What barbarian peoples do you know. History of the barbarians: how it really was

The journey of historians through the labyrinth of transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages has been going on for more than one and a half thousand years. From the point of the labyrinth in which we are now, a special perspective opens up for the vision of this period, which even has its symbolic name - the Great Migration of Nations.

The phenomenon of the Great Nations Migration has always attracted the attention of researchers. It would not be an exaggeration to say that at the end of the XX century. interest in him is greater than ever. However, the extreme complexity and internal inconsistency of this phenomenon is becoming more and more obvious. In addition, the image of the barbarian world and its inhabitants is devoid of organic self-sufficiency. The identification of the Great Migration of Peoples as a transitional historical era is currently of particular importance. It allows not only to explore the specific history of the Great Migration, which it basically is in domestic and foreign historical literature; some opportunities open up to study the history of the development of the system of ideas about the Great Migration of Nations. At the turn of antiquity and the Middle Ages, not only tribes and peoples began to move; Knowledge and ideas about various tribes and peoples "came to life" and intensified. The basic component of these ideas was an ethnonym - the name of a tribe, tribal group and union of tribes. Ethnonyms have been preserved in different kinds of sources, but especially fundamentally, as you know, are represented by the written tradition. An analysis of this type of sources opens up some possibilities for identifying the features of the ethnic space created by the Great Migration. It also allows clarifying the ethnic composition of the tribal associations of the "barbaric world" - Barbaricum, their evolution. This makes it possible to identify the main tendencies and directions of migration processes of the Migration era, to consider some hypotheses about the nature of ethnosocial communities and the forms of contacts of individual tribes with the Empire. The analysis of the ethnonymy of the written tradition complements the definition of the place of the Germans in the barbarian world. The Germanic tribes vividly and consistently reflected the dominant tendencies of the border of antiquity and the Middle Ages: with their active participation, grandiose social cataclysms unfolded, borders and states were destroyed, empires and armies perished, other tribes came into motion. In general, the study of the system of ideas about the barbarian world within the framework of the Great Migration of Nations determines not only the chronological boundaries of the study, but also highlights ethnonymy as a special object of attention.

“Paradigm shift” - this is how one could characterize the process taking place in modern science in relation to the Great Migration of Nations, as well as the concepts of “barbarians”, “ethnic space” and “ethnonym.” Judging by world historiography, by now In studies of the Great Migration of Peoples, much more questions have accumulated than answers: what impulses gave rise to migrations that covered the spaces from Scandza to Mauritania, from China to the Pyrenees? Why were these migrations directed to Western Europe? What is the dialectic of destructive and creative, triumph and tragedy in the historical mission of the Great Migration? What is the ethnic landscape of the Barbaricum of this era? How in the stormy waves of migrations the names of nations were born and died? Why in the labyrinth of migration did the Germans become the “thread of Ariadne?” What “traps” lie in wait for the researcher on the way from Teutoburg to Adriano Polje? Why not all barbarian "kingdoms", having turned the page of antiquity, entered the Middle ovie? Finally, what are the features of the prestige of “barbarism” in these “kingdoms”?

The very first approach to these questions reveals the unproductiveness of the traditional approach to the interpretation of the Great Migration of Nations. The interpretation of it as a transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages both in research, and even more so in teaching practice, is "torn", with all the ensuing consequences. As a trend in historical science and a section in historiography, “The Great Migration of Nations” entered the context of predominantly late Roman and partly early Byzantine studies. Such a “fragmentation” and the traditionally established place of this topic in scientific works for many years transferred it to the periphery of historical research into the category of marginal ones. This led to stagnation in the study of Resettlement, to the narrowing of its chronological framework, to the creation of a simplified model of this phenomenon. However, behind all this lies the main thing - the limited possibilities of the traditional approach to the study of transitional eras. The Great Migration of Peoples as a global historical process is a vivid example of such an era. It is based on the interaction of barbarism and civilization. In our opinion, in the study of this phenomenon, it is legitimate to combine the formational and civilizational approaches. The first of them allows us to identify the common features and differences of this interaction, and the second clarifies and explains these differences. Moreover, there are two "models" of interaction: the European (Barbaricum - Roman Empire) and Asian (nomadic tribal world - the Chinese (Han) Empire). Both of these "models" are transformed, periodically intersecting.

It is generally accepted that the era of Migration was opened by the appearance of the Huns in the Northern Black Sea region and the conflict that broke out soon (375) between them and the Goths of the “Power of Ermanarich”. d. to the Roman Empire. The main weakness of such a definition of the “beginning” of Resettlement lies in the local approach to the process, which literally covered the entire territory of Europe, some regions of Asia and North Africa. The re-dating of the Great Migration allows, in our opinion, to shift its “beginning” to the 2nd century. AD The “End” of Migration, due to its regional specifics, can hardly have rigidly fixed chronological boundaries. In general, it ends in the 7th century, although migrations in Europe and Asia continued in the future, but they were no longer accompanied by the migration of tribes from Barbaricum to the Roman Empire. The concept of Barbaricum solum after the 7th century practically not found in sources: the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist in the 5th century, and Barbaricum - in the 7th century. The Slavic invasions swept away the last islets of the Limes, which separated barbarism and civilization - the era of great migrations ended. In the former territories of the Roman Empire (excluding its eastern part) and Barbaricum, short-lived barbarian "states" began to arise. They crumbled like houses of cards, consolidating tribes and peoples and creating the preconditions for the formation of the first early medieval states.

For the Great Migration of Peoples, the epistemological situation is complicated by the dominant role of an already existing tradition, scientific mythology, and partly reflection. In addition, the traditional paradigm reduces the Great Migration only to migration processes, robbery raids by barbarians, their invasions and campaigns. The role of the economic factor, the importance of trade contacts between the Barbaricum and the Roman Empire, the legal principles of the relationship between Rome and the barbarian tribal world, the legal status of barbarians at different stages of the Migration and ethnic evolution of the barbarians themselves are not yet sufficiently taken into account. It is self-evident that without highlighting the Great Migration in an integral historical epoch, the course of its further research is doomed. The positivist ecstasy of the search for the growth of feudal society or the analysis of signs of extinction of tribal or slaveholding relations will ultimately determine the meeting place in the same dead end for representatives of both formational and civilizational approaches. The European “model” of the Great Nations Migration is not only the end of antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages (which goes without saying); it is, first of all, an independent and rather long transitional stage between antiquity and the Middle Ages.

A systematic study of the Great Migration of Peoples allows us to define it as a special period of historical development, when in a significant historical space (no longer antiquity, but not yet the Middle Ages), limited by a specific chronological framework (II-VII centuries) and a certain territory (Europe , Asia, Africa), the interaction of barbarism and civilization has reached its most intense phase. The result of this interaction, as a consequence of the interpenetration and mutual destruction of the Roman and barbarian worlds, was the emergence of a new type of civilization.

The Great Migration of Nations as a temporary "gap" between antiquity and the Middle Ages is divided into three stages: the first (II-IV centuries), "Germanic" - covers the time from the Marcomannian Wars to the Battle of Adrianople; the second (IV-V centuries), "Hunnic" - between the Battle of Adrianople and the battle on the Catalaunian fields; the third stage (VI-VII centuries), "Slavic" - is associated with the movement of Slavic tribes in Eastern, South-Eastern and Central Europe. The stages of Resettlement differ in the ethnic composition of the participants in the Resettlement, the position of the migrating tribes, the main emphases of opposition and interaction, the direction of migration and their result.

In the perception of contemporaries, the Great Nations Migration was seen as a tragedy and a catastrophe. Let us recall that for the most part, the thoughts of people of that time about the movements of the barbarians are filled with eschatological sentiments. Here are remarks remarkable in clarity and accuracy: “Throughout the Roman world, as if at the signal of a trumpet in battle, the most ferocious peoples rose and began to cross the borders nearest to us. Gaul and Rezia were simultaneously plundered by the Alamans, Sarmatians and Quads - both Pannonia; the Picts, Saxons, Scots and Attacotes plagued Britain in continuous calamity; the Austorians and other Moorish tribes worried Africa more than usual; Thrace was robbed by gangs of robbers of the Goths ”(Att. Marcell. XXVI. 4, 5).

“The soul is horrified to enumerate the calamities of our times. For twenty years and more since Roman blood has been poured daily between Constantinople and the Julian Alps. Scythia, Thrace, Macedonia, Dardania, Dacia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Dalmatia and all Pannonia are devastated, dragged, robbed by the Goth, Sarmatian, Quad, Alan, Huns, Vandals, and Marcomannians ”(Hieron. Episl. LX. 16).

“Hence the cry of Asia. Europe to the limits of greening Dalmatia is given up for vilification and prey to the Getae hordes: all the land that lies between the swell-whose surface of Pontus and the Adriatic waves takes on a wild look, deprived of herds and not inhabited by any farmers "(Claud. Claudian. In Ruf . P. 36- ^ 0).

“When suddenly, raised by a sudden confusion, barbarism poured out the entire North on you, Gaul: behind the warlike swear, accompanied by Gelon, follows the fierce Hepidus; skira encourages burgundy; the Hun, Belonot, Neur, Bastarn, Touring, Bructer, and the Frank invaded, washed by the reeds overgrown Nicker; Soon the Hercynian forest fell, cut down by an ax into canoes, and Ren was covered with ships; and the hordes of Attila, already terrifying, spread over your belgian fields "(Apoll. Sidon. Sapp. VII. v. 319-328).

In the era of the Migration of peoples, the tanta scriptomm turba continued to seek an answer to the trivial question: what is hidden under the capacious concept of “barbarian”? As you know, the associative image of the “barbarian” was formed by ancient historical thought even before the beginning of the Migration. The semantics of the term was revealed in the framework of the antithesis "Hellenes - barbarians", "Romans - barbarians". Three circles of associations made the perception of this image automatic. The first is ethnic: a barbarian is a foreigner, a stranger, a person living outside the borders of a given state. The second circle is ethical. It consisted in the formula: “a barbarian is not a Roman”, he was considered a barbarian who did not have Paideia, Greek upbringing and education. And, finally, the third circle is philological: ignorance of Greek and Latin languages \u200b\u200bis a sure sign of barbarism.

The term “barbarians” was used by the contemporaries of the Migration as the most general definition of a conglomerate of tribes that inhabited both the near and far periphery of the ancient world. The image of a barbarian during the Great Migration Period traditionally followed the opposition “barbarians - not Romans”. The contrast between the Barbaricum and the ancient world at this time reached its extreme acuteness and tension. In general, the substantive characterization of barbarians was based on the balance of rejection and interest. This tendency was reflected in the vocabulary of the writings of both Latin and Greek-speaking authors. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the concept of “barbarians” was tied to the military context and, as a rule, was accompanied by the words: “destroyed,” “besieged,” “devastated,” “carried out an attack.” During the resettlement of barbarian tribes in the Empire, its frequency It does not follow at all that the barrier of mutual alienation between the Romans and the barbarians has disappeared. “Barbarians” were perceived as a field of special danger already inside the Empire, although the epicenter of barbarism (Βαρβάρον, βαρβαρίκοϋ χώρου, barbaricum solum), according to contemporaries, was not in the Empire, but outside of it. Barbaricum solum is primarily a space for the movement of barbarians, and continuous movements (μεταναστάσειχ). The contemporaries of the Great Migration attributed not all peoples that differ from the Romans to the barbarians, but only savages, inhabitants of distant countries. The barbarian as such was characterized precisely by his “habitat" - Barbaricum. The typical environment of the barbarian is a forest thicket, difficult to access, and therefore concealing dangerous awn, rich in vegetation, and therefore dark. The barbaricum, the habitat of the barbarians, was represented by large uncultivated areas or gloomy areas located at the extreme reaches of the earth. All this, according to the Romans, hindered the emergence and development of civilization, contributed to the preservation of a primitive lifestyle among the inhabitants of Barbaricum.

The change in the attitude of contemporaries towards barbarians during the Resettlement was reflected in the frequency of use of the word “barbarian” itself. As the barbarians settled on Roman soil, the use of other equivalent words instead of this concept became indicative: for example, the commonly used words manus, globus, gens, populus, exercitus, or specific ethnonyms, often in combination populus Alamanomm, gens Francorum. The concept of "barbarians" did not appear so often, but it is becoming more rigid. “Barbarian” is not just an ignorant foreigner, but above all an extremely aggressive and unpredictable stranger, a carrier of a destructive principle. The plurality of barbarians, their plurality in the eyes of their contemporaries, Migration was associated with the “crowd”, more often with the “army”. The crowd, an unorganized mass of barbarians, is characterized as “mixed” (permixta, mixta, immixta), “restless” (tumaitisa), “incapable of combat” (imbellis). For the people of that time, a barbarian is a negative “other.” Model of behavior At the same time, against the background of the negative barbarian stereotype, new shades of the image of the barbarian appeared. From the 4th century he is no longer only an enemy (έχθρος), an enemy (ττολέμσς), but an ally-friend (φίλος), sim- max, enspond, federation In the period between the battles of Adrianople and Catalaun, the strategy of rejection of the barbarians was built on a more neutral image of “alien”, and not only on the logo of the “enemy.” In the everyday life of the Greek-speaking intellectual elite of the 4th-5th centuries. there were the terms αλλότριος, αλλόφυλος. Already in the first half of the 5th century, a distinction was made between “barbarian” (βαρβαρος) and “foreigner” (ξένος). Note once again that the concept of “barbarian” as an ignorant, aggressive destroyer was finally formed in the era of Migration. In this generally accepted, about In its original meaning, it outlived it and, having passed through the Middle Ages and the New Time, has come down to our days.

