What event happened in 907. Prophetic Oleg, prince. The significance of Oleg's campaign against Constantinople

The first truly big campaign of the Russians against the Eastern Roman Empire was carried out by Prince Oleg. By that time, a clear military organization had already formed in Ancient Rus', which then existed for several centuries.

The first truly big campaign of the Russians against the Eastern Roman Empire was carried out by Prince Oleg. By that time in Ancient Rus' there is already a clear military organization, which then existed for several centuries.

The basis of the Old Russian state was the rural community, which in the chronicles is called “rope” or “world”. This made it possible to gather a large militia of Slavic tribes. The Chronicler, speaking of state structure Rus' in ancient times, reported the following:

The "Grand Duke of Russia" was the head of state. And although the people's council of free community members limited his supreme power, he could sometimes ignore the opinion of the council. Management was carried out by “the bright and great princes and his (the prince’s) great boyars.”

The basis of the Old Russian army was the princely squads - the “eldest” of the most experienced warriors and the “younger” of the “youths”. The squads of “princely men” also went to war, that is, boyars, allies from among the steppe inhabitants and the militia of “warriors”, which was exhibited by rural communities and cities. The “voi” militias constituted a foot army, since the princes’ squads were mounted.

The armament of the Rus consisted of double-edged swords and spears, axes and maces, and “boot” knives. For protective purposes, helmets and large wooden shields were common. Chain mail ( chain mail armor) had, as a rule, only combatants. Since ancient times, the Slavs had battle banners and military music.

There was no military fleet in Ancient Rus'. But for trips along rivers and seas, large “propelled” boats were built, which went with oars and sails. Such seaworthy boats could accommodate 40-60 people with weapons and supplies.

Prince Oleg made his famous campaign against Constantinople in 907. There is no doubt that this enormous military undertaking required a great deal of preparation. According to the chronicler, the Russian army set sail on two thousand boats. It can be assumed that Olegov’s army numbered approximately 80 thousand warriors. But most likely, the Russian army was less than half of this figure, even taking into account the allied steppe cavalry.

The boat flotilla, gathered from all over Ancient Rus' near Kiev, went down the Dnieper and moved towards Constantinople along the shores of the Pontus (Black Sea). The cavalry walked along the shore in full view of the flotilla.

When the Russians approached Constantinople, the foot army went ashore, pulling the boats onto land. A battle took place under the walls of the Byzantine capital. The chronicler reports about it this way: Prince Oleg “having fought near the city and committed a lot of murder to the Greeks.” After the first clash with the Rus, the Byzantines took refuge behind the fortress walls, and their enemy began to devastate the outskirts of Constantinople.

The siege threatened to drag on, and strong autumn storms began at sea. Prince Oleg decided to intimidate the “Greeks”. He ordered the boats to be put on rollers (wheels), and with a fair wind, raising all the sails, the Russian boat army approached the city itself. There are reports that at the same time the Rus released a large number of kites at the Byzantines.

It was not these “intimidations” that forced the Byzantines to begin negotiations with Prince Oleg, but defeat in the field under the walls of Constantinople and a dense siege from sea and land. In addition, the “Greeks” became aware for certain that the Russians had begun preparations for the assault on the city.

During the negotiations, Prince Oleg demanded that Byzantium pay him 12 hryvnia for each warrior and give him “rules” for all Russian cities. That is, we were talking about military indemnity, which the winner imposed on the defeated side.

The Byzantines also agreed to provide a number of benefits to Russian merchants: the right to duty-free trade during a six-month stay in Constantinople, free food and washing in Greek baths. In addition, the city authorities pledged to provide merchants from Rus' with food and various ship equipment for their return journey.

Only on such conditions did Prince Oleg lead his army of boats back to Rus'. The chronicler reports that after concluding a “shameful” peace treaty for the Eastern Roman Empire, the Rus “hung their shields in the gates, showing victory, and went to Constantinople.” The fact that Prince Oleg nailed his shield on the Constantinople gates was direct proof of the victory of the 907 campaign.

(based on materials from the Children's Military Encyclopedia)

Russian-Byzantine wars is a series of military conflicts between Old Russian state And Byzantium in the period from the second half of the 9th century to the first half of the 11th century. At their core, these wars were not wars in the full sense of the term, but rather - hiking and raids.

First trip Rus' against Byzantine Empire(with the proven participation of Russian troops) began a raid in the early 830s. The exact date is not indicated anywhere, but most historians point to the 830s. The only mention of the campaign is in the Life of St. George of Amastrida. The Slavs attacked Amastris and plundered it - this is all that can be extracted from the work of the supposed Patriarch Ignatius. The remaining information (for example, the Russians tried to open the coffin of St. George, but their arms and legs were lost) does not stand up to criticism.

The next attack was on Constantinople (Constantinople, modern Istanbul, Türkiye), which occurred in 866 (according to Tales of Bygone Years) or 860 (according to European chronicles).

