In the Western European history of the XIII-XV centuries A. D. e. traditionally considered to be the era of “Proto-Renaissance” (ie, “pre-Renaissance”) and the early “Renaissance”, which came after the “dark ages” of European decline (VII-XII centuries AD), which, as is commonly believed, were characterized by invasions of various varieties of "barbarians" (ie Slavs, Franks, Gotta, etc.), the dominance of the "Moors" (= Arabs) in South-Western Europe and the "flourishing" of Arab culture. Therefore, in parallel with the "Protorenaissance" in 1212 - 1492. there is a "conquest" by the Spaniards and the Portuguese from the Moors of the Iberian Peninsula ("Reconquista").
On the other hand, the same period of the XIII-XV centuries. in Russia it is described as “the Tatar-Mongol yoke”, which lasted for about 260 years, starting with Genghis Khan and ending with “the great standing on the Ugra” in 1481 (during the reign of Ivan III).
And the same period is characterized by the short-term “Latin” conquest of Constantinople (1204) and the split of the Byzantine Empire, then the restoration of “Greek” power (1261), followed by the last flowering and final fall of Byzantium in 1453. It is noteworthy that this date exactly coincides with the date of the end of the “Hundred Years War” between England and France (1337-1453), which, in fact, began much earlier: namely in 1204: with the French conquest of the continental possessions of the English kings of the Angevin dynasty (Normandy, Anjou, Flanders and Guyenne).
It is very likely that all of this is one and the same history of the Byzantine Empire described in traditional history from different points of view.
In order to reconstruct the real picture of the development of European civilization, it is first necessary to clarify what should be understood by the medieval concept of "Empire". After the fall of the center (Tsar Grad in 1453), instead of a single Empire, several European empires of a new type were formed: Ottoman, Spanish, Portuguese, British and Austro-Hungarian in the 16th-17th centuries, Russian in the 18th century, French and German in XIX century.
In German, the word "empire" is absent altogether, and the concept of "empire" is conveyed by the word "Reich", i.e. just "state". In Spain, Portugal and Russia, the very word “empire” (Spanish, port. Imperio) was derived from the book Latin impero (“I command”, cf. also Italian impero “empire”). But in English and French, the word "empire" is spelled and pronounced differently: empire.
And this, at first glance, a small difference is fraught with deep meaning. The fact is that in Greek "empiria" means "knowledge, human experience" (and the concept of "empire" is conveyed by the word "autocracy", i.e. autocracy), therefore it was the English and French designations of "empire" that preserved the Byzantine meaning of this concepts.
The Byzantine Empire technically could not be and was not a unitary state or an absolute monarchy, i.e. empire in the modern sense. The existence of a single land state is inconceivable without the necessary means of communication - transport and communications, as well as without a mobile security structure. The Byzantine Empire itself arose precisely as a consequence of a major civilizational event: the appearance by the 13th century of equestrian transport and the formation of cavalry as a kind of troops (cf. Tumen Batu - 10,000 horsemen, i.e. a division). This event provided the opportunity for operational management and regular collection of taxes (tribute) in the regions of the empire.
Promotional video:
The system of relations between regions and the center (Tsar-Grad) was built in a differentiated manner - from direct rule in nearby regions, to feudal agreements with local rulers such as vassals-suzerain, or even “democratic” (ie formally equal) agreements with European city-republics such as Venice and Novgorod.
Naturally, local conflicts arose on the territory of the Empire. However, local “showdowns”, whether they were among Russian princes, French counts or Tatar khans, did not worry the center too much, unless they affected the fundamental economic interests of the Empire. So, for example, a sluggish struggle for continental possessions between English and French relatives from the Angevin dynasty did not develop into a great “Hundred Years” War, just as long as their native Angels dynasty remained in power in the center of the Empire. And the very name “England” is directly related to this dynastic surname, as well as the names of the French provinces of Anjou, with the capital in Angers, and Angoumois, with the capital in Angoulême. … AND,although the New French spelling somewhat obscured the "angelic" origins of these names, the more conservative Portuguese retained the Gaulish-Galician pronunciation of the word "angel": port. anjo (pronounced “anjou”). It is noteworthy that there are no real traces of the mythical tribe "Angles" (the first half of the Anglo-Saxons, from which the word "England" is usually derived) in continental Europe, but, according to English history, the leaders of the Saxons had common "Germanic" names Rada and Usta (!), from which modern Readings and Hastings originated (i.e., in Russian, Radin and Ustin).from which the word "England" is usually derived) does not exist in continental Europe, but, according to English history, the leaders of the Saxons had common "Germanic" names Rada and Usta (!), from which modern Readings and Hastings originated (i.e. -Russian, Radina and Ustina).from which the word "England" is usually derived) does not exist in continental Europe, but, according to English history, the leaders of the Saxons had common "Germanic" names Rada and Ust (!), from which modern Readings and Hastings originated (i.e. -Russian, Radina and Ustina).
