Prince Oleg's campaigns against Byzantium. Oleg's campaign against Constantinople: description, history and consequences Oleg's campaign against Constantinople

Few people have not heard the phrase: “The Prophetic Oleg nailed his shield on the gates of Constantinople.” What does it mean?

We are talking about the famous campaign of Prince Oleg to (Constantinople), which he carried out in 907. A detailed mention of the campaign is contained in the Tale of Bygone Years.

So, in 907, Prince Oleg, having gathered a huge army, moved to Constantinople. Oleg’s squad included not only Slavs, but also numerous representatives of Finno-Ugric peoples. Versions about the purpose of the campaign vary. Among them, the predominant ones are: strengthening the position of Rus', rich booty and protecting the interests of Russian merchants.

The army moved both by sea, on ships, and by land - on horses. The size of the army can be judged by the fact that the flotilla consisted of approximately two thousand ships, each of which could accommodate at least 40 warriors.

Oleg and his squad approached without hindrance. The Byzantines, frightened by the power of the Russian army, did not dare to fight on the outskirts of the city. They locked themselves in the citadel, preparing for defense.

Oleg's fleet was unable to sail to the city because the Greeks blocked the bay with a chain. It was then that the cunning Oleg put his flotilla on wheels and, with a fair wind, moved it under sail overland to the gates of the city.

At the sight of this spectacle, the Greeks gave up resistance in horror, deciding to pay off Oleg with a rich tribute.

The loot was huge. In addition to the constant tribute imposed on Byzantium, the frightened Greeks were forced to pay a considerable amount of money in a one-time payment. So each soldier in the squad was paid 12 hryvnia - a fabulous sum at that time. Separate payments were made in favor of the princes of Kyiv, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Polotsk, Rostov, Lyubech and other cities.

An agreement was concluded to protect the interests of Russian merchants in Byzantium. To commemorate the victory, the prince hung a shield on the city gates.

It was after returning from this campaign to Kyiv that the people called him Prophetic.

It should be noted that not all historians recognize the fact of this campaign. The fact is that, apart from the ancient Russian chronicles, this campaign is not mentioned in any Byzantine or other source. Lev Gumilyov, for example, defended the hypothesis according to which information about the campaign of 907 should be attributed to events in 860. It is assumed that the inconsistency in historical sources is due to incorrect dating in the Tale of Bygone Years.

Capture of Kyiv

March on Byzantium

Historiography according to Prophetic Oleg

Oleg (Prophetic Oleg, other Russian Olg, mind. 912 or 922) - Varangian, prince of Novgorod (from 879) and Kiev (from 882). Often considered as the founder of the Old Russian state.

The chronicle gives his nickname Prophetic, that is, knowing the future, foreseeing the future. It was named so immediately after returning from the 907 campaign against Byzantium.

Origin of Oleg

In the chronicles there are two versions of Oleg’s biography: the traditional one, set out in the “Tale of Bygone Years”, and according to the Novgorod First Chronicle, which preserved fragments of an earlier chronicle (which has not survived to this day) with confusion in chronology.

According to the Tale of Bygone Years, Oleg was a relative (tribesman) of Rurik, possibly his brother-in-law (according to the Joachim Chronicle). After Rurik's death in 879, Oleg began to reign in Novgorod, since Rurik's son Igor was still a child.

According to the Norman theory, the supposed Scandinavian etymology of the name argues in favor of the Scandinavian origin of Oleg. The Russian pronunciation of the name Oleg probably originated from the Scandinavian name Helgi, which means “dedicated to the gods.” In the Scandinavian sagas there are also similar-sounding names Ole, Oleif, Ofeig.

In Slavic languages the names Oleg (Oley) (Czech in 1088), Olek (Welek), place names Ologast, Wolegast, Wolgast, etc. are recorded. In Russian epics the name Volga or Volkh.

In the Italic languages there was a name Olegarius, derived from ancient German names.

There is a version that Oleg’s name has Turkic roots. Thus, in an ancient Bulgarian inscription from 904, the title of the Byzantine emperor is used as “olgu tarkan,” where olgu means great.

Historian E. S. Galkina speculates about Oleg’s origins from Alan Rus in the Baltic: “It is possible that the Kyiv princes Oleg the Prophet and Igor belonged to Alan Rus in the Baltic. At least, the closest linguistic parallel to the name Oleg is not the “Norman” Helgu, but the Iranian Khaleg.”

Capture of Kyiv

In 882 Oleg undertook successful campaigns against Smolensk and Lyubech. After that, he went down the Dnieper to Kyiv, where the princes were Rurik’s fellow tribesmen, the Varangians Askold and Dir. Oleg lured them to his boats and announced to them:

“You are not a prince, nor a prince of a kind, but I am a prince of a kind.”

