their history. In recent years, numerous archaeological surveys have lifted the veil over the glorious history of our ancestors, who once inhabited the vast expanses of Eurasia. The latest excavations in the Southern Urals, in Arkaim, shocked the scientific community.
And what did they dig up?
It turns out that even during the time of the pyramids and English Stonehenge, Russia had the highest civilization with developed crafts, metal smelting, knowledge of astronomy and high art. This is a real revolution in the established ideas that the entire Indo-European civilization came to us from Asia and the Mediterranean. Perhaps its cradle is precisely in the vastness of Siberia, off the coast of the Arctic Ocean.
The ancient Romans are descendants of the Slavs. The history of a people is the foundation of its future. As is the history, so are the people..
How people's self-awareness is managed
If you are taught from childhood that you are a slave, you will grow up to be a slave. It is not true that all people are people. Russian people are not people, but alien creatures (American historian Robert Conquist). The falsification of history was always carried out to please the ruling regime. And not only history, but even religion. So in France, after the Bourbons came to power, they tried to erase Napoleon from history. They published a textbook in which everything connected with Napoleon was declared a mass hallucination, and their own decrees were dated from his time. In Britain, in favor of anti-Russian sentiments, even the mention of Gog and Magog and Prince Ros, as reminiscent of Russia, was deleted from the Bible.
When in the third century BC the Chinese commander Qin Shi Huang conquered the six kingdoms and founded the Qin Empire, the first thing he ordered was to collect all the historical chronicles of the conquered states and destroy them. The history of China must have begun with the Qin Empire. This was not the first battle in history. Both the pharaohs of Ancient Egypt and the rulers of eastern tyrannies repeatedly ordered the destruction of any mention of their rivals or predecessors. And in the Middle Ages, Christianity tried to destroy the history of paganism. The battle for history is ongoing.
In the United States, under the pretext of fighting anti-Semitism, passages about Christ being crucified by Jews were removed from the Bible. Crucified - that's all. And who is unknown. And under the pressure of feminists, God the Father turned into God the Father and Mother, since praising God the Father alone is a sign of male chauvinism. And there are many such examples. The myth that the culture and history of Russia begins in the ninth century is very beneficial to many of our enemies. Even in the textbook for the fifth grade published by the publishing house “Prosveshcheniye” in 1993, it is written that before the adoption of Christianity we lived in pits covered with rods on top.
And it’s called “Stories about Native History.” I just want to ask the authors - whose story is theirs? “We will not talk much about those who make it their duty to humiliate everything that relates to the Slavs, especially the Russians. Not only among the ancient Aryan tribes, but also among other tribes, the Russians are at the head of not only the Romans, but also the Greeks, like their ancestors,” wrote the honest historian Yegor Klassen back in the 18th century. If we were so wild, to whom did the Byzantine emperors humiliatingly pay tribute? Whose shield is on the gates of Constantinople?
Great, unforgotten names, but their works are forgotten
Who defeated the powerful Khazar Khaganate? This is what the great Russian scientist Alexander Vasilyevich Lomonosov wrote about the ancient history of our ancestors, trying to expose the Norman theory of the emergence of the Russian state: “At the beginning of the sixth century in Christ, the Slavic name became very widespread. And the power of this people was not only terrible in Thrace and Macedonia, but also contributed greatly to the destruction of the Roman Empire.”
Alas, we are accustomed to trusting foreigners more than our own scientists. So this is what Archbishop Mauro Orbini of Raguga wrote about our ancestors in the fifteenth century: “It is surprising that the glory of the Slavic people is now not as clear as it should be glorified throughout the entire universe. If this people were as content with learned and bookish people as they are with military men, then not a single other people in the universe would be an example of the Slavic name.
The Slavic people ravaged Persia, controlled Asia and Africa, conquered Greece, Macedonia, the Illyrian land, took possession of Moravia, Schletsky land, Czech, Polish and the shores of the Baltic Sea. He went to Italy, ruined Rome, making the Roman emperors tributary, which no other people in the whole world had done. And the fact that other peoples, who were very inferior, now glorify themselves very much, is not for the sake of anything else, but only through the learned people who were among their people.”
