Women earned their livelihood by selling their own bodies everywhere and always, including in Russia. Only now, due to the underdevelopment of monetary circulation, they received remuneration not in money, but in necessary things - clothes, jewelry and even food. The custom of paying for sex with money appeared at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, and was introduced by foreigners who came in large numbers. At first, this fact even caused surprise, but they soon got used to this state of affairs and women stopped agreeing to pay with things, demanding more and more money from men who want “love”.

None of the ancient chronicles mentions the existence of such a separate manifestation of life as prostitution. But, this does not mean at all that it did not exist, just that the term itself appeared much later. And the Slavs in ancient times had disorderly sexual relations, apparently rooted in the pagan past. And the provision of sexual services, in exchange for gifts and treats, were also. By the way, "Domostroy" in many ways contributed to the fact that the spouses, often intolerant of each other, went "to the left" at any opportunity.

History has also preserved evidence of orgies organized by guardsmen of Ivan the Terrible, the tone for which was set by the tsar himself. According to eyewitnesses, "John the Terrible outdid everyone in voluptuousness and fornication." He even exchanged his mistresses, whom he supported and generously endowed, with his son Ivan, whom he later killed in a fit of rage.

However, in the Middle Ages, there were no official brothels in Russia, unlike Western Europe. Although, in historical sources there are references to "wandering women" who were engaged in prostitution. By order of the tsar, Alexei Mikhailovich, they were detained and sent to forced labor. Widespread prostitution, exactly like the fight against it, appeared during the reign of Peter the Great. It is believed that this is due to the appearance a large number single men - sailors, officials, soldiers, and, accordingly, with an increased demand for this type of sexual services.

The first brothels appeared under Peter I in St. Petersburg and were called "free". They were under the watchful eye of the guardians of the law, although there were many secret brothels around the city, where the police were not allowed to enter.

The most luxurious brothels appeared under the Empress Elizabeth, who ordered "to catch and bring indecent girls to the police."

But, they were not particularly afraid of decrees. The number of foundlings, infanticide and syphilis cases increased. Prostitutes were caught and sent away from the city, but their place was quickly taken by new ones.

Over time, the authorities got tired of fighting "evil", moreover, the struggle did not bring much result. Ekaterina II gave unofficial permission to engage in prostitution, but only on the condition that harlots undergo periodic medical examinations. By the way, priestesses of love were treated free of charge for any venereal diseases, and certain areas were separated for brothels in St. Petersburg. From that moment on, prostitution began to be recognized as "tolerant", although it was not officially allowed.

At the beginning of the 20th century, prostitution in Russia was subordinated to organizations and even issued special documents to brothel workers. But, the existence of this phenomenon in pre- and post-revolutionary times is the subject of a separate discussion.

So was there prostitution in Russia? Of course, yes! Giving a woman her body in exchange for a reward has existed since ancient times, although the term "prostitution" itself was coined later.

Being a monarchist in my convictions, I do not presume to judge what will happen. However, I will try to analyze what is happening now around the disputes about the Orthodox tsar and the revival of the monarchy in Russia.

Emperor Nicholas II with family

Now, among Russian Orthodox people, the expectations of an Orthodox tsar are very strong. Part of the Orthodox Russian people today, like the Jewish 2000 years ago, is in a state of strong spiritual tension. Only the Jews then were waiting for the messiah, whom they never recognized, and we are waiting for the Orthodox tsar. But Christ did not give anything to the Jews in political, economic and social terms, which greatly angered the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and just the ordinary Jewish people, since they expected from him not living water - “but the water that I will give him will become in him source of water springing up into eternal life” (John 4:14), which He brought into the world, but power over all nations and eternal prosperity. In other words, the Jews expected from Christ what the Antichrist would ultimately bring to the world.

The accession of any tsar in Russia is not a matter of faith. Moreover, there is no information in the Bible about this expected by some Orthodox people we do not find the event. As for the expectation of the arrival of the saints on earth, then in the Holy Scripturesthere are words that in the last days they will come to earth two witnesses God's, but their names are not called: "And I will give to two my witnesses, and they will prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth" (Rev. 11:3).

Literal Description of Miracles two witnesses gave rise to many (especially in the ancient Church) to look for their role as Old Testament prophets. Thus, the Old Testament prophets were offered as two witnesses. Enoch And Elijah the Thesbite, Moses And Jeremiah, and even Apostle John the Evangelist. This ancient notion has become so established in the mind of the Church that, for example, Elijah the Thesbite is depicted as a precursor of the second coming of Christ even in Orthodox worship ("Lenten Triod", "Service to the Holy Prophet Elijah", "Father Menaia" for June 20). But in the theological literature there is no consensus on this issue.

“I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6)

In connection with the expectations of the tsar by Orthodox people, the question arises: what will the Orthodox tsar give us and what do we expect from him? Can't we take part in divine services, pray in churches and partake of the Holy Mysteries of Christ? What else do we need? Christ is with us! We are waiting for the Orthodox Tsar to give us all social benefits, remove all dishonest officials and remove all corrupt politicians from power, put exceptionally kind and decent people in all key positions. But the question is - where will the Orthodox tsar take these honest and good people? In Europe, Asia or on another planet? And we in Russia have people who are now - there are no others ...

Is it only spiritual nourishment that we expect from an Orthodox tsar? No… Spiritual, unfortunately, is far from being in the foreground. People are waiting for him to make our state the strongest, most advanced and prosperous on earth, so that other nations bow to us ... Does this remind you of anything? If this doesn’t mean anything to you, then it reminds me of the expectations of the Jewish people 2015 years ago, when they were waiting not for a King, “whose kingdom is not of this world” (John 18, 36), but for a king who would free Israel from Romans and would make it the most powerful and prosperous state in the world ...

When Rev. Nektarios Optinsky (1853-1928) was asked “Will there be an Orthodox tsar in Russia?” He replied: "Antichrist, Antichrist, Antichrist". Even earlier, St. Ignatius Bryanchaninov (1807-1867) wrote the following words in his works: “Our people can and must become the instrument of a genius among geniuses (Antichrist), who will finally realize the idea of ​​a world monarchy.” These words are not taken from the mythical prophecies that flood the Internet, but from the letters of St. Ignatius*.

I have a question - why are our Orthodox leaders with a trust rating of 70% not suitable for us? Aren't our political leaders Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev standing in churches with candles? They stand… Only Moscow, unfortunately, is less and less reminiscent of the Orthodox Byzantine Constantinople, it is becoming more and more like the Muslim Saudi Mecca…

For comparison, the holy martyr Tsar Nicholas II before the February Revolution of 1917 had minimal support from Russian society, because almost the entire country turned its back on the royal family. So if a king like St. Martyr Nicholas (Romanov), shall we accept such a tsar? Will we accept a king whose main virtue is the love of Christ? Will it happen what happened a hundred years ago, when our ancestors sent a kind and Christ-loving king to Golgotha? Emperor Nicholas II was a very kind and gentle tsar, loving his people, who for 23 years of his reign did not pass a single death sentence. You can learn about how he idolized his wife Alexandra Fedorovna and children from the correspondence between the royal couple, since about five hundred such letters have been preserved.

