When was the referendum on the preservation of the USSR. Referendum on the preservation of the USSR (6 republics boycott)

21.06.2019 Food and drink

History of mankind. West Zgurskaya Maria Pavlovna

Who are the Vikings?

Today we call the Vikings medieval sailors, natives of those lands where modern Norway, Denmark and Sweden are located.

The origin of the word "Viking" is a mystery to scientists. The earliest version links it to the Viken region in the southeastern part of Norway. Allegedly, once "Viking" meant "man from Vik", and later this name spread to other Scandinavians. However, in the Middle Ages, the inhabitants of Vic were not called Vikings at all, but vikverjar or vestfaldingI (from Vestfold, a historical province in the region of Vic).

According to another theory, the word "Viking" goes back to the Old English wic. Here we see the same root as in the Latin word vicus. This was the name of a trading post, a city or a fortified camp. At the same time, in England in the 11th century, the Vikings were called askemanns - people sailing on ash trees (ascs), because the ash was the lining of their ships.

According to the Swedish scientist F. Askeberg, the noun "Viking" comes from the verb vikja - "turn", "deviate", that is, a Viking is a warrior or a pirate who left the house and went on a campaign for prey. Indeed, the Viking from the Icelandic sagas is a pirate.

Another hypothesis, which has many supporters to this day, connects the word "Viking" with vi'k (bay, bay). But the opponents of this hypothesis point to a discrepancy: there were also peaceful merchants in the bays and bays, but, unlike robbers, no one called them Vikings.

In Spain, the Vikings were known as "madhus", which means "pagan monsters". In Ireland, they were called Finngalls ("bright strangers"), if they meant the Norwegians, or dubgalls ("dark strangers"), when it came to the Danes. The French, on the other hand, called the fearless sea robbers "people from the north" - Norsmanns or Northmanns. But whatever they are called, throughout Western Europe, the Vikings have earned a bad reputation.

Invincible Dragons and Berserker Werewolves

“Almighty God sent a crowd of fierce pagans - Danes, Norwegians, Goths and Svei; they devastate the sinful land of England from one coast to another, kill the people and cattle and do not spare either women or children, ”is written in one of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles. Troubles began on English soil in 793, when the Vikings attacked the island of Lindisfarne and sacked the monastery of St. Cuthbert.

In 83-86 there was no escape from the Vikings - they devastated the southern and eastern shores of England. It happened that up to 30 Danish Drakkar ships approached the shore at the same time. Cornwall, Exeter, Winchester, Canterbury and even London suffered from their raids. But until 851 the situation was still tolerable - the Vikings did not winter in England. late autumn, burdened with prey, they went home.

I must say that for quite a long time the "fierce pagans" did not dare to move far from the coast - at first they made their way into the depths of the island for only fifteen kilometers. But the brave and bloodthirsty Vikings terrified the British so much that they themselves gave the invaders every chance of success - it seemed that the Vikings had no reason to resist. In addition, the ships of the sea robbers appeared on the horizon suddenly and reached the shore with lightning speed.

What did the famous drakkars look like, and why are they called that? For the first time they are mentioned in "Germany" by Tacitus. We are talking about the boats of the ancestors of the Vikings, who had unusual shape. There is a description of drakkars and the Arab Ibn Fadlan. Images of famous courts are preserved on the tapestry of Queen Matilda, the wife of William the Conqueror. However, it was possible to see the sea “monster” alive only in 1862, when excavations were carried out in the swamps near Schleswig. The bow and stern of the ship were the same - this amazing design allowed the Vikings to oar in any direction without turning around. A few more ships were discovered a little later. Among them, the drakkars from Gokstad (1880) and Oseberg (1904) are considered the most famous finds.

Scientists reconstructed Scandinavian ships. They found that the drakkars had a keel, to which frames made of one tree were attached. The skin of the drakkar was carried out in a napkin. It was attached to the frames with pins, and the boards were connected to each other with iron nails. To seal the seams between the boards, the Vikings used a kind of gasket - a resin-impregnated cord made of pig bristle or cow hair, twisted into three threads. In the upper part of the skin, medieval shipbuilders made oarlocks.

Viking ships reached 30-40 meters in length and sailed. A single sail - red and white striped - was most often made of wool. Drakkar was controlled not with the help of the steering wheel. It was replaced by a huge oar. In total, the oars were from 60 to 120.

The ship was called a Drakkar because its bow was decorated with a carved figure of a dragon. The Norwegian word "Drakkar" comes from the Old Norse Drage - "dragon" and Kar - "ship". The gaping mouth of the dragon frightened opponents, and when the Vikings returned home, they removed the head of the monster so as not to frighten the good spirits of their land.

Horror was also instilled by the "Raven Banner" - a triangular banner with the image of a black bird, which evoked quite understandable associations in the enemies. In Scandinavian mythology, a pair of ravens, whose names were Hugin and Munin, were revered as the birds of Odin. Hugin (in Old Norse it means "thinking") and Munin (from Old Norse "remembering") fly all over the world to Midgard and inform Odin about what is happening. However, the raven is not only a wise bird, it pecks at corpses. The raven banner was raised during raids. Under it, for example, the valiant ruler of Denmark, England and Norway, Canute the Great, fought. If the banner fluttered merrily in the wind, it was considered a good omen: it means that victory is assured. Regardless of what was depicted on the flag under which the drakkar was flying, it was personally embroidered by the wife or sister of the Viking leader.

The Viking ships were very fast: 1200 km, which separate England from Iceland, the Scandinavians covered in just 9 days. Skilled sailors took into account the nature of the clouds and the strength of the waves, navigated by the sun, moon and stars, followed the birds. On the coast, they set up lighthouses, which Adam of Bremen called the "mountain of the volcano."

In addition to drakkars, the Vikings also built merchant ships. What did the medieval Scandinavians trade in?

Drakkar on the Bayeux Tapestry

Weapons, furs, skins and skins, fish, whalebone and walrus ivory, honey and wax, as well as, as they say, all sorts of things: wooden and bone combs, silver kopoushki, eye paint. And, of course, slaves. Merchant ships were called koggs, knarrs and shnyaks. The hulls of the coggs were round. Frisians also knew this type of ships. At low tide, the bottoms of the coggs sank to the bottom and it was easy to unload the ships, and when the tide began, the cunning boats themselves floated up.

The knarrs were large merchant ships, the shnyaks were small and not much different from warships. Their tank and quarterdeck were often used as battlefields - if enemies attacked, then "peaceful merchants" took the fight. The Vikings often took blacksmith tools and anvils to the voyage - this made it possible to repair weapons in field conditions.

Real Viking naval battles were very large-scale: for example, 400 ships participated in the battle in Hjørungavog in Norway. In battle, the drakkars approached each other with their sides and grappled with the help of boarding hooks. The warriors fought on the decks, and the battle continued until most of the crew of one of the ships died: it was not customary to surrender. The drakkar of the vanquished went to the winners, and the Vikings cynically called such a battle "cleaning the ship."

On land, the Vikings showed no less courage than at sea. Their traditional weapons were the sword, axe, bow with arrows, spear and shield. What can be said about the armor of medieval Scandinavians? The cinematic image of the Viking is a bearded half-dressed man in a horned helmet. And how was it really? The Vikings wore a short tunic, tight-fitting trousers and a cloak, which was fastened with a fibula on the right shoulder - such clothing did not restrict movement and made it possible to instantly draw a sword. Shoes - shoes made of soft leather - the Vikings tied belts on their calves. Archaeologist Annika Larsson from Uppsala University examining fragments of fabrics found during excavations ancient city Viking Birka, made an amazing discovery: “Among the Viking clothes, one often finds red silk, light flowing bows, a lot of sequins, various decorations,” she said. According to Larsson, initially the Vikings wore cheerful clothes and the colorful outfit resembled modern hippies. According to the researcher, the Viking costume became strict and ascetic only under the influence of Christian missionaries, who first appeared in Sweden in 829.

Of course, the Scandinavians protected the body with chain mail. In military campaigns, they wore birni - protective chain mail shirts made of thousands of interlaced rings. But not everyone could afford such a luxury. Birnies were considered of great value and were even inherited. Ordinary Vikings, going into battle, put on padded leather jackets, into which metal plates were often simply sewn. The hands of the warriors were protected by bracers - leather or with metal plates. And surprisingly, the Vikings did not wear horned helmets.

In fact, the Viking helmets were very different: either with a rounded top and shields to protect the nose and eyes, or with a top that was pointed in the form of a crest. Crested helmets are commonly referred to as "Wendel type helmets". This is a legacy of the Vendelian culture that predated the Viking Age - it dates back to 400-600 years. Many ordinary warriors did not wear metal helmets at all, but leather helmets. Overhead strips, shields, brows of the Scandinavians were decorated with bronze or silver chasing. Of course, these were not just decorations, but magical images that protected the warrior.

So where did the notorious horns come from? There is indeed an image of a horned helmet - it was found on the Oseberg ship of the 9th century. Such helmets actually date back to the Bronze Age (1500-00 BC). They served as headdresses for priests. Researchers believe that the Vikings could also use them for ritual purposes, but it is impossible to fight in a horned helmet - it is easy to knock it down, only slightly hitting it on impact.

Now there is an opinion that the myth of the "horned" Vikings appeared largely due to catholic church. Since the Vikings resisted the adoption of Christianity for a long time and, in addition, often attacked churches and monasteries, Christians hated them, considered them "devil's offspring" and, quite naturally, crowned their heads with horns. This ideologically substantiated lie was later established in the public consciousness.

Viking shields were usually made of wood. Usually they were painted in bright colors - most often in red, which symbolized power (or blood?). Of course, there was magic here too - various patterns and drawings on the shields were supposed to protect the warrior from defeat. Shields were worn on the back. When the battle began, the Vikings covered themselves with shields, building an impenetrable wall. And the shields raised up were considered a sign of peace.

The Vikings treated weapons and armor as living creatures, giving them nicknames, often no less glorious and famous than the names of their owners. So, for example, the chain mail could be called the Clothes of Odin, the helmet - the Boar of War, the ax - the Wound-Gnawing Wolf, the spear - the Stinging Viper, and the sword could be called the Flame of Battle or Tearing the Mail.