Presenting Rurik's heir, young Igor, Oleg killed Askold and Dir.

The Nikon Chronicle, a compilation of various 16th-century sources, gives a more detailed account of this capture. Oleg landed part of his squad ashore, discussing a secret plan of action. Having declared himself ill, he remained in the boat and sent a notice to Askold and Dir that he was carrying a lot of beads and jewelry, and also had an important conversation with the princes. When they climbed into the boat, it was as if the sick Oleg said: “ I am Oleg the prince, and here I am Rurikov Igor the prince- and immediately killed Askold and Dir.

The location of Kyiv seemed very convenient to Oleg, and he moved there with his squad, declaring: “ May Kyiv be the mother of Russian cities" Thus, he united the northern and southern centers of the Eastern Slavs. For this reason, it is Oleg, and not Rurik, who is sometimes considered the founder of the Old Russian state.

For the next 25 years, Oleg was busy expanding his power. He subjugated the Drevlyans, Northerners, and Radimichi to Kyiv. The last two tribal unions were tributaries of the Khazars. According to legend, Oleg allegedly said: “ I am their enemy, but I have no enmity with you. Don't give to the Khazars, but pay me" Then Oleg annexed the lands of the southernmost of the East Slavic tribes - the Ulichs and Tivertsi.

The Tale of Bygone Years dates the year 898 to the appearance of Hungarians near Kiev during their migration to the west. According to the Hungarian chronicle, Prince Almos defeated the unnamed Russian prince (obviously Oleg), besieged him in Kyiv and agreed to leave only after the Rus paid him a ransom of 10 thousand marks in silver.

March on Byzantium

In 907, Oleg went on a large military campaign to Constantinople (Constantinople). According to the Tale of Bygone Years, 2,000 rooks of 40 warriors each took part in the campaign. The Byzantine Emperor Leo the Philosopher gave the order to close the gates of the city and block the harbor with chains, thus giving the Varangians the opportunity to rob and plunder the suburbs of Constantinople. However, Oleg launched an assault in an unusual way: “And Oleg ordered his soldiers to make wheels and put ships on wheels. And when a fair wind blew, they raised sails in the field and went to the city.” The frightened Greeks offered Oleg peace and tribute. According to the agreement, Oleg received 12 hryvnia for each rowlock, in addition, Constantinople promised to pay tribute to Russian cities. As a sign of victory, Oleg nailed his shield to the gates of Constantinople. The main result of the campaign was the conclusion of a trade agreement that ensured freedom of duty-free trade for Russian merchants.

Some modern historians consider the campaign itself to be legendary, since there is not a single mention of it by Byzantine authors, who describe similar campaigns in sufficient detail in 860 and 941. There are also doubts about the treaty of 907, the text of which is an almost verbatim compilation of the treaties of 911 and 944. Apparently the campaign still took place, but without the siege of Constantinople. The Tale of Bygone Years, in its description of Igor Rurikovich’s campaign in 944, reports the words of the Byzantine king to Prince Igor: “Do not go, but take the tribute that Oleg took, and I will add more to that tribute.”

In 911, Oleg sent an embassy to Constantinople, which confirmed the “many years” of peace and concluded a new treaty. Compared to the 907 treaty, the mention of duty-free trade disappeared from it. Oleg is referred to in the treaty as the “Grand Duke of Russia.” The authenticity of this agreement is confirmed by a mention from the Byzantine side, and is not subject to doubt by linguistic analysis.

According to the Tale of Bygone Years, in 912, Prince Oleg dies from a snake bite.

Novgorod version of the biography. Oleg's Eastern Campaigns

In the First Novgorod Chronicle, Oleg is presented not as a prince, but as a governor under Igor. Igor also kills Askold, captures Kyiv and goes to war against Byzantium, and Oleg returns back to the north, to Ladoga, where he dies in 922.

This information contradicts the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911, where Oleg is called the Grand Duke of Russia, but at the same time, it is better consistent with eastern news about Rus' of this period (see below).

Somewhere after 912, according to the Arab writer al-Masudi, a Russian fleet of 500 ships entered the Kerch Strait. The Khazar king allowed the Russians to pass through the Don to the Volga, and from there descend into the Caspian Sea. As a result, the Russians ravaged the coast of Azerbaijan. According to the terms of the agreement, they gave half of the spoils to the Khazar king, but the royal guard, consisting of Muslims, demanded revenge for the death of their co-religionists. The Tsar was unable (or did not want) to save the Rus, but sent them a warning about the danger. The battle lasted three days and ended in victory for the Muslims. 30 thousand Rus died. The surviving 5 thousand fled up the Volga, where they were exterminated by the Burtases and Bulgars.

