Chapter VI The Khazar Khaganate The Khazars have been known since the time of the European empire of the Huns in the 4th-5th centuries. n. e. During the formation of the Great Turkic Khaganate, they supported Istemi-Kagan and participated in the campaign against Georgia and Azerbaijan (6, pp. 146–152).

Remembering the great victories of our ancestors is the sacred duty of each of us, because knowledge of those great victories of the past carries the keys to understanding how to build our future. As we remember the victory of our grandfathers in the Great Patriotic War over Hitler's Nazism in 1945, so we must honor and remember the invaluable contribution to the development of Russia of the victory in 964 over Khazaria.

Say a word about Svyatoslav

Few people outside our Motherland know the name of a warrior, ruler and man - the Grand Duke of Kyiv Svyatoslav Igorevich, nicknamed the Brave. But even less is known that the correct name of his St. e toslav, not St. I toslav, since his name comes from the word " Light", but not " holy". So, having replaced only one letter, the enemies of Russia killed the correct understanding of his name, which is formed from two such beautiful words as Light and Praise. As a result, the male name Svetoslav turned out, meaning the one who praises the light or the light of the glorifying. In addition, in contrast to, whom our ancestors called the dark warrior, the people called the prince-warrior Svetoslav the Light Prince and the Light Warrior.

Prince Svetoslav Igorevich was brought up from childhood as a warrior. The teacher, mentor of Svyatoslav was a Varangian asmud(the Varangians were the highest caste of professional warriors, formed from different peoples of the Slavic-Aryans), who taught the young pupil to be the first in battle and hunting, to hold fast in the saddle, control the boat, swim, hide from enemy eyes both in the forest and in steppes. Svetoslav was taught military art by another Varangian - the main Kyiv Sveneld.

As a three-year-old child in 945 AD, or rather in the summer of 6453 from the SMZH (Creation of the World in the Star Temple - a new chronology of our ancestors, which originates from the moment a peace treaty was concluded after the victory in the war over Ancient China), he accepted participation in their first battle. It was at that time when Princess Olga, together with her retinue, went to war with the Drevlyans in order to avenge her murdered husband, Prince Igor. Prince Igor decided to collect the tribute in the second round, for which he was killed by the Drevlyans. In front of the Kyiv squad, Svyatoslav was sitting on a horse. And when both troops converged - Kiev and Drevlyane, then little Svetoslav threw a spear in the direction of the Drevlyans. Then Svetoslav was just a boy, so the spear did not fly far - it flew between the ears of the horse and hit the horse in the leg. But the Kyiv governors said: "The prince has already begun, let's follow, squad, for the prince." Such was the ancient custom of the Rus - only the prince could start the battle. And no matter what age the prince was.

By the way, the word PRINCE according to the decoding of Grinevich G.S. in the ancient proto-language of our ancestors - KЪNAZ, means "to the perfection (refinement) of the earth, or, simply, the secrecy (refinement) of the earth"!

While Svetoslav was growing up and gaining experience and courage, his mother, Princess Olga, ruled the principality. But Svetoslav Igorevich was not like his mother. If Olga was baptized into the Greek religion, which later became Christian, then Svetoslav remained the bearer of the Vedic knowledge and traditions of his ancestors.

Through the centuries, a description of his portrait by the Byzantine historian Deacon has been preserved: “Medium height, with a broad chest, blue eyes, thick eyebrows, beardless, but with a long mustache, only one strand of hair on his shaved head, which testified to his noble origin. In one ear he wore an earring with two pearls ... "

Most of all, Svetoslav valued combat armor and weapons. The ancient chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years" tells of Prince Svetoslav as a true warrior. He spent the night not in a tent, but on a horse blanket, with a saddle in his head. On campaigns, he did not carry carts or boilers with him, did not boil meat, but thinly sliced ​​​​horse meat or beef, or the meat of wild animals, roasted it on coals and ate it like that. His warriors were just as hardy and unpretentious. But the squad of Svetoslav, not burdened with convoys, moved very quickly and appeared in front of the enemy unexpectedly, instilling fear in them.

Svetoslav himself was not afraid of his opponents. When he went on a campaign, he always sent a warning message to foreign lands: "I'm coming for you!" Which meant - I want to go to you, that is, you are my enemies. The funny thing is that our ancestors called enemies “you”, and now this is a word of respect for a stranger or an older person.

Do not attack without warning, do not shoot at an unarmed or unequal enemy in strength - this code of military honor, an ancient tradition of the Slavic-Aryans, which was honored and observed by the great Light Warrior Prince Svetoslav.

In addition to military honor and courage, an outstanding feature of the character of Svetoslav, as a Light Warrior, was his irreconcilable fight against usury brought to Russia by the Khazars. For taking money at interest and giving interest to others, cut off both hands. He considered usury a corruption of the soul and monetary slavery, giving rise to all vices. And the Khazars, who hunted in Russia by lending, were chained to a raft and floated along the Dnieper in.

Khazar Khaganate

The Khazar state - the Khazar Kaganate - is the most powerful and richest state in the southeast of the borders of Kievan Rus. It was located in the lower reaches of the Volga, stretching to the west and east up to Mordovia, including such territories as Northern Afghanistan, Crimea (Tmutarakan is one of its cities). The Khazar city of Semender was located in the North Caucasus, Sarkel - in the interfluve of the Volga and Don, their lower reaches. The capital Itil was located just at the mouth of the Volga, approximately on the site of the modern one.

Before enslavement by Persian Jews (i-UD-ey - means excising UD, i.e. circumcised, and UD is the male genital organ, from where the words Pleasure - receiving sexual pleasure, UDochka, UDilshe) in the middle of the 6th century AD. Khazars, white and black Khazars lived quite amicably in it. The ruling caste of professional warriors from the Slavic-Aryans was then called the White Khazars, while the Turkic tribes who came to the lower reaches of the RA River (Volga - Itil) from the depths of Asia, like refugees from the Ancient One, were called the Black Khazars. In essence, the black Khazars were representatives of the yellow race with admixtures of the black race. They had black hair, black eyes and swarthy (yellow) skin, for which they were nicknamed black Khazars.

Khazaria existed as a multinational state in which people of both the white and yellow races lived peacefully side by side with each other. Khazaria lived in the same peace and harmony with its neighbors. The favorable location of Khazaria (the famous “Great Silk Road” passed through the Khazar Kaganate) attracted Persian Jews from the tribe of Simonov to the country, who began to move here after the revolution they had made in Persia, when the Jews completely robbed the Persian people, and with all their wealth fled the country . You can read more about how the Persian Empire, which was founded by the ancestors of the Slavic-Aryans, was destroyed in books Nikolay Levashov…

When the civil war in China led to a sharp decline in trade, the Khazar Jews moved north and defeated and subjugated the Kama (Volga) Bulgaria, and also occupied the boundless lands of Great Perm, where they organized their trading settlements - trading posts. The conquered lands gave the precious fur of sables, martens, ermines, and besides, Khazar Jews organized child trafficking(just like). And again, caravans with furs and slaves stretched from the North to the South, and the money went into the bins of the Khazar Jews.

The question of Russia's relations at the dawn of its historical existence with the East has recently increasingly attracted the attention of historians of Russian culture. In this matter, one must first of all reckon with the role that its southeastern neighbor, Khazaria, played in the life of Ancient Russia, the bearer of a still very poorly studied, but undoubtedly very curious civilization that arose from the combination of elements of nomadic - Turkic culture with Byzantine traditions. , Iranian, Arabic and, especially, Jewish. It must be admitted that in the field of studying Russian-Khazar relations, we are still walking in the dark: scientists were little interested in the foreign policy side of these relations, and almost nothing has been done to study the cultural interaction between Russia and the Khazars, except for a few guesses.

However, one cannot argue against the fact that it was Khazaria that laid the first foundations of statehood among the Eastern Slavs in southern Russia. Let us recall that already the first pages of the initial chronicle refer the beginning of the Khazar power over Kyiv to legendary antiquity (after the death of the founders of the city - Kyi, Shchek and Khoriv);

that the historical narrative of the chronicle about the beginning of the Russian land under its first year, 859, begins with a mention of the division of Eastern Europe into two political regions: the northern one, paying tribute to the Varangians, and the southern one, subject to the Khazars; that one of the oldest works of Russian literature endows the Kiev prince Vladimir with the title of kagan; that in the middle of the 10th century Kyiv was still known in Byzantium under its Khazar name "Sambat" (i.e. the city-fortress, Vyshgorod); that in Kyiv itself there was a part of the city called "Kozare", where, apparently, the estate of the Khazar governor "pashenga" (Pasynge) was located; which testifies to the Khazar cultural influence on Russia (at least only one side of this influence) and ancient religious and polemical literature, and the penetration of the Old Testament historical idea into the medium of Kiev monasticism, and, finally, traces of Agadic and Talmudic legends on our writing.