Will Voykovskaya be renamed?

Muscovites are now voting by voting on the renaming of the Voykovskaya metro station in the Active Citizen project. Petr Lazarevich Voikov(according to other sources Pinkhus Lazarevich Vainer) was the organizer and executor of the murder of the royal family on July 17, 1918, insisting on the murder of the five children of the king. Voikov personally finished off the wounded girls with a bayonet, led and took part in the dismemberment and destruction of the bodies of those killed to hide the traces of the crime . According to the press service of the Active Citizen project, at the moment the majority of those who voted (57%) believe that renaming the station not necessary. Slightly more than 30% of the townspeople speak for renaming , 7% Muscovites "difficult to answer", and 5% say that "This issue should be resolved by specialists". So, Muscovites are not even ready to rename the station after the murderer of the royal family, to say nothing of whether they are ready to change the secular president for an Orthodox tsar.

A year ago, taking part in a meeting with a well-known and respected priest, Archpriest Valerian (Krechetov), ​​I asked him the same question: “Will there be an Orthodox tsar in Russia”? To which Father Valerian answered me: “To have a tsar, subjects are needed ... Are there any subjects for the tsar in Russia now?” ...

Vladimir Putin about the Tsar Martyr

I don’t know about the Russian people in general, but Russian President Vladimir Putin is clearly not enthusiastic about the holy martyr Tsar Nicholas II:

Corr.: - I recently saw a photo where Nicholas II is on the roof of this house with his wife
Vladimir Putin: - And what was he doing there?
Corr.: - I watched Moscow
V. Putin: - Well, he had nothing to do - he roamed the roofs. Nicholas II? Well, you see, I traveled ... (from the film "Unknown Putin: Peace and War", 2000)

Vladimir Putin named the holy martyr Nicholas II "Bloody Nicholas", 03/04/2014

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin looked at the light of one of the Olympic construction teams in Sochi, 06/07/2011:

“Skeptics of various kinds - there are noteworthy ones who feel bad under Tsar Pea, and under Nicholas the Bloody, and under the Reds, it’s bad, and under the Whites, it’s bad,” he remarked. - In principle, such people are also needed, they do not allow the authorities to fall asleep, they cheer them up all the time

Vadim DERUZHINSKY. Lysenkoism in historical science. 2011.
________________________________________ ______

Itself "Old Russian nationality" is a great-power myth invented by Lomonosov to justify the claims of tsarism to the lands of Lithuania-Belarus and Russia-Ukraine. Moreover, these claims came from the former Horde - from its four parts: the Moscow Ulus, the Kazan Horde, the Siberian Horde and the Astrakhan Horde. I would like to know - what kind of "Old Russian consciousness" did the Golden Horde have? And what is this "historical struggle" of the Lithuanians of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for reunification with the "fraternal" people of the Golden Horde?

And why is the stay of Polotsk for 70 years under the rule of Kyiv - this sets a certain "ancient common consciousness", and the stay of Muscovites for 300 years as part of the Horde - suddenly does not set their common consciousness, although they have been a single state and a single people for 750 years? And why general history Poles and Belarusians, which is centuries longer than their joint 122-year stay in tsarist Russia, also does not form a common Polish-Belarusian consciousness?

In a word, there is a political falsification of history on the part of tsarist and later Soviet historians. This fictitious “Old Russian nationality” is based, in fact, only on the myth of some kind of “Old Russian language”, in which books were allegedly written in Kyiv, Polotsk, Novgorod and Muscovy. Actually it's not " Old Russian language", but Church Slavonic. This is the South Slavic Thessalonica dialect of the 9th-11th centuries, extinct by the beginning of the Slavicization of Zalesye by the Kiev princes. It cannot be called “Old Russian” in any way, since it was written in exactly the same way then in Croatia, Romania, Serbia, Bohemia (Czech Republic), the lands of Poland, in Moldova (see our article “Myths and truth about the language of ancestors”, No. 23 , 2010). But for some reason, no one calls these territories “Old Russian”, and their population is “Old Russian nationality”, although everywhere they wrote in the same language - the Solun dialect of Macedonia, which formed the basis of the written language invented by Cyril and Methodius for the Slavs.

And then, why on earth the forcible stay of the Polotsk state as part of Kievan Rus for 70 years a thousand years ago should suddenly mean in the 19th and 20th centuries supposedly “a craving for reunification with the fraternal Russian people”, if the Lithuanians-Belarusians had never lived before with Russians in the same state? The lands of the future Muscovy and the lands of the Polotsk state were part of Kievan Rus at different times, and Polotsk was freed from power Kiev princes even before their offspring went to seize and Russify the Finnish lands of present-day Central Russia.

Millions of Belarusians were fooled in the USSR by the myth that they are allegedly the “little brother” of the great Russian people, and this fooling continues to this day. The propagandist of this myth was the late Petr Petrikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, professor, corresponding member of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. On August 31, 2006, in the newspaper Sovetskaya Belorussiya, he published an article “Methodological ideologemes of historians”, in which, in particular, he wrote: “The historical struggle of the Belarusian people for reunification with the fraternal Russian people has become a bone in the throat of some Belarusian historians ... awakening of the ancient Russian consciousness of the Belarusians…”.

However, the encyclopedia “Belarus” (Minsk, 1995) says: “In the process of formation and development, the Belarusian people went through stages from the unification of tribal unions through nationality to the nation, many stages of the social structure of society. ... In the 13-16 centuries, the Belarusian ethnos was formed. ... The processes of consolidation of the Belarusian people into the Belarusian Nation began in the 16th - early 17th centuries. How can an ancient Nation "awaken" the consciousness of a nationality - "Old Russian" in this case? This is the same nonsense as an old man's milk teeth will erupt.

Here is a vivid and little-known analogy for us. In the period from the XIV to the beginning of the XVI centuries. Polish cities, including Krakow, were formed as German ones. Krasnoyarsk historian Professor A. Burovsky wrote: “At that time, the townspeople in Poland spoke German(or a mixture of German and Polish), and later the cities became completely Polish.” But we had a similar thing - the language of the townspeople (the Solunsky dialect, also known as Church Slavonic, also known as "Old Russian") was not the language of the indigenous people. However, no one claims that since the townspeople of Poland then spoke German, then at that time Poland was some kind of “Ancient Germany” with the ancient Germanic consciousness of the Poles!

In the whole world historical Science it is believed that all European (and Slavic) peoples developed according to a common scenario in their ethnogenesis. The only exception - as they believe in Russia - are only three "East Slavic" peoples, who allegedly at the end of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd millennium managed to form some kind of "Old Russian people" with a single spoken language (the Solun dialect of Macedonia, now Bulgarian) in the open spaces BSSR, Ukrainian SSR and RSFSR, and then for no reason why this Bulgarian-speaking community suddenly broke up into “three fraternal peoples”. This fantastic concept was actively developed by such authors as V. Mavrodin, B. Rybakov, S. Tokarev, M. Rabinovich and others; they invented the existence of some " Ancient Russia” with a single “Old Russian people” until the 13th century, on the ruins of which “three peoples” arose in the 14th-16th centuries.