For some reason, the works of Lomonosov, Klassen, and Orbeni are not included in the history course. The Russians have never set such a goal for themselves, to humiliate anyone. They made history. But what the West has succeeded in is the ability to write history, and not to make it. Our ancestors created history, not wrote it. At different times, under different names, the Scythians, Huns, Goths, Sarmatians, Slavs, Wends, and Rus entered the world stage and turned the wheel of history. On August 23, 476, the great Roman Empire fell.
But it did not fall under the blows of the Germanic tribes, as is commonly believed, but was abolished as unnecessary by the Slavic prince Odoacer, the leader of the Rugs along the Jordan or the leader of the Rusyns according to other historians. On August 23, 476, he dethroned the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus. This date is considered to be the beginning of the Middle Ages. So our ancestor flipped through another era in the book of world history. “Let us lie down with bones, brothers, for the dead have no shame” - these words, familiar to many, are the pinnacle of Russian spirituality, they belong to the great warrior, whose glory was known from end to end to Prince Svyatoslav the Brave. But in history textbooks you will either find no mention of it at all, or only pitiful lines. But entire chapters are devoted to the exploits of Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar. We do not know and do not value our history.
„The Russian land was not a thousand liters before us,
and there were many thousands, and there will still be,
for we have protected our land from the enemy!”
Prince Kiy
INTRODUCTION
While studying the history of my native country, I had the opportunity to get acquainted with a sufficient amount of materials that illuminate the distant past of Russia in various aspects.
In printed literature there are a large number of interpretations of the origin and evolution of the Russian people and the emergence of the first statehood on Russian soil.
This is a natural process when researchers try to get to the bottom of the truth. Means, many of them are not satisfied with the current state of affairs in Russian history This means that there are enough facts that do not fit into the version of the history of the Russian state proposed by academic science.
What does our science offer? The clearest example of an academic point of view on Russian history is the book “History. Complete course" (multimedia tutor for preparing for the Unified State Exam, 2013 edition).
In introducing this book, I will simply quote a few passages from it that will allow you, the reader, to understand the essence of the academic concept of Russian history, which our the science . I would add that he not only proposes, but also defends his point of view with all the administrative resources available to science.
So, I quote...
« The ancient history of the Slavs contains a lot RIDDLE (emphasis added by the author and below), but from the standpoint of modern historians it comes down to the following.
First, in the 3rd - mid-2nd millennium BC. SOMEONE Proto-Indo-European community from UNCLEAR areas around the Black Sea (possibly from the Asia Minor Peninsula) moved to Europe».
And further. " There are several versions of historians about the place where exactly the Slavic community was formed(theories of the origin of the Slavs): The Carpathian-Danubian theory was the first to be put forward(the homeland of the Slavs is the region between the Carpathians and the Danube), in the 20th century The Vistula-Oder theory was born and became the main one(the Slavs arose north of the Carpathians), then Academician B. Rybakov put forward a compromise theory, according to which the Slavs arose SOMEWHERE in Eastern Europe - from the Elbe to the Dnieper. Finally, there is a version that the ancestral home of the Slavs was the Eastern Black Sea region, and their ancestors were one of the branches of the Scythians - the Scythian plowmen». Etc.
To this it is also necessary to add the explanation of the name of the Slavs produced in the book - “comes from the words “word” and “know”, that is, it means people whose language is understandable, in contrast to “Germans” (as if dumb) - this is how the Slavs called foreigners" . Agree, all this is very interesting and even entertaining.
I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I find all these arguments like - RIDDLES, SOME, UNCLEAR, SOMEWHERE, not only do they not satisfy, but they also suggest that this is some kind of deliberate distortion of the existing facts.
I proceed from the fact that academic science must have the strength and means to understand and bring clarity and certainty to our history. Judging by the above, there is no clarity and no certainty. Why doesn’t science have it, but I have, although not complete, extensive information about the ancient history of the Russian people. And I outlined my concept of Russian history in the manuscript “On the Ancient History of Russia.”
