Were the ancient Slavs good warriors? War of Atlantis against the Slavs. Why Slavs
Everywhere in the world we find strange artifacts that, if we exclude the possibility of a nuclear war in the past, are simply inexplicable. These are tektites (glasses of unknown origin) of the Libyan Desert, the Sinnear Desert and other places…
Atlanteans vs. Hyperboreans
13 thousand years ago, as Plato tells from the words of the ancient Egyptian priest Manetho, overnight, the beautiful Atlantis, the center of civilization, suffered a catastrophe and disappeared in the water column. At the same time, the city, called today, by its location, Mohenjo-Daro, on the other side of the world - in the valley of the Indus River - suffered an equally strange and unexpected catastrophe. It ceased to exist immediately, and its inhabitants, whose huge skeletons were found in great numbers by archaeologists, were not buried either then or centuries later for some reason.
An analysis of the thousands of stones that also littered the streets of Mohenjo-Daro showed that they were fragments of pottery sintered from instantaneous heating to 1400-1600 degrees Celsius. Experts believe that three destructive waves took place in the city, spreading two kilometers from the epicenter (judging by the absence of skeletons lying further everywhere, people who were near the epicenter simply evaporated). Most importantly, the possibility of a volcanic eruption or a meteorite fall is completely excluded.
Everywhere in the world we find strange artifacts that, barring the possibility of nuclear war many years ago, are simply inexplicable. These are tektites (glasses of origin unknown to science, similar to sintered sand at the sites of ground-based nuclear tests) of the Libyan Desert, the Sinnear Desert and many other places.
More recently, in March 2001, Richard B. Firestone, a scientist at the famed Berkeley Atomic Research Center, made a sensational announcement. In his opinion, the radiocarbon dating of many monuments and finds already on the American continent is incorrect due to the fact that some areas, according to his research, were subjected to ... bombardment by neutron fluxes and other particles that are known to occur during a nuclear explosion.
“These neutrons converted the residual nitrogen in the dated charcoal into radiocarbon, thus giving anomalous dates. Some North American dates are thus given with an error of at least 10,000-odd years downwards.
As evidence of this, he cites studied samples from Janey in Michigan, Fedford and Zandra in Ontario, Shoop in Pennsylvania, Elton in Indiana, Leavitt in Michigan and the northern tip of Grant Lake, and also in southwest Baker, New Mexico. He also points to anomalous abundance ratios of uranium and plutonium in the areas he studied.
And, although the scientist carefully explains these anomalies by “radiation from a neighboring supernova that exploded approximately 12,500 years ago (same date! - Yu.Ch.)”, the supernova explosion does not explain traces of plutonium in any way, an element that does not occur in nature at all, and arising only in nuclear reactions of uranium produced by man under special conditions - in a nuclear reactor. All this suggests that 13,000 years ago a global nuclear war took place on Earth. War, I dare to say it, between Hyperborea and Atlantis.
The gods and demons of the ancients are the people and leaders of Atlantis and Hyperborea!
Legends all over the world say that once upon a time a war was waged on Earth and in the sky using fantastic weapons, aircraft and deadly rays, when cities disappeared and mountains exploded with giant lightning, the traces of which are still visible. But they speak somehow vaguely, and here's why. When the past civilization was destroyed, and a cold snap came, most people died. The few survivors plunged into barbarism. Over the centuries of savagery, science was lost, although the memories of ancient wisdom were preserved from generation to generation by priests who passed on secret knowledge within their corporations in all countries and on all continents.
At first, these were real memories - epics, but over the centuries, there were less and less details, more and more layers, naive aspirations and beliefs were intertwined, aggravated by the constantly declining level of being and consciousness of people of the post-Hyperborean era.
The distorted memory represented the heroes and leaders of the lost world as gods and demons with supernatural power, but they were just people who controlled aircraft and had weapons and technologies that were somewhat similar to ours, in some ways superior to us. And the hardships of life gave birth to dreams of a serene blissful life, projected into the distant past. And as a result, we have what we have - vague memories, interesting only in surprising details, which must be sifted out of thousands of pages of text, like golden grains of sand from tons of empty breed of religious nonsense.
But what grains of sand!
