Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state. Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state: the genesis of the idea

It is hardly possible in the whole world to find a people or a sufficiently ancient political entity whose origins would be unambiguously recognized by the public and historians. On the one hand, the reason for this is the scarcity of historical and archaeological sources of the medieval era, on the other - and this is much more important - the desire, often not fully realized, to glorify one’s fatherland and attribute a heroic history to it. One of the fundamental themes of Russian historiography is precisely the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state. The first years of the existence of Kievan Rus, and even more importantly, the driving forces of its formation, became perhaps the most important topic of dispute between Russian historians for hundreds of years.

Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state

Kievan Rus as a political centralized formation, as confirmed by all authoritative sources, appeared in the second half of the 9th century. Since the birth of historical science in Russia, there have been a variety of theories about the origin of the ancient Russian state. Various researchers tried to find the origins of Russian statehood in Iranian elements (we are talking about the Scythian and Sarmatian tribes that once lived here), and Celtic, and Baltic (this group of peoples was still closely related to the Slavs). However, the most popular and most justified have always been only two extremely opposing views on this issue: the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state and the anti-Norman theory, its antagonist. was first formulated quite a long time ago, back in the middle of the 13th century, by the royal court historian Gottlieb Bayer.

Somewhat later his ideas were developed

other Germans - Gerard Miller and August Schlozer. The foundation for the construction of the Norman theory was a line from the famous chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years.” Nestor described the origin of the ancient Russian state as the merit of the Varangian king Rurik and his army, which became the first military and palace elite in Rus'. According to the document, they fought with some Russians and managed to expel them from their lands. But after this there followed a period of unrest and bloody civil strife in the Slavic lands. This forced them to turn to the Russians again and call them from overseas to rule: “Our land is rich, but there is no order in it...”. In this story, German historians identified the mysterious Rus with the Scandinavian kings. This was confirmed by archaeological finds both then and later. The Varangians were indeed present in these lands in the 9th-10th centuries. And the names and their retinues were almost entirely of Scandinavian origin. Some Arab travelers also identified the Rus and Scandinavians in their records. Based on all these facts, the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state was born. It really had a fairly solid foundation and was considered unshakable for many years.

Anti-Normanist version

However, the very fact that overseas kings were called to reign meant that the Slavs themselves were simply unable to form their own state independently in the Middle Ages, as other European peoples were able to do. Such an idea could not but cause outrage among patriotic intellectuals. The first who was able to sufficiently argue against German scientists and point out the flaws in their theory was the famous Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. In his opinion, the Rus should not be identified with foreigners, but with the local population. He pointed out the names of the local Rosava. The Varangians,

mentioned in ancient chronicles were (according to Lomonosov) not Scandinavians at all, but Slavs, who are known to historians today as the Vagr. Over time, the anti-Norman story gained momentum. However, the Normanists defended their positions for centuries. In the first decades of the existence of the Soviet state, the Norman theory was declared harmful and unpatriotic, which literally meant a veto on its further development. At the same time, the development of archaeological opportunities gave a lot to the anti-Normanists. It was discovered that a number of foreign travelers of the 9th century called the Slavs Rus. In addition, the emergence of state structures existed back in pre-Kiev times. An important argument was that the Scandinavians at that time had not created a state even in their homeland.

conclusions

Since the 1950s, both theories have again developed quite freely. The accumulation of new knowledge and facts, primarily archaeological, demonstrated that it was impossible to completely abandon all the ideas of the Norman theory. Perhaps the last significant point in this dispute was Lev Klein’s book “The Dispute about the Varangians.” The entire genesis of the development of discussions between the parties, a detailed analysis of arguments and sources are described here. The truth turned out, as always, somewhere in the middle. The Vikings, being experienced fighters and traders, appeared quite often in the Slavic lands and had very close contacts with the local population. They had an important and undeniable influence on the formation of government structures here, bringing innovative ideas from all over the continent. At the same time, the emergence of Kievan Rus does not seem possible without the internal readiness of the Slavic society itself. Thus, it is very likely that there were Scandinavians (for the Middle Ages this was not at all a surprising fact), but their role should not be overestimated.

Formation and development of community life

The main form of settlement of the Eastern Slavs was a small village of 2-3 courtyards.

- Yard

a) in each yard there lived a complex large family, including several generations, headed by a householder - a big man.

Several villages united into a community, which in the southern regions was called Verv, and in the northern regions - Mir.

Since communal life prevailed and the villagers united into communities based on economic interests, tribal life quickly disintegrated and was replaced by the volost - territorial-neighborhood.

As people settled over large areas, the connections between clans weakened, and the clans themselves disintegrated. This led to the fact that common family property was replaced by family property.

The community began to include communities of different clans and even tribes. This mixing process was especially intense where the territories of different tribes bordered (river, portage or watershed) or where there was joint colonization of new lands by different tribes.

- The development of feudal relations proper took place on the basis of the community.

With the appearance in Rus' of cities in which there were many trading foreigners and military squads, the tribal system began to undergo even greater transformation.

- In cities, people from different places, clans, tribes united for joint military and trade affairs.

Procurement for sale and accumulation of income from goods sold led to the formation of capital. Thus, subsistence farming gradually begins to be replaced by money farming.

Old Russian state formed in 882 r. as a result of the unification under the rule of Kiev of the two largest Slavic states - Kiev and Novgorod. Later, other Slavic tribes, the Drevlyans, Northerners, Radimichi, Ulichs, Tivertsy, Vyatichi and Polyans, submitted to the Kyiv prince. The Old Russian (Kievan) state in its form was an early feudal monarchy.

It existed until the middle of the 12th century. In the second half of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. Principalities-semi-states began to form on its territory:

Kyiv

Chernigovskoe

Pereyaslavskoe.

Answer: Norman theory (Normanism)- a direction in historiography that develops the concept that Rus' comes from Scandinavia during the period of expansion of the Vikings, who were called Normans in Western Europe.

The Norman theory was formulated:

In the 1st half of the 18th century, under Anna Ioannovna, the German historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences G. Bayer (1694-1738)

Later by G. Miller and A. L. Schlötzer.

The version was accepted by N. M. Karamzin, followed by M. P. Pogodin and other Russian historians of the 19th century.

According to Norman theory emergence of the Old Russian state:

The state of the Eastern Slavs was created by the Varangians (Normans).

There is a legend about the calling of the Varangians to rule the Slavs. In this regard, it is believed that the Slavs were at a low level of development and were not able to create a state. The Slavs were conquered by the Varangians, and the latter created state power.

Supporters of Normanism attribute the Normans (Varangians of Scandinavian origin) to the founders of the first states of the Eastern Slavs - Novgorod and then Kievan Rus.

Old Russian chronicles read:

In 862, to stop civil strife, the tribes of the Eastern Slavs and Finno-Ugrians turned to the Varangians-Rus with a proposal to take the princely throne. The chronicles do not say where the Varangians were called from. It is possible to roughly localize the place of residence of Rus' on the coast of the Baltic Sea. In addition, the Varangians-Rus are placed on a par with the Scandinavian peoples: Swedes, Normans (Norwegians), Angles (Danes) and Goths (residents of the island of Gotland - modern Swedes)

However, sources indicate that by the time the Varangians appeared in Novgorod the state has already formed there. The Slavs had a high level of both socio-economic and political development, which served as the basis for the formation of the state.

Norman theory (Normanism)- a direction in historiography that develops the concept that the people-tribe of Rus' comes from Scandinavia during the period of expansion of the Vikings, who were called Normans in Western Europe. In Russian and Soviet historiography, Normanism is traditionally opposed to anti-Normanism (both concepts exist as separate ones only in Russia/USSR/post-Soviet countries; abroad, both are considered politicized, to one degree or another denying the multi-ethnic origin and mutual influence of the cultures of the Slavs, Turks, Alans, Finno-Ugric peoples , Scandinavians, other ethnic groups during the formation of the Old Russian state and therefore unscientific, and the works of foreign scientists are only mistakenly called “anti-Normanist”, even if they confirm individual theses of the anti-Normanists.).

