Slavic states. Formation of Slavic states. Flags of the Slavic states

History asserts that the first Slavic states arose in the period dated to the 5th century AD. Approximately at this time the Slavs migrated to the banks of the Dnieper River. It is here that they are divided into two historical branches: the eastern and the Balkan. Eastern tribes settled along the Dnieper, and the Balkan tribes occupied the Balkan Peninsula. Slavic states in the modern world occupy a huge territory in Europe and Asia. The peoples who live in them are becoming less like each other, but the same roots are seen in everything from traditions and language to a term as fashionable as the mentality.

The question of the emergence of statehood among the Slavs has been worrying scientists for many years. A lot of theories have been put forward, each of which, perhaps, is not devoid of logic. But in order to make up your mind about this, you need to get acquainted with at least the basic ones.

How did the states of the Slavs arise: the assumptions about the Varangians

If we talk about the history of the emergence of statehood among the ancient Slavs in these territories, scientists usually rely on several theories, which I would like to consider. The most common version to date of when the first Slavic states arose was the Norman or Varangian theory. It arose in the late 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 learned men, having thoroughly studied the "Tale of Bygone Years" - the oldest opus created by the monk Nestor. There really is a reference, dated 862-th year, to the fact that the ancient Slavic tribes (Krivichi, Slovene and Chud) called on the princes of the Varangian princes in their lands. Allegedly, tired of endless internecine strife and enemy raids from the outside, several Slavic tribes decided to unite under the leadership of the Normans, considered at that time the most experienced and successful in Europe.

In the old days in the formation of any state formation, the military experience of its leadership was in a higher priority than the economic one. And nobody doubted the power and experience of the northern barbarians. Their combat units raided practically throughout the inhabited part of Europe. Probably, proceeding primarily from military successes, according to the Norman theory, the ancient Slavs decided to invite Varangian princes to the kingdom.

By the way, the very name - Rus, supposedly 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 with them they took all the Rus'." However, the last word in this context, in the opinion of many historians, rather denotes a military 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 patrimonial order, which was sometimes called the "kirkh." 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 the family will not take part in a regular military campaign under any circumstances, the status of this event becomes clear. The Varangian princes accepted the request of the tribes with all seriousness and founded the early Slavonic states.

"Where does the Russian land come from?"

Another curious theory is that the very concept of "Varangian" meant in the ancient Russia it was the professional military. This once again shows in favor of the fact that the ancient Slavs made a bet on the militarized leaders. According to the theory of German scientists, which is based on the chronicles of Nestor, one Varangian prince settled near Lake Ladoga, the second settled on the shore of the White Lake, the third - in the town of Izoborsk. It was after these actions, according to the chronicler, and the early Slavic states were formed, and the earths in the aggregate began to be called the Russian land.

Further in his chronicle Nestor retells the legend of the appearance of the subsequent royal family of Rurik. It was the Rurikas, the rulers of the Slavic states, who were the descendants of those most legendary three princes. They can also be attributed to the first "political leading elite" of the ancient Slavic states. After the death of the conditional "founding father", the power passed to his closest relative Oleg, who by intrigue and bribery captured Kiev, and then united Northern and Southern Russia in one state. According to Nestor, this happened in 882 year. As can be seen from the annals, the formation of the state was due to the successful "external management" of the Varangians.

Russians are who?

However, scientists are still arguing about the real nationality of the people who were so called. Adherents of the Norman theory believe that the very word "Rus" came from the Finnish word "ruotsi", which the Finns called the Swedes in the IX century. Another interesting fact is that most Russian ambassadors who were in Byzantium had Scandinavian names: Karl, Iengeld, Farlof, Veremund. These names were recorded in treaties with Byzantium, dated 911-94. And the first rulers of Russia were exclusively Scandinavian names - Igor, Olga, Rurik.

One of the most serious arguments in favor of the Norman theory about which states are Slavic is the mention of Russians in the Western European "Bertinsky Annals." It noted in particular that in 839 the Byzantine emperor sent an embassy to his Frankish colleague 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 950 the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his book "On the Management of the Empire" noted that some of the names of the famous Dnieper rapids have exclusively Scandinavian roots. 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 Sakalibah. All these facts, gathered together, helped German scientists build a so-called Norman theory about how the Slavic states arose.

Patriotic Theory of the Emergence of the State

The main ideologue of the second theory is the Russian scientist Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov. The Slavic theory of the origin of the state is also called "autochthonous theory." Studying the Norman theory, Lomonosov saw the flaw in the reasoning of German scholars about the inability of the Slavs to self-organization, which led to external governance on the part of Europe. A true patriot of his fatherland, M.V. Lomonosov questioned the whole theory, deciding to study 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 counter-arguments led defenders of the Slavs? The main argument is the assertion that the very name "Rus" is etymologically not related to either Ancient Novgorod or Ladoga. It refers, rather, to Ukraine (in particular, the Middle Dnieper). As proof, the ancient names of the reservoirs that are located in this locality are given - Ros, Rusa, and Rostavitsa. Studying the Syrian "Church History" translated by Zachary Ritor, the adherents of the Slavic theory found references to a people called Hros or "Rus." These tribes settled a little south of Kiev. The manuscript was created in 555th year. In other words, the events described in it were long before the arrival of the Scandinavians.

