Continuation, for the most complete perception of the article, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the previous materials on this topic: The great barbarian - Alexander the Great. and the Masters of the Steppe. Who are the Scythians, where did they come from and where did they go?
Like an umbrella for fishes
When I was in the Soviet school, I was always surprised: what caused the amazing power of our science's attraction to ancient Greek myths and legends? What is so especially valuable about them that schoolchildren of the Great Country must certainly study the fairy tales of distant Hellas? And books, and cartoons, and in the school curriculum….
This led to the fact that I became interested in the myths of other peoples. Taking into account the meager book base at that time, I found quite a lot - Eastern, Caucasian, Tatar and even Chukchi, but not a single Russian! The impression was that the Russians never had their own pantheon of Gods and the epic associated with it.
But this is fundamentally not so! Thanks to the Internet, we now know a lot of legends and tales about the Slavic Gods and our ancestors, but … children are still not told about this, preferring old, proven ancient Greek myths.
That is why OUR children are Greek gods and myths? Why not tell about the Slavic? Whom do they still disturb? Is anyone still afraid of them? Why are they silent about our ancient history? If anyone is interested in my opinion, read: Why are we deprived of historical memory? / Why are we deprived of historical memory? Part 2. / How we are deprived of historical memory. Who stole 5508 years of history from Russia?
Yes, our children need them, like an umbrella for fish, like a saddle for a cow, like a dog's fifth leg - out of place, out of topic and absolutely not for anything! But knowledge of the oldest documents forgotten by official historians would be very useful.
Promotional video:
Although the Orthodox Church in our country is separated (nominally) from the state, it skillfully manages the state apparatus - directing it towards its interests. Whatever confirmation of the deepest antiquity of our state, the enthusiasts would not give - there is one answer to all: from the adoption of Christianity we keep our report and not earlier !!! At least hurt yourself.
However, evidence of a completely different property is given in his book "Masters of Eurasia" by historian D. Belousov. It is hardly known to a wide circle of readers that both Philip and (his son) Alexander the Great appealed to the Russian princes, received military assistance from them and carried on diplomatic correspondence. About which, already in recent history, Russian tsars and emperors were well aware.
“By 333 BC. The letter-ultimatum of Alexander the Great refers to the Slavic princes, written in gold letters in Russian (!) (I give it already in translation into modern language):
Greek warriors.
I repeat a crazy fact - in the IV century BC. written "to the Russian autocrats"! There are two originals, in Russian (!) And in Latin. The "fez" was understood as the national Turkic headdress, that is, the appeal emphasizes that this prince of the Rus was not a Turk, but had the title of khan. I draw your attention to the words about the ruling triumvirate - three different princes of the same state.
That is, the young ruling prince is the Grand Duke, his father is the wise prince of the great rank (no longer ruling the country), and the third prince, who is responsible for state policy in relation to the Turkic peoples - steppe people living in southern Russia (something like a minister foreign affairs).
Slavic Europe
The Russian princes did not want to fight with Alexander, but offered him their help - they sent a detachment of soldiers who fought valiantly as part of the united troops of Alexander the Great, for which he awarded them a diploma in 310 BC. The text was in Old Russian! Translation into modern Russian:
It turns out that Russia existed in the days of the ancient Greeks, occupied the space from the Baltic to the Black Sea, at its head was the Grand Duke, who, however, was titled not "Your Highness", but "Your Majesty"; in other words, he was viewed as a king.
In addition, Alexander the Great (as you know, suffering from megalomania - approx. A. I.) with this charter recognized the borders of Russia and allowed the Russian Grand Duke to take as subjects any people who came to this territory, but to remain within the outlined borders, not increasing the size of the country.
Empress Catherine II, "Notes on Russian history":
That is, Catherine II both knew about the existence of such a letter, and reckoned with it as a genuine historical document. - the end of the quote from the book.
Map of Alexander's Central Asian campaign.
What was it?
History has left us very little information regarding the relationship between the Macedonians and the Scythians. It is known that they were in active correspondence and either entered into temporary alliances or collided. There is evidence that Alexander's father Philip, sent a detachment of his soldiers to help the Scythian king Atey, and then went to war against him.
His great son Alexander also had an extremely difficult relationship with the Scythians, due to their large numbers, cockiness, lack of rigid centralization of power and their stubborn unwillingness to fight according to his rules (Napoleon later complained about the same).
There was nothing much to take from them - first try to find them in the endless steppes, then catch up, and then manage to find what to take away there. Many tried, but only a few succeeded. Everyone heard of the shameful campaign of another great - the Persian king Darius, which ended in complete dust and laughter of all Asia. Prospects are so-so.
Therefore, it is quite possible that after a series of border clashes that passed with varying success, Alexander was able to achieve a distinct neutrality from the Scythian princes and even get a military detachment to help. After which, calm for his northern borders, he was able to go on a campaign to India.
Macedonians in India.
Attention, the question: why are they not told about this in schools and not made colorful historical films? Instead, are they investing state (read - our) money in the production of Russophobic pseudo-historical libels about the Slavs (more: The film "Viking" is a Russophobic project of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Academy of Sciences.)?
Is there a reason to think? There is something to think about …