The Great Migration of Peoples, as a systemic process of interaction between Barbarian and ancient civilization, formed a unique ethnic space. Ethnic space means the entire totality of tribes and peoples associated with a particular historical phenomenon and its image in history. The ethnic space created by the Great Migration was multi-layered. It is represented by Germanic, Alanosarmatian, Turkic, Slavic, Italic, Celtic, Reto-Etruscan, Iberian, Scythian, Sindo-Meotian, Thracian, Macedonian, Illyrian, Finno-Ugric, Caucasian, Indian, Baltic, Greek, Asia Minor Se-Mito-Hamitic and African tribes. Among them can be distinguished tribe-aboriginal and alien, inert and dynamic, tribes and peoples who inhabited the lands of the Roman Empire, its provinces, and the tribes of Barbaricum.

The inert participants of the Great Migration include mainly the inhabitants of the Roman world, all the peoples who inhabited the Roman Empire and its provinces. So, the inhabitants of Italy, practically without changing their habitats, experienced the powerful pressure of Barbaricum and withstood more than one wave of resettlement. A specific feature of the ethnic space of this region was formed already on the eve of the Great Migration. It consisted in the readiness of the numerous peoples inhabiting the Apennine Peninsula for military and trade contacts with the tribes of the Barbaricum. This should include the increased “internal” (within the boundaries of the Roman state) population mobility associated with the capture of vast territories by Rome from the banks of the Rhine and the Alps to the ocean coast, including the Iberian Peninsula. The transformation of these lands into Roman provinces and their gradual romanization led to the destruction of the ethnic isolation of Gaul and Spain. Here the ethnic space was eroded by the socializing orientation of Roman civilization.

Fragments of the disappeared Celtic world as a whole were aloof from active participation in the migration processes of the Great Migration. It is known that the Celts stubbornly resisted the Romans. However, they could not resist the Germans. After a series of military setbacks, having lost part of the conquered lands, the Celtic population is concentrated in Central Europe - from Britain to the Carpathians. It is not excluded that some Celtic tribes were involved in the campaigns, invasions and predatory expeditions of the Barbaricum tribes, especially at the first stage of the Migration of Peoples. The long raids of the Scottish people on the western shores of Britain, the gradual and methodical development of most of Caledonia by them is an atypical example of the migration activity of the Celts during the Age of Migration.

Part of the ethnic space of the Great Migration of Peoples was the world of the Thracian, Illyrian and Greek tribes. They can also be attributed to the block of inert participants in the Resettlement. The Thracians, Illyrians and Greeks were located between the Celtic world in the west, the Germanic - in the north, and the Scythian-Sarmatian - in the east. Repeatedly, the areas inhabited by these tribes before and especially during the Great Migration period were the epicenter of many migrations. The main events of the first stage of the Resettlement (the Marcomannian wars in the II century AD, the Gothic invasions of the Balkans in the III, the struggle of the tribes for Dacia after 270, the Sarmatian wars of the middle of the IV century on the Middle Danube) were accompanied by the resettlement of migrating tribes in the Illyrian and the Thracian world. Through the provinces of Noric and Pannonia inhabited by Illyrians and Celts, for four centuries, stormy multi-ethnic migratory flows rushed to Italy,

The inhabitants of the Asia Minor and Middle East regions also entered the context of the ethnic space of the Migration era. The sea raids of the Black Sea tribes shook Cappadocia, Galatia, Bithynia, Pontus, Asia, Kios, Rhodes, Crete and Cyprus to the foundations. The tribes of the European Barbaricum penetrate deep into Asia Minor and come into close contact (not only hostile, but also peaceful) with the other ethnic world of local tribes. There is a clear unconditional connection between the first steps in the spread of Christianity among the Germans as a result of contacts with the inhabitants of Cappadocia. The role of the Asia Minor and Middle Eastern ethnic component in the Great Migration of Peoples can be defined as passive in relation to migration processes. But these tribes, being mainly “spectators” of the Resettlement, nevertheless gave him an additional impetus, contributing to the spread of Christianity in the barbarian world.

The aggressive, offensive position of Barbaricum was not shared by all the tribes inhabiting it. The world of the Baltic tribes remained inert, indifferent to migration. At the first stage of the Migration, the calm, measured life of these tribes, their closed, unpretentious way of life were disturbed by the movements of the Goths to the south and the migration wave of the Sarmatian tribes to the Middle Danube region. The Balts lacked internal incentives for resettlement. Only migrations of neighboring peoples pushed them to insignificant movements. Being inert in the opposition “the barbarian world-Roman civilization”, the Balts played a significant role in stabilizing the special life cycle of certain regions of the Barbaricum. Indirectly, they contributed to the final rallying of the Slavs - the leaders of the third stage of the Resettlement.

Like the Balts, the Finno-Ugric tribes did not show migratory activity until the 6th century. Occupying significant territories from the present areas of Western Belarus to the foothills of the Urals, they were not homogeneous. Different groups of tribes of this ethnic space intersected and interacted with the leaders of the Great Nations Migration - the Germans and the Huns. Some tribes became part of the "state of Ermanarich", others played a significant role in the process of ethnogenesis of the Western Huns. It should be noted that at a time when the Marcomannian Wars (166-180) were raging in Central Europe, marking the beginning of the first stage of the Resettlement, the leader of the next stage has already begun to form in the steppes of the Southern Urals in the Iranian-speaking and Finno-Ugric ethnic space. Resettlement - Huns.

Germanic, Turkic, Slavic, Alano-Sarmatian tribes were active, dynamic participants in the Great Migration, the leader and catalyst of movement.

The Germanic ethnic space of the Migration era was one of the most significant. Already at the beginning of the Migration, the Germans occupied vast territories, the predominant part of which was marked by extreme geographic and climatic conditions: huge forests, an abundance of rivers, lakes, the unsuitability of many territories for agriculture and animal husbandry. They constantly experienced the military and civilizational onslaught of the Roman world, especially intensified at the turn of the millennium. As a result, a fairly high level of mobility of the Germanic tribes was formed. It reflected primarily the adaptive capabilities and properties of the Germanic ethnic space. In addition, the mobility of the Germans symbolized their special social adaptation. Not only the necessities of life stimulated the tribal movement; plunder, conquest of neighbors, robbery in the nearby Roman provinces, the capture of cities, the death of emperors and prominent Roman commanders - these are acts of self-assertion, "demonstration of the power of tribes, their belonging to the traditionally marked winners and leaders of Barbaricum." "The history of the Germanic ethnical space is very representative. Here is the abundance of names of tribes, various forms of manifestation of their activity, significant geographical scope of movement, pulsating character of settlement, multivariance of contractual relations with Rome and Byzantium. For a relatively short historical period of migration of Germans covered the main regions of the ecumene - Europe, Asia, North Africa. They contributed to the emergence of the main “fault lines”, conflict zones in the European “model” of Resettlement, The migration experience of the Germans is ambiguous. It is represented by various types of migration: resettlement of tribes, movements of individual squads, “Professional” migration (bodyguards for and imperial courtyards), "business" migration (German artisans and merchants). Over the centuries of migration, the Germanic ethnic space has created a kind of “migration standard” that was used by other tribes as well. He, for example, included a “scenario” of the behavior of barbarians in stereotypical situations (campaigns, invasions, negotiations) and a standard set of their claims to the Empire. Different degrees of dependence on the Roman world gave rise to the German ethnic space and various impulses for consolidation. the highest manifestation was the “big” tribes. During the Resettlement, not only the horizontal dynamics of the barbarian world, its “picture” (involving more and more new tribes in the resettlement) changed. Substantial changes took place inside him. The ethnosocial vertical, the internal evolution of the moving tribes, and their potestary development were changing rapidly. One people started the resettlement, and finished it completely different. Many Germanic tribes had to pay a great price for the knowledge of the Roman world that hosts them.

Waves of migration flows brought a number of Alano-Sarmatian and Turkic tribes to Europe. The Iranian-speaking Alano-Sarmatian tribes played a significant role in the formation of the peoples of Eastern Europe, were one of the components of the ethnogenetic processes of South-Eastern Europe and only indirectly influenced similar processes in the Western European region.

It is quite obvious that water basins played the same important role in migration processes as in the life of the largest civilizations. In the era of the Migration of peoples, the direction of movement of a significant majority of the tribes that form the Alano-Sarmatian ethnic space was determined not only by the presence of a center of civilization in this area, but also by water resources. These two factors often coincided. Tanais certainly played the same role in the history of Eastern Europe as the Rhine for Western Europe or Istria for Southeast Europe. Around Meotida, the Iranian-speaking tribal world was concentrated and consolidated, just as, for example, the Greek - around the Aegean Sea or the Italo-Ligurian in the Western Mediterranean.

In the era of the Great Migration of Nations, various Turkic tribes were dispersed over the vast expanses of the Great Belt of the Steppe, stretching from Pannonia to Transbaikalia. They have created a special ethnic space. The territories over which control of one or another nomadic community was established and with which these nomads identified themselves, represented a kind of tribal nomadic area. Unlike other barbarian worlds, the border of this area was not the border of the Turkic ethnic space. This border was the circle of people that made up this nomadic community, belonging to which was determined by the norms of kinship polished over the centuries. The Türkic barbarian world is a scattered spatial structure. The Eurasian steppe corridor is only one of the most important intercontinental arteries along which migrations of various Hunnic tribes went to Europe, and later the Avars and Bulgars. In the era of the Great Migration of Nations, there was an idea that waves of nomads hostile to the Roman civilization were splashed out by Meotida and Tanais. Ideas about the invasion of "barbarians" from the east prevailed until the Renaissance. The nomads of the Turkic ethnic space in the era of Great Migration mastered various means of adaptation to the settled agricultural tribal worlds encountered on their way: periodic raids, regular robberies, imposed "vassalage", tributary.

Among the Turkic tribes, an idea was formed about the greater prestige of military predatory campaigns and conquests, in comparison with peaceful labor. This left an imprint on the life of barbarian nomads, served as the basis for the formation of cults of war, warrior-rider, heroized ancestors. In the era of the Great Nations Migration, the advantage of barbarian nomads was largely determined by the presence of riding animals, which at that time had a particularly important military and strategic importance.

To implement the expansion, “tribal” confederations and chieftains were created. Expansion directed against a large civilization, in this case Byzantine, created new means of adaptation - a nomadic "empire". Europe experienced the devastating effect of the steppe nomadic "empires" for several centuries. -

The growing intensity of the “nomadic march” of Turkic migrations to the west, conventionally defined as “migration of migrations”, was largely “bogged down” due to Slavic migrations.

The Slavic ethnic space of the era of the Great Migration of Peoples was formed under the influence of various factors. This vast tribal world, like the others, was not an isolated part of the Barbaricum. The Slavs of that time were distinguished by a special intensity of interethnic contacts. There were clashes between tribes and their peaceful neighborhood, including with the Balts, Sarmatians, Germans, Thracians, Illyrians and with some Turkic tribes. Over time, the Slavic tribes changed, mixing with other peoples, perceiving their culture, but without losing their ethnicity. After going through the Great Migration of Nations, the Slavic tribes divided, united, creating numerous tribal formations with new names.

A distinctive feature of the Slavic tribal space is its relative distance from the Roman world. Being on the periphery of the Barbaricum, the Slavic tribes nevertheless were actively involved in migration processes. It can be assumed that such processes among the Slavic tribes were a kind of adaptation to the previous migrations of other tribes and their results. Approaching the borders of Roman civilization, the Slavic tribes at first did not strive, however, for interaction and extensive contacts with this world. The subsequent activity of the Slavs in relation to the Empire was largely provoked by it itself, as well as the appearance of Avar tribes on their borders. Slavic tribes, starting their advance to the south and completing their settlement on the Balkan Peninsula, in the VI-VII centuries. merged into a single people with the Thracians, Illyrians and Celts. They dissolved in their midst the Türkic-speaking Bulgars, entered into contacts with the Epirots, the Greeks and laid the foundation for the South Slavic ethnic groups.

The ethnic space of the Great Nations Migration consists of two interconnected components. The first is the tribes and peoples who were real participants in the historical events of the Migration era. The second component is a system of ideas about these tribes, which was created both by the ancient and early medieval written tradition, and by modern national historiography. Sometimes these components collide. The ethnonym was the key element in the system of ideas.