Supporters of Normanism attribute the Normans (Varangians of Scandinavian origin) to the founders of the first states of the Eastern Slavs: Novgorod and then Kievan Rus. In fact, this is a follow-up to the historiographical concept of the Tale of Bygone Years (early 12th century), supplemented by the identification of the chronicle Varangians as Scandinavian-Normans. The main controversy flared up around the ethnicity of the Varangians, at times reinforced by political ideologization.

Normanist arguments

Old Russian chronicles

In 862, to stop civil strife, the tribes of the Eastern Slavs (Krivichi and Ilmen Slovenes) and Finno-Ugrians (Ves and Chud) turned to the Varangians-Rus with a proposal to take the princely throne (see the article Calling of the Varangians, Rus' (people) and Rurik). The chronicles do not say where the Varangians were called from. It is possible to roughly localize the place of residence of Rus' on the coast of the Baltic Sea (“from across the sea”, “the path to the Varangians along the Dvina”). In addition, the Varangians-Rus are placed on a par with the Scandinavian peoples: Swedes, Normans (Norwegians), Angles (Danes) and Goths (residents of the island of Gotland - modern Swedes):

Archaeological evidence

Later chronicles replace the term Varangians with the pseudo-ethnonym “Germans,” uniting the peoples of Germany and Scandinavia.

The chronicles left in Old Russian transcription a list of the names of the Varangians of Rus' (before 944), most of them with a distinct Old Germanic or Scandinavian etymology. The chronicle mentions the following princes and ambassadors to Byzantium in 912: Rurik (Rorik), Askold, Dir, Oleg (Helgi), Igor (Ingwar), Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid. The names of Prince Igor and his wife Olga in Greek transcription according to synchronous Byzantine sources (the works of Constantine Porphyrogenitus) are phonetically close to the Scandinavian sound (Ingor, Helga).

The first names with Slavic or other roots appear only in the list of the treaty of 944, although the leaders of the West Slavic tribes from the beginning of the 9th century are known under distinctly Slavic names.

Written evidence from contemporaries

Written evidence from contemporaries about Rus' is listed in the article Rus' (people). Western European and Byzantine authors of the 9th-10th centuries identify Rus' as Swedes, Normans or Franks. With rare exceptions, Arab-Persian authors describe the Rus separately from the Slavs, placing the former near or among the Slavs.

The most important argument of the Norman theory is the essay of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire” (949), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in two languages: Russian and Slavic, and an interpretation of the names in Greek.

Table of threshold names:
Slavic name	Translation into Greek	Slavic etymology	Russian name	Scandinavian etymology	Name in the 19th century
		1. Nessupi (don’t eat) 2. Yield(s)		2. other-Sw. Stupi: waterfall (d.)	Staro-Kaidatsky
Islanduniprakh	threshold island	Island Prague		other sw. Holmfors: island threshold (d.)	Lokhansky and Sursky rapids
Gelandri	Threshold noise			other sw. Gaellandi: loud, ringing	Zvonets, 5 km from Lokhansky
	Pelican nesting area	Gray owl (pelican)		other sw. Aeidfors: waterfall on a portage	Nenasytetsky
Wulniprah	Big backwater	Volny Prague	Varouforos	Other-Islamic Barufors: rapids with waves	Volnissky
	Boiling water	Vruchii (boiling)		other sw. Le(i)andi: laughing	Not localized
	Small threshold	1. On the thread (on the rod) 2. Empty, in vain		Other-Islamic Strukum: narrow part of a river bed (dat.)	Extra or Free

At the same time, Konstantin reports that the Slavs are “tributaries” (pactiots - from the Latin pactio “agreement”) of the Ros. The same term characterizes the Russian fortresses themselves, in which the Dews lived.

Archaeological evidence

The Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan described in detail the ritual of burying a noble Russian by burning in a boat, followed by the construction of a mound. This event dates back to 922, when, according to ancient Russian chronicles, the Rus were still separated from the Slavs under their control. Graves of this type were discovered near Ladoga and later ones in Gnezdovo. The burial method probably originated among immigrants from Sweden on the Åland Islands and later, with the beginning of the Viking Age, spread to Sweden, Norway, the coast of Finland and penetrated into the territory of the future Kievan Rus.

Items of Scandinavian origin were found in all trade and craft settlements (Ladoga, Timerevo, Gnezdovo, Shestovitsa, etc.) and early cities (Novgorod, Pskov, Kiev, Chernigov). More than 1200 Scandinavian weapons, jewelry, amulets and household items, as well as tools and instruments of the 8th-11th centuries. comes from approximately 70 archaeological sites of Ancient Rus'. There are also about 100 finds of graffiti in the form of individual runic signs and inscriptions.

In 2008, at the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, archaeologists discovered objects from the era of the first Rurikovichs with the image of a falcon, which may later become a symbolic trident - the coat of arms of the Rurikovichs. A similar image of a falcon was minted on English coins of the Danish king Anlaf Guthfritsson (939-941).

During archaeological studies of the layers of the 9th-10th centuries in the Rurik settlement, a significant number of finds of military equipment and clothing of the Vikings were discovered, objects of the Scandinavian type were discovered (iron hryvnias with Thor hammers, bronze pendants with runic inscriptions, a silver figurine of a Valkyrie, etc.), which indicates the presence immigrants from Scandinavia in the Novgorod lands at the time of the birth of Russian statehood.

Possible linguistic evidence

A number of words in the Old Russian language have proven Old Norse origin. It is significant that not only words of trade vocabulary penetrated, but also maritime terms, everyday words and terms of power and control, proper names. Thus, the names Gleb, Igor, Ingvar, Oleg, Olga, Rogvolod, Rogneda, Rurik, the words: Varangians, Kolbyagi, tiun, banner, pud, anchor, Yabednik, whip, golbets and others were borrowed.

History of the theory

For the first time, the thesis about the origin of the Varangians from Sweden was put forward by King Johan III in diplomatic correspondence with Ivan the Terrible. The Swedish diplomat Peter Petrei de Erlesund tried to develop this idea in 1615 in his book “Regin Muschowitici Sciographia”. His initiative was supported in 1671 by the royal historiographer Johan Widekind in “Thet svenska i Ryssland tijo åhrs krijgs historie”. According to V. Merkulov, Olaf Dahlin’s “History of the Swedish State” had a great influence on subsequent Normanists.

The Norman theory became widely known in Russia in the 1st half of the 18th century thanks to the activities of German historians in the Russian Academy of Sciences Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738), later Gerard Friedrich Miller, Strube de Pyrmont and August Ludwig Schlözer.

M.V. Lomonosov actively opposed the Norman theory, seeing in it a thesis about the backwardness of the Slavs and their unpreparedness to form a state, proposing a different, non-Scandinavian identification of the Varangians. Lomonosov, in particular, argued that Rurik was from the Polabian Slavs, who had dynastic ties with the princes of the Ilmen Slovenes (this was the reason for his invitation to reign). One of the first Russian historians of the mid-18th century, V.N. Tatishchev, having studied the “Varangian question”, did not come to a definite conclusion regarding the ethnicity of the Varangians called to Rus', but made an attempt to unite opposing views. In his opinion, based on the “Joachim Chronicle,” the Varangian Rurik was descended from a Norman prince ruling in Finland and the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.

The Norman version was accepted by N.M. Karamzin. In turn, S. M. Solovyov, recognizing the origin of the first princes and squads as Norman, generally assessed their influence as insignificant. The two most prominent representatives of the anti-Normanist movement were S. A. Gedeonov and D. I. Ilovaisky. The first considered the Rus to be Baltic Slavs - obodrites, the second, on the contrary, emphasized their southern origin.