However, our information in this area is still extremely vague. First of all, because Khazaria itself, and especially its culture, is still an almost unsolved riddle: archeology has only just come across some Khazar antiquities; literary works that arose in Khazaria, except for the well-known, so-called. "Khazar correspondence" has not yet been found, although there is nothing incredible in the assumption that among the Jewish manuscripts of the Cairo genizah or Persian libraries there may be many such that could have arisen in Itil. Secondly, the sources do not give us almost any data to restore the picture of the external relations of Khazaria with Russia. Oriental writers report something about this, but these reports are very difficult to use, since it is completely unknown? to which Russia each given evidence refers: after all, those northern knights-merchants who in the 9th century went to the Volga directly from Scandinavia, as well as the combatants of those not numerous "Russian" - Varangian centers, which were formed on territories of Eastern Europe in the broad process of Norman colonization of the 9th-10th centuries.

Our chronicle, oddly enough, says very little about Kiev-Khazar relations.

Mentioning that shortly after the death of Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv, ​​Kyiv fell under the rule of Khazaria, and that in the year 859 “Kozari to the Imach (tribute) on the Polyanekh, and on the Severekh and on the Vyatichi, the Imakh on a white wind from the smoke”, the chronicler says that Askold and Dir, having come to Kyiv and having learned that the meadows pay tribute to the Khazars, "stay in the city of seven." There is no mention of any clash with the Khazars. Even more curious is the relationship under Oleg. After the conquest of Kyiv and the imposition of tribute on the Drevlyans, “Ide Oleg on the northerners, and defeat the Severns and lay tribute to the light, and will not give them tribute to pay Kozar, rivers:“ because they are disgusted, but you have nothing. The next year, the same thing is repeated with the Radimichi. “I sent a message to Radimich, the river: “to whom do you give tribute?” They decide: "Kozar". And Oleg said to them: "Don't give it to Kozar, but give it to me." And vedasha Olgovі by shlyag, like Kozar dayah. And without possessing Oleg Polyany and Derevlyany and Severen and Radimich, and from Ulichi and Tvertsa imasher army. Further, it is told about the campaign of the Ugrians, about the wars with the Greeks, about the riots of the Slavic tribes under Igor, the arrival of the Pechenegs, the Black Sea campaigns of Igor; then about Olga's revenge on the Drevlyans, about her journey to Constantinople. Before the assumption of power by Svyatoslav, during the entire first half of the 10th century, the Khazars were not mentioned at all: neither Oleg, nor Igor, nor Olga fought with them. True, one can guess that after the misfortunes that befell Igor, the eastern tribes seceded from the power of the Kiev prince and again fell under the power of the Khazars, since Svyatoslav at the beginning of his reign had to win them back from the Khazars. However, before him, the chronicle does not mention any clashes with the Khazars, as if the Khazars, who until the middle of the 9th century owned southern Russia, starting from the second half of this century, did not have the opportunity to fight with Kyiv for dominance over the eastern tribes of the Slavs. This assumption will seem quite natural, if we recall that just in the 9th century, for southern Russia, the turbulent period of Ugric and Pecheneg movements began, which separated the Kiev principality from the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov with a wide and difficult to pass strip. And, in connection with this, it is highly curious that the political relations of Kyiv with Khazaria are resumed only under Svyatoslav, who himself, having crossed the southern steppes, entered the Khazar borders: before him, apparently, Kievan Rus during the entire first half of X century, indeed, was separated from Khazaria.

But in this case, to which "Rus" do the testimonies of eastern sources refer, telling about the large military expeditions of the Russians to the Caspian Sea? Where did those Russ come from who lived for a long time in Itil, having their permanent colony there and even a special Khazar judge?

In this article, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the question of the relationship of Russia to the Khazaria under Svyatoslav contains a lot of dark and mysterious things and needs a thorough revision of all material. Let me begin the study by analyzing the data that the annals of the war of this prince with the Khazars have preserved.

The chronicle describes these events as follows:

“In the summer of 6472 (964) ... And I went (Svyatoslav) to the Oka and the Volga, and Vyatichi climbed and Vyatichi said: “to whom do you give tribute? They decide: “we give a kozar for a shlyag from the ral.”

“In the summer of 6473 (965). Go Svyatoslav to Kozary; Hear the same Kozari, izidosha opposed with the prince of his kagan, and stupishasya fought, and the former scolding, od Svyatoslav Kozar and took their city of Bela Vezhya. And defeat Yasy and Kasogs.

“In the summer of 6474 (966). Vyatichi defeat Svyatoslav and pay tribute to them.

At present, it can be considered proven that in connection with these campaigns of Svyatoslav there are events described in the so-called "Note of the Gothic Toparch". In it, some unknown dignitary who ruled the Crimean region of Gothia, says that some barbarians, who were previously distinguished by gentleness and justice, began to destroy subject cities in his time, so that in the regions adjacent to Gothia, more than ten cities were deserted and not less than 500 villages. When the barbarians approached the region of the toparch, the Crimean Goths themselves decided to start a war in order to warn the enemies. The barbarian cavalry and infantry devastated the area of ​​the toparch and destroyed the walls of the main city, but the toparch managed to repel the enemies and to some extent restore the fortifications. Taking advantage of the break, he began to actively prepare for war and, sending messengers to his "supporters", gathered their "best people" for advice in order to decide which sovereigns to seek help against the barbarians. The best people who gathered “either neglected the Greek orders, and most of all sought autonomy: either because they were neighbors with the sovereign, reigning north of Istra, with a powerful numerous army, and a proud fighting force, and they were not different from local customs in their way of life - they decided to conclude an agreement with them and be transferred, and all together voted for me to do the same. Tonapx went to the northern sovereign and easily persuaded him to help the Goths. The lord of the north, considering this issue very important, returned to the toparch power over the "climates", gave him another whole satrapy and determined him large incomes in his land. With great dangers, the toparch set off through the enemy land on his way back. This document breaks off. In describing the storm that overtook the embassy on the return journey, the note mentions that at that time "Saturn was just at the beginning of its passage through Aquarius, while the sun was running through the winter signs." Thanks to this astronomical indication, it was possible to establish with certainty that the described incident took place around the beginning of January 962.

Bo the entire source never mentions the names of those tribes that participate in the events described. In addition to the Crimean Goths, four more peoples perform here. In the "barbarians" who attacked the Crimean "climates", almost all researchers agree to see the Khazars. The sovereign, "reigning north of Istra (Danube), mighty with numerous troops and proud of his fighting force," to visit which you need to cross the Dnieper, is Svyatoslav. The third participants in the events - not sympathetic to the Greeks, independent neighbors of the Crimean Goths, related in customs and way of life with the subjects of Svyatoslav, can only be some Russians who were not part of Kievan Rus. Finally, the last "enemies" through whose land the toparch was supposed to return from Kiev to the Crimea, apparently, should be considered Pechenegs.

Thus, according to the most plausible interpretation of A.A. Vasiliev, the described events are presented in the following form. In 962, the Khazars, wishing to restore their predominance in the Crimea, began to devastate the Crimean regions, and only with great difficulty were expelled from the Crimean Gothia. Not relying more on the help of the former patroness of the Goths, Byzantium, busy at that time with affairs in the east, the ruler of Gothia turned to the neighboring friendly Russians, who also suffered from the Khazars. These Russians advised to seek help from the powerful prince of Kiev, to whom the toparch went at the beginning of the winter of 962. Enlisting the appeal of the Russian prince to help the Goths, the toparch set off at the beginning of 963, suffering hardships from cold and storms and with difficulty avoiding clashes with hostile Pechenegs. What was the reason for such favor of Svyatoslav to the Gothic toparch? The above news from the chronicle about the eastern campaigns of Svyatoslav gives a clear answer to this.

Apparently, at the moment the Crimean embassy arrived to him, Svyatoslav was already thinking about the fight against the Khazars for dominance over the Vyatichi; the help offered by the immediate neighbors of Khazaria, the Crimean Goths and their mysterious allies (probably Black Sea Rus), was very useful to him. And, indeed, soon after this, Svyatoslav goes to the Vyatichi, and then to the Khazars and defeats them. At the same time, A. Vasiliev, taking into account the inaccuracy of the chronicle chronology and based on the date of the return of the toparch from Kiev to the Crimea in January 963, considers it possible to attribute the Khazar campaign of Svyatoslav to the same year 963 (instead of the chronicle 965). This correction of the chronology does not seem necessary to me. Let us recall that Svyatoslav had just taken power into his own hands; that the Khazar state must have seemed to him a strong and dangerous adversary; that at the indicated time Khazaria was far away from Kievan Rus, distant from it by the endless, inhabited by Pechenegs, steppe; that before the start of the war, it was necessary to make sure in advance of the relationship of the Slavic tribes subject to Khazaria, because of the possession of which Svyatoslav was preparing for the fight - and his long preparations for a campaign to the east would not seem strange to us.