Ethnonyms of the era of the Great Nations Migration are represented by the names of clans, tribes, tribal groups and tribal unions. In the study of ethnonymy, several approaches are distinguished. First, the object of study can be the name itself. An ethnonym is a word and, like all words, obeys the laws of language. The ethnonym can be of interest from the point of view of its origin and etymology. In such a course, ethnonyms of the time of Migration can be the object of research in comparative linguistics. Secondly, the object of research can be a bearer of this name, i.e. tribes and peoples who, under different ethnic designations, were directly involved in specific events. The same name may not always mean the same carrier. The ethnonym of the era of the Great Nations Migration is like a ghost that walked along with the migrating tribes and peoples. He often left his master and chose another as a companion. The dialectic of life in the course of migrations also changed the owner of the ethnonym. The dynamics of the content of many ethnonyms took place. Most of them existed throughout all the stages of the Great Nations Migration, but at the end of the Migration they could mean not quite those, or not at all those who at the beginning. During the period of mass settlement of barbarian tribes in the territory of the Empire, some ethnonyms became collective. The unification and separation processes led to a change in the social organization of numerous tribes. At the same time, they retained the old ethnonymy, but with a new meaning. The ethnonym became an elusive image of the tribes. The ethnonym of the conquerors was often transferred to the conquered and vice versa. However, it is known that the ethnonym is an archetype of unique stability. As names, ethnonyms were conservative and of great vitality. They were sacredly kept by members of the respective ethnic community and passed down from generation to generation. In the event of a military defeat of the tribe, its “fragments” scattered over long distances continued to retain their ethnonym. As part of new tribal unions, the tribe could receive a new name, but at the same time it used the old one. Thirdly, the content of the ethnonym could change and regardless of its owner. It is not necessary that the ethnic object itself has changed. It is enough for those who used this ethnonym to change their perception of what is called. At the end of the Great Migration, the ethnonyms of some tribes became evaluative terms. They acted as a definition to a personal name. Through ethno-nim, personal merit or personal guilt was recorded. One can observe the ethnofolicity of both archaic and actual ethnonymy. The ethnonym for the era of the Great Migration of Peoples turns into a “title”, acquiring a new terminological function, when it is the social aspect that comes to the fore, and the ethnic characteristic fades into the background, but is never lost.

In general, it can be noted that in the era of the Migration of peoples, the ethnonym performed the function of a kind of universal “language of communication” between the barbarian world and the Roman civilization. It served as a kind of “password”, a regulator of interethnic ties. In addition, the ethnonym reflected the comparative nature of the ethnos. In the written tradition, the ethnic characteristic of “otherness”, the differentiation of Barbaricum and its representatives was expressed primarily by means of ethnonymy.

A corpus of ethnonyms based on the Greek, Roman and early medieval written traditions is presented. The testimonies of more than 300 authors and anonymous sources have been summarized. In the context of the problem under study, some sources are introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. The complex of materials used includes the works of famous Greek and Roman historians. These are the preserved works of Asinius Kvadrat, Claudius Elian, “Roman Histories” by Titus Livy, Appian, Dion Cassius, Herodian, “Library” by Diodorus Sicilian, works of Tacitus, Flora and Macrobius, excerpts from the works of Dexippus, “History” by Ammianus Marcellinus. The ethnonymy of the Celtic and Germanic tribes of Julius Caesar deserves great attention. ”The“ Commemorative Book ”of Lucius Ampelia, the works of Plutarch, such biographies and breviaries as“ History of the Augustus ”, the first part of Anonymous Valesius contain important information about the barbarian world, barbarians and their names, "An Abridged History" of Eutropius, "History of the Caesars" by Aurelius Victor, the work of Justin, the Breviary of Festus, the biographies of Suetonius. In this group of sources, the works of Tacitus, Dion Cassius and Ammianus Marcellinus are of particular importance. determined a fairly high assessment of these sources in the literature on barbarology.

Works of Byzantine historians IV-VI centuries. traditionally important sources on barbarian topics. Among them are “Continuation of the history of Dexippus” by Eunapius, fragments of the writings of Peter Patricius, Olympiodorus, Malchus, Menander Protector, Candidus, “New history” by Zosimus, excerpts from “Byzantine history” by Priscus Panisky, works by Procopius of Caesarea, “Chronography” by John Malala , the treatise "On the magistrates" by John Lida, the work "On the reign of Justinian" by Agathius.

The writings of church historians, as well as some works of the "church fathers", were widely involved. Roman ecclesiastical historiography, represented by the Chronicle of Sulpicius of the North, the Church History of Tyranny of Rufinus, History against the Gentiles by Paul Orosius, and the work of Lactantius On the Death of the Persecutors, provides unique information about the settlement of barbarian tribes. A number of indirect data on the geography and ethnography of the Barbaricum of the Age of Migration can be found in the poems of Peacock Nolansky, “History” by Victor Vitensky, “Life of Severin” by Eugippius, the letters of Ambrose, the works of Eucherius of Lyons, as well as in the letters of Gilarius Arelatsky, panegyrics and letters of Sidonius, the works of Avitonius , Faustina, Materna. A unique characteristic of the pivotal events of the Great Migration of Peoples is presented in the work of Augustine “On the City of God” and in the work of Salvian “On the Government of God”. The accounts of the barbarians drawn from Roman ecclesiastical historiography are exaggerated and biased. The ethnonymy presented here is most often collective and not ethnofolic.

A certain amount of caution is required by the materials of the Greek church history-riography. Information about the numerous tribes of Barbaricum is reflected in the "Church history" of Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomenes, Theodoritus of Cyrus, Evagrius Scholasticus, Philostorgius, the works of Gelasius of Cyzikos, the polemic works of Athanasius of Alexandria, fragments of the works of Epiphanius and Cyril of Alexandria, fragments of the works of Epiphanius and Cyril of Alexandria, and fragments of the works of Epiphanius and Cyril of Ierus. The unique ethnonymy of the Varvarian tribes is presented in the works of Clement of Alexandria, in the Chronicle and Life of Constantine by Eusebius of Caesarea. The works of Greek church historians are filled with archaized names of peoples, which were often used as evaluative characteristics of barbarians. It is far from always possible to establish with certainty what kind of people is meant by one or another ethnonym.

Very valuable, although very scarce, fragmentary information about the contacts of the Empire with the barbarian world, taken from the letters and epigrams of Ausonius, the autobiographical works of Pavel Pyleisky, the Chronicle of Jerome and his successors - Prosper, Hydatius, Victor Tonnonensky, John Biklar, Maria of Aventsky, Marcellinus Comita, Gennady Massiliysky, Gallic Chronicles 452 and 511, the second part of Anonymous Valezius. It is known that the materials of the chronicles represent an extremely compressed list of events, with the dotted designation of the tribes participating in them. In addition, in the reports of chroniclers, ethnic contamination is quite common.

In the written tradition that arose in the barbarian "kingdoms" and represented by the works of Ennodius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Gregory of Tours, Fredegar and Paul the Deacon, there are materials exceptional for understanding the history of migration processes of the time of the Migration of peoples, the ethnic reality of this era. Of paramount importance are the works on the “origin of peoples” and among them “Getika” of Jordan. This source is the most significant in all respects: in the volume and variety of content, in the value of information, in the degree of complexity of controversial issues related to it, in its particular popularity in historiography.

The scale and degree of entry of the barbarians into the social structure of the Empire help to determine the military treatise of Vegetius, "List of positions", "List of Polemia Sylvius", "Military tricks" of Frontinus.

The study of panegyrics, speeches of Themistius, Synesius of Cyrene and Symmachus, speeches and letters of Libanius and the Emperor Julian, the poems of Porfiry, Claudius Claudian, Prudentius and Dracontius made it possible to reveal the multi-layered nature of some ethnonyms. A concrete historical analysis of this group of written sources is hampered not only by the complexity of the language of speeches, the pretentiousness of the forms of poems and the rhetoric of letters, but also by the tendentiousness of the authors and the dechronologization of the events they mention.

The ethnic structure and general picture of migration flows in various regions of the Barbaricum can be restored to some extent with the help of the "Geography" of Strabo and Ptolemy, the periegesis of Dionysius and Priscianus, the periphery of Arrian, Avien, Marcian, Pseudo-Arrian, the "Chronicle" of Hippolytus, “Cosmographies” by Julius Honorius, “Ethnics” by Stephen of Byzantium, “Verona List of 297”, tractate by Pomponius Mela “On the Structure of the Earth”, III-IV books of Pliny's “Natural History”, works by Vibius Sequestra, “Itinerarium of Alexander”, consular fast and Peutinger tables.

An analysis of the entire written tradition of tribes and peoples at the turn of antiquity and the Middle Ages made it possible to identify various names. Here are the names of separate clans (“phylonyms”), the names of tribes and tribal unions (actually “ethnonyms”), the names of citizens of various political entities (“polytonyms”), as well as city dwellers (“polysonyms”). In addition to the tribal names themselves, there are also nicknames given to certain groups of tribes by the Greco-Roman tradition. According to the developed methodology for systematizing ethnonyms, the classification groups of the names of barbarian tribes have been identified. The ethnic lexicon of the Great Migration of Peoples was made up of the names of Scythian, Alano-Sarmatian, Sindo-Meotian, Germanic, Thracian, Celtic, Macedonian, Il-Lyrian, Iberian, Finno-Ugric, Median, Italic, Caucasian, Ligurian-Etruscan, , Asia Minor, Greek, Slavic, Baltic, Semitic-Hamitic, African, mythical tribes. Thus, the corpus included the actual ethnonymy, which belonged to real tribes, direct participants or contemporaries of the Great Migration of Nations. Also included is an archaized ethnic nomenclature, which the intellectual elite of the turn of antiquity and the Middle Ages used to assess the characteristics of the representatives of the barbarian world.

Ethnonyms are presented in the Russian version, Latin and Greek original forms with comments including ethnic attribution, basic historical information about a given people, chronological and geographical references, indications of the exact place in late antique and early medieval texts mentioning this name. Ethnonyms are in the nominative plural. Their transcription and transliteration are unified. When transliterating ethnonyms from ancient Greek, the presence of discrepancies is taken into account, ascending to the traditional difference between the so-called Erasmus and Reuchlin's pronunciation. The former is largely considered “literary”. The second was supported by long-standing ties with Byzantium, the norms of the church language. A factor such as tradition is also taken into account. The spelling and pronunciation of the names of peoples that have a centuries-old or at least a fairly long tradition are preserved. The transliteration of the rest of the names is unified according to the following rules: Greek theta is transmitted through “t”; Greek zta is transmitted through “e.” The diphthongs ol and αι are transmitted through “e” at the beginning of the word and “e" in the middle. The diphthong ei is reproduced through “i”, ηυ - through “ev.” The corpus of ethnonyms is toyo the basis on which the work traces the ethnic dynamics of the Barbaric world and reveals the specificity of the system of ideas of ancient and early non-medieval authors about the ethnic landscape of the Migration era.

Thus, the work is a generalizing study on the ethno-historical structure and dynamics of the barbarian world of the Migration era. The barbaric world is considered in the context of a single systemic process of interaction between the Barbaricum and civilization. Its comprehensive research was carried out within the framework of the Great Migration of Nations. The paper proposes a new concept of Resettlement. It provides for the identification of the Great Migration of Peoples in a special period of historical development, when the interaction of barbarism and civilization reaches its most intense phase. The result of this interaction, as a consequence of the interpenetration and mutual destruction of diverse cultural-civilizational worlds, was the emergence of a new type of civilization. Taking into account the nature of the ethnic composition of the participants in the Resettlement, the position of the leading tribes, the main accents of confrontation and interaction, the direction of migration and their results, three stages of the Resettlement were identified - “Germanic”, “Hunnic” and “Slavic”. On the basis of the presented paradigm of Migration and analysis of the collected ethnonyms, the ideas about the horizontal and vertical dynamics of the barbarian world have been corrected, for the first time the unique ethnic space formed by the Great Migration of Peoples has been identified, its multi-layered nature has been shown, and its constituent components have been identified. The features of the ethnic space of the Barbaricum, the composition of tribal associations, their evolution, the direction of migration, the nature and forms of contacts of barbarian tribes with the Roman Empire are reflected.

V.P. Budanova

From the book "The barbaric world of the era of the Great Nations Migration", 2000

Particularly great danger to the Roman state was represented by the barbarian tribes that bordered on the periphery. The Romans called barbarians tribes and peoples alien to Roman culture. In Marxist historical literature, tribes are called barbarians that are experiencing a certain stage in the development of the clan system (starting with the emergence of cattle breeding and agriculture and ending with the decomposition of the clan system and the beginning of the formation of a class society).

The largest ethnic groups of the barbarians in contact with Rome are the Celts, Germans, and Slavs. The main areas of Celtic settlement were Northern Italy, Gaul, Spain, Britain and Ireland. After the conquest of Northern Italy, Gaul and Spain by Rome, the Celtic population of these regions became part of the Roman state and merged with the Roman settlers into one nationality - the Gallo-Roman or the Spanish-Roman, respectively. In Britain, also conquered by the Romans, the impact of Roman relations was weaker; among the Celts, the clan system still dominated at the stage of its decomposition. The primitive communal system, to a lesser extent subjected to decay, was preserved among the Celts of Ireland, which was not conquered by Rome.

Germans in the middle of the 1st century BC.