For example, recently the work of the ancient Indian astrologer Bhashara "Siddhanta-shiromani" was introduced into scientific circulation, in which, among other units of measurement of time, "trutti", which is 0.3375 seconds, appears, and in an even earlier Sanskrit text, "Brihath Sakatha" , there is a unit of time "kashta", equal to one three hundred millionth of a second! Specialists studying the works of ancient Indian scientists are at a loss: for what purposes was such a unit needed in those days, and how was it measured? After all, “kashta”, like any other unit of measure, can only make sense if there is a practical need for it and there are means for measuring with such accuracy.
No need to rack your brains! Everything is very simple. And those who kept and passed on knowledge from a past civilization that could not be useful for the last 12 thousand years knew this very well.
The American writer Andrews, while in Madras, heard from a yoga teacher, Pandit Kaniahi, the following confession: “Brahmin scholars from time immemorial were obliged to keep a lot of information, the meaning of which they themselves did not understand. Even their distant ancestors knew that matter consists of countless atoms, that most of the space in the atoms themselves is not filled with matter.
The task of the Brahmins, as well as other occultists of all continents from time immemorial, from the beginning of their esoteric traditions, was simply not to lose the heritage transmitted to them, to preserve it for future generations, to pass it on from generation to generation, even if you don’t understand a single belmes in what is being transmitted. But, unfortunately, they coped poorly with this, stuffing the transmitted with piles of religious-magical nonsense.
On the other hand, the ancient memory was spoiled by “the eternal human desire to settle down without fail universally” - as Dostoevsky wrote. And to her - an eternal shadow - the constant horror of death. Unwillingness and unwillingness to accept the evidence that everything ends with death, and that we are alone in the Universe. The first does not require proof: "the flesh is separated from the bones" - although so many hallucinations are made up by those who cannot accept this. Proving the second is also easy. Although there are about 10 substantiated pieces of evidence, the most obvious is this.
If we know that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe, this means that any other civilization, whatever it may be, even the talking dogs from Sirius, will be obliged to use radio waves for long-distance communication and, as necessary - and very soon - more part of the used wavelength range will be ultrashort, which have the advantages of low cost, quality and accuracy, but also the disadvantage of escaping into space through the ionosphere. And this means that such a planet in the radio range will look like a huge, no less than Vega in volume, powerful star - with complete invisibility in the optical range.
This is what our planet looks like from space. At the same time, the modulations of this radiation will be complex and non-periodic - because we are a planet not of beeping radio beacons, but of thousands of television and radio stations. There is nothing like it anywhere else. Radio astronomers since the 60s. of the last century, they listen to the Universe and come across only natural cosmic "beacons" - like quasars. We are alone!
So where did this secret knowledge come from, these amazing stories about the last war, all the more confirmed by archaeological finds? And from nowhere - these are our legends and our history. It’s just that we are not the first civilization on Earth, and if we don’t have enough intelligence, then we won’t be the last.
The absence of direct evidence of the existence of an ancient machine civilization does not disprove this existence. We know so little about what lies under our feet that it is simply amazing. Troy was lost for millennia, until Schliemann dug up the Trojan walls, and before that, illiterate pastoralists grazed their goats over this wealth for 30 centuries. The shining Babylonia of Nebuchadnezzar was buried under the sands of Sinnear, as was Pompeii under volcanic ash until they were excavated. How many cities are being washed away on the ocean floor today, and how many once populous metropolises lie under the desert sands?
And when brave loners begin their search, they are either mocked, like Schliemann, or crowds of schizophrenics cling to them, seeing in the evidence of antiquity confirmation of their religious mania, although archaeological finds least of all confirm the “transmigration of souls”, “the existence of God” or “ the need for a vegetarian diet. For they were left by people who subjugated (and subjugated) physical nature to their will, and therefore, by materialists.
If the "nuclear summer" takes place, in a few millennia, cavemen can crawl out of their underground holes near the ruins of Moscow or New York and build new cities above them, having no idea about our lost world.
Future historians will ask themselves the question: could there ever be an arrogant "global" civilization, whose arrogant leaders are about to gather in St. Petersburg to decide, as it seems to them, questions of the world order, and nothing will remain of our "enlightened" century but distorted memories about flying machines and fantastic magical weapons that will be told like fairy tales to children for centuries until culture rises again. Only adepts of the Secret Wisdom will keep in their secret teachings, gradually degenerating into a parody of themselves, the traditions of our lost age...
We are not the first...
