Y.Lazarev. Where your head lies, there we fall

The first mention of the invasion of the Slavs into Byzantine possessions dates back to 493 (or 495). Then they crossed the Istres (Danube) and devastated Thrace. In 517, the Slavs in their campaign to the south went much further and penetrated into Macedonia, Epirus and Thessaly. It is known that their army appeared in the Thermopylae passage.

In 527, Antian tribes attacked the Byzantine Empire. Then the Byzantine troops barely managed to repel their invasion. Under Emperor Justinian, 80 fortifications were built on Istra to protect the northern borders of the state. However, these measures turned out to be fruitless, which was confirmed by the subsequent campaigns of the Slavs against Byzantium.

A.Klymenko. Ants leader

For the first time, the Slavic army approached Constantinople in 540. The attackers could not take the city, but they burned all its suburbs and devastated the surroundings. In 548, the army of the Slavs invaded the empire, which successfully crossed the Ister and passed all of Illyricum to Dyrrachium.

The Byzantine chroniclers of that time left quite detailed descriptions of the Slavic warriors and the tactics of their combat operations. It was said that they were armed mainly with spears, bows and arrows, and from protective weapons they had only shields. They sought to attack the enemy suddenly, skillfully setting up ambushes in forests and mountainous areas.

The big campaign of the Slavs against the Byzantine Empire took place in 550-551. Then detachments of Slavic warriors took a number of cities in Macedonia, acted in Thrace and stormed the coastal city-fortress Toper.

The invasion of the Slavic tribes into the Balkan part of the Byzantine Empire became especially frequent at the end of the 6th century. In 577, a huge Slavic army, estimated by contemporaries up to 100 thousand people, crossed Istria and ravaged Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly.

From Byzantine sources it is known that the Slavs invaded the empire in large forces in 581, 585 and 586-587. They repeatedly, for example, besieged such a large coastal city as Thessalonica (Thessalonica). In 589, the Slavs, during their invasion of the Balkans, reached the Peloponnese.

However, the Byzantine Empire not only defended itself from its Slavic neighbors, but also attacked their lands itself. In the 590s, the imperial army under the command of the commander of Mauritius Priska crossed Istra near the city of Dristra (Dorostol) and devastated the possessions of the Slavic princes Ardagast and Musokia. The Byzantines fought on the left bank for a long time and only with the onset of winter did they cross back across the Istres.

In 597, the Byzantine army repeated its invasion of the Slavic lands on the opposite bank of the Istra. This time the campaign did not differ in suddenness, and the Slavs defended themselves courageously and skillfully. The advance detachment of the Byzantines in a thousand soldiers, the first to be on the left bank of the Istra, was exterminated. However, the Slavs lost the general battle, and their leader Piragast died on the battlefield. However, the advance into the depths of the Slavic lands turned out to be associated with heavy losses, and the Byzantines considered it good to stop the campaign.

In the same year, when the emperor's army fought in the Slavic lands beyond Istrom, their enemy unexpectedly appeared in front of Thessalonica and laid siege to the city. It is known that during the six-day siege, the Slavs used rams and stone-throwing machines. They could not take the city and were forced to retreat from it.

In 600, the allied army of the Avars and Slavs approached Constantinople. But the outbreak of the plague forced them to sign peace with Byzantium. That was the end of the joint trip. The Eastern Slavs became especially dangerous for the Byzantine Empire when they began to develop navigation. On their light boats, one-trees, they successfully sailed on the Pontus Euxinus (Black Sea), in Propintis (Sea of ​​Marmara), the Aegean, Ionian and Inland (Mediterranean) seas. There, Slavic boat fleets attacked coastal cities and captured merchant ships of the Byzantines, and not only them.

Thessalonica was again besieged by the Slavs in 610. The foot army approached from the land, and the boat fleet blocked the bay of Kellaria. After an unsuccessful three-day siege, the Slavs left the city.

Slavic boat fleets have operated more than once in the Mediterranean. So, in 623, the Slavs made a sea voyage to the island of Cyprus and took rich booty there, and in 642 they attacked the coast of southern Italy and, most likely, a number of islands of the Greek Archipelago.

But the first major campaign of the Slavic-Russians themselves against Byzantium began in 907. It was headed by Prince Oleg.

I. Glazunov. Prince Oleg and Igor

By that time, our ancestors had already developed a clear military organization, which then existed for several centuries. The basis of the ancient Russian army was the princely squads - the "older", consisting of the most experienced warriors, and the "youngest", consisting of the "Youths". The boyar militia and the militia of the “wars”, that is, the peasant army, which made up the foot army, also went to war.

For sea voyages, large "lambed" boats were built, which went on oars and under sails. These boats could accommodate 40-60 people with weapons and ammunition.

In the campaign against Tsargrad that began in 907, the army moved on 2 thousand boats, that is, the army of Prince Oleg numbered 80-120 thousand people. The flotilla went down the Dnieper and moved towards Constantinople along the coast of the Black Sea. The cavalry marched in full view of the flotilla along the shore. When the Russians approached Tsargrad. The foot army pulled the boats onto land. Under the walls of the capital of Byzantium, the first clash occurred, after which the Byzantines took refuge behind the walls of the city. The Russians began to devastate the outskirts of the city. The siege of the city threatened to drag on, and Prince Oleg decided to frighten the Greeks - he put the boats on the rollers, raised the sails and, with a fair wind, moved to the walls of the city. The Byzantine army that came out to meet was defeated, the Greeks were forced to start negotiations.

Prince Oleg during the negotiations demanded that Byzantium pay him 12 hryvnias for each person. The Byzantines agreed; in addition, they also agreed to provide a number of benefits to Russian merchants: duty-free trade for 6 months in Constantinople, free food and washing in Greek baths. Only after the conclusion of this treaty did the Russian army move away from the city.

A.Klymenko. Triumph of Prince Oleg

The Russians undertook the second major campaign against Byzantium in the summer of 941, when a huge Russian army, led by Prince Igor by sea and land, moved to Constantinople. The Russians destroyed the suburbs and moved towards the capital, but on the outskirts of it they were met by the enemy fleet, armed with "Greek fire". Under the walls of Constantinople all day and evening there was a battle. The Greeks sent a burning mixture through special copper pipes to Russian ships. This "terrible miracle", as the chronicle says, struck the Russian soldiers. Flames darted across the water, Russian boats were burning in the impenetrable darkness. The defeat was complete. But a significant part of the army survived. The Russians continued their campaign, moved along the coast of Asia Minor. Many cities, monasteries were captured, a fair number of Greeks were taken prisoner.

K.Vasiliev. Prince Igor

But Byzantium managed to mobilize forces here too. There were fierce battles on land and at sea. In a land battle, the Greeks managed to surround the Russians and, despite fierce resistance, defeated them. The already battered Russian fleet was defeated. This war continued for several months, and only in the fall did the Russian army return to their homeland.

In 944, Igor gathered a new army and again set out on a campaign. At the same time, the allies of Russia, the Hungarians, raided the Byzantine territory, and approached the walls of Constantinople. The Greeks did not tempt fate and sent an embassy to meet Igor with a request for peace. A new peace treaty was concluded in 944. Peaceful relations were restored between the countries. Byzantium still pledged to pay Russia an annual monetary tribute and provide military indemnity. Many articles of the treaty of 911 were confirmed. But new ones appeared, corresponding to the relations between Russia and Byzantium, already in the middle of the 10th century, equally beneficial to both countries. The right of duty-free Russian trade in Byzantium was abolished.

The Byzantines recognized the possession of Rus by a number of new territories at the mouth of the Dnieper, on the Taman Peninsula. The Russian-Byzantine military alliance was also improved: this time it was directed against Khazaria, which was beneficial for Russia, which was striving to free its routes to the East from the Khazar blockade. Russian military detachments, as before, were to come to the aid of Byzantium.

Y.Lazarev. Ambassadors of the Rus

The approval of the treaty took place first in Constantinople. There, the Russian embassy swore an oath on the text of the treaty of Emperor Roman I Lecapenus, but here the Russian pagans, turning to Perun, swore on arms to be faithful to the treaty. The Christian part of the Russians took the same oath in the church of St. Sophia. Then the Byzantine embassy came to Kyiv.

In the early morning, a procession moved to the hill on which the statue of Perun towered. It was headed by the Kyiv prince himself. Following were his boyars, combatants. Members of the Byzantine embassy also came here. Igor and his people laid down their weapons, shields, gold at the feet of Perun, and in the presence of the Greek ambassadors solemnly swore allegiance to the agreement.

After the ceremony on the hill of Perun, part of the audience moved to the church of St. Elijah, and there the Byzantine embassy took the oath of Russian Christians from Igor's closest associates to be faithful to the agreement.

Fought against Byzantium and the son of Prince Igor - Svyatoslav. His first campaign in the Balkans, undertaken in 967, ended in the successful implementation of Svyatoslav's military-political plan - Bulgaria ceased resistance.