By the beginning of our era, Germanic tribes inhabited the territory delimited by the Rhine in the west and the Vistula in the east, the Alps and Danube in the south, the North and Baltic seas in the north. They also lived in the southern part of the Scandinavian Peninsula. In the Vistula basin and further to the east, as well as in a number of other areas, Slavic tribes lived next to the Germans, in the upper Rhine and Danube - Celts, akin to the population of Gaul and Britain. In the 1st century. BC e. some Germanic tribes crossed the Rhine and tried to settle in Gaul, but were driven back across the Rhine by Julius Caesar. At the end of the 1st century. BC e. the territory from the Rhine to the Elbe was conquered by Rome and became a Roman province. But not for long. After a series of clashes with the Germans, the Romans went on the defensive. The Rhine became the border between Rome and the territory of the Germanic tribes. To strengthen this border, the Romans built a defensive line, the so-called Roman rampart (Limes Romanus), stretching from the Middle Rhine to the Upper Danube.

The ancestors of the Slavs lived to the east of the ancient Germans. They settled over a vast territory from the Elbe and Oder to the Donets, Oka and Upper Volga; from the Baltic Sea to the Middle and Lower Danube and the Black Sea. To the antique authors of the 1st-2nd centuries n. e. they were known as the Wends (or Venets). Slavic tribes by the beginning of the new era, according to Tacitus, were sedentary farmers. The main branch of the economy they had was slash farming, they were also engaged in cattle breeding, hunting, fishing and beekeeping. They knew the extraction and processing of iron, pottery, spinning and weaving from wool and flax. There was no money; trade was of an exchange nature. The Slavs lived in a tribal system.

In the IV-VI centuries. there was a significant movement of Slavic tribal groups in the western direction to the Elbe (Laba), in places even further, and in the south - to the Balkan Peninsula. In the VI century. Byzantine writers had new names for the Slavic tribes: the Sklavins and Slavs, which included the predominantly South Slavic tribes that lived along the Middle and Lower Danube and between the Danube and the Dniester, and the Antes that lived between the Dniester and the Dnieper and formed the core of the eastern group of Slavs. Byzantine historians called Venets the Slavic tribes that lived mainly along the Vistula and the Baltic Sea coast and later, together with the Slavs who settled in the Elbe basin, formed the western branch of Slavism.

In the IV-V centuries. the onslaught of the barbarian tribes on the Roman Empire intensified. These tribes dealt the strongest blows to the slave state (which led to the collapse of the empire in the West) and played an important role in the transition from the ancient slave society to the feudal one. The communal system they brought to the territory of the Roman Empire was a prerequisite for the development of feudal relations.

The concept of “barbarians” dates back to ancient Greece. This was the name given to any foreigners who arrived in Greece from another country. Subsequently, the Greek tradition took root in Ancient Rome. Roman citizens considered any people that did not belong to Roman culture to be barbarians.

Who are the barbarians, where did this name come from?

At present it is difficult to say where the name "barbarians" came from. There is only one suggestion that can partially explain its origin. The ancient Greeks knew the Variev tribe, which are found in written sources of those years. It is not known for sure whether the Variy were Germans, Celts or some other people, but they lived near the island of Rügen.

It is possible that the Varii were a super ethnic group that later split into several large tribes. At least historians and chroniclers of Ancient Rome knew the following barbarian peoples:

• Scythians;
• Germantsev;
• Alanov;
• Ready;
• Sarmatov;
• Gauls and many more barbarian tribes.

Most of the barbarian tribes were militant and constantly raided the border regions of the Roman Empire.

But the ancient Greeks divided the barbarians into only two tribes:

• Hyperboreans;
• Scythians.

If the Hyperboreans meant all foreigners from the northern lands, then the Scythians meant the tribes of the northern Black Sea region.

Descendants of Hercules - Scythians

The ancient Scythians, who are considered the ancestors of the Russian barbarians, were known to the ancient Greeks as harsh and cruel warriors. They periodically attacked the lands of the Greeks and their allies, but since their tribes were scattered, they did not cause significant damage. However, the Scythians were often hired as mercenaries and guards.

Some Scythian tribes were influenced by Hellenic culture back in those days and began to lead a sedentary life. They were engaged in trade and crafts, and their religion practically did not differ from the Greek. At present, there have been preserved samples of the Scythian culture made of gold and precious stones. They were made by masters of their craft, who were not inferior to the best Greek masters of that time.

According to Herodotus, the main gods of the cultural Scythians were:

• Hercules;
• Ares;
• Hestia;
• Zeus and other Greek gods.

The fact that the gods of war are at the head of the Scythian pantheon clearly testifies to the belligerence of this people.

Alans - legendary descendants of Trojans

The barbarian tribes of Alans, who are mentioned in the chronicles as Ases, Roxalans or Yazigi, were nomads moving along the steppes of the Volga and Dnieper regions. It is very likely that the Alans were the very legendary Trojan aces. Not all Alans were nomads. Some of them were sedentary, and lived in clay semi-dugouts.

The ancient geographer Strabo, mentioning the Alans, calls them the last known Scythians, and tells about the battle of the Roxalans with the Persian king Mithridates. In that battle, the Alanian tribes were able to gather an army of 50,000 soldiers to help the Scythian king Palak. Despite their bravery, the barbarian armadas could not resist the civilized army of the Persians and were defeated.

The next mention of the Asah-Alans appeared around the 2nd century BC. Then these barbarian tribes unexpectedly appeared in the territories of modern Crimea, where they began to fight the Bosporan Scythian state.

The Goths and the famous conquests of Hermanarich

Soon, cruel Gothic tribes came in search of more fertile lands in the Black Sea region. Coming with their leader Berebistaya, the Goths immediately ravaged the following countries:

• Illyria;
• Thrace;
• Many Celtic tribes.

Arriving in Dacia, the Goths mixed with the local barbarians, the Dacians, as they were related tribes. Strabo claimed that they also got along well with the ancient Germans, constantly forging military alliances against Rome. However, for ancient Rome, the raids of the barbarians at that time were not terrible. As a rule, the border areas of the empire suffered, which were inhabited by the conquered peoples. For the barbarians, the campaign against Rome was a real adventure that could bring both enormous wealth and glory, and lead to the death of half of the army.

The most famous Gothic commander was Germanarich. His military campaign took place in the second half of the 4th century AD. The conquests of the Gothic leader took place as follows:

1. The Heruls were conquered first;
2. Then the army of Germanarich defeated the Bosporus kingdom;
3. Further, the Antes were defeated, and some of the Veneti were scrapped.

After that, having gathered the conquered tribes under his banners, the famous commander made a grandiose military campaign, which began from the Baltic Sea and ended in the east of Byzantium.

Like most barbarian generals, the Goth leader died a violent death. Germanarich was stabbed to death by the brothers of one of his wives, whom he ordered to tear the horses apart.

Barbarian tribe of Venets

The life of the barbarians from the Venetian tribe took place in the northern territories, not far from the Baltic Sea. Some scholars consider this tribe to be the descendants of the Vanir, who were mentioned in the ancient Greek "Younger Edda". The origin of the Veneti is still unclear. There are several points of view on this matter:

• It is possible that the Veneti are related to the vandals;
• According to one version, the Veneti are the ancestors of the Western Slavs;
• Some cite a description of the Venedian warriors, claiming that they are similar to the Russians.

Basically, scientists agree that the Wends and Vandals are representatives of the same super ethnos.

Vandals - destroyers of Rome

Almost everyone knows about the Vandal tribe in the modern world. The word "vandal" has long been a household word. Vandals are called rude and uncultured people. In the 15th century, the outstanding educator Mavro Orbini proved that this tribe is related to the Slavs. Orbini used the works of Roman and Greek authors as sources of information.

This theory is partly confirmed by Polish legends, which say that their people descended from Prince Vandal. Even in the Russian chronicles there is a legend about the Novgorod king Vandal, who was the ancestor of all Slavs.

How the barbarians conquered the Roman Empire

Although Rome managed to conquer and subjugate vast territories, the eastern lands still lived their own distinctive life. Of course, there could be no question of any Barbarian Empire, but the tribes often entered into alliances with each other and organized campaigns together in the territory of the Roman Empire. Although the border of the Roman Empire was defended, the legionnaire cohorts could not be in several places at the same time. This was the main component of the military strategy of the barbarians. Suddenly flying into the border areas, the barbarians burned and plundered everything in their path.

The year 370 was of great importance for the future of the entire Roman Empire. This year, the Hunnic warriors attacked the Alans, who were leading fighting against ready. Because of this, the Alans and Goths united and tried to repulse the Hunnic hordes. The battle ended in defeat, and the remnants of the Goths and Alans invaded the Balkan lands. There they defeated most of the local tribes, after which they entered into a number of military alliances with the Vandals, Burgundians and Suebi against Rome.

Already in 406, the united barbarian army invaded Italy, where it managed to plunder and destroy not only villas and settlements, but also many large cities, among which was Florence. The most important among the generals of the barbarian army was Radigast. Judging by the name, this leader came from a noble family. If you believe the legends, then the leader of the barbarian army vowed to destroy Rome to the ground.

Most likely, Radigast, who had gathered under his banners a huge army, would have destroyed the eternal city, but he was overtaken by death almost near the city itself. For the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, the name Radigasta personified horror. Wherever the army passed, huge human sacrifices were made. The barbarians did not even spare the children.

Bloody campaign of barbarians in Europe

Since the Roman army in Italy could not stop the barbarians, their hordes headed west. In 409, a combined army of Alans, Suevi and Vandals entered the territory of Spain. The barbarian horde was commanded by King Guntherih. With the help of the local military leader Gerontius, who took advantage of the situation and decided to rebel against Rome, the barbarians defeated the Spanish legions, establishing their rule over the Iberian Peninsula. The conquered territory was divided as follows:

• The Alans received the territory on which modern Portugal and part of central Spain are located;
• The Vandals received the territory of modern Andalusia;
• Suevi - all northwestern islands.

Judging by the division of the territory, the Alans formed the basis of the barbarian army. Roman troops subsequently tried repeatedly to drive the barbarians out of Spain, but they were able to fortify themselves by building defended settlements and fortresses.

The adventures of the barbarian army did not end there, as they had to fight the West Goths, who attacked them from the territory of Galia, having entered into an alliance with the Roman troops. Rome always tried to play off various tribes of barbarians among themselves, and after its weakening, this tactic became the main one. The Goths began to gradually push the united barbarian army southward.

African campaign of the barbarian army

In 428, a barbarian army, consisting of 80,000 Alans and Vandals, decided to leave the territory of Spain and, led by its king Geiserich, crossed into northern Africa. Using the experience of the Spanish company, they came to an agreement with the governor Boniface, who was dissatisfied with Rome. As a result of the agreement, barbarian troops captured Carthage, losing only a small part of their army.

The barbarians managed to create a new kingdom on the ruins of the African part of the Roman Empire. Oddly enough, the barbarians turned out to be a fairly cultured people. Rough vandals, who have become the talk of the town, have opened many new churches, cathedrals, schools and theaters. By decree of King Geiserich, all the vices of the local population of Carthage were severely persecuted, and the barbarians themselves turned out to be zealous Christians. This state, despite the help of numerous friends and tribesmen in Europe, was conquered in the 6th century by Emperor Justinian.

Soon the warlike Goths also had to go on a military campaign, as hordes of wild Huns began to drive them out. The Goths managed to capture first the territory of modern Bulgaria, then the entire Balkan Peninsula. In 410 the Goths took over Rome.

The Huns and their famous leader Attila

Although the origin of Attila has not yet been clarified, it is believed that the son of Mundzuk traced his ancestry to the White Huns, who in ancient times waged war with China. According to historians who talked to people who saw the legendary Hunnic commander, Attila was a man with a Mongolian type of face, while his skin was very light. Now it is difficult to give an objective assessment of this information, but other sources simply do not exist.

According to the same ancient historians and chroniclers, Attila's power extended from the steppes of Scythia to the dense forests of Germany. Some written sources and legends of various peoples claim that the Huns' warriors reached the Volga and the Baltic Sea. Despite the fact that Attila reached Gaul, he failed to defeat the Roman army. Gathering about 500,000 soldiers under his banner, the Hunnic commander led an army to Rome.

In 451, the Battle of Shalon took place, in which the following tribes of barbarians took the side of the Huns:

• Rugi;
• Herula;
• Francs;
• Gepids;
• West Goths;
• Burgundians.

The Ost-Goths and Alans fought on the side of the empire. In this battle, both sides lost between 150 and 300,000 people. Horrified at the enormous losses, Attila decided to withdraw his army. This campaign significantly weakened the power of the leader of the Huns, who died two years later.

According to the official version, Attila died due to excessive consumption of wine, but since poison was often poured into the wine at that time, most likely the famous commander was simply eliminated. The death of the ruler of the Barbarian Empire was the beginning of the split. Germanic tribes gained independence, part of the Slavs formed the Bulgarian ethnos, and part of the Eastern Slavs went beyond the Dniester.

Theodoric's campaign and the emergence of the state of the West Goths

At the beginning of the 4th century, the power in the Eastern Roman Metropolis fell into the hands of the Ost-Goth King Theodoric, who served the Byzantine throne. His army of over 100,000 soldiers conquered the Apennine Peninsula. Ravenna became the capital of the new state.

