In some Western European languages (both old and modern), words are known that mean "slave" or "slave", which are often similar to words from the same languages, denoting the concept of "Slav". All of them, too, are similar to words from medieval Greek and Latin languages, denoting Slavs. Some of them are: English slave ("slave"), French esclave ("esclav"), German "Sklave" ("sklave"), Portuguese escravo ("escravo"), Italian schiavo ("skiavo"), etc.
Similar words for slaves are known in some Scandinavian, Dutch, Romanian, and even medieval Arabic. All of them, to a certain extent, are also similar to the self-designation of the Slavs ("Slovenes", "Slavs", etc.) Some, between the names of the slaves and the ethnonym of the Slavs, put an equal sign. That served as the basis for numerous Atis-Slavic, in general, and anti-Russian, in particular, statements, theories and whole propaganda waves, which sometimes acquired the scope of real mythologies. Moreover, these views have even leaked into academic science.
As it happened more than once, when some not entirely adequate ideas fell into academic works and were entrenched there, the idea of the kinship of the words "Slav" and "slave" got into science, giving rise to a series of "scientific", in form, but questionable, in essence, ideas and statements. Further, we intend to consider this issue in as much detail as possible.
The essence of these ideas is that these words are related to the name of the Slavs, allegedly, "due to the fact that in the Middle Ages, the Slavs en masse became objects of the slave trade, which led to the use of their name as a designation for slaves." This idea, in different ways, was repeated quite often, it is not difficult to face it. Sometimes it was even argued that Western Europeans, whose languages contain these words, directly, massively and regularly turned the Slavs into slavery. And in general, far-reaching conclusions were made, such as that the "Slavs are slaves" and the Western Europeans are "their masters".
Moreover, in the XVIII-XIX centuries. in Western European journalism, the ideas persisted that even the word "Slav" itself comes from the Latin or Greek word meaning "slave". This was started by a French historian and publicist of the 18th century. Polemics with this myth can be found in Dostoevsky's Diary of a Writer. (F. M. Dostoevsky. Complete works: in 30 volumes. T. 23. M., 1990, p. 63, 382.)
But, as they say, horseradish radish is not sweeter - for, as for the origin of the European names of slaves on our behalf, this is exactly the same idea that is still often repeated by some authors.
So let's start in order. What do we really know about these Western European words? First, they are all related - they have a common basis, a common origin. And, in fact, their source is well known - the language where they came from. The birthplace of these words is Byzantium. It was there, in the Middle Ages, in the so-called Middle Greek (the Greek language of the medieval era) that the word "σκλάβος" appeared (read as "sklavos" - "slave"). Further - from Byzantium, from the Greek language this word falls into medieval Latin. There it takes the form of "sclavus" ("sclavus"). And from medieval Latin - the official, as well as the international legal, political, commercial and scientific language of Western Europe (in which for many centuries, the entire document circulation was conducted,as well as the annals of all Western countries) this word spreads to almost all Western European languages. Moreover, in different languages it appears at different times (for example, in accordance with Webster's Dictionary in English, it appears only in the XIV century, while Webster gives an etymological version of the Slavic slave trade. This is in the XIV century, in England! Sic!) In many of these European languages, the word has survived to this day. In addition, apparently, from the Middle Greek language, it falls into the Romanian and Arabic languages. Although, it is possible that here, as in the case of Western European languages, Latin acted as an intermediary.gives an etymological version of the Slavic slave trade. This is in the XIV century, in England! Sic!) In many of these European languages, the word has survived to this day. In addition, apparently, from the Middle Greek language, it falls into the Romanian and Arabic languages. Although, it is possible that here, as in the case of Western European languages, Latin acted as an intermediary.gives an etymological version of the Slavic slave trade. This is in the XIV century, in England! Sic!) In many of these European languages, the word has survived to this day. In addition, apparently, from the Middle Greek language, it falls into the Romanian and Arabic languages. Although, it is possible that here, as in the case of Western European languages, Latin acted as an intermediary.
Thus, the direct appearance of these words in Western European languages, for reasons of allegedly abundant trade in Slavic slaves by representatives of these Western European peoples, is excluded. Since the word has a clearly traceable and understandable history. And it did not arise in the West, but in Byzantium.
Promotional video:
However, we have so far only covered the history of the spread of the word. And this is only part of the problem. The main question is, what is the history of its origin? How did it appear in the language of medieval Byzantium? Where from? What are its roots?
And there are two possible answers to these questions. The first is a slightly modified version of the same version of the "medieval slave trade", the numerous victims of which, allegedly, were the Slavs.
The Byzantines called the Slavs Sklavens (σκλαβηνοι was read in Greek as sklävenoi, singular σκλαβηνός, sklavenos) and this word, in general, is similar to the one that was the original for Western "slaves". Moreover, the medieval Latin Sclaveni comes from the Greek word, which this time was already designated Slavs. It was also, in different spellings, used by states whose official language was Latin to denote the Slavs. Sometimes with "c" in the first letters, sometimes with "k", sometimes without - just "Slaveni". This word is also similar to that which in Latin meant slaves. In accordance with the version of the slave trade, it turns out that it was in Byzantium, during the early Middle Ages, the Slavs were in such a large number as slaves that the word even appeared in the Middle Greek language,derived from their ethnonym, to denote the concept of "slave". Which further (along the route already traced by us) through Latin fell into different Western languages.
Well, the words are really similar … But what is the second version of the appearance of the word denoting slaves in medieval Greek?
It looks like this. The word “slave” in Middle Greek comes from the Greek verb skyleúo - meaning “to get spoils of war”, the first person singular of which looks like skyláo. This version, in particular, is set out here:
F. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 2002, siehe Sklave. (Etymological Dictionary of the German Language, 2002, article "Sklave".) A similar version is presented in the following source: Köbler, Gerhard, Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1995 (Etymological Dictionary of the German language by G. Köbler, 1995) Here are articles from this dictionary with the letter S, look at the word Sklave: “… zu gr. skyleuein, skylan, V. zu gr. skylon ".
Thus, it turns out that the Greek word "sklav", "slave" - comes from the Greek word, the original meaning of which was "captured in war", "captured in war." And, as you can see, in this case, in its origin there is no connection with the ethnonym of the Slavs. In fact, it turns out that the "Slavs" and all these numerous Western European "sklavas" are only homonyms (consonant words).
We will say a little more about homonyms. There are many examples of such consonant coincidences (both within the same languages and between words from different languages).
Compare, for example, the Russian words "key" ("stream, source") and "key" ("object for opening locks"), "braid" ("braided hair") and "braid" ("a tool for cutting grass"), "Earth" ("soil") and Earth (the name of our planet), "tongue" ("human speech") and "tongue" ("organ of the oral cavity"). Of the more unusual ones, one can recall, for example, the Russian colloquial version of the name Dmitry - Diman, or Dimon, and compare it with the word "demon". Or compare the Russian name of the North African country "Morocco" and the Russian word "moroka". Or, the German word "West" ("West" - "west") and the Russian word "news" ("message, news"). Another example is the English word "chill" ("chill" - "cold") and the name of the South American country "Chile". Another example is the German word "König" ("könig" - "king") and the Russian word "groom". All of these are pretty close (and sometimes, even,literally coinciding) in the sound of the word, but, at the same time, they have different meanings, and, as a rule, completely different origins. In fact, there are hundreds of such examples. This is a fairly common occurrence.