Soviet historiography, after a short break in the first years after the revolution, returned to the Norman problem at the state level. The main argument was recognized as the thesis of one of the founders of Marxism, Friedrich Engels, that the state cannot be imposed from the outside, supplemented by the pseudoscientific autochthonist theory of the linguist N. Ya. Marr, officially promoted at that time, which denied migration and explained the evolution of language and ethnogenesis from a class point of view . The ideological setting for Soviet historians was the proof of the thesis about the Slavic ethnicity of the “Rus” tribe. Typical excerpts from a public lecture by Doctor of Historical Sciences Mavrodin, given in 1949, reflect the state of affairs in Soviet historiography of the Stalin period:

Naturally, the “scientific” servants of world capital strive at all costs to discredit and denigrate the historical past of the Russian people, to belittle the importance of Russian culture at all stages of its development. They “deny” the Russian people the initiative to create their own state.[...] These examples are quite enough to come to the conclusion that a thousand-year-old legend about the “calling of the Varangians” Rurik, Sineus and Truvor “from beyond the sea”, which long ago should have been archived along with the legend of Adam, Eve and the tempting serpent, the global flood, Noah and his sons, is being revived by foreign bourgeois historians in order to serve as a weapon in the struggle of reactionary circles with our worldview, our ideology.[...]

Soviet historical science, following the instructions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, based on the comments of comrades Stalin, Kirov and Zhdanov on the “Outline of a textbook on the History of the USSR”, developed a theory about the pre-feudal period, as the period of the birth of feudalism, and about the barbarian state emerging at this time, and applied this theory to specific materials from the history of the Russian state. Thus, in the theoretical constructions of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, there is and cannot be a place for the Normans as the creators of the state among the “wild” East Slavic tribes.

The historian and archaeologist B. A. Rybakov represented Soviet anti-Normanism for many years. Since the 1940s, he identified the Rus and the Slavs, placing the first Old Slavic state, the predecessor of Kievan Rus, in the forest-steppe of the Middle Dnieper region.

In the 1960s, the “Normanists” regained ground, recognizing the existence of a Slavic proto-state led by Russia before the arrival of Rurik. I. L. Tikhonov names one of the reasons why in the 1960s many became Normanists:

The subject of discussion was the localization of the unification of the Rus with the Kagan at its head, which received the code name Russian Kaganate. Orientalist A.P. Novoseltsev was inclined to the northern location of the Russian Kaganate, while archaeologists (M.I. Artamonov, V.V. Sedov) placed the Kaganate in the south, in the area from the Middle Dnieper to the Don. Without denying the influence of the Normans in the north, they still derive the ethnonym Rus' from Iranian roots.

E. A. Melnikova and V. Ya. Petrukhin created the concept of the emergence of the Old Russian state, revealing the important role of Scandinavian trading squads in catalyzing social stratification and the development of society of the East Slavic and Finnish peoples. This concept, recognizing the Varangians as Scandinavians, and early Rus' as immigrants from Scandinavia, differs from classical Normanism by moderation in assessing the role of the Scandinavians and a comprehensive consideration of the available archaeological, linguistic and written sources. Rurik's calling to reign is seen as a folklore reflection of contractual relations (the Old Russian term "row") between the tribal nobility of the Eastern Slavs and Finns, on the one hand, and the Varangian squad led by the prince, on the other hand.

Each exam question may have multiple answers from different authors. The answer may contain text, formulas, pictures. The author of the exam or the author of the answer to the exam can delete or edit a question.

Normantheory- a complex of scientific ideas, according to which it was the Scandinavians (i.e., “Varangians”), being called upon to rule Russia, who laid the first foundations of statehood there. In accordance with the Norman theory, some Western and Russian scientists raise the question not about the influence of the Varangians on the already formed Slavic tribes, but about the influence of the Varangians on the very origin of Rus' as a developed, strong and independent state.

The term “Varyags” itself arose at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th centuries. The Varangians are first mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years on its very first pages, and they also open the list of 13 peoples who continued the line of Japheth after the flood. The first researchers who analyzed Nestor’s narrative about the calling of the Varangians almost all generally recognized its authenticity, seeing the Varangian-Russians as immigrants from Scandinavia (Petreius and other Swedish scientists, Bayer, G.F. Muller, Thunman, Schletser, etc. ). But back in the 18th century, active opponents of this “Norman theory” began to appear (Tredyakovsky and Lomonosov).

Normanists - adherents of the Norman theory, based on the story of the Nestor Chronicle about the calling of the Varangian-Russians from overseas, find confirmation of this story in the evidence of Greek, Arab, Scandinavian and Western European and in linguistic facts, everyone agrees that the Russian state, as such, it was really founded by the Scandinavians, that is, the Swedes.

The Norman theory denies the origin of the Old Russian state as a result of internal socio-economic development. Normanists associate the beginning of statehood in Rus' with the moment the Varangians were called to reign in Novgorod and their conquest of the Slavic tribes in the Dnieper basin. They believed that the Varangians themselves, “of whom Rurik and his brothers were, were not of Slavic tribe and language... they were Scandinavians, that is, Swedes.”

Within the framework of the chosen topic, I will consider the Norman theory, the opinions of its supporters and opponents. In conclusion, I will try to express my point of view about the Norman theory - whether it is true or not.

2Norman theory and anti-Normanism

The Norman theory is one of the most important controversial aspects of the history of the Russian state. This theory in itself is barbaric in relation to our history and its origins in particular. Practically, on the basis of this theory, the entire Russian nation was charged with some kind of secondary importance, seemingly based on reliable facts, the Russian people were ascribed a terrible failure even in purely national issues. It’s a shame that for decades the Normanist point of view of the origin of Rus' was firmly established in historical science as a completely accurate and infallible theory. Moreover, among the ardent supporters of the Norman theory, in addition to foreign historians and ethnographers, there were many domestic scientists. This cosmopolitanism, which is offensive to Russia, quite clearly demonstrates that for a long time the position of the Norman theory in science in general was strong and unshakable. Only in the second half of our century did Normanism lose its position in science. At this time, the standard is the statement that the Norman theory has no basis and is fundamentally wrong. However, both points of view must be supported by evidence. Throughout the entire struggle between Normanists and anti-Normanists, the first searched for this very evidence, often fabricating it, while others tried to prove the groundlessness of the guesses and theories derived by the Normanists.

Already knowing the correct resolution of the dispute, it is still not without interest to weigh the pros and cons and come to your own opinion on this issue.

According to the Norman theory, based not on a misinterpretation of Russian chronicles, Kievan Rus was created by the Swedish Vikings, subjugating the East Slavic tribes and constituting the ruling class of ancient Russian society, led by the Rurik princes. For two centuries, Russian-Scandinavian relations of the 9th-11th centuries. were the subject of heated debate between Normanists and anti-Normanists.

What was the stumbling block? Undoubtedly, an article in the Tale of Bygone Years, dated 6370, which translated into the generally accepted calendar is the year 862: In the summer of 6370. The Varangians were expelled overseas, and did not give them tribute, and they themselves became increasingly ill, and did not There was no truth in them, and generation after generation rose up, and began to fight against each other. And we decided within ourselves: “Let us look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us rightfully.” And I went to the Varangians, to Rus'; This place is called Varyazi Rui, as all the druzii are called Svie, but the druzii are Urmane, Anglyane, druzii Gate, tako and si. Decided to Russia Chud, and Sloveni, and Krivichi all: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it, let you go and rule over us.” And the 3 brothers were chosen from their clans, and girded all of Russia around them, and came to Sloven. the first, and cut down the city of Ladoga, and the old Rurik grew up in Ladoz, and the second, Sineus, on Bela Lake, and the third Izbrst, Truvor. And from those the Varangians were nicknamed the Russian Land..."

This excerpt from an article in PVL, taken on faith by a number of historians, laid the foundation for the construction of the Norman concept of the origin of the Russian state. The Norman theory contains two well-known points: firstly, the Normanists claim that the arriving Varangians practically created a state, which the local population was unable to do; and secondly, the Varangians had a huge cultural influence on the Eastern Slavs. The general meaning of the Norman theory is completely clear: the Scandinavians created the Russian people, gave them statehood and culture, while at the same time subjugating them to themselves.

