The union of Slavic tribes, known in sources as the Antes, and settled on the lands from the Dniester to the "Meotida" - the Sea of Azov - is now not in honor of historians. If in Soviet times the scientists of the Grekov and Rybakov school considered the Ants to be almost the direct ancestors of the Russians and attributed class stratification and early feudal system to them, now researchers have rushed to the other extreme, sometimes denying even the Ants belonging to Slavism (despite the direct assertion of a number of historians - contemporaries about the common origin of the ants and "sklavins", and their common language, nor the Slavic names of the ant leaders).
They are trying to "take away" the Chernyakhov archaeological culture from the ants, but they have not yet decided who to give it to - the Iranians, the Goths or the Bastars. Moreover, the opinion of the Gothic historian Jordan, who wrote in black and white, that the lands "from Danastre to Danapre", the main lands of the Chernyakhovites, belonged to the ants, our scientific contemporaries are not decree. In fact, what this goth could have known about the affairs of his time, we know better from the XXI century! With such an order, it is not surprising that the idea of the beginnings of statehood among the Ants 'tribes is completely rejected, and even more so - any continuity between the Ants' union of tribes and Kievan Rus. After the defeat of the ants by the Avars-obrams at the end of the 6th - beginning of the 7th century, the ants seem to completely disappear from history. Meanwhile, in the "Tale of Bygone Years", as an example of a disappeared people, it is the Avars who appear,and the phrase “perished aki obre” sounds - and by no means “aki ante”.
Anty
Meanwhile, in the stories of contemporaries about the ants, there are details that, with due attention, can open their eyes to a very, very much in the order of the Ant people. Yes, this is not a reservation - the Antes were precisely a people, young, made up of tribes and tribal unions, but a people. And here is proof of this - when Procopius of Caesarea, the chronicler-chronicler of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) in the "History of Wars" tells an exciting, almost detective story, how the Antes tried to replace their fellow tribesman named Khilbudy with his namesake, the Eastern Roman commander (apparently, also anta by origin), he casually reports a very interesting detail of the life of the "barbarians" -Slavs. The young man Khilbudiy, who was captured by the neighbors of the Antes, the Sklavins, was ransomed by the Ant, who thought that he was buying the captive commander of the empire. Once in their native land,the young man said to the new owner that "he was born in the Ant … now, since he returned to his father's place, henceforth he himself will be free, at least according to the law." Note that we are not talking about the young slave anta belonging to the same TRIBE with its new owner - everyone in the tribe more or less knew each other, and it was unlikely that the tribesman would be mistaken for a stranger. No, the slave demands freedom on the grounds that he is an ant. Consequently, all the Ant tribes considered each other their own, and the Ant could not be a slave of the Ant even from another tribe. Such a high degree of awareness of national unity is not at all characteristic of barbarian Europe, not only of that time, but also of later - in the 11th century, the German monk Adam of Bremen notes that Danish tribes often attack each other and turn prisoners into slavery. We add that the lawaccording to which the ant cannot be a slave to the ant, it also implies the absence of wars between the ant tribes, at least such wars were not common. In the light of all that has been said, the reasoning of the adherents of the Norman theory looks especially naive, that the Normans were called on by the Slavs, unable to get rid of civil strife, or that the northern newcomers united the Slavs. In fact, as you can see, it was the Normans that lagged behind the ancestors of the Eastern Slavs by half a thousand years in creating national unity and ending internecine wars. In fact, as you can see, it was the Normans that lagged behind the ancestors of the Eastern Slavs by half a thousand years in creating national unity and ending internecine wars. In fact, as you can see, it was the Normans that lagged behind the ancestors of the Eastern Slavs by half a thousand years in creating national unity and ending internecine wars.
In this regard, one phrase in the "Tale of Bygone Years" is suggestive, which speaks of the era before Rurik's vocation: "Glades, Drevlyans, northerners, Radimichi, Vyatichi and Croats lived peacefully." Croats here, of course, do not mean the Balkan, but the Carpathian. On the whole, the list of tribal unions that "lived peacefully" practically coincides with the boundaries of the Ant tribal union, more precisely, the super-union of tribes, outlined by the Byzantine authors and the Goth Jordan. Only the northern radimichi with the Vyatichi are knocked out - but, on the other hand, the southern authors do not say anything about the northern Antian limits, obviously, because they were out of their field of vision (1).
