Of the nature of ancient Russia our sources are limited. Foreign observers and such documents as the monastic Primary Chronicle are all that historians rely on here. However, the era is significant and foundational for the understanding of the origins of Orthodox Russia and her royalist tradition.
Despite certain observations from modern authors, ancient Russia, or Russia before the coming of Orthodoxy, had developed a substantial urbanization and a thriving international trade, a trade to exemplify the economic development of the Kievan state. The Dnieper heads straight through Kiev and spills into the Black Sea, giving the early Russians immediate trade with Orthodox Byzantium and the Jewish Khazar Empire, to the chagrin of both civilizations. Novgorod is situated on the Volkhov River, itself connected with the Baltics and thus pan-European trade. The route from the latter to the former, though the Dvina heading into the Dnieper, with the medium of a short land route, makes early Russia a prosperous place. Hides, furs, honey and wax gave Russia a powerful edge in world trade. With access to the Black Sea, and the Caspian through the Don and Volga, there is no place where Russian trade did not enter.
The specific requirement for prosperity, however, is a strong monarchy–relative to the time–that could maintain peace within this lucrative trading route. Therefore, this author believes the story in the Primary Chronicle about the invitation of Ruirik to rule over the native Slavic tribes, all of whom warring among each other for access to remunerative trading centers, is basically true. In both cases the allies here won: the Vikings were given access to a trading route that was at the heart of the Viking mind, and the native Slavs were given a measure of stability. From the simplistic point of view of rational choice, the account of the Chronicle makes perfect sense, giving it a plausibility that should make scholars pause.
The question of the Vikings, though, lies at the heart of Russian identity. We might being with the common theory that it was the Scandinavians who gave Russia its name, though Rus’ is not of Nordic origin. Many of the early princes of ancient Rus’ were clearly of Scandinavian origin, so much as to their oft-cited red hair as well as their names. It might also be noted that the Byzantines would often make a distinction between the Russians as such, and the Vikings as a group. Furthermore, as cited in Rambaud, many Russian envoys at foreign courts were often mistaken for Normans.
This makes up some of the evidence for the “Normanist” theory of Russian origins, that the Chronicle is quite correct in the notion of Russian political foundations. The issue is of extreme importance in terms of ethnography, in that this particular school, popular for many generations, then concludes that Russia has a derivation that is Nordic and “foreign” in origin. Of course, such ideas have in no way stopped English and Irish nationalists in building their self-image, however.
The second vision is completely at odds with the Nordicist or Normanist view, and argues that Ruirik and his followers were at least part Slavic, deriving from their base in the Baltic area, rather than in Scandinavia proper. This school makes quite a big deal over the fact that Rus’ is not of Nordic derivation, and that the phrase “going to Rus’” is common in the Nordic sgas and other literature. This school will also cite Arabic authors, familiar with the Russians in their mutual profitable trade at the Black Sea ports, making reference to Russians as Slavs, something that is somewhat contradicted in the Byzantine sources.
There is a third, and more moderate view that attempts to synthesize the view of the strong Normanist and the ethnic “nationalist” view of Russian origins. The argument is powerful and compelling, and brings together contradictory evidence in a satisfying manner. First, the Vikings are considered to be a very small part of the Scandinavian ethnos, being easily and quickly absorbed into the Slavic mainstream, as the Vikings very quickly became Irish in their western raids. It might be noted that both in Ireland and France, the Vikings, once the earlier raiding had died down and they became a settled trading class, they became Irishmen and Frenchmen respectively, rather quickly. This school also argues that the Vikings were of mixed background, not being pure Scandinavian, but a mixture of Finnish, Slavic and Nordic elements, being from the Baltics, rather than from the more mainstream Norway or Denmark. Another important element in this middle theory is that the Slavs do not seem to have been radically affected by the Viking settlement. There was no “conquest,” as might be suggested by the more radical Normanist school. It seems that local Slav armies were unchanged, and the mir continued to function agriculturally. The pan-Slavic language seems also to be little affected by the Nordic languages. In later law codes, it is also seen that Nordic and Slav are given the same wer-geld, or “honor price” in legal life.
What we might conclude is this synthetic theory satisfies both parties. It satisfies the Normanist in that it was indeed the Vikings that brought order an increase commerce to Slavic affairs. It satisfies the Slavic nationalist in that the Vikings, in spite of their positive affects, were quickly Slavicized, creating a Slavic identity with a powerful but small mixture of Nordic blood. Though the Vikings were a authoritative people, the Slavic ethnos quickly overpowered them, an overpowering through mutual consent. And more importantly, the Vikings brought the order, security and a money economy that made the river routes to the Caspian and Black Seas that made ancient Russia a powerful and wealthy state.