Today, many historians ridicule this Lysenkoism. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Belarusian professor Viktor Titov (b. 1938), in his essay “The Ethnogenesis of the Litvins (Belarusians) in the Slavic Context” (Chapter 5 “On the Old Russian Nationality”) finds the following inconsistencies in this concept.

1. “Until now, historical documents, primary sources, even historical legends and myths (not taking into account the myths of the Soviet era) that would directly or indirectly report on a single ancient Russian people are unknown.”

2. “The process of formation of the East Slavic peoples, in the form in which it appears to the authors of this concept, completely contradicts the ethnogenesis of the neighboring Slavic and European peoples - Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Letuvis, Germans, which were mainly formed at the end of the 1st - the beginning 2nd millennium. Their immediate ancestors were real ethno-tribal groups (unions), which stood at approximately the same level of historical development as the Krivichi, Dregovichi, Radimichi, Dnieper meadows, Volynians.

3. “The formation of a single nationality is really possible only in conditions of constant ethno-cultural and economic ties. On the vast expanses of the "empire of Rurik", a fragile political entity with different cultural traditions of local tribes, different economic conditions, the process of their consolidation and integration into a single nation was simply impossible. It would be tantamount to a historical paradox."

4. “Taking into account the chronological framework into which the authors of the Soviet concept “squeeze” the process of the ethnogenesis of Belarusians, it is impossible not to notice that the period of the 15th-16th centuries is known in Belarus, as well as in Ukraine and Poland as the Renaissance. The authors of the concept allow the substitution of historical concepts, while ethnogenesis and the Renaissance are fundamentally different processes.

5. “One more question inevitably arises: how and under what circumstances in the vastness of Eastern Europe, unlike Western, in the ancient period (VIII-XIII centuries) the processes of consolidation and integration prevailed (which allegedly led to the formation of a single nationality) However, later, in the 16th-17th centuries, already in the conditions of a single Slavic state - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was experiencing its “golden age” at that time, this “nationality” suddenly broke up, and two new peoples first appeared in its “cradle” - Ukrainians and Belarusians. The authors of the concept of ancient Russian nationality do not give an answer to such questions.

Professor Viktor Titov concludes:

“The ideologists of the Russian concept of “Western Russianism” solved this problem much more simply in the 19th century. They denied the very fact of the existence of Belarusians and Ukrainians as independent peoples, reducing them to the concepts of ethnographic groups of a single Russian people. Indeed, the end justifies the means, as well as the principle "no people - no problems!".

It is not difficult to see the successive connection between these two concepts: both here and there one can see the imperial nature of thinking, the subordination of science to the great-power idea, the exaltation and justification of the cult of power by humiliating their “younger brothers”, allegedly liberated by the Russian Empire from the “yoke of Lithuania and Poland”. "".

To these words of the historian I will add the following. Today, from the lips of many Russian politicians and ordinary Russians, one can hear statements that, they say, the three fraternal peoples need to unite again into one country. For example, in a recent TV story about the rally “For Belarus!” a certain Russian entrepreneur said: “Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians are one people, and we need to be together again in a single country.”

In the opinion of the townsfolk, such statements seem "friendly." But in fact, these are the most hostile statements towards Belarusians and Ukrainians, which are absolutely identical to the tsarist concept of “Western Russianism”, which denied the very existence of our nations and reduced them to “part of the Russian people”. For comparison, this is exactly how the Poles said that "Poles and Kresy, Belarusians and Ukrainians are the fraternal peoples of the Commonwealth, which must again unite into one country." It was this "integration" slogan that was popular in the Second Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1920-1939). Such words about “brotherhood” and “one people” are great power encroachments on our national freedom and sovereignty.

If you hear someone say “Belarusians and Russians are one people”, then this means that the speaker denies the existence of Belarusians as an independent nation - and by this denies the right of Belarusians to their State.

A FUTURE SEARCH FOR "ANCIENT RUSSIA"

Honest scientists did not recognize the tsarist concept of the "Old Russian people" either in the tsarist or in Soviet time. For example, the Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky said:

“Everywhere the Russian land, and nowhere, in any monument you will find the name of the Russian people ... The Russian state in the 9th-11th centuries. could not be the state of the Russian people, because this people did not yet exist.

An absolutely correct remark: the peoples in medieval Eastern Europe began to form only from the 12th-13th centuries, therefore, in principle, some “Old Russian people” could not exist before this time.

Prominent Soviet historian A.N. Nasonov (1898-1965) wrote that the Polyanian reign in the middle reaches of the Dnieper became the core of the state of Kievan Rus. The last time the name "meadow" is found in the "Initial Code" under the year 944. Then for the first time it is replaced by the name "Rus". It gradually became attached to that part of the Slavicized Dnieper Balts and Sarmatians who lived around Kyiv, Pereyaslavl and Chernigov. Initially, only this territory was called the "Russian Land", it was she who became part of the Kiev State as a territorial and politically dominant core.

Researcher of the history of the Eastern Slavs P.N. Tretyakov argues that the term "Old Russian nationality" is a "book" term coined by Soviet historians. He believes that this "nationality" was a very relative community: for a long time its components retained their characteristics - the Baltic, Sarmatian, Finno-Ugric substrata of the tribes of this "nationality". Not only in the IX-X centuries, but also in the XI-XII centuries. Rus, Russian land was called a small area within the borders of the Middle Dnieper. Tretyakov argues that the term "old Russian nationality" only makes it possible not to confuse the ethnic association of the Slavs of the times of Kievan Rus with the "Russian nationality" of the XIV-XVI centuries - that is, with the nationality of the Muscovites and the peoples of the Golden Horde Slavicized by them.

Georgy Shtykhov (born 1927, laureate of the State Prize of the BSSR in 1990, co-author of school textbooks), Doctor of Historical Sciences (1983), professor (1989), in the essay "At the Origins of the Belarusian Nationality (from Indo-Europeans to Balts and Slavs)" in the chapter “On the problem of the ancient Russian nationality”, he writes that the Polotsk State has never been any “Rus”:

“The territory of Belarus was outside the borders of Russia in a “narrow sense”. First of all, this refers to the Polotsk land. In the Ipatiev list under 1140, the chronicler explains why the Grand Duke of Kyiv Mstislav captured five Polotsk princes in 1129 and sent them to Byzantium: the Polotsk princes "do not listen to him / Mstislav / if he dies to the Russian land to help" / from the Polovtsy /. Apparently, the Polotsk people had enough worries of their own.

In the recent past, the understanding of the “Russian Land” in the broad sense, as the territory of all Eastern Slavs, was persistently introduced in Soviet historiography. However, chroniclers name different ethnic groups in Eastern Europe that existed long time. So, the Drevlyans appear until 1136, the Dregovichi - until 1149, the Krivichi - until 1162, the Radimichi - until 1169. These data are in good agreement with the data of archaeological research.