Thus, in medieval Byzantium a new word arose associated with the verb meaning "to seize trophies of war", which began to be called slaves, slaves. At the same time, the old, still ancient word, which previously meant slaves, was no longer used for slaves, because they began to call people more like serfs attached to the land and working on it. But ordinary slaves began to be called this new word, which from Greek got into Latin, and from it into other languages. This is how it all looks like.
Which of the two variants of the origin of the words - "slaves", should we choose as the most probable? The question is not at all idle. What should be guided for making this decision? I think we should undertake scientific analysis. What is "scientific analysis"? It is simply looking for and considering facts and comparing them with other facts. Here's what to do to determine the adequacy of a hypothesis. Unfortunately, it seems that this simple and fundamental principle is sometimes completely misunderstood, or completely ignored by some authors.
And so - what are the facts here? I think that information from the history of medieval Byzantium, in which this word itself arose, may be appropriate. And, in particular, her wars with the Slavs. More precisely, it is more correct to say - the history of the Slavic, Avar-Slavic and again purely Slavic conquests of Byzantium in the 6th-9th centuries. In the first millennium AD, the Slavs almost completely captured the former European provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, forming their own independent states on them. Some of which still exist. These Roman and Byzantine provinces were captured by the Slavs: Dalmatia, Illyria, Panonia, Moesia, Dacia, and also, for the most part, Macedonia and Thrace. They are now home to numerous South Slavic states - from Slovenia to Bulgaria.
Roman provinces in the second half of the first millennium AD almost completely conquered by the Slavs.
In addition, at the same time, the Slavs seized many lands within the borders of modern Greece - including the cradle of Ancient Greece, the Peloponnese peninsula. Which from the moment of the Slavic conquest until the 19th century, until the liberation from the Turkish Empire, and the formation of modern Greece, was called by the Slavic name Morea (literally "sea land", "land among the sea"). Also, the Slavs captured the island of Crete and some areas in Anatolia, in Asia Minor (now belonging to the Asian part of Turkey). There were even separate Slavic colonies in Syria. Some principalities of the Slavs came close to the capital of Byzantium Constantinople - Constantinople. For example, the future Bulgaria, or, one more, principality whose center was the city of Thessaloniki (the Slavs called Solun), it approached very close to the borders of the city from the south. According to the Roman (as the Byzantines called themselves) chronicles,when the Slavs seized the land in Greece - the Greeks themselves were afraid to show up there. And so it went on for centuries. In particular, there is such a mention of Morea (Peloponnese). Traces of the former Slavic presence in modern Greece are quite numerous place names of Slavic origin. Such, for example, as the name of the city of Volos (given in honor of the Slavic god Volos, or Veles), etc.
The Slavic world after the conquest of the European provinces of Byzantium by the Slavs.
You can read a summary of the early Slavs here. About the beginning of the conquest of Byzantium by them - briefly here. And here is an overview of the wars that the Slavs waged with Byzantium as subjects of the Avar Kaganate, as well as after the Kaganate was destroyed by them. More details, for example, here.
Here, by the way, one can cite one Byzantine text, which tells about the tribes of the Slavs and Antes, neighboring with Byzantium, at the time even before the Slavic conquest of the European part of the empire. It is about the work of the Strategy (or Strategicon), which is attributed to the Emperor Mauritius (539-602). It contains very valuable and interesting information about the Slavs. Including about their attitude to slavery and slaves.
Here is an excerpt from it:
Another, more modern version of the translation of words about the attitude of the Slavs to slavery:
As you can see, the Byzantines clearly did not associate the Slavs with slaves, even in those times when they had just begun to conquer Byzantium itself. And what can we say about the era when the Slavs occupied almost all of its European half.
Serbian map, which shows the territory of settlement of the Slavs in the Balkan Peninsula in the 9th century.
Serbian map, which shows the territory of settlement of the Slavs in the Balkan Peninsula in the 9th century. The Slavs on it are collectively called Serbs, this is a special, not generally recognized Serbian point of view. But the card itself is quite adequate.
Thus, if we take into account all the above facts, then the version about the origin of the Middle Greek word "slave" from the name of the Slavs seems extremely strange and even incredible. For - in fact, after the conquest of a significant part of Byzantium, the Slavs were not slaves there at all, but, on the contrary, they were LORD. Well, or in the worst case, just free settlers, conquerors - into whose lands the Romans (Byzantines) themselves were afraid to enter. The word “slave”, derived from the name of conquerors and conquerors, is extremely strange. I'm afraid we won't find a single similar example in history! This simply does not happen, and it cannot be. For "invader" and "slave" are opposite words in meaning. Moreover, if we look at Byzantium itself, in those parts of it,who continued to remain independent of the Slavs, we find a fairly large number of Slavic-born figures who held a high position in society. Known are Byzantine military and political leaders, religious hierarchs, high dignitaries and simply rich and noble people of Slavic origin. Including several emperors, who apparently had Slavic roots. These include, in particular, Maximilian. And in accordance with the Orthodox tradition, even the great Justinian himself had Slavic blood (about this, in particular, wrote Venelin, a very detailed work of which can be read in this collection: Anti-Normanism).the highest dignitaries and simply rich and noble people of Slavic origin. Including several emperors, who apparently had Slavic roots. These include, in particular, Maximilian. And in accordance with the Orthodox tradition, even the great Justinian himself had Slavic blood (in particular, Venelin wrote about this, a very detailed work of which can be read in this collection: Anti-Normanism).the highest dignitaries and simply rich and noble people of Slavic origin. Including several emperors, who apparently had Slavic roots. These include, in particular, Maximilian. And in accordance with the Orthodox tradition, even the great Justinian himself had Slavic blood (about this, in particular, wrote Venelin, a very detailed work of which can be found in this collection: Anti-Normanism).
So - as we can see, the idea of the origin of the name of slaves in Byzantium from the name of the Slavs - does not stand up to an elementary test in practice. Thus, it turns out that this word most likely comes from the very verb that meant "to seize the spoils of war." And, accordingly, initially, as we have already mentioned, it meant "captured in war", "prisoner". That, you see, in itself, is completely logical.
But what about the word sklaveni, which the Greeks called the Slavs? Where does the Latin name for the Slavs come from? Why is it so similar to the captives of the "Sklavos"? Yes - it's true, the Greeks called "Slavs" and "captives" with very similar words. This is due to the peculiarities of the Greek pronunciation. The sound combination "sl", which begins the Slavic self-name for the medieval Greeks, was very inconvenient and difficult to pronounce.
For us, this is a completely ordinary combination of sounds, but for the Greeks it was difficult. This often happens with speakers of different languages. Try, for example, to pronounce some long German word - most likely, you will find there combinations of sounds that are completely unreadable for Russian. Or, on the other hand, try to make a German say, for example, the Russian words "lark", "foal", "railway", "fancy" - in response, you will hear many sounds, the existence of which in these words did not know.
The same is with the self-designation of the Slavs among the Greeks. And to make the word more pronounced, the Greeks inserted the sound "k" at its beginning, in the "sl". What made it look like the same Greek word associated in meaning with spoils of war. Thus, apparently, from the very beginning, these were just homonyms. Consonant words. And no more. Since its inception.