What is striking about ancient Russia is that its social life remained little changed straight away until the Bolshevik takeover. Many of the foundational elements of peasant life are to be found, rather robust, in ancient Russia. Their utility, to be crude, was never exhausted, and shows the folly of Stolypin who attempted to dismantle the commune (mir) in the interests of western, bourgeois commercialism.
What we know about ancient Russian society is as scanty as anything else. However, what we do know provides the historian with a sufficient basis to understand the continuity of Russian institutions, a continuity that might well have simply engrossed the Slavic mind, embedding it with a conceptual apparatus as eventually found made explicit in the concepts of “Sobornost’” and “Sobornoprovanya.’”
The primary element in the life of the Russian peasant was the commune, or the mir, a word that can be translated as both “peace” and “world.” Suggesting two things: that the commune, in its near total jurisdiction over peasant life from c. 800 to 1918, that it is the cause of peace and the political “world” of the agricultural classes. The family was extended, led by the eldest or most vigorous male, a male who had total control over the family finances and social life. Given that even the extended family was not self-sufficient, and the famously short growing season of central Russia, families needed to ban together, the summation of which was the commune, governed by a council of elder males.
The family was often begun with the abduction of the wife. In many respects, this abduction was of a ritual character, and was one that may have pre-dated the Vikings. Either way, such a ritual remains even in the later Imperial period with many games showing the “stealing” of the bride by the groom. However, this should not be taken to mean the second-class treatment of women, as the early epics routinely show heroic women. The very fact that a St Olga should be so widely respected and rule in her own right proves the status of women in this traditional society.
However, as the agricultural life of a Russian was not easy, given the nature of the weather and the growing season, the communes began to develop together into what comes to be known as the Volost, or something on the order of a town or a small county. Even here, however, the council of the mir was represented through the elder males of the families, and retained a strongly representative character throughout. The radically democratic nature of Russian society will be continually be stressed through these lectures, as it is the most powerful and unique feature of medieval Russian life.
The Volost was ruled by an elected council, with the “candidates” taken from the headmen of the communes. The Volost was a very loose institution, as far as we can understand, and often united around an external threat rather than being bound together for any sustained length of time. Such a relation to the commune will remain controversial. It is rather well understood that the mir was in charge of land reparation, and such a division was based upon need, often defined as the size of a family. It might be worth knowing that it was very rare for a Volost to understand anything of a single ruler, or at least one with any significant power. The council or vetche , was all important, and was the upper level political activity of ancient Russia. It was omnipresent.
As far as ancient Russian “religion” is concerned, the veneration given to Perun, or the “god of thunder” is rather well attested, especially in the various lives of St. Vladimir that remain extant. Perun might well be a Slaviciztion of the Nordic god Thor. It is also clear, however, that the ancient Russians had an entity called the heavens, or Svarog, something that might have some similarity to the Indian Brahman. Even in this regard, however, both the coming of the Vikings as well as the coming of Orthodox Christianity did not substantially change the functioning of major social institutions. It did change minds, and that will be dealt with in the next lecture.
The major personalities in the ancient, or pre-Vladimirovian period in Russian history would include Ruirik, his brother Oleg, Igor Ruirik’s son, St. Olga, the widow of Igor, and Sviatoslav. Ruirik is often called semi-legendary, a phrase, as I have argued elsewhere, means nothing. What we know about him is that he was from the Baltic region, and was invited by many of the elders of the native Slavic Volost units to rule over the Russians, another way of saying to stabilize the trade routes from the Baltic to the Black Seas. We know that Ruirik ruled from the powerful trading center of Novgorod, and we know that he very little affected the native traditions of Slavic society. He built a fortress, as did his relatives Askold and Dir in Kiev, at Novgorod, something unknown at the time among the natives, making his rule militaristic, however profitable for all involved. Given his Nordic roots (to whatever extent the reader cares to admit), he sought the pearl of all cities, the City of cities, Constantinople. It is doubtful if Ruirik or his successors believed they could take the city–no doubt they heard reports of its walls–but sought instead to frighten them enough to render tribute given to the newly ensconced Vikings. It remains clear, though, that he failed in this, given the secure period in Greek history he chose to invade. He did bring havoc to the countryside, however.