Ethnographic differences between the groups of Eastern Slavs can be traced according to the materials of the excavations of the burial mounds. So, the archaeologist L.V. Duchits distinguishes three complexes of the costume of the Krivichi women. A comparative study of archaeological and ethnographic materials, especially the Letgalo-Belarusian borderland, allowed the researcher to conclude that Letgal relics were traced in the ethnographic costume of the Vitebsk region even in the 19th century. Krivichi is more difficult than any other tribal association to "fit" into a single ancient Russian people. Many researchers consider them more Balts than Slavs. “These were the Baltic tribes who left the culture of long mounds,” writes Professor E.M. Zagorulsky.

Economic ties between the lands ancient Russian state(Kievan Rus) were weak. The linguistic, cultural and other ethnic features of the East Slavic groups did not have time to be erased. In clothing, jewelry, life, language, beliefs of their representatives, many differences remained that came from tribal characteristics.

Therefore, it makes no sense to put on the same level the thesis of a single ancient Russian nationality with the thesis of a political community within the borders of a state that existed until the early 30s of the 12th century, and then broke up into independent principalities.

In 1996, at the VI International Congress of Slavic Archeology in Veliky Novgorod, a meeting was held dedicated to the issues of the ancient Russian people. One report concluded:

“The version that the Old Russian nationality was not completely formed and fell apart due to the collapse of the Old Russian state has more realities and plausibility than the alternative based on the mythical idea of ​​the existence of a single nationality, since there were clearly not enough conditions for this. The process of the emergence of related East Slavic peoples - Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian (Great Russian) - can be considered without using this controversial concept.

At the same time, a conclusion was made about the terms "Rus" and "Russian land":

“The name “Rus” originally meant the core of the Kievan state. In the 12th century, Russian land was the name of a clearly unmarked territory of the Middle Dnieper. In the XIII-XIV centuries, the term "Rus" was already used as a collective name for the lands of the Eastern Slavs, whose population recognized the Orthodox faith, regardless of their location. During that period, the formation of three East Slavic nationalities took place.

But to consider faith the only remaining guideline for accepting the name "Rus" (the word "acceptance" is incorrect here, but we must talk about the planting of this in our country by tsarism in the 19th century - as a surrogate replacement for our Lithuania and our self-name of Litvin), - this is simply stupid on the territory , for example, Minsk. Here is an excerpt from the essay of the historian A. Pyatchits "Triumph" of Orthodoxy in Belarus: the imperial version":

“So, in 1861, the nobles of the Minsk province, headed by the provincial “leader of the nobility” Lappa, wrote an appeal to Emperor Alexander II with a request to annex the province administratively to the Kingdom of Poland. The reason for this accession was that "this province ... is completely populated by Catholics and Poles." The same appeal was sent to the emperor by the noble assembly of the Mogilev province. However, both appeals were rejected, but it is interesting that among those who signed these petitions were "Russian" (Orthodox) nobles. Source: Bryantsev P.D. Polish rebellion of 1863 Vilnia, 1892. S. 147.

This completely refutes attempts to see the Minsk region as "Rus" on the factor of religion - and there are no other reasons to see it as "Rus" or "White Rus" (a term in the Polish language).

We, as Litvinians, were formed from 1219 (the agreements of our Lithuanian princes Novogrudok Bulevich and Ruskovich with Galicia) to 1840 - IN LITHUANIA ON and even under tsarism in the Lithuanian Governorate, and not within the framework of some kind of "Rus". This is 621 years of evolution of us as an ethnos and then a nation - and all this time we have been Lithuania and Litvins (not to be confused with the current Letuvis, who were and are Zhemoyts, and not Lithuania and not Litvins).

Forcible renaming by tsarism of our Lithuania - the main medieval rival of Moscow-Horde - into "Belarus", and the nation of Litvins into God knows what(and the Northwestern Territory did not provide for Russian Empire the existence of some kind of their own nation) is the same as renaming salt to sugar . And the search for the “Old Russian consciousness” mentioned at the beginning of Professor Petrikov’s article among the Litvins of this centuries-old Lithuania-“Belarus” is an attempt to find sweetness in the taste of salt. Self-deception. No matter how much you say "halva", it will not become sweeter in your mouth.

As it is: our people, throughout their history free from Russian occupation, were proudly called neighbors Lithuania and Litvinians. And the scientific position is that without the domination of tsarism over us in the 19th century, we would continue to call ourselves Litvins and Lithuania today. So why on earth are we - Great Lithuania - suddenly some kind of foreign "Rus"? This is a real remake, colonial inventions.

So what was really ?

Rus is a Varangian term, spread by them throughout Central and partly Eastern Europe. The Varangians (tribes of the Goths and Slavs of the Polabian Rus Rurik, encouraged and other Rusyns), who did not plow and did not sow, but were bandits, called their colonial fortresses with this word, controlling the main trade routes in these regions (to collect tribute from merchants) and collecting tribute from the native peoples surrounding these fortresses. That is, they hunted racketeering, and also served as military mercenaries for the rulers of Europe.

The language of these Varangian bandits was a mixture of Gothic and Western Baltic languages ​​(with an admixture, possibly Sarmatian and others). So in this pirate community appeared as slang / koine - “ Slavic» as a simplified mixture of mainly vocabulary and grammatical forms of the Gothic and Western Baltic languages. This koine was gradually adopted by the native population, from which the Vikings took tribute; the Vikings called such natives "Slovenes" or "Slavs" - for they "understood the word." For this reason, Nestor and other ancient chroniclers put a full equal sign between the concepts of "Russian language", "Slovenian language" and "Varangian language" - it was the same then.

In Central Europe, in the Balkans, and then in Eastern Europe, Russia existed everywhere, first on the rivers controlled by the Vikings (according to one of the main and convincing versions, the word "Rus" means "rower"). And only from these rivers and the Varangian fortifications on them did the spread of the Slavic / Russian / Varangian koine and the name "Rus" went deep into the territory. Thus appeared - many centuries before the Rusyn-encouraged prince Rurik - a mass of Russ on the territory of Central Europe.

Polabian Russia is a country of Obodrites, Rusyns of the island of Rusen and Goths-Angles (who later, together with Obodrites, having captured the British Isles, were transferred to English language a lot of words from the Slavic Koine and the very name "Foggy Albion" from the Laba-Elbe River, as well as the Slavic name of Scotland - Scotland, from the ancient Slavic word "cattle" - wealth). Now Polabskaya Rus is northern Germany, and the oldest German city of Oldenburg is the renamed Starograd, the most ancient Slavic city, the former capital of Polabskaya Rus.