The leader of this campaign is not indicated anywhere (as in the campaign of the 830s), but we can almost certainly say that it was Askold and Dir. The raid was carried out on Constantinople from the Black Sea, which the Byzantines did not expect. It should be noted that at that time the Byzantine Empire was greatly weakened by long and not very successful wars with the Arabs. When the Byzantines saw, according to various sources, from 200 to 360 ships with Russian soldiers, they locked themselves in the city and made no attempt to repel the attack. Askold and Dir calmly plundered the entire coast, receiving more than enough booty, and took Constantinople under siege. The Byzantines were in panic; at first they did not even know who attacked them. After a month and a half siege, when the city actually fell, and several dozen men-at-arms could have taken it, the Rus unexpectedly left the Bosphorus coast. The exact reason for the retreat is unknown, but Constantinople miraculously survived. The author of the chronicles and an eyewitness to the events, Patriarch Photius, describes this with helpless despair: “The salvation of the city was in the hands of the enemies and its preservation depended on their generosity... the city was not taken by their mercy... and the disgrace from this generosity intensifies the painful feeling...”

There are three versions of the reason for the departure:

• fear of reinforcements arriving;
• reluctance to be drawn into a siege;
• pre-thought-out plans for Constantinople.

The latest version of the “cunning plan” is confirmed by the fact that in 867 the Russians sent an embassy to Constantinople, and a trade agreement was concluded with Byzantium, moreover, Askold and Dir committed first baptism of Rus'(unofficial, not as global as Vladimir’s baptism).

The campaign of 907 is indicated only in a few ancient Russian chronicles; it is not in the Byzantine and European chronicles (or they are lost). However, the conclusion of a new Russian-Byzantine treaty as a result of the campaign has been proven and is beyond doubt. It was that legendary hike Prophetic Oleg when he nailed his shield to the gates of Constantinople.

Prince Oleg attacked Constantinople with 2,000 rooks from the sea and horsemen from the land. The Byzantines surrendered and the result of the campaign was the treaty of 907, and then the treaty of 911.

Unconfirmed legends about the campaign:

• Oleg put his ships on wheels and moved overland with a fair wind to Constantinople;
• the Greeks asked for peace and brought poisoned food and wine to Oleg, but he refused;
• The Greeks paid each warrior 12 gold hryvnia, plus separate payments to all the princes - Kyiv, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Rostov, Polotsk and other cities (plausible).

In any case, the texts of the treaties of 907 and 911, included in the Tale of Bygone Years, confirm the fact of the campaign and its successful result. After their signing, trade in Ancient Rus' reached new level, and Russian merchants appeared in Constantinople. Thus, its significance is great, even if it was intended as an ordinary robbery.

Reasons for the two campaigns (941 and 943) Prince Igor to Constantinople are not precisely known, all the information is unclear and partially reliable.

There is a version that Russian troops helped the Byzantines in the conflict with the Khazar Kaganate (Jews), which repressed the Greeks on its territory. At first, the fighting developed successfully, but something happened after the defeat of the Russians in the Kerch Strait area near Tmutarakan (some kind of negotiations with an element of blackmail), and the ancient Russian army was forced to march against Byzantium. Cambridge document reads: “And he went against his will and fought against Kustantina at sea for four months...” Kustantina is, of course, Constantinople. Be that as it may, the Russians left the Jews alone and moved towards the Greeks. In the battle of Constantinople, the Byzantines introduced Prince Igor to “Greek fire” (an incendiary mixture of petroleum, sulfur and oil, which was fired through bellows - pneumatically) copper pipe). The Russian ships retreated, and their defeat was finally sealed by the onset of a storm. The Byzantine Emperor Roman himself prevented the second campaign by sending an embassy to Igor with the goal of returning peace. A peace treaty was signed in 944, the result of the conflict was a draw - neither side gained anything except the return of peaceful relations.

The Russian-Byzantine conflict of 970-971 ended with approximately the same result during the reign of Svyatoslav. The reason was disagreement and mutual claims on the territory of Bulgaria. In 971, Prince Svyatoslav signed a peace treaty, and upon returning home he was killed by the Pechenegs. After this, most of it was annexed to Byzantium.

In 988 Prince Vladimir the Great besieged Korsun (Chersonese - modern Sevastopol), which was under Byzantine rule. The cause of the conflict is unknown, but the result was Vladimir’s marriage to the Byzantine princess Anna, and ultimately the complete baptism of Rus' (Korsun, of course, fell).

After that on long years Peace reigned in relations between Rus' and Byzantium (except for the attack of 800 renegades in 1024 on the Byzantine island of Lemnos; all participants in the campaign were killed).

The reason for the conflict in 1043 was an attack on a Russian monastery in Athos and the murder of a noble Russian merchant in Constantinople. The events of the sea campaign were identical to Igor's campaign, including the storm and Greek fire. Led the campaign Prince Yaroslav the Wise(He was called wise not for this battle, but for the introduction of “Russian Truth” - the first set of laws). Peace was concluded in 1046 and sealed by the marriage of the son of Yaroslav (Vsevolod) with the daughter of the Byzantine emperor.

Relations between Rus' and Byzantium have always been closely connected. The abundance of conflicts is explained by the formation of statehood in Rus' during that period (this was the case with the ancient Germans and Franks with the Roman Empire, and with many other countries at the stage of formation). Aggressive foreign policy led to the recognition of the state, the development of the economy and trade (plus income from robbery, let’s not forget), as well as the development international relations, no matter how strange it may sound.