Numerous descriptions of various kinds of invasions by the "nasty", "barbarians", "busurmans", "Normans" and others reflect not so much civil strife within the Empire as the suppression of various kinds of uprisings by the central government, associated primarily with the refusal of a region (= cities) pay taxes (tribute), that is, undermining the economic base of the Empire.
Take, for example, the story of Alexander Nevsky, “who preserved Novgorod Rus in the 13th century. from invasions both from the north and from the south”. It is known that Alexander Nevsky had a "khan's label", i.e. the annually issued (in German jährlich) powers of the center for regional government (now it would be called the governor). Jarl Alexander periodically beat the "Swede" Jarl Birger and at the same time managed not to spoil relations with the "Tatar" Khan Berke, Batu's younger brother. The known data on the biographies of Birger and Burke coincide down to the smallest detail (for example, the years of life 1209 - 1266). In M. Orbini's book on the history of the Slavic-Russes, published by Peter I in 1722, the “Tartar-Swede” Berke-Birger is just one person - the Slavic Tsar Berich. The essence of the complex relationship between two jarls - Berich and Alexander is also understandable: for example, Berke-Berich, on behalf of the center, conducted in 1257.census of Russian lands, which directly affected regional interests, which in this case was defended by Nevsky. Isn't it a very modern Russian picture of friction over the balance of federal and local taxation?
The fact that Berich-Birger-Berke is an imperial tribute collector becomes obvious if we consider that in Romanian and Moldavian "bir" meant "tribute", like the Ukrainian zbir, i.e. in Russian, collection, levies, and in Norwegian birk - a district judge appointed from the center, cf. also the French bureau - the administrative body. And the ancient “capital” (ie the place of gathering) of the Swedes was called Birka. Now let's remember that in Tatar “bar” means “is” (ie, in this case, “tribute is collected”), and “yok” means “no” (ie, “there is no tribute”). This Tatar yok is exactly the same as, for example, the English yoke "yoke, yoke". Hence the very concept of “yoke”: “a debtor who has not paid off on time falls into slavery (that is, they put a yoke on him)” (“Russian Truth” by Yaroslav the Wise).
What other “Tatar” yoke should we talk about? What "Viking raids"? What kind of "Spanish reconquista", for example, against the "Almoravids", if in Arabic Al-Moravia is by no means Mauritania, but Slavic Moravia? Ordinary robbers aside, all this is the activity of the "tax police" of the Byzantine Empire and nothing more. And before the tax inspection, there is truly “neither Greek nor Jew” - there is only a taxpayer. Tax collectors are not well liked even now, which is why the abusive word “busurman” appeared in Russia (from German besteuermann - “tax collector, publican”). It is also quite understandable why strangers were sent to observe the collection of tribute - in this way they tried (and, as we know, unsuccessfully) to fight the corruption of local officials and the separatism of the feudal lords.
Today hardly anyone thinks about what originally meant the "titles of nobility" of the sovereign feudal lords: count, marquis, baron, etc. But, for example, the German "count" originally meant "clerk" (cf. Greek grapho - " writing"). The Italian "count" - conte, like the French comte, meant "accounting" (cf. Italian contare "to count", French compter). In English, the words "count" and "count" are written and read in the same way: count. After the collapse of Byzantium in the new European empires, the descendants of the former clerks and bookkeepers in the service of the Empire became "counts". There is nothing surprising in this - let us recall the highest titles of nobles in Russia: bed-man, equestrian, falconer, etc. … there is not much difference.
However, all these officials of the Empire were responsible not only for collecting taxes - they collected knowledge: they were obliged to report all discoveries and inventions, various wonders and unusual natural phenomena to Tsar-Grad, which was not only the main capital, but also the main repository of knowledge., that is, the Main Library (ie Babylon, from the Greek. Byblos - book). Through the same officials - the governors of the center - knowledge was also disseminated.
The main idea of that only Empire was not at all in the enslavement of one people by another, not in the suppression of dissidents and non-believers, but in preserving the unity of mankind (cf. the modern UN) for the sake of the development of civilization, for which a single language was needed. And such a common European spoken language, according to Karamzin, in the 15th century was the Slavic language, and not any other. Even the Vatican admits that in the XIII-XV centuries. the Slavic alphabet was widespread. And only starting from the 15th century, manuscripts written in Greek and Hebrew letters appear in Europe.