Svyatoslav continued the policy of his predecessors, striving to increase the territory of the ancient Russian state, protect its borders, secure the Volga trade route and take over the entire great trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”. As a result, Svyatoslav rushed to the Balkans, wanting to conquer Constantinople and transfer the political center of the ancient Russian state to the Danube. He told his mother and the boyars: “I don’t like Kyiv, I want to live on the Danube, in Pereyaslavets. That town is the middle of my land. All goodness converges there: from the Greeks, gold, wine, vegetables; from Czechs and Hungarians - silver and horses; from Russia - furs, wax, honey, servants. In 967, during the reign of the Greek emperor Nicephorus II Phokas, an ambassador came from Tsargrad to Kyiv and asked Svyatoslav, on behalf of his sovereign, to go to war against the Bulgarians. The Greeks could not overpower the Bulgarians in any way due to the fact that they lived in mountainous places. The Greeks brought with them rich gifts and promised even more for the capture of Bulgaria. The prince agreed and began to gather an army. The glorious governor Sveneld, the heroes Sfenkel, Ikmor and others responded to his cry. Svyatoslav undertook two campaigns in Bulgaria - in 968 and in 969. Having captured the capital of Bulgaria, Preslava, and captured Tsar Boris, Svyatoslav sent a message to the Greeks: “I want to go against you, take your city.” Following this, the Rus began to prepare for a campaign against Constantinople. They reinforced their army with the Bulgarians, who were dissatisfied with the domination of Byzantium, hired units of the Pechenegs and Hungarians. At this time, John I Tzimiskes, a skilled military leader and a brave warrior, entered the royal throne in Byzantium. In 970, a battle took place near Adrianople, as a result of which the Greeks were defeated, they brought gifts to Svyatoslav and promised peace. At this time, small reinforcements arrived from Kyiv to Svyatoslav. Lacking sufficient forces and relying on an agreement with Tzimisces, Svyatoslav did not occupy the mountain passes through the Balkans and left the mouth of the Danube open. This was his major strategic mistake. In addition, the army of the Rus was divided into two parts: the main forces were in Dorostol, the detachment under the command of Sfenkel was located in Preslav.

Tzimiskes took advantage of this. He gathered 300 ships armed with “Greek fire”, and in 971 moved the fleet to the mouth of the Danube to block the Russians from returning to their homeland. The emperor himself set out on a campaign with a strong advanced detachment of 2,000 "immortals" (well-armed personal guards), 13,000 cavalry and 15,000 infantry and. easily crossed the Balkans. He was followed by the rest of the forces and a large convoy with siege and flamethrower machines and food. In Bulgaria, Byzantine scouts spread a rumor that Tzimiskes was not going to conquer the Bulgarian people, but to liberate them from the Rus, and the Rus soon lost support from the Bulgarians.

On April 13, 971, Tzimisces began the battle on the outskirts of Preslav. As a result of this battle, the Byzantines captured Preslav, and only a few Rus, led by Sfenkel, managed to break through and leave for Dorostol.

On April 17, Tzimiskes moved to Dorostol, taking a number of Bulgarian cities along the way. On April 23, the Byzantine army, which significantly outnumbered the army of the Rus, approached Dorostol. The advance detachment of the Byzantine infantry inspected the surrounding forests and ravines in search of an ambush.

The first battle near Dorostol took place on April 23, 971. Russ ambushed the advance detachment of the Byzantines. They destroyed this detachment, but they themselves died. When Tzimiskes approached the city, the Russians were waiting for the enemy on the near approaches to Dorostol, "having closed their shields and spears, like a wall." The Greeks reorganized into battle formation: in the middle was the infantry, on the flanks - the cavalry in iron armor; in front, covering the front, - light infantry: archers and slingers - they continuously shot arrows, threw stones. The battle was stubborn, the Rus repelled 12 attacks. Victory fluctuated: neither side gained the upper hand. By evening, Tzimiskes himself led his entire cavalry against the weary enemy. Under the blows of the numerous cavalry of the Byzantines, the infantry of the Rus retreated and took refuge behind the city walls of Dorostol.

On April 24, the Byzantine army built a fortified camp near Dorostol. Tzimisces chose a small hill, on which tents were set up, a deep ditch was dug around and an earthen rampart was poured around. Tzimiskes ordered spears to be driven into the ground and shields to be hung on them. On April 25, the Byzantine fleet approached Dorostol and blocked the city from the Danube. Svyatoslav ordered to pull his boats ashore so that the enemy would not burn them. The Russians were surrounded. On the same day, Tzimisces approached the city, but the Rus did not go out into the field, but only threw stones and arrows at the enemy from the walls of the city and from the towers. The Byzantines had to return to their camp.

A.Klymenko. Slashing

The second battle near Dorostol took place on April 26. The army of the Russians went out into the field and lined up on foot in their chain mail armor and helmets, closing long, to the very feet, shields and putting out spears. After the attack of the Byzantines, a stubborn battle ensued, which went on for a long time without an advantage. In this battle, the brave commander Sfenkel fell. On the morning of April 27, the battle resumed. By noon, Tzimiskes sent a detachment to the rear of Svyatoslav's squad. Fearing to be cut off from the city, the Rus retreated behind the fortress walls. After the ships arrived and blocked the exit to the sea, Svyatoslav decided to sit down in a strong siege. On the night of April 29, a deep ditch was dug around Dorostol so that the besiegers could not come close to the fortress wall and install siege engines. The Russians did not have food supplies, and on the dark night of April 29, they carried out the first big sortie for food on boats. The Russians managed to search all the surrounding places and returned home with large supplies of food. At this time, they noticed a Greek convoy camp on the shore: people were watering the horses and chopping wood. In one minute, the Rus moored, went around them in the forest, defeated them and returned to the city with rich booty. Tzimiskes, struck by the audacity of the Rus, ordered to increase vigilance and not let the Rus out of the city. From land, he ordered to dig up all the roads and paths and put guards on them.

The siege continued. At this time, the Greeks destroyed the city walls with wall-beating and throwing machines and killed their defenders. One day after dinner, when the enemy's vigilance was weakened, Svyatoslav made a second sortie. This time, the Russians set fire to the siege works and killed the head of the siege engines. This success encouraged them.

The third fight took place on July 20. The warriors of Svyatoslav left the city and lined up for battle. The first attacks of the Byzantines were repulsed, but after the loss of one of the major commanders by the Rus, they “threw their shields behind their backs” and began to retreat. The Byzantines found among the dead Russians women who, in men's equipment, fought as bravely as men.

The next day, Svyatoslav gathered a military council and began to think with the squad, how should they be and what to do next? Some suggested fleeing in the dark of the night, others advised starting peace negotiations. Then Svyatoslav, sighing heavily, answered as follows: “Grandfathers and fathers bequeathed to us brave deeds! Let's get strong. It is not our custom to save ourselves by a shameful flight. Either we stay alive and win, or we die with glory! The dead have no shame, and having run away from the battle, how will we show ourselves to people in the eyes ?!” After listening to their prince, the squad decided to fight.

The fourth, last battle was given on July 22. The army of the Rus went out into the field, and Svyatoslav ordered the city gates to be locked so that no one could think about salvation outside the fortress walls. The army of Tzimiskes also left the camp and formed up for battle.

At the first stage of the battle, the Rus attacked the Byzantine troops. Around noon, the Greeks began to retreat. Tzimisces with a fresh detachment of horsemen delayed the advance of the Rus and ordered the tired soldiers to refresh themselves with water and wine. However, the counterattack of the Byzantines was not successful: the Rus fought steadfastly.

The Byzantines could not use their numerical superiority, since the Russians did not move far from the city. As a result, Tzimiskes decided to use a trick. He divided his army into two divisions. One detachment under the command of the patrician Roman and the clerk Peter was ordered to engage in battle, and then retreat in order to lure the enemy to an open plain. At this time, another detachment under the command of Varda Sklir was supposed to come from the rear and block the enemy's retreat to Dorostol. This plan of Tzimisces was successfully carried out: the Byzantines began to retreat, and the Rus, carried away by success, began to pursue them and retired from the city. However, the battle was stubborn, and victory for a long time leaned in one direction or the other. The detachment of Varda attacked from the rear of the exhausted Rus, and the storm that began at that time carried clouds of sand into the eyes of Svyatoslav's army and helped the Byzantines. Frustrated by the onslaught in front, pressed from behind, amidst a whirlwind and a downpour, the Rus fought bravely and with difficulty made their way to the walls of Dorostol. Thus ended the last battle near Dorostol.