The ancient Indian epic "Mahabharata" describes an 18-day war between Duryodhana, the son of the Master Drona or, in Sanskrit, Drona-Acharya, and his "cousin" Yudhishtira, which allegedly took place 14 centuries BC. It is hard to believe that this majestic epic really describes the civilization of 1400 BC, because the nomadic Aryans invaded the Indian plain through the northern passes, possessing only horse-drawn carts, arrows and bronze swords, and the songs tell about air duels and the use of nuclear weapons.
In fact, the Mahabharata contains fragments of much older legends, once memorized by the singers of the Vedas and turned into temple records only since the invention of the Devanagari alphabet, dating back to the 1340s. BC - that is, precisely by the time when the battle allegedly took place on the Kuru field. Here are examples of such descriptions.
“Drona Parva”: “Noticing this mountain in the sky, releasing countless charges, the son of Drona (Duryodhana - Yu.Ch.) did not flinch and called the Vajra tool for help. The startled Prince of the Mountains was quickly destroyed. And the rakshasa turned into a mass of blue clouds in the sky, decorated with a rainbow, and began to fall like a rain of stones. Why don't you describe a bomber that was shot down by a surface-to-air missile?
The Mahabharata also talks about more interesting things identified as heavy missiles: “This Brahma-danda, or Rod of Brahma, is incomparably more powerful than even Indra's arrows (tactical non-nuclear missiles? - Yu.Ch). The latter can strike only once, while the former can strike entire countries and entire races from generation to generation.”
For thousands of years it looked like a game of poetic imagination. We are struck by an ominous resemblance to our nuclear bombs, the radiation from which causes hereditary diseases and stillbirth in unborn future generations.
“Once, being attacked by the Valadevas, the enraged Jarasandha, in his desire to destroy us, threw a rod that could kill all living things. Sparkling with fire, this wand headed towards us, cutting the sky like a line that separates pigtails on a woman's head (jet trail! - Yu.Ch.) with the speed of lightning fired by Shukra. Noticing a wand flying in our direction, the son of Rohini threw the stunakarma weapon to throw it away. The energy of the rod was extinguished by the energy of Valadeva's weapon, and it fell to the Earth, splitting it and causing even the mountains to tremble" ("Bhisma Parva"). Missiles and anti-missiles ...
And here is a description that was also considered poetic nonsense. To Hiroshima. Description of the destruction of the Triple City, the very one that today is almost certainly identified by archaeologists with Mohenjo-Daro, which was mentioned at the beginning.
“... The murderous Arrow of Brahma, spewing streams of flame (its size is three cubits and six feet; its power is like that of a thousand lightning bolts of Indra, and it destroys all life around) - was released. The flame, devoid of smoke, diverged in all directions with an all-destroying force. A red-hot column of smoke and flames as dazzling as 10,000 suns rose into the sky in all its terrifying grandeur, opening like a beach umbrella from the sun ... It was Iron Lightning, the messenger of death, turning all the people of Vriskhni and Andhak into ashes. Their bodies were burned. Those who remained alive lost their hair and nails, pottery cracked for no apparent reason, and all the birds in the area turned white feathers. A few hours later, all the food turned out to be poisoned ... Escaping from this fire, the soldiers rushed into the river to wash themselves and their equipment ... "
And one more thing: “The hero Advattaman refused to leave his ship when he touched the water, and resorted to the weapon of Agni (the god of fire - Yu.Ch.), which even the gods could not resist. Teacher's Son (Drona) - This enemy hero slayer aimed a blazing spear spewing smokeless fire at all his visible and invisible enemies, and released it in all directions. Thick sheaves of arrows burst from it into the sky. Enveloped in bright flames, these arrows engulfed Parti from all sides. Suddenly a thick darkness enveloped Pandava. All directions of the world also plunged into darkness. The winds blew. Clouds rumbled across the sky, raining down blood. Birds, beasts, cows, and vowed souls fell into extreme anxiety. The elements themselves seemed to be agitated. Elephants and other animals, scorched by the energy of this weapon, fled in horror, trying to hide from this terrible force. Even the water boiled, and the creatures living in this element became worried and seemed to boil.