It turns out, in fact, English "slave", German "Sklave", Italian "schiavo", etc. on the one hand, the Russian "Slavs", the Polish "słowianie", the Croatian "slaveni", the Kashubian "słowiónie", etc. on the other hand, they have nothing to do with each other. And "connected" no more than the name of the famous Spanish singer Julio Iglesias with the Russian swear word, the interrogative derivative of which, as you know, is very similar to this name. We will refrain from listing this form here, but we think that most readers are familiar with it.
Julio Iglesias.
Julio Iglesias is a name that has nothing to do with a similar Russian swear word, and is just a Spanish version of the Latin name Julius (IULIUS) - which was carried in particular by the famous Roman military leader and consul, the predecessor of the Roman emperors, Julius Caesar (GAIUS IULIUS CÆSAR).
Thus, both Greek words in question are indeed very similar to each other. As well as their modern derivatives, for example the English "slave" ("slave") is also really similar to the word "Slav" ("Slav"). But you should understand that these are just funny quirks of nature, curiosities associated with the development of languages. And no more. Let's repeat again - homonyms are not a rare phenomenon in human languages. If you give more examples of words similar in sound, you can recall the Russian word "one" ("one") and the name of the Scandinavian god "One". Also very similar words, differing only in stress. Another vivid example is the Mengrelian (a kind of Georgians) surname "Gurtskaya", which is almost completely consonant with the female gender of the surname of Polish origin "Guretsky" - "Guretskaya". However, the surname Gurtskaya is not connected with her and has its own unique origin. Moreover, it does not bend, nor does it change by gender. And, both for a man and for a woman, it looks the same: Diana Gurtskaya, Tengiz Gurtskaya. And if you compare the same English and Russian languages, you can mention the following examples: the English word "star" ("star" - "star") and the Russian "star" (a short form of the adjective "old"), or the English word "lip" (" linden "-" lip ") and the Russian" linden "(the name of the tree), or English" dildo "(" dildo "- in one of the meanings," guy, man ") and the Russian word" dylda "(" very tall, lanky man ") - very similar words, but not having any common origin. Some more funny examples: English "shit" (pronounced almost like "shield", a rude, dirty word,means "shit") and the Russian "shield" ("hand weapons to protect against blows, round or rectangular plane"). The Udmurt word "city" which also means "shit", and an English word of Latin origin, almost already borrowed into Russian "city" ("city" - "big city" or "business center of the city"). Imagine what it is like for people who know the Udmurt language, visiting modern Moscow, to read phrases like Moscow City, Bank City, City Hall, etc. And how strange, if not funny, it sounds in Russian, for example, the Arabic male name Nasrallah, I think there is no need to explain it. However, it means only "Nasir Allah (Allah's Helper)". And, since we have touched on taboo vocabulary, I remembered a funny example of homonymous coincidences between Armenian and English. This is the Armenian word "clear" (abusive,"Penis") and the English word "clear" ("clear" - "clean, clear", from the Latin "clarus"). Again, very similar in appearance and completely different in meaning words. Further, as an illustration, we present a fragment of a page from a real Mongolian-Russian dictionary. We do not pursue our goal to offend the reader, these are quite literary Mongolian words.
Fragment of a page of the Mongolian-Russian dictionary.
Fragment of a page of the Mongolian-Russian dictionary. The words visible in the picture have nothing to do with the famous Russian swear word. Although some time ago there was a hypothesis about its, namely, Mongolian origin, but at the present time, it is not considered, since it has been established that this word is the original Slavic, goes back to the ancient Indo-European root, and has a common origin with the words “needles "And" tail ". However, the Mongols have completely repeating forms of it, which, however, have their own meaning and origin.
In fact, these are good examples of the quirkiness and awesomeness of some external coincidences in different languages. Among which, apparently, is the indicated similarity between the ethnonym of the Slavs and the name of slaves.
At the same time, over the past centuries, the similarity of these words has caused a truly colossal number of various insinuations, distortions, and sometimes downright offensive anti-Slavic attacks. Almost everyone who had some kind of evil or hostile goals in relation to the Slavs in general, or some specific groups of them, for example, the Russians, usually took this coincidence into service and tried to exploit it. From Napoleon and the British, to Wilhelm and Hitler. Sometimes, also, the convergence of the words "Slavs" and "Sklavusy" was done, obviously, according to the principle of folk etymology - people's attempts to explain the external similarity of words. For example, in the medieval Jewish tradition, the origin of the Slavs from the “sons of Canaan” was declared, since it is said about this biblical character: “he will be a slave to his brothers” (Petrukhin V. Ya. Beginning of the ethnocultural history of Russia in the 9th-11th centuries. Smolensk; M., 1995. S. 35). And the most surprising thing is that, despite all the evidence that the identity of the words "Slav" and "slave" is doubtful, this thought as "truth" has leaked even into "academic science."
At the same time, in view of the antiquity of this homonymous coincidence, as well as the key role of the Slavs themselves in the political processes that took place at different times in Europe (including in the medieval era), this coincidence, apparently, could be exploited for propaganda, anti-Slavic purposes even in very early times. Perhaps since the days of Byzantium itself. At least - it can be said for sure that during the wars that were waged against the Polabian and Pomor Slavs, the German emperors - one of the German authors of those years, namely Adam of Bremen, tried to draw parallels between the Latin sclavus and the Slavs. The same argumentation, as we have already said, was resorted to by many subsequent authors who served various anti-Slavic ambitions. But the antiquity of attempts to make such an equation does not make it more justified. These are homonyms. Sound and spelling matches. Although, the duration and persistence of equating them with each other is sometimes really impressive. Many people, especially in the West, have worked on this regularly and for a long time.
Now a few words about academic scientists. Some of them, including domestic ones, happened to make statements about the relationship of these words. Sometimes they are very categorical. For example, take a quote from A. V. Nazarenko: “There can be no doubt that a very large part of the slaves who entered European markets in the 9th century were of Slavic origin. The very origin of the word "slave" in Western European languages speaks of this unambiguously: it. Sklave, fr. esclave <Wed-lat. sclavus "slave, Slav" "(Nazarenko A. V. Ancient Russia on international routes: Interdisciplinary essays on cultural, trade, political relations of the 9th-12th centuries - M. 2001., p. 95.)
However, no matter what Nazarenko says there, and no matter how unambiguously he postulates it, as we have seen, there are actually doubts about these words, and very serious ones. Moreover, to paraphrase, for the sake of a joke, Nazarenko himself can say the following: “There can be no doubt that the origin of the word“slave”in Western European languages from the word“Slav”is doubtful, and it is also doubtful that most of the slaves are the European market of the 9th century was of Slavic origin”.
But, as for authors such as Nazarenko, we have to admit that they do not care too seriously about a comprehensive analysis of this situation, and sometimes limit themselves to only loud and biting statements. Often, by the way, they look like spitting at themselves. And Nazarenko, in fact, is not the only author from whom such theses can be heard. As a rule, their authors appeal to various medieval testimonies about the slave trade in the Slavic states. Messages about what, indeed sometimes come across in different sources.
Prince Svyatoslav (942-972).