The next day, Svyatoslav invited Tzimisces to start peace negotiations. Despite the fact that the Byzantines had numerical and technical superiority, they could not defeat their enemy in a field battle and take Dorostol by storm. The Russian army steadfastly withstood a three-month siege. The enemy was forced to agree to the conditions proposed by Svyatoslav. After the conclusion of peace, Svyatoslav undertook not to fight with Byzantium, and Tzimiskes had to freely let the boats of the Rus pass and give them two measures of bread for the road. Both parties sealed their obligations with oaths.

After the conclusion of peace, a meeting between Svyatoslav and Tzimiskes took place. They met on the banks of the Danube, after which the army of the Rus moved to Pontus. The insidious Byzantines warned the Pechenegs that the Rus were coming in a small squad and with rich booty. The Pechenegs were waiting for Svyatoslav's army at the Dnieper rapids, the most dangerous place along the way. “Do not go, prince,” said the old governor Sveneld, “do not go to the rapids: the Pechenegs are standing there ...” The prince did not obey. He went to the rapids and, seeing the Pechenegs, went down again. After a hard wintering on Beloberezhye, the squad went again. In a fierce battle with the Pechenegs, Svyatoslav and almost all of his squad fell. Only one governor, Sveneld, returned to Kyiv with a small army. The Pecheneg prince Kurya made a cup-brother from the skull of Svyatoslav and drank from it in memory of the victory over the Russian prince.

Svyatoslav undertook a campaign against Byzantium in order to establish himself on the Danube, which at that time was of great political, economic and military importance for the state of the Rus. Svyatoslav's foreign policy was aimed at expanding the Old Russian state, strengthening its power and ensuring security. The Russian prince persistently strove to take possession of the Danube basin in order to reliably secure the path “from the Varangians to the Greeks”. Occupying the Balkans, the Rus created a springboard for attacking Byzantium from land. In addition, Svyatoslav's attempt to stay in Pereyaslavets on the Danube shows the desire to move the political center of the Old Russian state closer to the rich countries of the south and unite all Slavic tribes.

The Slavs usually went to war on foot, in chain mail, a helmet covered their heads, a heavy shield was at the left hip, a bow and a quiver with arrows soaked in poison were behind their backs; in addition, they were armed with a double-edged sword, an ax, a spear and a reed. Over time, the Slavs introduced cavalry into military practice. The personal squad of the prince among all the Slavs was equestrian.

The Slavs did not have a permanent army. In case of military necessity, all men capable of carrying weapons went on a campaign, and they sheltered children and wives with belongings in the forests.

The Slavic tribes in the 6th century led a settled way of life, which is confirmed by the nature of their occupations and the arrangement of settlements, which were usually located in forests and swamps. These were settlements, consisting of dugouts with many exits, so that in case of an attack it was possible to hide through one of the emergency passages. The Slavs also settled on rivers and lakes, where special houses were built - pile buildings. Thus, the settlements of the Slavic tribes were securely hidden and difficult to access, and therefore there was no need to build such defensive structures of the fortress type, which, for example, were built in Ancient Egypt, the Middle East, Greece and Rome.

The ancient Slavs knew how to make monoxyls - one-deck boats, on which they descended along the rivers to Pontus. On boats, Slavic warriors appeared near Korsun in the Crimea, near Constantinople and even on Crete in the Mediterranean Sea.

According to the Byzantine historian Procopius, the Sklavins and Antes were very tall and of great strength, but here is how he described the appearance of the ancient Slavs: “The color of their skin and hair is not very white or golden and not quite black, but still they are dark red." Since ancient times, chroniclers noted among the Slavs and Antes dexterity, endurance, hospitality and love of freedom.

From the stories of Mauritius, as well as from other sources, we can conclude that the Slavs had a blood feud, which resulted in armed conflicts between the tribes.

A feature of the development of the Slavic tribes was the absence of debt slavery; only prisoners of war were slaves, and even those had the opportunity to redeem themselves or become equal members of the community. It was patriarchal slavery, which among the Slavs did not turn into a slave-owning system.

The Slavs had a tribal community, which had land ownership. There was no private ownership of land even when the family began to receive a certain arable field, since arable land was periodically subject to redistribution. Pastures, forests, meadows, hunting and fishing grounds continued to be communal property.

According to Procopius, "these tribes, sklavins and antes, are not ruled by one person, but since ancient times they live in the rule of the people, and therefore they have happiness and unhappiness in life considered a common thing." Veche (a meeting of a clan or tribe) was the highest authority. The affairs were in charge of the eldest in the family (headman, ruler).

Already at the end of the 5th century, more or less significant associations of Slavic tribes began to arise to repel the attacks of enemies or organize campaigns within the Eastern Roman Empire. The wars contributed to the strengthening of the power of the military leader, who began to be called a prince and have his own squad.

The social structure of the Slavs in the 6th century was a military democracy, whose organs were a veche or a meeting of tribes, a council of elders and a prince - a military leader. Some military leaders entered the service in the army of the Eastern Roman Empire. But the Slavic tribes settled on the Balkan Peninsula not as mercenaries, but as conquerors.

Mauritius noted that the Slavs had tribal strife. “Having no head over them,” he wrote, “they are at enmity with each other; since there is no unanimity between them, they do not gather together, and if they do, they do not come to a single decision, since no one wants to yield to another. To fight the Slavs, Mauritius recommended using their tribal strife, setting one tribe against another and thereby weakening them.

Byzantine politicians were very afraid of large political associations of the Slavs.

When external danger threatened the Slavs, the tribes forgot all their feuds and united for a common struggle for independence. Speaking about the struggle between the Avars and the "Slavinian people" at the end of the 6th century, Menander, a Byzantine, reported the answer of the Slavic elders to the leader of the Avars, who demanded that the Slavic tribes submit to him and pay tribute. “Has the man who would have subjugated our strength been born into the world?”

Eastern sources speak of the Slavs as a warlike people. Thus, the Arab writer Abu-Obeid-Al-Bekri noted in his writings that if the Slavs, this powerful and terrible people, were not divided into many tribes and clans, no one in the world could resist them. Other Eastern authors wrote about the same. The militancy of the Slavic tribes was emphasized by almost all Byzantine writers.

According to Mauritius, the Slavic tribes had squads, which were recruited according to the age principle - mostly young, physically strong and dexterous warriors.

The number of those who fought was usually in the hundreds and thousands, much less often in the tens of thousands. The organization of the army was based on the division into clans and tribes. The warriors of the clan were headed by an elder (headman), at the head of the tribe was a leader or prince.

Ancient sources noted the strength, endurance, cunning and courage of the Slavic warriors, who also mastered the art of disguise. Procopius wrote that Slavic warriors “got used to hiding even behind small stones or behind the first bush they came across and catching enemies. This they did more than once by the river Istra. During the siege of one of the cities, the Byzantine commander Belisarius summoned a Slav warrior and ordered him to get the language. “And this Slav, having made his way very close to the walls in the early morning, covered himself with brushwood, hid in the grass.” When a Goth approached this place, the Slav suddenly grabbed him and delivered him alive to the camp.

Mauritius reported on the art of the Slavs hiding in the water: “They bravely endure being in the water, so that often some of those who stay at home, being caught by a sudden attack, plunge into the abyss of water. At the same time, they hold in their mouths specially made, large reeds hollowed out inside, reaching the surface of the water, and themselves, lying supine on the bottom (of the river), breathe with their help; and this they can do for many hours, so that it is absolutely impossible to guess their (presence)."

Regarding the weapons of the Slavic warriors, Mauritius wrote: “Each is armed with two small spears, some also have shields, strong, but difficult to carry. They also use wooden bows and small arrows soaked in a special poison, which is very effective if the wounded person does not first take an antidote or (does not use) other aids known to experienced doctors, or does not immediately cut off the wound around the wound so that the poison does not spread to the rest. body parts". In addition to the bow and darts for throwing, which Mauritius spoke of, the Slavic warrior had a spear for striking, an axe, a reed and a double-edged sword.

In addition to a large shield, the Slavs had chain mail, which reliably covered and at the same time did not hamper the movements of a warrior in battle. Chain mail was made by Slavic craftsmen. During this period, the Normans had armor made of leather with metal straps attached to it; Byzantine warriors had forged armor, which greatly hampered movement. Thus, the armor of the Slavs favorably differed from the armor of their neighbors - the Normans and Byzantines.

The ancient Slavs had two types of troops - infantry and cavalry. In the Eastern Roman Empire, under the ruler Justinian (c. 670-711), cavalry Slavic detachments were in the service, in particular, the Slavs served in the cavalry of Belisarius. The commander of the cavalry was Ant Dobrogost. Describing the campaign of 589, the ancient historian Theophylact Simokatt reported: “Having jumped off their horses, the Slavs decided to rest a little, and also give rest to their horses.” Thus, these data confirm the presence of cavalry among the Slavs.