Is it really possible that among our Russian scientific historians there is not a single patriot, not a single decent person who would criticize the lies that have been imposed on us all for about 300 years, and would professionally begin to unravel the “mysteries” posed by science? Otherwise, it's not science. What I presented to you above cannot be called science.
Where in the word SLAVS is there or is the meaning of “word”??? How can we conclude that a word contains SLAVS meaning of “to know”??? SLAVS- means “glorious”. This is the direct and most correct message that comes to mind, and this meaning is already about 5 thousand years old (if not more). But why “glorious”, we need to deal with this. But we have an answer to this question.
There in the book “History. Full Course" explained VERSIONS origin of the word “Rus”: “:... or from the name of the Ros River - the right tributary of the Dnieper(this version was proposed by academician B. Rybakov, but today is considered outdated), or from the name of the Varangians(according to the chronicle of Nestor), or from the word"roots" what does it mean"ship rowers" which then transformed into"ruotsi" (modern version)."
Dear scientists, fear God! We can talk about such things in the 21st century. And the worst thing is that they fill the heads of our children with all this, deliberately creating in them an inferiority complex and dependence on the West.
The presented book further notes. " The most important source on the events of Russian history from ancient times to the beginning of the 12th century. - the first Russian chronicle(the oldest surviving) - “The Tale of Bygone Years”, the first edition of which was created by the monk of the Kiev-Pechora Monastery Nestor around 1113." And with that "document"(why it’s in quotes will become clear a little later) academic science is building its own concept of Russian history.
Yes, there are many other interesting documents that illuminate our ancient history. But for some reason, the chronicle of Nestor is the main one among academicians.
Let's see what historians rely on for their delusion. The main message of official science is this. The Russian princely dynasty originated in Novgorod.
In 859, the northern Slavic tribes expelled the Varangian Normans (“northern people”), immigrants from Scandinavia, who had recently imposed tribute on them, overseas. However, internecine wars begin in Novgorod. To stop the bloodshed, in 862, at the invitation of the Novgorodians, the Varangian prince Rurik came to “reign.” The Norman squad with its leader was a stabilizing factor in the struggle for power between the boyar families.”
To this point of view we put forward our counterarguments here, refuting the dogmas of academic science:
The Russian princely dynasty arose long before the appearance of Rurik in Novgorod. Previously, Gostomysl ruled there, who was the 19th (!!!) prince from the famous Prince Vandal (Vandalariy - born in 365)
Rurik was the grandson of Gostomysl (the son of Gostomysl's middle daughter), which means that Rurik was Russian by blood.
There were no internecine wars in Novgorod. After Gostomysl’s death, his eldest grandson, Vadim, reigned there. But Rurik was only invited to reign in Ladoga.
Rurik's squad was a destabilizing factor in Rus', with the help of which Rurik and his relatives seized power in Novgorod by force.
It would not occur to any sane person to invite to reign a stranger who has no relation to the current dynasty of princes, much less one of the Normans who had just been expelled from the country overseas and to whom tribute was paid.
All the arguments presented will be revealed a little later. But this is enough to demonstrate that the “most important source” of academic science does not correspond in its content to real events. To this we can also briefly add that Dir and Askold had nothing to do with Rurik, they were not Varangians, much less brothers, as our historical science tells us.
What is “The Tale of Bygone Years”? This is most likely a literary work, not a chronicle.
The focus of the chronicler Nestor is the baptism of Rus' by Prince Vladimir from the Rurik family. All events before baptism prepare the reader for this climax, all subsequent ones remind of its importance. Rus' seems to emerge from the darkness of past non-existence shortly before its baptism.
The author of “The Tale...” is of little interest in the pre-Christian past of the Slavs, although at his disposal then, 1000 years before us, he probably had historical information, various myths and tales, and possibly manuscripts inherited from the pagan era. It is on such materials and information that have been preserved from those times that we will then build the real history of ancient Rus'. It turns out that Nestor deliberately distorted the history of the Russian people, and in other words, he was fulfilling someone’s order.
Go ahead. Since the chronicle talks about the events of the 12th century, the author did not live earlier. But this raises the question: how could the author, living in a Kiev monastery in the 12th century, know what happened in Veliky Novgorod in the 9th century, given the enormous difficulties of the then roads and the “illiteracy” of the entire country?