It was around this time that the West Goths began to conquer Gaul. After the army invaded the Pyrenees, the Alans and Vandals moved south. The Goths concluded peace and military treaties with the Suevi, after which they began to create their own state. The first king of the West Goth state was King Ataulf, who was from the old Balts family.

The fate of the Vandals in the 4th century AD

The Vandals, who, together with the Alans, captured Carthage, having founded their strong state, constantly fought off the legions of Justinian. In the end, Carthage could not resist and the army of the Byzantine emperor captured it. This event happened in 534. After the capture of the city, the emperor issued a number of decrees that infringe on the local population:

• All the noble representatives of the Vandal and Alan tribes lost almost all their privileges;
• Byzantine orders were introduced in the city;
• The Arian churches were closed, and Orthodox churches were opened instead.

All discontent was brutally suppressed, the rebels were executed or sent into slavery. The Arian priests, dissatisfied with the new order, tried to rouse the people to an armed uprising and soon they succeeded. The armed uprising was led by the Vandal warrior Stotz. He was able to collect 400 Vandal warriors, with whom he fled from the ships. Soon, another 8 thousand people went over to the side of the rebels, and then 70% of the local army.

Upon learning of this, the Byzantine emperor Justinian sent legions to suppress the uprisings. As a result of punitive measures, less than 10% of the rebel army, whose number was about 170,000, remained. All local residents with Vandal and Alan roots were forced to flee, as the emperor's troops robbed and killed everyone indiscriminately.

For 10-20 years, Carthage lost almost all of its inhabitants. Most of the white population was forced to flee to Italy, Byzantium and Spain. According to the testimony of Byzantine historians who recorded the events of those years, the wars in North Africa claimed more than 5,000,000 inhabitants.

Slavic wars with Byzantium

Emperor Justinian did not have long to rest on the laurels of the victor of the barbarians. In 558, Byzantium was threatened by the Slavic barbarians. The army of the Slavs led by the leader Zavergan in the amount of 3,000 people was able to reach the walls of Constantinople. Despite the superior strength of the Byzantine army, the Slavic warriors displayed such an indomitable thirst for victory, skill and cruelty that the Byzantines preferred to pay them a huge tribute instead of continuing to fight.

Accustomed to war, Zavergan became famous as a master of psychological attack. At any opportunity, he demonstrated to the Byzantines what would happen to them if the Slavs won. Picturesque executions were constantly arranged in places open to the eyes of the enemy and mass human sacrifices.

After these events, the Byzantine emperor Justinian tried to prevent the formation of tribal Slavic unions, constantly sending gifts and quarreling Slavic leaders with each other. This tactic quickly bore fruit, and the barbarians were mired in bloody feuds.

At the same time, Byzantium began to contact the Avar tribe, who were of Turkic origin. These steppe warriors in different years could both serve Byzantium and plunder its borders. To rid himself of two enemies, Emperor Justinian sent the Avars, with whom friendly relations were at that time, to the Slavs.

Famous campaigns of Russia to Byzantium

At the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th century, the formation of the Rus people began. Russian warriors in 862 created the state of Rus, which began expansion to the south. The main reason for this was the need to establish control over the ancient trade route "From the Varangians to the Greeks." In addition, Russia sought to seize Constantinople, in which untold riches had accumulated. Until the middle of the 11th century, Russian barbarians tried to capture the capital of Byzantium:

• The first recorded raid of the Russian army took place at the beginning of the 9th century;
• In the 830s, the Russians managed to plunder Amastrida;
• In the 860s, the great campaign of Rus' against Constantinople was made;
• In 907, Prince Oleg set out on a campaign against Constantinople. As a result of this campaign, a trade agreement was concluded with Byzantium and the prince received a large tribute;
• Prince Igor also made two campaigns against Constantinople in the period from 941 to 944. If the first campaign ended in failure, then the second ended with the payment of tribute and a peace treaty;

If you have any questions - leave them in the comments below the article. We or our visitors will be happy to answer them




I am fond of martial arts with weapons, historical fencing. I am writing about weapons and military equipment because it is interesting and familiar to me. I often learn a lot of new things and want to share these facts with people who are not indifferent to military topics.

The period from the IV century. to VII century. went down in the history of Europe as the era of the Great Migration of Peoples, so named because these four centuries were the peak of migration processes that captured almost the entire continent and radically changed its ethnic, cultural and political appearance. This is the era of the death of ancient civilization and the emergence of feudalism.

The growing property and social inequality pushed various layers of barbarian tribes to try to seize new lands occupied by aliens - a barbarian society at the stage of military democracy is prone to expansion. The pressure of the steppe nomads coming from the East also affected. However, the most common reason for the simultaneous displacement of a huge multi-tribal mass of people, apparently, was a sharp change in climate. Approximately from the II century. begins by the V century. cooling reaches its maximum, within which dry soils first dry up and moist soils with corresponding changes in vegetation cover. These changes had a negative impact on the economic conditions of both the nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppes and the sedentary population of the European north, prompting both of them to look for a new habitat in less high latitudes. The deterioration of the climate coincided chronologically for many barbarian tribes of Europe with the decomposition of their primitive communal system. At the beginning of the new era, the predominantly extensive development of production and the accompanying population growth came across the limited natural resources of the forest, and partly the forest-steppe zone of the continent, which, at the level of productive forces at that time, were less economically convenient than the Mediterranean regions. Foreign policy factors should also be named among the main reasons for migration, namely: the pressure of some barbarian tribes (most often nomadic) on others and the weakening of the Roman Empire, which turned out to be no longer able to withstand the onslaught from its strengthened neighbors. In the IV-V centuries. the main role in the Great Migration was played by Germanic and Turkic, later also Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes.

The movements of the Germanic tribes.

The homeland of the Germans was the northern, coastal regions of Germany, Jutland and southern Scandinavia. The Celts lived to the south, the Slavs and Balts to the east. The first wave of German expansion resulted in the grandiose movements of the Cimbri and Teutons, who traveled across the field of Europe for a quarter of a century (extreme points: Jutland, Hungary, Spain) and finally in 102-101. BC e. defeated by Guy Marius in the spurs of the Western Alps. The second wave falls on the 60s of the 1st century. BC e., when the Suevi, led by Ariovistus, tried to gain a foothold in Eastern Gaul. In 58 BC. e. they were defeated by Caesar. However, by this time the Germans had already firmly established themselves on the middle Rhine, by the end of the century and on the upper Danube, having conquered and for the most part assimilated the local Celtic population. Further advance of the Germans to the south was stopped by the Romans, therefore, from the end of the 1st century. BC e. their expansion is directed mainly to the east and southeast: to the upper Elbe and Oder, to the middle, then the lower Danube.

After the defeat in the Teutoburg Forest (9 AD), the Romans made no further serious attempts to conquer Germany. The rare expeditions deep into German territory were mostly of a demonstration nature; diplomatic intervention was recognized as more effective, which made it possible, by means of bribery, blackmail and incitement of some tribes to others, to keep the border barbarians from attacking. The border was established along the Rhine and Danube, where henceforth most of the legions were concentrated in numerous fortresses. In the last third of the 1st century. n. e. to facilitate the transfer of troops in the strategically important area of \u200b\u200bthe Black Forest, new powerful fortifications were built - the limies; the lands between the Limes, the Rhine and the Danube (the so-called Tithes) were settled by Celts invited from Gaul. At the beginning of the II century. the Romans also captured Dacia, protecting themselves from barbarian raids on the lower Danube.
The situation began to change in the second half of the 2nd century, when, during the so-called Marcomanian War (166-180), significant masses of barbarians first broke through the Roman border, creating a threat even to Italy. Marcus Aurelius barely managed to push them across the Danube, but since that time the German invasions are noticeably more frequent. Fighting with them and facing a drop in the combat effectiveness and the number of their own troops, the Romans took the path of settling individual barbarian tribes on the territory of the empire, entrusting them with the protection of a number of borders; at the same time, the barbarization of the Roman army itself increased.
In the 50s of the 3rd century, taking advantage of the turmoil that gripped the empire, the Germans penetrated into Roman territory in several areas at once. The greatest danger to Rome was represented by the invasions of the Alamans and Franks into Gaul and further into Spain, as well as the appearance of the Goths in the northern Balkans, from where they made raids into the interior of the peninsula and pirate attacks from the sea on the coast of Propontis and Aegeis. The Franks and Alamans were driven across the Rhine in about 260; the latter, however, were entrenched in the Tithes. In the Balkans in 269 the Goths suffered a crushing defeat at Naissus and retreated across the Danube. However, despite the undoubted success, two years later, the Romans evacuated troops and civilians from Dacia. After that, the border stabilized for several decades. Later, despite periodic invasions and rebellions of German settlers (for example, in the middle of the 4th century, when the Franks and Alamans again tried to go on the offensive), the Romans firmly held the Rhine-Danube rampart: in the West - until 406, in the East - until the last third of the VI century.

Visigoths.

By the middle of the IV century. from the union of the Gothic tribes, the unions of the Western and Eastern Goths (aka West- and Ostrogoths) emerged, occupying, respectively, the lands between the Danube and the Dnieper and between the Dnieper and Don, including the Crimea. The unions included not only Germanic, but also Thracian, Sarmatian, possibly Slavic tribes. In 375, the Ostrogothic union was defeated by the Huns - nomads of Turkic origin who came from Central Asia and by that time had subdued some Ugric and Sarmatian tribes, including the Alans. Now this fate befell the Ostrogoths. Fleeing from the Hunnic invasion, the Visigoths in 376 appealed to the government of the Eastern Roman Empire for asylum. They were settled on the right bank of the lower Danube, in Moesia, as federates - allies with the obligation to guard the Danube border in exchange for food supplies. Literally a year later, the intervention of Roman officials in the internal affairs of the Visigoths (who were promised self-government) and the abuse of supplies provoked an uprising of the Visigoths; they were joined by separate detachments from other barbarian tribes and many slaves from the estates and mines of Moesia and Thrace. In the decisive battle at Adrianople in 378, the Roman army was utterly defeated, and Emperor Valens died.

In 382, \u200b\u200bthe new emperor Theodosius I succeeded in suppressing the uprising, but now the Visigoths were given to settle not only Moesia, but also Thrace and Macedonia. In 395, they rebelled again, devastating Greece and forcing the Romans to allocate them a new province - Illyria, from where they raided Italy from 401 on. The army of the Western Roman Empire by this time consisted mostly of barbarians, led by the vandal Stilicho. For several years, he rather successfully repelled the attacks of the Visigoths and other Germans. A good commander, Stilicho, at the same time, understood that the empire's forces were depleted, and tried to buy off the barbarians whenever possible. In 408, accused of pandering to his fellow tribesmen, who were ruining Gaul in the meantime, and in general of excessive yielding to the barbarians, he was removed and soon executed. The “anti-German party” that took over, however, was unable to organize resistance to the barbarians. The Visigoths invaded Italy again and again, demanding more and more indemnities and new lands. Finally, in 410, after a long siege, Alaric took Rome, plundered it and moved to the south of Italy, intending to cross into Sicily, but suddenly died on the way.
The fall of the Eternal City made a terrible impression on contemporaries, many perceived this event as the collapse of the entire empire and even as the beginning of the end of the world. However, having received military assistance from the East, the government of the Western Roman Empire was able to quickly take the situation under control. An agreement was concluded with the Visigoths: the successor of Alaric Ataulf received in marriage the sister of the emperor Honorius Galla Placidia and the promise of lands for settlement in Aquitaine. Since 412, the Visigoths have fought in Gaul and Spain with the enemies of the empire, sometimes against it, until they finally settle - formally as federates - in Southwestern Gaul, in the region of Toulouse, which became the capital of their state - the first barbarian state. emerged on the territory of the empire (418).

Vandals.

The defeat of the Romans at Adrianople coincided in time with their last campaign across the Rhine, after which they finally went over to the defensive in the western section of the border. The protection of the borders on the lower Rhine was entrusted to the Franks, who had to cede the extreme north of Gaul - Toxandria; the middle Rhine and the upper Danube were still dominated by Roman garrisons, in places supported by the Alaman federates. In 406, taking advantage of the fact that the main forces of the Western Roman Empire were diverted to fight the Visigoths, the Vandals, Alans and Quads (now taking the name of Suevi), overcoming the resistance of the Franks, broke through the Roman limes in the Mainz area and poured into Gaul. Another part of the Vandals, Alans and Suevi joined the Ostrogothic Union, headed by Radagais; together they crossed the Danube near Augsburg and invaded Italy through Norik. In 406, not far from Florence, Stilicho defeated the army of Radagais, a year later the British legions restored the border on the middle Rhine, but the Romans no longer succeeded in expelling the barbarians from Gaul. Having devastated the eastern, central and southwestern regions of the country, the Vandals, Alans and Suevi in \u200b\u200b409 crossed the Pyrenees and broke into Spain, gaining a foothold mainly in its western regions.