But not only swords, spears and bows gave numerous victories to the fearless Vikings. Skalds - Scandinavian poets and singers - narrated about those who were "not bitten by steel." It's about berserkers. From the sources that have come down to us, the earliest is the song of Thorbjorn Hornklovi about the victory of Harald the Fair-Haired at the Battle of Hafsfjord, which supposedly took place in 872. “Berserkers,” it says, “dressed in bearskins, growled, brandished their swords, bit the edge of their shield in rage and rushed at their enemies. They were possessed and felt no pain even if they were hit by a spear. When the battle was won, the warriors fell exhausted and fell into a deep sleep.

The word "berserk" comes from the Old Norse berserkr and translates as "bearskin" (root ber- means "bear", while - serkr is "skin"). According to legend, during the battle, berserkers themselves turned into bears.

It was the berserkers who made up the vanguard that started the battle. With their very appearance, they terrified the enemies. But they could not fight for a long time - the combat trance passed quickly, therefore, having crushed the ranks of the enemies and laid the foundation for a common victory, they left the battlefield, leaving ordinary fighters to complete the defeat of the enemy.

Berserkers were warriors who dedicated themselves to Odin, the supreme god of the Scandinavians, to whom the souls of heroes who fell in battle go. According to beliefs, they ended up in Valhalla - the afterlife dwelling of the killed warriors. There the dead feast, drink the inexhaustible honey milk of the goat Heidrun and eat the inexhaustible meat of the boar Sehrimnir. Instead of fire, Valhalla is illuminated by shining swords, and the fallen warriors and Odin are served by warrior maidens - Valkyries. Odin is the patron of berserkers and helped the berserkers in battle. Skald (who is also a historiographer) Snorri Sturluson in The Circle of the Earth writes: “One knew how to make his enemies go blind or deaf in battle, or they were seized with fear, or their swords became no sharper than sticks, and his people went to fight without armor and were like rabid dogs and wolves, biting shields and were compared in strength with bears and bulls. They killed people, and they could not be taken by fire or iron. It's called going berserk."

Modern scientists do not doubt the reality of berserkers, but the question of how they achieved ecstasy remains open today. Some researchers believe that people with a mobile psyche, neurotics or psychopaths, who during the battles became extremely excited, became berserkers. It was this that allowed the berserkers to show qualities that are not characteristic of a person in the usual state: a heightened reaction, an extended peripheral vision, insensitivity to pain. While fighting, the berserker guessed with his sixth sense the arrows and spears flying at him, foresaw where the blows of swords and axes would come from, and therefore, he could hide behind a shield or dodge. Perhaps the berserkers were representatives of a special caste of professional warriors who were trained for battles from childhood, devoting not only the subtleties of military skill, but also teaching the art of entering a trance, which sharpened all the senses and activated the hidden capabilities of the body. However, many researchers suggest that the ecstasy of the berserkers had more prosaic reasons. They could use some kind of psychotropic drugs - for example, a decoction of poisonous mushrooms. Many peoples know "werewolfism", which occurred as a result of illness or the use of special drugs - a person identified himself with the beast and even copied some features of his behavior.

Scandinavian werewolves were feared even by their comrades. The sons of the Danish king Knud - berserkers - even sailed on a separate drakkar, as other Vikings were afraid of them. These unique warriors could only be useful in battle, and they were not adapted to civilian life. Berserkers were a danger to society, and as soon as the Scandinavians began to move on to a quieter life, berserkers were out of work. And therefore, since the end of the 11th century, the sagas have called berserkers not heroes, but robbers and villains who have been declared war. At the beginning of the 12th century, the Scandinavian countries even had special laws aimed at combating berserkers. They were expelled or killed without pity. Superstitious fear prompted to kill berserkers almost like vampires - with wooden stakes, since they are invulnerable to iron. Few of Odin's warriors have adapted to the new life. They were supposed to accept Christianity - it was believed that faith in the new God would save them from fighting madness. Part of the former military elite even fled to foreign lands.

But in the 9th-11th centuries, when the Vikings on high-speed drakkars terrified the peoples of Europe, berserkers were still in honor. It seemed that no one could resist them. Large cities, towns and villages were devastated by the Scandinavians in a matter of days. Not a single seaside country was spared from the "fierce pagans." In the 30s-50s of the 9th century, the Norwegians attacked Ireland. According to ancient Irish chronicles, in 832 Turgeis first captured Ulster, and then almost all of Ireland and became its king. In 84, the Irish finally managed to get rid of the hated ruler - Turgeis was killed. And yet Ireland remained the prey of the Norwegians. The Vikings fought for it among themselves - the island also seemed like a tasty morsel to the Danes. At some point, the Danes managed to negotiate with the Irish, but in 83 the Norwegian Olaf the White captured Dublin and created his own state on these lands, which existed for more than two hundred years. So Dublin became a springboard from which the Norwegians moved further into the western regions of England.

But the Danes decided to take revenge and in the fall of 86, according to the sagas, they landed on the east coast of England. The brave Vikings were led by Ivar the Boneless and Halfdan, the sons of the legendary Ragnar Lodbrok, and the father of this offspring of the Yngling family was, in turn, called Sigurd the Ring. Time has not retained reliable information about whether such a person really lived on earth, but the sagas tell that the famous military leader received his nickname (Ragnar Hairy Pants) thanks to an exotic amulet - pants that his wife sewed with her own hand. There is another legendary version: as a child, he fell into a snake lair, but remained intact due to the fact that the snakes did not bite through the leather “trousers” he was wearing. However, the snakes nevertheless killed the king: in 86, he, at the head of his army, invaded Northumbria, but King Ella II defeated him and threw him into a snake well. The sons of Ragnar avenged their father: on March 21, 867, Danish warriors defeated the British in battle, King Ella II was captured and was put to a painful execution. They cut his ribs on his back, spread them apart like wings and pulled out his lungs. Most historians question this terrible story: most likely, such an execution did not exist - this is how the ritual mockery of the corpses of enemies looked like. But be that as it may, Western England was under the rule of the Norwegian Vikings, and East - Danish.

The Danes held out until 871, until Alfred the Great came to power, the first of the kings of Wessex, who used the title "King of England" in official documents. Everything ingenious is simple: after many years of unsuccessful struggle with the Vikings, Alfred realized that the Scandinavians prefer sea battles, and ordered the fortresses to be rebuilt. In 878 he won a major land battle and drove the foreigners out of Wessex. The leader of the Danes, Guthrum, was baptized. However, the invaders remained on the lands of England, and by the end of the 9th century, the “Area of Danish law” - Denlo - existed on the map. Only in the 10th century did she submit to the power of the English kings. But in 1013, during the reign of Ethelred the Indecisive, whose name speaks for itself, the army of the Dane Svein Forkbeard invaded England (Norway by this time was already under the rule of the Danes). Swain was called Forkbeard not because of the shape of the beard: his mustache resembled a pitchfork. Sweyn quickly captured the English cities and towns, and only at the walls of London did the Danes suffer heavy losses. But London eventually capitulated: the Vikings surrounded him, Ethelred fled to Normandy, and the national assembly - Witenagemot - proclaimed Swain king. Just weeks later, he died, and his son Knut succeeded in power, who managed to keep the country in obedience. However, in 1036, after the death of Knut, the throne went to Sweyn's grandson. The new king - Hardaknut caused general disapproval of his exorbitant greed. He imposed such taxes on the Anglo-Saxons that he forced many to flee to the forests. Relations between the vanquished and the victors escalated to the limit, but in 1042, during a feast on the occasion of the marriage of the standard-bearer Hardaknut, he raised the goblet for the health of the newlyweds, took a sip and fell dead. The Anglo-Saxons were saved, and power returned to the old Anglo-Saxon dynasty: the son of Ethelred the Indecisive, Edward the Confessor, became king. And in 1066, England will be captured by William the Conqueror, a descendant of the Dane Hrolf the Pedestrian, who founded the duchy of Normandy in France, on whose lands the Scandinavians first came in the 9th century, back in the reign of Charlemagne. “I foresee how much evil these people will do to my successors and their subjects,” said the mighty emperor, and he was not mistaken. After his death, the state collapsed and the rulers were mired in civil strife. No one could resist the "dragons", and the Vikings entered the Seine and the Loire. They ravaged Rouen, plundered famous monasteries, killed monks, and ordinary people who were captured were turned into slaves.

Bronze plate of the 13th century. depicting a berserk warrior

French chronicles tell that around 80, the Vikings, led by Hastings, approached the walls of Nantes. They conquered it and set it on fire. Near the fallen Nantes, the victors set up camp and from there raided cities and monasteries throughout France. Only for a short time the Vikings sailed to Spain, but, having suffered a fiasco there, they returned back and attacked Paris. They sacked the city, and King Charles the Bald fled to the monastery of Saint-Denis. The Scandinavians did not know mercy, but they were hampered by the unusual climate of France. The invaders were smitten by the heat and the fruits they unknowingly ate green. The exhausted Vikings demanded that the king pay tribute to them and, having received a considerable amount of silver, finally got out. But not for long…

Soon, Hrolf the Pedestrian, or Rollon, the son of Rognvald, who was expelled from Norway, appeared in Northern France. On the seashore, Hrolf swore that he would die or become master of any land he could conquer. He fought bravely, and in 912, under a treaty at St. Clair, the French king Charles the Simple ceded to him part of Neustria, between the river Epte and the sea. So the duchy of Normandy, that is, the country of the Normans, appeared. The decisive Hrolf was still weaker than Charles, and he set him a condition: to recognize himself as a vassal of the king and accept Christianity. Hrolf was baptized and received a bonus - the hand of Karl's daughter Gisela. Then the Viking married Pope, the daughter of another king, Ed, who was succeeded by Charles the Simple. She became his second wife - after the death of Gisela. Hrolf distributed the lands to his associates, whose number grew as more and more troops arrived from the north. Many Normans adopted Christianity following the example of their ruler. The descendants of the Vikings quickly learned French, but the blood of warlike ancestors made itself felt for a long time - this is evidenced by the history of medieval Europe.