There are no original manuscripts written in such a letter earlier than the 15th century. And in the same way, there are no originals of manuscripts written in Latin before the 13th century, in particular, the originals of the manuscripts of Dante, Boccaccio and Petrarch in Italy, D. Wycliffe and R. Bacon in England, F. Bonaventure in France and other authors traditionally attributed by the XIII century. All allegedly “ancient” manuscripts are “lost” and exist only in later copies. Also, for example, in Rome, not a single building built earlier in the 15th century has survived, except for the unfinished Colosseum. And the preserved architectural monuments of the XIII-XIV centuries, for example, Florence or Pisa, have a pronounced Byzantine flavor.
All this testifies in favor of the fact that the proper Western European culture as such until the XIII century. it just wasn't - it was part of the Byzantine. And it is no coincidence that none of the Western European churches have golden domes, as in Russia. And in Russia the great Andrei Rublev painted churches 100 years earlier than the no less great Italian Leonardo da Vinci. Altar Orthodox paintings by Rublev (for example, "Deesis row") and altar Catholic "retablo" in Spain (for example, in Seville), executed at the same time (end of the XIV century), and compositionally and functionally homogeneous and belong to a common Byzantine culture.
Traditional history claims that Batu's "invasion" led to the ruin of Kievan Rus. But isn't it strange that it was after Batu took Kiev that the rapid construction of Orthodox churches began there, his own bishop appeared, and so on? And is it not strange that the oldest Orthodox church in Bosnian Sarajevo (15th century) looks like not a Christian temple (there is no dome, no cross, no bell tower), but a synagogue, and the internal layout is like a mosque (with a separate a nave partition for praying women) ??
And no less strange are those church buildings in Western Europe that have preserved the architecture of the XIII-XIV centuries - baptisteries, for example, in Florence and Pisa. In fact, they are covered flowing pools, divided into sectors designed for mass baptism. These are functional buildings, not monuments, and they were built exactly at the time when there was a real need for mass baptism, and not for individual, as today.
This directly suggests that Christianity in Western Europe became widespread not in the 4th, but in the 14th century. For example, in the old city of Pisa, in addition to the fortress walls, only four monuments have survived: the already mentioned baptistery is considered the most ancient, then the famous falling bell tower, the Cathedral of St. John and … the Hebraic (i.e., Hebrew) cemetery of the Byzantine rite still in operation, located to the left of the gate from the outer wall of the fortress. That's right - the Jewish custom of burying the dead outside the city wall is well known. But “ancient Jews of the Byzantine rite” in Russian are called Khazars, and since there are no Christian burials in old Pisa, this means that the Khazars built this very city. Meanwhile, the Khazar religion is very different from orthodox Judaism - it is, rather, the Judeo-Christian faith. And not by chancethat the cult of John the Baptist is associated with European baptisteries. From the same baptisteries at the beginning of the 17th century. the first Baptists came out. For today's religiously split world, this seems incredible. But not for medieval Byzantium, one of the unshakable foundations of whose existence was tolerance.
The beginning of the loss of religious tolerance was initiated by the real, not mythical, appearance of the papal see in Rome, which occurred only in 1376. It was the activity of the Catholic Church, which forcibly introduced liturgical Latin and tried to concentrate both religious and secular power in its hands, and led to a total religious war in Europe. The Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, the Battle of Kosovo Field in 1389, and the “uprisings” of W. Tyler in England and “Chompi” in Italy in 1381, and the forcible conversion of Lithuania to Catholicism in 1387 became a part of this war.. etc.
The final ecclesiastical split (1415) and the failure of the attempt at a new unification (union of 1439) led to a religious division between the Western and Eastern parts of the Empire, which predetermined the fall of Tsar-Grad as a center in 1453, when the Empire split into three parts: the Catholic West, the Orthodox East and the Muslim South. With the loss of a single generally recognized cultural (= civilizational) center, the “feudal fragmentation” of Europe began.
It was after 1415 that the first high-ranking Byzantine emigrants of the “Latin” persuasion and Jews appeared in Western Europe. In the East, i.e. in Russia, they sheltered Slavic refugees from the Balkans, Orthodox Greeks and Jewish Christians, hence the current Church Slavic tradition originates. In Russian history it looks like this: "Noble boyars Murza such and such and such and such left the Horde for Russia." From refugees from Byzantium, the spread of "ancient Greek" and "Hebrew" culture both to the West and to the East began.