The greatest danger to Rome at that time was posed by the vandals, to whom in 416 the remnants of the Alans defeated by the Visigoths joined. Notable for their particular savagery and aggressiveness, they did not agree to an agreement with the empire, did not settle in any one locality, preferring the temporary seizure and plunder of more and more territories. Between 422 and 428 the coastal cities of Eastern Spain became the victims of vandals. Having seized the ships located there, in 429, under the leadership of Geiserich, they landed in Africa in the area of \u200b\u200bTingis (Tangier) and began an offensive to the west. Roman domination in North Africa was thoroughly shaken by the frequent raids of the Berber tribes, the just-ended war of the governor Boniface against the central government, and finally by the incessant demonstrations of the masses. In this situation, the vandals easily overcame 1000 km in a year and laid siege to Hippon-Regius, where the famous Christian theologian Augustine was bishop. Taking the city in 431 after a 14-month siege, the vandals four years later snatched the empire's consent to possession of the occupied lands as federates. The peace was, however, short-lived. Already at the end of 435, the Vandals occupied Carthage and, having got their hands on a huge merchant fleet, began to raid the coast of Sicily and southern Italy. In 442, the Roman government was forced to recognize their complete independence and authority over most of North Africa.

Huns.

The loss of the main African provinces, which supplied Italy with grain and olive oil, was a heavy blow for the Romans: the enemy settled deep in the rear. Yet the military threat came primarily from the north. After the invasions of 406, the imperial forces had almost no control over the Rhine-Danube rampart. The Roman garrisons remained only in some points of Rezia and Noric, while the defense of the Rhine border was almost entirely transferred to the German federates - now not only the Franks, but also the Burgundians, who came after the Vandals and settled on the Middle Rhine in the Worms region, and the Alamans, gradually who occupied modern Alsace. As for Pannonia, there by the 20s of the 5th century. the Huns were firmly established. Rome faced the Huns back in 379, when they, following on the heels of the Visigoths, invaded Moesia. Since then, they have repeatedly attacked the Balkan provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, sometimes they were defeated, but more often they left only after receiving the ransom, so little by little the Constantinople government turned into their tributary. At first, the relations of the Huns with the Western Roman Empire were built on a different basis: Hunnic mercenaries made up a noticeable part of the West Roman army, especially from the 20s of the 5th century. Ravenna actively used them to fight against the rebellious Franks and Burgundians who settled on the Rhine, as well as the Bagauds, peasants of northwestern Gaul, who were trying to leave Rome and live in self-governing communities that were not subject to anyone. In 436, the Huns, led by that time by Attila (for their violence called by Christian writers the Scourge of God), defeated the kingdom of the Burgundians; this event formed the basis of the plot of the "Song of the Nibelungs". As a result, part of the Burgundians joined the Hunnic Union, the other was resettled by the Romans to Lake Geneva, where later, in 457, the so-called second Burgundian Kingdom arose with the center in Lyon.

In the late 1940s, the situation changed. Attila began to interfere in the internal affairs of the Western Roman Empire and claim part of its territory. In 451, the Huns invaded Gaul, along with the Gepids, Heruls, Ostrogoths, Rugii, Skiris, and other Germanic tribes. In the decisive battle on the Catalaunian fields (near Troyes in Champagne), the Roman general Aetius, who was once a hostage to the Huns and more than once led the Hunnic troops into battle, with the help of the Visigoths, Franks and Burgundians, defeated Attila's army. This battle is rightfully considered one of the most important in world history, since the fate of not only Roman rule in Gaul, but also the entire Western civilization was decided to a certain extent on the Catalaunian fields. However, the strength of the Huns was by no means exhausted. The next year, Attila undertook a campaign in Italy, taking Aquileia, Milan, and a number of other cities. Deprived of the support of the German allies, the Roman army was unable to resist him, but Attila, fearing an epidemic that had struck Italy, left for the Alps. In 453 he died, and strife broke out among the Huns. Two years later, the Germanic tribes subordinate to them revolted. Having suffered defeat first from the Gepids, then from the Ostrogoths, the Huns migrated from Pannonia to the Northern Black Sea region. The state of the Huns disintegrated, their remnants gradually mixed with the Turkic and Ugric tribes coming from the east.

In ancient Greece, and then in Rome, any foreigners were called barbarians, more precisely those peoples who were not included in the Greco-Roman civilization. The barbarians meant numerous tribes of Germanic, Slavic, Iranian origin, sometimes well known, and sometimes completely unknown to the imperial authorities and historiographers. Later Christians began to call these peoples "pagans", for they spoke not Greek, not Latin, but local languages \u200b\u200bunknown to Rome. In the West, this tradition has been preserved to this day: all peoples and countries that are not part of the circle of Western civilization are considered, as it were, secondary, of little significance to history - “barbarians”. It is clear that this is ordinary propaganda. And what actually happened?

THE BARBARIANS BEFORE THE CONQUEST OF THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE

In ancient times, there was only one people with a name similar to the word "barbarian" - varii (warnen). Varia lived on the western coast of the Baltic Sea, between Laba and Oder, opposite the island of Rügen. It is difficult to say who they were, Germans or Slavs. Knowledge of the etymology of the name "Variev" provides some information, but it is clearly insufficient to determine their ethnic roots. And in this case we are not interested in the origin of a small Baltic tribe, but in the “barbarians” in the broad, figurative sense of the word.

Ancient Greek and Roman authors called the northern and eastern European peoples differently: Hyperboreans, Germans, Scythians, Goths, Wends, Vandals, Pelasgians, Sarmatians, Ases, Alans. Many historians have noted that the boundaries of these ethnic concepts are very vague. E.I. Klassen, who stood at the origins of Russian Slavic studies, was one of the first to systematize the ancient references to the ancestors of the Slavic Russians (Scythians, Alans, Wends) and came to the conclusion that many of the listed names indicated tribal associations, some superethnoses, the composition of which was originally heterogeneous and changed over time.

Where did the ancestors of Eastern Europeans live at the very beginning of the era of the Great Nations Migration?

Since the era of Homer and Hesiod, Eastern Europe was divided into Hyperboreans and Scythians. The Hyperboreans, as we were able to see (see "NP" No. 3), conventionally meant the northern peoples of Europe, without dividing them into languages, religions and tribes, and the Scythians - the tribes of the Northern Black Sea region, also without clear ethnic differentiation.

Modern science brings the Scythian civilization closer to the Iranian-Aryan area. Initially, these were nomadic, warlike tribes who lived by cattle breeding and hunting. They lived in the Northern Black Sea region, at the mouths of the Danube, Dniester, Bug and Don and were also known as Sarmatians and Savromats. Their eastern neighbors were the Iranian-speaking Alans and the inhabitants of the northern Caucasus, and the northwestern ones were the Germans and Slavs. All over the world the Scythians were known as experienced horse breeders and riders. The Scythian cavalry, which made crushing raids on ancient cities, terrified the southern neighbors. NM Karamzin wrote vividly about the harsh, warlike character of the Scythian warriors: “In the hope of their bravery and multiplicity, they were not afraid of any enemy; they drank the blood of slain enemies, their dressed skin was used instead of clothes, and skulls instead of vessels, and in the form of a sword they worshiped the god of war. "

However, not all, the Scythians hunted for war. Some of them were Hellenized, led a sedentary lifestyle, were engaged in trade, which led to the creation of their own statehood. In addition to the god of war Ares, whose cult was the most widespread, they, according to the Greek historian Herodotus, also venerated Hestia (the spirit of the hearth), Zeus, Gaia, Apollo, Aphrodite of Heaven, Hercules, who had their own names. The Scythians, who traced their ancestry to Hercules, had a fairly developed civilization. Among them there were many famous generals, philosophers, politicians such as Atey, Anacharsis, Skilur, Savmak. There are suggestions that the famous king Achilles, the protagonist of Homer's Iliad, which describes the battle for Troy, was a Scythian.

Scythian state in Tavria (Crimea) at the end of the 2nd century. n. e. became part of the Pontic kingdom. They later moved north and west. It was these Scythians who were close neighbors of the Eastern Slavs and Goths, traded and fought with them. You can read about them in Herodotus, Plutarch, Strabo, Diogenes Laertius and other ancient authors.

Wonderful examples of Scythian applied art have survived: items made of gold and precious stones with symbolic images of animals and realistic stories from everyday life.

The Alans, also referred to as Ases (Yases, Yazigi), led a predominantly nomadic way of life, moving through the steppe expanses: from the Volga region to the Dnieper region. VNTatishchev believed that "Alans" or "Alain" is not the name of a tribe, but a prefix of Sarmatian origin, which means a people or a country. So, "the Finns call the Germans Saxoline, the Swedes Roxoline, the Russian Venelain, themselves Sumalain." G.V. Vernadsky gives a clearer differentiation. He calls Alans only the eastern "Ases" (Aso-Iranians, Ossetians), and associates the Western Ases-Slavs with "Ants."

It is highly probable that the Ases-Alans are related to the Ases-Trojans from the "Younger Edda", because it says that the capital of Odin "Asgard" before his resettlement to the north, to the "country of the Saxons", was in Asia Minor, in the "country of the Turks." V. Shcherbakov puts forward a hypothesis that in the 111-11th centuries BC, the Ases lived in the area of \u200b\u200bmodern Ashgabat (translated into Russian "the city of Ases"). It was there, in the archaeological excavations of Old Nisa, the spiritual center of Parthia, that Shcherbakov discovered the architectural embodiment of Valhalla.

In the time of Strabo, the Roxalans lived between Tanais and Borysthenes. The ancient geographer calls them "the last of the known Scythians" and tells about the participation of the Roxalans in the war with the Persian leader Mithridates, the founder of the state of Pontus. The Roxalans came to the aid of the Scythian king Palak, the son of Skilur. They led a large army, numbering about 50,000, but the barbarians could not resist the well-armed and trained army of Mithridates and were defeated.

In the II century BC. e. Ases-Alans reappeared in Crimea, having entered into confrontation with the Bosporus state of the Scythians. The Alans formed powerful tribal clans and military alliances, including with the Eastern Slavs, the ancestors of the Rus (rukhs-as), who became known to the Western world during the era of the great conquests of the IV-V centuries.

Following the Alans, the Goths began to move from Scandinavia to the Black Sea region. According to the Gothic historian Jordan (VI century), his ancestors, before the division into "Ostrogoths" and "Wezego-tov" (ie, eastern and western), were one whole. Outlining the lineage of the Goths, Jordan connects it with the "genealogy of the Anses", which goes back to Gapt. Professor of the University of London, orientalist L. Waddell builds a genealogy of the Goths (Gutei), Indo-Aryan semi-nomadic tribes of the III-II millennium BC, known in ancient Mesopotamia as the Hutts and Hittites. In this regard, it is interesting to trace the connection between the Goths and the Getae tribe. Before the war of the Persian king Darius against the Scythians (543 BC), they lived in the lower Danube. They came here, led by the leader Berebista, ruined Thrace, Illyria and the Celts. While living in Dacia, the Getae mixed with the local tribes. According to Strabo, the Getae and Dacians spoke the same language and acted in alliance with the Germans against the Romans.

After the incorporation of the possessions of the Getae into the Western Empire, tribes of the Goths appeared in the Northern Black Sea region, which settled the territories between the Don and the Dniester, and created their colonies in the Crimea. By the middle of the 3rd century, they mastered the maritime business and began to raid the southeastern possessions of Rome. In 267, the Goths made a major military expedition to the west together with the Heruls, a related tribe that settled along the lower Don in the area of \u200b\u200bthe captured Greek colony of Tanais. They built five hundred boats, crossed the Bosphorus, attacked Athens and Cornif, capturing many trophies.

Archaeological excavations show that the Black Sea Goths adopted a lot from the Alans, with whom they were in good-neighborly relations (style of clothing, applied arts, names). Hellenistic culture had a great influence on them. The educated part of the Goths used a writing based on the Greek alphabet. The Azov and Crimean Goths were the first in southern Russia to adopt Christianity in its "Arian" interpretation (the followers of the Alexandrian priest Arius denied the consubstantiality of Jesus Christ and God the Father who created him). The Gothic Bishop Theophilus took part in the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325, where the Creed was discussed. Another Goth bishop, Ulfilah, who adhered to Arianism, translated at the end of the 4th century into a Hellenized version of the Gothic language of the Gospel. The Gothic diocese in Crimea had a significant influence. This is evidenced by many historical monuments: archaeological excavations, church and state documents. At the end of the 4th-beginning of the 5th centuries St. John Chrysostom maintained relations with the Gothic diocese in Crimea, who sent the Orthodox bishop Unil there. Gradually, the Eastern Goths switched to the Orthodox Orthodox confession of the Christian faith.

The Gothic commander Germanarich (350-370) became famous for his outstanding military exploits, whom some authors even compare with Alexander the Great. Germanarikh first conquered the Heruls in the Azov region, then took possession of the Bosporus kingdom, subdued the Sklavens, Ants and part of the Wends, then marched with his victorious army on a great campaign: from the Baltic Sea he descended down the Volga by water, and then, having entered the Caspian Sea, crossed Caucasus Mountains to the eastern possessions of the Byzantine Empire. According to the Jordanian Chronicle, the Gothic leader Germanarich conquered more than ten tribes (among them Chud, all, Meria, Mordovians, Rogues), and his empire stretched from the Black Sea to the Baltic.