There is only one answer - he couldn’t! !! Therefore, the entire Nestor Chronicle is a simple composition from the words of other persons or according to rumors from later times. And this is convincingly proven in the book by S. Valyansky and D. Kalyuzhny “The Forgotten History of Rus'.”
It says that “the oldest of all the copies of the Tale of Bygone Years - Radzivilovsky - was made only at the beginning of the 17th century. Its pages contain traces of the rough work of a forger, who tore out one sheet, inserted a sheet about the calling of the Varangians, and prepared a place for inserting the lost “chronological sheet.” And this material, fabricated by someone, is taken as a source of knowledge???
And for the reader it will be even more surprising to learn that he found this list, i.e. presented to the whole world by our Tsar Peter Alekseevich, about whom rumors had long circulated in certain circles that the Tsar was “not real.” I mean the moment of “replacement” of the real Tsar Peter, who went to study in Holland, accompanied by 20 (!!!) noble children, and returned from there with only one Menshikov, while everyone else either died or disappeared in the prime of life in Holland. Interesting, isn't it?
In their study, S. Valyansky and D. Kalyuzhny highlighted another interesting fact in the chronicle, which concerns the sexual maturity of our ancestors.
It turns out that, in comparison with other princely dynasties, for example Germany and England, “our princes in the period from the 10th to the 12th centuries reached puberty only in the thirtieth year of their lives.” This is so late in comparison with other dynasties that “it is impossible to believe such a chronology, which means that the chronicles depicting the activities of representatives of these dynasties cannot be considered reliable.”
There are other important points related to the content of the chronicle. For example, in Nestor’s chronicle information about comets and eclipses of the moon and sun was not noted or was shifted in time. Also in the chronicle there is no information about the Crusades and, especially, about the “liberation of the Holy Sepulcher from the hands of the infidels.” " What monk would not rejoice on this occasion and would not devote not one, but many pages to this day as a joyful event for the entire Christian world?»
But if the chronicler did not see the heavenly eclipses that took place before his eyes, and did not know about the events that thundered throughout the world during his lifetime, then how could he know anything about the prince, who was called 250 years before him? In any case, the so-called “initial chronicle” passes entirely to the position of the late apocrypha,” i.e. works whose authorship is unconfirmed and unlikely. That's how things are.
Let us also refer to the opinion of our first historian V. Tatishchev. He noted that “all Russian historians revered Nestor, the chronicler, as the first and main writer.” But V. Tatishchev did not understand why Nestor himself did not mention any ancient authors, including Bishop Joachim.
V. Tatishchev was sure, and from the legends it was clear that ancient stories were written, but they did not reach us. The historian believed unequivocally that long before Nestor there were writers, for example, Joachim of Novgorod. But for some reason his story remained unknown to Nestor.
And there is no doubt, according to V. Tatishchev, that the story of Joachim was (that is, existed) by Polish authors, since many cases were not mentioned by Nestor, but by northern (Polish) authors they were. Also V. Tatishchev noted that “ all the manuscripts that he had, although they began with Nestor, but in their continuation, none of them exactly agreed with the other, in one one, in the other another is added or reduced ».
E. Klassen analyzed in detail the question of what is the basis for the belief about the beginning of the independence of the Russian people or about their statehood only from the time of Rurik’s calling. On the chronicle of Nestor or on the conclusion about his legend by L. Schletser.
From the chronicle, the author himself believed, it is clear and undeniable that the tribes that called the Varangians led a political life, state, since they already constituted an alliance, a community of 4 tribes - Rus, Chud, Slavs, Krivichi, which occupied up to 1 million square miles in the north-eastern corner of Europe and had cities - Novgorod, Staraya Ladoga, Staraya Rusa, Smolensk, Rostov, Polotsk, Belozersk, Izborsk, Lyubech, Pskov, Vyshgorod, Pereyaslavl.
The Bavarian geographer calculated 148 (!) cities among the Eastern Slavs. Among the savages, E. Klassen believed, and we agree with him, for such a period of living, one cannot even assume mutual relations, much less unity of thoughts, which was expressed among Rus', Chud, Slavs and Krivichi regarding the summoning of princes to the throne . And the most important thing, savages have no cities!