During the battles, the Slavs widely used surprise attacks on the enemy. “To fight with their enemies,” wrote Mauritius, “they love in places overgrown with dense forest, in gorges, on cliffs; they profitably use (ambushes), surprise attacks, tricks, day and night, inventing many (various) ways. Having great help in the forests, they go to them, because among the gorges they know how to fight well. Often they abandon the prey they carry (as if) under the influence of confusion and run into the forests, and then, when the attackers rush to the prey, they easily rise and cause harm to the enemy. All this they are masters of doing in a variety of ways they come up with in order to lure the enemy.

Mauritius said that in the art of forcing rivers, the Slavs were superior to "all people." Being in the service in the army of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Slavic detachments skillfully ensured the crossing of rivers. They quickly made boats and transferred large detachments of troops to the other side of them.

The Slavs usually set up a camp at a height to which there were no hidden approaches. If necessary, to fight in the open field, they arranged fortifications from wagons. Theophylact Simokatt told about the campaign of one Slavic detachment that fought with the Romans: “Since this clash was inevitable for the barbarians (Slavs) (and did not bode well), they, having made carts, made a fortification of the camp from them and in the middle of this camp placed women and children. The Slavs tied the wagons, and a closed fortification was obtained, from which they threw spears at the enemy. The fortification of wagons was a very reliable defense against cavalry.

For a defensive battle, the Slavs chose a position that was difficult for the enemy to reach, or they poured a rampart and arranged notches. When storming the enemy's fortifications, they used assault ladders, "turtles" and siege engines. In deep formation, putting their shields on their backs, the Slavs went on the assault.

Although Mauritius said that the Slavs did not recognize the military system and, during the offensive, moved forward all together, this, however, does not mean that they did not have a battle order. The same Mauritius recommended building a not very deep formation against the Slavs and attacking not only from the front, but on the flanks and from the rear. From this we can conclude that for the battle the Slavs were located in a certain order. “Sometimes,” Mauritius wrote, “they take a very strong position and, guarding their rear, do not allow them to engage in hand-to-hand combat, or to surround themselves or strike from the flank, or go to their rear.”

If the Slavs repulsed all attacks, then, in the opinion of Mauritius, there was only one remedy left - a deliberate retreat in order to provoke a disorganized pursuit that would upset the Slavs' battle order and allow them to win a surprise strike from an ambush.

Starting from the 1st century, Slavic tribes fought against the troops of the Roman Empire. Ancient sources mention East Slavic tribes that fought against the Roman conquerors. There is a message from the Gothic historian Jordanes about the struggle of the Goths with the Antes in the 4th century. A detachment of Goths attacked the Antes, but was initially defeated. As a result of further clashes, the Goths managed to capture the leader of the Antes Bozh with his sons and 70 elders and execute them.

More detailed information about the wars of the Slavic tribes dates back to the 6th-8th centuries, when the Slavs fought against the Eastern Roman Empire.

By the beginning of the 6th century, the onslaught of the Slavic tribes from across the Danube intensified so much that the ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire Anastasius in 512 was forced to build a line of fortifications stretching 85 kilometers from Selymvria on the Sea of ​​​​Marmara to Derkos on Pontus. This line of fortifications was called the "Long Wall" and was located 60 kilometers from the capital. One of his contemporaries called it "a banner of impotence, a monument to cowardice."

In the second quarter of the 6th century, Emperor Justinian, preparing to fight the Slavs, strengthened his army and built defensive structures. He appointed, according to Procopius, head of the guard on the Istr River, Khilbudia, who successfully defended the Danube line from attacks by Slavic tribes for three years in a row. To do this, Khilbudiy annually crossed to the left bank of the Danube, penetrated into the territory of the Slavs and devastated there. In 534, Khilbudius crossed the river with a small detachment. The Slavs came out “against him all without exception. The battle was fierce, many Romans fell, including their leader Khilbudiy. After this victory, the Slavs freely crossed the Danube to invade deep into the Balkan Peninsula.

In 551, a detachment of Slavs numbering more than 3 thousand people, without meeting any opposition, crossed the Istra River. Then, after crossing the river Gevre (Maritsa), the detachment was divided into two detachments. The Byzantine commander, who had great strength, decided to take advantage of this advantage and destroy the scattered detachments in an open battle. But the Slavs got ahead of the Romans and defeated them with a surprise attack from two directions. This fact shows the ability of the Slavic military leaders to organize the interaction of their units and carry out a sudden simultaneous attack on the enemy, who has superior forces and acts offensively.

Following this, regular cavalry was thrown against the Slavs under the command of Asbad, who served in the bodyguard detachment of Emperor Justinian. The cavalry detachment was stationed in the Thracian fortress of Tzurule and consisted of excellent horsemen. One of the Slavic detachments attacked the Byzantine cavalry and put it to flight. Many Byzantine horsemen were killed, and Asbad himself was taken prisoner. From this example, we can conclude that the Slavs had cavalry that successfully fought the Roman regular cavalry.

Having defeated the regular field troops, the detachments of the Slavs began the siege of fortresses in Thrace and Illyria. Procopius reported very detailed information about the capture by the Slavs of the strong seaside fortress of Toper, located on the Thracian coast, 12 days from Byzantium. This fortress had a strong garrison and up to 15 thousand combat-ready men - residents of the city.

The Slavs decided first of all to lure the garrison out of the fortress and destroy it. To do this, most of their forces settled in ambush and took refuge in difficult places, and an insignificant detachment approached the eastern gate and began to fire on the Roman soldiers: “The Roman soldiers who were in the garrison, imagining that there were no more enemies than they see, holding weapons, immediately went out against them all. The barbarians began to retreat, pretending to the attackers that, frightened by them, they took to flight; the Romans, carried away by the pursuit, were far ahead of the fortifications. Then those who were in ambush rose up and, finding themselves in the rear of the pursuers, cut off their opportunity to return back to the city. And those who pretended to retreat, turning their faces towards the Romans, placed them between two fires. The barbarians destroyed them all and then rushed to the walls. Thus the Toper garrison was defeated. After that, the Slavs moved to storm the fortress, which was defended by the population of the city. The first attack, insufficiently prepared, was repelled. The defenders threw stones at the attackers, poured boiling oil and tar on them. But the townspeople's success was temporary. Slavic archers began to fire at the wall and forced the defenders to leave it. Following this, the attackers put ladders against the walls, entered the city and took possession of it. At the same time, archers and assault squads interacted well. The Slavs were well-aimed archers and therefore were able to force the defenders to leave the wall.

Of interest is the campaign in 589 by Peter, the commander of the Byzantine emperor Mauritius, against a strong Slavic tribe led by Piragast.

The emperor demanded swift and decisive action from Peter. Peter's army withdrew from the fortified camp and in four marches reached the area in which the Slavs were; he had to cross the river. For reconnaissance of the enemy, a group of 20 soldiers was sent, which moved at night and rested during the day. Having made a difficult night march and crossed the river, the group settled in the thicket to rest, but did not set up guards. The warriors fell asleep and were discovered by a cavalry detachment of the Slavs. The Romans were taken prisoner. The captured scouts told about the plan of the Byzantine command.

Piraghast, having learned about the enemy’s plan, moved with large forces to the place where the Romans crossed the river and secretly settled down in the forest. The Byzantine army approached the crossing. Peter, not assuming that there could be an enemy in this place, ordered to cross the river in separate detachments. When the first thousand people crossed to the other side, the Slavs surrounded them and destroyed them. Having learned about this, Peter ordered the whole army to cross, not being divided into detachments. On the opposite bank, the Byzantines were waiting for the ranks of the Slavs, who, however, dispersed under a hail of arrows and spears thrown from the ships. Taking advantage of this, the Romans landed their large forces. Piraghast was mortally wounded, and the Slavic army retreated in disarray. Peter, due to the lack of cavalry, could not organize the pursuit.

The next day, the guides who led the army got lost. The Romans had no water for three days and quenched their thirst with wine. The army could have died if it were not for the prisoner, who indicated that the Helicabia River was nearby. The next morning, the Romans came to the river and rushed to the water. The Slavs, who were in ambush on the opposite high bank, began to hit the Romans with arrows. “And so the Romans,” reports the Byzantine chronicler, “having built ships, crossed the river in order to grapple with the enemies in open battle. When the army was on the opposite bank, the barbarians in their entirety immediately attacked the Romans and defeated them. The defeated Romans fled. Since Peter was utterly defeated by the barbarians, Priscus was appointed commander-in-chief, and Peter, relieved of command, returned to Byzantium.

