History claims that the first Slavic states arose in the period dated to the 5th century AD. Around this time, the Slavs migrated to the banks of the Dnieper River. It was here that they divided into two historical branches: eastern and Balkan. Eastern tribes settled along the Dnieper, and the Balkan - occupied the Balkan Peninsula. Slavic states in the modern world occupy a vast territory in Europe and Asia. The peoples who live in them are becoming less and less alike, but common roots can be seen in everything from traditions and language to such a fashionable term as mentality.
The question of the emergence of statehood among the Slavs has been worrying scientists for many years. Quite a few theories have been put forward, each of which may not be devoid of logic. But in order to make up your mind about this, you need to familiarize yourself with at least the basic ones.
How the states arose among the Slavs: assumptions about the Vikings
If we talk about the history of the emergence of statehood among the ancient Slavs in these territories, then scientists usually rely on several theories that I would like to consider. The most common version to date of when the first Slavic states arose is considered to be the Norman or Varangian theory. It arose at the end of the 18th century in Germany. Two German scientists became the founders and ideological inspirers: Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738) and Gerhard Friedrich Miller (1705-1783).
In their opinion, the history of the Slavic states has Nordic or Varangian roots. This conclusion was made by pundits, having thoroughly studied the "Tale of Bygone Years" - the oldest opus created by the monk Nestor. There really is a link dated to the year 862 to the fact that the ancient Slavic tribes (Krivichi, Slovenes and Chud) called into their lands for the reign of the Varangian princes. Allegedly, tired of the endless internecine strife and enemy raids from the outside, several Slavic tribes decided to unite under the leadership of the Normans, who at that time were considered the most experienced and successful in Europe.
In the old days, the formation of any state formation, the military experience of its leadership was in higher priority than economic. But no one doubted the power and experience of the northern barbarians. Their combat units raided almost the entire inhabited part of Europe. Probably, based primarily on military successes, according to Norman theory, the ancient Slavs decided to invite the Varangian princes to the kingdom.
By the way, the name itself is Russia, allegedly brought by the Norman princes. In Nestor the Chronicler, this moment is quite clearly expressed in the line "... and three brothers got out with their families, and took all Russia with them." However, the last word in this context, according to many historians, is more likely to mean fighting squad, in other words - professional military. It is also worth noting here that the Norman leaders, as a rule, had a clear division between the civilian clan and the military clan detachment, which was sometimes called the "church." In other words, it can be assumed that the three princes moved to the lands of the Slavs not only with fighting squads, but also with full-fledged families. Since they will not take their families into a normal military campaign under any circumstances, the status of this event becomes clear. Varangian princes accepted the request of the tribes with all seriousness and founded the early Slavic states.
"Where did the Russian land come from?"
Another curious theory is that the very concept of "Varangians" meant precisely the professional military in Ancient Russia. This once again testifies in favor of the fact that the ancient Slavs relied precisely on militarized leaders. According to the theory of German scientists, which is based on the annals of Nestor, one Varangian prince donkey near Lake Ladoga, the second settled on the shore of White Lake, the third - in the city of Izoborsk. It was after these actions, according to the chronicler, that the early Slavic states were formed, and the land in the aggregate began to be called the Russian land.
Further in his annals Nestor retells the legend of the emergence of the subsequent royal family of the Rurikovich. It was Ruriks, the rulers of the Slavic states, who were the descendants of those same legendary three princes. They can also be attributed to the first "political leadership elite" of the ancient Slavic states. After the death of the conditional “founding father”, power passed to his closest relative Oleg, who captured Kiev by intrigue and bribery, and then united Northern and Southern Russia into one state. According to Nestor, this happened in the year 882. As can be seen from the annals, the formation of the state was due to the successful "external management" of the Vikings.
Who are the Russians?
However, scientists are still arguing about the real nationality of the people who were called that. Adherents of Norman theory believe that the word "Rus" came from the Finnish word "Ruotsi", which the Finns called the Swedes in the IX century. Another interesting fact is that most of the Russian ambassadors who were in Byzantium had Scandinavian names: Karl, Iengeld, Farlof, Veremund. These names were recorded in treaties with Byzantium dated 911-944. And the first rulers of Russia bore exclusively Scandinavian names - Igor, Olga, Rurik.