Already in the 9th century, France became a springboard from which it was convenient for the Vikings to move further south. Around 860, under the leadership of Hastings, they tried to conquer Rome. However, the Vikings did not reach the Eternal City, mistaking Lunks for it. The inhabitants of Lunks were well armed, and the city itself was fortified. Seeing that it was difficult to take the fortress by force, Hastings resorted to a trick. He sent an ambassador to Lunks, who was ordered to deceive the bishop and the count - the owner of the castle: they say that his master is dying and asks the townspeople to sell food and beer to strangers. And most importantly, he wants to become a Christian before his death. Insidious Hastings was indeed brought on a shield in city church where the bishop baptized him. The next day, ambassadors again arrived in the city: now they asked to bury Hastings in church land and promised rich gifts for this.

The gullible bishop agreed and killed Lunks: all the Vikings accompanied the imaginary dead man - they must say goodbye to their leader! He was reclining on a stretcher in full combat armor, but this did not bother the bishop - after all, during his lifetime, Hastings was a warrior. The funeral procession, accompanied by the first persons of the city, went to the temple, where the bishop gave the funeral service to the adventurer. When the "body" was lowered into the grave, Hastings jumped up from the stretcher. The "cold corpse" hacked to death both the bishop and the count. The Vikings have taken Lunks. But Hastings wanted to conquer Rome! Ships loaded with booty set off again, but the Vikings never got to Rome - they were stopped by a strong storm. Saving their lives, the robbers threw the loot overboard. Even the slaves they considered ballast, and the beauties were swallowed up by the deep sea.

Hastings' campaign ended ingloriously, but two hundred years later the Scandinavians were already in charge in Italy. First, in 1016, a small detachment of Norman pilgrims returning from the Holy Land helped the Prince of Salerno defeat the Saracens. The Italians marveled at the courage of the Vikings and began to invite them to their service. The Scandinavians "fit" into the Italian landscape and even founded a small Norman possession. And in 1046, the Norman Robert Guyscar arrived on the Apennine Peninsula. From Old French, Robert's nickname translates as Sly or Sly. “He was nicknamed Guyscar, because neither the wise Cicero nor the cunning Ulysses could compare with him in cunning,” wrote his biographer, Norman chronicler William of Apulia, about Robert. The sixth son of Tancred of Gottville, he followed his older brothers to Italy. In the years 1050-1053, Robert was in Calabria, where the Normans fought with the Byzantines and, in addition, under the command of the Cunning, robbed monasteries and civilians. The tribesmen respected Robert and after the death of his brother Humphred, bypassing the legitimate heir - the son of Humphred, proclaimed Guyiscard the Count of Apulia. Moreover, for the annual tribute and promise of help, Pope Nicholas II recognized Robert as a duke. The Pope confirmed for him, as a vassal of the holy throne, power over the countries of southern Italy, which he had already conquered and which he would still conquer in the future. Guyiscard conquered all of Apulia and Calabria, and in 1071 Bari fell - the last refuge of Byzantine rule. Robert's brother, meanwhile, had taken Sicily from the Saracens. The power of Robert frightened the new pope - Gregory VII. In 1074 he excommunicated Guyscard, but in 1080 he reconciled with him in search of protection from Emperor Henry IV. Having removed the excommunication from him, the pope gave Robert all his possessions into fief, including Salerno and Amalfi, which he again occupied. In 1081, the unbending Robert went on a campaign against the Byzantine Empire. He defeated Alexios Komnenos at Durazzo and reached Thessaloniki. He repaid the pope with kindness: in 1084, Robert took Rome, sacked it and freed Gregory VII, whom Emperor Henry IV imprisoned in the Castel Sant'Angelo. Together with the pope, Guyiscard retired to Salerno and again began the war with the Byzantine Empire. Robert defeated the combined Byzantine-Venetian fleet at Corfu and went to the Ionian Sea, but died on the island of Kefalonia. Guyiskar's possessions were divided among themselves by his sons: Bohemund received Tarentum, and the namesake of his father, Robert, Apulia. In 1127, Apulia united with Sicily, and the Norman dynasty ruled the Kingdom of Sicily until the 90s of the XII century. And in the veins of the Hohenstaufen dynasty that replaced it, Norman blood also flowed.

The Rurikovichs also considered themselves descendants of the Scandinavians - the Varangians. But the question of who the Varangians are is still open.

Princes of the Russian land?

The first mention of varankas, verings or varangs (words consonant with the Russian "varangian") date back to the 11th century. So, around 1029, the famous scientist from Khorezm Al-Biruni wrote: “A large bay separates from the ocean in the north near the Saklabs and extends close to the land of the Bulgars, the country of Muslims; they know it as a sea of monitors, and these are the people on its shore. In the Icelandic sagas, the word vaeringjar is found - the so-called Scandinavian warriors who served the Byzantine emperor. As we remember, the Vikings fought with the Byzantine Empire, but their amazing strength and courage served as excellent advertising for them, and the same Byzantines willingly hired northerners. The Byzantine chronicler of the second half of the 11th century Skylitsa also writes about the "varangas": in 1034 their detachment fought in Asia Minor.

In the legal code of Rus' - "Russian Truth", dating back to the reign of Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054), the status of certain "Varangians" is defined. Modern researchers most often identify them with the Scandinavian Vikings. However, there are other versions of the ethnicity of the Varangians: they could be Finns, German-Prussians, Baltic Slavs, or people from the Southern Ilmen region. Scientists do not have a common opinion both about the origin of the Varangians themselves and their names. But the most painful place is the legendary calling of the Varangian princes to Rus'.

There is the so-called "Norman theory", the supporters of which consider the Scandinavians the founders of the first states of the Eastern Slavs - Novgorod, and then Kievan Rus. They refer to the chronicles, which say that the tribes of the Eastern Slavs (Krivichi and Ilmen Slovenes) and the Finno-Ugric peoples (All and Chud) decided to stop civil strife and in 862 turned to some Varangians-Rus with a proposal to take the princely throne. Where exactly the Varangians were called from is not directly stated in the annals, but it is known that they came “from across the sea”, and “the path to the Varangians” lay along the Dvina. Here is an excerpt from The Tale of Bygone Years: “And the Slovenes said to themselves: “Let us look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right.” And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, as others are called Swedes, and others are Normans and Angles, and still others are Gotlanders, and so are these.

From the annals it is known what names the Varangians-Rus bore. Of course, these names are written as they were pronounced by the Eastern Slavs, but still most scientists believe that they are of Germanic origin: Rurik, Askold, Dir, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid and others. In turn, the names of Prince Igor and his wife Olga are close in sound to the Scandinavian Ingor and Helga. And the first names with Slavic or other roots are found only in the list of the treaty of 944.

The Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, one of the most educated people of his time, the author of several works, reports that the Slavs are tributaries of the Rus, and, in addition, gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in two languages: Russian and Slavic. The Russian names for the five rapids are of Scandinavian origin, at least according to the Normanists.

Russians are called Swedes.

The testimony of Ibn Fadlan, one of the few Arabs who visited Eastern Europe, is very curious. In 921-922 he was the secretary of the embassy of the Abbasid caliph al-Muktadir to the Volga Bulgaria. In his report "Risale", designed in the form of travel notes, Ibn-Fadlan described in detail the burial rite of a noble Rus, very similar to Scandinavian. The deceased was burned in a funeral boat, and then a barrow was erected. Similar burials were indeed found near Ladoga and in Gnezdovo. Funeral customs are by far the least subject to change. In any culture, they are taken much more seriously than others, since we are talking about rituals that ensure the well-being of the deceased in the next world, and in the case of any experiments, there is no way to check whether he is well there.

It must be said that the vast majority of Arab sources testify that the Slavs and the Rus are different peoples.

It would seem that everything is clear: Rus'-Rus-dews are not Slavs, but Scandinavians. But with the help of medieval sources it is possible to prove the opposite. So, for example, in the same “Tale of Bygone Years” there is a fragment that contradicts what we have cited above: “... from the same Slavs - we, Rus ... And Slavic people and the Russian is one, after all, they were nicknamed Rus from the Varangians, and before that there were Slavs; although they were called glades, but the speech was Slavic.

Another monument of the 9th century - "The Life of Cyril", written in Pannonia (Podanavie), tells how Cyril acquired the "Gospel" and "Psalter" in Korsun, written in "Russian letters", which Rusyn helped him to understand. By "Russian letters" here is meant one of the Slavic alphabets - Glagolitic.

As we can see, medieval sources do not give an unambiguous answer to the question, what is the ethnicity of the people who were called to reign in 862. But even if so, why is this problem worrying the minds for more than two hundred years. The point here is not only that scientists are eager to know the truth: the Norman theory has an ideological significance. It was formulated in the 18th century by a German historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences - Z. Bayer and his followers - G. Miller and A. L. Schletser. Of course, the Russians immediately saw in it a hint of the backwardness of the Slavs and their inability to form a state. Against the German "insinuation" spoke

M. V. Lomonosov: he believed that Rurik was from the Polabian Slavs. There was another scientist who tried to reconcile the Russian and German points of view - V. N. Tatishchev. Based on the Joachim Chronicle, he claimed that the Varangian Rurik descended from a Norman prince ruling in Finland and the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl. However, later the Norman theory was accepted by the author of the History of the Russian State, N. M. Karamzin, and after him by other Russian historians of the 19th century. “The word Vaere, Vara is an ancient Gothic word,” Karamzin wrote, “and it means union: crowds of Scandinavian knights, going to Russia and Greece to seek their fortune, could call themselves Varangians in the sense of allies or comrades.” But the writer and scientist SA Gedeonov contradicted Karamzin. He believed that the Rus were Baltic Slavs, and the name "Varangians" came from the word warang (sword, swordsman, defender), which the researcher found in the Baltic-Slavic dictionary of the Drevan dialect.