S. Lesnoy also mentioned Nestor in his studies. He noted that " Nestor wrote not so much the history of Rus' or southern Rus', but of the Rurik dynasty. As a comparison with the Joachim and 3rd Novgorod Chronicles shows, Nestor quite deliberately narrowed his history. The history of the north, i.e. He almost passed over Novgorod Rus' in silence.
He was a chronicler of the Rurik dynasty, and his tasks did not at all include a description of other dynasties, so he omitted the history of southern Rus', which has nothing to do with the Rurik dynasty. And most importantly, information about pre-Oleg Rus' could have been preserved by pagan priests or persons clearly hostile to Christianity. But it was monks like Nestor who destroyed the slightest traces reminiscent of paganism ».
And: " Nestor kept silent about this reign(Gostomysl), just mentioning the fact itself. And one can understand why: he wrote a chronicle of southern, Kievan, Rus', and the history of the northern did not interest him. It took him astray from the tasks assigned to him by the church.
This is evident from the fact that he considered Oleg to be the first prince in Rus'. He does not consider Rurik a Russian prince, because Novgorod was not called Russian at that time, but was called Slovenian. Perhaps Nestor would not have mentioned Rurik at all if not for his son Igor: it was impossible not to say who his father was.”
This is the actual state of affairs with our ancient history. The fundamental basis of our state history according to academic science is the “Tale of Bygone Years,” which, in essence, is falsified document - forgery.
We consolidated this state of affairs with our history further Foreigners, called by the sovereigns to write Russian history. Not only did they not know the Russian language, but they openly despised everything Russian, the country in which they lived.
The clearest example is academician L. Schletser (1735 – 1809). Let’s imagine one of Schlozer’s “conclusions” regarding ancient Russian history (we are talking about the 7th century!!!):
« A terrible emptiness reigns everywhere in central and northern Russia. Not the slightest trace of cities is visible anywhere, which now adorn Russia. Nowhere is there any memorable name that would present to the spirit of the historian excellent pictures of the past. Where beautiful fields now delight the eye of a surprised traveler, there before there were only dark forests and swampy swamps. Where enlightened people have now united into peaceful societies, there once lived wild animals and half-wild people ».
Let's briefly summarize what has been said. Nestor was the ideologist of the Rurik princes, the embodiment of their interests. Recognize that the Novgorod princes are older than the Rurikovichs, that the Russian princely dynasty existed long before Rurik, was considered unacceptable.
This undermined the right of the Rurikovichs to original power, and therefore it was mercilessly eradicated. That is why in The Tale of Bygone Years there is not a word about Slovenia and Rus, who laid the foundation for Russian statehood on the banks of the Volkhov.
In the same way, Nestor ignores the last prince of the pre-Rurik dynasty - Gostomysl, a person who is absolutely historical and mentioned in other primary sources, not to mention information from oral folk traditions.
That is why The Tale of Bygone Years can in no way be considered a source about our antiquity, and our historical science is obliged to recognize this fact and create a real, truthful history in the shortest possible time of our state. Our society needs this so much, it will greatly help in the moral education of our youth, not to mention the fundamental point - without knowing the past, you cannot build the future!
We previously prepared two manuscripts about the facts of ancient Russian history and statehood among the Rus: “On the ancient history of Russia” and “History of the Russians according to the Veles Book.”
It presents convincing evidence of the high culture of the ancient Slavs and the presence of statehood among our ancestors long before Rurik’s arrival in Novgorod. This study intends to continue work in this direction in order to present, based on factual data, a version of the history of the Russian people from ancient times.
In our work we will rely mainly on chronicle materials, which were not widely circulated and are not perceived by academic science as historical sources. Among them: “The Tale of Sloven and Rus”, “Veles’s Book”, “Budino Izbornik”, “Genealogy of the Slavic-Russian people, their kings, elders and princes from the progenitor Noah to the Grand Duke Rurik and the princes of Rostov”, “Tales of Zachary” and others.
***
You can download the book Here.
