It is hardly possible anywhere in the world to find a people or a fairly ancient political entity whose origin would be unambiguously recognized by the public and historians. On the one hand, this is due to 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 exalt your homeland, ascribe to it a heroic history. One of the fundamental topics 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 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 old Russian state
Kievan Rus as a political centralized formation, as all authoritative sources confirm, appeared in the second half of the 9th century. Since the inception of historical science in Russia, there have been very different theories of the origin of the ancient Russian state. Various researchers tried to find the origins of Russian statehood in the Iranian elements (we are talking about the tribes of Scythians and Sarmatians who lived here once), both Celtic and Baltic (this group of peoples in the early Middle Ages was still closely related to the Slavs). However, the most popular and most justified have always been only two very opposing views on this issue: the Norman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state and the anti-Norman, its antagonist. Norman theory was first formulated long 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 Schletser. The foundation for the construction of Norman theory was a line from the famous chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years." Nestor described the origin of the old Russian state as a merit of the Varangian king Rurik and his army, which became the first military and palace elite in Russia. According to the document, the
Slavic tribes fought with certain Russians and managed to expel them from their lands. But after this a period of unrest and bloody feuds in the Slavic lands followed. This made them turn to the Rus again and call them to reign over the sea: "Our land is rich, but there is no order in it ...". In this story, German historians identified mysterious Russians with Scandinavian kings. This was confirmed by archaeological finds, then and later. The Varangians really were present on these lands in the 9th-10th centuries. And the names of the
first Kiev princes and their retinue were almost entirely of Scandinavian origin. Some Arab travelers also identified Rus and Scandinavians in their notes. Based on all these facts, the Norman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state was born. She really had a fairly solid justification and for many years was considered unshakable.
Version of the anti-Normanists
However, the very fact of calling for the reign of the overseas kings meant that the Slavs themselves were simply unable to form their own state in the Middle Ages, as other European peoples managed to do. Such an idea could not but cause indignation among patriotic intellectuals. The first who was able to reasonably resist German scientists and point out flaws in their theory was the famous Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. In his opinion, the identification of the Russians should not have been with foreigners, but with the local population. He pointed to the names of local rivers: Ros, Rosava. Varangians,
mentioned in the ancient chronicles, were (according to Lomonosov) not Scandinavians at all, but Slavs, which today are known to historians as wagra. Over time, anti-Norman history gained momentum. However, the Normanists have maintained their position over the centuries. In the first decades of the existence of the Soviet state, Norman theory was declared harmful and unpatriotic, which literally meant a veto on its further development. At the same time, the development of the
methodology of history and archaeological opportunities gave a lot to anti-Normans. It was discovered that a number of foreign travelers of the 9th century called the Slavs Russians. In addition, the emergence of state structures was still in pre-Kiev time. An important argument was that the Scandinavians at that time did not create a state, even in their homeland.
conclusions
Since the 1950s, both theories have been developing quite freely again. A pile of new knowledge and facts, primarily archaeological, has demonstrated that it is impossible to completely abandon all ideas of the Norman theory. Perhaps the last significant point in this dispute was the book of Leo Klein, "The dispute about the Vikings." It describes the whole genesis of the development of discussions between the parties, a detailed analysis of the arguments and sources. The truth was, as always, somewhere in the middle. Vikings, being experienced fighters and merchants, often appeared in Slavic lands and had very close contacts with the local population. They had an important and undeniable influence on the formation of state structures here, bringing innovative ideas from all over the continent. However, the emergence of Kievan Rus is not possible without the internal readiness of the Slavic society itself. Thus, it is very likely that the Scandinavians were the first Russian princes (for the Middle Ages this was not at all an amazing fact), but their role should not be overestimated.