The cooperation of Rus' and Byzantium was beneficial to both Rus' (trade, culture, access to other states with the help of the Greeks), and Byzantine Empire(military assistance in the fight against Arabs, Saracens, Khazars, etc.).

The year 907 in the history of Rus' was marked by the legendary campaign against Constantinople (or, as it was also called, Constantinople), which was led by the Novgorod prince Oleg. This event is associated with a lot of speculation and doubt on the part of historians, many of whom do not believe in its authenticity for a number of reasons. In this article we will tell you in detail about Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople ( summary), and let's try to figure out whether this event really happened as the ancient Russian chronicles depict it.

Who is Prince Oleg?

Oleg was the prince of Novgorod and the great from 882 to 912, which was the year of his death. After he received power over the Novgorod land (which happened after the death of Rurik) as regent of the minor Igor, he captured ancient Kyiv. It was this city that at that time was destined to become the capital and symbol of the unification of the two main centers for the Slavs. That is why historians often consider him as the founder of the Old Russian state. And Oleg’s subsequent campaign against Constantinople became the reason for him to be called “Prophetic”.

Why was Oleg called the Prophetic?

As The Tale of Bygone Years tells us, Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople took place in 907. In the chronicle we're talking about about how the city was besieged and taken, and the courage and sharp mind of the prince, who outwitted the Byzantines, are glorified. According to this source, he refused to take poisoned food from them, which is why he was nicknamed “The Prophetic One.” This is exactly what people in Rus' began to call Oleg, who defeated the Greeks. In turn, his name comes from Scandinavia, and when translated means “saint”.

March to Constantinople

As already mentioned above, the content of the campaign and the Russian-Byzantine war is described in PVL (Tale of Bygone Years). These events culminated in a peace treaty being signed in 907. This became popular among the people thanks to the following words: “The prophetic Oleg nailed his shield on the gates of Constantinople.” But, nevertheless, this campaign is not mentioned in Greek sources, and, in general, it is not mentioned anywhere except in Russian legends and chronicles.

In addition, already in 911 the Russians signed a new document. Moreover, none of the historians doubt the authenticity of the conclusion of this agreement.

Byzantium and the Rus

It should be noted that after the Rus' campaign against Constantinople in 860, Byzantine sources indicate nothing about conflicts with them. However, there is a number of indirect evidence confirming the opposite. For example, the instruction of Emperor Leo IV already at the beginning of the 10th century contains information that the hostile “northern Scythians” use small ships sailing at high speed.

Oleg's hike through The Tale of Bygone Years

As the legend about Oleg’s campaign says, Constantinople was taken not only with the involvement of the Slavs, but also the Finno-Ugric tribes, which are listed in the ancient Russian written monument of the early 12th century - “The Tale of Bygone Years”. If you believe the chronicle, some warriors rode horses along the coast, while others moved by sea with the help of two thousand ships. Moreover, each ship accommodated more than thirty people. Historians are still hesitant about whether to believe the “Tale of Bygone Years” and whether the data about the campaign indicated in the chronicle are genuine.

Legends in the description of the trip

The legend about Prince Oleg's campaign against Constantinople contains a large number of legends. For example, the narrative indicates that the ships moved on wheels, on which they were placed by Oleg. The Byzantines were afraid of the Rus heading towards Constantinople and asked for peace. However, they brought back poisoned dishes, which the prince refused. Then the Greeks had no choice but to give their consent to what Oleg proposed. As the legend says, they had to pay 12 hryvnias to all soldiers, as well as a separate amount to the princes in Kyiv, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Rostov and other cities except Novgorod. But the prince’s victories did not end there. In addition to a one-time payment, the Greeks of Byzantium had to pay a permanent tribute to the Rus, and also agree to conclude an agreement (we are talking about the same agreement signed in 907), which was supposed to regulate the conditions of stay and trade of Russian merchants in Greek cities. The parties took mutual oaths. And Oleg, in turn, committed that very famous act, which made him legendary, according to legend, in the eyes of the common people. He hung a shield on the gates of the capital of Byzantium, Constantinople, as a victorious symbol. The Greeks were given the order to sew sails for the Slavic army. Chronicles say that it was after Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople was completed in 907 that the prince became popularly known as the “Prophetic One.”

However, if the stories of the ancient Russian chronicler about the Rus' raid on Constantinople in 860 are based only on Byzantine chronicles, then the story about this raid is based on information obtained from legends that were not written down. Moreover, several plots coincide with similar ones from the Scandinavian sagas.

Treaty of 907

What were the terms of the agreement, and was it concluded? If you believe the Tale of Bygone Years, then after the victorious actions of Prince Oleg in Constantinople, a document quite beneficial for Rus' was signed with the Greeks. The goal of its main provisions is considered to be the resumption of peaceful and good neighborly relations between these peoples and states. The Byzantine government took upon itself the obligation to pay the Rus a certain amount of annual tribute (and its size was quite substantial), as well as to pay a one-time payment of indemnity - both in money and in things, gold, rare fabrics, etc. The agreement stipulated the above the amount of ransoms for each warrior and the amount of monthly allowance that the Greeks had to give to Russian merchants.