From all directions of the world, from the firmament and the Earth itself, sheaves of ferocious arrows flew at the speed of Garuda. Burnt and slain by these lightning-fast arrows, the enemies fell like trees burned by an all-devouring fire. Elephants, singed by this weapon, fell to the ground, emitted terrible screams, others rushed back and forth, roaring loudly in fear, as if they were in a burning forest. The horses, O King, and the wagons, burned by the power of this weapon, were like the tops of trees burned by a forest fire. Thousands of wagons crumbled to dust. Indeed, O Bharata, it seemed that the divine Lord Agni burned the Pandava army in that battle, just as the fire of Soma-Vartya destroys everything at the end of the Yuga ... "
In general, the Mahabharata epic contains more than 230 stanzas containing detailed and very real descriptions of the design of missiles, aircraft, as well as other vehicles and devices, including what we would call today unmanned vehicles and combat robots.
Stone soldiers of Hyperborea are waiting in the wings
This is what the most authoritative Russian researcher of the monuments of ancient Hyperborea, the head of the Scientific Tourism Commission of the Russian Geographical Society, Sergei Vadimovich Golubev, thinks about the possibility of such a war in the distant past. I emphasize once again - the real, and not the mythical, sucked from the finger and from a variety of places, the heritage of Hyperborea, confirmed by its numerous finds of prehistoric monuments of this ancient continent.
- I do not exclude the possibility of such a war, but I want to emphasize that one should not expect any finds directly confirming it: too much time has passed. Neither metal, nor even more so composite materials, last that long, especially organics. And the evidence that is available and known to you suggests that in ancient times a lot of what we make today from metal was “made” from living or almost living matter. By the way, our technologies are rapidly approaching this. It is not for nothing that there are so many scientific fantasies around the so-called "cyborgs" now. We'll talk about this in some detail. Now I would like to say that nuclear weapons were hardly the only powerful weapons of that war. You certainly know that the earth's crust, the firmament on which we walk, is incredibly thin.
If we imagine the Earth as a school globe and mentally “cut” it, we will not even be able to see its dense crust even with a strong magnifying glass - it is so thin. What is under it - science only suggests, but most scientists agree that under it is a molten mass on which our continents float. This, if not more, could have been known to the ancients, it was not for nothing that they compared the earth with an egg in their treatises, which have come down to us through thousands of generations. Already today, we have access to the so-called "geophysical weapon", which has been talked about a lot in recent years.
The geological record of the planet also speaks about the possibility of its use - about 13,000 years ago there was an unexpectedly powerful outbreak of volcanism and geological activity, which, as it seems today, cannot be caused by the process of gradual cooling of our planet. Something woke up this volcanism - or really some kind of cosmic intervention, or earthly events, the human factor. Like how in the 60s the military departments of the nuclear powers were alarmed by the message received from the geophysical monitoring services that a nuclear bomb had been detonated in the Atlantic - this is how their instruments showed. In fact, there was no atomic bomb, British geophysicists during the experiment blew up a 200-kilogram charge on the oceanic crust, and the effect was the same as from the detonation of a high-power nuclear warhead, which was detected by the surveillance services.
It turned out that when a powerful explosion occurs on the continental crust, it dampens the induced seismic wave, while the thin oceanic crust does not, and the induced resonance leads to strong geological displacements. The military became interested in the effect, as the prospect of creating geophysical weapons loomed.
Hyperborean cities, if they existed, are today under water - on the shelf of the Arctic Ocean, which sank to the bottom precisely in that era - about 9-11 thousand years BC, when that very incomprehensible catastrophe occurred, associated with drowning Atlantis. It is possible, very cautiously, to assume that the Atlanteans and Hyperboreans exchanged geophysical blows. This is evidenced, by the way, by the shape of the geoid, which has specific concavities in the northern hemisphere, which is not observed in other planetary bodies of the solar system. If we assume that the exchange of such blows took place, then Atlantis was in a deliberately losing position - its metropolis was on an island, in a zone of geoactivity, as Plato testified, describing hot springs in Atlantis, and colonies - on the coasts of Africa, Europe, and both Americas.
At one time, by the way, the Americans were at first very surprised, and then extremely annoyed by the fact that the atomic missiles of the USSR, when there were still very few of them, were directed not at launch silos, but in general at sea, where no one could shoot them down assumed. In fact, our military then expected to bury America, at least its coastal cities, in a giant geophysical cataclysm. Similarly, Hyperborea was located mostly in the coastal zone, but it also had extensive possessions on the mainland. So Atlantis was completely destroyed, and Hyperborea was preserved on that part of the mainland that did not sink to the bottom as a result of the impact, and we have the opportunity to find preserved monuments of that era on the Kola Peninsula and in the White Sea. Although, of course, the cataclysm was supposed to destroy a lot on the continent as well...