Ancient and modern authors often present the Slavic tribes as a quiet, peaceful and benevolent people. During the Soviet period, this line was actively supported. Peacefulness migrated even into Soviet folklore. Let's remember the words of the old song "we are peaceful people, but our armored train is standing on a siding."
However, was it really so?
The German historian Joachim Herrmann writes that "the sea squads of the Rügen Slavs or the foot rati of the Obodrites terrified the inhabitants of Jutland, the Danish and Swedish islands." But did our warlike ancestors look only in this direction?
Let's turn to the facts.
From the beginning of the VI century. The Slavs cross the Danube almost every year either in small detachments or in large masses in order to capture booty and prisoners within the Byzantine Empire. In 547/48, the campaigns of the Slavs reach Illyricum and Dalmatia, and the 15,000th Byzantine army does not dare to fight them. In 578, the Slavic tribes invade Greece, when, according to the texts of Menander, the Slavs, having crossed the Danube, devastated Thrace , Epirus and Thessaly, and even Hellas.
In 581, the Slavs again attacked the Byzantine Empire and besieged its capital. John of Ephesus describes the following, “(the Slavs) rapidly passed through all of Hellas, the regions of Thessalonica and all of Thrace and conquered many cities and fortresses. They devastated and burned them, took captives and became masters of the earth. They settled on it as masters, as on their own, without fear ... At the very outer wall (in front of Constantinople), they captured all the royal herds, many thousands (heads) and other different (prey). So to this day, that is, until 895 (the Seleucid era, otherwise - until 583-584 AD), they remain, live and calmly stay in the countries of the Romans.
The Frankish chronicles of the time of Emperor Charles and the Arab Masudi declared that the Velets were the most powerful Slavic people, dominating almost all the Slavs of Central Europe. The Utrecht chronicler reports that the Lutici, together with the Saxons, went to Britain from the time of Hengist and Horsa, from the 5th century, and founded the city of Wilton and the county of Wiltshire there.
In the 11th-12th centuries. The Vendian state still existed on the territory between the mouths of the Laba (Elbe) and Odra (Oder) rivers in the north and up to the Danube and Dniester in the south, consisting of the tribal principalities of the Wends. Their princes did not give way to the Saxon and Danish feudal lords, some Slavic tribes fought the Germans.
Emperor Charlemagne forbade the sale of swords to the Wendish Slavs back in 805, not to the Swedes, not to the Normans. It's Wendam. And he made an alliance with the encouragers. Moreover, the founder of the Frankish empire, married his son to an obodrite princess. Thus, introducing Slavic blood into the European royal dynasty. This happened long before Princess Anna, who became Queen of France.
From the iron tread of the encouragers, even Italy shuddered. In 1010, the rati of the Obodrites, led by Prince Mestiv, undertook an equestrian campaign to northern Italy.
Slavic tribes have established themselves as the most ferocious naval squads. The 11th-century Baltic, which still remembered the Vikings, shuddered from the more terrible attacks of the Wagris or Vagirs, who were part of the union of the Obodrite tribes, and the Rugs from the island of Rügen.
The medieval Polish chronicler Kadlubek conveys a legend according to which in ancient times the Slavs defeated the warriors of the Danomalcian (Danemark, Danish) islands. The vanquished were offered either to pay tribute, or to wear, as a sign of defeat and shame, women's long hair, tucked into braids. While the Danes were thinking, the Slavs attacked them again, completely defeated them and forced the Danes to do both. Even if it's just folklore, it has a real basis and describes the situation of that time.
Norman sagas, recorded in the 13th century in Sweden, Tidrek saga tells about the exploits and conquests of the king (the title is changed in the Scandinavian manner) Vilkin, the Slavic leader. Vilkin is the leader and progenitor of the Vilkins. According to other sources, Wilkins are known as Wilts, Veletabs, Velets, Welts or Wends. Vilkin captured and ravaged Svitjod (Sweden), Gutaland (the island of Gotland), and the whole kingdom of the Swedish king, Scania (the southern coast of Sweden), Skaland, Jutland (Denmark), Windland, and all the kingdoms that belong to it. A very impressive victory for the Slavic weapons.
In the 9th century, the Danish kings tried to enclose their peninsula with a huge wall, which is now known as the Slavic Wall. However, this did not play a particularly successful role in defense.
The Scandinavian fortresses - Aggersborg, Furkat, Trelleborg - were built in the image and likeness of the Slavic fortifications of the Obodrites in Europe, and maybe even under their leadership. In these fortresses, archaeologists find Slavic ceramics in large quantities. Obodrite ring fortresses migrated to the island of Loland and are considered Slavic, as is the fortress near Sore in the center of Zealand. Eketorp fortress on Eland - exactly repeats the Obodrite ring fortification. For foreign historians, the Slavic roots of these fortresses are not even a subject of dispute.
Based on the selection of M.P. Pogodin from medieval authors, we can safely assume that the share of Wends in raids on Western Europe, as a percentage, is more than 50%. It was by no means the Scandinavians who were the horror of Europe, but our ancestors were the Slavs. And were the Viking squads so homogeneous that they included only Scandinavians in their composition. It is very likely that many of our ancestors fought in their composition. Let us recall how the Utrecht chronicler reports about the alliance of the Luticians with the Saxons and their joint attacks on Britain. Our ancestors have always been open to an honest union. So it is very likely that there were many Slavs in the Viking squads. And it is not for nothing that the Baltic Sea was called the Varangian, and even earlier the Vendian Gulf. Such were our ancestors. Strong, brave, belligerent. The Slavic tribes kept in fear not only Europe, but even Greece, Italy and the Black Sea region. But where did the statement about the peacefulness of the Slavs come from then? From religion and politics.

In our time, when the whole world is trying to imitate the Americans, from uniforms to tactics and daily dry rations, our soldiers need to more often look into the rich treasury of Russian military traditions and use the centuries-old experience of Russian soldiers. No, I do not urge you to put on bast shoes, grow beards and pick up swords and bows. The main thing is to skillfully identify and generalize those principles with the help of which they defeated a stronger and numerically superior enemy.

The foundations and philosophy of the Russian military school are set out in "The Science of Victory" by A. V. Suvorov. Unfortunately, not many modern commanders, as they say, get their hands on this book. But in order to see and understand the essence of the principles set forth by Suvorov in his immortal work, it is worth making an excursion into the depths of centuries and seeing how the ancient Rusichi fought.

The land on which our distant Ancestors lived was rich and fertile and constantly attracted nomads from the east, Germanic tribes from the west, besides, our ancestors tried to develop new lands. Sometimes this colonization took place peacefully, but. often accompanied by hostilities.

Soviet military historian E.A. Razin in his book “The History of Military Art” tells about the organization of the Slavic army during the period of the 5th-6th centuries:
Among the Slavs, all adult men were warriors. The Slavic tribes had squads, which were recruited according to the age principle by young, physically strong and dexterous warriors. The organization of the army was based on the division into clans and tribes, the warriors of the clan were headed by an elder (headman), at the head of the tribe was a leader or prince

Procopius from Kessaria in his book "War with the Goths" writes that the warriors of the Slavic tribe "used to hide even behind small stones or behind the first bush they come across and catch enemies. This they did more than once by the river Istra. So, the ancient author in the above-mentioned book describes one interesting case, how a Slavic warrior, skillfully using improvised means of disguise, took the "language".

And this Slav, having crept very close to the walls in the early morning, covered himself with brushwood and curled up in a ball, hid in the grass. When a Goth approached this place, the Slav suddenly grabbed him and brought him alive to the camp.

They courageously endure being in the water, so that often some of those who remain at home, being caught by a sudden attack, plunge into the abyss of water. At the same time, they hold in their mouths specially made large reeds hollowed out inside, reaching the surface of the water, and they themselves, lying supine at the bottom of the river, breathe with the help of them; and this they can do for many hours. So it is absolutely impossible to guess their presence.

The area where the Slavs usually took the fight was always their ally. From dark forests, river backwaters, deep ravines, the Slavs suddenly attacked their opponents. Here is what the previously mentioned Mauritius writes about this:
The Slavs love to fight their enemies in places overgrown with dense forests, in gorges. on the cliffs, they profitably use ambushes, surprise attacks, tricks, and inventing many different methods day and night ... Having great help in the forests, they head towards them, because among the gorges they know how to fight perfectly. Often they abandon the prey they are carrying, as if under the influence of confusion, and run into the forests, and then, when the attackers rush to the prey, they easily rise and cause harm to the enemy. All this they are masters of doing in a variety of ways they come up with in order to lure the enemy.

Thus, we see that the ancient warriors prevailed over the enemy primarily by the lack of a template, cunning, skillful use of the surrounding area.

In engineering training, our Ancestors were also recognized specialists. Ancient authors write that the Slavs excelled "all people" in the art of forcing rivers. Being in the service in the army of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Slavic detachments skillfully ensured the crossing of rivers. They quickly made boats and transferred large military detachments to the other side of them. The Slavs usually set up a camp at a height to which there were no hidden approaches. If necessary, to fight in the open field, they arranged fortifications from wagons.

Theophinatus Siompatt reports on the campaign of one Slavic detachment that fought with the Romans:
Since this clash was inevitable for the barbarians (Slavs) (and did not portend success), they, having made wagons, made a kind of fortification of the camp out of them, and placed women and children in the middle of this camp. The Slavs tied the wagons, and a closed fortification was obtained, from which they threw spears at the enemy. The fortification of wagons was a reliable defense against cavalry.