Although this construction was first mentioned by the compiler of the chronicle and since then, for six centuries, has usually been included in all works on the history of Russia, it is well known that the Norman theory received official dissemination in the 30-40s of the 18th century during the “Bironovschina”, when many the highest positions at court were occupied by German nobles. Naturally, the entire first staff of the Academy of Sciences was staffed by German scientists. It is believed that the German scientists Bayer and Miller created this theory under the influence of the political situation. A little later, Schletzer developed this theory. Some Russian scientists, especially M.V. Lomonosov, immediately reacted to the publication of the theory. It must be assumed that this reaction was caused by a natural feeling of violated dignity. Indeed, any Russian person should have taken this theory as a personal insult and as an insult to the Russian nation, especially people like Lomonosov.

M.V. Lomonosov subjected with devastating criticism all the main provisions of the “anti-scientific concept of the genesis of Ancient Rus'.” The Old Russian state, according to Lomonosov, existed long before the calling of the Varangians-Russians in the form of disconnected tribal unions and separate principalities. The tribal unions of the southern and northern Slavs, who “considered themselves free without a monarchy,” in his opinion, were clearly burdened by any kind of power.

Noting the role of the Slavs in the development of world history and the fall of the Roman Empire, Lomonosov once again emphasizes the love of freedom of the Slavic tribes and their intolerant attitude towards any oppression. Thus, Lomonosov indirectly indicates that princely power did not always exist, but was a product of the historical development of Ancient Rus'. He showed this especially clearly in the example of ancient Novgorod, where “the Novgorodians refused tribute to the Varangians and began to govern themselves.”

However, during that period, the class contradictions that tore apart ancient Russian feudal society led to the fall of popular rule: the Novgorodians “fell into great strife and internecine wars, one clan rebelled against another to gain a majority.”

And it was at this moment of acute class contradictions that the Novgorodians (or rather, that part of the Novgorodians who won this struggle) turned to the Varangians with the following words: “Our land is great and abundant, but we have no outfit; let you come to us to reign and own us."

Focusing on this fact, Lomonosov emphasizes that it was not the weakness and inability of the Russians to govern, as the supporters of the Norman theory persistently tried to assert, but the class contradictions that were suppressed by the power of the Varangian squad were the reason for the calling of the Varangians.

In addition to Lomonosov, other Russian historians, including S. M. Solovyov, also refuted the Norman theory: “The Normans were not the dominant tribe, they only served the princes of the native tribes; many served only temporarily; those who remained in Rus' forever, due to their numerical insignificance, quickly merged with the natives, especially since in their national life they did not find any obstacles to this merger. Thus, at the beginning of Russian society there can be no talk of the domination of the Normans, of the Norman period."

It was then that the dispute over the Norman problem began. The catch is that opponents of the Norman concept could not refute the postulates of this theory due to the fact that they initially took the wrong positions, recognizing the reliability of the primary source chronicle story, and argued only about the ethnicity of the Slavs.

The Normanists insisted that the term “Rus” meant the Scandinavians, and their opponents were ready to accept any version, just not to give the Normanists a head start. Anti-Normanists were ready to talk about Lithuanians, Goths, Khazars and many other peoples. It is clear that with such an approach to solving the problem, the anti-Normanists could not count on victory in this dispute. As a result, by the end of the 19th century, a clearly protracted dispute led to a noticeable preponderance of the Normanists. The number of supporters of the Norman theory grew, and the polemics on the part of their opponents began to weaken. The Normanist Wilhelm Thomsen took the leading role in considering this issue. After his work “The Beginning of the Russian State” was published in Russia in 1891, where the main arguments in favor of the Norman theory were formulated with the greatest completeness and clarity, many Russian historians came to the conclusion that the Norman origin of Rus' can be considered proven. And although the anti-Normanists (Ilovaisky, Gedeonov) continued their polemics, the majority of representatives of official science took Normanist positions. In the scientific community, an idea was established about the victory of the Normanistic concept of the history of Ancient Rus' that occurred as a result of the publication of Thomsen’s work. Direct polemics against Normanism have almost ceased. So, A.E. Presnyakov believed that “the Normanist theory of the origin of the Russian state has firmly entered the inventory of scientific Russian history.” Presnyakov A.E. Wilhelm Thomsen about the most ancient period of Russian history. Also the main provisions of the Norman theory, i.e. the Norman conquest, the leading role of the Scandinavians in the creation of the Old Russian state was recognized by the overwhelming majority of Soviet scientists, in particular M.N. Pokrovsky and I.A. Rozhkov. According to the latter, in Rus' “the state was formed through the conquests made by Rurik and especially Oleg.” This statement perfectly illustrates the situation that developed in Russian science at that time - in fact, you couldn’t imagine a worse situation.

It should be noted that in the 18th - early 20th centuries, Western European historians recognized the thesis about the founding of Ancient Rus' by the Scandinavians, but did not specifically deal with this problem. For almost two centuries in the West there were only a few Norman scientists, except for the already mentioned V. Thomsen, one can name T. Arne. The situation changed only in the twenties of our century. Then interest in Russia, which had already become Soviet, increased sharply. This was also reflected in the interpretation of Russian history. Many works on the history of Russia began to be published. First of all, the book of the greatest scientist A.A. should be named. Shakhmatov, dedicated to the problems of the origin of the Slavs, the Russian people and the Russian state. Shakhmatov's attitude to the Norman problem has always been complex. Objectively, his works on the history of chronicling played an important role in the criticism of Normanism and undermined one of the foundations of Norman theory. Based on a textual analysis of the chronicle, he established the late and unreliable nature of the story about the calling of the Varangian princes. But at the same time, he, like the overwhelming majority of Russian scientists of that time, took a Normanist position! Within the framework of his construction, he tried to reconcile the contradictory testimony of the Primary Chronicle and non-Russian sources about the most ancient period of the history of Rus'. The emergence of statehood in Rus' seemed to Shakhmatov to be the successive appearance of three Scandinavian states in Eastern Europe and as a result of the struggle between them. Here we move on to a certain concept, clearly defined and somewhat more specific than those previously described. So, according to Shakhmatov, the first state of the Scandinavians was created by the Norman-Russians who came from overseas at the beginning of the 9th century in the Ilmen region, in the area of the future Staraya Russa. It was precisely this that was the “Russian Khaganate”, known from the entry of 839 in the Vertinsky annals. From here, in the 840s, Norman Russia moved south, to the Dnieper region, and created a second Norman state there, with its center in Kyiv. In the 860s, the northern East Slavic tribes rebelled and expelled the Normans and Rus', and then invited a new Varangian army from Sweden, which created a third Norman-Varangian state led by Rurik. Thus, we see that the Varangians, the second wave of Scandinavian newcomers, began to fight against Norman Russia, which had previously arrived in Eastern Europe; The Varangian army was victorious, uniting the Novgorod and Kyiv lands into one Varangian state, which took the name “Rus” from the defeated Kyiv Normans. Shakhmatov derived the very name “Rus” from the Finnish word “ruotsi” - a designation for the Swedes and Sweden. On the other hand, V.A. Parkhomenko showed that the hypothesis expressed by Shakhmatov is too complex, far-fetched and far from the factual basis of written sources.

Also, a major Normanist work that appeared in our historiography in the 20s was P.P. Smirnov’s book “The Volga Road and the Ancient Russes.” Widely using the news of Arab writers of the 9th-11th centuries, Smirnov began to look for the place of origin of the Old Russian state not on the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” as was done by all previous historians, but on the Volga route from the Baltic along the Volga to the Caspian Sea. According to Smirnov’s concept, in the Middle Volga in the first half of the 9th century. The first state created by Russia took shape - the “Russian Kaganate”. In the Middle Volga, Smirnov searched for the “three centers of Rus'” mentioned in Arab sources of the 9th-10th centuries. In the middle of the 9th century, unable to withstand the onslaught of the Ugrians, the Norman Rus from the Volga region went to Sweden and from there, after the “calling of the Varangians,” they again moved to Eastern Europe, this time to the Novgorod land. The new construction turned out to be original, but not convincing and was not supported even by supporters of the Norman school.