- You know, Sergey, I am amazed by the art of Hyperborea. Time after time, looking through the photographs you took, I am surprised at the ideological nature of this art. The monuments of Hyperborea are militaristic monuments, the faces depicted on them are the faces of warriors. Except for one. On the only monument, which was already carved lying, prostrate. I'm talking about a giant face, surprisingly reminiscent of the faces of the statues of Central America - the places where the colonies of Atlantis were, while the faces of other statues are quite Aryan. That's what I call it - "defeated Atlant." It is also an ideology, also a monumental propaganda... Are we doomed to fight and destroy the achievements of civilization acquired with such labor over such long centuries?
The Slavic idea is part of the defense against political and media manipulation. There are no bad and good nations. There are simply periods when peoples and states are led in the right or wrong direction, as political scientist Oscar Krejci says.
První zprávy: Due to the heated discussions of the elections in the Netherlands, the decisions of US President Donald Trump and his meeting with the German chancellor, reports of an escalation of tensions in Ukraine are escaping the attention of the Western public. The self-proclaimed republics in the east of the country were taken into blockade, at first spontaneous and criticized by the government, and now official ones. Branches of Russian banks in Ukraine are being bricked up. Do you think there is a threat of a big war?
Oscar Kreychi: The escalation you're talking about is purposeful. In a broad sense, we are talking about an attempt to derail a possible improvement in relations between Washington and Moscow, to provoke Russia into effective assistance to the rebels, which the West would condemn. In addition, there is a redistribution of property between the Ukrainian oligarchs.
- Do you think these actions of Ukrainian extremists have achieved their goals?
- All this is strange. The blockade of the eastern regions is very harmful to the Ukrainian economy and pushes these regions to even closer cooperation with Russia. It is difficult to imagine a more counterproductive behavior from the point of view of Ukraine's interests. But what especially scares me about this story is the very idea of a blockade. The blockade is designed to cut off the enemy from resources, thereby forcing him to abandon his interests. Or starved, or emigrated. The blockade bears the clear features of genocide. It's just awful what the Slavs do in mutual conflicts!
- Why Slavs?
- After the end of the Cold War in Europe, there were two bloody conflicts, and both of them were primarily between the Slavic peoples. For example, the war in Yugoslavia. In the so-called Slovenian War (1991), Croatian War (1991-1995) and the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991-1995), Slavic peoples fought each other. And only then these conflicts continued with the battles for Kosovo and the war in Macedonia, in which the Albanians participated. In total, about 140 thousand people were killed, and four million were left homeless.
The second bloody European conflict after the Cold War was the civil war in Ukraine, which began in 2014. So far, the losses are estimated at almost 10,000 killed and more than 22,000 wounded. There are millions of refugees again.
- Good. We are talking about the Slavs. But don't you think this point of view is somewhat frivolous?
- Of course, we can regard the war in Yugoslavia as a blow to the last state in Europe, which has retained elements of socialism. Then followed the blows of the West on three states, which were a kind of Arab version of socialism. In Iraq, a branch of the Baath Party (Arab Socialist Renaissance Party) was in power, Muammar Gaddafi ruled the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and in Syria the Baath Party was in power. Accident? Coincidence? The truth is that, probably, any war has several causes and, of course, levels. And it is impossible not to see that the Slavic peoples participated more than others in the European wars of the post-Cold War period.
If we accept, hypothetically, this point of view, then the question arises why the Slavs so often fight among themselves? Or why do they have so many conflicts, as, for example, between Poles and Russians? I think that we have all heard about Slavic reciprocity, and now we are proudly watching the success of Mucha's Slavic Epic in Japan ...
— It all depends on how to understand this reciprocity. If we are talking about linguistic, cultural, as well as spiritual closeness, then it is an objective fact: the Slavs are relatives. The only question is how distant relatives are, and how this relationship affects politics. Adherents of the ideas of pan-Slavism believe that Slavic reciprocity forms common vital interests that can be formulated and defended only together ...
But we don't see it. Why?