One of the most serious arguments in favor of the Norman theory of which Slavic states is considered to be the mention of Russians in the West European “Bertin Annals”. In particular, it was noted there that in the year 839, the Byzantine emperor sent the embassy to his Frankish counterpart Louis I. The delegation included representatives of the “people grew up”. The bottom line is that Louis the Pious decided that the “Russians” are Swedes.
In the year 950, the Byzantine emperor Konstantin Bagryanorodny noted in his book On Empire Management that some names of the famous Dnieper rapids have exclusively Scandinavian roots. And finally, many Islamic travelers and geographers in their opuses dating back to the 9th-10th centuries clearly distinguish the "Rus" from the Slavs of the "Sakaliba". All these facts, gathered together, helped German scientists build the so-called Norman theory of how the Slavic states arose.
Patriotic theory of the emergence of the state
The main ideologist of the second theory is the Russian scientist Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov. The Slavic theory of the origin of the state is also called the "autochthonous theory." Studying Norman theory, Lomonosov saw the flaw in the discussions of German scientists about the inability of the Slavs to self-organization, which led to external control from Europe. A true patriot of his fatherland, M.V. Lomonosov questioned the whole theory, deciding to engage in the study of this historical puzzle himself. Over time, the so-called Slavic theory of the origin of the state was formed, based on the complete denial of the "Norman" facts.
So, what are the main counterarguments brought by the defenders of the Slavs? The main argument is the assertion that the name "Rus" is etymologically not connected with Ancient Novgorod, nor with Lake Ladoga. It relates, rather, to Ukraine (in particular, the Middle Dnieper). As evidence, the ancient names of reservoirs located in this area are given - Ros, Rusa, Rostavitsa. Studying the Syrian "Church History", translated by Zachary Ritor, adherents of the Slavic theory discovered mentions of a people called Hros or "Rus." These tribes settled a little south of Kiev. The manuscript was created in the year 555. In other words, the events described in it were long before the arrival of the Scandinavians.
The second serious counterargument is the lack of mention of Russia in the ancient Scandinavian sagas. There were quite a few of them, and on them, in fact, the whole folklore ethos of modern Scandinavian countries is based. It is difficult to disagree with the statements of those historians who say that at least in the early time part of historical sagas there should be minimal coverage of those events. The Scandinavian names of the ambassadors, in which the supporters of the Norman theory hope, also do not completely determine the nationality of their carriers. According to historians, the Swedish delegates could well represent the Russian princes in far abroad.
Criticism of Norman theory
The views of the Scandinavians on statehood are also doubtful. The fact is that in the described period, the Scandinavian states as such did not exist. It is this fact that causes a fair amount of skepticism in the fact that the Vikings are the first rulers of the Slavic states. It is unlikely that the visiting Scandinavian leaders, having not figured out the construction of their own power, would begin to arrange something like this in foreign lands.
Academician B. Rybakov, discussing the origin of the Norman theory, expressed an opinion on the general weak competence of the then historians, who believed, for example, that the transfer of several tribes to other lands creates the prerequisites for the development of statehood, and for some several decades. In fact, the process of education and the formation of statehood can last for centuries. The main historical basis on which German historians rely, sins with rather strange inaccuracies.
Slavic states, according to Nestor the chronicler, formed over several decades. Often, he equates the founders and the power, replacing these concepts. Experts suggest that such inaccuracies are explained by the mythological thinking of Nestor himself. Therefore, the peremptory interpretation of his annals is highly doubtful.
Variety of theories
Another noteworthy theory of the emergence of statehood in ancient Russia is called Iranian-Slavic. According to her, at the time of the formation of the first state, there were two branches of the Slavs. One, which was called Russ-encouraged, or rugs, lived on the lands of the present Baltic. Another settled in the Black Sea and originated from Iranian and Slavic tribes. The rapprochement of these two "varieties" of one people, according to theory, allowed the creation of a single Slavic state Rus.
An interesting hypothesis, which was later put forward in theory, was proposed by the academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine V. G. Sklyarenko. In his opinion, the Novgorodians turned for help to the Varangians-Balts, who were called rutens or Rus. The term "ruthenes" comes from the people of one of the Celtic tribes who took part in the formation of the ethnic group of Slavs on the island of RĂĽgen. In addition, according to the academician, it was at that time that the Black Sea Slavic tribes already existed, the descendants of which were Zaporozhye Cossacks. This theory is called Celtic Slavic.