The name of the Russian leader is not mentioned in the message, and the campaign is not mentioned in Russian chronicles. Perhaps a vague hint of him is the phrase of the Novgorod Chronicle about Oleg “others say that he went overseas….

Sometimes they try to connect with the personality of Oleg a certain Russian leader H-l-g-w, who, according to a Khazar source, the so-called “Cambridge Document”, captured the Khazar city of Samkerts on the Taman Peninsula by agreement with Byzantium, but was defeated by the governor of Samkerts Pesach and sent by the latter to Constantinople . The Byzantines burned the Rus' ships with fire, and then H-l-g-w went to Persia, where he and his entire army died. The name H-l-g-w is restored as Helga, Halgo. He is referred to in the document as “the ruler of Russia,” which makes it very tempting to identify him with Oleg. However, the events described relate to the reign of Igor (the Russian campaign against Byzantium coincides in description with the campaign of 941, and the campaign against Persia coincides with the Russian raid in 944 on the Azerbaijani city of Berdaa). In historiography there have been attempts to interpret this message as evidence of the duumvirate of Igor and Oleg, in this case Oleg’s life is extended until the present day. 40s of the 10th century, and the beginning of his reign is supposed to be later than indicated in the chronicle.

Death

The circumstances of the death of Prophetic Oleg are contradictory. According to the Kyiv version (“PVL”), his grave is located in Kyiv on Mount Shchekovitsa. The Novgorod Chronicle places his grave in Ladoga, but also says that he went “over the sea.”

In both versions there is a legend about death from a snake bite. According to legend, the Magi predicted to the prince that he would die from his beloved horse. Oleg ordered the horse to be taken away, and remembered the prediction only four years later, when the horse had long since died. Oleg laughed at the Magi and wanted to look at the bones of the horse, stood with his foot on the skull and said: “Should I be afraid of him?” However, a poisonous snake lived in the horse’s skull, which fatally stung the prince.

This legend finds parallels in the Icelandic saga of the Viking Orvar Odd, who was also fatally stung at the grave of his beloved horse. It is unknown whether the saga became the reason for the invention of the Russian legend about Oleg, or, on the contrary, the circumstances of Oleg’s death served as material for the saga. However, if Oleg is a historical character, then Orvar Odd is the hero of an adventure saga, created on the basis of some oral traditions no earlier than the 13th century. This is how Orvar Odd died:

“And as they walked quickly, Odd kicked and bent down. “What was it that I hit my foot on?” He touched the tip of the spear, and everyone saw that it was the skull of a horse, and immediately a snake rose from it, rushed at Odd and stung him in the leg above the ankle. The poison took effect immediately, and the entire leg and thigh became swollen. Odd was so weak from this bite that they had to help him go to the shore, and when he got there, he said; “You should now go and cut out a stone coffin for me, and let someone stay here sitting next to me and write down the story that I write about my deeds and life.” After that, he began to compose a story, and they began to write it down on a tablet, and as Odd’s path went, so did the story [follows hanging]. And after that Odd dies."

For some time it was customary to identify Oleg with the epic hero Volga Svyatoslavich.

Historiography according to Prophetic Oleg

The date of Oleg’s death, like all chronicle dates of the first millennium of Russian history (the unwritten period), is conditional. Historian A. A. Shakhmatov noted that 912 is also the year of death of the Byzantine emperor Leo VI - Oleg's antagonist; perhaps the chronicler, who knew that Oleg and Leo were contemporaries, timed the end of their reigns to the same date (a similar suspicious coincidence - 945 - between the dates of Igor's death and the overthrow of his contemporary, the Byzantine Emperor Roman I). Considering, moreover, that Novgorod tradition places Oleg’s death in 922 (see above), the date 912 becomes even more doubtful. The duration of the reigns of Oleg and Igor is 33 years each, which raises suspicions about the epic source of this information.