Context
Saakashvili: How Oligarchs Earn in Ukraine
New time of the country 22.03.2017They want peace at any cost
El País 22.03.2017Ukraine creates its own MiG-29
The National Interest 03/22/2017- Because the Slavs, Germans, Arabs and others are all "superethnoi" from which peoples were formed. And it would be a mistake to ascribe to the "superethnos" the mobilizing political force possessed by the national idea. Political ideas such as patriotism, nationalism and chauvinism are associated with the people and not with the "superethnos". Croats and Serbs are two Slavic peoples who were divided by the border between the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire, and then - Catholicism and Orthodoxy, a type of writing ... The Ottomans and Islam contributed to the next splitting of the Slavs in the Balkans. This is how, mastering new historical plots and forgetting the old ones, peoples were formed together, having a common basis. Language differences were born, genetic admixtures of other ethnic groups appeared. This is very clearly seen in the example of the differences between Ukrainians and Russians, as well as in a fairly large group of those who have features of both of these peoples.
But to politicize national differences by bringing matters to a war is a crime. And very often. Therefore, the memory of the blood that the southern and eastern Slavs shed after the end of the Cold War makes me think that if the Nobel Peace Prize was what it is believed, the architects of the Czechoslovak divorce should have received it.
However, all attempts to unite Egypt with Syria and Libya on the basis of the pan-Arab idea also failed. The members of the Ba'ath party from Damascus and Baghdad also did not find a common political language, probably because some represented the Shia and others the Sunni minority in their countries. After the advent of pan-Germanism, some peoples with Germanic ancestors, primarily the British and Germans, also shot at each other in big wars. Today we are witnessing the wild actions of Ukrainian nationalists, who are not at all interested in the fact that "Muscovites" are also Slavs.
- Do you see Russian nationalism in Ukraine?
- I see! However, the malicious initiative is on the side of the Ukrainian nationalists. Their organized communities were the first to use violence in political disputes and continue to do so. Their blind hatred of everything Russian and Soviet brings them closer to Nazism. This situation has its own irony, because how to define the territory of Ukraine without Soviet history? The eastern border is the former administrative intrastate border, mapped regardless of the history and ethnic composition of the population. And the western one? If I wanted to be sarcastic, I would say that the western border of Ukraine is a legacy of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
- You already exaggerate! After all, everyone condemns this pact between dictators!
I'm only exaggerating a little. It all started in 1919, when the Red Army approached Warsaw. Then British Foreign Secretary George Curzon proposed a border between Soviet Russia and Poland, which ran east of the military front. But then the “miracle on the Vistula” happened, and the Red Army was driven far east of the line proposed by Curzon. The war helped Poland annex, in particular, territories with a predominantly Ukrainian and Belarusian population. But even this border, which ran hundreds of kilometers east of the Curzon line, did not suit some Poles, because the territories of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth remained unattached. In its heyday, it controlled Kyiv and extended all the way to the Black Sea. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact determined the eastern border of the Soviet Union on the Curzon Line. By the way, only after this pact did Vilnius become part of Lithuania, and before that it was part of Poland. And guess where the Polish border was established at the Yalta Conference - also on the Curzon Line! Only small concessions were made to Warsaw. Poland, which, as Churchill said, "a mobile state", received territories in the west. Not all Ukrainian, Polish and German nationalists are satisfied with this situation.
But the Poles have something to reproach the Russians for, say, the massacre in Katyn and… How should I put it?.. In joining part of the former Poland to the Soviet Union. Many historians claim that in April 1940, the NKVD (Soviet secret police at the time) killed about 15,000 Polish prisoners in Katyn.
— You are right: the murders in Katyn must not be forgotten. But whoever committed them, modern Russians are not to blame for them. Just as modern Poles are not to blame for the fact that after the “miracle on the Vistula” in 1920, more than 100 thousand Red Army soldiers ended up in Polish captivity. According to the most minimal estimates of experts, up to 16 thousand Red Army soldiers died in captivity, and according to the maximum - 50 thousand.
A reasonable policy ends when individual events are pulled out of the past and justified by them for their current selfish interests. There were times when the Poles ruled in Moscow, and if they had not suppressed Orthodoxy, perhaps many would have welcomed them as saviors from chaos. In the same way, we must not forget that for a hundred years Warsaw was part of the Russian Empire. During this long period, Poland received from Tsar Alexander a constitution that was the most democratic in Europe at that time, but Russian troops brutally crushed the uprising of the Poles who fought for freedom.
But emotions are part of politics. Let us not like it. History is also part of politics. You yourself emphasized this several times in our interviews.