Information about Oleg’s campaign from other sources

According to the information of the Novgorod First Chronicle, a number of events occurred in a different way. At the same time, the campaigns against Constantinople were carried out under the leadership and the “Prophetic” was just a governor. The chronicle describes Oleg’s legendary campaigns against Constantinople as follows. The year is indicated as 920, and the dating of the next raid places the events in 922. However, the description of the campaign in 920 is similar in detail to the description of Igor's campaign of 941, which is reflected in several documents.

The information contained in the Byzantine chronicles, written by Pseudo-Simeon at the end of the 10th century, provides information about the Rus. In one of the fragments, some historians see details pointing to the predictions of the sages about the future death of Oleg, and in the personality of Ross - the prince himself. Among popular science publications there is an opinion expressed by V. Nikolaev about the campaigns of the Russians against the Greeks, carried out around 904. If you believe his constructions (which were not mentioned in the chronicles of Pseudo-Simeon), then the Dews were defeated at Tricephalus by the Byzantine leader John Radin. And only a few managed to escape from the Greek weapons due to the insight of their prince.

A. Kuzmin, when studying the text of the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years” about the actions of Oleg, suggested that the author used texts from Bulgarian or Greek sources about raids led by the prince. The chronicler quoted the phrases of the Greeks: “This is not Oleg, but Saint Demetrius, who was sent to us by God.” Such words indicate, according to the researcher, the time of events in 904 - the Byzantines did not provide assistance to the Thessalonians. And Demetrius of Thessalonica was considered the patron of the robbed city. As a result, a large number of residents of Thessalonica were slaughtered, and only some of them were able to be freed from the Arab pirates. These words of the Greeks about Demetrius, unclear in context, could contain indications of revenge from the saint on Constantinople, who was indirectly guilty of such a fate for the population.

How do historians interpret the information in the chronicle?

As mentioned above, information about the raid is contained only in Russian chronicles, and nothing is indicated in this regard in the Byzantine writings.

However, if we look at the text part of the document fragments, which is given in the Tale of Bygone Years, we can say that, after all, the information about the campaign of 907 is not completely fictitious. The lack of data in Greek sources is explained by some researchers by the incorrect date to which the war is attributed in the Tale of Bygone Years. There are a number of attempts to connect it with the campaign of the Rus (Dromites) in 904, while the Greeks fought with an army of pirates led by Leo of Tripoli. The theory that most closely resembles the truth belongs to the author of Boris Rybakov and, according to their hypothesis, information about the raid in 907 should be attributed to the events in 860. This war was replaced by information about unsuccessful campaigns under leadership that was inspired by legends about the extraordinary liberation of the Christian population from pagan tribes.

Dating of the campaign

It is not known exactly when exactly Prince Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople took place. The year to which these events refer (907) is arbitrary and appeared after the chroniclers made their own calculations. From the very beginning, legends about the reign of the prince did not have exact date, as a result of which the information was later divided into stages, which were attributed to the initial and final periods of his reign.

In addition, the Tale of Bygone Years contains information about the relative dating of the raid. It contains information that what was predicted by the sages (the death of the prince) actually happened five years after the campaign against Constantinople took place. If Oleg died no later than 912 (this is evidenced by the data on sacrifices in Tatishchev’s works, which took place during the appearance of Halley, the legendary comet), then the author calculated everything correctly.

The significance of Oleg's campaign against Constantinople

If the campaign really happened, then it can be considered a significant event. The document that was signed as a result of the campaign should be considered as a defining moment in the relations between the Greeks and the Russians for the next decades. Subsequent historical events, one way or another, were associated with the raids carried out by Prince Oleg, regardless of their correct dating.

The reasons that prompted Oleg to attack Constantinople are already known to us from previous Rus’ raids on the capital of Byzantium: on the one hand, this is the desire of the new ruler of Dnieper Rus' to obtain recognition of his status from the empire and thereby confirm and extend the validity of the “Russian”-Byzantine treaty; on the other hand, the reluctance of the imperial authorities to be in allied relations with the pagans and provide them with trade and any other benefits. The immediate cause of the conflict, judging by the text of the treaty of 911, was some kind of skirmishes between the Rus and the Greeks, in which it came down to a “strike with a sword.”

Oleg's campaign against Constantinople is described in detail in The Tale of Bygone Years. The “conspiracy of silence” that surrounds this event in Byzantine literature appears in striking contrast to the chronicler’s awareness. However, there is still one indirect evidence. In Leo the Deacon we find news that Emperor John Tzimiskes threatened Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich with the fate of his father, who “disdained the oath agreement” - this, of course, is a clear allusion to the previous Byzantine-“Russian” agreement, violated by Igor in 941.

