From the history textbooks we know the official version of the death of the Russian prince Svyatoslav Igorevich at the hands of the Pechenegs, who attacked the prince's squad, setting him up for an ambush at the Dnieper rapids. However, this version does not inspire confidence, given that many ancient Russian chronicles were written by Christian monks, and in the history of the death of this prince, some independent researchers have found a clear "Byzantine trace" of Christian monks. And it is known that it was Byzantium that was most interested in the death of the prince, who nailed his shield on the gates of Constantinople and more than once imposed tribute on Byzantium.
For example, what you can read about this in the book of the Russian traveler, biologist, anthropologist G. Sidorov "The Legacy of the White Gods":
Considering the number of pseudo-historical myths and outright falsifications in the official version of history, the version of the death of the Russian prince put forward in the book by G. Sidorov looks quite plausible. Especially against the background of obviously false myths about "wild barbarians" who lived almost in the trees before the arrival of Christianity and allegedly did not even have their own written language. But if V. Brusov knew the true history, it means that other people who lived in the 19th century should have known. Surely, the falsifiers could not “clean up” all the sources.
It is also characteristic that such luminaries of historical science as Soloviev, Ilovaisky, Rybakov, Froyanov have already drawn their attention to the illogicality of the version presented by the Christian chronicler Nestor. Well, even if the official historians doubt the veracity of the account of the events of those years by a Christian monk, then what prevents us from accepting any alternative version of those events as a hypothesis? For example, the one about which V. Brusov confidently wrote in his poems.
michael101063 ©