Further, cardinal changes occurred in the development of the dispute between supporters of the Norman theory and anti-Normanists. This was caused by a certain surge in the activity of anti-Normanist teachings, which occurred at the turn of the 30s. Scientists of the old school were replaced by scientists of the younger generation. But until the mid-30s, the majority of historians retained the idea that the Norman question had long been resolved in the Norman spirit. Archaeologists were the first to come up with anti-Normanist ideas, directing their criticism against the provisions of the concept of the Swedish archaeologist T. Arne, who published his work “Sweden and the East”. Archaeological research by Russian archaeologists in the 30s produced materials that contradict Arne’s concept. An important role in this was played by the criterion developed by Soviet archaeologists for resolving the issue of the ethnicity of funerary monuments. It was found that the decisive point is not the presence of certain things in the burial, but the entire burial complex as a whole. This approach allowed V.I. Ravdonikas, on the basis of excavations of burial mounds in the South-Eastern Ladoga region carried out in the late 20s, criticized Arne’s statements about the existence of Noman colonies in this area and established that the burial grounds belonged to the local Baltic-Finnish tribe. A.V. Artsikhovsky criticized the Normanists' claim about the existence of Norman colonies in the Suzdal and Smolensk lands, showing that here, too, most Scandinavian things were found in funerary monuments in which the burial was carried out not according to Scandinavian, but according to local custom.

The theory of Norman colonization of Russian lands, which Arne based on archaeological material, received, oddly enough, support from linguists in subsequent decades. An attempt was made, by analyzing the toponymy of the Novgorod land, to confirm the existence of a significant number of Norman colonies in these places. This newest Normanist construction was subjected to critical analysis by E.A. Rydzevskaya, who expressed the opinion that when studying this problem it is important to take into account not only interethnic, but also social relations in Rus'. However, these critical speeches have not yet changed the overall picture. The named scientist, as well as other Russian researchers, opposed individual Norman positions, and not against the entire theory as a whole.

In the mid-30s, scientists first developed the “Marxist concept” of the emergence of class society and the state in the East Slavic lands. It was established that the emergence of the Old Russian state was the result of a centuries-long process of socio-economic development of the Eastern Slavs and a consequence of deep internal changes that took place in East Slavic society in the 9th-10th centuries. Within the framework of this concept, there was no place for the Varangians, the creators of Russian statehood. As B.D. Grekov pointed out: “at the modern level of science it is no longer possible to say with old naive views that the state can be created by individual people in a certain year,” “... the state in no way represents a force from the outside imposed on society, but is only a product of a long internal process of development of society." - this quote from the classic of Marxism F. Engels absolutely accurately reflects the point of view of Marxist teaching.

The classics of Marxism established that the state “... is a machine for maintaining the dominance of one class over another,” is created only when within a given country, as a result of the decomposition of the primitive communal system, society disintegrates into classes and an economically strong class is formed, striving to subordinate the main one. masses of the population to establish their class rule. Therefore, we could only talk about some degree of participation of the Normans in the grandiose shifts that took place in Rus' in the 9th-10th centuries.

The provisions of the classics of Marxism were the necessary basis for the development of the Soviet concept of the origin of the Old Russian state, which dealt a decisive blow to the Norman theory. It is noteworthy that even the scientists themselves who developed it did not immediately realize that this concept undermines the foundations on which the teachings of the Normanists are based.

After the completion of fundamental shifts in Russian historiography, V.A. was the first to directly criticize the main provisions of the Norman theory. Parkhomenko. He analyzed the main arguments of the Norman school and showed that these arguments are not based on a serious analysis of the entire set of sources, and therefore are completely unconvincing.

Already by the forties, the positions of Russian scientists on the Norman survey were formulated by M.I. Artamonov: the Varangians penetrated Rus' early, but they stood at the same stage of social and cultural development as the Eastern Slavs, and therefore could not bring either a higher culture or statehood to Rus'; they only joined the local process of state formation. Yes, Marxist science recognizes that in the 9th-10th centuries, as evidenced by reliable sources, mercenary detachments of Norman warriors who served the Russian princes, as well as Norman merchants who traveled for trading purposes along the waterways of Eastern Europe, repeatedly appeared in Russian lands. However, based on the entire set of written, archaeological and folklore and some other sources, Marxist science argues that the formation of class society, the formation of the ancient Russian state, the beginning of the development of feudal relations, the formation of the Russian people and its material and spiritual culture are the result of deep and long-term processes of internal development East Slavic society, without significant influence from the Normans. The process of the emergence of statehood in Rus' was also studied in the forties by V.V. Mavrodin, in particular, considered the issue of the participation of the Normans in the formation of the state in Rus'. Although the author acknowledged the participation of the Normans in this process, recorded by many sources, he at the same time showed the rather limited nature of this participation. The book recognized the Norman origin of the princely dynasty, but at the same time indicated that the dynasty “therefore stayed in Rus'... quickly merged with the Russian, Slavic ruling elite” and began to fight for its interests. At the same time, it should be noted that the text of the monograph contained several formulations that exaggerated the role of the Normans in the process of formation of the Old Russian state.

In the post-war years, the anti-Normanist movement developed. First of all, these are articles by B.D. Grekov with criticism of the Normanist works of T. Arne and the Finnish philologist V. Kiparsky: “On the role of the Varangians in the history of Rus'” and “Anti-scientific fabrications of the Finnish “professor”, the latter of which was published in 1950.

Even more detailed criticism of the Norman theory was contained in the works of S.V. Yushkov.

At the same time, there were some shortcomings in our historiography in the first post-war decade. Some scientists, polemicizing with the Normanists, generally denied everything connected with the activities of the Normans in Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. Things went to the other extreme: some historians generally denied the scientific nature of the Norman theory. For example, according to V.P. Shusharina, at present the Norman theory “...has become a means of falsifying history, that is, it has become a concept lying outside science.” Fortunately, there was another point of view, presented, in particular, by Shaskolsky: the Norman theory is “... a scientific theory based on a long scientific tradition, and criticism of this theory should be in the nature of a serious, deeply substantiated scientific polemic.” Accept the Norman theory only as someone’s malicious intent and a phenomenon without any basis, then, when science has already begun the inevitable process of exposing it, it would be at least stupid - after all, there were real written sources on which supporters of Normanism relied.

A general presentation of the Norman problem from the standpoint of Soviet science is given in the book by V.V. Mavrodina. The author re-critically analyzed the argumentation of the Normanists, noted all the basic information from sources testifying to various forms of participation of the Normans in the formation of the state in Rus', but at the same time showed the limited nature of this participation in the grandiose process of the emergence of the state in Eastern Europe, which was the result of centuries-old social development Eastern Slavs.

In general, what happened in science happened what should have happened: the polemics of Soviet science with Normanism began to be restructured, from the struggle with the scientific constructions of the last century they began to move on to specific criticism of currently existing and developing Normanist concepts, to criticism of modern Normanism as one of the main trends of foreign Sciences.

By that time, there were four main theories in Norman historiography:

1). Conquest theory: The Old Russian state was, according to this theory, created by the Normans, who conquered the East Slavic lands and established their dominance over the local population. This is the oldest and most beneficial point of view for the Normanists, since it is precisely this that proves the “second-class” nature of the Russian nation.

2). The theory of Norman colonization, owned by T. Arne. It was he who proved the existence of Scandinavian colonies in Ancient Rus'. Normanists argue that the Varangian colonies were the real basis for establishing Norman rule over the Eastern Slavs.