The Polish historian of the 18th century H. F. Friese put forward the version that the Prophetic Oleg had a son, Oleg Moravsky, who, after the death of his father, was forced to leave Rus' as a result of the fight with Prince Igor. A relative of the Rurikovichs, Oleg of Moravia, became the last prince of Moravia in 940, according to the writings of Polish and Czech writers of the 16th-17th centuries, but his family connection with Oleg the Prophet is only Frieze’s assumption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The description of military operations at the walls of Constantinople again raises the question of the actual relationship of the entire chronicle article of 907 to the “legends of deep antiquity” and, even more so, to the “memoirs of the participants in the campaign.” It has been noted, for example, that the story about the robberies and robberies of “Rus” in the vicinity of Constantinople (“and you fought near the city, and committed many murders to the Greeks, and destroyed many chambers, and burned churches; and in their name, the plunderers, some were flogged, others were tormented , some I shot, and others were swept into the sea, and I did a lot of evil to Rus' to the Greeks, as much as they did wars”) is compiled from reports of two Byzantine sources - the Continuator of the Chronicle of George Amartol and the Life of Vasily the New - about the attack on Constantinople by Prince Igor in 941 .( Shakhmatov A. A. “The Tale of Bygone Years” and its sources // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences, IV. M.; L., 1940. S. 54 - 57, 69 - 72). This gave rise to a number of researchers to argue that the 911 treaty “does not have any hint of hostile relations between the Russians and the Greeks” ( Bakhrushin S.V. Works on source study, historiography and history of Russia in the era of feudalism. M., 1987. S. 30 - 31; Tikhomirov M.N. Historical connections of Russia with the Slavic countries and Byzantium. M., 1969. P. 109). There is some truth in these arguments, but it would be wrong to completely deny the authenticity of the chronicle account of the atrocities of the Rus. In medieval and, in particular, Old Russian literature, there are many descriptions of real events using (sometimes verbatim) ancient, biblical, etc. "model" texts ( Bibikov M.V. Byzantine historical prose. M., 1996. S. 30 - 31). Meanwhile, the text of Oleg's treaty retained clear traces of the fact that the swords of the Rus were stained with the blood of the civilian population of the Byzantine Empire. Its “chapters” open with a statement about the end of violence: “At the first word, let us make peace with you, Greeks,” and at preliminary negotiations, Emperors Leo and Alexander demanded that the Russians no longer “do dirty tricks in the villages and in our country.”

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

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

Oleg's treaty with the Greeks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The earliest surviving ancient Russian chronicle to date, “The Tale of Bygone Years,” begins with a story about Prince Oleg’s campaign against the city of Constantinople.

According to this historical document, one part of the prince’s army advanced on horses along the shore, and the other along the sea on two thousand ships, each of which could accommodate forty people. But the text of the Novgorod Chronicle, which, according to some historians, contains more truthful information, tells us not about two thousand ships, but about two hundred.

After this, the description of the campaign begins with the so-called legends about how the Greeks blocked the waterway with chains and that, after some reflection, Prince Oleg ordered all ships to be put on wheels. Then, according to the description in the chronicle, the ships spread their sails and, catching a fair wind, moved to Constantinople. Having seen this unprecedented spectacle, the Greeks were forced to ask the great Russian prince for peace. However, they resorted to a trick and brought him poisoned food and wine, which was not accepted by Oleg.

Then the Greeks agreed to a truce on the terms of the Kyiv prince: a dozen hryvnia for each warrior, as well as making separate payments in favor of the princes of Lyubech, Rostov, Polotsk, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Kyiv and other large cities of Kievan Rus (the city of Novgorod was not included in this list ).

In addition to one-time payments, Byzantium pledged to pay permanent tribute to Kievan Rus. Also, according to the agreement signed with the Greeks, Byzantium allowed Russian merchants to stay and trade on its territory. After general vows, Prince Oleg nails his shield to the gates of Constantinople as a sign of the victory of the Russian people, and then orders the Greeks to sew sails for Rus' from pavolok (that was the name of gold-woven silk at that time), and for the rest - from coprina (ordinary silk). Upon the prince's return home to Kyiv, the inhabitants of Rus', inspired by stories about his exploits, give him the nickname Prophetic.

The main result of this great Russian campaign was the so-called Treaty on Duty-Free Trade in Byzantium Rus'. Russian people sailing to the city were actually fully supported by the Byzantine authorities, without even paying duties.

Already in 911, Prince Oleg sent an embassy to Byzantium, which returned with confirmation of peace between Constantinople and Kievan Rus.

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

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

*It seems that the four-year interval between the campaign and the signing of the treaty in the “Tale” is somehow connected with calculations of the time of Oleg’s death: “and I came to Kyiv, and stayed for 4 years, in the 5th year I remember my horse, from him the Magi told the Magi to die Olgovi" (see about this: Kuzmin A.G. Initial stages of ancient Russian chronicle writing. M., 1977. S. 264 - 265; Nikitin A.L. Foundations of Russian history. M., 2000. S. 183 - 184).

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

Oleg's treaty with the Greeks