Multimedia
no man's land
The Associated Press June 18, 2015The women took up arms
Reuters 10.10.2014Yes, in politics one has to reckon with emotions and immature historiography, but humanists must emphasize the priority of universal values. Politics must be done on the basis of the experience of past generations, so that it is an integral part of the analysis. But it is foolish to claim that there is hereditary collective guilt. And to what knee should she be placed? Genuine patriotism implies generosity, as, for example, with Zdeněk Mugler.
What can be achieved by blaming contemporary Russians for the Katyn massacre? If it was carried out by the Soviet secret police, then its founder was Felix Dzerzhinsky, and he is a Pole by origin. The first department of this organization was formed from the Latvian riflemen. And during the execution in Katyn, the secret police were led by two Georgians - Joseph Stalin and Lavrenty Beria. The historical tragedies must be remembered so that they do not repeat themselves, but it is unreasonable to look for the culprits in other generations.
This again brings us back to the question, why, after the Cold War, mainly Slavs fought each other?
- There are many reasons. For example, in Ukraine there are many definitions of Ukraine, and each implies its own borders, which, in turn, are reflected in the subconscious of people who make politics. When social instability reigns for a long time, nationalist ideas become more attractive because they offer simple, albeit illusory, solutions. There is also a fear of a possible unification of the Slavs. There are 300-450 million of them, and this power can scare someone.
The first major pan-Slavic project was developed by the great Slovak cultural and political figure - Ludovit Stur. In his book "Slavism and the World of the Future", written in the early 50s of the 19th century, Slavic unity is presented as a defense against German pressure. By the way, Stuhr wrote this most interesting book in German, and it was translated into Russian almost immediately, but in Slovak it was published only at the end of the 20th century. Fearing Pan-Germanism, Palacki abandoned "Austrian Slavism" in favor of Slavic unity under the wing of Russia, the only Slavic state of the time. On the other hand, in Habsburg Austria, the fear of a possible unification of the Slavs led some German politicians and intellectuals living in the Czech border regions to think for the first time about the eviction of the Czechs from these territories. And this was a monstrous idea, which the German Nazis subsequently tried to implement.
The Slavs have a tendency towards anarchically understood democracy without any hierarchy. Once it was this that ruined Poland. Today, this anarchist-democratic element is also beneficial as a tool of manipulation for all kinds of self-styled "defenders of freedom" both at home and from abroad. Once upon a time, it was Berlin that went against the will of the United States and Western European partners and was the first to recognize the separatist states on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The fact that, for example, German or Anglo-Saxon chauvinism is an atavism does not mean that it cannot become a leading political idea.
- Do you think that today the pan-Slavic idea is dead?
- There is no pan-Slavic solidarity at the level of political elites. During the bombing of Yugoslavia, the Czech government approved them, the Slovak government allowed the overflight of NATO aircraft, although "German" Austria refused this. Bulgaria, despite its economic interests, nevertheless obeyed the orders of the Big Brother and abandoned the agreements with Russia on gas transit. The Poles and Bulgarians are building NATO and US bases against Russia, and the rest of us think about it from time to time. Yes, I will also note that in Russia the pan-Slavic idea never became the leading one: neither under the tsar, nor in the Soviet Union, nor in modern Russia.
But, remembering the idea of Slavic reciprocity, it is easier for us to concretize and preserve the identity of our peoples. This topic was revived by chaotic migration. The Slavic idea is part of the defense against political and media manipulation. It also reminds us that there are no bad and good nations. There are simply periods when peoples and states are led in the right or wrong direction.
The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.
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, according to the definition of contemporaries, were a "banner of powerlessness" 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 surprise allowed the Slavs to nullify the enemy's excellent military virtues - 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", however, did not stop 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 associated with 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 - auth.), 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
HOW THE SLAVES Fought! 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 of the period of the 5th-6th centuries: All adult men were warriors among the Slavs. 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. Further in his book, the author cites statements by ancient authors who note the strength, endurance, cunning and courage of the warriors of the Slavic tribes, who , Besides. mastered the art of disguise. 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. Another ancient author, Mauritius, in his book "Strategikan" draws attention to the art of the Slavs to hide in the water. 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 the Romans: the camps housed 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 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 give the opportunity 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, with the powerful Roman Empire, with 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 beyond 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 consisted not 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.
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 military 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 Lecapinus, 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 the military-political plan of Svyatoslav - 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 call. 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.