Usually, the story of the Arab writer of the second half of the 10th century Abul-Kasim-Mukhamed, nicknamed Ibn-Khaukal, is connected with the annalistic news about the Khazar war of Svyatoslav. In an essay written around 967-977, he says:

“The Itil River leaves the vicinity of Khirkhiz on its eastern side, flows between Kaimakia and Guazia, then goes west along the upper part of the Bulgar, returns back to the east and passes through Russia, then along the Bulgar, then along Burtas, until it flows into the Khazar Sea.”

"Burtas is the name of the country, just like Rus and Khazar..."

“Between the internal Bulgars there are Christians and Muslims. At the present time, there is not a trace left either of the Bulgars, or of the Burtases, or of the Khazars, for the Rus exterminated all of them, took away all these regions from them and appropriated them to themselves. Those who escaped from their hands are scattered to the nearest places, out of a desire to remain close to their countries, and hoping to make peace with them and submit to them.

Bulgar is a small city that does not have many possessions; it was known because it was the harbor of these states. But the Russians robbed him, Khazran, Itil, and Samandar in 358 (969) and immediately went to Rum and Andalus...

As for Khazar, this is the name of these people, the capital is a city called Itil, after the name of the river flowing through it into the Khazar Sea. This city does not have many villages, nor a vast possession. This country is located between the Khazar Sea, Serir, Rus and Guazia.

The Khazars also have a city called Samandar, which is located between it (Itil) and Bab al-Abwab (Derbend). This city had many gardens, it is said that it contained about 40,000 vineyards. I asked about him in Dzhurdzhan because of the freshness of his memory. Ero was inhabited by Muslims and others; they (Muslims) had mosques in it, Christians - churches and Jews - synagogues. But the Russians attacked all this, destroyed everything that was along the Itil River, which belonged to the Khazars, Bulgars and Burtases, and took possession of it. The inhabitants of Itil fled to the island of Bab al-Abwab, and some of them live on the island of Sia-Ku in fear.

In addition, Ibn-Khaukal also reports some data about the Russians: about the division of Russia into three tribes - the Kyiv region, Slavia and Artania; that the Russians trade with Khazaria and Byzantium, and that the best furs are exported from their country, which until 969 were sold in Bulgar and Khazeran; about the “Russian river”, known as Itil, the only one that connects the Khazar Sea (Caspian) with other seas (probably referring in this case to the river route along the lower Volga, the Volga-Don portage and the lower Don to the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov); about clothes and some customs of the Russians.

At first glance, serious discrepancies in the stories of Ibn-Khaukal and the Russian chronicler are striking.

First, in the content of the message. Ibn-Khaukal tells about the appearance of the Russ on the Volga, where they devastated the entire lower Volga region (the lands of the Bulgarians, Burtases and Khazars), and about their campaign in the Caspian Sea, where they destroyed Samandar, the second largest city and the former capital, located in the north on the western coast of the Caspian Sea. This, therefore, was a maritime predatory campaign on ships: the Russians did not enter the inner regions of Khazaria and did not move away from the water, for Ibn Haukal indicates that the inhabitants hid in neighboring regions where the Russians could not pursue them.

The chronicle testifies to a completely different fact. As you know, the first Russian princes, having begun the unification of the Slavic tribes, first of all subjugated the tribes living in the basin of the Volkhov-Dnieper route. Having secured this central region, the Rurikoviches turn their attention to the southwestern tribes of the Tivertsy and Ulichs, who lived in the Danubian and Subcarpathian lands - an important transit zone for Russian trade with Constantinople and Danube Bulgaria. The eastern tribes retained their independence the longest. Colonizing the boundless Finnish forests of central Russia and being quite remote from the main water trade arteries of Eastern Europe, these Slavs at that time did not yet play such an important role in its economic life as their western (Dnieper) and eastern (Volga) neighbors. To complete the unification of Russia by joining these, the most remote eastern Slavs, was the task left to Svyatoslav by his ancestors. Indeed, he, having taken power from his mother, first of all turns to the east. In the year 964, probably in winter (when the princes traveled around Russia in general, collecting tribute from subordinate tribes), Svyatoslav went to the Oka forests and, having “found” the Vyatichi there, demanded tribute from them. There he learns that the Vyatichi recognize the power of the Khazars and that he will have to free the Vyatichi from the Khazar dependence. The following year, Svyatoslav undertook an expedition to Khazaria, in all likelihood going there by the direct route that led from Kiev to the Don and along it to the Sea of ​​Azov, where, at the confluence of the Don, stood the Khazar fortress Sarkel, in Slavonic Belaya Vezha. Having defeated the Khazar army and taking Sarkel, Svyatoslav turns south into the regions of Ossetians and Circassians, and does not go to the inner Khazar regions, perhaps sending there only an auxiliary detachment of Pechenegs or Torks, whom he could meet along the way in the upper reaches of the Don, where they lived . Why Svyatoslav did not go east towards the Khazar capital is difficult to guess, but in any case, a campaign in the steppes of the northern Caucasus undoubtedly proves that the Russian army consisted mainly of infantry and cavalry, and was not tied to ships.

Thus, the Khazar war of Svyatoslav and the campaign of Russia in the Caspian Sea are completely different both in their goals, and in their implementation, and in their results. Svyatoslav undertakes a war against the Khazars in order to free the Vyatichi from their dependence. Therefore, he destroys Sarkel - the main strategic base of the Khazars on the western border, bypasses the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov from the eastern side and, having thus pushed the Khazars away from the Don and the Azov coast, returns home to Kiev. The following year, he again goes to the Vyatichi region and subjugates them. He, therefore, is fighting for the unification of the East Slavic tribes, for the acquisition of new regions rich in fur goods and for the opening of new trading centers. Ibn-Khaukal tells about the appearance on the Volga and the Caspian of a robber flotilla, which devastated the coastal regions, plundered villages and trading cities, and, finally, sailed to the Mediterranean Sea with the intention of selling the stolen goods there. It is impossible not to emphasize in this news the fact that the Russians completely ruined both the main city of the Volga Bulgarians and the Khazar capital Itil, a large trading center and the most important transit point in the trade of Eastern Europe with the Arabs. Considering these reports of a contemporary as reliable, it is completely impossible to understand how the Russian chronicle, not forgetting to tell about the destruction of Sarkel and about the campaign in the region of the Caucasian tribes, kept silent about such an important event as the conquest of the Khazar capital.

The second discrepancy between the Arabic and chronicle news is in chronology. According to Ibn-Khaukal, the Russian campaign in Bulgaria and Khazaria took place in the 358th year of the Muslim era (968-969), that is, after November 25, 968. Since a trip down the Volga in December is unthinkable, the events described can only be dated to 969. The chronicle dates the Khazar war of Svyatoslav to the year 965 - two years before the campaign in Danube Bulgaria, attributed by the chronicle to the year 967. If we correct the date of the Bulgarian war for the year 968 (as Byzantine sources indicate), nevertheless, the Khazar war of Svyatoslav cannot be moved later than the year 966, since in the interval between the Khazar and Bulgarian wars (i.e. in this case in 967 ) Svyatoslav waged a second war with the Vyatichi. Thus, the Khazar war of Svyatoslav was 3-4 years earlier than the Russian campaign described by Ibn Haukal. Ero, however, the date is beyond any doubt, since Ibn Haukal was a contemporary of these events and learned about them just in the same year 969 during his trip to Transcaucasia, where he had to talk with eyewitnesses. Thus, both of these dates exclude the possibility of identifying the Russian campaigns described by the annals and Ibn Haukal. The only objection to this output is the indication that both the chronicler and Ibn-Khaukal tell about only one campaign of Russia in Khazaria, and the discrepancies in the chronology and in the description of the details of the campaign are explained by the poor knowledge of both authors. This explanation is overstretched. No matter how poorly the chronicler was aware of the campaign of Svyatoslav, he still could not confuse the border fortress with the Khazar capital and the Khvalyn Sea with the North Caucasian steppe. It is possible to cite as an argument that the chronicle speaks of only one campaign, only on the condition that in the 10th century no other Rus, except Kiev, existed, which is not true. As for Ibn-Khaukal, his silence about the campaign of Svyatoslav is quite natural, since rumors about this war on the western border of Khazaria and about the destruction of a distant border fortress by the Russian prince might not have reached him.

However, another assumption was also made that in 960 Svyatoslav could undertake a second campaign against Khazaria, not mentioned in the annals (Gretz, Harkavi). Westberg proves the impossibility of this. In 968, Svyatoslav, leaving his army in Bulgaria, hurries with a cavalry detachment to Kyiv - to liberate his capital from the Pechenegs, who besieged the city in his absence. In 969, he was in a hurry to return to Bulgaria and remained in Kiev only at the strong request of his mother, who was expecting an imminent death, which happened in the same year 969. According to the chronicle, Svyatoslav remained in Kyiv until the end of 970, doing state affairs and preparing for the war with Tzimiskes. Therefore, it is difficult to assume that the Grand Duke, at a time when his mother was on her deathbed, and the army in the south was conquering Bulgaria, could send a new significant army on a distant expedition to the Volga and the Caspian Sea against the Volga Bulgarians and Khazars. Finally, it is absolutely unbelievable that the chronicler, having told about the destruction of the border Khazar fortress by Svyatoslav in 965, did not mention at all about another, much more important campaign of 969, which ended with the defeat of Khazaria.