For example, remember the statement of the Russian prince, recorded in the Tale of Bygone Years. We are talking about a phrase that the famous Svyatoslav explained in 969 his decision to move from Kiev to Pereyaslavets on the Danube. In the city, where, according to him, benefits from different countries, including Russia, "quickly and wax, honey and servants" flock. From which it follows that the main goods that Russia supplied to the international market in those years were skora (furs), wax (a very valuable beekeeping product at that time, was used in shipbuilding, for the production of candles and for other purposes), honey (apparently, intoxicating drink, honey wine) and servants (slaves). Some interpreters of this phrase often interpret it as the fact that these slaves were taken out, almost from among the subjects of the prince themselves. Which, of course, is complete nonsense. It's just that during the time of Svyatoslav - Russia constantly waged various offensive and often victorious wars, for example, with the Finno-Ugrians, with the Vyatichi, with the Bulgars and, of course, with the Khazars. Including the famous defeat of Khazaria. These wars served as a constant source of slaves, which Russia exported to the foreign market. But not at all, as it seems to some citizens with an overly developed imagination - that Svyatoslav almost grabbed passers-by on the streets of Russian cities and took them out for sale. Of course not - they were prisoners captured during the wars. The reports of mass captures of which in the same war with the Khazars are completely transparent. And thus, by the way, not all of them were Slavs. Moreover, most likely, there was a minimum of the Slavs among the "servants" of Svyatoslav. Is that the distant ancestors of today's Muscovites, Vyatichi. The rest were either the inhabitants of Khazaria, or the Finno-Ugrians, or other enemies defeated by Svyatoslav. On this issue, we can recommend the work of I. Ya. Froyanov, especially "Slavery and tributary among the Eastern Slavs", the author in them arguably proves that the "servants" in Russia were called exactly foreign slaves, bought or captured in battle.
* Prince Svyatoslav * artist Vladimir Kireev.
There is also other evidence of the slave trade in the Slavic lands. Including the Slavs. But they also have completely different interpretations. Some of this evidence is reviewed, for example, here.
It is interesting that the idea of the origin of Western European words denoting the concept of "slave" from the ethnonym of the Slavs, at one time, was actively adopted by adherents of the Normanist version of the origin of the Russian state. They try to use it to illustrate and even, as it seems to them, to "prove" their bizarre ideas about the most ancient period in the history of our country and our people. More details about the Normanist doctrine itself and about its blatant nonsense and inconsistencies, we plan to write in a separate article. Here we will restrict ourselves to the statement of the fact that from the lips of the Normanists, the idea of the relationship of these words sometimes sounds in a very categorical and even aggressive form. As an example, I can cite the recent words of a Normanist, spoken by him in a dispute with me that unfolded on one of the pages in LiveJournal. I quote the words of this man (he signed himself with a troll pseudonym, so I will not indicate him). Here is his phrase: “(…) the huge masses of Slavic slaves whom the Vikings caught in the South Baltic, it was much easier to hand over to the German and Frankish feudal lords, and also to transport them to Cordoba. It is clear why in Western Europe the Slav meant a slave …”and further, in the same spirit. It is in this kind, if one may say so, "reality" that modern Normanists believe, or as they sometimes call themselves "real historians." Statements of such content (and sometimes even more trenchant) from their lips are far from uncommon. But, as is often the case with the ideas of the Normanists, they "correspond" to the truth with accuracy BEFORE THE VERSE!it was much easier to hand over to the German and Frankish feudal lords, and also to transport them to Cordoba. It is clear why in Western Europe the Slav meant a slave …”and further, in the same spirit. It is in this kind, if one may say so, "reality" that modern Normanists believe, or as they sometimes call themselves "real historians." Statements of such content (and sometimes even more trenchant) from their lips are far from uncommon. But, as is often the case with the ideas of the Normanists, they "correspond" to the truth with accuracy BEFORE THE VERSE!it was much easier to hand over to the German and Frankish feudal lords, and also to transport them to Cordoba. It is clear why in Western Europe the Slav meant a slave …”and further, in the same spirit. It is in this kind, if one may say so, "reality" that modern Normanists believe, or as they sometimes call themselves "real historians." Statements of such content (and sometimes even more trenchant) from their lips are far from uncommon. But, as is often the case with the ideas of the Normanists, they "correspond" to the truth with accuracy BEFORE THE VERSE!But, as is often the case with the ideas of the Normanists, they "correspond" to the truth with accuracy BEFORE THE VERSE!But, as is often the case with the ideas of the Normanists, they "correspond" to the truth with accuracy BEFORE THE VERSE!
This idea of the Slavs of the Southern Baltic can be described as stupidity and complete ignorance. In fact, the Slavs of the Pomor and Polab regions were powerful and very warlike peoples. For centuries they fought both with the Germans - with the Saxons and Franks, and with the Scandinavians - with the Danes, Swedes and Norwegians. Sometimes together with some of them - they fought against others. Sometimes, on the contrary, they fought back from broad coalitions, which, along with the Germans, or Scandinavians, included some Slavic tribes. Here is what, for example, will come about the most western of them, about the Helmold wagrs in the Slavic Chronicle:
When the Baltic Slavs were not at war with their neighbors, they were actively trading and developing diplomatic ties. In particular, they exchanged brides with them - the Scandinavian or German kings sent their daughters for the Slavic princes, and in return received the daughters of the Slavic kings for their sons. There are a lot of reports about this in medieval sources devoted to the Baltic. In fact, this was one of the main subjects in diplomatic contacts of that time. For more information on dynastic marriages of the Baltic Slavs, see here.
As for wars, robbery and capture of prisoners - we plan to write an article "Medieval Slavic Pirates of the Baltic and North Sea", in which we intend to tell about this in as much detail as possible. Here, let's just say that, despite the fact that at present the most advertised medieval pirates are the Scandinavians - in fact, the Slavs of the Baltic also conducted very active military and robbery activities at sea - including against these very Scandinavians who are overly heroized by some … Sometimes, on the contrary, the Slavs attacked someone together with the Scandinavian Vikings. And, in fact, there is a lot of information about this. In this text, we will limit ourselves to just listing a few facts.
Firstly, the Baltic Slavs were mentioned under the name "Venda" (as the neighboring non-Slavic peoples called them) among the Normans who attacked England and Ireland. Which, by the way, drove away numerous prisoners from English cities and monasteries. Some of the famous horror-filled English texts dealing with the Norman robberies of the 8th-9th centuries - among the attackers, in addition to the Danes and Norwegians, directly list the Wends! The outstanding Russian historian Gedeonov wrote about this back in the 19th century.
And the Saga of Hakone Dobrom reports on the attacks of the Viking Wends on the Scandinavian lands (together with the Danes). We quote: "Then Hakon Konung sailed to the east along the banks of the Skane and ravaged the country, took ransoms and taxes and killed the Vikings, where he only found them, both Danes and Wends."
Further - several texts of German chroniclers are known, in which the Slavic pirates of Rügen and neighboring lands are generally called the MOST dangerous and bloodthirsty robbers of the Baltic. Especially, if these German reports are to be believed, the inhabitants of the island of Rügen (in Slavic Ruyana) were the invincible and merciless pirates. This is reported, in particular, by Adam of Bremen (Acts of the Archbishops of the Hamburg Church), here is an excerpt from his work:
“(…) Three islands should be distinguished from those islands that lie opposite the Slavic land. The first of these is Fembre. It is located opposite the Vagre area and, like the island of Laland, can be seen from Stargrad. The second is located opposite the Wilts. It is owned by the Ruyans, a very brave Slavic tribe, without whose decision, according to custom, no social decisions are made. They are feared because they are in close relationship with the gods, or rather with the demons, whom they give more reverence than others. Both of these islands are full of pirates and bloodthirsty robbers who do not spare anyone passing by. All the captives that others usually sell, they usually kill (…)"
(The text is based on the work of A. G. Kuzmin Who in the Baltics "Korennaya"? M. 1993), there are also slightly different translations.