3). The theory of the political connection of the Kingdom of Sweden with the Russian state. Of all the theories, this theory stands apart because of its fantastic nature, not supported by any facts. This theory also belongs to T. Arne and can only claim to be a not very successful joke, since it is simply made up from the head.

4). A theory that recognized the class structure of Ancient Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. and the ruling class as created by the Varangians. According to it, the upper class in Rus' was created by the Varangians and consisted of them. The creation of a ruling class by the Normans is considered by most authors as a direct result of the Norman conquest of Rus'. A proponent of this idea was A. Stender-Petersen. He argued that the appearance of the Normans in Rus' gave impetus to the development of statehood. The Normans are a necessary external “impulse”, without which the state in Rus' would never have arisen.

To prove or, conversely, disprove one or another theory presented, evidence is undoubtedly needed. Let's try to look at some aspects of the problem in more detail. Any of the facts given below, one way or another connected with the topic of the Varangians in Rus', plays into the hands of anti-Normanists and each of them proves the inconsistency of the Norman theory.

For example, the origin and meaning of the term "Rus". Philologists from Europe - Ekblom, Stender-Petersen, Falk, Ekbu, Mägiste, as well as historians Pashkevich and Dreyer tried to establish and strengthen the construction according to which “Rus” comes from “ruotsi” - the word with which the Finns call the Swedes and Sweden. “Rus” in the sense of “Russian state” meant the state of the Swedes-Rus. Pashkevich said that “Rus” are Normans from Eastern Europe. G. Vernadsky opposed these constructions, saying that the term “Rus” is of southern Russian origin, and that “rukhs” are Alan tribes of the southern steppes of the mid-1st millennium AD. The word “Rus” denoted the strong political association Rus that existed long before the appearance of the Varangians, which carried out military campaigns on the Black Sea coast. If we turn to the written sources of that time - Byzantine, Arabic, we can see that they consider Rus' one of the local peoples of southeastern Europe. Also, some sources call it, and this is especially important, Slavs. The identification of the concepts of “Rus” and “Normans” in the chronicle, which the Normanists emphasized, turned out to be a later insertion.

The situation is similar for another main point of the Norman theory—the origin of the word “Varangians.” Among the various hypotheses, there is one that assumes not the Scandinavian origin of this term, but Russian. Back in the 17th century. S. Herberstein drew parallels between the name “Varangians” and the name of one of the Baltic Slavic tribes, the Vargs. This idea was developed by Lomonosov, and later by Svistun. The general meaning of their hypotheses boils down to the fact that the “Varangians” are aliens from the Baltic lands who were hired to serve the East Slavic princes. If we proceed from the correctness of these hypotheses, it becomes unclear where the word “Varangians” came from in the chronicles. It is clear that looking for it in the Scandinavian sagas is completely pointless.

More than fifty scientists have been studying the problem of Scandinavian borrowings in the Russian language for two centuries. The Normanists wanted to show that many objects and concepts in the Russian language are of Scandinavian origin. Especially for this, the Swedish philologist K. Törnqvist did a huge job of searching for and sifting out Scandinavian borrowings from the Russian language. The result was completely disappointing. A total of 115 words were found, the vast majority of which are dialects of the 19th century, not used in our time. Only thirty are obvious borrowings, of which only ten can be cited as proof of the Norman theory. These are words such as “gridin”, “tiun”, “yabetnik”, “Brkovsk”, “pud”. Words such as “narov”, “syaga”, “shgla” are used once in the sources. The conclusion is obvious. With exactly the same success, researcher A. Backlund tried to prove the presence of Scandinavian names on the territory of the Russian state. Another basis of Norman teaching is Scandinavian toponymy on the territory of Rus'. Such toponyms were studied in the works of M. Farsmer and E. Rydzevskaya. Between them they identified 370 toponyms and hydronyms. A lot of? But at that time there were 60,000 settlements in the explored territory. Simple calculations show that for every 1000 names of settlements there are 7 Scandinavian ones. This is too funny a figure to talk about Varangian expansion. Scandinavian names of settlements and rivers rather speak of trade relations.

Supporters of the Norman theory also focused on the abundance of Scandinavian words in the Russian language. This concerned the field of hydronymy: the concepts of “lahta” (bay), “motka” (path), “voloknema” (cape), “sora” (branching) and some others seemed Varangian. However, it has been proven that these words are of local, Finnish origin.

In general, if you carefully analyze all the data that seems to support the Norman theory, they will certainly turn against it. In addition, the Normanists use different sources than the anti-Normanists, and most of these sources are Western, for example, the three lives of Otgon of Bamberg. Such sources are often falsified and biased. Sources that can be taken on faith - Byzantine, for example, clearly indicate that Rus' should not be confused with the Varangians; Rus' is mentioned earlier than the Varangians; Russian princes and squads prayed either to Perun or to Christ, but not to the Scandinavian gods. Also trustworthy are the works of Photius and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, which say nothing about the calling of the Varangians to Rus'.

The same can be said about Arab sources, although at first the Normanists managed to turn them in their favor. These sources speak of the Russians as a tall, fair-haired people. Indeed, one might think of the Russians as Scandinavians, but these ethnographic conclusions are very shaky. Some features in customs point to the Slavs.

The totality of all sources boldly suggests the inconsistency of the Norman theory. In addition to this irrefutable evidence, there are many others, such as evidence of the Slavic origin of the names of the Dnieper rapids, and some archaeological data. All these facts debunk the Norman theory.

Conclusion

So, we can say that the Norman theory was defeated under the pressure of Russian scientists. Consequently, before the arrival of the Varangians, Rus' was already a state, perhaps still primitive, not fully formed. But it also cannot be denied that the Scandinavians sufficiently influenced Rus', including statehood. The first Russian princes, who were Scandinavians, nevertheless introduced a lot of new things into the management system (for example, the first truth in Rus' was the Varangian).

However, without a doubt, the influence of the Scandinavians on Rus' was quite significant. It could have occurred not only as a result of close communication between the Scandinavians and Slavs, but simply because all the first princes in Rus', and therefore the legitimate government, were Varangians. Consequently, the first truth in Rus' was Varangian.

In addition to legislation and statehood, the Scandinavians bring with them military science and shipbuilding. Could the Slavs on their boats sail to Constantinople and capture it, plow the Black Sea? Constantinople is captured by Oleg, the Varangian king, with his retinue, but he is now a Russian prince, which means his ships are now Russian ships, and most likely these are not only ships that came from the Varangian sea, but also those cut down here in Rus'. The Varangians brought to Rus' the skills of navigation, sailing, navigation by the stars, the science of handling weapons, and military science.

Of course, thanks to the Scandinavians, trade is developing in Rus'. At the beginning, Gardarik is just some settlements on the way of the Scandinavians to Byzantium, then the Varangians begin to trade with the natives, some settle here - some become princes, some warriors, some remain traders. Subsequently, the Slavs and Varangians together continue their journey “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” Thus, thanks to its Varangian princes, Rus' first appears on the world stage and takes part in world trade. And not only.

Already Princess Olga understands how important it is to declare Rus' among other states, and her grandson, Prince Vladimir, finishes what she started by carrying out the Baptism of Rus', thereby transferring Rus' from the era of barbarism, from which other states had long since emerged, into the Middle Ages.

And although the Norman theory did not receive absolute historical confirmation, with the arrival of the Scandinavians in Rus', the following appeared: shipbuilding, sailing, navigation, navigation by the stars, expansion of trade relations, military affairs, jurisprudence, laws.

The conclusion from all of the above is the following: it can be assumed that the role of the Normans in Rus' in the first period of their appearance on the territory of the Eastern Slavs (until the third quarter of the 10th century) was different than in the subsequent period. At first, this is the role of merchants who know foreign countries well, then warriors, navigators, and sailors.