For a defensive battle, the Slavs chose a position that was difficult for the enemy to reach, or they poured a rampart and arranged an embankment.

When storming the enemy's fortifications, they used assault ladders and siege engines. In deep formation, putting their shields on their backs, the Slavs went on the assault. From the above examples, we can see that the use of terrain in combination with available items deprived the opponents of our ancestors of the advantages that they originally had.

Many Western sources claim that the Slavs did not have a system, but this does not mean that they did not have a battle order. The same Mauritius recommended building a not very deep formation against them and attacking not only from the front, but on the flanks and from the rear. From here we can conclude that for the battle the Slavs were located in a certain order. Mauritius writes:
... sometimes they take a very strong position and, guarding their rear, do not allow them to engage in hand-to-hand combat, or to surround themselves or strike from the flank, or go to their rear.
The above example makes it clear that the ancient Slavs had a certain battle order, that they fought not in a crowd, but in an organized manner, lining up according to clans and tribes. Tribal and tribal leaders were chiefs and maintained the necessary discipline in the army. The organization of the Slavic army was based on a social structure - division into tribal and tribal detachments. Tribal and tribal ties ensured the necessary cohesion of warriors in battle.

Thus, the use of battle order by Slavic warriors, which gives undeniable advantages in battle with a strong enemy, suggests that the Slavs but only carried out combat training with their squads. After all, in order to act quickly in battle formation, it was necessary to work it out to automatism. Also, it was necessary to know the enemy with whom to fight.

The Slavs could not only skillfully fight in the forest and field. To take the fortresses, they used a simple and effective tactic.

In 551, a detachment of Slavs numbering more than 3,000 people, without encountering any opposition, crossed the Istra River. An army with large forces was sent to meet the Slavs. After crossing the Maritsa River, the Slavs split into two groups. The Roman commander decided to break their forces one by one in an open field. Having a well-placed tactical intelligence and being aware of the movements of the enemy. The Slavs preempted the Romans and, suddenly attacking them from two directions, destroyed their enemy.
Following this, Emperor Justinian threw a detachment of regular cavalry against the Slavs. The detachment was stationed in the Thracian fortress Tzurule. However, this detachment was defeated by the Slavs, who had cavalry in their ranks that was not inferior to the Roman. Having defeated the regular field troops, our ancestors began the siege of fortresses in Thrace and Illyria.

Of great interest is the capture by the Slavs of the coastal fortress of Toyer, which was located 12 days from Byzantium. The fortress garrison of 15 thousand people was a formidable force. The Slavs decided first of all to lure the garrison out of the fortress and destroy it. To do this, most of the soldiers settled in ambush near the city, and a small detachment approached the eastern gate and began to fire on the Roman soldiers.

The Romans, seeing that there were not so many enemies, decided to go beyond the fortress and defeat the Slavs in the field. The besiegers began to retreat, pretending to the attackers that, frightened by them, they took to flight. The Romans, carried away by the pursuit, were far ahead of the fortifications. Then those who were in ambush rose up and, finding themselves in the rear of the pursuers, cut off their possible ways of retreat. And those who pretended to retreat, turning to face the Romans, attacked them. Having exterminated the pursuers, the Slavs again rushed to the walls of the city. Toyer's garrison was destroyed. From the foregoing, we can conclude that the interaction of several detachments, reconnaissance, and camouflage on the ground were well established in the Slavic army.

From all the examples given, it can be seen that in the 6th century our ancestors had perfect tactics for those times, they could fight and inflict serious damage on the enemy, who was much stronger than them, and often had numerical superiority. Perfect was not only tactics, but also military equipment. So, during the siege of fortresses, the Slavs used iron rams, setting up siege machines. The Slavs, under the cover of throwing machines and archers, moved rams close to the fortress wall, began to loosen it and make holes.

In addition to the land army, the Slavs had a fleet. There is a lot of written evidence of their use of the fleet in the fighting against Byzantium. The ships were mainly used for transporting troops and landing troops.

For many years, the Slavic tribes, in the fight against numerous aggressors from the territory of Asia, against the powerful Roman Empire, against the Khazar Khaganate and the Franks, defended their independence and united in tribal alliances.

In this centuries-old struggle, the military organization of the Slavs took shape, and the military art of neighboring peoples and states arose. Not the weakness of the opponents, but the strength and military art of the Slavs ensured their victory.

The offensive actions of the Slavs forced the Roman Empire to switch to strategic defense and create several defensive lines, the presence of which did not ensure the security of the empire's borders. The campaigns of the Byzantine army across the Danube, into the depths of the Slavic territories, did not achieve their goals.

These campaigns usually ended with the defeat of the Byzantines. When the Slavs, even during their offensive actions, met superior enemy forces, they usually evaded the battle, sought to change the situation in their favor, and only then went on the offensive again.

For long-distance campaigns, crossing rivers and capturing coastal fortresses, the Slavs used the rook fleet, which they built very quickly. Large campaigns and deep invasions were usually preceded by reconnaissance in force by forces of significant detachments, which tested the enemy's ability to resist.

The tactics of the Russians did not consist in the invention of forms of building battle formations, to which the Romans attached exceptional importance, but in the variety of methods of attacking the enemy, both in the offensive and in defense. To use this tactic, a good organization of military intelligence was necessary, to which the Slavs paid serious attention. Knowledge of the enemy made it possible to carry out surprise attacks. The tactical interaction of the detachments was skillfully carried out both in the field battle and during the assault on fortresses. For the siege of fortresses, the ancient Slavs were able to create all the modern siege equipment in a short time. Among other things, the Slavic warriors skillfully used the psychological impact on the enemy.

So, in the early morning of June 18, 860, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople, was subjected to an unexpected attack by the Russian army. Russ came by sea, landed at the very walls of the city and laid siege to it. The warriors raised their comrades on their outstretched arms, and they, shaking their swords sparkling in the sun, plunged into confusion the Constantinopolitans standing on the high walls. This “attack” was filled with great meaning for Russia - for the first time a young state entered into a confrontation with a great empire, for the first time, as events will show, presented it with its military, economic and territorial claims. And most importantly, thanks to this demonstrative, psychologically precisely calculated attack and the subsequent peace treaty of "friendship and love", Russia was recognized as an equal partner of Byzantium. The Russian chronicler wrote later that from that moment "the land began to be called Ruska."

All the principles of warfare listed here have not lost their significance even today. Have camouflage and military cunning lost their relevance in the age of nuclear technology and the information boom? As recent military conflicts have shown, even with reconnaissance satellites, spy planes, advanced equipment, computer networks and weapons of enormous destructive power, it is possible to bomb rubber and wooden mock-ups for a long time and at the same time loudly broadcast to the whole world about enormous military successes.

Have secrecy and surprise lost their meaning?

Let us recall how surprised European and NATO strategists were when, quite unexpectedly, Russian paratroopers suddenly appeared at the Pristina airfield in Kosovo, and our “allies” were powerless to do anything.