We see one more evidence from Helmold. In his Slavic Chronicle, he writes the following:
“The Rane, called by others Ruans, are cruel people who dwell in the heart of the sea and are devoted beyond measure to idolatry. They excel among all Slavic peoples, have a king and a famous sanctuary. Therefore, due to the special veneration of this sanctuary, they enjoy the greatest respect and, imposing a yoke on many, they themselves do not experience anyone's yoke, being inaccessible, for it is difficult to get to their places. The tribes that they subjugate with weapons, they make them pay tribute to their sanctuary. (…) Completely neglecting the benefits of agriculture, they are always ready to launch attacks on the sea, placing their only hope and all their wealth on ships."
These same Vendian Slavs systematically attacked Denmark and Sweden. They plundered cities, stole captives. In particular in 1043, they captured and plundered the Danish city of Ribe.
Here is an excerpt from a Polish article on Slavic piracy in the Baltic (Mariusz Zulawnik, PIRACTWO SLOWIANSKIE NA BALTYKU DO 1184 ROKU, 1999 TEKA HISTORYKA, 1999.- zeszyt 16. -S.5-18.): “Pirates organized expeditions to capture prey or slaves … The rich were valuable prey, for these sea robbers could get a large ransom for them. The rest of the prisoners were sold at auction. A large number of prisoners after each expedition led to the fact that the prices for slaves in the Slavic markets dropped sharply. Things were different, for example, in Denmark, where prices immediately skyrocketed. The reason for this was the lack of slaves after the Slavic attacks. The prisoners captured in clashes with the Poles were sold either to Denmark or to Ruyan, and prisoners from the North (Danes) - mainly to the West and South of Europe. To more valuable slaves, such asthe rich were treated better than the rest, who were used, among other things, in heavy work, such as building ships. They were often bullied. In Titmar we can read how we dealt with some of the hostages: “Their anger was passed on to the rest of the corsairs. In the morning they cut off the nose, ears and hands of the priest (…) and the rest of the hostages; then they threw them overboard into the bay (…)."
And here is a description of the consequences of the Slavic corsair expedition undertaken in 1136 under the leadership of the Pomor prince Ratibor I on Konunghala (at that time a Danish city, now owned by Sweden, located on the border with Norway) from the same article: “(…) the pagans did not keep their word, they took away all people, men, women and children, killed many, especially those who were weak, of low birth and those who were difficult to take away with them. They took all the money that was in the city."
This is how the sources characterize the situation caused by the systematic Slavic pirate attacks on Denmark, shortly before the campaigns of Valdemar I on Ruyana: “At this time, the pirates unbelted themselves from the borders of the Slavs as far as Eidor, all the villages from the east, left by the inhabitants (…), lay in ruins with uncultivated land. Zealand, from east to south, gaped with emptiness (…), there was nothing left on Fionia but a few inhabitants.
Boleslav Krivousy (1085-1138), Polish Christian king, who actively fought the pagan Slavic pirates of the Baltic.
One of the most important reasons why the famous Danish king Valdemar I (1131-1182) waged wars with the Ruyans was that they constantly ravaged his country, and the population was taken en masse. It was the constant attacks from the pagans from Ruyana that forced Valdemar (by the way, who got his name in honor of the Christian Russian prince Vladimir Monomakh, whose descendant through his mother he was) to start active wars with them. (Allied with the next German emperor). Specifically, before the retaliatory attack of Valdemar, the Ruyans gave up almost half of Denmark to fire and sword, captured several cities and imposed tribute on the Danish provinces. Including the island of Lolland, and reached Roskilde (Roskilde - the then capital of Denmark). The Danish annals describe the brutal attacks of the Wends. The Danes' retaliatory campaigns were successful for them. As a result, Rügen was baptized for the first time in 1168.
The famous Polish king Boleslav Krivousy (1085-1138) also waged a war with Slavic pagan pirates at the beginning of the 12th century. Which attacked their areas and bases from the continent. In addition to eradicating the robbers, he fought against the political independence of the Pomor lands. And also tried to Christianize them. A kind of a kind of "second front" against the Slavic pagan Baltic. More precisely, even the third, if we consider that the Germans also fought with them from the south. But the most interesting thing is that regular Slavic robberies of Scandinavia, including Denmark and Sweden, continued even after Valdemar and Boleslav. And in addition to the wagrs and ruians, the Pomorians took an active part in them. The customs of Slavic sea robbery on the southern coast of the Baltic were not suppressed for a very long time. And from time to time,continued to receive reports of the ruinous raids of the Slavs on the coastal areas of the Scandinavian states. As a result, some parts of Sweden and Denmark are devastated and completely depopulated.
The most famous pirate of the Baltic, Klaus Störtebeker (1360-1401), an image from a souvenir plate bought in his homeland, on the island of Rügen.
Moreover, the most famous pirate of the Baltic Sea - Klaus Störtebeker, with whose name a lot of legends and stories are connected, according to one version, was born not somewhere, but on Rügen - in a village with such an understandable and natural name for Russians as Ruskevitsa. By the way, this settlement, with only a slightly modified name, still exists there. See here for more details. According to another version, he was born on the mainland in Wismar, but this is also a former Slavic land (in Slavic the city is called Vyshemir). It is interesting that in this era, the Slavic Rugen in the past was already actively Germanized, however, the traditions of sea piracy continue to live on it! Many large Baltic cities and even whole monarchs feared Störtebeker's flotillas. Margretta, Queen of Denmark, after a series of defeats at Störtebeker, was forced to hire crusaders to fight him. What, by the way,may be a hint that his pirates still honored Ryugen's old faith …
Of course - not only the Slavs were engaged in robbery and robbery, the seizure of cities and villages, theft of prisoners in the Baltic. Naturally, there were also attacks on them - from the Scandinavians, or other inhabitants of the shores of the Baltic Sea. The Danes, for example, during the war with the Slavs, back in the 8th century, destroyed the capital of the emboldened city of Rerik, and all of its artisans were taken to their new capital Hedeby, after which there was a surge in handicraft production. Later, having already been baptized, the Danes took part in the "Crusade against the Slavs" (1147), but then a significant part of their fleet was burned near Rügen and they left home, not having a lot of salt. However, a little later, the mentioned Valdemar destroyed Arkona and other centers of the Ruyan. So, it happened, of course, in different ways: the Scandinavians were beaten, and the Slavs also had to suffer defeat.
But, you must agree - the picture presented on the basis of documentary evidence is very different from the above hysterical quote from my Scandinavian interlocutor, about "Slavic slaves who were caught in huge quantities by the Scandinavians." No, in the Baltic, there were long centuries of life together, which included frequent wars, with robberies, and peace, and trade, and alliances, and even weddings. And, in fact, the Scandinavians often dreamed not to meet with the local Slavs, and if they did, they tried to quickly get their feet away from them, for good health. Here is another quote from the Slavic Chronicle, Helmold:
“For Denmark for the most part consists of islands, which are surrounded on all sides by the sea washing them, so it is not easy for the Danes to protect themselves from the attacks of sea robbers, because there are many capes, very convenient for the Slavs to set up shelters for themselves. Coming out of here secretly, they attack the unwary from their ambushes, for the Slavs are very skillful in arranging secret attacks. Therefore, until recently, this predatory custom was so widespread among them that, completely neglecting the benefits of agriculture, they sent their hands, always ready for battle, on sea sorties, their only hope, and putting all their wealth in ships. (…) They do not value the attacks of the Danes, on the contrary, they even consider it a pleasure for themselves to engage in hand-to-hand combat with them. (Highlighted by the author of the site.)