Compromise
It should be noted that from time to time there are compromise theories of the formation of Slavic statehood. This is the version proposed by the Russian historian V. Klyuchevsky. In his opinion, the Slavic states were the most fortified cities at that time. It was in them that the foundations of commercial, industrial and political formations were laid. Moreover, according to the historian, there were entire "urban areas" that were small states.
The second political and state form of that time was the very warlike Varangian principalities referred to in the Norman theory. According to Klyuchevsky, it was the merger of powerful urban conglomerates and military units of the Varangians that led to the formation of Slavic states (the 6th grade of the school calls such a state Kievan Rus). This theory, which Ukrainian historians A. Efimenko and I. Kripyakevich insisted on, was called Slavic-Varangian. She somewhat reconciled the orthodox representatives of both directions.
In turn, Academician Vernadsky also doubted the Norman origin of the Slavs. In his opinion, the formation of the Slavic states of the eastern tribes should be considered on the territory of the "Rus" - modern Kuban. The academician believed that the Slavs received such a name from the ancient name "Roksolany" or light Alans. In the 60s of the XX century, the Ukrainian archaeologist D. T. Berezovets proposed to consider the Alanian population of the Poddony to be Russian. Today, it is this hypothesis that the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is also considering.
There is no such ethnos - Slavs
American professor O. Pritsak proposed a completely different version of which states are Slavic and which are not. It is not based on any of the above hypotheses and has its own logical basis. According to Pritsak, the Slavs as such did not exist at all on ethnic and state grounds. The territory on which Kievan Rus was formed was the crossroads of commercial and commercial routes between East and West. The people who inhabited these places were a kind of merchant warriors who ensured the safety of trade caravans of other merchants, and also equipped their wagons on their way.
In other words, the history of the Slavic states is based on a certain trade-military community of interests of representatives of different peoples. It was the synthesis of nomads and sea robbers that subsequently formed the ethnic basis of the future state. A rather controversial theory, especially when you consider that the scientist who proposed it lived in a state with a history of hardly 200 years.
Many Russian and Ukrainian historians came out against it with sharp criticism, even the very name “Volga-Russian Kaganate” distorted it. According to the American, this was the first formation of the Slavic states (the 6th grade is unlikely to get acquainted with such a contradictory theory). Nevertheless, it has a right to exist and has received the name Khazar.
Briefly about Kievan Rus
After considering all theories, it becomes clear that the first serious Slavic state was Kievan Rus, formed around the 9th century. The formation of this power took place in stages. Until 882, there is a merger and unification under the same authority of the glades, Drevlyans, Slovenes, Deregovets and Polocians. The Union of Slavic States is marked by the merger of Kiev and Novgorod.
After the seizure of power in Kiev, Oleg began the second, early feudal stage of development of Kievan Rus. Actively joining previously unknown areas. So, in 981, the state expanded along East Slavic lands right up to the San River. In 992, Croatian lands were also conquered, lying on both slopes of the Carpathian Mountains. By 1054, the power of Kiev had spread to almost all East Slavic tribes, and the city itself was referred to in documents as the “Mother of Russian Cities”.
It is interesting that by the second half of the 11th century the state began to break up into separate principalities. However, this period did not last long, and before the general danger in the person of the Polovtsy, these trends stopped. But later, in view of the strengthening of feudal centers and the increasing power of the military nobility, Kievan Rus still breaks up into specific principalities. In 1132, a period of feudal fragmentation began. This state of things, as we know, existed up to the Baptism of All Russia. The idea of ​​a single state became popular right then.
Symbols of Slavic states
Modern Slavic states are very diverse. They are distinguished not only by nationality or language, but also by state policy, and the level of patriotism, and the degree of economic development. Nevertheless, it is easier for the Slavs to understand each other - nevertheless, the roots that go back centuries are the very mentality that all the well-known "rational" scientists deny, but which sociologists and psychologists are confidently talking about.
After all, even if we consider the flags of the Slavic states, you can see some regularity and similarity of the color palette. There is such a thing - Pan-Slavic colors. They were first talked about at the end of the 19th century at the First Slavic Congress in Prague. Proponents of the idea of ​​uniting all the Slavs proposed the adoption of a tricolor with equal horizontal stripes of blue, white and red in color as their flag. Rumor has it that the banner of the Russian merchant fleet served as a model. Is it really so - it is very difficult to prove, but the flags of the Slavic states often differ in the smallest details, and not in the color scheme.