The well-known historian D. I. Ilovaisky was also an opponent of the Norman theory. He considered the chronicle story about the calling of the Varangians legendary, and the names of the princes and warriors, as well as the names of the Dnieper rapids, were rather Slavic than Scandinavian. Ilovaisky assumed that the Rus tribe was of southern origin and identified Rus with the Roksolans, whom he mistakenly considered Slavs (modern science speaks of the Sarmatian origin of the Roxolans).

In the Soviet Union, the Norman theory was viewed with suspicion. The main argument against it was Engels' conviction that "the state cannot be imposed from outside." Therefore, Soviet historians had to prove with all their might that the Rus tribe was Slavic. Here is an excerpt from a public lecture by Dr. historical sciences Mavrodin, which he read during the time of Stalin: “... a thousand-year-old legend about the “calling of the Varangians” by Rurik, Sineus and Truvor “from across the sea”, which should have been archived a long time ago along with the legend about Adam, Eve and the tempting serpent , the Deluge, Noah and his sons, is being revived by foreign bourgeois historians in order to serve as a tool in the struggle of reactionary circles with our worldview, our ideology ... "

However, not all Soviet scientists - anti-Normanists did not believe in what they wrote about. At this time, several rather interesting hypotheses appeared, the authors of which by no means can be called opportunists, careerists, or simply cowards. So, for example, Academician B. A. Rybakov identified the Rus and the Slavs, placing the first ancient Slavic state, which preceded Kievan Rus, in the forest-steppe of the Middle Dnieper.

In the 1960s, scholars who were Normanists at heart invented a ruse: they believed that the called princes were Scandinavians, but at the same time admitted that there was some kind of Slavic proto-state led by Rus at the same time. The subject of discussion was the location of this proto-state, which received the code name "Russian Khaganate". So, the orientalist A.P. Novoseltsev believed that it was located in the north, and the archaeologists M.I. Artamonov and V.V. Sedov placed the kaganate in the south, in the area from the Middle Dnieper to the Don. Normanism became popular again in the 1980s, but it should be noted that many scientists adhered to it precisely for reasons of fashion, and scientific dissidence was in vogue then.

In our time, the question of the Normans in Rus' remains open. The bans have been lifted, and scientists are arguing with all their hearts, but do not forget that the Norman theory was and remains a tasty morsel for ideologists from science. As an example of a curious version, expressed not by an “ideological”, but by a really competent researcher, one can cite the theory of A. G. Kuzmin, professor of the Department of Russian History at Moscow Pedagogical State University: ““ Russ ”are Slavicized, but initially non-Slavic tribes, and of different origin . At the same time, ethnically different "Rus" participated in the formation of the Old Russian state as the ruling stratum.

It is known that in ancient sources the very name of the people with the name "Rus" was different - rugs, horns, rutens, ruyi, ruyans, wounds, rens, rus, ruses, dews, rosomones, roxolans. It turned out that the meaning of the word "Rus" is ambiguous. In one case, this word is translated as "red", "red" (from the Celtic languages). In another case - as "light" (from Iranian languages).

At the same time, the word "rus" is very ancient and existed among various Indo-European peoples, denoting, as a rule, a dominant tribe or clan. In the early Middle Ages, three unrelated peoples survived, bearing the name "Rus". Medieval Arabic authors know them as "three types of Rus". The first are the Rugs, descended from the northern Illyrians. The second are the Ruthenians, possibly a Celtic tribe. The third are the "Rus-Turks", the Sarmatian-Alans of the Russian Khaganate in the steppes of the Don region.

What can we say in the end? Who were the mysterious Varangians-Rus, about whom the Tale of Bygone Years tells? Actually nobody knows. The Norman theory today is more like a religion: you can believe that the Russian state was founded by the Scandinavians, or you can not believe it.

From the book The Bermuda Triangle and Other Mysteries of the Seas and Oceans the author Konev Viktor

The Vikings The Vikings created two main types of ships - commercial and military, which were essentially the same type: commercial and military. The form of a warship was adapted to sailing in rough waters. Such vessels have low sides and a wide deck, turning into sharp, gracefully

From the book Who's Who world history author Sitnikov Vitaly Pavlovich

From the book The Great Russian Revolution, 1905-1922 author Lyskov Dmitry Yurievich

6. The balance of power: who are the "whites", who are the "reds"? The most persistent stereotype regarding civil war in Russia is the confrontation between "whites" and "reds" - troops, leaders, ideas, political platforms. Above we have considered the problems of establishing

From the book Pre-Columbian Voyages to America author Gulyaev Valery Ivanovich

Who are the Vikings? In the old Anglo-Saxon chronicles of the 7th-9th centuries there are many reports of raids by previously unknown sea robbers on the coast of England. Many coastal regions of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France and Germany were subjected to defeat and devastation.

From the book Geographical discoveries author Zgurskaya Maria Pavlovna

From the book History of the British Isles author Black Jeremy

Vikings Many European countries in the VIII, IX and X centuries. the second wave of "barbarian" invasions swept over: Hungarians from the east, Arabs from the south and Vikings (Danes, Norwegians and Swedes) from Scandinavia. Vikings - traders, settlers and warriors - moved east to Russia and west to Iceland,

From the book History of Combat Fencing: The Development of Close Combat Tactics from Antiquity to the Beginning of the 19th Century author

18. VIKINGS There is hardly a person who would not have heard anything about the Vikings (Normans, Danes, Varangians). Their constant raids terrified all of Northern Europe and the Mediterranean for two centuries (VIII-IX centuries). But while Charlemagne was alive, the attacks of the Normans did not

From the book Viking Age in Northern Europe author Lebedev Gleb Sergeevich

3. The Vikings The social structure of the Khundars and Fyulks of the Vendel period left no room for the emergence and consolidation of new social forces: elements that came into conflict with the tribal nobility, which relied on sacralized authority, seemed to be “squeezed out” from

From the book History of Combat Fencing author Taratorin Valentin Vadimovich

From the book Medieval Iceland author Boyer Regis

Vikings The Icelanders were directly involved in the campaigns of the Vikings - the discovery and colonization of the island fit perfectly into the third phase of this process. First-class merchants, Vikings at the first opportunity and where an opportunity was provided, willingly

From the book History of Humanity. West author Zgurskaya Maria Pavlovna

Who are the Vikings? Today we call Vikings medieval sailors, natives of those lands where modern Norway, Denmark and Sweden are located. The origin of the word "Viking" is a mystery to scientists. The earliest version links it to the Viken area in

From the book Archeology of weapons. From bronze age before the Renaissance by Oakeshott Ewart

CHAPTER 9 VIKINGS IN BATTLE Norse literature is filled with poetic references to different kinds weapons that were considered fantasies clean water until archaeologists were able to present specific examples of such weapons that served as evidence

From the book England. Country history author Daniel Christopher

Vikings Vikings were called people from Scandinavia, who, due to political instability and lack of land, were forced to leave their native lands and seek their fortune in a foreign land. First of all, Europe got it from them, but the Vikings also reached Constantinople,

From the book Vikings. Sailors, Pirates and Warriors by Hez Yen

Vikings in battle Battle of Hafrs Fjord. Around 872. The only written evidence of this battle is provided only by Icelandic literature, and the authors of the closest sources were separated from the events by at least 200 years (which is why it seems unlikely

From the book Medieval Europe. 400-1500 years author Koenigsberger Helmut

Vikings The origin of the word "Viking" still has no satisfactory explanation. So usually called the Scandinavians, the inhabitants of the Scandinavian Peninsula, who were engaged in agriculture and fishing. Their life was difficult and harsh; they did not know stone

From the book The Road Home author Zhikarentsev Vladimir Vasilievich

Greetings history buffs and curious readers! Vikings: who are they and where do they come from? The article briefly tells about the Vikings, early medieval Scandinavian sailors, in the VIII-XI centuries. made sea trips.

These were tribes in the stage of decomposition of the tribal system, living on the territory of modern Sweden, Denmark and Norway, who were pushed beyond their native countries by overpopulation and famine. In the annals of Kievan Rus, they were known as the Varangians.

Where did the Vikings come from

In the summer of 789, an incident occurred in one of the coastal settlements of the kingdom of Wessex. Three boats moored to the shore, from which they left tall men with blond hair and beards. Thane Beohtrik met them with a small retinue.

After a short conversation, an argument broke out. The foreigners killed the thane with his people, took the weapons and sailed away to no one knows where. If the medieval chroniclers noted every internecine clash of the Anglo-Saxons of that time, then no books would be enough. But this episode got into the chronicles precisely because it became the beginning new era.

The Anglo-Saxons and their immediate neighbors the Irish, Scots and Welsh have been Christians for more than two centuries. And the inhabitants of the continent, the Franks, the Bretons, the Germans, professed the faith of Christ even longer.

The bearded strangers who came were pagans. This circumstance attracted the attention of the medieval chronicler, who described, in fact, the first meeting with the Vikings - a force that changed the borders, culture and even the demographic situation in Europe over the next three centuries.

Scandinavia in the early Middle Ages

The settlement of the Scandinavian Islands took place long before the advent of our era. The first settlements date back to the Mesolithic era. But the isolation and inaccessibility of the Scandinavian Peninsula contributed to the fact that the population of this harsh region remained far from events in Europe.

The great migration of peoples only remotely touched Scandinavia. The fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent formation of states with their constant wars, the spread of Christianity - all this did not affect the harsh country of the fjords.

The inhabitants of these places had their own culture and religion. They solved their problems and would not have sailed anywhere if insurmountable circumstances had not forced them to withdraw from their homes.

The reason that forced the Vikings to seek their fortune overseas was climate change. Around the 6th century, the average temperature in Europe fell sharply by several degrees. The lands, especially in the north, became unsuitable for agriculture and could not feed all the people.

Even in the northern regions of present-day France, many fields were abandoned. What can we say about snow-covered Norway, dominated by mountains. And only narrow valleys along the banks of rivers are suitable for farming.

It was the lack of means of subsistence that forced many younger sons in the family who could not get an inheritance, poor landless peasants, and simply adventurers, to go overseas.