I think this passage speaks for itself.
The Baltic Slavs almost completely disappeared only by the middle of the 2nd millennium of the new era. And even then, because they were absorbed and assimilated by the new European civilization, which came to these lands from the south, together with the Germans. And his phrase, only, well reflects, illustrates a deeply ignorant and, to be honest, just completely insane Norman faith. There is absolutely no real reason for it! The reality was much more interesting.
It is also perhaps appropriate here to say a few words about human trafficking itself. The slave trade has always been one of the most profitable types of trade. And in all ancient, or early medieval countries that passed from pre-state societies to early forms of state power, there was an institution of slaves. Moreover, both prisoners captured as a result of wars and local residents (debtors, criminals, etc.) could be slaves. This phenomenon also existed in the early Slavic states. It is also possible that some part of the Slavic slaves could really get into the international slave market. Moreover, given that the Slavs really were in those years the most numerous people of Europe (and still remain so) - slaves, Slavs by origin, could theoretically represent a significant share among European slaves. But,in fact, there are no exact data on this score, and all assumptions about their number are absolutely speculative. And the idea that the Slavs were the most massive slaves of medieval Europe has no evidence. And it is based, rather, on the hypothesis of the origin of the mentioned Western European words from the self-name of the Slavs. In fact, in various European sources there are many references to slaves and slaves of completely different nationalities - Saxons and Alans, Goths and Sarmatians, Greeks and Franks, Angles and Arabs. Among them, of course, there are also references to the slaves of the Slavs. But not only about them. And the idea that the Slavs were the most massive slaves of medieval Europe has no evidence. And it is based, rather, on the hypothesis of the origin of the mentioned Western European words from the self-name of the Slavs. In fact, in various European sources there are many references to slaves and slaves of completely different nationalities - Saxons and Alans, Goths and Sarmatians, Greeks and Franks, Angles and Arabs. Among them, of course, there are also references to the slaves of the Slavs. But not only about them. And the idea that the Slavs were the most massive slaves of medieval Europe has no evidence. And it is based, rather, on the hypothesis of the origin of the mentioned Western European words from the self-name of the Slavs. In fact, in various European sources there are many references to slaves and slaves of completely different nationalities - Saxons and Alans, Goths and Sarmatians, Greeks and Franks, Angles and Arabs. Among them, of course, there are also references to the slaves of the Slavs. But not only about them. Among them, of course, there are also references to the slaves of the Slavs. But not only about them. Among them, of course, there are also references to the slaves of the Slavs. But not only about them.
In order not to be unfounded, I will give several real testimonies from medieval sources about slaves who had nothing to do with the Slavs.
First example: The Saga of Olaf Trygwasson. One of the most famous sagas. It tells the life story of perhaps the most popular hero of the Scandinavian epic - the first Christian king of Norway, Olaf I (963-1000). In accordance with this source, at an early age, Olaf himself, along with his mother, traveling by sea, is captured by the robbers "Estam". After which both of them are sold into slavery. Then Olaf has been living as a slave for several years, and quite by accident runs into his uncle, Sigurd, who recognized him. Sigurd at that time serves the Kiev prince Vladimir I. He also redeems the future king of Norway from slavery.
Olaf I, the first Christian king of Norway, was a slave for several years as a child.
Here is an example of how the Scandinavians ended up being sold into slavery, and this did not surprise anyone. Moreover, they were representatives of the upper stratum of their society! And they turned into slaves overnight. By the way, Olaf's mother was never found. It was only by pure chance that he himself returned to a free life.
As another example, we will cite the rather famous story of Bede the Venerable about Pope Gregory I, the Great (540-604). In which it is reported the following: “When Gregory was once told that the soft-haired, blue-eyed boys who are sold as slaves in Rome are Angles, he said that they were not Angles, but angels; and when he was told that they were from Deiri, he decided that they should be turned away from God's wrath (lat. de iri) by evangelism, and sent the monk Augustine to Britain to spread the Good News there."
As for these "soft-haired boys with blue eyes" - we can remind ourselves that, in accordance with the customs of that era, not too strict in Rome, they could be expected to be taken into account …
Below are some examples taken from the following book: Collection of Slavs and Scandinavians, Per. with him. / Common ed. E. A. Melnikova - Moscow: Progress, 1986, the chapter, which is called, "Slaves".
(Christian bishop from northern Germany) Ansgari bought Scandinavian and Slavic boys to train them as mission assistants …
Rimbert, the successor of Ansgari as Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, tells about 870:
When he first arrived in the land of the Danes, he saw in one place where he built a church for the previously emerged Christian community - the place will be Sliazvikh - a lot of captive Christians, who were in chains. Among them was a certain nun, who, noticing him from a distance, kneeling down, repeatedly bowed her head to him in order to express her reverence for him and to beg him to show compassion for her lot. And she began so that he could see that she was a Christian, singing psalms in a loud voice. The bishop, overwhelmed with pity, weptly prayed to the Lord for help for her. And as a result of his prayer, the shackles on her neck, with which she was bound, immediately fell apart. But since she did not flee immediately, the pagans who guarded them with ease seized her.
Then the holy bishop, driven by fear and love for her, began to offer various things to the pagans who guarded her as a ransom for her; but they did not want to agree to anything, unless he surrendered to them his horse, on which he rode. He did not oppose this, but immediately jumped from the saddle and gave the horse with all the harness to the captive, giving the latter freedom immediately after having bought her, and allowed her to go wherever she wanted. (Recall that the Slavs in those years were not yet were Christians, and the captives described, including this nun, appear to have been Western Europeans captured in Viking attacks, or perhaps some of the early local Schleswig Christian community mentioned at the beginning of the passage.)
More examples from the same book: At the market in Mecklenburg in 1168, after a victorious campaign of encouragement, 700 Danes were put up for sale.
Marseille in the VI-VIII centuries was the most important staging post for the sale of slaves from England to the Mediterranean countries …
You can find a lot of such references. Although among them, of course, there are also references to Slavic slaves. For example, when encouraged in the XII century. were conquered by Henry the Lion and "subordinated, they fled in droves to the Pomorians and Danes, who mercilessly sold them to the Poles, Serbs and Czechs" Leo and incorporated their lands into the German state. Apparently then, some were encouraged to leave their lands. The described fate befell them. Moreover, what is interesting, in this example, the buyers of Slavic slaves are also Slavs - representatives of the Slavic lands that were not subjected to such a cataclysm at that time.