The second serious counterargument is considered and the absence of mention of Russia in the ancient Scandinavian sagas. They were composed quite a lot, and on them, in fact, the entire folklore ethnos of modern Scandinavian countries is based. It is difficult not to agree with the statements of those historians who say that at least in the early time part of the historical sagas there should be minimal coverage of those events. The Scandinavian names of ambassadors, who are supported by the supporters of the Norman theory, also do not completely determine the nationality of their bearers. According to historians, the Swedish delegates could well represent the Russian princes in far abroad.

Criticism of the Norman theory

Representatives of Scandinavians about statehood are also doubtful. The matter 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 that the Varangians are the first rulers of the Slavic states. It is unlikely that the visiting Scandinavian leaders, not having understood the construction of their own power, would start arranging something like this in foreign lands.

Academician B. Rybakov, arguing about the origin of the Norman theory, expressed his opinion about the general weak competence of the historians of those times who believed, for example, that the transfer of several tribes to other lands creates prerequisites for the development of statehood, and for some several decades. In fact, the process of formation and 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, were formed over several decades. Often, he equates the founders and the power, substituting these concepts. Experts suggest that such inaccuracies are explained by the mythological thinking of Nestor himself. Therefore, the peremptory interpretation of his record is highly doubtful.

Variety of theories

Another noteworthy theory of the emergence of statehood in ancient Russia is called the 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-obedrity, or rugi, lived on the lands of the present Baltic. The other settled in the Black Sea region and took its origin from the Iranian and Slavic tribes. The convergence of these two "species" of one people, according to theory, allowed the creation of a single Slavic state of Rus.

An interesting hypothesis, which was later put forward in theory, was proposed by academician NAS of Ukraine VG Sklyarenko. In his opinion, the Novgorodians turned for help to the Varangians-Balts, who were called ruthenes or Russ. The term "rutheny" comes from the people of one of the Celtic tribes who took part in the formation of the ethnic group of the Slavs on the island of Rügen. 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 has received the name - Celtic-Slavic.

Search for compromise

It should be noted that from time to time there are compromise theories of the formation of Slavic statehood. This is the version suggested by the Russian historian V. Klyuchevsky. In his opinion, the Slavic states were the most fortified cities at that time. It was in them laid the foundations of trade, industrial and political entities. Moreover, according to the historian, there were whole "city areas" that were small states.

The second political and state form of the time was the same belligerent Varangian principalities, which are mentioned in the Norman theory. According to Klyuchevsky, it was the merger of powerful urban conglomerates and military formations of the Varangians that led to the formation of Slavic states (the sixth form of the school calls such a state Kievan Rus). This theory, on which Ukrainian historians A. Efimenko and I. Kripyakevich insisted, was named Slav-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 in the territory of the "Rus" - the modern Kuban. Academician believed that the Slavs received such a name from the ancient name "Roksolana" or light Alans. In the 60s of the XX century the Ukrainian archaeologist D.T. Berezovets proposed to consider the Alan population of the Podon as Russes. Today the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences also considers this hypothesis.

There is no such ethnos - the Slavs

The American professor O. Pritsak suggested 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 a crossroads of commercial and commercial routes between East and West. The people who inhabited these places were some kind of warrior merchants who ensured the safety of the merchant caravans of other traders, and also equipped their wagons.

In other words, the history of the Slavic states is based on a certain trade and military community of interests of representatives of different peoples. It was the synthesis of nomads and sea robbers that later formed the ethnic basis of the future state. Quite a controversial theory, especially when you consider that the scientist who put forward it lived in a state whose history is barely 200 years old.

Many Russian and Ukrainian historians criticized it sharply, even the name itself - "Volga-Russian Kaganate" - even hammered. According to the American, this was the first formation of the Slavic states (Grade 6 is unlikely to get acquainted with such a contradictory theory). Nevertheless, it has the right to exist and was named Khazar.

Briefly about Kievan Rus

After considering all the 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 the merger and unification under a single authority of glades, drevlyans, Slovenes, Dregovec and Polotsk. 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 the development of Kievan Rus. Active connection of previously unknown areas takes place. So, in 981 the state expanded along the East Slavic lands right up to the San River. In 992, the Croatian lands that were lying on both slopes of the Carpathian Mountains were conquered. By 1054, the power of Kiev had spread to virtually all Eastern Slavic tribes, and the city itself was referred to as the "Mother of Russian Cities".

It is interesting that by the second half of the 11th century the state had begun to disintegrate into separate principalities. However, this period did not last long, and before the general danger in the person of the Polovtsi, these trends ceased. But later, in view of the strengthening of the feudal centers and the growing power of the fighting nobility, Kievan Rus nevertheless falls into specific principalities. In 1132, the period of feudal disunity began. This state of affairs, as we know, existed up to the Baptism of All Russia. The idea of a single state became in demand precisely then.

Heraldry of the Slavic states

Modern Slavic states are very diverse. They are distinguished not only by nationality or language, but also by state policy, by the level of patriotism, and by the degree of economic development. Nevertheless, it is easier for Slavs to understand each other - all the same, the roots that go back to the depths of the centuries form the very mentality that all known "rational" scientists deny, but sociologists and psychologists confidently say about it.

After all, even if you look at 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. For the first time they were talked about at the end of the 19th century at the First Slavic Congress in Prague. Supporters of the idea of uniting all the Slavs proposed to take tricolor with equal horizontal stripes of blue, white and red colors as their flag. It is rumored that the standard of the Russian merchant fleet served as a model. Whether this is really so - it is very difficult to prove, but the flags of the Slavic states often differ in the smallest details, not in the color scale.