The above considerations led Westberg (and after him Markvart and Manoilovich) to the conviction that Svyatoslav's war with the Khazars had nothing to do with the Russian campaign against the Volga and the Caspian Sea in 969, and that the latter was undertaken by "Rus" from Scandinavia - Normans who returned home by a circuitous route through Rum and Andalus, i.e. the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.

Fully agreeing that the campaign of "Rus" in 969, to Khazaria, was not undertaken from Kiev, I cannot believe that the Scandinavian Normans participated in it. First of all, this is opposed by the fact that not a single source calls the Scandinavian Normans of the 10th century Rus. Do we admit that no “Rus” ever existed in Scandinavia at all, and that this name was created only in Eastern Europe, or, believing in the annalistic tradition, do we agree that Rurik and his brothers, having moved from Sweden to the Slavs, “girded the whole of Russia” - (maybe your own family), nevertheless, the fact remains that during the 10th century.

No traces of "Rus" can be found on the Scandinavian peninsula. And for the Byzantines, and for the Slavs, and for the east, the Varangians, Varangians live there. If the name "Rus" is found in the meaning of normannigena, it always means a Norman by origin, living in Eastern Europe.

Secondly, Ibn-Khaukal clearly says that after the defeat of Khazaria by the Russians, the fugitives live in the neighboring region, hoping to return to their homeland as sub-Russians. These words can in no way be attributed to the Scandinavian Normans, especially since they had already sailed to Rome and Spain. If the local population still expects to return to their old places as Russian underlings, it means that they knew that these Russians, after selling the booty in the Mediterranean ports, would return to their lands and stay there. Therefore, it is necessary to assume that the “Rus”, which devastated Khazaria in 969, lived somewhere in Eastern Europe, probably not far from the Khazars.

I think that in order to determine the place of residence of this Rus, which defeated Khazaria, according to Ibn-Khaukal, in the year 969, one must first of all pay attention to the data that Ibn-Khaukal himself contains. He himself heard little about the Russians. Apparently, only that they "trade with Khazaria and with Rum"; that the river dividing into two branches and connecting the Black Sea with the Caspian Sea bears the name of the "Russian River"; that somewhere on the Kama, in the upper part of Volga Bulgaria, there is some kind of “Russian” center. However, with regard to these data, it is necessary to make a reservation that they are almost literally repeated in the work of a contemporary of Ibn-Khaukal, the Arab geographer of Istakhri, who gave Ibn-Khaukal his work for correction. It is impossible to guess which of them borrowed the given data from the other. It is possible that both of them took material from some common source, for example, Ceyhani (not preserved), whose composition Ibn Haukal, by his own admission, constantly kept in his hands during his travels. As for the news about the division of Russia into three tribes (also literally repeated by Istakhri), it is undoubtedly borrowed from an earlier written source, most likely from al-Balkhi (who died in the middle of the 10th century), although the possibility is not ruled out that and he drew his information from the work of some of his predecessors. But in any case, it is obvious that by placing this evidence of Russia next to the story of the Russian raid on Khazaria in 969, Ibn Haukal identified the attackers with one of the mentioned Russian tribes. At the same time, it is quite clear that, in his opinion, this Rus lived somewhere in Eastern Europe: either on the “Russian River”, or in one of the mentioned tribal areas.

In view of the fact that the interpretation of the passage of interest to us by Ibn Haukal is closely connected with the news of the division of Russia into three tribes, and also, taking into account the great interest in this source, which has manifested itself in a number of new studies, I do not consider it possible in this case to simply refer to to my article on this subject, but let me briefly repeat a few of my observations from it.

This news was preserved in several versions by a number of Eastern writers: al-Balkhi, Ibn-Khaukal, Istakhri, Ibn-el-Vardi, Dimashki, Idrisi and others. The first time writer, al-Balkhi, says that “Rus consists of three tribes. One is closest to Bulgaria, and its king lives in a capital called Kuyaba; this city is larger than Bulgar. The second tribe, which is removed from them, is called Salavia. The third tribe is called Artania and its sovereign lives in Abarka. People come (to them for the sake of trade) to Kerbay. As for Abarca, they do not say that a foreigner ever came there, for they kill every foreigner who comes to their land. They themselves come by water for trade; and they do not tell anything about their affairs and about their trade; also they do not allow anyone to accompany them and come to their land. From Arfa they take out black sables and lead. Then the customs of all Russians in general are described, and it is mentioned that “the Russians trade with Khazaria, Byzantium and Great Bulgaria, that they live north of Byzantium and that they are so numerous and brave that they impose tribute on neighboring regions.”

This story is repeated almost verbatim by Ibn-Khaukal and Istakhri, and by later authors it is complicated by an admixture from various legends that circulated in the east about Russia. At the same time, it is necessary to pay attention to the confusion of local and tribal names that occur in this story.

The first tribe is named by name only in later sources: Krkban, Kerkian, Kerakertia - strange names that do not provide any material for determining the geographical position of this tribe. Ho, on the other hand, in the most ancient sources, the capital of this tribe is precisely indicated - Kuyaba = Kuyava = Kiev. Thus, under the first Russian region, it is necessary to understand the Dnieper Rus, in which all researchers of this issue unanimously agree.

The second Russian tribe is called Selavia, Salavia, in the Persian translation of Istakhri - J-laba, Ibn-el Vardi and Ibn-Ayas - Atlavia with the capital Tluya (or Tlava, Talva, Talu), Dimashka K-labiya. Regarding this tribe, scientists (with a few exceptions) also agree that the name S-lavia should be understood as the Ilmen-Volkhov region of the Slavs in northern Russia. Only the name Tluya remains incomprehensible, which should have meant Novgorod. However, it is more likely that it became the designation of the capital only among later authors, but in the main source it referred to the sovereign of the second tribe, since Ibn Haukal says this phrase: “Another tribe is higher than the first, it is called Slavia, and its king .. .” The last word is omitted here, because, apparently, Ibn-Haukal did not understand what it means in the main source.

The third name has the most options: Artania with the city of Abarka or Arta, Arzania with Arza, Ausani with Erza, Arsania, Arti. We can allow other readings, for example. Arani, Ernie, Ereni, Ertie.

As I mentioned, for all the confusion in the names of the first two tribes, scholars agree on their location. Ho, on the other hand, the name of the third tribe has caused numerous interpretations. We saw in this region the Finnish Mordovians (Erzyans), and the Perm region (Biarmia), and the Slavic region "Antania" (the name is derived from the ancient name of one branch of the Slavs - Ants), and the region of the Vyatichi along the Oka (Ryazan), and the city Orsha, and the ancient name of the Kuban River - Vardan, Vartan, and the area of ​​streets near the Dnieper mouth (- al Autsani = al Ludzana and Masudi = Constantine Porphyrogenitus = street chronicles). Some historians have shied away from the linguistic analysis of the names of Arta and Artania and have tried to locate the third tribe on the basis of other data contained in the Arabic message. In addition to the above hypotheses, three main theories should be noted. The first (Shcheglova) - connects the third tribe with the Rus mentioned by Ibn-Khaukal in the upper part of the Bulgar and therefore places

Artania in the middle Volga region. The second (last argued by Westberg) places Artania in Scandinavia on the grounds that only from there could those goods that, according to the source, were sold by Russian merchants, come from. The third - indicates the location of Artania between Byzantium, Khazaria and Bulgaria and identifies it with the Azov-Black Sea Russia. However, these arguments are not very strong. The Kama Russia of Ibn-Khaukal and Ibn-Fadlan is not mentioned by other sources, and, therefore, was hardly such a significant area that it could be taken into account when compared with Kievan and Novgorod Rus. The goods that the Russians deliver also do not provide data for conclusions about their place of residence, since the source does not say that the Russians allegedly export tin and sable furs from their land, but on the contrary - calling the main city of Artania Abarka (or Arta in later sources), says that Russia brings the named goods from Harp, i.e. from somewhere else. Yes, and other sources (Ibn-Khordadbeh and others) testify that the Russians were transit merchants who traveled for their goods to the most distant lands. The mention that the Russians trade with Byzantium, Bulgaria and Khazaria, firstly, does not prove that they should have lived on the Black Sea coast or, in particular, on the Taman Peninsula, and, secondly, it does not refer to Artani, but in general to all Russians, i.e. to all three tribes. It seems to me, therefore, that the only way to determine the location of the "third" tribe is to analyze the names given.