Drakars

The military successes of the Vikings were facilitated by their unusual ships - dracars. These combat boats could accommodate about 20 rowers, had a small draft, could row and sail both on the sea and along the riverbeds, even the smallest ones.

The first boat, the Hjortspring Boat, which became the prototype of the dracars, dates back to the 4th century. It was discovered in Denmark.

The Vikings were excellent sailors. Knowing well the coastline and having the opportunity to enter the rivers, these fearless warriors always attacked suddenly, quickly and in the most unexpected places and always left before the enemy could gather forces to repel the attack.

Viking travel map

The Europeans were completely unprepared for an attack from the sea. Small detachments of well-armed, strong warriors, appearing out of nowhere, caused panic not only among the inhabitants of the English Isles, but also on the inhabitants of the continent.

"A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine!"

Frequent and always brutal Viking raids became a real disaster for Christians in the 6th-10th centuries. In the prayers, even a special petition appeared: “Save us from the fury of the Normans, Lord!”.

Indeed, pirates in their essence, expelled from their native lands by hunger and poverty, the Vikings could only count on what they would get with the sword. At first condemned even in Scandinavia, the craft gradually gained respect, supported by the cult of the military gods Thor, Odin and others.

Over time, not only the inhabitants of Scandinavia, but also the Danes, the Baltics, and the Slavs turned out to be in the Viking detachments.

The very word "Viking" in translation means "inhabitant of the bay." Viking is not a nationality, but a certain social status. These are homeless bandits who robbed everything and everyone, even the closest neighbors. But under the influence of inexorable time and this trouble is gone.

Gradually, the Vikings, having satisfied and lost their initial cruelty, took up trade and politics. They made a number of geographical discoveries (Iceland, Greenland, America).

Video

This video contains interesting and additional information on the topic "Vikings: who are they and where are they from?"

What do we know about Vikings? Between the 8th and 11th centuries, they "traveled" across Europe, reaching North America and the Middle East, fighting, trading and colonizing free lands. They were formidable enemies. Moreover, we know less about them than about ancient Rome. All information available to date comes from three types of sources: archaeological research, written evidence, and Nordic sagas. Moreover, the Vikings themselves did not leave texts behind them. All written evidence was left by the peoples who came into contact with the Vikings, and the sagas existed for a long time within the framework of oral tradition and were written down only at the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th centuries.
At the sites of major excavations in Hedeby, Moosgarls, Birka, Roskilde, Lindholm-Hoye, Gokstad, Skuldelev, York and Gjermundby, a rich material was found, which, when compared with written sources, sheds light on many aspects of Viking culture. But at the same time, these findings raise more and more questions for us. Misinterpretation and over-praise of certain aspects of the Viking Age has created a distorted picture of the people in the public mind.
The word "Viking" comes from the Old Norse "víkingr", which, according to the most common version, means "man from the bay", "man from the port" (from the root vík - bay, bay, shelter; + suffix ingr). It may also come from the name of the Norwegian region Vik. Some linguists deduce the term from the Old Norse vike meaning "leave, move away": this is how people who leave their native lands for the purpose of robbery or trade were called.
A synonym for the word "Viking" was the word norseman or normann, that is, "northern man". Until now, the French province is called Normandy in honor of the Norman Vikings who once colonized it. In the east of Europe and in the Balkans, the words "Rus" and "Varangian" were used to refer to the Vikings, which were used to refer to Scandinavian pirates, merchants, colonists and mercenaries.

Why did the inhabitants of Scandinavia at the beginning of the VIII century. began to leave their native places and went to plunder the sea coast of Europe, and eventually settled in England, Ireland, France and Russia? The main reason was overpopulation. Farming communities during this period began to experience a shortage of arable land. In Scandinavia, there is quite a bit of land suitable for plowing, and what is there is not very fertile. At the same time, the inhabitants of Scandinavia were born sailors, surpassing all other European nations in the art of navigation. Therefore, the way out of the situation suggested itself: go overseas and get food by plundering the southern lands.

At first, these were summer raids, which were carried out between sowing and reaping. They were sporadic and limited. Later, with success, the raids became more frequent and more massive. Participants in the raids (survivors) returned home, bringing silver, cattle and other trophies. Becoming rich in an instant. Which over time gave rise to the three-century phenomenon of Norman raids. To keep the once conquered lands under control, the Vikings began to stay for the winter, building fortified camps. Many were attracted by the fertile but poorly guarded lands, so they eventually moved here with their families forever. The Norwegians and Danes were looking for new lands beyond the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, while the Swedes moved east along the rivers, including the territory of present-day Russia.

The British Isles were heavily influenced by the Vikings. Just 72 years after the first recorded invasion of the Norwegian Vikings in 793, an area of permanent Viking settlement "Danelag" ("Area of Danish law") was formed in England. The Danelaw area covered the northeastern third of England. Although the Anglo-Saxons recaptured the Danelaw under King Edward the Elder in 924, Viking settlements remained in England thereafter. For example, it took the Saxons another 30 years to recapture York. King Edred liberated York only in 954. In Ireland, the Vikings were defeated already in 902, although many modern Irish cities were founded by the Vikings.

By the middle of the X century. most of the Vikings who settled in England and Ireland switched from paganism to Christianity, and then assimilated with the local population. The Vikings, who converted to Christianity, brought a new religion to Scandinavia. First of all, the new religion was accepted by local rulers, who then spread it among the population. In some cases the Viking baptism was gradual and peaceful, in other cases the baptism was violent. So Olaf Triggvasson's crusade ended with the battle of Svoldr, in which Olaf was defeated and died.

Unlike Danny and Southern Sweden, where the first kingdoms were formed already at the beginning of the 8th century .. Norway was united by Harald only around 900. Some of the Norwegians fled from the power of Harald and settled in Iceland, where they formed Democratic state headed by the Althingi assembly. Cnut the Great, who in 1014 inherited the Norwegian throne from his father Sven Forkbeard, became king of Norway, Denmark and England. His influence also extended to Sweden, but after the death of Cnut in 1035, his kingdom fell apart.

The fast and shallow-draught Viking ships allowed them to cover long distances, both at sea and on rivers. In the art of navigation, the Scandinavians excelled all other European nations. The Vikings could suddenly appear and attack the coast on the move. Viking ships sailed upstream on all major European rivers. Among the cities they plundered are Paris, Aachen, Cologne.

The Vikings terrorized not only the northern coast of Europe, but also the coast of the Mediterranean, Black and even the Caspian Sea. Varangian merchants reached Tsargrad-Constantinople, where the center of power passed after the collapse of Rome. The path "from the Varangians to the Greeks" went through major rivers on Russian territory. In some places the ships had to be dragged. Varangian mercenaries served the Byzantine emperors, the Varangian guard was considered an elite formation that had no equal in Europe and the Middle East.

Another major Viking colony was Normandy, where in 911 the Frankish king gave land to the Viking army under the command of Rolf. Later, the Franks tried several times to expel the Normans, but they turned out to be too strong an opponent for the weakened Frankish throne to deal with them. In turn, in 1066 the Normans crossed the English Channel and invaded the lands of the Anglo-Saxons. Norman Duke William the Bastard became King of England William I the Conqueror. But even this descendant of the Vikings was vulnerable to the attacks of his former relatives. Already in 1067 William had to pay tribute to the Danish king Sven Estridson. However, this was the last time the English ruler paid tribute to the Vikings.

The Normans were the most severe and insatiable people of Europe. Where they are by force, where they have settled in peace in different corners of the continent. After the transition of Scandinavia to Christianity, the activity of the Vikings came to naught. Europe now looked to the East, to the Holy Land. In 1096-1099. passed the 1st Crusade. Warriors from Denmark, Norway and Sweden fought under the banner with the image of a cross next to the warriors of other European nations.

Approximate chronology of Viking campaigns.