Unfortunately, the detail of the chronicle story does not at all guarantee the accuracy of the information it conveys. First of all, this concerns chronology. The Tale of Bygone Years dates Oleg's campaign against Constantinople to 907. At the same time, it dates preliminary negotiations with the Greeks, the results of which received legal formalization only in 911, when the second, “expanded” embassy of Prince Oleg signed the famous treaty. The reasons for this diplomatic delay are left without any explanation. The chronicler simply filled the resulting time gap with “empty years.” It is difficult to say what considerations motivated him in this case 1 . But in fact, both events occurred in the same year, evidence of which can be found in the “Tale” itself. In the article marked 907, Oleg’s ambassadors negotiate with the “King of the Walnuts,” the brothers “Leon and Alexander.” Meanwhile, this message can only be true in relation to 911, because it was in this year that Emperor Leo VI the Wise appointed Alexander as his co-ruler. Thus, the standing of “Rus” under the walls of Constantinople most likely lasted throughout August 911 and ended on September 2, the day the treaty was signed.

The entire article 907 is no more reliable than the date set. This is no wonder, because the chronicler, in fact, composed a hymn in honor of the prophetic prince, in whose person the Russian land triumphed over the Greeks. To take the hymns at their word would, of course, be naive. When reading the story of Oleg’s overseas exploits, it should be remembered that the relationship between history and poetry here is approximately the same as between the Iliad and the real siege of Troy.

The epic grandeur of the campaign planned by Oleg becomes obvious from the very first lines. He allegedly manages to assemble a huge fleet - 2000 “ships”. The chronicler needs this fantastic figure, of course, only in order to send along with Oleg all his “tolkovins” (allies) - “many Varangians, and Slovenians, and Chud, and Krivichi, and Meryu, and Derevlyans, and Radimichi, and Polyans , and the North, and the Vyatichi, and the Croats, and the Dulebs, and the Tivertsy” (and the last four Slavic tribes, according to the chronicle narrative itself, have not yet been “tortured” Kyiv princes under tribute). But even this armada of “ships” is not able to accommodate all of Oleg’s “warriors”, of which, we note, there are already 80,000 (based on 40 people per boat - the number indicated in the chronicle), so the other part of them “went” to Constantinople by land , “on horseback,” although the Rus’ equestrian squads Eastern Slavs did not yet exist then.

Having mobilized the entire Russian land under Oleg’s banners, the chronicler, however, failed to properly dispose of this countless army. It is literally melting before our eyes. The horse army is the first to disappear, since Oleg’s treaty requires tribute from the Greeks only for the “men” in the “ships”. And then, as if all the Varangian-Finno-Slavic “talkies” fall through the ground, instead of which “Rus” suddenly appears, whose interests are the only ones taken into account in negotiations with the “kings”. This turn of events convinces us that in fact the naval campaign of 911 was carried out by the forces of Oleg’s squad; The militia of the East Slavic tribes did not participate in the raid.

However, in the list of “interpretations” worthy of attention are the “Slovenians”, who later appear in the joke with the sails: “And Oleg said: “Sew the sails of the Russians, and the Slovenes are sprinkled,” and so it was... And Rus' raised the sails of the Slovenes, and the Slovenes are sprinkled, and the wind tore them apart; and deciding to the Slovenes: “let’s take our thick sails [sails made of rough canvas], the essence of the Slovenes’ sails is not given.” Pavoloka in Rus' was the name for expensive fabric of two types: silk and “paper” (cotton). The “Slovenians” also got “woolly” sails, but made of cotton fabric - easily torn (“crumbly”). The meaning of the anecdote is apparently the same as in the fairy tale about tops and roots: dividing the expensive “pavoloks” looted from the Greeks - silk and paper stock - the “Slovenians” were flattered by something more luxurious and durable in appearance than silk, but unsuitable for seaworthiness. actually fabric.

Here the chronicler is clearly retelling a “Russian” squad legend known to him, which depicts some kind of conflict between “Rus” and the “Slovenes” over the division of booty or squad “honor”. Moreover, the “Slovenes” were among the “tolkovins” only due to the fact that they are actors this anecdote, and only to give the chronicler the opportunity to tell it (the chronicler knows nothing else about the “Slovenians”). In the mouth of a Kyiv scribe of the 11th century. the story with the sails sounds like a mockery of the Novgorodians, the rivals of the “Polyan-Rus”. Therefore, “Slovenes” are inserted into the list of “Tolkovinas” immediately after the Varangians, and, being in this place, they should designate Ilmen Slovenes. Despite the fact that the chronicler in this case went from anecdote to history, all commentators on this passage still call the “Slovenes” Novgorodians. Meanwhile, the Slavic contingent of the “Russian” army, apparently, was represented by Moravian and Croatian warriors, perhaps led by the governor (the motive of rivalry between the squads of the prince and the governor is developed later in the “Tale”, in the story of the Drevlyan tribute). It is characteristic that the text of the agreement does not mention “Slovenians”. This could only happen if they were part of “Rus” - a circumstance that was quite natural for the Croats and Moravans who came to Kiev along with Oleg’s Rusyns, and completely impossible for the Ilmen Slovenes.

In light of the above, a tenfold reduction in the number of Oleg’s “ships” will look like the most likely figure. By the way, this is exactly what the incredulous editor of the Commission List of the Novgorod I Chronicle did.