This collection also contains a detailed description, taken from The Saga of the People from Laksdal, of how a certain merchant who arrived from Russia in Scandinavia during the armistice sold slaves there, including one very beautiful but dumb woman. At the same time, nothing is reported about the nationality of these women. They could be anyone - Finno-Ugric, Balts (if they were captured, or bought in the northern regions of modern Russia, or the eastern Baltic), Saxons (if they were captured in northern Germany), Slavs (from the southern coast of the Baltic, or from Russia), Bulgarians (from the Volga region), Alanks, Khazars (if they were captured in the south), etc. They could have been Scandinavians - bought, or captured during some kind of wars …
Interesting, in our opinion, is also the mention in the sources of three treaties of the second half of the 9th century. (840, 880, 888) between Venice and the Frankish emperors, in which the Venetians were forced to commit themselves not to sell slaves from the imperial lands. Which indicates that the lands of the Frankish state were the source of a noticeable number of slaves. Here is what the already mentioned Nazarenko writes about this: "As soon as these obligations appear in three successive documents separated by half a century, it becomes clear that the Frankish authorities most likely failed to stop the export of slaves to the foreign market; …" Nazarenko A. V. Ancient Russia on international routes: Interdisciplinary sketches of cultural, trade, political ties of the 9th-12th centuries. - M. 2001. Head of Russia on the "path from the Germans to the Khazars", pp. 95. What kind of slaves were they? Probably,victims of the seizures by the same Vikings, and maybe by the Slavs - for example, during the border wars with the Germans. Indeed, in accordance with medieval sources, the Slavs repeatedly went on campaigns to German lands, and captured there, including slaves.
And here is some information about the Scandinavian slave trade. Specifically, the Danes. Adam of Bremen, in the Acts of the Archbishops of the Hamburg Church. states the following:
“The pirates themselves, who are called the Vikings there, and in our country the Askoman, pay tribute to the Danish king (…) these pirates often abuse the liberty given to them in relation to foreigners, turning it on their own. They do not trust each other so much that, having caught, they immediately sell each other without pity into slavery - no matter to their companions or barbarians. (…) They immediately sell those women who are dishonored. (…) The Danes have no other types of punishment except the death penalty and slavery. As you can clearly see from this quote - often the suppliers of Scandinavian slaves were the Scandinavians themselves.
And the Saga of Egil tells how the main character, during a raid on the Curonians, was captured by them. And when he "heroically" escaped, he took with him several more Danish slaves who were sitting in the pit of the Curonians. It turns out that Scandinavian slaves were a fairly common thing in the Curonian farms.
In those years, people of completely different tribes and peoples turned out to be slaves. But not all of them were Slavs. Moreover, if someone set out to collect various testimonies about the slaves of the Middle Ages and spread them out according to nationality, I am almost sure that the Slavs were far from the most extensive group. And it doesn't matter what Nazarenko thinks about this. It is not known what kind of slaves were brought to Cordoba and what kind of ethnicity they were. But there are reports about the plundering of Seville, during the time of the Arabs by people from the north named ar-rus! And a treasure of thousands of Arab coins, including the Cordoba coinage, was found at one time on Rugen.
There is also one well-known example associated with the massive importation of slaves - this is the population of the southern part of Italy, which in the racial aspect is quite different from the population of the north. Most southern Italians are racial types identical to those of North Africa and the Middle East. By the way, the same can be said about some regions of Greece, Spain, Turkey. It is sometimes argued that this is due to the fact that in the early Middle Ages, slaves from the Arab regions were massively imported into these areas, they brought a noticeable North African component to the “bouquet of southern Italian blood”. You see, it is not known what about the Slavs, but the inhabitants of the southern Mediterranean, in fact, apparently really were the object of the medieval mass slave trade.
Here we also want to dwell a little more on medieval Arabic words: saklab (slave) and As-Sakaliba Ṣaqālibah (Slavs). As you can see, this homonymous pair also existed in medieval Arabic. It arose, obviously, as a result of the borrowing by the Arabs in the north, from Western Europeans, or from the Greeks, of the same Byzantine word, similar to the ethnonym of the Slavs, as well as acquaintance with the Slavs themselves, with whom the Arabs encountered during the wars against Byzantium, and in addition, during travels and military expeditions to the Volga, in the Black Sea region to Central Europe. Thus - this confusion also passed into medieval Arabic. By actively participating in the Mediterranean trade, the Arabs did buy slaves from western, northern and central Europe,which were transported to the Mediterranean region by European (often Jews) slave traders. And all these captives, regardless of their nationality, they, after the Latin-speaking and Greek-speaking merchants called "Saklabs". Some authors are trying to promote the idea that, they say, these were basically the same Polabian and Baltic Slavs discussed above, conquered, and allegedly massively sold by the Germans. However, this is not true. The fact is that in the 8-10 centuries, when the Arab as-Sakaliba flourished, the Polabian and Baltic Slavs had not yet been conquered! The first active attempts to conquer these lands were started by Charlemagne (at the end of the 8th century), who, for a while, managed to subdue their tribes, but they quickly freed themselves and, until the 12th century, their states basically retained their independence. And wherein,during numerous wars with the Germans, they themselves constantly went on retaliatory campaigns. Finally, their lands were included in the German Empire, only by the end of the 13th century. At the same time, there is no mention of the systematic and massive export of the Slavs by the Germans, even after their lands became part of the empire. The Slavs in it were just ordinary subjects. Although, of course, there are reports of the capture of prisoners during the wars, both from the one side and the other. In general, in fact, the Polabian Slavs, of course, could fall into the slave market, but they were no more the object of this trade than the Germans themselves, or the neighboring Scandinavians - who, as we have already shown above, were often captured and sold. Especially, this applies to Christian Germans, who were captured by the Slavs on land, and from the sea,famous Normans (among whom there were also "Vendians").
As for the fate of these slaves, according to the testimony of al-Mukaddasi (947-1000), a significant part of European young slaves underwent a savage castration operation for further use as eunuchs in harems, or for sexual pleasures. In the Spanish Lucena and the Frankish Verdun whole "factories" were established for the castration of young slaves. The price of a castrated boy was nearly 4 times that of an ordinary male slave.
However, interestingly, in the Arab states, many of the northern slaves, who apparently managed to avoid this fate, often rose to the highest levels in the social hierarchy. Back in 762, Ambassador Abd ar-Rahman Fihri, nicknamed al-Saklabi, arrived at the Baghdad court from the recently conquered Spain. Later, for centuries, Arab rulers formed elite military units from northern slaves - personal guards, the most loyal guards. And some of them received very high posts in the state, sometimes occupying second place after the Sultan, and even ruled entire cities and states themselves.
Next, we provide information on the history of al-Sakaliba in the Cordoba Caliphate (now Spain), published in the following book: S. Tsvetkov, The Beginning of Russian History. M., 2011.
From these slaves, the Umayyad Guard (one of the Muslim dynasties of Spain) was recruited. Already under the emir al-Hakam (796–822), a 5,000-strong Mamalik corps (formed from European captives) existed in Cordoba. And during the reign of Caliph Abd ar-Rahman (912 - 961) in Cordoba alone, there were 13,750 as-Sakaliba guards; they all converted to Islam. These Muslim Praetorians were the finest military formation in the Pyrenees. Sometimes they even led Arab troops. One Arab chronicle mentions Saklab, the leader of the Caliphate's troops, who in 980 made a campaign in Calabria and captured 12,000 prisoners. Another "Slav" named Naja (Salvation) led the army sent by the caliph against the Spanish Christian kingdom of Leon. The fact that the name "Sakaliba" did not have a strictly ethnic meaning is also indicated by the fact thatin the XI century, when the Caliph guards got, for sure, mostly Franks and Lombards - these units still continued to be called "Sakaliba" or, in Spanish, eslavos (Altamira-i-Crevea R. History of Spain. M., 1951 T. I. S. 96, 103, 184-190).
