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

It is hardly possible to find a people or an ancient political entity in the whole world, whose origin would be unequivocally 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 epoch, on the other - and this is much more important - the desire, often not fully realized, to exalt our fatherland, to attribute to it a heroic story. One of the fundamental themes of Russian historiography is the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state. The first years of existence of Kievan Rus, and even more important, the driving forces of its formation, have become almost the most important topic of the dispute among Russian historians for hundreds of years.

Norman theory of the origin of the ancient 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 various theories of the origin of the ancient Russian state. Various researchers tried to find the origins of Russian statehood in the Iranian elements (the former tribes of the Scythians and Sarmatians who lived here), 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 always were only two extremely opposite views on this question: the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state and the antinorman state, its antagonist. Norman theory was first formulated long ago, in the middle of the XIII century, by the court royal historian Gottlieb Bayer.

Somewhat later his ideas were developed Other Germans - Gerard Miller and August Schletzer. The foundation for constructing 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 a merit of 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 Russes and managed to drive them out of their lands. But after this followed a period of turmoil and bloody feuds in the Slavic lands. This made them again turn to the Rus and call them from behind the sea to the reign: "Our land is rich, but there is no order in it ...". In this story, German historians identified mysterious Russians with Scandinavian kings. This was also confirmed by archaeological finds, and then and later. The Varangians did indeed attend these lands in the 9th-10th centuries. And the names of the first Kiev princes and their retinues were almost entirely of Scandinavian origin. Some Arab travelers also identified in their records Ruses and Scandinavians. On the basis of all these facts, the Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state was born. It really had a strong enough justification and for many years was considered unshakable.

The version of antinormanists

However, the very fact of calling for the reign of overseas kings meant that the Slavs themselves were simply unable to form their own state in the Middle Ages, as other European nations managed to do. Such an idea could not but arouse indignation among patriotic intellectuals. The first who could reasonably resist the German scientist and point out the flaws in their theory was the famous Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. In his opinion, the Russians should not be identified with foreigners, but with the local population. He pointed to the naming of local rivers: Ros, Rosava. The Varangians, on the other hand, Mentioned in the ancient chronicles, were (in the opinion of Lomonosov) not by the Scandinavians, but by the Slavs, who are now known to historians as vagra. Over time, anti-Norman history gained momentum. However, the Normans have defended their positions for centuries. In the first decades of the Soviet state, the Norman theory was declared harmful and unpatriotic, which literally meant a veto for its further development. At the same time, the development of the methodology of history and archaeological possibilities was given to antinormanists alot. It was found that a number of foreign travelers of the 9th century called the Russs Slavs. In addition, the birth of state structures were still in the pre-Kievan times. An important argument was that the Scandinavians at that time did not create a state even at home.

conclusions

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