The description of military operations at the walls of Constantinople again raises the question of the actual relationship of the entire chronicle article of 907 to the “legends of deep antiquity” and, even more so, to the “memoirs of the participants in the campaign.” It has been noted, for example, that the story about the robberies and robberies of “Rus” in the vicinity of Constantinople (“and you fought near the city, and committed many murders to the Greeks, and destroyed many chambers, and burned churches; and in their name, the plunderers, some were flogged, others were tormented , some I shot, and others were swept into the sea, and I did a lot of evil to Rus' to the Greeks, as much as they did wars”) is compiled from reports of two Byzantine sources - the Continuator of the Chronicle of George Amartol and the Life of Vasily the New - about the attack on Constantinople by Prince Igor in 941 .( Shakhmatov A. A. “The Tale of Bygone Years” and its sources // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences, IV. M.; L., 1940. S. 54 - 57, 69 - 72). This has given rise to a number of researchers to claim that the 911 treaty “has no hint of hostile relationship between Russians and Greeks" ( Bakhrushin S.V. Works on source study, historiography and history of Russia in the era of feudalism. M., 1987. S. 30 - 31; Tikhomirov M.N. Historical connections of Russia with the Slavic countries and Byzantium. M., 1969. P. 109). There is some truth in these arguments, but it would be wrong to completely deny the authenticity of the chronicle account of the atrocities of the Rus. In the medieval and, in particular, ancient Russian literature there are many descriptions real events using (sometimes verbatim) ancient, biblical, etc. "model" texts ( Bibikov M.V. Byzantine historical prose. M., 1996. S. 30 - 31). Meanwhile, the text of Oleg's treaty retained clear traces of the fact that the swords of the Rus were stained with the blood of the civilian population of the Byzantine Empire. Its “chapters” open with a statement about the end of violence: “At the first word, let us make peace with you, Greeks,” and at preliminary negotiations, Emperors Leo and Alexander demanded that the Russians no longer “do dirty tricks in the villages and in our country.”

But the cited criticisms are correct in the sense that there really was no “Russian-Byzantine war,” that is, full-scale military action, in 911. Oleg did not sail to Constantinople to fight with Byzantium; demonstration military force was supposed to persuade the Greeks to conclude a peace treaty. Oleg's strategic plan was to break into the Golden Horn Bay (the Byzantine fleet at that time was involved in naval operations against the Arabs in the Mediterranean). This vulnerable spot of the Byzantine stronghold had been known to the Russians since 860. Then they managed to take the city by surprise. But now, for some reason, the surprise attack failed, and the entrance to the bay was securely blocked by a chain stretched between both banks. And yet Oleg carried out a maneuver, thanks to which, 542 years later, Mehmed II entered the Church of Hagia Sophia as a winner. At this point in his story, the chronicler again resorts to poeticization of history: “And Oleg commanded his howls to make wheels and put ships on wheels, and with a fair wind they raised the sails... and went to the city.” The peninsula separating the inner harbor of Constantinople from the sea is covered with vineyards, arable land and quite mountainous; in order to make the boats placed on wheels here move, a wind of such extraordinary strength is needed that it would rather disrupt the entire enterprise than help it come true. But there is nothing incredible in the very fact of transporting the boats overland to the Golden Horn Bay. Of course, the ships were unlikely to be placed on wheels; rather, they were laid on round rollers and pulled by a drag. Wood in the required quantity could be obtained without difficulty - the Thracian forests were then approaching Constantinople itself.

The success of this maneuver stunned the Greeks. Seeing enemy ships floating in the middle of the bay, which was considered inaccessible, the co-emperors agreed to begin negotiations with Oleg. They were also forced to take this step by the repentant mood that gripped the population of the capital. Suddenly they remembered how several years before, in 904, the imperial authorities refused to help Thessalonica, which was under siege by the Arabs. The inhabitants of Thessalonica were outraged that they were abandoned to their fate, and prophesied that Saint Demetrius, the patron saint of the city, would certainly punish Constantinople for this betrayal. And now in the capital on every corner one could hear: “It is not Oleg, but Saint Dmitry himself who was sent to us by God.” It was unthinkable to resist the heavenly punishment. Further intransigence of the government to the demands of the barbarians, who merely sought to have a profitable bargain in the Constantinople market, threatened to lead to open rebellion. Both of these circumstances - Oleg’s seizure of the territory of the Golden Horn and the tense situation inside the city - ensured unforgettable diplomatic success for the ambassadors “of Russian descent.”