A glorified Scandinavian dynasty was called to the throne, apparently glorified in the second half of the 9th century or at the time of Oleg’s arrival in Kyiv. The opinion that the Normans played the same role in Rus' as the conquistadors in America is fundamentally erroneous. The Normans gave impetus to economic and social transformations in Ancient Rus' - this statement also has no basis.

Thus, the role of the Varangians in the development of the state is minimal, and the Norman theory is fundamentally incorrect.

Formation of the Old Russian state (briefly)

The prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state were the collapse of tribal ties and the development of a new method of production. The Old Russian state took shape in the process of the development of feudal relations, the emergence of class contradictions and coercion.

Among the Slavs, a dominant layer gradually formed, the basis of which was the military Nobility of the Kyiv princes - the squad. Already in the 9th century, strengthening the position of their princes, the warriors firmly occupied leading positions in society.

It was in the 9th century. In Eastern Europe, two ethnopolitical associations were formed, which ultimately became the basis of the state. It was formed as a result of the unification of the glades with the center in Kyiv.

Slavs, Krivichi and Finnish-speaking tribes united in the area of Lake Ilmen (center in Novgorod). In the middle of the 9th century. this association began to be ruled by a native of Scandinavia, Rurik (862-879). Therefore, the year 862 is considered the year of formation of the ancient Russian state.

The presence of Scandinavians (Varangians) on the territory of Rus' is confirmed by archaeological excavations and records in chronicles. In the 18th century German scientists G.F. Miller and G.Z. Bayer proved the Scandinavian theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state (Rus).

M.V. Lomonosov, denying the Norman (Varangian) origin of statehood, associated the word “Rus” with the Sarmatians-Roxolans, the Ros River, flowing in the south.

Lomonosov, relying on “The Legend of the Princes of Vladimir,” argued that Rurik, being a native of Prussia, belonged to the Slavs, which were the Prussians. It was this “southern” anti-Norman theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state that was supported and developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. historians.

The first mentions of Rus' are attested in the “Bavarian Chronograph” and date back to the period 811-821. In it, the Russians are mentioned as a people within the Khazars inhabiting Eastern Europe. In the 9th century Rus' was perceived as an ethnopolitical entity on the territory of the glades and northerners.

Rurik, who took control of Novgorod, sent his squad led by Askold and Dir to rule Kiev. Rurik's successor, Varangian Prince Oleg(879-912), who took possession of Smolensk and Lyubech, subjugated all the Krivichi to his power, and in 882 he fraudulently lured Askold and Dir out of Kyiv and killed them. Having captured Kyiv, he managed to unite by force of his power the two most important centers of the Eastern Slavs - Kyiv and Novgorod. Oleg subjugated the Drevlyans, Northerners and Radimichi.

In 907, Oleg, having gathered a huge army of Slavs and Finns, launched a campaign against Constantinople (Constantinople), the capital of the Byzantine Empire. The Russian squad devastated the surrounding area and forced the Greeks to ask Oleg for peace and pay a huge tribute. The result of this campaign was peace treaties with Byzantium that were very beneficial for Rus', concluded in 907 and 911.

Oleg died in 912, and his successor was Igor(912-945), son of Rurik. In 941 he attacked Byzantium, which violated the previous treaty. Igor's army plundered the shores of Asia Minor, but was defeated in a naval battle. Then in 945, in alliance with the Pechenegs, he launched a new campaign against Constantinople and forced the Greeks to once again conclude a peace treaty. In 945, while trying to collect a second tribute from the Drevlyans, Igor was killed.

Igor's widow Duchess Olga(945-957) ruled due to the childhood of his son Svyatoslav. She brutally took revenge for the murder of her husband by ravaging the lands of the Drevlyans. Olga organized the sizes and places of collecting tribute. In 955 she visited Constantinople and was baptized into Orthodoxy.

Svyatoslav(957-972) - the bravest and most influential of the princes, who subjugated the Vyatichi to his power. In 965 he inflicted a number of heavy defeats on the Khazars. Svyatoslav defeated the North Caucasian tribes, as well as the Volga Bulgarians, and plundered their capital, the Bulgars. The Byzantine government sought an alliance with him to fight external enemies.

Kyiv and Novgorod became the center of formation of the ancient Russian state, and the East Slavic tribes, northern and southern, united around them. In the 9th century both of these groups united into a single ancient Russian state, which went down in history as Rus'.

The emergence of the Old Russian state is traditionally associated with the unification of the Ilmen region and the Dnieper region as a result of the campaign against Kiev by the Novgorod prince Oleg in 882. Having killed Askold and Dir, who reigned in Kiev, Oleg began to rule on behalf of the young son of Prince Rurik - Igor.

The formation of the state was the result of long and complex processes that took place over vast areas of the East European Plain in the second half of the 1st millennium AD.

By the 7th century East Slavic tribal unions settled in its vastness, the names and location of which are known to historians from the ancient Russian chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years” by the Monk Nestor (11th century). These are the glades (along the western bank of the Dnieper), the Drevlyans (to the northwest of them), the Ilmen Slovenes (along the banks of Lake Ilmen and the Volkhov River), the Krivichi (in the upper reaches of the Dnieper, Volga and Western Dvina), the Vyatichi (along the banks of the Oka), northerners (along the Desna), etc. The northern neighbors of the eastern Slavs were the Finns, the western - the Balts, the southeastern - the Khazars. Trade routes were of great importance in their early history, one of which connected Scandinavia and Byzantium (the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” from the Gulf of Finland along the Neva, Lake Ladoga, Volkhov, Lake Ilmen to the Dnieper and the Black Sea), and the other connected the Volga regions with the Caspian Sea and Persia.

Nestor cites the famous story about the calling of the Varangian (Scandinavian) princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor by the Ilmen Slovenes: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it: come reign and rule over us.” Rurik accepted the offer and in 862 he reigned in Novgorod (that is why the monument “Millennium of Russia” was erected in Novgorod in 1862). Many historians of the 18th-19th centuries. were inclined to understand these events as evidence that statehood was brought to Rus' from the outside and the Eastern Slavs were unable to create their own state on their own (Norman theory). Modern researchers recognize this theory as untenable. They pay attention to the following:

- Nestor’s story proves that the Eastern Slavs by the middle of the 9th century. there were bodies that were the prototype of state institutions (prince, squad, meeting of tribal representatives - the future veche);

- the Varangian origin of Rurik, as well as Oleg, Igor, Olga, Askold, Dir is indisputable, but the invitation of a foreigner as a ruler is an important indicator of the maturity of the prerequisites for the formation of a state. The tribal union is aware of its common interests and tries to resolve contradictions between individual tribes with the calling of a prince standing above local differences. The Varangian princes, surrounded by a strong and combat-ready squad, led and completed the processes leading to the formation of the state;

- large tribal super-unions, which included several tribal unions, developed among the Eastern Slavs already in the 8th-9th centuries. — around Novgorod and around Kyiv; — external factors played an important role in the formation of the Ancient Tehran state: threats coming from outside (Scandinavia, Khazar Khaganate) pushed for unity;

— the Varangians, having given Rus' a ruling dynasty, quickly assimilated and merged with the local Slavic population;

— as for the name “Rus”, its origin continues to cause controversy. Some historians associate it with Scandinavia, others find its roots in the East Slavic environment (from the Ros tribe, who lived along the Dnieper). Other opinions are also expressed on this matter.

At the end of the 9th - beginning of the 11th century. The Old Russian state was going through a period of formation. The formation of its territory and composition was actively underway. Oleg (882-912) subjugated the tribes of the Drevlyans, Northerners and Radimichi to Kyiv, Igor (912-945) successfully fought with the Streets, Svyatoslav (964-972) with the Vyatichi. During the reign of Prince Vladimir (980-1015), the Volynians and Croats were subjugated, and power over the Radimichi and Vyatichi was confirmed. In addition to the East Slavic tribes, the Old Russian state included Finno-Ugric peoples (Chud, Merya, Muroma, etc.). The degree of independence of the tribes from the Kyiv princes was quite high.