Given the extreme inconsistency of geographical nomenclature in parallel texts, I suggested that there was some poorly understood original source used by the Arabs of the 10th century. For one name of the third tribe, we have options: Artania, Arsania, Arzania, Ausani,

Arani, Ereni, Arza. How did all these changes come about? Where did Kerbaya come from, where do Russian merchants come? In any case, this is not Kiev, for Cuiaba is mentioned specifically. What is this amazing name Tluya to designate Novgorod or its sovereign? Given the possibility of the existence of a source little understood by the Arabs, these mysteries could be explained. Taking into account that the Arabs of the 9th-10th centuries received all information about Eastern Europe through the Khazars and that during this time the most educated layer in Khazaria were Jews who were in constant contact with fellow tribesmen who lived in the caliphate, I assumed that the main source of news about the three tribes of Russia was written in Hebrew. In the transcription of some Hebrew words by the Arabs, errors could easily occur, due both to the great similarity of several Hebrew letters, and the lack of diacritics for vowels.

Thus, the name Tluya came about. This word in Hebrew means the concept of "dependent", "depend" (see, for example, the V book of Moses, ch. 28, art. 66). The source clearly stated: “Another tribe is higher than the first, it is called Slavia, and its king depends” (on the first, i.e. the Kyiv prince), which really reflects the political situation of Novgorod at the end of the 9th century and in the 10th century.

The name of the third tribe was written in the source "Artzeinu", which means "our land". This, therefore, only means that the third Russian region was founded on Khazar territory, or was in vassal relations to Khazaria. There are many reasons to assume that such an area existed and was located on the Taman Peninsula, where at the end of the 10th and in the 11th century there was the Tmutorokan Russian principality.

The name of the city where Russian merchants come to was written K-rk in the source, and due to the great similarity of the letters kaf and bet (constant errors in Jewish sources) it was read as K-rba. It also means the large Khazar city of Kerch, lying on the western shore of the Kerch Strait against the Taman Peninsula, where, according to other sources, neighboring tribes came to trade with the Greeks and Khazar Jews.

Harp, from where Russian merchants bring sable and lead, is an incorrect transcription of the Hebrew word, which, if written without diacritics, could be read as Harp, Rafa or Refa. Undoubtedly, in this case, the last reading should be taken, since Refa or Refaa is a common designation in eastern sources for a far northern country, most likely Norway. From there, from the Scandinavian Peninsula, Russian merchants were supposed to carry fur goods and lead to the Caspian and Black Sea markets.

As for the capital of the third tribe - "Abarka" - I could not find a satisfactory interpretation for this name. I think now that it turned out instead of the vaguely written name of M-t-r-k-a, i.e. Matrakha - Tmutorokan, the main center of Taman Rus. Thus, I propose the following reconstruction of the original Jewish news about the "three Russian tribes", which served as the basis for the stories of the Arab writers of the 10th century.

“Russia consists of three tribes. One is closest to Bulgaria and its king lives in the capital Kuyaba; this city is larger than Bolgar. The second tribe removed from them is "Slavia" and its king is dependent (on the first). The third tribe is our land, and its sovereign lives in Matraha. People come (to them for the sake of trade) to Kerch. As for Matraha, they do not say that a foreigner ever came there, for they kill every foreigner who comes to their land. They themselves come by water for trade; and they tell nothing of their affairs and their trade; also they do not allow anyone to accompany them and come to their land. From Refaa (Scandinavia) they export black sables and lead ... "

The third Russian region is, according to this hypothesis, the Tmutorokan, Azov, Black Sea Russian principality, which, as mentioned, was previously assumed by a number of researchers on the basis of other considerations.

Not having the opportunity in this article to dwell in detail on the evidence for the existence of the Azov-Black Sea Rus in the 10th century, let me briefly recall the main arguments in favor of this hypothesis. First of all, it must be stated that the "Russians" on the Black Sea are already at the very beginning of the 9th century. The life of St. Stephen of Surozh describes the devastating campaign of the Russians along the Crimean coast "from Korsun to Kerch" at the end of the 8th or at the beginning of the 9th century. Life of St. George of Amastrid, compiled before 842, talking about the attack of Russia on Amastrida (a city on the southern coast of the Black Sea), calls the Russians a people "well known to everyone." The Bertin annals under the year 839 tell about the arrival of the Russians from Constantinople in Ingelheim, who from the Black Sea wanted to make their way to Scandinavia by a roundabout way. Ibn-Khordadbeh tells about the travels of the Russians to the Black Sea in the first edition of his work, dating back to the time before 846. These Russians are Normans: they are of the "Swedish kind"; their Scandinavian customs are compared by Arab modern sources with the customs of the Slavs, who are subjected to incessant attacks by the Rus and serve as slaves to them. It is natural to assume that, penetrating the Black Sea coast, the Normans founded their guards here - fortified trading posts, similar to those that at that very time were based in the lands of the Baltic Slavs, Lithuanians, Finns (on Lake Ladoga, White Lake, on the middle Volga, etc. .) and Eastern Slavs (in Novgorod, Izborsk, Polotsk, Kyiv, Pripyat, etc.).

Traces of the Varangian colonization on the Black Sea coast are preserved in the topographical names given by the Italian peripluses of the 13th-17th centuries. on the northern coast of the Black Sea and the Azov coast; Rossa (Tendra Island), Varaegia, Varangolimena, Varangico, Rossofar, Rossoca, Rossi, Rosso, Russia. A number of data suggest that the same Varangians also formed a Russian (Norman) colony on the Taman Peninsula (at that time a former island), and that it includes the testimony of an eastern source from the first half of the 9th century (Muslim al Jarmi?), which came down in the compilation Ibn-Rostec about the "Russian Island". This source says that "Rus" lives on a low, humid island, three days' journey in circumference. At the head of this predatory colony is the sovereign, whom the source titles with the Khazar title of "kagan"; he is a military leader. Detachments of Russian islanders carry out attacks on the neighboring Slavic regions, captivate people and take them for sale to the Caspian trading cities. The internal structure of the principality is primitive: in legal life, the right of revenge dominates; the national economy is not developed - it has no arable land and meadows. These data are supplemented by the testimony of several later sources. Mukaddesi determines the size of the Russian colony at 100,000 people. Al-Bekri, calling the Russians "islanders", places them on the Black Sea. Dimashki speaks of seven Russian islands in the Black Sea, and on the islands there are already villages and cities with a developed economic life. Mirkhond says that before the advent of "Rus" these islands belonged to Khazaria and were donated to Russian robbers by the kagan. Al-Aufi and Shabangarei testify that around the year 900 Christianity began to spread on the Russian Island, but that there were also many Muslims there.

The question of the "Russian Island" has an extensive literature. They searched for him in Denmark, and in Scandinavia, and on the Dnieper, and on the Volga, and on Lake Ladoga, and on the Volkhov, and in the lake region south of Ilmen, and on the Dzharylgach Spit at the Dnieper mouth. The majority of researchers (Gedeonov, Kunik, Ilovaisky, Golubinsky, Parkhomenko, etc.), putting Ibn-Rostec’s news in connection with the testimony of other sources, identified the “Russian Island” with the Taman Peninsula, near which the “Russian River” is located - the Don and the city Russia at the mouth of the Don. It was pointed out that in the period under study, the Taman Peninsula was a group of islands, as evidenced by Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Kiev Caves Patericon. Attention was drawn to the conformity of the geographical conditions of this place with the Arabic description of the Russian Island, as well as to the fact that the political situation in the northeastern corner of the Black Sea during the VIII-XI centuries. does not contradict this hypothesis. In the VIII century, the city of Matrakha on the Taman Peninsula belongs to the Khazaria; in the 9th-10th centuries there is no news of his political life; at the very beginning of the 11th century, it acts as the political center of the eastern outskirts of Russia. According to Golubinsky, the existence of the Principality of Tmutorokan is an unresolved mystery, since it is impossible to understand the purpose for which the Russians established their power on a piece of land so remote from them. If we assume that the Russians found a colony of their relatives on the Taman Peninsula, the answer becomes clear.

At the same time, many obscure sources of evidence about Black Sea Rus in the 9th and 10th centuries receive a natural explanation.

If you believe the story of Mirhond that the Khazar kagan presented the Russians with an island on which they set up their principality, it becomes clear how the Turkic title of kagan could appear to the Russian prince under the influence of the Khazar neighbors; why the Khazar source of the end of the 9th century calls the area of ​​the “third” Russian tribe our land. It is most natural to conclude that a raid on Amastris was carried out from here in the first half of the 9th century, and in 860 a siege of Constantinople was undertaken (as Golubinsky argued), which ended with the spread of Christianity among the Russians. From here it was easy for this Rus to attack the Slavic villages in the north and transport their goods along the Don and Volga to the Caspian markets. From here, most likely, came that big expedition of Russia to Azerbaijan in 913, which Masudi describes in detail: the Russian fleet, with the permission of the kagan, passed the Don and the Volga to the Caspian Sea and, having devastated its southwestern coast, tried to return by the same route to Black Sea, but was destroyed along the way by Muslims. Masudi ascribes this campaign to that powerful tribe of el-Ludzana, whose ships travel to Constantinople, Rome and Spain, and from whose location on the Black Sea this sea was called the "Russian Sea". It is impossible not to identify this name "Ludzana" with the region of Luzania (Luznin), which the Jewish-Khazar anonym of the 10th century calls the direct neighbor of Khazaria.