Pomeranian Rus - now it is northern Poland. Russia in Thuringia (retained the name "Russian Duchy" until 1920), now Germany. Borussia Germany is Porusie, like Prussia is also Porusie. Equally, Russia was in Styria, now Austria. Most of Hungary was Carpathian Rus with its capital in the city of Keve, which is older than Kyiv and which historians often confuse with Kiev (from there, by the way, Russification-Slavicization of its offspring Galician Rus came from). Greece almost switched to the Russian / Slavic / Varangian language, which was introduced into the Balkan peoples by the Varangians. Russia was even in Italy, where tribes from Polabian Rus invaded and stayed there to live: so in modern Italy there is still a Russian / Slavic / Varangian Rezyan literary microlanguage. The complete history of Russia in Central Europe before and outside of "Ancient Russia" is given by Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor A.G. Kuzmin in the collection “Where did the Russian land come from” (volume 2. Moscow, 1986).

Thus, the very concept of "Rus" has nothing to do with Eastern Europe, where it appeared with the arrival of the Varangians many centuries later than in Central Europe (it has been known there since the 4th-6th centuries and is an attribute of the appearance of the Slavs there). For this reason alone, which Russian historians have never advertised for obvious reasons, Moscow does not and cannot have any “monopoly” on Russia.

What we today call "Kievan Rus" was not the state of our ethnic groups - in the generally accepted understanding that an ethnic group creates its own statehood. Many historians talk about this today, for example, the Moscow historian A. Bychkov called his book “Kievan Rus: a country that never existed”.

Kievan Rus is a colony of foreign Varangians (ready and encouraged by Rurik from present-day Mecklenburg) over our native peoples, created only to exact tribute from us. This “state” had no other goals.

The tribes of "Ancient Russia" were united by only one circumstance: all of them - local backward Balts, Sarmatians, Finno-Ugric peoples - paid tribute to the Varangians. Including, as the chronicles say, the Krivichi Balts. And what is this - "Old Russian nationality"? The only thing they have in common is that they are tributaries of the squads of the Slavs / Goths from Polabya ​​and Sweden? And what is the "Old Russian consciousness" here? Pay tribute to the Varangians?

The names of absolutely all Kiev princes were originally Gothic, not Slavic. At the first stage of the existence of the "Ancient Rus of Kyiv", the Goths were the majority in the prince's squad and in the prince's entourage. And at the second stage of the history of this “state”, Kyiv severed its umbilical cord of Russia with the Goths, which was explained by the historical decline and degeneration of the “Varangianism” itself. Varangia as a reality disappeared on the way from the Varangians to the Greeks, and the Kievan former Varangians, under the auspices of the word "Rus" as a "tribute collector", considered themselves the heir of the Varangians - in fact, tribute collectors. That is why the name "Rus" was concentrated around Kyiv - as the collector of this tribute.

Indeed, Kyiv at some stage of our ancient history- even before the formation of ethnic groups in Europe - he collected tribute from us. But no one remembered this short period of our history in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Middle Ages, especially since this Kyiv, liberated by us from the Horde, became our seedy province for a period longer than the short period of 70 years of domination of "Kievan Rus" over Polotsk State. And then we gave it to the Kingdom of Poland as something absolutely not “sacred” for us.

The very theme of "Kievan Rus" as the supposedly "Russian State" was first invented at the direction of Catherine II by the Tartar Karamzin. Prior to this falsification, which consists in the very emphasis on the emergence of “three fraternal” ethnic groups, and even more so nations, not from the 13th century, but allegedly from the community of tributaries of the Varangians that existed before, no one could have thought of such nonsense for more than half a century. Nobody had such ridiculous concepts.

Created by the creativity of our peoples 7 centuries ago, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Belarus) and Russian (Ukraine) was erased from history altogether, as if it had never existed. The inhabitants of this great in all aspects and most powerful European State were renamed Moscow-Horde. Lithuania and Litvins - renamed to "Belarus" and "Belarusians", and Rus and Rusyns - to "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians". The name "Rus" was given to the former Golden Horde, and all the Muscovite Horde was henceforth referred to as "Rus" and "Russian" as the standard of these concepts. Against the background of this standard, Kyiv itself has ceased, of course, to be perceived as the "Mother of Russian cities", but has already become "non-Russian".

In 1721, Peter I renamed the Horde (on his maps "Great Tartary") into "Russia", which is "Rus" in Latin and Greek. So the Horde gained miraculously the Varangian roots and origins of the Kiev State, from which Kyiv itself - the capital of present-day Ukraine - is today protected by the ideologists of the Russian Federation: "Ukrainians have nothing to do with that state of Russia" - almost all Moscow historians say so.

Let's not get into the disputes of Kiev and Moscow historians about who and what they have "real Russia". Let them argue among themselves. We (Litvins-Belarusians) have a different history of their ancestors -

There have been many invasions in the history of both Russia and Europe, but the Tatar-Mongolian occupies a unique place among them. The problem of Mongol-Tatar influence has always worried Russian society. There are three diametrically opposed answers to this question.

1. Russian people did not suffer from the Horde yoke. (L. N. Gumilyov). As evidence, a chronicle text is given in which Khan Dzhanibek is called a "good" king. The words of the chronicle “this king Chyanibek Azbyakovich is very kind to Christianity” must be evaluated in the context of the era. The chronicler praised the king for moderation: he was not too cruel - so, in the early 40s. 14th century released to Russia the myropolite Theognost, whom he held in custody for 600 rubles. Good tsar: he could have killed the metropolitan for such a thing. But most of all, the statement that “the few Mongols of Batu only passed through Russia and returned to the steppe” is surprising. And not a word - how "passed"?

A few supporters of this point of view believe that the main danger to Russia was not the Mongols, but the West, and therefore the alliance of Alexander Nevsky with the Horde was vital. However, how do such conclusions agree with ideas about the black ages of the Mongol-Tatar yoke? After all, the historical evidence of the chronicles about the invasions of punitive detachments, the Battle of Kulikovo itself can hardly be questioned.

2. The Mongol-Tatar yoke brought ruin, death of people, delayed development, but did not fundamentally affect the further historical fate of Russia.

This position was occupied by S. Solovyov, V. Klyuchevsky, S. Platonov, M. Pokrovsky. According to this point of view, Russia only slowed down its development, lagged behind due to large-scale destruction and human losses.

3. The Mongol-Tatars had a decisive influence on the social and social organization, on the development of statehood, the Muscovite state.

So, let's look at historical realities.

In the 20s. 13th century Russian principalities first encountered hordes of Mongol-Tatars. (By the way, this name does not mean a completely defined people, but an association of dozens of nomadic tribes that arose at the beginning of the 13th century, where the Mongols were a small part). At the request of the Polovtsian neighbors, some princes took part in the battle with the Mongols on the river. Kalka in May 1223. The battle ended in the defeat of the allies, and from 1236 Khan Batu began the conquest of Russia itself. It took four years and ended in December 1240 with the fall of Kyiv. During the last quarter of the thirteenth century at least 15 conquest campaigns of the Mongol-Tatars took place. In the areas of invasion, cities, villages, crafts were destroyed, stone construction was interrupted. Diplomatic relations of Russia became difficult. According to archaeologists in the XI-XIII centuries. There were 74 cities in Russia. 19 were ruined and destroyed. In 14 of them, life did not resume, and 15 cities turned into villages.