For a long time, the only indicator of submission to the authorities of Kyiv was the payment of tribute. Until 945, it was carried out in the form of polyudya: the prince and his squad from November to April traveled around the territories under their control and collected tribute. The murder of Prince Igor in 945 by the Drevlyans, who tried to collect a second tribute that exceeded the traditional level, forced his wife Princess Olga to introduce lessons (the amount of tribute) and establish graveyards (places where tribute was to be taken). This was the first example known to historians of how the princely government approved new norms that were mandatory for ancient Russian society.

Important functions of the Old Russian state, which it began to perform from the moment of its inception, were also protecting the territory from military raids (in the 9th - early 11th centuries these were mainly raids by the Khazars and Pechenegs) and pursuing an active foreign policy (campaigns against Byzantium in 907, 911, 944, 970, Russian-Byzantine treaties of 911 and 944, the defeat of the Khazar Khaganate in 964-965, etc.).

The period of formation of the Old Russian state ended with the reign of Prince Vladimir I the Holy, or Vladimir the Red Sun. Under him, Christianity was adopted from Byzantium (see ticket No. 3), a system of defensive fortresses was created on the southern borders of Rus', and the so-called ladder system of transfer of power was finally formed. The order of succession was determined by the principle of seniority in the princely family. Vladimir, having taken the throne of Kiev, placed his eldest sons in the largest Russian cities. The most important reign after Kyiv - Novgorod - was transferred to his eldest son. In the event of the death of the eldest son, his place was to be taken by the next in seniority, all other princes were moved to more important thrones. During the life of the Kyiv prince, this system worked flawlessly. After his death, as a rule, there followed a more or less long period of struggle by his sons for the reign of Kiev.

The heyday of the Old Russian state occurred during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054) and his sons. It includes the oldest part of the Russian Pravda - the first monument of written law that has come down to us (“Russian Law,” information about which dates back to Oleg’s reign, has not been preserved either in the original or in copies). Russian Truth regulated relations in the princely economy - the patrimony. Its analysis allows historians to talk about the existing system of government: the Kiev prince, like the local princes, is surrounded by a squad, the top of which are called boyars and with whom he consults on the most important issues (the Duma, the permanent council under the prince). From among the warriors, mayors are appointed to manage cities, governors, tributaries (collectors of land taxes), mytniki (collectors of trade duties), tiuns (administrators of princely estates), etc. Russian Pravda contains valuable information about ancient Russian society. It was based on the free rural and urban population (people). There were slaves (servants, serfs), farmers dependent on the prince (zakup, ryadovichi, smerds - historians do not have a common opinion about the situation of the latter).

Yaroslav the Wise pursued an energetic dynastic policy, tying his sons and daughters by marriage with the ruling families of Hungary, Poland, France, Germany, etc.

Yaroslav died in 1054, before 1074. his sons managed to coordinate their actions. At the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. The power of the Kyiv princes weakened, individual principalities acquired increasing independence, the rulers of which tried to agree with each other on cooperation in the fight against the new - Polovtsian - threat. Tendencies towards the fragmentation of a single state intensified as its individual regions grew richer and stronger (for more details, see ticket No. 2). The last Kyiv prince who managed to stop the collapse of the Old Russian state was Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125). After the death of the prince and the death of his son Mstislav the Great (1125-1132), the fragmentation of Rus' became a fait accompli.

The Norman theory is a complex of scientific ideas, according to which it was the Scandinavians (i.e., “Varangians”), being called upon to rule Russia, who laid the first foundations of statehood there. In accordance with the Norman theory, some Western and Russian scientists raise the question not about the influence of the Varangians on the already formed Slavic tribes, but about the influence of the Varangians on the very origin of Rus' as a developed, strong and independent state.

However, until the sixties of the 19th century, the Norman school could be considered unconditionally dominant, since only a few objections were raised against it (Ewers in 1808). During this time, the most prominent representatives of Normanism were Karamzin, Krug, Pogodin, Kunik, Safarik and Miklosic. However, since 1859, opposition to Normanism arose with new, unprecedented force. The reason is most likely political; Russia is trying to present itself among European nations as a state with its own history. This was required by Russia's emerging international political ambitions and growing internal problems. The relatively young Russian nobility demanded “historical endurance,” that is, they laid claim to being noble in order to become equal to the European aristocrats, or at least somehow get closer. Serfdom also required its explanation, because it did not exist in Europe and the large Russian army, having marched through European countries, following Napoleon’s army, saw this.

M.V. Lomonosov subjected with devastating criticism all the main provisions of this “anti-scientific concept of the genesis of Ancient Rus'.” The Old Russian state, according to Lomonosov, existed long before the calling of the Varangians-Russians in the form of disconnected tribal unions and separate principalities. The tribal unions of the southern and northern Slavs, who “considered themselves free without a monarchy,” in his opinion, were clearly burdened by any kind of power.

Like this - “the state existed, but in the form of separate disunited principalities” (there was a car, but in the form of scattered incompatible spare parts!!!). You couldn’t say anything more absurd, but this absurdity turned out to be in demand and accepted. No less absurd is Lomonosov’s pretentious assertion that the Russians were burdened by any kind of power and considered themselves free. It’s absurd because this is said by a representative of a country in which the basis of the state is serfdom.

In addition to legislation and statehood, the Scandinavians bring with them military science and shipbuilding. Could the Slavs on their boats sail to Constantinople and try to capture it, plow the Black Sea? Constantinople captures (in history the fact of the capture of Constantinople is not confirmed, only the fact of a raid on the suburb is noted) Oleg is a Varangian king, with his retinue, but he is now a Russian prince, which means his ships are now Russian ships, and for sure these are not only the ships that came from the Varangian Sea, but also felled here in Russia. The Varangians brought to Rus' the skills of navigation, sailing, navigation by the stars, the science of handling weapons, and military science.

And although the Norman theory did not receive absolute historical confirmation, with the arrival of the Scandinavians in Rus' the following appeared:

Shipbuilding;

Sail handling, navigation;

Stellar navigation;

Expansion of trade relations;

Warfare;

Jurisprudence, laws.

It was the Scandinavians who put Rus' on the same level of development as other developed countries.

In 862, to stop civil strife, the tribes of the Eastern Slavs (Krivichi and Ilmen Slovenes) and Finno-Ugrians (Ves and Chud) turned to the Varangians-Rus with a proposal to take the princely throne.

The chronicles do not say where the Varangians were called from. It is possible to roughly localize the place of residence of Rus' on the coast of the Baltic Sea (“from beyond the sea”, “the path to the Varangians along the Dvina”). In addition, the Varangians-Rus are placed on a par with the Scandinavian peoples: Swedes, Normans (Norwegians), Angles (Danes) and Goths (residents of the island of Gotland - modern Swedes)

Later chronicles replace the term Varangians with the pseudo-ethnonym “Germans,” uniting the peoples of Germany and Scandinavia.

Rurik (Rorik), Askold, Dir, Oleg (Helgi), Igor (Ingwar), Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid. The names of Prince Igor and his wife Olga in Greek transcription according to synchronous Byzantine sources (the works of Constantine Porphyrogenitus) are phonetically close to the Scandinavian sound (Ingor, Helga).

Archaeological evidence

The Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan in 922 described in detail the funeral ritual of a noble Russian - burning in a boat followed by the construction of a mound. He witnessed this ritual when he observed Russian traders on the Upper Volga, where he arrived with an official embassy to the ruler of Volga Bulgaria. The belonging of the burial rite in the boat to the Scandinavians is now beyond doubt among either domestic or European archaeologists. In the territory of Eastern Europe, no other peoples knew such a ritual during the Viking Age.

On the territory of Ancient Rus', the Scandinavian rite of burial in a boat was recorded at the Plakun burial ground in Staraya Ladoga, in Gnezdovo, Timerevo and in the South-Eastern Ladoga region. These burials date back to the second half of the 9th – first half of the 10th centuries.