On the other hand, this list of “peaceful” tribal unions is indicatively close to the list of “glories” (2), from which, according to the 10th century emperor Constantine Porfirogenet, “Born in Purpur,” a polyud of “ross” is collected. There we will meet "Dervians" -Drevlyans, "Severians" -Northerners and mysterious "Lendzians" - not the same Croats, not the Glades, although the latter are most likely identified with the "Ross" -Russians (as in the Tale of Bygone Years "-" glade, like Russia now calling "). Radimichi and Vyatichi dropped out of the list, which, incidentally, is natural - they were not long before that they were tributaries of the Khazar Kaganate, and at the time of writing the work of Constantine, their position was obviously still controversial. On the other hand, two new tribal unions appeared on the list - "Kriviteins" - Krivichi and "Draguvites" - Drevgovichi. However, the backbone remains the same, "antsky". Is this accidental? Attention is drawn to the nature of the conscription carried out by the "Slavins" in relation to the Kiev "Ross". This is "polyudye". Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov established a fundamental difference between polyud and tribute. It consisted in the fact that the polyudye was collected from those whom they considered OWN - more precisely, they voluntarily provided hospitality to the leader, whom they considered their own, and his squad. This was what was called "polyudye" - and tribute was collected from the conquered, subjugated by the force of weapons of strangers. Consequently, the small proto-powers of the Slavs of Eastern Europe were not at all connected with the Russians by the relations of conquered and conquerors.whom they considered OWN - more precisely, they voluntarily provided hospitality to the leader, whom they considered their own, and his squad. This was what was called "polyudye" - and tribute was collected from the conquered, subjugated by the force of weapons of strangers. Consequently, the small proto-powers of the Slavs of Eastern Europe were not at all connected with the Russians by the relations of conquered and conquerors.whom they considered OWN - more precisely, they voluntarily provided hospitality to the leader, whom they considered their own, and his squad. This was what was called "polyudye" - and tribute was collected from the conquered, subjugated by the force of weapons of strangers. Consequently, the small proto-powers of the Slavs of Eastern Europe were not at all connected with the Russians by the relations of conquered and conquerors.
Promotional video:
Union of Slavic tribes
In this context, the words of Oleg, addressed to the self-styled princes of Kiev, Oskold and Dir - "You are not princes and not of a princely family, but I am a princely family, and now I am the son of Rurik," and the complete indifference of the Kievites to the fate of the recent leaders, become quite understandable. Everything becomes clear if we assume that the Russians did not come from the north to a bare place, not to a gathering of semi-wild forestry tribes gnawing with each other, but to the foundation of statehood erected by the Antae, which united several Slavic tribal unions of the south-west of Eastern Europe. There already existed a union of tribal unions, accustomed to "living peacefully" and opposing common enemies together, a union that was not indifferent to whether they were ruled by a real prince or an impostor. Perhaps, it is precisely to the times of the Antes that the winter nomadic nomadism in the lands of tribal unions belongs - that very "polyudye". Anyway,Judging, for example, by the "Lay of Igor's Campaign", in the south of Russia there was a memory of the Ant times - about the Huns-"Chinov" and the murdered by the Goths of the Anta prince Bus. Two centuries before the creation of the great Russian poem, the memory of the ants among their descendants should have been, of course, stronger and brighter. And if the names of the enemies and the deceased prince were remembered, then the centuries of unity of the Ant tribes could not be forgotten.
And the Antes become, in this case, not a fleeting and forever sunk into the past episode of the history of Eastern Europe, along with some ostrogoths or Kutrigurs, but a people who laid the first foundations of the future Russian statehood in their southern region and thereby significantly facilitated the work of its creators … Although they were not the direct ancestors of the Russians, they, nevertheless, were their predecessors in uniting the Slavs of Eastern Europe into one power - an outpost of the European, white peoples and an obstacle to the steppe hordes.