After the death of the founder of Russian civilization, his brother Oleg (Oleh in Ukrainian) took over. Oleg seems by all local accounts to be a genius of organization, but with such genius often adhering to a ruthlessness normal for state builders, however unfortunate. Oleg took advantage of the wealth accruing in northern Russia to invade Kiev, and imprison Askold and Dir, the rulers of Kiev and Oleg’s blood relatives. By taking Kiev, by this time considered the most important of Slav cities, Oleg unified Russia into one powerful trading bloc of princes under his command. The route from the Baltic to the Black was taken, ordered and rendered more lucrative than before. He was able to use this wealth to force the Greeks to pay tribute, making this state even wealthier, fearsome to the Greeks and a force to be reckoned with in eastern and southern Europe.
After his death, the son of Ruirik, Igor, took over, and continued the same or similar policies of his uncle. Though originally defeated by the Greeks in what is now a ritual invasion of the Byzantine hinterlands, he eventually was to build his already considerable strength to force the City of cities to pay a regular tribute–a tribute suspended at the death of Oleg. Igor met a harsh end at the hands of a Turkish tribe called the Drevlians, a small but fierce group that sought independence from the powerful and rich Russian state. The murder of Igor on his way back from the Greek lands was done through subterfuge, and led to revenge killings from his widow, the illustrious St. Olga.
It is true that this saint took power in the name of Igor’s son, that is, Ruirik’s grandson, Sviatoslav. But, regardless of this, clearly was ruling in her own right, with the respect of the military aristocracy of the realm. She is known primarily for bringing Orthodoxy from Greece to the Slavic lands, being baptized under the name of Helen, with the blessing and godfathership of the Greek emperor himself. Though her new found faith was not largely imitated by her countrymen, it also did not diminish her status in the eyes of the military aristocracy. She took revenge on the ill-fated Drevlian tribe, destroying their very existence and exterminating their leadership for the murder of her husband.
Sviatoslav eventually came of age and began to rule in his own right. His primary foreign policy goal was the liberate much of the Black Sea trade from a group, also of Turkic origin–the Khazars–from collecting tolls from Slavic trade to the Greeks. The Khazars were growing in power, using the same financial base as the Slavs and Vikings, and with great affect, as the Khazars were physically close to the Black Sea than the native Slavs. This being a great irritant to the latter, the warrior king Sviatoslav led an army to destroy them. The Khazars had adopted Judiasm in the 6th century, creating a Jewish empire, an empire that today has furnished the world with about 90% of its Jews. Its destruction sent the Jews into dispersal into the “nations,” though it should be clear that Russia, and the Polish empire of the 17th century saw living in its borders about 85% of the Jewish population of the globe. The remainder, with some Semitic blood in them, lived in Africa and Spain and retain a separate Sephardic identity to this day, one often hostile to their Khazar “co-religionists.”
The Byzantines were impressed by the growing Slavic state to such an extent that, in good Greek fashion, they were used as mercenaries of the Byzantine state to destroy another rising power, that of Bulgaria. The Bulgarian empire had risen quickly, very much like the Russian one, and the Greeks could ill afford to have two powerful Slavic states at their northern borders. Therefore, the emperor hired the Russians to destroy the Bulgarians. However, both victories, that over the Khazars and over the Bulgars (to note, another Turkic people in the process of becoming Slavicized) led to rather unpleasant consequences. Though the defeat of the Jews freed up Black Sea trade, it also opened the doors to more Turkish infiltration of Russia’s ever present “southern problem,” a problem referring to the porous and infamously hard to defend southern border. On the other hand, the defeat of the Bulgars caused more trouble for the Greeks in that now, a massive and wealthy Svatoslavian Russia threatened Byzantium even more than having two large states at their northern borders. Emperor John eventually was to destroy Svatoslav after a great war, a war which sent the Russians back to their native territory. Newly “liberated” Turkish tribes laid in wait for the retreating Russians, and harried their return to Slavic soil.
How reliable are the Chronicles?
Since there are main source of information, we must assume the chroniclers were not chronic liars. The Chroniclers were historians, the literati of their day, and were no less subject to bias than present academic historians. The main reason the academic establishment does not like the Chroniclers is that they were Orthodox people who normally saw Russian history as an unfolding of God’s plan for his chosen people. This is merely a secular bias masquerading as historical scholarship.
How would you characterize the institutions of early Slavic Europe?
As I have said elsewhere, I have called them “Orthodox libertarian communalism.” There was no “government” in the modern (or ancient) sense of the term. Russia was a series of islands of authority, sometimes overlapping, all of which were based on tradition, and the council of local notables. One can easily make an argument that they were more representative than modern parliaments.