IN AND. Vernadsky notes "the close relationship between the Goths and the Slavs in southern Russia." In his opinion, it lasted from the end of the second to the end of the fourth century, which was imprinted in names, titles, applied art. New information in this area can be obtained by examining the relationship between the ancestors of the Germans and the Slavs in a more ancient period. Among the aristocracy of tribes related to the Goths (Getae, Hutts, Hatuaries and Cherusci), we meet such Slavic names as Segimer, Devdorig, Ukromira. The Greeks considered the Getae to be Thracians, since they were related to the inhabitants of the northeastern part of the Balkans and the western coast of Asia Minor, which was once a single whole with the Balkan Peninsula.

In ancient sources, we also find a mention of the tribe of rugs (horns, russes). They settled in the lower reaches of the Odra, in Central Europe, in Northern Italy, where the Roman province of Noric was located. In a document of 307, the Rugi are designated among the federates of the empire. According to the historian A.G. Kuzmin, the rugs came here from the Baltic States, where they had to endure a hard struggle with the Goths. Numerous variants of the name of Western Rugov-Rus (Ruzi, Ruzzi, Rusci, Ruzeni, Ruhhia, Russia, Ruthenia) from medieval authors indicate that they entered the arena of world history long before the appearance of Kievan and Novgorod Rus, and their participation in Western campaigns of the barbarians.

V. Shcherbakov put forward a hypothesis about the origin of the Rus from the Thracian tribe of Odris, whose state existed on the banks of the Danube in the 5th-4th centuries. BC. In the first century A.D. about 150 thousand horsemen and foot soldiers from Thrace migrated to the northeast, to the Dnieper region, where archaeologists found hundreds of treasures with Roman legionnaires' awards. Thrace, located on the Balkan Peninsula northeast of Greece, was inhabited by many different tribes. All their names are unknown, but history has preserved the names of the most famous Thracians - Ares, Dionysus, Orpheus. The Odris state flourished under King Si-talk (440-424 BC). Then it stretched from the Danube to Strimon and was part of the so-called "Little Scythia". In the III century. BC e. Thrace came under the rule of the Celts, and then - Alexander the Great. A.D. 46. Thrace became a Roman province. In ancient times, Thrace was called Samothrace or Samos, and in the Middle Ages, the Slavic prince Samo (623-658) became famous, who defeated the Avars, defeated the Franks and created a powerful state on the Middle Danube, where he ruled for 35 years.

It is also known that one of the Macedonian kings who conquered Thrace was named Rhea. Was it a name or a title (Rex)? Strabo mentions names of the same root: the river Rhea in Troas, the Thracian king Resa, the province of Rhetia. The Reths lived north of the Apennine Peninsula at the foot of the Rheti Mountains, next to the Vendelics and Noriks. Strabo writes that these warlike tribes raided not only the Italians, but also the Germans. Noriki, as we know from The Tale of Bygone Years, were Slavs. And who was the origin of the reta-rugui and is it legitimate to mix them up? These important questions for us have not yet been sufficiently studied, and we will return to them in one of the next studies.

The tribes of Wends (Wends) lived mainly in the north, off the coast of the Baltic Sea, east of Odra. But we also know the Adriatic Venetia (Venice), which included Crozia, Bosnia and the Ragusa Republic, together numbering about 50 cities. How are they related to the Wends of the north? Some scholars consider the Wends to be relatives of the Vandals, the Germanic-Celtic tribes that lived between the Odro and Vistula up to the Carpathians and the upper Danube. Others are the ancestors of the Western Slavs, modern Poles, Czechs, Slovenes and Croats. Still others find connections with the ancient Antes, the East Slavic tribe "Vantit" (ancestors of the Vyatichi) and "Vans", which are mentioned in the "Younger Edda". Each of the authors brings their own arguments, and sometimes it is difficult to immediately figure out where they are supported by real facts, and where by speculation. We know from Scandinavian legends that the Ases fought with the Vani for a long time (their history goes back centuries and, possibly, is connected with the Vani kingdom in Urartu). Then they made peace and exchanged hostages. So the Vanir Njord and Freyr became aces. According to the Yngling Saga, the Ases lived at that time (shortly before our era) east of the Don (Tanakvis-la or Vanavikslya), and their rivals, the Vans, lived at the mouth of the same river. Then the Aesir, together with a part of the Vanir, began to move to the north-west, forming new cities and states there.

The Veneds of Tacitus (57-117) live next to the Finns. According to the description of the Roman historian, they outwardly resemble the Germans who mixed with the Sarmatians. The Venets living on the Adriatic coast are anthropologically similar to the Rus. Their language ("Ve-net" based on the Greek alphabet of the 5th-1st centuries BC), according to some scholars, is "unreadable", but according to others, it belongs to West Slavic. Jordan considered the Venets to be the ancestors of the Slavs. He writes: "Although now their names change depending on different genera and habitats, mostly they (Venets) are all called Slavs and Antas."

On the famous Peutinger map dating back to the first centuries AD, the Wends are located between the Danube and the Dniester, right up to the Black Sea. The prominent German anthropologist of the 20th century, Hans F.K. Gunther, calls these tribes vandals and moves them even further east, to the lower reaches of the Dnieper, where the Russians moved from Thrace and where by the 4th century an alliance of the Antes was formed. The German scientist considered them Germans, and the Russian historian V.N. Tatishchev - Slavs. He was convinced that the German part of the Vandals moved from north to west, and the Slavic part to the east.

The Croatian educator of the late 15th century Mavro Orbini gives a broad interpretation of the name of the vandals in his famous book "The Origin of the Slavs". Relying on numerous ancient and medieval authors, in particular the book "Vandalia" by Alberto Cranzia, Orbini argued that "the Vandals and the Slavs were one people." "Vandals had not one, but several different names, namely: Vandals, Wends, Wends, Genets, Veneti, Vinites, Slavs, and finally, Shafts." Speaking in modern scientific language, Orbini considered the Vandals (Wends) to be a superethnos that included several tribes, as was the case among the Greeks, Romans, Scythians, Varangians, and Pomors.

History has preserved many testimonies and legends about the vandals, which are partly fantastic, and partly reflect the historical truth. Among the Poles, a legend is spread about the origin of their people from Prince Vandal, by whom the Vistula River was formerly called. The Russian chronicles have preserved the legend about Vandal, the "Tsar of Novgorod", the son of Sloven, the ancestor of the Slavs.

In modern science, it is customary to call vandals only those Germanized tribes of northern and central Europe that invaded the Roman Empire together with the Alans and Suevians, and the Wends (Vendians) - the ancestors of the North-Western Slavs, but we will see that this scheme is artificial.

In connection with the history of the Alans and Vandals, it is appropriate to say a few words about the sueves, swabians. In the first centuries A.D. we find them in eastern Europe: in the upper reaches of the Vistula and in the western Carpathian region. According to Gibbon, the Suevi were a very large tribe living alongside the Lombards, Cherusci and Hutts. Their name spread to all inhabitants of the interior regions of Germany - from the banks of the Oder to the banks of the Danube. They differed from the Germans in a special manner of combing back their long hair. In 58 BC. the army of the Sueves (including the Quads and the Marcomans), led by Ariovistus, was defeated by Julius Caesar.

Where did they come from to the Vistula and Danube? Maybe from Sweden? Yes, from Sweden, from “Great Sweden”, a description of which we find in “The Earth's Circle” by Snorri Sturluson and which is worth citing in full: “To the North of the Black Sea is Great, or Cold Sweden. Some believe that Great Sweden is no less than the Great Land of the Saracens, and some equate it with the Great Land of Black People. The northern part of Sweden is deserted due to frost and cold, as the southern part of the Country of Black People is deserted due to the heat of the sun. There are many large areas in Sweden. There are also many different peoples and languages. There are giants, dwarfs, and black people, and many different amazing peoples. There are also huge beasts and dragons there. From the north, from the mountains outside the inhabited places, a river flows through Sweden, the correct name of which is Tanais. It used to be called Tanakwisl, or Vanakwisl. It flows into the Black Sea. The area at its mouth was then called the land of the Vanir, or the dwelling of the Vanir. This river shares a third of the world. The one to the east is called Asia, and the one to the west is called Europe. "

Why, this is Russia! The "Circle of the Earth" describes the great waterway "from the Varangians to the Greeks", which the Russians mastered, gradually pushing the steppe tribes to the east. The fact that this path has been known from time immemorial is evidenced by the "Saga of the Ynglings". It tells how Njord's son, Freyr, traveled to the "country of the Turks" from "Little Sweden" (that is, Scandinavia). Here he stayed for five years and met many relatives. Frey married a wife named Wang, from whom was born the son of Wanlandi. "

Another curious detail about the barbaric "Sweden" we find in the author of the Old Norse essay "Giant Nations": "In Great Sweejord there are Albanians who are white as snow, and the color of their hair and skin, until they grow old, they have golden eyes and they see better at night than during the day. There is a land called Quennaland. These women live next to the Albanians and are fighting among themselves the same wars as men in other places, and women there are no less smart and strong than men elsewhere. " We know from history that ancient Albania (from the 1st millennium BC to the 10th century AD) was indeed located in the Caucasus, at the mouth of the Kir (Kuma) and Terek rivers. The fact that it is now located on the western coast of the Balkan Peninsula only confirms the general logic of our study. Masculine women are easily recognizable as famous Amazons. They really lived in the Caucasus and, according to some scholars, were one of the ancestors of the Sarmatians and Slavs.

These were the most famous tribes of barbarians from Eastern Europe who took part in the conquest of Rome. We could also add valuable information about the Lombards, Gepids, Burgundians, Cherusci, Bastars, but for this work, what has been said is sufficient.

THE BARBARIANS CONQUER THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Eastern Europe has always lived a distinctive life. Rome managed to subordinate to its influence only that part of it that was most closely adjacent to the borders of the Empire, which passed along the Danube and Oder. But this border has always been more than hectic. Barbarians constantly reminded of their will to independence and invaded the Empire. Sometimes they won major military victories, sometimes the Roman authorities managed to hold back the onslaught from the northeast. Until the 4th century A.D. the barbarians were not able to shake the foundations of Rome, surpass its state power, qualitatively change the borders. Major changes began after hordes of warlike Huns appeared in the east, shaking the entire ancient world.

In 370, the Huns, pressed from the east by a large army of nomads called "Geugi", attacked the Alans, who were vying for influence in the Black Sea region with the Goths. Some of the Goths and Alans were defeated, and some rushed westward in an effort to preserve the remaining forces and conquer new lands. This set in motion the entire south-east of Europe.

Under the pressure of the Huns, the Alans invaded the Balkans. Here they won a number of brilliant victories and formed an alliance with the Vandals, Suevi and Burgundians for a joint struggle against Rome. The army was led by the leader of the Vandals, Radigast (Radogais). Its vanguard consisted of 12,000 professional warriors, led by generals of noble birth. All in all, Radigast's forces numbered between 200,000 and 400,000, if you count the women and slaves who joined his army during the mass resettlement from the shores of the Baltic and Danube. In 406, barbarians attacked northern Italy, where they plundered and destroyed many cities, including Florence. Radigast reached almost the very gates of Rome, where he died, leaving his army to complete the work begun.

Radigast, whose name some authors associate with the well-known deity of encouragement (invigorating) Rado-Gost, described by us in connection with the Mithraic cult in the temple center of Retra, terrified the citizens of the empire. It was believed that the northern leader pledged a solemn oath "to turn Rome into a heap of stones and ashes and to sacrifice the most noble Roman senators on the altars of those gods who can only be propitiated by human blood." The Romans knew the names of the barbarian gods - Odin and Thor, and they believed that Radigast was fulfilling their will.

From northern Italy, the barbarians headed west. Having passed a military campaign across all of Europe, the united troops of Alans, Vandals and Suevi under the leadership of King Guntherih, the son of Go-dogizel, crossed the Pyrenees in 409 and entered Spain. Here they took advantage of the support of the military leader Gerontius, who rebelled against the metropolis, defeated the armed forces of the Romans and established their power.

VN Tatishchev draws attention to the participation of the Slavs in the conquest of Spain. Referring to the chronicle of Gottofred, he writes: “The vandals with their king Ra-dogost in 200,000 in Italy launched an attack, in Gishpania their glorious king Gonsorok. And these names of kings are enough evidence to be the Slavs, because the name Radegast is the most Slavic, and all the Slavs revered the idol of Radegast. " The Latinists called the leader of the Vandals Gonsorok Gunderich. In Russian, Gonsorok means "gosling".