Here at the Prince of Tmutorokan, according to Leo Deacon, in 941 Igor, who fled after the defeat at Constantinople to the Cimmerian Bosporus, could seek help. This Russian (Taman) prince could have been referring to Igor's agreement with the Greeks of 945, which obligated him to defend the Crimean possessions of the Greeks from the attacks of the black Bulgarians who lived on the eastern shore of the Sea of ​​Azov. Only this, Taman Rus, can relate the story of the Khazar anonymous about the Russian-Byzantine-Khazar war of 943-944, which ended in the defeat of the Russians and the unsuccessful campaign of the Russian prince in Azerbaijan, after which "the Russians again fell under the rule of the Khazars." Finally, the assumption suggests itself that the allies mentioned by the Gothic toparch, related to the subjects of Svyatoslav, who lived near the Crimea and did not depend on neighboring sovereigns, were Black Sea Russ.

In one of my latest works - "Normans in Eastern Europe" - considering the process of Norman colonization in the east, I drew attention to the possibility of the existence of a number of independent Varangian colonies, based near all the large rivers of the Sarmatian lowland, its trade routes. Having outlined a long series of such alleged Scandinavian centers, I also made several suggestions regarding the process of gradual unification of these independent Varangian centers, together with the tributary areas surrounding them, into large areas - the Varangian principalities. This process, which took place at the dawn of Russian history, although very vague, is still noticeable in southern, Dnieper, Russia. It is more difficult to guess it in the north, in the Novgorod region. But in any case, even in the middle of the 10th century, these regions had not yet lost the character of more or less independent state formations: Porphyrogenitus opposes Novgorod, Svyatoslav's "outer Russia", Kiev. And how this process of expansion of the Kyiv principality took place, by including independent regions, in the east is not at all known. All the same, some hints from sources (Leo the Deacon, Igor's treaty with the Greeks of 945, the Cambridge Anonymous, Note of the Gothic toparch) suggest that in the middle of the 10th century the influence of Kievan Rus was already felt in the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov, although Taman Rus was still independent at that time . Konstantin Porphyrogenitus, describing the northern Black Sea region, does not mention the extent of the power of Kievan Rus to the Sea of ​​Azov, but, on the contrary, describes the Taman Islands as a special region - Matrakha with the main city of Tamatarkha-Tmutorokan, along with Zikhia and other independent Caucasian principalities.

Thus, I dare to think that the Eastern writers, who talk about the division of the Russians into three tribes, mean by the third Russian tribe, Artania, the Russian principality, which was founded at the beginning of the 9th century on the Taman Peninsula, and gradually subjugated the neighboring Norman colonies on the Black Sea coast to its influence or power. , just as Novgorod Rus united the Varangian centers in the region of the Ilmen Slavs, Krivichi, Chud and Ves, and Kiev Rus united the Dnieper tribes. Speaking about the division of Russia into three regions, the source of the end of the 9th or beginning of the 10th century reflected the real political situation of contemporary Eastern Europe. At the same time, of course, one should not lose sight of the fact that not only at the end of the IX, but also during the entire X, maybe. even in the 11th century, there were other, independent or semi-independent Varangian centers scattered in different corners of Eastern Europe (like the principalities of Rogvolod and Typa known to us and the unknown center on the Kama, which Ibn-Khaukal mentions). However, it is obvious that in the second half of the 10th century, in comparison with the three main regions - Kievan, Novgorod and Black Sea Rus - these centers were insignificant formations and could not play any prominent role in the political life of Eastern Europe.

Where did the robbery campaign of Russia in Khazaria in 969 come from? It is quite obvious that only a very strong robber flotilla could destroy several large cities and devastate the richest regions of a state with an army of several tens of thousands of people. Consequently, the campaign of 969 could only be undertaken from some large Varangian center. Above, arguments were cited proving that these Russians could not be Normans from Scandinavia, nor the army of the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav. Even more incredible would be the assumption that the campaign in Khazaria was undertaken from Novgorod. Firstly, Novgorod at that time was closely connected with Kievan Rus and its detachments should have been at that time together with Svyatoslav in Bulgaria. Secondly, if the squads remaining in the north had ventured to go to the Volga in 969, they could hardly have been numerous enough to defeat Volga Bulgaria and Khazaria. Thirdly, if they had succeeded in defeating these states, they would, of course, have returned home by a direct route along the Volga, and would hardly have decided to take a detour through Rome and Spain, almost certainly counting on the fact that the Byzantine fleet would not let through The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles were subjects of Svyatoslav, with whom the Greeks were at war at that very time. Finally, it would be completely understandable how the Russian chronicle could forget about such an important fact as the complete defeat by the Russian troops of the neighboring strong state, with which the Kiev prince waged war four years before.

Thus, it remains to be assumed that in the year 969 a campaign in Khazaria was undertaken by the Azov-Black Sea Rus.

Let's try to restore a hypothetical picture of the relationship between Khazaria, Kiev and Tmutorokan in the period of interest to us.

In the year 945, Igor, who tried to reimburse the expenses caused by two campaigns against Byzantium with increased tribute from subject tribes, fell in the land of the Drevlyans, leaving the throne to the child Svyatoslav and the widow Olga. Having avenged the death of her husband to the rebellious tribe with a series of cruelties, Olga turns all her attention to the legal and economic improvement of Russia and to the resumption of the former lively trade ties with Byzantium. At this time, Taman Rus, left to its fate and weakened by three unsuccessful wars of 943-944 with the Khazars, Greeks and the Caliphate, had to become heavily dependent on Khazaria, as mentioned above, the Khazar Anonymous testifies.

New conditions were created in Eastern Europe with the accession to the Kyiv throne of the brave Svyatoslav. During the twenty-year rule of Olga, which the chronicler calls wise, the unrest calmed down, the rebellious tribes paid heavily for their rebellion, precisely defined "charters and lessons" probably returned economic prosperity to the state, and the time came to decide on the accession of the latter, who remained independent, Slavic tribes, and m.b. and about the search for new markets that would free Kiev from economic dependence on Byzantium. It was mentioned above how Svyatoslav tried to complete the unification of the Slavic tribes begun in the 9th century by joining the Vyatichi, who lived along the Oka and the upper Don. In 965, Svyatoslav went to the Don, hoping to destroy the Khazar power in the Don and Azov regions. Pushed back to the Volga and the Caspian, Khazaria could not be a dangerous rival, and this was the reason why Svyatoslav did not go to the Volga region, but attacked Sarkel, the strongest base of the Khazar power in the Don region. Having destroyed it and defeated the Khazar army, he went south along the eastern shore of the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov, having, apparently, the only goal - to push the Khazars to the Volga and the Caspian. Thus, Svyatoslav reached the Caucasian steppe zone, where he defeated the Alanian tribes, and then returned to the north, and the following year he finally consolidated his power over the Vyatichi.

Did Svyatoslav take possession of Tmutorokan during this war? The chronicle does not say anything about this, but one must think that, walking along the Azov coast, he could not help but pay attention to this principality, which, being at the exit from Maotida, held in its hands the trade of the Don region with the Black Sea and which, throughout probability in alliance with the Goths, helped him in the Khazar war. Therefore, one has to ask: why did Svyatoslav, having in his hands the Black Sea port on the Taman Peninsula, did not delay him, but, returning to Kiev, turned all his attention to the west, to the Danube?

Having traveled a vast space from Kyiv to Tmutorokan, Svyatoslav realized that the lands along this path were rich in the same raw materials that his Dnieper region had; that he could not sell this raw material in the east, with existing relations with Khazaria, and, therefore, had to send it to his old client - Byzantium. Thanks to this, the entire region along the Don and Donets would have to send their goods by the shortest route to Matrakha, and Kiev would lose a large region, which until then was drawn to the Dnieper route. The expansion of trade operations of Tmutorokani could weaken the income of Kyiv, and therefore Svyatoslav, as a Kievan prince, could sacrifice Matrakha in favor of his capital. On the other hand, Tmutorokan at that time could not be of great interest to Kyiv in terms of transporting oriental goods: Arab trade with the Volga region at that time was extremely weakened, and relations between Russia and Khazaria were interrupted. Finally, the new trade route needed a significant military force to protect against nomads, and pulling detachments from the Dnieper would reduce the safety of travel along the Dnieper trade route. These, and perhaps other considerations, forced Svyatoslav to leave Tmutorokan, but, apparently, after 965 he did not own it. Leaving for Bulgaria, he placed his children in the regions on the Volkhov-Dnieper route (Yaropolk in Kyiv, Oleg in the Drevlyansk land, Vladimir in Novgorod), which indicates that he only cares about the path "from the Varangians to the Greeks."