The population of Russia has decreased. Thousands of Russian slaves fell into the Horde. This is a lot, if we keep in mind that Ryazan, Rostov had no more than 1000 people, and Kyiv, Chernigov 20-30 thousand inhabitants. First of all, artisans and women were taken into slavery.

But is this the only consequence of the invasion?

In the end, if the matter were limited only to the ruin of Russian cities and villages, then after their restoration, the revival of independence, Russia could repeat, continue the European path of development, even if with a delay of several centuries. This, however, did not happen. Why? Is it only the fact that the Tatar-Mongol invasion for a very long time mechanically delayed the development of Russia, threw it back? Or is it necessary and legitimate to talk about something more in this case?

In our opinion, two points should be noted:

1. The Mongol-Tatar invasion, which lasted two and a half centuries (which corresponds to the change of 8-9 generations of people during this time), served as a natural watershed in the socio-historical paths of the Western European and Russian parts of our continent.

2. In the historical sense, it was the Tatar-Mongolian invasion - its scale, the need to resist it and liberate it from the centuries-old yoke - that became the main factor that predetermined the formation of a unique centralized Russian state.

So, despite the fact that during the period of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, North-Eastern Russia did not become an integral part of the Golden Horde (Russia had its own legal norms, and not the legal code of the Mongols. The Mongolo-Tatars did not eliminate the Russian princes, did not create their own dynasty on Russia ... The Golden Horde did not insist on a change of faith), it largely influenced the process of the formation of the Russian people and the Muscovite state.

How did the Mongol yoke affect socio-political development?

The nature of the socio-political relations of feudal society depended on the nature of the relations within the ruling class. The Mongols turned the Russian princes into their subjects, since 1243 the rights to the great reign were granted to the applicants for them by the khan, who not only humiliated the princes, but often deprived them of their lives. The princes received awards for faithful service - labels for separate lands from the khan. The Russian princes absorbed the unquestioning obedience of their subjects. Could friendly relations develop freely if the princes were servants Mongolian khans. Under these conditions, druzhina relations could not develop, they were replaced by relations of subjects.

In choosing the political path of development of Russia, the death of the ruling class played a colossal role. The princely squads were the first to enter the battle with the Mongols, that is, the Russian nobility took the first blow. For example, in Ryazan, out of 12 princes, 9 died, in Rostov - out of 3 - two, in Suzdal - out of 9 - five. Together with the old nobility, the traditions of its vassal-retinue relations with the princes left, and the new nobility was formed on the basis of citizenship relations.

So, by the time Batu came, the paths of Russian feudalism had not been determined by history. It cannot be ruled out that even without the Horde yoke, in the confrontation between vassal-druzhina and princely-subject relations, the latter would have won.

The yoke influenced not only the choice of the type of Russian feudalism, but also the pace of its development. It delayed the feudal fragmentation of the country for 240 years.

It was then that the principle of the Mongolian right to land was established in Russia, according to which all land belonged to the khan. There were no private landowners. It was this principle of land ownership that Muscovite Russia adopted from the Tatars. And when Moscow managed to get out from under the Tatar yoke, its development did not follow the proto-bourgeois path (variants of Novgorod and Galician-Volyn Rus), but the path of the Golden Horde. Taking away from the princes their patrimonies and destinies, Moscow returned them to them, but not as property, but in the form of a salary for service.

The Horde yoke deformed Russian statehood. Fiscal matters became the main ones - the timely collection of all kinds of requisitions. Hence the appearance of monetary units of clearly eastern origin, tanga, altyn, etc. Under the conditions of Horde dependence, a type of statesman was formed, whose public concern was to ensure the timely receipt of money and keep his subjects in check. Russia inherited from the Horde and political instability - the Grand Duke's power did not set itself tasks of national importance. Let's take the construction of roads as an example - if we compare the road in the Russian principality or on the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, then there are two big differences. Or take environmental issues. In 12th-century France, royal ordinances stipulated that new forests should be planted in place of those cut down. We had nothing like this before Peter I.

The Tatar-Mongol invasion is the first, extremely important milestone at which the further historical paths of the western and eastern parts of geographical Europe sharply diverge in the period after the 12th century.

Russia, which was Maksimov Albert Vasilievich

You never know in Russia ... Dmitriev?

You never know in Russia ... Dmitriev?

The coins minted in those years can also tell a lot about the secrets of Russian history. This topic was covered in some detail and interestingly in the works of Nosovsky and Fomenko. However, I will make some comments. According to these authors, Russia has never had Tatar-Mongol yoke, as well as the invasion itself, and the Golden Horde is nothing but the military structure of the Russian Empire, in which the Tatars also lived on the outskirts.

Nosovsky and Fomenko write: “However, how then to understand the following facts: Edigey (i.e., allegedly a Tatar khan) wrote to Vitovt (supposedly a Lithuanian prince, and according to our reconstruction, he is also Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich (This is all according to the reconstruction of Nosovsky and Fomenko - Auth.): "Pay tribute and depict my seal on the Lithuanian money. "Vytautas himself demanded the same from Khan Timur Kutluk."

Let me explain the background of this story. On TV in 1399, a great military clash was being prepared between Lithuania, which had gained strength, and the Horde, which had weakened in civil strife. Vitovt demands from Kutluk that he become “his son and tributary”, and “also wanted the Mongols to depict his sign or seal on their money ... Khan demanded a period of three days.” At this time, Edigei with a strong army comes to the aid of Khan Kutluk. Yedigei tells Vitovt about Kutluk that he “justly could recognize you as a father: you older in years, but younger than me: and so express humility to me, pay tribute and depict my seal on Lithuanian money.

That is, as you can see, everything is clear in this situation, but Nosovsky and Fomenko simply did not fully understand this historical situation.

Now let's compare individual facts and conclusions made by Nosovsky and Fomenko on the monetary topic. At the same time, under A - their conclusion, under B - my conclusion.

1. On the coins of Dmitry Donskoy there is a signature in Arabic: “Sultan Tokhtamysh Khan”.

A. Dmitry Donskoy is Tokhtamysh

B. Coins were printed in the early eighties of the XIV century, when Donskoy was obliged to print the name of the Horde Khan Tokhtamysh. Why must? Read the story of Vytautas and the Horde khans.

2. On Russian coins, there is often a tamga - a Tatar seal in the form of a certain ornament, but a similar image is found in some Moscow cathedrals.

A. The Grand Dukes and the Khans of the Horde are the same persons (but Russians).

B. All the great princes, starting from 1238, are from the Tatars, from the clan of Genghis Khan (Genghis Khan was only Russian on the paternal side, and even then half. ornaments - seals in the paintings of Moscow churches and on coins just confirms the theory proved on the pages of this book.

3. The famous Russian double-headed eagle first began to be minted on Horde coins, and on Russian coins a hundred years later.