Oleg's treaty with the Greeks

The signing of a long-term peace treaty was preceded by negotiations to end hostilities. Oleg wanted to receive a “tribute” - a ransom for his “warriors”. This place in the Tale is generally quite dark. The chronicler gives a double calculation of tribute: first, Oleg “commanded” to give tribute “for 2000 ships, 12 hryvnia per person, and 40 men per ship”; but his ambassadors, who came to Constantinople, asked to “give 12 hryvnia per key to the wars for 2000 ships.” Historians have explained the obvious discrepancy between the sizes of these two tributes in different ways. But few people took into account the capabilities of the imperial treasury and considerations of imperial prestige. Even if, following the Novgorod I Chronicle, we estimate the strength of Oleg’s army at 8,000 people (200 rooks of 40 soldiers each), then the tribute required for them will be 96,000 hryvnia or 2,304,000 spools (the hryvnia of the early 10th century was equal to about a third of a pound, that is, 24 Byzantine spools). Here we must remember that the Byzantine treasury received approximately 8,000,000 zolotniks annually and that Emperor Mauritius quarreled to death with the Avar Khagan Bayan over 100,000 zolotniks - an amount 23 times less than what we received as a result of a tenfold reduction in the number of Oleg’s soldiers! (According to the chronicle, it turns out that Oleg demanded to pay him three annual budgets of the empire - another evidence of the fantastic nature of the chronicle calculation of his army.) But international status The Avar Kagan far exceeded the dignity of the “blessed Russian prince.”

It seems that the tribute of 12 hryvnia per warrior is a creation of the heated imagination of the ancient Russian warriors, which was included in the chronicle from their “Constantinople” legends. The two systems for calculating tribute probably reflect the fact that Oleg, excited by the success achieved, initially asked for too much, but then, during the negotiations, agreed to take “according to rank.” The expression “12 hryvnia per key” is usually understood as payment per key (steering) oar, that is, per boat. However, V. Dal in his dictionary (article “Klyuch”) also indicates that among the Western Slavs the word “key” means an estate of several villages and hamlets with a town, governed by a key. “Oleg’s rook power,” he writes, “was probably divided into keys according to the volosts from which the boats were deployed, or according to private commanders over the keys, departments of people.” Considering Oleg’s Carpathian origin, perhaps this interpretation of the size of the tribute received from the Greeks should be preferred. Another part of the tribute was given in precious things and products. Returning to Kyiv, Oleg took with him “gold, and grass, and vegetables, and wine, and all sorts of ornaments.”

Another important point of the negotiations was the “structures” that the Greeks pledged to “give to Russian cities.” The text immediately following the list of cities regulates the conditions of detention of “Russian” ambassadors and merchants: “let them eat a month for 6 months, bread and wine, and meat, and fish, and vegetables; and let them give them [bath] as much [as] they want; and then go home to Rus', and let them take from our Tsar on the way the brush, and anchors, and ropes, and sails, and as much as they need.” With the second mention of cities, the agreement determines the order of trade for Russian merchants: “and let them enter the city through the same gates with the Tsar’s husband, without weapons, 50 men each, and let them make purchases as they need, without paying toll [duties] at any cost.” with what". Thus, by “way of life” we must understand the trade charter, which stipulates the rules of trade of the Rus on the Constantinople market. As we see, Oleg achieved extremely favorable conditions for the “Russian” merchants: they received support from the imperial treasury and were exempt from duties.

The agreement was sealed with an oath. Emperors Leo and Alexander “kissed the cross themselves, and Olga took the company [oath], and his men, according to Russian law, swore by their weapons, and by Perun, their god, and Volos, the god of cattle, and established peace.” The name Volos does not at all prove that among Oleg’s ambassadors there were representatives of the Slavic aristocracy of Kyiv. This deity was also known to the Western Slavs and, most likely, the ambassadors who swore by Volos belonged to the Croats or Moravians.

On September 2, fourteen “men from the Russian family” signed a written agreement on “irreversible and shameless” love between the Rus and the Greeks. His articles can be divided into four main sections:

1. The procedure for examining and punishing criminal offenses committed by the Russians or Greeks against each other on the territory of the Byzantine Empire. Murder, as required by imperial law, was punishable by death and confiscation of property, with the exception of that part that was due to the murderer's wife. For causing bodily harm, a fine was imposed on the perpetrator (“five liters of silver according to Russian law”), and if he was “unmovable,” then he had to remove “the very ports” from himself. The caught thief was exacted three times the amount taken; if they resisted capture, the owner of the stolen property could kill him with impunity. The verdict was passed only on the basis of irrefutable evidence; at the slightest suspicion of falsity of testimony, the opposing party had the right to reject it, swearing “according to their faith.” Perjury was punishable by execution. The parties agreed to extradite the escaped criminals to each other.

2. Providing mutual assistance on the territory of other states. In the event of a shipwreck of a Byzantine merchant ship near the coast of any other country, the nearby “Russian” merchants were obliged to take the ship and crew under guard and escort the cargo to the borders of the empire or to a safe place. If trouble overtook the Greeks near the “Russian land”, then the ship was transported to the latter, the goods were sold and the proceeds were to be transported to Constantinople with the first embassy or trade caravan. Violence, murders and robberies committed by the Russians on the ship were punished in the above manner. The agreement is silent about the fact that “Russian” merchants had the right to demand the same from the Greeks. This circumstance is probably due to the fact that the Rus went on trade expeditions in entire flotillas (according to rough estimates, one trade caravan arriving from Kyiv to Constantinople in the middle of the 10th century consisted of at least a thousand people - see. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. About managing an empire. Note 63. P. 329). The large number of “Russian” merchants is also reflected in the Greek demand to limit their access to Constantinople: they had to enter the city through one gate of 50 people. It is clear that with such a scale of trading enterprises, the Rus did not need outside help.