However, Svyatoslav's war with the Khazars was to have important consequences for Tmutorokan Rus. It can be assumed that during the twenty years that elapsed from the unsuccessful Azerbaijani campaign to the war of Svyatoslav, the Principality of Azov restored its strength. It is to this period of time (957) that Masudi's testimony about the power of the Black Sea Russes and their travels to the Mediterranean Sea refers. On the other hand, the conditions of the political life of Khazaria at that time were difficult. The economic crisis due to the fading of Arab trade, the pressure of powerful neighbors and the internal struggle between the Jews, on the one hand, and Muslims and Christians, on the other, weakened its power. It may be that the Russians intervened on occasion in these internal strife of Khazaria and helped its opponents (for example, the Crimean Goths in 962), waiting for the right moment for the final liberation from the Khazar sovereignty. Such an occasion was given by the war of Svyatoslav. After the capture of Sarkel, the destruction of the Khazar army and the retreat of the Khazars from the Azov coast, the Taman principality was to become independent. It is very likely that after the departure of Svyatoslav, it quickly spread along the eastern shore of the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov and, having restored the devastated Sarkel from the ruins, turned it into the subsequently famous "Rusiya". Perhaps the attempts of the Khazars to return this fortress, and perhaps the simple desire of the Russians to enrich themselves at the expense of a weakened neighbor, caused the campaign of Russia to the Volga in 969. By the old well-known road, they went up the Don to the Volga, climbed along it to the Bulgar, defeated it; then they went down the river, devastating the coastal villages of the Burtases and Khazars; reached Itil, destroyed it and, passing into the Caspian Sea, robbed the northwestern coast, defeating the second largest Khazar city, Samandar. In the same way they returned to the Black Sea and went to sell the stolen goods to the European markets.

From 969 until the last decade of the 10th century, there is again no news of Russian-Khazar relations. Svyatoslav after 965 was not interested in affairs in the East, just like his sons, whose internecine strife prevented them from even holding power over the Radimichi and Vyatichi. Only Vladimir managed to subjugate these tribes again, and the first news of the subjugation of Tmutorokan to Kiev dates back to his time. I dare to think that only under this prince did Tmutorokan join Kyiv (in all likelihood, during the Korsun campaign of Vladimir), but, unfortunately, the overgrown volume of the article does not allow me to dwell on this issue in detail.

Seminar №2

3. The relationship of Russia with neighboring states and peoples:

a) the West and Byzantium;

b) Khazar Khaganate;

c) Volga Bulgaria;

d) relations with nomads: Pechenegs, Polovtsy.

Byzantium.

In the system of political relations between Byzantium and the countries and peoples surrounding it, they were of great importance in the 9th-10th centuries. its relations with northern neighbors. Steadily following the favorite principle of "divide and rule", Byzantine diplomacy concentrated its efforts on preventing the spread of Russian influence in the Black Sea region, cutting off Russia from the Black Sea. In a struggle that dragged on for several centuries, Russia remained the advancing side. The first stage in the development of Byzantine-Russian relations was the establishment of relations between Russia and the Byzantine colony in the Crimea - Kherson, whose trade with the "barbarians" of the Black Sea region was the main source of its existence and prosperity. The second stage of Byzantine-Russian relations is characterized by Russian attempts to establish direct ties with the cities of the Black Sea coastal provinces of Byzantium. The third stage of Byzantine-Russian relations is the beginning of direct contacts with Constantinople. On June 18, 860, the Russians attacked Constantinople on 20 ships. The outskirts of the capital were devastated. The Russian attack was completely unexpected for the Byzantines. Treaties between Russians and Greeks in 907 and 911 testify to the already established system of diplomatic and trade relations, which, in all likelihood, persisted until the end of the 9th century. Trade with Byzantium contributed to an increase in the economic power of the rulers of Russia - here they sold part of the tribute and military booty. In 907 an agreement was reached under the walls of Constantinople. The Russians received the right to duty-free trade in the capital of the empire. In September 911, another treaty was concluded, solemnly sealed by mutual oaths. The agreement established the procedure for resolving conflicts, exchanging and redeeming prisoners, returning runaway slaves and criminals, protecting and returning property that was on shipwrecked ships, dealt with inheritance issues, etc. According to the agreement of 944, the Russians were supposed to defend Kherson from the invasion of black Bulgarians, occupying the steppes between the Don and the Kuban. The treaty also emphatically emphasizes that the Russian prince has no right to extend his power to the empire's possessions on the northern shores of the Black Sea. surprise for the Byzantines. Having learned about Igor's preparations, the Chersonites and Bulgarians immediately informed the imperial court. At the entrance to the Bosporus, Igor's army was met by Byzantine ships equipped with Greek fire. The light ships of Russia were dispersed. The Russians landed on the shores of the Bosporus, the main forces of the fleet withdrew into shallow water near the coast of Asia Minor. The Russians ravaged Bithynia and the coast of Pontus to Heraclia and Paphlagonia. Only in September, having drawn significant forces from Asia Minor, Thrace and Macedonia, did the Byzantines oust the Russians. Soon a new treaty was concluded, more favorable to the Byzantines than the treaty of 911. The treaty no longer spoke of duty-free Russian trade in Constantinople. Russian merchants were forbidden to purchase silk fabrics, Russians were obliged to help Byzantium and protect its Crimean colonies. For a quarter of a century after the conclusion of the treaty of 944, relations between Byzantium and Russia were peaceful. The contradictions that grew between Byzantium and Russia resulted in a major military clash in the late 60s and early 70s. ridge and devastated Thrace. In the summer of 988, the Russians took part in the defeat of the troops of Phocas near Chrysopolis. The marriage, which was preceded by the adoption of Christianity by Vladimir, apparently took place in the summer of 989. Neither Christianization nor family ties led to the subordination of Russia to the interests of the empire. Russia continued to grow and develop independently of either the court of Constantinople or the worldview of Byzantine diplomats.

Khazar Khaganate.

The Khazar Khaganate was the first state that Ancient Russia had to face. The fate of not only Eastern European tribes, but also many tribes and peoples of Europe and Asia depended on the outcome of the struggle between these two states. Transcaucasia. Apparently, in the early 90s of the 6th century, the Khazars became the leading force in the Eastern Ciscaucasia, recognizing, however, the supreme power of the Turkic Khaganate. consistent and stubborn struggle with the Khazar Khaganate, seeking the liberation from the Khazar yoke of the East Slavic tribes and their unification in one state. Under the successor of Oleg, Prince Igor, Kievan Rus encountered the Khazar Khaganate several times. Twice, in 913/914. and in 943/944. These major clashes were due to the impossibility for Russia to pass through Khazaria to the Caspian Sea and further to Transcaucasia. The commercial and military ships of Russia from the Sea of ​​Azov went up the Don to Perevoloka, from where they were dragged by land to the Volga. The first such campaign for Russia ended in defeat: on the way back, at the request of the Muslims, they were attacked. The second went well for Russia. Kievan Rus several times at the same time had to deal with Khazaria because of the Crimean possessions. But the mortal blow to the Khazar Khaganate, which put an end to its independent existence, was inflicted by Prince Svyatoslav, the son of Igor. Prince Svyatoslav undertook his first campaigns against the Vyatichi and against Khazaria. In 964, Prince Svyatoslav marched on the Oka River. In 965 he defeated the Khazar Khaganate.

Volga Bulgaria.

After the defeat of the Khazar Khaganate by Svyatoslav, Bulgaria, taking advantage of the civil war that began in Russia, spreads its influence to the tribes of Vyatichi, Murom and Merya. In the 80s of the 10th century, the Bulgars tried to persuade the Vyatichi against Kyiv, and this attempt was quite successful. In 984, Vladimir made a campaign against the Radimichi, Vyatichi neighbors, and the next year, the chronicle recorded a grandiose campaign of the united Russian-tordic regiments against the Volga Bulgaria. After the campaign against the Bulgars in 985, the Kyiv prince realized that it was more profitable to be friends and cooperate with the Bulgars than to be at enmity and make “eternal peace” with them. Russia was interested in the Bulgars as a market for both their goods and goods brought from the East. In turn, Russia was interested in Bulgaria to no lesser extent, as evidenced by the existence of a Russian colony in the Bulgarian capital. In 1006, the agreement between Kievan Rus and Volga Bulgaria was renegotiated on new terms. . Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, who made an attempt to conquer the Bulgars, was forced to conclude an "eternal peace" with them. He realized that peaceful relations with the Volga Bulgaria would bring much greater benefits to his state. Vladimir's agreement with Bulgaria was renegotiated several times and serves as direct evidence of long-term good neighborly relations between the two states.

Pechenegs.