789 First documented Viking raid on England. The Anglo-Saxon king Beortrich sent his representative to meet the landing party of the Vikings. The Vikings killed the ambassador.
792 Anglo-Saxon King Offa organizes the defense of Mercia against Viking raids.
793 Norwegian Vikings destroy the island monastery of Lindnsfarne in northeast England.
795 Vikings ravaged the island of Rathlin and several monasteries in Ireland
799 Viking raids near the mouth of the Loire. France.
800-900 A century of constant Viking raids led to the collapse of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, primarily Wessex.
806-865 The Swedish Vikings, led by Rurik, settled in the region of Lake Ladoga and in Novgorod.
808 The Danish king Gottrik ruined the Slavic trading center near Rerik and transferred trade near Hedeby.
810 Danish Vikings sack Frisia.
OK. 830 Norwegian Vikings invade Ireland from bases on the islands north of Scotland.
830 850 Constant Viking raids on the coasts of England and France.
834 837 Yearly raids on Dorstad in Frisia,
835 King Egbert of Wessex defeats the Danish Vikings. Another party of Vikings ravages the island of Shepney at the mouth of the Thames.
840 Vikings stay in Ireland for the first time for the winter.
841 Vikings build a fort on the banks of the Liffey at what is now Dublin. Vikings sack Rouen in France.
842-843 Vikings ravage Kveitovik France, rise up the Loire and attack the Pat. For the first time the Vikings winter in France.
844 Vikings sail up the Garonne. France. They attack Seville in Spain, but the Moors repulse their attack.
845,120 Danish ships sail up the Seine and attack Paris. King of the Franks Charles the Bald pays off the Vikings by paying 7,000 pounds of silver - the first danegeld ("Danish money") of 13 paid before 926. The Vikings destroy Hamburg in Germany.
850-851 Vikings first winter in England under Thanet. The king of Ussex, Ethelwulf, defeats the Vikings and begins a systematic struggle against them.
852 Swedish Vikings demand danegeld from the inhabitants of Novgorod.
855-856 Vikings winter on Shepney Island at the mouth of the Thames.
857 Danes sack Paris.
858 Founding of Kyiv.
859-862 A Viking fleet ravages the Mediterranean coast.
860 Vikings unsuccessfully attack Constantinople.
OK. 860 Norwegian Vikings discover Iceland.
862 Vikings sack Cologne. Germany.
863 Vikings sack Xanten. Germany.
865 The "Great Army" of the Danish Vikings lands in England with the aim of permanently seizing land. By 870, the Vikings conquer the northeastern regions of England, where the Danelaw region arises.
S66 Kent pays the first danegeld.
866-867 Solomon, Duke of Brittany defeats the Franks at Brissart with Viking mercenaries.
OK. 870 Harald unifies Norway and becomes sole king. The English King Edmund is defeated and killed by the Danes.
870-930 Viking settlements in Iceland.
871 The Danish Vikings are defeated at Ashdown by the Anlo-Saxons under Æthelred I and Alfred of Wexex.
OK. 872 Naval battle at Hafrsfjord between Harald and an alliance of northern and western Norwegian chiefs. The Danes attack the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia.
878 After a series of setbacks, Alfred of Wessex defeats the Danes under Guthrum at Edishton.
881 Viking raids on Aachen, Worms, Metz, Bonn and Cologne.
882 Oleg the Wise unites Novgorod and Kyiv. Viking raid on Trier.
884-885 A Danish raid on Kent is repulsed by Alfred, who liberates London along the way. The Danes are forced to sign the Wedmore Peace, which determined the southern border of the Danelaw. Alfred the Great becomes King of Saxon England.
886 Paris was besieged for two months by 40,000 Vikings who sailed on 700 ships.
887-888 The Frankish king Charles the Fat hired the Vikings to fight the rebellious Burgundians.
891 Vikings defeated by Franks in Belgium.
892-896 King Alfred defeats the Danish "Great Army", the remnants of which have taken refuge in the Danelaw and France. The Saxons successfully fight the Viking ships at sea.
OK. 900 Danes and Norwegians, led by Rolf the Pedestrian, settle between the Seine and the Loire. France.
902 The Irish drive the Vikings out of Dublin.
907 Oleg descends down the Dnieper into the Black Sea, wages war with Byzantium.
910-912 Vikings piracy in the Caspian Sea.
911 Rolf the Pedestrian received Normandy as a fief from the Frankish king Charles the Simple. The treaty between Russia and Byzantium was signed by Varangian names. In the Byzantine army, a detachment of the Varangian guard is being formed, the number of which by 988 reaches 6,000 people.
912 Rolf of Normandy converts to Christianity and is henceforth referred to as Rollo.
917-919 Norwegians retake Dublin. Vikings from Ireland occupy York.
924 Saxon king Edward the Elder, during a 20-year campaign, repels most Danelag.
934 German King Henry the Fowler defeats Danish King Khnubu at Hedeby.
OK. 937 Battle of Brunanburg. The Viking army from Ireland and Norway, led by Olaf Gutfritsson, is defeated in a two-day battle by the Saxons and Viking mercenaries led by King Athelstan.
940-954 York temporarily becomes an independent Varangian state.
950 King Hakon the Good tries to convert Norway to Christianity.
954 Eadred expels Erik, the last Viking king from York. England is again entirely under the rule of the Anglo-Saxons.
958 Harald Sinezub becomes king of Denmark.
962-965 Harald Sinezub restores Danish rule in Norway. Harald accepts Christianity and baptizes Denmark.
974 The German Emperor Otto II occupies Daneverk, a fortification on the Franco-Danish border. Harald Sinezub returns these territories to Denmark in 983.
OK. 980-1014 New Viking raids on England. King Æthelred II suffers a serious defeat and is forced to pay the danegeld. In 991, Æthelred massacres Danes born in England.
980 Battle of Tara. The Irish defeated the Vikings who settled in Ireland, forcing them to pay tribute.
OK. 982-985 Eric the Red discovered Greenland. Around 985 he set about colonizing the island with a fleet of 23 ships. Bjarni Herjolfesson failed to approach the shores of Greenland and ended up in America instead.
991 Battle of Maldons. The Wessex army under Elderman Byrtnot is defeated by the Viking army under Olaf Trygvasson and Thorkell the Great.
995-1000 Olaf Trygvasson rules Norway until his defeat and death in the naval battle of Svoldr with the Danes and Swedes.
OK. 1000 According to the stories of Bjarni Herjolfsson, Leif Eriksson and his brother Thorvald explored Vinland - the northeast of America.
1013 The Danish king Sweyn Forkbeard is recognized as the Danelaw.
1014 The Irish, led by King Brian Boru, defeat the Norwegian Vikings in the decisive battle of Clontarf. Cnut the Great, son of Sweyn Forkbeard, defeated "all the English nobility" at the battle of Epniidon and in 1016 proclaimed a short-lived kingdom.
1015-1016 Olaf Haraldsson (St. Olaf) occupies the Norwegian throne.
1028 Olaf Haraldsson is expelled from Norway and killed in 1030 at the Battle of Stiklasgad.
1035-1043 After the death of Knut the Great, Hardaknut (1035-1042) becomes king of Danin and England, and Magnus the Good (1035-1047) becomes king of Norway. In 1042 Magnus unites Denmark and Norway, in 1043 he defeats the Slavs at Hedeby.
1047-1066 Harall Sigurlsson Harlrala becomes King of Norway.
1047-1074 Sven Estrideon becomes king of Denmark.
1050 Garall Harlrala destroys Hedeby.
1066 Harall Harlrala invades the north of England, is defeated and killed by the Saxon king Harold Godwinsson at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. 25 September William of Normandy lands in the south of England. The Anglo-Saxon army makes a rush to the south, but is defeated at Hastings on October 14. In battle, the English king Harroll dies.
1067 Sven Estridson invades England. William the Conqueror pays the danegeld.
1079 Icelander Godred Korvan invades the Isle of Man, then subdues the Dublin Vikings and establishes Norwegian power.
1085 The last Viking raid on England, led by the Danish King Cnut, ends in failure.

"Which did you buy your eyes?": All-Ukrainian referendum on December 1, 1991

ABOUT THE PUBLICATION:"December 1 is a historic day for Ukraine. Then an all-Ukrainian referendum was held, at which the independence of the state was supported. 90% of Soviet citizens voted "for" - now "independent hulks." In 1991, the republic experienced two referendums at once - in March and in December. At the March, all-Union, 70% of Ukrainian citizens spoke in favor of creating a renewed USSR. However, already nine months later, the mood changed diametrically. Why? and engineers lined up at the party committee. Nobody called the factory workers - they themselves said that they were ready to defend the country. Their big country on one sixth of the planet. This nation was ready to serve a great power. What they actually did for three centuries in a row. But Mikhail Gorbachev pretended that he was arrested in Foros, and in Moscow they built amusing barricades near the White House.

It became clear to Ukrainians that the Union no longer exists. In the meantime, piles of leaflets were pouring into every mailbox every day. From the newspaper pages and TV screens, endless figures tore the soul: how much Nenko-Ukraine gives "to the insatiable Muscovite abyss" of its meat and metal, electricity and coal ... It turned out that they feed the entire USSR! For example, in a matter of months of total propaganda, one Ukrainian sugar began to be perceived as some kind of unique national monopoly capable of taking “gluttonous katsaps” by the throat.

In terms of its power and investment, it was a gigantic media operation to convince 50 million Ukrainians of the benefits of independence. No one remembered the counter material and financial flows that went into the Ukrainian SSR itself. People were literally inspired - it is enough to disconnect, and with such riches, Ukraine will immediately turn into a “black-earth Switzerland” ... (Sergey Ilchenko)

We present (with slight reductions) the text of the expert and witness to this orgy - Yuriy Petrovich Solomatin - People's Deputy of Ukraine of the 3rd and 4th convocations, a communist.

TWO ANTIPODES: ALL-UNION REFERENDUM ON MARCH 17, 1991 VS ALL-UKRAINIAN REFERENDUM ON DECEMBER 1, 1991

Enough demagogues without me;
I never indulged the people
When cursing yesterday's idols,
On new ones, he invents fashion.
(D. Byron)
Run humbly for novelty
People senseless used to.
(A. Pushkin)

On the results of the USSR referendum held on March 17, 1991 (From the report of the Central Commission for the USSR Referendum): By decision of the Fourth Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of January 16, 1991, the question was put to a popular vote (referendum): " Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of a person of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?

Counter-propaganda, despite which the people of the USSR spoke out for the preservation of the Union

For the Union of the USSR as a whole, 186,617,355 people, or 80%, were included in the lists of citizens entitled to participate in the referendum of the USSR. Of these, 113.517.817 people answered "Yes", or 76.4%; "No" was answered by 32.303.977 people, or 21.7%.

1.9% of ballots were declared invalid. The results of the referendum for the republics are characterized separately by the following data:

The authorities of the Georgian SSR (Georgia), Latvian SSR (Latvia), Lithuanian SSR (Lithuania), Moldavian SSR (Moldova), ArmSSR (Armenia) and Estonian SSR (Estonia) prevented the holding of a referendum on the territory of their republics. Therefore, the central republican referendum commissions were not created.

HISTORICAL FACT: the majority of citizens - 75% (!) - voted for the preservation of their still not completely sold country. We are still trying to understand why the majority gave in to the minority. But for all the grandeur of the catastrophe that happened to us, everything was simple. The people had only will, and the traitors had power.

It should be noted that subsequently, the Russian Duma, relying on Art. 29 of the Law of the USSR of December 27, 1990 No. 1869-I "On the popular vote (referendum of the USSR)", that "the decision taken by means of a referendum of the USSR is final, has binding force throughout the territory of the USSR and can only be canceled or changed by a new referendum of the USSR", adopted on March 15, 1996 Resolution No. 157-II "On the legal force for Russian Federation- Russia of the results of the referendum of the USSR on March 17, 1991 on the issue of preserving the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics”, which states that “the officials of the RSFSR who prepared, signed and ratified the decision on the termination of the existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics grossly violated the will of the peoples of Russia on the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” And it is unlikely that from the point of view of international legal norms it is possible to recognize as legitimate the new states that have arisen in the space of the USSR. Because they arose against the will of the majority of citizens of the USSR.