A. Since the Golden Horde and Russia are one and the same, then both coins are Russian-Horde.

B. Perfect confirmation of an alternative version of history. The double-headed eagle came to Russia with the great Genghisid princes.

4. On the coins of Ivan III, when the Horde yoke was overthrown, there are Tatar inscriptions.

A. Russian money was issued by the princes for their subjects - the Tatars. (This conclusion of the authors does not fit into any gate at all).

B. Ivan III is another Tatar on the Russian throne.

5. How, then, to interpret a coin with an inscription in the center: “The Just Sultan Dzhanibek”, and on the same side in a circle: “Prince Vasily Dm.”.

Several remarks should be made here.

Firstly, Nosovsky and Fomenko consider Dzhanibek to be John-Bek, that is, Ivan Kalita. And Ivan Kalita, by the way, is the great-grandfather of Vasily Dmitrievich.

Thirdly, Dzhanibek ruled in the Horde in 1339-1359, but died when Donskoy was not yet the Moscow prince, and Vasily Dmitrievich was not yet in sight. So dead end?

No, everything is perfectly consistent with the alternative version of history offered to the reader. Vasily is a basileus, sovereign, so let's read the inscription in a new way: "Grand Duke Sovereign Dm." If Dm. - Dmitry, why should we talk only about the Donskoy, the white light did not converge on it like a wedge. Remember, in the film “Hello, I am your aunt”, when asked about Don Pedro, aunt (Kalyagin) said: “You never know Pedro in Brazil!” So in Russia there were quite a few Dmitrievs. During the time of Dzhanibek, there was the Grand Duke of Suzdal Dmitry Konstantinovich, who soon became (but after the death of Dzhanibek) the Grand Duke of Vladimir, bypassing the minor Donskoy.

By the way, a curious fact: in 1328, Kalita received a label for a great reign, but Khan Uzbek divided the great reign equally, fearing the strengthening of someone, giving Novgorod and Kostroma Kalita, and Vladimir and the Volga region to Alexander Suzdalsky, uncle Dmitry Konstantinovich.

And one more thing: the name Dmitry was also common among the Tatars. In 1362, Olgerd defeated three Tatar princes: Kutlubug, Hadonibey and Demetrius.

6. For Russian coins of the XIV-XV centuries, "any Tatar coins were taken indiscriminately, often old, with the name of a long-dead khan, as samples for copying."

A. Again: Russia and the Horde are one and the same.

B. Brilliant confirmation of the theory I propose. So, Tatar names are minted on Russian coins, but others, not of those khans who ruled in the Horde in the year of minting the coin. These names are the TATAR NAMES OF THE NEXT RUSSIAN GRAND PRINCES, Tatars by origin. As for the names of the khans, many names are close in sound. For example, in the annals of some Temirs, one can count half a dozen, there were two Tokhtamysh plus another Tokhta, Edigerov - two, Edigeev - also two, and so on. Some prince Tokhtamysh comes to Russia, becomes a grand duke, a coin is minted with his Tatar name. Why is it believed that it could only be the same Khan Tokhtamysh known to us? This is for example.

7. On many coins of Vasily Dmitrievich there is an inscription "Rarai".

A. No one can explain it.

B. The explanation is simple: Rarai is the Tatar name of one of the three great princes, bred in our history under the name of Vasily Dmitrievich. By the way, Rarai is very similar to the name Mamai, that is, a completely Tatar name.

8. Tver coins depict incomprehensible horned and tailed, but bipedal creatures.

A. Conclusion (more precisely, the question): the appearance of the official national coin is too strange.

B. My answer will also be a question: what about, for example, the coins of Poland?

A short summary of the monetary theme. I fully agree with the following words of Nosovsky and Fomenko: “All these coins were not bilingual, but bilingual, that is, the name of one ruler was printed on the coin ... but in two languages ​​- both in Russian and in Tatar.” But I have one significant remark: according to Nosovsky and Fomenko, this ruler was both the khan and the grand prince of one single state of the Horde-Rus, but my opinion is that this ruler is the prince of only Russian lands, but he himself is a Tatar, native of the Horde.

A lot has been written about the Tatar influence on the culture of Russia, the way of life of its inhabitants. However, a number of interesting points should be noted. The Russian nobility dressed in the Tatar way: dressing gowns, bloomers, Tatar headdresses and boots. The Russians fought on low Tatar horses, used Tatar bows and arrows, curved sabers, wore quilted Tatar armor, and hunted with tamed falcons. There is nothing to say about the multitude of Tatar words in Russian, one has only to add that the famous Russian “hurrah” is the Tatar “bey”.

Here is a description by foreigners of Russian warriors in the 16th century: “Their horses are small, not shod, saddles are adapted so that riders can easily turn in all directions and draw a bow ... Their common weapons are bows, arrows, an ax and a flail ... Some of nobles wear armor, skillfully made chain mail, in the form of scales ... others wear dresses lined with cotton ... Everything they do, whether they attack the enemy, or pursue him, or run away from him, they do suddenly and quickly. According to the description, as you can see, ordinary Tatars. However, many were Tatars in the second or third generations.

In this regard, it is interesting to cite an excerpt from Ilovaisky about Alexander Nevsky: “Alexander was very angry with his son Vasily and sent him to the Niz, that is, to the Suzdal land; and he severely punished some of his warriors for their rebellious advice: whom he ordered to be blinded, to whom his nose was cut off. The barbarian yoke was already making itself felt in these punishments. For traditional history, it was still too early for the Slav Nevsky to adopt the barbaric Tatar customs: the yoke had just begun. And according to AV, Nevsky, being a Tatar, acted like a Tatar.

In the late 40s of the XIII century, Daniel of Galicia traveled to Pressburg to meet with the Hungarian king. Here is what the Ipatiev Chronicle writes about this: “The Germans are marveling at the Tatar weapons.” Where did Daniil get Tatar equipment and weapons, he only became a tributary of the Khan for three years?

In Russia, Muslim customs began to take root. We are proud of our original churches with onion domes, which are not found in any other Orthodox country. Take a look at the same Cathedral of the Intercession on Red Square: it looks like both an Orthodox church and a Muslim mosque at the same time. Indeed, these domes are very reminiscent of Muslim temples.

In Russia, unlike Poland and Lithuania, there was no drunkenness: it was allowed to drink only a few times a year, and they drank honey and beer. And the nobility locked women in towers, not allowing them to go out into the light, true, there were no burqas, but there were still those headscarves on their heads.

Ilovaisky refers to the unpublished work of the archaeologist Filimonov, in which it was proved that “the so-called. The Monomakh's hat was made by Muslim-Egyptian masters of the 13th century and was sent as a gift by the Egyptian Sultan Kalaun to the Khan of the Golden Horde Uzbek, and from the latter passed to Ivan Kalita. Isn't it interesting?