At the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century, nomadic tribes of the Pechenegs lived in the lower reaches of the Dnieper. Their cavalry now and then made raids on Russian lands and cities. To protect against such raids, the southern borders of Russia were constantly strengthened by belts of defensive structures. In 969, the Pecheneg army besieged Kyiv. Prince Svyatoslav and his retinue were in Bulgaria at that time. therefore, his mother, Princess Olga, stood at the head of the defense. Under her command, the people of Kiev managed to hold out until the arrival of the squad. near the city of Rodny, located south of Kyiv, Svyatoslav utterly defeated the Pechenegs and captured their prince. Three years later, during a battle with the Pechenegs near the Dnieper rapids, Svyatoslav was killed. In 980, the chronicler mentions the Pechenegs in connection with the internecine war between the sons of Prince Svyatoslav. When Vladimir Svyatoslavich with the Novgorod troops and the Varangian squad expelled his brother Yaropolk from Kyiv, he made an attempt to enlist the support of the Pechenegs. Clashes with the Pechenegs continued after the approval of Vladimir on the Kiev grand prince's table. The nine-year Russian-Pecheneg war of 988-997. began after the adoption of Christianity by Russia. Offensive. Three years later, the Pechenegs again undertook a big campaign against Russia. The garrisons of the border fortresses and the squads of the Kyiv prince were unable to hold back their onslaught. Vladimir had to urgently go to Novgorod for help. The heavy war with the Pechenegs continued until the death of Prince Vladimir and, judging by the annals, did not bring decisive success to Russia. The last big campaign of the Pechenegs against Kyiv was undertaken in 1036 in the absence of the prince. In a fierce battle that lasted all day, the Pechenegs suffered a crushing defeat.

Polovtsy.

A Turkic-speaking people who lived in the 10th-13th centuries in the southern Russian steppes and Central Asia. The Polovtsian army consisted of light and heavy cavalry, which had a constant composition; they were armed with bows, sabers and spears. In 1061, the Polovtsy, led by the "prince" Iskal, attacked the Russian lands for the first time, defeating the army of the Pereyaslav prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich. Since that time, for more than a century and a half, they have continuously threatened the southern borders of Russia, either making devastating raids on it, or exacerbating the princely strife with their participation. For several years after the successful attack on Pereyaslavl, the Polovtsy did not disturb Russia. The Polovtsy attacked in the summer of the following year after this "Pyrrhic victory". They again approached Pereyaslavl. Vsevolod now did not dare to fight them on his own and sent for help to Kyiv and Chernigov. Opponents met on the river. Alte is the site of so many past and future battles. A laconic chronicle message allows us to find out only one detail - the reason for the defeat: the Polovtsy attacked the Russian camp at night, suddenly. The army of the Yaroslavichs fled, and the victors began to freely plunder the lands of the three principalities. Three years later, in the annals, we find a mention of the ruin by the Polovtsy of the environs of two border fortresses on the Right Bank - Rostovets and Neyatin in the Ros basin, and again - a lull. For twelve years, there is no information about the Polovtsian raids. In 1078, huge hordes of Polovtsy participated in the battle on the Sozhitsa River, where they were led by Oleg Svyatoslavich, nicknamed Goreslavich for that. Here, on August 25, "the Polovtsians defeated Rus." The losses were very great. By the mid-eighties, the Polovtsian danger increased again. In the autumn of 1084, an eight thousandth Polovtsian army approached Priluk. The sons of Vsevolod Yaroslavich managed to break another detachment on the river. Ostra, a tributary of the Desna, after which they had to urgently rush to the Right Bank and smash the Polovtsian "children" in different places of Porose. The end of the eighties passed more calmly. In 1092, the nomads managed to take three towns on the Left Bank: Perevoloka and Priluk in Posulya, and Pesochen - near Pereyaslavl. Many villages were destroyed on both banks of the Dnieper. Svyatopolk tried to make peace with him, sealing it with marriage. In 1094, he married the daughter of one of the supreme leaders of the Kipchaks, Khan Tugorkan. In the winter of 1095, near Pereyaslavl, Vladimir Monomakh, with the knowledge of Svyatopolk, destroyed two Polovtsian "princes" Itlar and Kitan. The law of hospitality was violated. The prince of Pereyaslav declared an irreconcilable war on the steppes. In the summer, the war resumed along the entire border. The Polovtsians approached the town of Yuryev and, having stood under it all summer, almost forced the garrison to surrender. Svyatopolk came out to Russia with an offer of peace, and the exhausted Yurievites, seeing the princely banner, “ran out” of the fortress to meet them. The Polovtsy plundered and burned the deserted city. It was their victory. Only in 1101 were the heads of the South Russian lands able to finally reconcile. A truce was also concluded with the Polovtsy, again on their initiative, sealed with an exchange of hostages. Committed on the initiative of Vladimir Vsevolodovich in the spring of 1103, the campaign against the Polovtsians turned out to be unusually successful because of the actions of our intelligence, which destroyed the Polovtsian field guards. Already under 1105, the chronicler notes the renewed activity of the Polovtsy - they attacked the villages near Zarechsk. The governors of Svyatopolk caught up with them and recaptured the prisoners. In the next year, 1107, the Polovtsy of Bonyak suddenly captured the herds near Pereyaslavl in the spring, and apparently in the summer. intending to take revenge, the forces of several hordes besieged the fortress of Luben in the middle reaches of the Sula. The grandiose campaign of the combined army of Russian princes in the early spring of 1111, which led to the capture of the Polovtsian cities on the Lower Don and the greatest battle of the Russians with the Kipchaks, finally broke their spirit. When, in 1116, Yaropolk Vladimirovich came to the Don along his father's path and even went further, he never met anyone on the way. There was no one to fight. In front of the Russian regiments, the Polovtsy fled "for the Don, for the Volga, for Yaik."

Contemporaries often remember the Khazar Khaganate, or Khazaria, only thanks to the immortal Pushkin's "Prophetic Oleg", who was going to "take revenge on the unreasonable Khazars." But the "Khazar Khaganate" in the distant past was almost the most serious external enemy of Kievan Rus.

Formation of the Khazar Khaganate

The Khazars were an ancient Turkic people and were contemporaries of the Polovtsy and Pechenegs. The exact year of the formation of the Khazar Khaganate is unknown, but historians suggest that this could happen around the year 650. The heir to the Western Khaganate, fleeing from other pretenders to the throne, fled to Khazaria, where he founded his own Khaganate - the Khazar, conquering the scattered Khazar tribes.

In 958, the Western Khaganate finally disintegrated and, thus, the Khazar Khaganate became the largest state in all of Southeastern Europe. The Khazars, like most peoples of that time, professed paganism, and their main activity was cattle breeding and the slave trade.

Later, in order to establish trade relations, the Khazars converted to Judaism. However, on the territory of the Khazar Khaganate, people of various faiths coexisted: Christians, pagans, Muslims. But, at the same time, they were all excellent warriors, so the main source of income for the state was the conquest of foreign lands, and then the collection of tribute from the conquered territories.

So, the Khazars managed to subdue the Vyatichi, Radimichi, Glades, and also conquer the territories of the Volga Bulgaria. The accession of these lands to the Khazar Khaganate took place in the eighth century.

Relations between Kievan Rus and the Khazar Khaganate

Kievan Rus, like the Khazar Khaganate, and indeed most of the ancient states, lived by wars, and not by agriculture and trade. Therefore, one should not be surprised that the history of relations between Kievan Rus and the Khazar Khaganate is not the history of diplomatic cooperation, but the history of wars.

Many princes of Kievan Rus fought the Khazars, but without success. Only Prince Svyatoslav in 964 finally managed to tip the scales of confrontation in his favor. The prince went to war against the Khazar Khaganate not alone, but with allies: Pechenegs and Guzes.

Together with the allied tribes, Svyatoslav managed to reach the capital of the Khazar Khaganate - the city of Atil, where the prince managed to crush the Khazar army. Then Semender fell - the second most important city in the Khazar Khaganate, and after that the Sarkel fortress was conquered.

The collapse of the Khazar Khaganate

The military campaign of Prince Svyatoslav actually put an end to the existence of the Khazar Khaganate as a state. Since Svyatoslav was absolutely merciless towards the conquered peoples, many Khazars were forced to leave their native lands, fleeing inevitable death on the islands of the Caspian Sea.

Together with the Khazars, their ruler, the kagan, also managed to escape. Until 980, the Russ ruled on the former lands of the Khazars, but then the Khazars unexpectedly received help from one of the regions of Western Asia - Khorezm, thanks to which the kagan managed to return to his native lands himself and return his people home.

In exchange for this support, the Khazars, together with their ruler, converted to Islam. Already in 985, Prince Vladimir of Kyiv conquered the Khazars again, obliging them to pay tribute to him. But the final point in the history of the Khazar Khaganate was put in the eleventh century by nomads - the Polovtsians. It was after their invasion that the state of the Khazars disintegrated completely.

Subsequently, this people, already without a state, fought on the side of one of the sons of Prince Vladimir - Mstislav. This happened in 1024, when Mstislav fought with his brother Yaroslav. And the latest historical evidence about the Khazars refers to the years 1079 and 1083. At this time, Prince Oleg, who was nicknamed the Prophet, went against the Khazars on a military campaign, but lost, was captured and sent to Byzantium.