3. Redemption of “Russian” and Greek slaves and prisoners of war and capture of fugitive slaves. Seeing a Greek captive at the slave market, the “Russian” merchant had to ransom him; The Greek merchant was obliged to do the same in relation to the captive Rus. In the homeland of the slave, the merchant received the ransom amount for him or the average price of the slave at the current exchange rate (“20 zlotys”). In the event of a "rati" (war) between the "Russian land" and Byzantium, the ransom of prisoners of war was provided for - again according to average price slave. Runaway or stolen “Russian” slaves were to be returned to their owners; the latter could search for them on the territory of the empire, and the Greek who resisted the search of his house was considered guilty.

4. Conditions for hiring Russians for military service. When announcing the recruitment of mercenaries into the army, the Byzantine emperors were obliged to recruit into the service all the Rus who wished it, and for the period that would suit the mercenaries themselves (the Rus sought long-term mercenary service, up to lifelong). The property of a killed or deceased mercenary, in the absence of a will, was transferred to his neighbor “to Rus'.”

The negotiations ended with a solemn ceremony, which was supposed to show the barbarians the power of the empire and encourage Oleg to follow the example of previous “Russian” princes who converted to Christianity. The Russian ambassadors were invited to the Church of Hagia Sophia to inspect Christian shrines: “Tsar Leon honored the Russian ambassadors with gifts, gold and pavilions... and put your men to them, show them the church beauty, and the golden plates, and in them real wealth: there is a lot of gold , and trails, and precious stones, and the passion of the Lord, a crown and a nail, and a scarlet robe, and the relics of saints, teaching them to their faith and showing them the true faith; and so release them to your land with great honor.” But it seems that none of the Rus wanted to abandon pagan errors.

Before leaving his camp, Oleg once again confirmed his firm intention to maintain “incorruptible and shameless love” with the Greeks, ordering his shield to be hung on the city gates, “showing victory.” This symbolic act is usually interpreted in a completely opposite sense - as a sign of the victory of the Rus over Byzantium. However, the word “victory” in the 11th - 12th centuries. it also had the meaning of “protection, patronage” (cf. victorious - “intercessor, defender” in the Assumption Collection). Likewise, the shield nowhere and never symbolized victory, but only protection, peace, cessation of warfare. The raising of his shield by the leader of the army during a battle meant a call for the start of peace negotiations; in 1204, noble crusaders hung their shields on the doors of the houses they occupied in Constantinople to prevent other knights from plundering them. The prophetic prince left his talisman to the Greeks, which was supposed to protect the city from enemy attacks; he was returning to his

Prince Oleg's campaign against Byzantium
In 907, Oleg launched a campaign against the Greeks, leaving Igor in Kyiv. Oleg's army consisted of the Varangians, Ilmen Slavs, Chud, Krivichi, Meri, Polans, Severians, Drevlyans, Radimichi, Croats, Dulebs and Tiverts. We rode on horses and ships. According to the chronicle, there were 2000 ships, and each ship had 40 people; but, of course, one cannot attach absolute significance to these figures. The chronicle adorns the story of this campaign with various legends. As the Russians approached Constantinople, the Greeks closed the harbor and locked the city. Oleg came onto land and began to devastate the surrounding area, destroy buildings and temples, torture, beat and throw residents into the sea; He then ordered the boats to be put on wheels and, with a fair wind, moved towards the city. The Greeks were frightened and asked not to destroy the cities, agreeing to give whatever tribute Oleg wanted. They then decided to get rid of Oleg with poison, but Oleg guessed and did not accept the food and drinks sent to him by the Greeks. After this, negotiations began. Oleg sent ambassadors Karl, Farlof, Velmud, Rulav and Stemir to the emperor, who demanded 12 hryvnias per ship and provisions for the cities of Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Polotsk, Rostov, Lyubech and others, since Oleg’s husbands were in these cities. The Russian ambassadors then demanded that Rus', coming to Tsar-Grad, could take as much food as it wanted, wash in the baths, and stock up on anchors, ropes, sails, etc. from the Greek king for the return trip. The Byzantine emperor accepted these conditions with some changes: Russians who did not come for trade do not take months; the prince must prohibit the Russians from plundering Greek villages; in Constantinople, Russians can only live with St. Moms; the emperor sends an official to rewrite their names, and then the Russians take their months - first the people of Kiev, then the Chernigovites, Pereyaslavl, etc.; They must enter the city unarmed, in a number of no more than 50 people, accompanied by an imperial official, and then they can trade duty free. Emperors Leo and Alexander kissed the cross at the conclusion of this treaty, while Oleg and the men swore, according to Russian custom, with weapons, their god Perun and the cattle god Volos. The chronicle further reports that Oleg, returning home, ordered the Russians to sew silk sails, and the Slavs - linen ones, and that the soldiers, as a sign of victory, hung their shields on the gates of Tsar-Grad. Oleg returned to Kyiv with gold, expensive fabrics, vegetables, wines and all sorts of designs. The people marveled at him and called him “the prophetic,” that is, a magician, a sorcerer: “By the way, people are trash and unvoiced,” the chronicler concludes.