G.V. Vernadsky also considers the victories of the Vandals and Alans over Western Rome to be an important event in Russian history. " “As we know,” writes an outstanding researcher, “it was the Alanian clans that organized the Slavic tribes of the Antes, and we can assume that there were Ant (Aso-Slava) and Russian (Rukhs-As) formations even in the Western Alanian horde. The Western expansion of the Alans was thus, in a sense, the first Russian invasion of Europe. "

Having conquered the Iberian Peninsula, the barbarians distributed its territory as follows: the Alans occupied Lusitania (modern Portugal) and Cartagena (part of central and southeastern Spain), the Suevi - Galicia (northwest of the peninsula), the Vandals - Beticu (modern Andalusia ). The victors of the Romans did not completely control the listed territories, the boundaries of their possessions were mobile, changing depending on the rearrangement of forces, but the barbarians were able to establish their settlements and fortresses in the Pyrenees. A medieval geographer from Ravenna mentions the name of the city of England, which testifies to the colonization of Spain by the Alans-Antae, and the name of the southern province of Andalusia still retains the name of the Vandal tribe (according to another version, Alans from the Arabic Alandaluz).

No sooner had the new masters established themselves in the Pyrenees, than the West Goths attacked them. New invaders came from the Danube and northern Italy, and invaded directly from Gaul at the request of Rome, which readily supported its former enemies with troops. Vandals and Alans, pressed by the Goths, began to gradually retreat to the south.

In 428, 80 thousand Alans and Vandals, led by King Geyserich, crossed the Strait of Gibraltar to North Africa. They took advantage of the help of the local governor Boniface, who was in conflict with the imperial house. As a result, the barbarians captured Carthage without great losses and established a new kingdom there. Old Carthage, pampered in luxury and excesses, was known throughout the world for its vicious morals. An anonymous chronicler calls it "a cesspool where outstanding vices of all countries have accumulated." The barbarians built on the ruins of "African Rome" practically a new city, where churches of the Arian faith, schools, gymnasiums, and theaters were opened. Geyserich established strict orders in Carthage, pursuing the vices of the depraved population. The vandals, it turns out, adhered to very strict morals. As Christians, they "fasted, prayed, and carried the Gospel in front of the army, perhaps with the aim of reproaching their opponents for treachery and sacrilege."

Merchants and seafarers who came to the capital of North Africa were amazed at the sight of tall, fair-haired and blue-eyed "Berbers" (the Arabic version of the word for barbarians), who made an amazing journey during one generation: from the northern coast of the Black Sea to the southern shores of the Mediterranean. The warriors of Geiserich built a new harbor and created their own fleet. Having mastered the tactics of naval combat, they made several victorious raids: they conquered Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily. In 455, the Vandals captured Rome, which shortly before, in 410, was attacked by the West Goths. The name Geyserich was known throughout the empire, and he won the right to be called one of the most prominent leaders of the barbarians. The militant state of the Vandals existed in North Africa until the 6th century, until it exhausted its strength and was defeated by the Emperor Justinian with the help of the Byzantine fleet.

After the invasion of the Huns, the Goths also embarked on a major military campaign to the west. Having crossed the Danube, the Goths invaded Moesia (present-day Bulgaria), then attacked the Roman troops near Adrianople and captured the Balkan Peninsula. In the early 5th century, the West Goths, led by Alaric, entered Italy, capturing Rome in 410. The barbarians did not immediately succeed in gaining a foothold in the Apennines. This happened only after the rise of the power of the Huns, whose wars of conquest changed the balance of power in Europe.

At the end of the IV century. The Huns marched victoriously across the Northern Black Sea region, crossed the Danube, occupied Moesia and Thrace, and then camped in a convenient valley between the Danube and the Tisza, on the territory of modern Hungary. The most famous leader of the Huns was Attila, who subjugated almost all of Europe to his will. However, he was not the first known Hunnic leader. Attila was the nephew of Rugilas (Roas). Having achieved considerable power, Rugilas entered into negotiations with the Western Empire, which was facilitated by his personal friendship with Aetius. The diplomatic relations of the Huns with the Romans were carried out through the ambassador Eslav. However, the peace negotiations were interrupted by the unexpected death of Rugilas. The throne was inherited by two nephews: Attila and Bleda, who began a new stage in the struggle with Rome.

Attila was the son of Mundzuk and traced his noble ancestry to the White Huns who had once fought China. Contemporaries who saw Attila say that the features of his face and his entire appearance bore an imprint of Asian, perhaps Mongolian, origin. The leader of the Huns was well-mannered, self-possessed, modest, noble, intelligent and courageous. In addition to his native language, he spoke Greek, understood Gothic and Latin, lived in a beautiful wooden palace, with halls for receptions and feasts, with comfortable bedrooms and baths. In his palace, Attila was surrounded by a retinue of outstanding military leaders, wives, musicians and poets, as evidenced by the ambassadors of the Romans who left detailed descriptions. Of the wives of the Hunnic leader, the most famous were Queen Cherka, who received ambassadors, and the beautiful Honoria, whose image was preserved on one of the ancient seals. Attila's ambassadors were a noble native of Pannonia, Orestes, and the brave leader of the Skyrrians (Scythians) Edekon. The king of the Huns was kind to his closest entourage, but irreconcilable towards opponents. For his severity and cruelty, which sometimes led to mass executions, Attila was nicknamed "the scourge of God", which he was very proud of. There is also a legend about the altar of the Hunnic leader, where the ritual sword of the god of war Ares (Mars) was placed on the altar. The altar was annually consecrated with the blood of animals, and, possibly, of prisoners.

Historians claim that extensive possessions were under the rule of Attila: from Scythia to Germany. There is evidence that his warriors reached the banks of the Volga in the east, to Scandinavia and the Baltic in the north, to Gaul in the west. When Attila planned a great campaign against Rome and, for tactical reasons, first went to Gaul, he managed to gather an army of 500,000 people, and according to other sources even more. In 451, the famous "Battle of the Nations" took place at Chalon (on the Catalaun fields between the Seine and the Loire, not far from Paris). On the side of Attila, the rugs subject to him fought, Heruls, Gepids, Franks, Burgundians. Against the Ost-Goths, who defended the empire, he placed their kindred West Goths. The Alans were on the side of Aetius. The "Battle of the Nations" was bloody (the number of those killed ranged from 162,000 to 300,000), but it did not lead to a clear victory for either side. Having lost a significant part of the army, Attila was forced to retreat.

Attila died two years later, at his wedding, as if he had drunk a lot of wine. There is reason to believe that he was poisoned, for a conspiracy network had long been woven against the leader of the Huns. After the death of Attila, his powerful state disintegrated: the Germanic tribes subject to the leader became independent, part of the Slavic tribes, under the leadership of his youngest son, settled on the Danube and formed the Bulgarian people, and the East Slavic tribes went beyond the Dniester, where they spread from the Dnieper to the Volga and the Caucasus mountains. Among the heirs of Attila, the leader of the Skirrians, Edekon, still held an honorable place. He continued an unequal struggle with the Ost-Goths, which ended in the defeat of his troops. Skirr left two sons - Onulf and Odoacer (431-493).

Tall, brave and educated Odoacer (there is evidence that by origin he was a friend or led their squad) won many victories with his army, assembled among the barbarians of Noriki, where many Slavs lived (Nestor writes in the Tale of Bygone Years, that "noriki are the Slavs"). The Romans took the famous commander to their service. Becoming the commander of the army of the Romans and the governor of the emperor, Odoacer usurped power and in 476 deposed Romulus Augustulus (according to other sources, Julius Nepos). Odoacer sent the emperor's insignia to Constantinople, to the emperor Zeno, and for himself demanded the right to rule Spain with the title of patrician.

The baton of power in the Eastern Roman metropolis was taken over by Theodoric (493-526), \u200b\u200bthe king of the Ostrogoths, who was in the service of Byzantium. About one hundred thousand barbarians invaded the Apennines, killed Odoacer and settled throughout the Apennine Peninsula, creating a new capital in the north in Ravenna. Many monuments remind of that era: the royal mausoleum, mosaics depicting the "Palatium", Theodoric himself and his entourage, the philosophical works of the "last Roman" Boethius. Theodoric pursued a policy of rapprochement between the Ostrogothic and Roman nobility.

The Goths came to Spain from Gaul, where they had previously conquered part of the land. Having invaded the Pyrenees, they drove the Alans and Vandals to the south, entered into a treaty with the Suevi and began to create their own statehood. The founder of the West Gothic state was King Ataulf, who belonged to the Baltic dynasty. Western scholars consider this dynasty of Germanic origin, although among the West Gothic kings there are many names of a non-Germanic root (Valia, Agila, Liuva, Tulga, Vamba, Vititsa, Akhila, Silo, etc.). G.V. Vernadsky drew attention to the Slavic names of some Gothic kings in Eastern Europe. The heir of Germanarich was called Vitemir, his grandson was called Vidimer, and the name of his brother was Valamir (Slavic Velemir). This, according to the scientist, was not an accidental coincidence, but a natural process of mutual influence of the Balts and Slavs, who were in close cooperation at that time.

After the division of the Empire into Western and Eastern, Rome began to gradually decline, and Byzantium began to strengthen its position, grow rich and expand its possessions. Byzantium reached its greatest territorial grandeur in the 6th century under the emperor Justinian (482-565). Having ascended the throne in 527, he declared war on the barbarians and "Arianism": he conquered the North coast of Africa, Sicily, part of Italy and Spain, built a system of fortress walls on the Danube border, and built the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople itself.

The vandals put up strong resistance to the emperor's troops, but the forces were unequal - in 534 Carthage was subordinated to the rule of Justinian. The local nobility was curtailed in rights. The Byzantine order began to be implanted everywhere, Orthodoxy supplanted Arianism, the dissatisfied were executed or sent into slavery. Then the barbarians, inspired by the Arian priests, tried to revolt. It was led by a warrior named Stotza. Escaping from the ship with 400 other vandals, he first attracted 8 thousand insurgents to his side, and then 2/3 of the army, uniting all those dissatisfied with Justinian's policy.

The emperor brutally cracked down on the uprising and carried out punitive operations. Before him, the number of the Vandal army was about 160 thousand people, and after his regime, only a tenth of it remained. A significant part of the white population fled to Sicily, Constantinople and Spain. For some one and a half or two centuries, the once flourishing city became depopulated. Summing up the results of Byzantine policy in the former state of the Vandals, a contemporary of those events, Procopius, testifies that Justinian's wars cost North Africa about five million people.

Justinian pursued a no less harsh policy in relation to the Eastern Slavs, who more and more insistently declared their strength. The Veneds, who came to the Black Sea region from the northwest, drove the Goths back in the 4th century. In the lower reaches of the Dnieper and the Southern Bug, a powerful alliance of the Antes is taking shape. New Slavic-speaking tribes: Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Slovenes appeared after the invasion of the Huns. They were nicknamed the Sklavins. In Byzantium they knew about the existence of these tribes, whose villages stretched in thousands on the outskirts of northern rivers. The chronicles say that the Slavic warriors worship the Supreme Thunderer (Perun), that they fight on foot and almost naked, without any protective armor, except for shields. They armed themselves with swords, spears, bows and ropes, with which they pulled the enemy into a noose.

In 558, the united army of the Slavs crossed the Danube and invaded the Balkans. Having defeated the Eastern Romans, the barbarians penetrated into Thrace and Illyria. The army of the leader Zavergan, numbering about 3 thousand, approached Constantinople itself. Faced with the superior forces of the enemy, ready to fight to the death, the barbarians used the most cruel military measures against the Byzantines: they burned them in houses along with utensils, impaled prisoners, and staged mass executions. The Byzantines suffered huge losses, and they only managed to stop Zavergan by cunning, paying him a huge tribute.

After this dramatic experience, Justinian did everything possible to prevent the rise of the Slavs and stop their further advance south. With the help of diplomacy, he began to pit one Slavic tribe against another. When the northerners exhausted their strength in the internecine war, a large tribe of Avars (Obrov), of Turkic origin, fell on them from the East at the prompting of the Byzantines. The warlike Avars marched with their cavalry through the Volga, Don, Dnieper, Bug, subjugating the tribes that got in their way. This is how the Avar Kaganate was formed. In the west, he contributed to the emergence of the Kingdom of Hungary, the heir to the Huns' state, and in the east - to the Khazar Kaganate with the center of Itil, at the mouth of the Volga. But this is a separate story related to the beginning of the Christian era in Eastern Europe.

LITERATURE:

G.V. Vernadsky Ancient Russia. M., 1996.

Herodotus. History. M., 1993.

Gibbon E. The history of the decline and destruction of the Great Roman Empire. M., 1997, t. 1-7.

Ivanov A.M. History of the Venets. - National Democracy. 1995, no. 1.

Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. SPb., 1818, vol. 1.

Klassen E.I. New materials for the ancient history of the Slavs in general and the Slavic-Rus of the Doryurik time in particular. M., 1854.

Kuzmin A.G. The fall of Perun. M., 1988.

Melnikova E.N. Ancient Scandinavian geographical writings. M., 1986.

Younger Edda. M., 1994.

A. Nechvolodov, The Legend of the Russian Land. M., 1997, vol. 1.

The collection of the oldest written information about the Slavs. M., 1994, vol. 1.

Scythians. Reader. Comp. Kuznetsova T.M. M., 1992.

Strabo. Geography. M., 1994.

Tatishchev V.N. Russian history. M., 1994.

Shcherbakov V. Asgard and Van. - Roads of millennia. M., 1989.

Gunter Hans F.K. The Racial Elements of European History. London, 1927.

Waddel L.A. The Makers of Civilization. Race and History. California, 1929.