Campaigns and battles of the ancestors of the ancient Slavs

Citing the battles and battles of the ancient Slavs, we will not discuss the topic: what is good and what is bad. There is nothing to hide here - in ancient times, the Slavs, along with protecting their borders from insatiable and greedy foreigners, themselves conducted aggressive campaigns in neighboring lands and states. More precisely, these campaigns can even be called predatory, the detachments of the Slavs went to their neighbors not for the sake of military glory or violated justice, but in order to profit from other people's property and grab free labor.
This term should be understood not quite in the modern sense - the labor force, but in the sense - the strength of the slaves. Although slavery among the Slavs had noticeable distinctive features from other nations, and in the direction of its humanity, which will be discussed below.
The children of their time - in their customs and mores - the Slavs did not stand out much from the tribes and peoples surrounding them. Military prowess in those distant times consisted, first of all, in the quantity and quality of captured prey. And what are the methods of obtaining the necessary items, weapons, food and other valuable property then, this is already the fifth, tenth matter. And the popular expression: "winners are not judged" came to us from the vast depths of centuries ...
Starting from the 1st century AD, the Slavic tribes waged constant wars and skirmishes with their neighbors and, above all, with the mighty Roman Empire.
The Gothic historian Jordanes testified to a major armed clash between the Goths and the Antes as early as the 4th century. According to him, the Goths were initially defeated, but later they nevertheless won, capturing the leader of the Antes, God, his sons and seventy elders. The prisoners were executed.
In 499, the Slavs invaded Thrace. A strong 15,000-strong army of the master of the Eastern Roman army was sent against them, whose task was to completely defeat and oust the barbarian tribes across the Danube. In the battle on the Tsutra River, the master's army suffered a crushing defeat - he himself died, having lost about four thousand of his subordinates in battle. It was one of the very first historically recorded battles involving the Slavs.
By the beginning of the 6th century, the onslaught of the Slavic tribes that appeared over and over again from behind the Danube and invaded the Roman Empire was so strong and constant that Anastasius (Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire) in 512 was forced to start building one of the early prototypes of the Great Chinese walls - a continuous line of fortifications. Initially, it had a length of 85 kilometers and extended from the port of Selymvria on the Sea of ​​Marmara to Pontus (Black Sea).
The fortifications called the "Long Wall" were only 60 kilometers from the capital of the empire and, by the definition of contemporaries, were a "banner of impotence" and a "monument of cowardice."
Later, Emperor Justinian built entire fortified areas in the border areas. In total, three lines of defense were built, consisting of almost 600 different fortifications and fortifications, interspersed with powerful fortresses.
According to Procopius of Caesarea, Justinian appointed commander Khilbudia as the head of the guard of the Istra River, who for three years annually crossed to the left bank of the Danube and preventively devastated the Slavic lands.
In 534, however, during the next Khilbudiya raid, the Slavs managed to unite and give a worthy rebuff. Procopius writes that the Slavs came out "... all without exception. The battle was fierce; many Romans fell, including their chief Khilbudiy."
In 547, the Slavs unexpectedly crossed the Istra River and quickly captured all of Illyria. The governor of Illyria followed them with a 15,000-strong army, not daring to give a pitched battle. Taught by the sad experience of Khilbudia, he considered his forces insufficient to confront the numerous invading tribes of strangers.
In 551, one of the detachments of the Slavs, numbering about 3 thousand soldiers, without encountering any resistance, again crossed the Istra River, after which it was divided into two detachments with the aim of wide coverage of the territory. The Romans, who had much larger forces, decided to take advantage of this division and destroy the enemy piecemeal. But the Slavs, who, as usual, had strong intelligence, figured out this plan and preempted the Roman commander, suddenly hitting them from two flank directions at once. The Romans were utterly defeated. This fact once again confirms the presence of competent tactical skills among the Slavs and their clear interaction in battle.
Seriously concerned about military failures, Emperor Justinian sends the equestrian imperial guards against the Slavs, led by his personal bodyguard Asbad. But even here everything was decided by surprise and competent tactics. The Slavs did not wait for a battle in an open field, where the excellently trained and better armed Roman horsemen would have an undeniable advantage. The Slavic detachment attacked them directly in the Thracian fortress of Tzurule, the main location of the Romans, and won a decisive victory. Closed space and suddenness allowed the Slavs to negate the excellent military advantages of the enemy - many Romans were killed, and Asbad himself was captured.
Thus, the regular field troops stationed in the area were defeated and scattered, and the Slavs began to lay siege to the fortresses of Thrace and Illyria, hoping, not without reason, for rich booty. We will not be strict judges of our distant ancestors - these were the rules of war and they were followed by everyone, without exception.
Fortress is serious business. This is not a swift raid on sometimes defenseless settlements. But even here the Slavs did not lose face.
I will only remind the reader that we are talking here about a raid deep behind enemy lines by the same 3,000-strong Slavic detachment.
The dejected Procopius reports this in some detail. The Slavs laid siege to the powerful seaside fortress of Toper, located on the Thracian coast just a dozen days from the territory of Byzantium itself. It was defended by a very strong garrison, the number of which history is silent, but probably fully equipped, otherwise the Byzantine would certainly have complained about this circumstance. In addition, about fifteen thousand armed and combat-ready men of the besieged city were ready to take part in the defense of the fortress.
As usual, the Slavs began with military cunning. Only a small force of them approached the fortress itself. The bulk of the detachment camouflaged themselves in hidden places along their intended retreat. Those who approached the fortress walls began to bully the Roman soldiers who were on the walls and fire at them with bows.
Then the expected happened. Let us give the floor to Procopius, who is already familiar to us. "... The Roman soldiers who were in the garrison, imagining that there were no more enemies than they see, taking up arms, immediately went out against them all. The barbarians began to retreat, pretending to the attackers that, frightened by them, they fled The Romans, carried away by the pursuit, were far ahead of the fortifications. Then those who were in ambush rose up and, being in the rear of the pursuers, cut off their opportunity to return back to the city. And those who pretended to retreat, turning their faces to the Romans, placed them between two fires. The barbarians destroyed them all and then rushed to the walls. "
So, the regular troops that made up the garrison of the fortress were destroyed. It seems that the matter is small - to take the fortress by storm. However, the townspeople thoroughly prepared for the siege - boiling oil and resin poured onto the heads of the Slavs. Weighty stones and arrows caused losses to the attackers, and the first attack was repulsed.
Having understood that the fortress could not be taken in a hurry, the Slavic military leaders then acted extremely competently. Archers lined up along the wall showered the defenders of the city with a cloud of arrows and forced them to temporarily leave the walls. Meanwhile, the assault troops immediately put long ladders against the wall and captured the fortifications, and then took possession of the city, with all the ensuing consequences.