In the book of Murad Aji "Wormwood of the Polovtsian Field" one can read: "The Turks are always arguing among themselves: who is better, whose family is ancient, and therefore more important." In the same way, the boyars argued in local disputes: whose family is better, who should sit over whom. And here is what Leontovich wrote back in the 19th century: “In the Mongolian administration, even under the first Chinggisids, all those local customs were developed, with which researchers of local life in the Muscovite state are currently acquainting us.” And he also has about the Moscow and Mongolian local institutions: “The affinity of the institutions could in no way be accidental; it, on the contrary, points to the genetic connection of our parochialism with the Horde”.

We know from history that on the outskirts of the Russian Empire the emperor was called the white tsar. But it was not the color of the skin. The Golden Horde was also called the White Horde, and the Horde Khan was called that: the white king. And on European maps, Moscow lands were called Great Tataria.

In 1409-1411 the Teutonic Order waged war against Poland and Lithuania. It was during this war that the famous Battle of Grunwald took place, which put an end to the advance of the Germans to the east. At school, we were told that it was thanks to the courage of the Russian regiments, who withstood the powerful blow of the Germans, that the allied forces won. But one cannot read in any textbook that during this war a third of all allied troops were Tatars.

Look how ordinary Russian chronicles write about the Horde. It would seem how much interesting things can be written about the unusual way of life, appearance, beliefs of the Tatar-Mongols, their strange customs. But this is not in the annals, we do not even know where exactly the Russian princes went to the Horde, where the khan's capital was located. Instead, the chronicles tell about the everyday life of the country: who was born, who got married, about the weather, the construction of churches, fires. And why? Just because the Tatar-Mongols were not a novelty for the inhabitants of Russia, these are the descendants of their old acquaintances: Polovtsy, Torks, Bulgars, Berendeys. And princes were often born and raised in the Horde, and with the next prince, the ruling elite was replenished with new Tatars, who quickly assimilated.

The descendants of these noble Tatars in Russia became more and more, and, finally, their quantitative accumulation turned into a qualitative one: they became a real force in the struggle for power. If earlier the grand dukes were appointed from the Horde Genghisids, then after 1425 we can talk about the presence of conditions for the seizure of power by local, partially Russified Genghisids. The tradition began to include the transfer of the throne by inheritance from father to son, from brother to brother, that is, within the same family. But even here, power was often not transferred peacefully, brothers and nephews clashed with each other in a deadly battle. The role of the Horde in determining the contenders for the reign fell, and the number of contenders themselves increased. 1425 - the year of the onset of the Time of Troubles in Russia, ending with the accession of the first Romanov to the Russian throne ...

From the book Russian. History, culture, traditions author Manyshev Sergey Borisovich

“There was not enough space for this wide wedding, and the sky was not enough, and the earth ...” Every day, through the streets of our city, with loud signals and music, strings of cars decorated with flowers, ribbons, scarves, wedding corteges rush through. Now, as my grandmother told us, all weddings are alike

From the book Secrets of the Romanov House author

From the book of the Chekists author Team of authors

Leonid Dmitriev THE END OF LENKA PANTELEEV Petrograd, early 1920s. Our country is healing the grave wounds inflicted by war and devastation. A new economic policy is being introduced. Yellowed newspapers serve as a living reminder of that difficult and unforgettable period.

From the book Moscow inhabitants author Vostryshev Mikhail Ivanovich

Descendant of Monomakh. Count Matvei Alexandrovich Dmitriev-Mamonov (1788–1863) In the eastern part of the Lenin Hills, on the high right bank of the Moskva River, for more than two centuries there has been a palace, which the townspeople and their guests look with envy: this is where to live - all of Moscow is in the palm of your hand .

From the book Favorites of Catherine the Great author Sorotokina Nina Matveevna

Alexander Matveyevich Dmitriev-Mamonov (1758–1803) This favorite differs from all the others in that he voluntarily abandoned a dubious palace position, “did a stupid thing,” according to Potemkin. The reason for this was love, but not only. Under Mamonov, Catherine met her

From the book "Valley of Death" [Tragedy of the 2nd Shock Army] author Ivanova Isolda

P. P. Dmitriev We were called "antyufeevtsy" ... Our division of 122-mm horse-drawn howitzers of the 1938 model was formed at the Somovo station near Voronezh and in the second half of December 1941 arrived at the Volkhov Front. Most of the personnel have not yet participated in

From the book From the first prosecutor of Russia to the last prosecutor of the Union author

"GUARDIAN OF THE LAWS" Prosecutor General IVAN IVANOVICH DMITRIEV Famous Russian poet and statesman Ivan Ivanovich Dmitriev was born on September 10, 1760 in the village of Bogorodskoye, Simbirsk province, into an old noble family. Studied in private boarding schools in Kazan

From the book of the Romanovs. Family secrets of Russian emperors author Balyazin Voldemar Nikolaevich

Favorite Alexander Dmitriev-Mamonov. Journey to Taurida Yermolov's successor on the path of favoritism was the twenty-eight-year-old captain of the guard Alexander Matveevich Dmitriev-Mamonov, a distant relative of Potemkin. Thanks to the latter circumstance, Dmitriev-Mamonov

From the book Commanders of the First World War [Russian army in faces] author Runov Valentin Alexandrovich

Dmitriev Radko (Radko Ruskov Dmitriev) was born on September 24, 1859 in Bulgaria. Educated at the gymnasium. In 1876 he participated in the national liberation movement, and during the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 he was enrolled in the life guards of the Ulansky regiment

author Melgunov Sergey Petrovich

S.N. Dmitriev THE MYSTERIOUS ALLIANCE Historical sensation... We meet these words less and less lately, despite the fact that any printed organ is literally replete with materials on historical topics. And how nice it is to realize that on the next

From the book The Fate of Emperor Nicholas II after his abdication author Melgunov Sergey Petrovich

S.N. Dmitriev GHOSTS OF THE PAST From the very first years of perestroika, we have all been witnesses of a greatly increased interest in national history. However, this interest did not affect some historical topics, which, for some unspoken, no one

From the book Stalingrad: Notes of the Front Commander author Eremenko Andrey Ivanovich

V. P. Dmitriev E. A. Rainin

From the book Catherine the Great and her family author Balyazin Voldemar Nikolaevich

Favorite Alexander Dmitriev-Mamonov. Journey to Taurida Yermolov's successor on the path of favoritism was the twenty-eight-year-old captain of the guard Alexander Matveevich Dmitriev-Mamonov, a distant relative of Potemkin. Thanks to the latter circumstance, Dmitriev-Mamonov

From the book Architects of St. Petersburg XVIII–XX centuries author Isachenko Valery Grigorievich

From the book History of the Russian Prosecutor's Office. 1722–2012 author Zvyagintsev Alexander Grigorievich

From the book Twelve Poets 1812 author Shevarov Dmitry Gennadievich

PART THIRTEEN MINISTER DMITRIEV (Ivan Ivanovich Dmitriev. 1760-1837) Chapter One Binder's mistake. - The inscription on the book. - The road from St. Petersburg to Moscow. - On the ashes. - Remembrance of the Peruvian camisole. - Bitter smoke. - The death of Fyodor Dmitriev. - Witberg