After the fall of the Umayyad dynasty (1031), the Sakaliba seized power in a number of emirates, where they founded their own dynasties. Basically, "Sakaliban" principalities were located on the eastern coast of the Iberian Peninsula - in Almeria, Murcia, Tortosa, Valencia, as well as on the Balearic Islands. Only at the end of the XI century. the Berber dynasty of the Almoravids, once again uniting Muslim Spain, eliminated the Sakaliba emirates.
Were there really Slavs among these "al-Sakaliba"? Quite possible. But, of course, not only them. At the same time, interesting events are associated with real Slavs in Arab history, which apparently gave rise to this very phenomenon, selected Arab warriors - immigrants from Europe, who bore the "Slavic" name. It happened back in the 7th century:
The Byzantine emperor Justinian II recruited 30,000 soldiers from among the Slavs who had previously settled in his lands for the war against the Arabs who had invaded his empire. One of the Slavic leaders by the name of Nebul was appointed archon of this army, called by the emperor "elite".
Having joined the Roman cavalry to the Slavic infantrymen, Justinian II in 692 moved with this army against the Arabs. In the battle of the Asia Minor city of Sevastopol (modern Turkish Sulu-Saray), the Arabs were defeated - this was their first defeat from the Romans. Soon, however, the Arab commander Muhammad lured Nebula over to his side, secretly sending him a full quiver of money. Together with their leader, 20,000 Slavic soldiers passed to the Arabs. Strengthened in this way, the Arabs again attacked the Romans and put them to flight. The descendants of these Slavs in the VIII century took part in the Arab conquest of Iran and the Caucasus. According to Arab sources, many thousands of Slavic warriors died in these campaigns.
Perhaps from that moment the Arab rulers began to have a tradition of recruiting northerners into the elite units, for which they use slaves with a name similar to the Slavs, although real Slavs did not always hide under the captives-saklabs. Be that as it may, this very phenomenon - the northern slaves, is quite noticeable in the history of medieval Arab states. And despite the fact that some books devoted to this issue contain all the same speeches about the medieval slave trade by the Slavs (for example, D. E. Mishin, Sakaliba (Slavs) in the Islamic world in the early Middle Ages, M. 2002), the wars of Nebula that passed to the Arabs, as well as their descendants, were free mercenaries, and among the northern slaves who really fell to the Arabs from Europe, in fact, there could be people of any nationality: Scandinavians, Angles, and Germans,and Slavs, and Balts, and Finno-Ugrians, and Bulgars, and Khazars, and others. Everyone who was captured in the vastness of Europe and taken to the Mediterranean markets.
In conclusion of our essay, we would like to note that the arguments about the identity of the Slavs and the slaves, which at times were popular in the West, in addition to purely "utilitarian" goals related to serving anti-Slavic political and military ambitions, which from time to time demonstrated by some regimes, in our opinion could also be associated with something that we can conditionally call "objective circumstances that required explanation."
The point is that by the time these theories were written - in the 18th-19th centuries, almost all Slavs, for various historical reasons, were deprived of their national and state independence. Moreover, for many of them, political subordination was very harsh. For example, the Balkan Slavs, who were subordinate to the Ottoman Empire. The Turks, as you know, ruled their lands, often, in an oriental fierce manner. Thus, the position of the Balkan Slavs at that time could well be described as "slavery" or "yoke". Further, the numerous Slavs of Central Europe - whose lands were part of various German principalities, duchies, marks, etc. - subordinate to either the Holy Roman Empire or Austria-Hungary (some of which later became independent states, subsequently, under Bismarck,which formed the new German Reich on the basis of Prussia). The Slavs in a significant part of their territories, which were under the Germans for a long time by the indicated period, either completely or very strongly, became Germanized. That, in general, also, from a certain point of view, can be described as "enslavement", the loss of national self-identification.
Europe after the Napoleonic wars, 1815. Apart from Russia, there is not a single independent Slavic state.
Further - another Slavic country was Poland. Which, as everyone knows, from the middle of the 18th century was subjected to a series of partitions, as a result of which, it was completely eliminated from the map of Europe. This state also quite easily falls under the concept of "enslavement". And finally, there remains Russia, which during the indicated period, of course, was a strong and independent state. However, regarding Russia, it was widely known about a very difficult period in its history - about the brutal Mongol conquest and the two hundred and fifty-year yoke that followed. And plus to this, and, probably, this is the main thing, Russia at that time was noticeably lagging behind the West in liberalizing its internal structure and social relations. Many features of social development, which, in fact,in the West, they were also widespread not so long ago - such as unlimited monarchy, serfdom, the absence of independent courts, complete arbitrariness of the authorities, but which the West, nevertheless, in modern times gradually abandoned - in Russia at that time were at their zenith, in maximum strength. And, by the way, often the West, in all this, was much more sophisticated than Russia. However, at the indicated time, he strove for freedom, and the absence of this striving was perceived there, apparently, as “slavery”. Perhaps all of this, in total, could have appeared for some people who wrote about history at that time, the temptation to classify the Slavs, all together, en masse to the "slaves". And the indicated coincidence of the Byzantine and Latin terms could well be regarded as an additional argument, one more "proof" in favor of this idea. ApparentlyMany of the Western speeches spoken about the slavery of the Slavs are based on just such a basis - an attempt to explain some differences that Western leaders saw between the West and the Slavs of those years, but they often were simply unable to objectively understand and analyze which they were.
Of course, this approach, if any, was far from objectivity and adequacy. For, firstly, modern times and the early Middle Ages are different eras. They were very different from each other. And the Slavs of modern times are not the Slavs of the early Middle Ages. Likewise, the West of modern times is not the West of the Middle Ages, and thus such an approach would be a real anachronism. Not timing. For it is hardly justified to draw any conclusions about one epoch on the basis of another epoch, which is many centuries away from it.
Also, the idea of this supposedly primordial slavery of the Slavs, in our opinion, is not justified because it does not take into account the many objective factors that made up the Slavic world. Many real circumstances that the Slavs had to face, which made their life much more severe than the life of Western Europeans. At the same time, the Slavs, faced with these problems - such as, for example, the Mongol or Turkish invasion, took their main blow on themselves, willingly or not, acting as a kind of buffer between the West and the East. In fact, defending the West, giving it the opportunity to develop in a relatively calm and free atmosphere. What was also not taken into account by Western writers, apparently through these theories, reproaching the Slavs for slavery. Although a complex and difficult story, of courseis not a sufficient reason for the lack of desire for freedom. What we, the Slavs, of course need to remember.
Here we also recall one figure who was very carried away by the idea that the Slavs are slaves. He repeated it so zealously that, apparently, he began to believe it himself. It turned out such a self-hypnosis. As you know, he finished very badly, and his jaw is still lying around somewhere in our country, in Moscow - gathering dust in one of the safes, either in the Kremlin, or on the Lubyanka.
On this, perhaps, we can stop in our description of this bizarre situation, as a result of which, one of the key, largest and most powerful, including in a military sense, the peoples of Europe - the Slavs were declared slaves. I hope we were able to demonstrate to you that this is, in fact, far from such a "truth" to believe in it unconditionally.
Contact the author: [email protected]
Svetlana Lisichkina