Photo: p.44 "History of military art", v.2

Isn't it - for the ancient warriors, a very revealing example of tactical skill when capturing a heavily fortified fortress?
In 552, inspired by the success of the Slavs, once again crossing the Istra River, they invaded Thrace with already significant forces. Emperor Justinian was preparing a campaign in Italy at that time, but was forced to postpone it. Having learned that the nearest goal of the Slavs was the large and rich city of Thessalonica, the Byzantine ruler sent a large army to intercept them, led by his nephew, a relatively young but experienced commander Herman.
As always, Slavic intelligence worked well. Having captured the prisoners and comparing their forces with the Romans, the Slavs interrupted the campaign, made a big maneuver in the form of a hook and retreated to Dalmatia.
According to Procopius, Germanus suddenly dies. Let's ask ourselves - is it unexpected? Did the Slavic scouts help him die? Since the Slavs were just waiting for this, being in full combat readiness, and immediately again invaded the Eastern Roman Empire.
And again, Justinian, to fight them, allocates his elite troops, led by the experienced commander Scholastic. Divided, the Slavic detachments march almost unhindered through the territory of Byzantium. Not far from Adrianople, Scholastic finally catches up with a large detachment of Slavs.
But they are already on the alert, which again testifies in favor of their intelligence. The detachment camped on a high mountain and was fully prepared for battle with the Romans. Under such circumstances, Scholastic did not dare to storm the temporary, but high-quality Slavic fortifications and, having surrounded the enemy, began to wait for the depletion of his food supplies.
But even here the Slavs were at their best, apparently preparing in advance for a long siege. The lack of food was soon felt by the Roman soldiers, under whose pressure the Byzantine commander nevertheless decided to storm. Once again, the Roman troops were defeated, their remnants retreated deep into the empire.
The Slavs reunited, moved forward and came close to the "Long Wall". And here they failed for the first time.
Either Slavic intelligence let us down this time, or the Slavic leaders believed in their invincibility, or the Romans had too much numerical superiority - one can only guess about this, since Procopius is silent about this. But the fact is that the Slavs, at first having success, then allowed themselves to be attacked from the rear, were defeated and were forced to retreat across the Istra River.
The battles cited testify to the high combat skill of the ancient Slavs, a certain operational and tactical skill of their leaders, the ability to correctly assess positions and the balance of forces, as well as the correct and competent combination of defensive and offensive actions.
The defeat in the battle at the "Long Wall" did not stop, however, the invasion of the Slavs into the territory of the empire, and in 582 the emperor Tiberius was forced to conclude a military alliance with the Avars to fight them. At the same time, the Romans undertook several campaigns into the Slavic lands, trying to deprive them of strongholds for attacks on Byzantium. At first, they succeed - in 584 the Slavs were scattered and pushed back beyond the Balkans.
But two years later, strong Slavic detachments reappear near Adrianople.
Then Emperor Mauritius makes several pre-emptive campaigns against the Slavic lands. The Slavs resist and, in turn, inflict strong and unexpected blows. They act very competently and selectively, preparing defensive lines. First of all, natural water barriers are used.
Picturesque details of the ingenuity of the Slavs are brought to us by Fefilakt Simokatta. He reports an interesting and instructive episode of the confrontation between the Roman commander Peter and the Slavic leader Piragast.
Emperor Mauritius, himself being a good theorist of military affairs, took into account the previous mistakes that led to the defeat of the Roman troops. He rightly believed that the roots of the failures of the Romans lay in the lack of proper intelligence and the indecision of their commanders, who did not know the true forces and intentions of the enemy. In this regard, he demanded from Peter due diligence, and then quick and decisive military action.
Peter followed the instructions of the emperor. And what? It turns out that the Slavs, in addition to intelligence, also had counterintelligence ...
Peter's detachment had to force the river. At night, twenty of the best Roman soldiers secretly set off and crossed the river by morning. Exhausted by the heavy night march, the Romans fell asleep in the thickets of the forest near the river, without posting either a military guard or just a sentry.
Tracking the situation related to the movement of Roman troops, the mobile cavalry detachment of the Slavs without any difficulty captured the careless "scouts". Torture was then quite commonplace - and Piraghast was soon informed about Peter's plans.
He deployed his forces in the same forest, exactly along the night crossing of the advanced reconnaissance detachment of the Byzantines, and calmly began to wait for the approach of the main forces of Peter.
Having received no news from his reconnaissance (!), Believing that she went on unhindered (?), Peter gave the command to cross the water barrier ...
The first thousand, unsuspecting Roman soldiers, were surrounded by the Slavs and destroyed almost instantly. Nevertheless, the Roman army was very numerous, and they went into battle on the move.
"... Having learned about this (about the destruction of the first thousand - note by the author), the commander orders the army to cross the river without dividing into small detachments, so that crossing the river little by little, not to be an unnecessary and easy victim of the enemy. When, in this way, the Roman army lined up their ranks, the barbarians (let me remind you: the Romans called all foreigners barbarians - author), in turn, lined up on the river bank. And so the Romans began to hit the barbarians from their ships with arrows and spears. " Theophylact Simocatta is laconic and precise. He further reports on the disorderly retreat of the Slavs.
It seems that it was caused not by military advantage, but by the mortal wound of the Slavic leader Piragast. The Slavs painfully endured the death of their leaders and the reason for this was their close tribal and tribal ties.
Peter, allegedly, did not organize their persecution, due to the lack of cavalry. This is a highly dubious claim. Firstly, the combat formation of the Byzantine army assumed the obligatory presence of cavalry, especially in a distant campaign to the lands of the Slavs. Secondly, Peter, probably not without reason, was afraid of the usual ambush tactics of the Slavs, and therefore did not dare to go deeper into dense forests.
The indecision of the commander and ruined the Roman army of the invasion. The misguided guides nevertheless led the Byzantines into the deaf thickets, where they had no water for three days and quenched their thirst with wine (?). What kind of Roman quartermaster, who did not even have the necessary supply of water, but wine - at least fill up. Perhaps the ensuing hangover played a decisive role when the misguided ratis finally reached the Helicabia River. Since here they were already on the opposite bank of the river, in full readiness, the undefeated Slavic squads were waiting for them.
Testifies, concise to the limit, Theophylact Simocatta:
"... And so the Romans, having built ships, crossed the river to grapple with the enemies in open battle. When the army was on the opposite bank, the barbarians immediately attacked the Romans in their entirety and defeated them. The defeated Romans rushed to flee. Since Peter was completely defeated by the barbarians, then Prisk is appointed commander-in-chief, and Peter, relieved of command, returned to Byzantium.
Wait a minute! Compare what has changed here compared to the first episode? The Romans were even given the opportunity to land and join the battle ...
That's right, in the second episode there is no death of the Slavic leader, and therefore the soldiers act purposefully and decisively. This indirectly confirms the guess about the extremely painful attitude of the Slavs to the death of their relatives-leaders. Probably, in connection with this, some system of purely military relations between the Slavs within their detachments broke down.
And in 597, the Slavs nevertheless reached the coveted rich Thessaloniki.
Bishop of Thessaloniki John of Ephesus tells about the siege by the Slavic troops of this city. The siege was carried out according to all the canons of siege art, using the appropriate technique. John mentions that the besiegers had siege engines for throwing stones, "turtles", massive iron battering rams, and huge hooks. The throwing machine was sheathed with boards on three sides to protect the garrison serving it. The "turtles" were covered with dry skins, but since this did not save them from the hot resin pouring from the fortress walls, they were replaced with fresh skins of freshly killed bulls and camels.
Having started shelling the defenders of the city with arrows, the Slavs gradually moved their throwing machines, which threw rather large stones. Then the "turtles" were pushed close to the walls, under the cover of which, the Slavs tried to punch holes in the walls to break into the city. Iron rams loosened the stones in the wall, and the hooks tore them out.
This went on for six days.
The besieged made sorties, trying to capture or destroy the siege equipment, but to no avail. On the seventh day, the Slavs, for no apparent reason, suddenly stopped fighting, abandoned siege engines near the fortress walls and went into the mountains.
One can only guess what prevented them from continuing the siege of the city. John does not write anything about this, so it is logical to assume that this was not due to external reasons (in the form of reinforcements approaching the besieged, for example). And, of course, not the victorious actions of the besieged, which the bishop would certainly proudly mention. In addition, John of Ephesus noted in his notes that the Slavs "... learned to wage war better than the Romans."
Most likely, the siege was lifted due to some serious internal circumstances. It could be the death of a leader who accidentally received a mortal wound. But, I think, the real reason was a sudden mass illness that began to mow down the Slavic warriors ... It is known that in those days military irretrievable losses from epidemics and diseases many times exceeded losses in battles, since no effective medicines existed.
At the very beginning of the 7th century, Emperor Mauritius began to prepare a serious attempt to undermine the military and economic power of the Slavic tribes. And who knows how it would have ended - the Byzantine ruler was preparing a huge invasion army and was well versed in military art, including Slavic tactical tricks.
But in 602, a certain Roman soldier named Phocas provoked an uprising in the Eastern Roman army, which was already concentrating on the border near the Danube River. The uprising was supported by the local population, dissatisfied with the imperial requisitions - Mauritius himself was captured and killed.
In 610, Emperor Heraclius came to power in Byzantium. By this time, the so-called "theme military reform" was completed in the state of time, designed to strengthen the protection of the borders. Its essence was that the Roman soldiers were allocated plots of land in certain territories, which were called "themes". They acquired farms on these plots and received income from them, on which they lived. Fem was also the name of the territorial detachment, which consisted of the soldiers of the given district, headed by its local commander. In short, a special kind of border troops was formed to protect the borders. This practice later existed in other states, including Russia.
By the beginning of the 7th century, some Slavic tribes had already settled down in the depths of the Balkan Peninsula, creating a kind of outpost for campaigns against Byzantium. Ancient historians note a number of naval military campaigns of the Slavs. In 610, they besieged Thessalonica, both on land and from the sea. And in 623, the Slavic amphibious assault was even landed on the coast of the island of Crete.
In 626, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius, at the head of a large army, made a campaign in Asia Minor for military operations against the Persians. Taking advantage of this, the Slavic tribes set as their goal the capture of the very capital of the empire. To this end, they concluded a military alliance with the warlike Avar tribes.
In June 626, the Slavs, together with the Avars, rounded the "Long Wall" and invaded the empire. Almost without resistance, they went directly to Constantinople (the capital of the empire was founded by Emperor Constantine I in 324 on the site of the city of Byzantium) and laid siege to it from the land. At the same time, the Slavic fleet completely blocked the city from the sea. However, the capital of the empire was reliably protected by very high and massive fortress walls.

Find a photo. p.65 "History of military claims." v.2

The allies made a lot of throwing machines right on the spot, but most importantly, they were, literally in a week, built twelve large assault towers, equal in height to the fortress walls surrounding the entire city. Panic seized the inhabitants of the capital. The Byzantine bishop described as follows: the enemies "... filled the sea and land with wild tribes, for whom life is war." However, a strong garrison remained in the city, and a military militia was made up of many residents - the Byzantines decided to hold out to the end. They understood perfectly well what the capture of the city by warriors who were thirsty for booty was fraught with.
Finally, after long days of siege, the decisive assault took place on July 31. However, an attempt to land an amphibious assault behind enemy lines was unsuccessful. The frontal attack, in the center of which were the Avars, and on the flanks of the detachments of the Slavs, also did not bring success. Some assault towers were destroyed by the besieged. The defenders skillfully fought off the assaulters. The capital survived.
But even an unsuccessful assault showed the high technical equipment of the Slavs, the skillful organization of the interaction of various branches of the armed forces and the readiness to unite with any ally to achieve the immediate goal.
The fact is that the Avars, in principle, were the enemies of the Slavs and for many years carried out predatory raids on their lands. In the end, the Slavic tribes of the Moravians, Czechs, Serbs and Horutans united in a powerful tribal union, which was headed by the Moravian prince Samo, already known to us. Several major battles were lost by the Avars, and they were pushed back.
However, the Byzantines in some wars were allies of the Slavs, and many of the latter served, on a permanent basis, in the elite imperial units of the regular army.
And in 630, the allied army, in a bloody three-day battle near Wogatisburg, also defeated the army advancing on the Slavs from the west, the Frankish king Dagobert, as already mentioned above.
The wars of the Slavs at the end of the 7th - 10th centuries can be traced in the West only in the examples of the military actions of both Slavic Moravian states, which was the subject of consideration in one of the previous chapters. In addition, the Danube Bulgarians fought with the Franks and Byzantines.
In the northeast and east, new powerful Slavic states were already emerging: Novgorod land and Kievan Rus.
But their military actions will not be the subject of our study, since we are tracing the immediate ancestors of the ancient Belarusians, and not their related tribes.
To be continued