HOW THE "PARADE OF SOVEREIGNTY" STARTED

At the referendum on December 1, 1991, the people of Ukraine enthusiastically voted for the independence of Ukraine, forgetting that on March 17, 1991, they almost as confidently voted for the preservation of the USSR. How it was?

Recall that thorny path to the independence of Ukraine ran through the "parade of sovereignties", which was initiated by our northern neighbor - Gorbachev-Yeltsin's Russia, when on June 12, 1990, the First Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR adopted the Declaration on State Sovereignty of the RSFSR. The Declaration declared the supremacy of the Constitution of the RSFSR and the laws of the RSFSR throughout its territory, recognized the need to conclude a new Union Treaty, equality political parties and public organizations, proclaimed the principle of separation of powers.

So the process started...

On July 16, 1990, the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR adopts by an absolute majority (“for” - 97%) the Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine, which contained “forgotten” passages that are curious for our time. We recall just a few of them:

1. The Ukrainian SSR has its own citizenship and GUARANTEES EVERY CITIZEN TO RESERVE THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE USSR.

2. The Ukrainian SSR solemnly proclaims its intention to become in the future a permanently neutral state that does not take part in military blocs and adheres to three non-nuclear principles: do not accept, manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons.

3. The relations of the Ukrainian SSR with other Soviet republics are built on the basis of agreements concluded on the principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs. The Declaration is the basis for the new Constitution, the laws of Ukraine and defines the position of the Republic when concluding international treaties. The principles of the Declaration of Sovereignty of Ukraine are used when concluding a union treaty (union - written with a lowercase, not capital, capital letter).

PARADE OF SOVEREIGNTY CONTINUED: A YEAR LATER

In August 1991, events took place in Moscow, which received the name of the August (1991) GKChP. Taking advantage of these events, the capture and defeat of the Central Committee of the CPSU in Moscow, and then the unconstitutional ban on its activities, the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR on August 24, 1991 adopted the "Declaration of Independence of Ukraine".

Actions of nationalists in Kyiv during the State Emergency Committee. Then, these days, UNA-UNSO was formed

It stated that: "Based on the mortal danger (1) hanging over Ukraine in connection with the coup d'état in the USSR on August 19, 1991, continuing the thousand-year tradition of state building (2) in Ukraine, based on the right to self-determination provided for by the UN Charter (3) and other international legal documents, implementing the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine, the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian Socialist Republic solemnly proclaims the Independence of Ukraine and the creation of an independent Ukrainian state - Ukraine. The territory of Ukraine is indivisible and inviolable. From now on, only the Constitution and laws of Ukraine”.

1) No "danger", and even more so "deadly", on August 24, when the so-called putsch had already been crushed, actually did not exist;

2) The "tradition of Ukrainian state building" has a much more modest history, and certainly not a thousand years, if only because a thousand years ago there were no Ukrainians in the world;

3) The authors of the Ukrainian "independence" were in such a hurry that they forgot that the Ukrainian SSR is one of the founding states of the UN;

4) the authors forgot much of what was adopted a year ago in the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine.

The historical memory of Ukrainian politicians turned out to be clearly short and selective.

PARADOXES OF THE ALL-UKRAINIAN REFERENDUM ON DECEMBER 1, 1991: YESTERDAY, TODAY. AND TOMORROW?

The Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine and the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine were adopted by the supreme legislative body - the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR, which, from a legal point of view, clearly went beyond the boundaries of its competence and the legal field of the still existing USSR. Therefore, the political forces that pushed them had to put an end to such a difficult legal collision. There was only one way out: to confirm the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine at an all-Ukrainian referendum.

The referendum is considered one of the most important institutions of society and the state. This is a direct appeal to citizens for the final decision of any legislative or other domestic or foreign policy issue. The authorities in the state usually take into account the opinion of the people expressed in this way and, as a rule, put it into practice. Strict implementation of the results of referendums is one of the main criteria of a legal society. One way or another, the will of the people cannot be ignored - this is not just anti-democratic, but extremely immoral and unpromising.

December 1, 1991 in Ukraine on the same day as the first presidential elections in Ukraine the second referendum this year was held (the first, on the preservation of the USSR, was held on March 17) with the question: “Do you confirm the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?”. It was announced on August 24, 1991 along with the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine and approved on October 11 of the same year by a resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

One question was submitted to the referendum - "Do you confirm the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?". The ballot paper contained the following text (in Ukrainian):

As you can see, the people of Ukraine enthusiastically took part in the referendum - 84.18% of eligible citizens of Ukraine came to the polls (31,891,742 people). And of those who took part in the vote, they said "YES" - 28,804,071 (90.32%), which amounted to 76.03% of Ukrainian citizens who have the right to vote. It was a QUALIFIED MAJORITY (more than 2/3 and even more than 3/4 of Ukrainian citizens who have the right to vote).

The political and legal consequences of this referendum should be considered Special attention, since it entailed historical decisions, and its assessments among lawyers and political scientists are often diametrically opposed and still rightly cause heated discussion.

In connection with the legal sociological dispute that continues around the results of the referendum on December 1, 1991, it should be noted that it was held when the state of the USSR actually and legally existed and its legal field was preserved. Therefore, decisions and actions within the existing field can be considered legitimate. From this fact it follows that the withdrawal of any union republic from the USSR should have been carried out only in accordance with the USSR Law of April 3, 1990 - "On the procedure for resolving issues related to the withdrawal of a union republic from the USSR."

However, the Ukrainian authorities ignored the union legislation, declaring the priority of their own laws and decisions. What did not satisfy them with the legal procedure for secession of the republic from the USSR - is this a separate topic for discussion?

The fact is that article 3 of the said Law defines: “In a union republic, which has in its composition autonomous republics, autonomous regions and autonomous districts, the referendum is held separately for each autonomy. It is also stated there: “In a union republic, on whose territory there are places of compact residence of national groups that make up the majority of the population of a given locality, when determining the results of a referendum, the results of voting in these localities are taken into account separately.” Article 6 of the Law states that a decision on the withdrawal of a union republic from the USSR is considered adopted if at least two-thirds of the citizens of the USSR permanently residing in the territory of the republic voted for it. Part 7 of Article 17 of the Law also provides that in the event of a republic secession from the USSR, the status of territories that did not belong to the seceding republic at the time of its entry into the USSR must be agreed upon. All these legal norms of the Union Law, like many others, were grossly ignored.

Attention should be paid to the fact that the referendum procedure causes serious remarks. In order for a referendum to be a genuine expression of the will of the people, the question submitted to it must be accessible to the understanding of the entire electorate. Voters need to be able to vote with full awareness of the consequences of their choice. These circumstances were provided for by Union legislation.

However, we see that the referendum did not correctly formulate the question as required by law: "Are you in favor of secession of the Ukrainian SSR from the USSR?" It was replaced by the question of approval or disapproval of the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, previously approved twice by the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR, which, under pressure from well-known political forces, then went beyond the boundaries of its competence. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the decisions of this particular referendum were immediately implemented by the authorities of Ukraine.

The vagueness of the referendum issue, the anti-communist, anti-Soviet and anti-Union hysteria and orgy unleashed after the well-known events of the State Emergency Committee in August 1991, the anti-constitutional ban on the activities of the CPSU-KPU, the state monopoly on funds mass media, passed into the hands of the "national-democratic" - forces radically influenced the socio-political situation in Ukraine. For opponents of the referendum driven into the political underground, the impossibility of explaining their own position, and for the supporters of the referendum, the favorable conditions for spreading the opinion that independence supposedly does not mean secession from the USSR, allowed the organizers of the survey to actually mislead a significant part of the population.

Obviously, the majority of citizens perceived the referendum only as an opportunity to expand the powers of the republic within the USSR, and not as its withdrawal from the Union. This, among other things, obviously explains the fact why the results of the referenda on March 17 and December 1, 1991 are diametrically opposed. ... Many political scientists still roll up the "fool": how can it be understood that the people gave POSITIVE answers to two supposedly mutually exclusive questions - the all-Union referendum (on the preservation of the Union) and the all-Ukrainian poll (support for the Declaration of State Sovereignty)? Yes, it’s just necessary, gentlemen, political scientists, to evaluate this position, not opportunistically, but professionally, that is, concretely historically: the population of Ukraine wanted to remain citizens of the USSR, to be in a single family of fraternal peoples, but on the condition of greater independence of their republic. Was it possible? To this question, the people gave only one answer - YES!

Thus, the entire Soviet people, including the population of Ukraine, by THEIR SIMPLE MAJORITY, confidently spoke in favor of preserving the country in which they lived. Nobody canceled the decision of this referendum and could not cancel it. But for some reason it did not become a legal norm for the authorities. At the very least, the will of the people of the USSR, clearly expressed in the referendum on March 17, 1991, was not carried out by the then authorities.

So the "political thimbles" in Ukraine, which at that time was headed by L. Kravchuk, on December 1, 1991, at the All-Ukrainian referendum, fooled the entire Ukrainian people.

But this was not the end of the matter.

Now it is obvious that the leaders of the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Byelorussian SSR - Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich needed a formal basis for the collapse of the USSR. They considered the all-Ukrainian referendum held, in our opinion, with the grossest violation of Union legislation, as such a basis. All this happened with the criminal inaction of the demoralized President of the USSR Gorbachev and the decapitated Supreme Soviet of the USSR, who were obliged to declare the all-Ukrainian referendum and the subsequent Belovezhskaya conspiracy illegal.

However, both the president and the majority of people's deputies of the USSR probably only thought about their own fate in the new conditions. And 20 days later, without any referendum and contrary to the decision of the All-Union referendum of March 17, 1991, the participants of the conference in Alma-Ata announced the end of the existence of the Soviet Union and the creation of the CIS.

The "civilized" collapse of the USSR did not happen, despite the assurances of many authors expressing the official point of view.

In this regard, many saw that in holding the all-Ukrainian referendum on December 1, 1991, there were violations of union legislation, obvious manipulations with the institutions and norms of the democratic life of society. Does this contain malicious intent or elements of a state crime? Probably lawyers should answer this.

TOTAL. ON THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE RESULTS OF THE REFERENDUM ON DECEMBER 1, 1991

The time of the current turmoil will pass, and not only historians, but even schoolchildren studying the history of their Fatherland, will most likely have to state the “illegitimacy” of the state, which was formed on the basis of a referendum held illegally. In the future, all this could become a "time bomb" of enormous destructive proportions.

Answering the question: “Should the decisions of the referendums be implemented?”, I think that yes, it is necessary. We must fight for every vote of a citizen, and not spit in his face with contempt: “Is your hut on the edge? That's your business!"

With the people, as the only source of power, one must not flirt, not fool them, but respect them, telling them the truth about all the consequences of voting FOR or AGAINST. Such consequences, for which the people will no longer have anyone to blame, and everyone, regardless of how he voted or did not vote, will have to bear responsibility for the decisions made or not taken.

Pay for it with your own destiny, the destiny of your children and grandchildren. So that it would not be painfully ashamed and painful for thoughtlessly given or sold your most precious voice.

So for the consequences decision in referendums, it is, first of all, the people themselves as the only source of power. One can, of course, say that the people have once again been deceived, and so on.

Y.Solomatin

Significance of the Charter

8. Legal regulation of marriage and family relations in Ancient Rus'.

9. Inheritance in Ancient Rus'.

10. Types of obligations and forms of their provision in ancient Russian law.

11. Crime and punishment according to Russian Truth

12. Litigation on Russian Pravda

14. State structure of the Novgorod feudal republic.

15 The state structure of the Galicia-Volyn and Rostov-Suzdal principalities.

18. Inheritance according to the Pskov judicial charter.

19. Sudebnik 1497, Sudebnik 1550: general characteristics.

Stoglav 1551 Family and marriage law

20. Prerequisites and features of the formation of the Russian unified (centralized) state (the second half of the XV - the first half of the XVI).

29. General characteristics of the cathedral code of 1649

32. Letter of commendation to the nobility, 1785

34 The development of the judicial process in the late XVII - early XVIII century.

37. Letter of commendation to the cities of 1785

38. Features of absolutism in Russia.

40. Systematization of Russian legislation in the first half of the XIX century.

41. Civil law in the first half of the XIX century.

Civil law according to the code of laws of 1833

42. Litigation in the first half of the 19th century. The Charter of Criminal Proceedings of 1864

43. Code of penal and correctional punishments of 1845: a general description.

46. Changes in the state-political structure of Russia in 1905-1907

47. Manifesto on the improvement of the state order of October 17, 1905

48. Comparative characteristics of the Regulations on the elections to the State Duma of August 6 and December 11, 1905

50. The transformation of the Council of Ministers and the reform of the Council of State in 1906

51. The main state laws of the Russian Empire on April 23, 1906: preparation and general characteristics.

52. Manifesto on the dissolution of the State Duma, on the time of convening a new Duma and on changing the procedure for elections to the State Duma of June 3, 1907

53. Changes in the state apparatus and legislation caused by the First World War (1914-1917)

54. February revolution of 1917 and its influence on the state structure of Russia.

55. The Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies in February-October 1917: features of the correlation of powers.

56. The creation of the Soviet state in 1917: the first legal acts of the Soviet government.

57. Creation of the foundations of Soviet family law: Code of the RSFSR on marriage, family and guardianship law of 1918

59. Creation of the foundations of Soviet criminal law in 1917-1920.

60. Decrees on the court no. 1, 2 and 3.

61. The Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918: a general description.

62. Political rights and freedoms of citizens under the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918. Suffrage.

68. The Civil Code of the RSFSR of 1922: a general description.

70. Land Code of the RSFSR 1922: a general description.

71. The Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922: a general description.

73 The Constitution of the USSR of 1936: a general description.

74. Democratic principles of judiciary under the Judiciary Act 1938

76. Prosecutorial supervision under the Regulations on the Prosecutor's Office of 1933. Changes in the structure of the Prosecutor's Office introduced by the Constitution of 1936.

77. Changes in the system of public authorities and administration during the Great Patriotic War in 1941-1945.

79. Changes in labor law during the Great Patriotic War.

80. Changes in marriage and family law during the Great Patriotic War.

81. Major changes in criminal and criminal procedure legislation during the Great Patriotic War.

82. Changes in the system of public authorities and administration in the post-war period (1945-1953)

83. Changes in civil and labor law in 1945-1953.

86 Major changes in criminal and criminal procedure legislation in 1945-1953.

87. Regulations on prosecutorial supervision in the USSR in 1955: a general description.

88. Civil Code of the RSFSR 1964

89. Labor and pension legislation 1953-1964

90 Criminal and Criminal Procedure Legislation 1953-1964.

91. The Constitution of the USSR in 1977: a general description.

96 Changes in the system of public authorities of the USSR in the late 1980s - early 1990s.

97 The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993: a general description.

94. Labor legislation 1964-1985

98.99. The evolution of criminal and procedural law in the late 1980s - mid-1990s

101. Features of the development of federal relations in the Russian Federation 1993-2000.

102. Formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

104. Legal significance of the referendum in the USSR in 1991

By decision of the Fourth Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of January 16, 1991, the question was put to a popular vote (referendum): “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which there will be be fully guaranteed the rights and freedoms of a person of any nationality?

By decision of the Fourth Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and on the basis of a resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of January 16, 1991, the question was put to a popular vote (referendum): "Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which there will be be fully guaranteed the rights and freedoms of a person of any nationality?

1.9% of ballots were declared invalid. The results of the referendum for the republics are characterized separately by the following data:

HISTORICAL FACT: the majority of citizens - 75% (!) - voted for the preservation of their country, which was not yet completely sold.

We are still trying to understand why the majority gave in to the minority. But for all the grandeur of the catastrophe that happened to us, everything was simple. The people had only will, and the traitors had power.

It should be noted that subsequently, the Russian Duma, relying on Art. 29 of the Law of the USSR of December 27, 1990 No. 1869-I "On the popular vote (referendum of the USSR)", about the fact that "a decision taken by means of a referendum of the USSR is final, binding throughout the territory of the USSR and can only be canceled or changed by a new referendum of the USSR", adopted on March 15, 1996 Resolution No. 157-II "On the legal force for the Russian Federation - Russia of the results of the USSR referendum on March 17, 1991 on the issue of preserving the USSR", which is that "The officials of the RSFSR, who prepared, signed and ratified the decision to end the existence of the USSR, grossly violated the will of the peoples of Russia to preserve the USSR." And it is unlikely that from the point of view of international legal norms it is possible to recognize as legitimate the new states that have arisen in the space of the USSR. Because they arose against the will of the majority of citizens of the USSR.

105 Withdrawal of the Union Republics from the USSR: Causes, Consequences.

The collapse of the USSR, formalized by the Belovezhskaya Agreement of the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus B. N. Yeltsin, L. M. Kravchuk and S. S. Shushkevich on December 8, 1991, is one of the most significant events in the world history of the 20th century. This is perhaps the only assessment that is accepted by most historians and politicians. All other issues related to the analysis of the causes and significance of the collapse of the USSR remain the subject of heated discussions. Causes of the collapse of the USSR. In March 1990, at an all-Union referendum, the majority of citizens spoke in favor of preserving the USSR and the need to reform it. By the summer of 1991, a new Union Treaty was prepared, which gave a chance to renew the federal state. But the unity could not be maintained. The USSR collapsed. Why? Here are the most common explanations offered by researchers: - The USSR was created in 1922. as a federal state. However, over time, it increasingly turned into a state, in essence, a unitary state, controlled from the center and leveling the differences between the republics, the subjects of federal relations. The problems of inter-republican and inter-ethnic relations have been ignored for many years, the difficulties have been driven into the depths and not resolved. During the years of perestroika, when ethnic conflicts became explosive and extremely dangerous, decision-making was postponed until 1990-1991. The accumulation of contradictions made disintegration inevitable; - The USSR was created on the basis of the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination, the federation was built not on a territorial, but on a national-territorial principle. In the Constitutions of 1924, 1936 and 1977 contained norms on the sovereignty of the republics that were part of the USSR. In the context of the growing crisis, these norms became a catalyst for centrifugal processes; - the unified national economic complex that had developed in the USSR ensured the economic integration of the republics. However, as economic difficulties increased, economic ties began to break, the republics showed tendencies towards self-isolation, and the center was not ready for such a development of events; - The Soviet political system was based on a strict centralization of power, the real bearer of which was not so much the state as the Communist Party. The crisis of the CPSU, the loss of its leading role, its disintegration inevitably led to the disintegration of the country; - the unity and integrity of the Union was largely ensured by its ideological unity. The crisis of the communist value system created a spiritual vacuum that was filled with nationalistic ideas; - political, economic, ideological crisis experienced by the USSR in last years of its existence, led to the weakening of the center and the strengthening of the republics, their political elites. For economic, political, personal reasons, the national elites were interested not so much in the preservation of the USSR as in its collapse. The "Parade of Sovereignties" of 1990 clearly showed the moods and intentions of the national party-state elites. Significance of the collapse of the USSR. The significance of such large-scale events is determined by time. Only 10 years have passed since the collapse of the USSR, historians and politicians, citizens of the states that emerged in the place of the USSR, are in the grip of emotions and are not yet ready for balanced, well-founded conclusions. Let us therefore note the obvious: the collapse of the USSR led to the emergence of independent sovereign states; the geopolitical situation in Europe and around the world has changed radically; the rupture of economic ties became one of the main reasons for the deep economic crisis in Russia and other countries - the heirs of the USSR; serious problems arose connected with the fate of the Russians who remained outside Russia, national minorities in general. Formation of a new Russian statehood. The process of formation of the new Russian statehood began with the adoption by the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR of the Declaration on the sovereignty of Russia (1990) and the election of the first Russian president (June 12, 1991). With the collapse of the USSR (December 1991), the status of the Russian Federation as an independent sovereign state became a legal and factual reality. The period of formation of Russian statehood ended on December 12, 1993, when the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted at a national referendum and the Soviet political system was finally dismantled. The birth of the modern Russian state was a dramatic, extremely painful and complex process.