But Russia did not interrupt ties with the former center: relations with the Turkish Sultanate remained friendly until the Romanovs came to power, the Sultan's guard (Janissaries, until 1825!) Consisted entirely of Orthodox Christians (= Cossacks), and officials in Istanbul were in charge of office work, trained in Moscow.
But in the West, which broke with the "infidels", Byzantine culture objects became rarities. And there they quickly realized that trading not only Byzantine works of art and manuscripts, but also counterfeits for them, is a very profitable business. The most popular writer in Italy in the first half of the 15th century. P. Bracciolini writes “for the elite” in Latin, “translations” of the works of “ancient Greek” thinkers, which are later translated into Greek - already in the XVI-XVIII centuries. The amazingly accurate name of the genre - the novel (that is, the Greco-Roman legend, since the Greeks themselves call themselves Romans) refers to all, without exception, “historical primary sources” - the works of Herodotus, Plutarch, Fukitis, Titus Livy, Suetonius, Eusebius, etc.
And here another, by no means idle question arises: why the famous Italian writer of the first half of the 15th century Bracciolini, to whom a monument was erected during his lifetime, like Sholokhov, writes exclusively in Latin, if 100 years before him, the Italian literary language was created, as it is believed, Dante, Petrarca and Boccaccio? Most likely, because neither the Italian literary language nor the works of Dante existed at the time of Bracciolini - they appeared only a hundred years later. Therefore, Bracciolini does not have any references to Dante, although the latter was accused of forging the works of the “ancients” more than once.
In addition, not only Italian, but in general all national literary languages in Western Europe began to form only from the second half of the 16th century: this is the forcible introduction of the “correct” English language by Elizabeth I, and the emergence of “New French” and “New Greek” languages, and also the “common German language of the Bible”, created by M. Luther, etc. “Spanish” language, by the way, literally did not exist at all - in Spain itself it is still called Castilian (Castellano). And the word “Spain” itself, which first appeared in 1479 during the formation of the united kingdom by the union of Castile and Aragon, is not Roman, but Slavic, and means precisely “united”: compare, for example, the Czech spojeny and the English name of Spain - Spain …
The introduction of first Latin, and then the written national languages based on the Latin alphabet, was accompanied by massive book auto-da-fe, and all books written in the Slavic alphabet were burned at the fires of the Inquisition. It is noteworthy that these books were called “the rustic of the novel”. “Rustica” is now translated as “rustic, rude, peasant”, but in Spanish it still means “bound book”, “book in morocco (leather) binding”, that is, in Russian or Persian binding, typical for Byzantine culture. So the Byzantine (and therefore Russian) history was burned in parallel with the introduction of the Latin and “Ancient Greek” remakes. (The same was done in pre-Petrine Romanov Russia during the Nikon reforms - all books written in Russian, and not in Church Slavonic, were burned in a row).
The main impetus for Western European book publishing (and, first in Latin, and only later in “Ancient Greek”), was given by a part of the Byzantine library (including the archives of the Empire), brought to Florence in 1438 by the former great logophet (“prime minister”) of Byzantium and an adherent of the "Latin party" Georgy Gemistos Plithon (Pleton) and his associates.
Why was the Byzantine archives brought to Florence, and not, say, to Rome? Yes, because it was in Florence, and not in Rome, that the Western European tax treasury of the Empire was located, which was under the jurisdiction of a family of hereditary publicans-Medici. And it was with the money in the hands of the Medici that Pleton's Utopia was published and the famous Platonic (more correctly - Pleton's) Academy was created, and Byzantine chronicles were published by the Chancellor of Florence L. Brunin Latin in 1439 under the guise of the history of Florence, thereby lengthening this story is just about 260 years old.
Florentine book-publishing activity immediately attracted the attention of Rome, whose papal see was urgently needed to become "older" than flourishing Florence. And from the Florentine book depository, which was in charge of Bracciolini, they were immediately extracted and first published only in 1469-1472. "Unexpectedly discovered" historical works-novels of Titus Livy and Cornelius Tacitus, designed to legitimize the "antiquity" of Rome. The same applies to the works of "ancient" philosophers, playwrights and poets: for example, the first publication of an anthology of an "ancient Greek" epigram dates back to 1494.
The same applies to the exact sciences. One of the founders of not only Western European painting, but also the exact sciences can rightfully be called the genius Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). It was only after Leonardo that the works of Archimedes (1544) became known in Europe, and simultaneously with the works of the famous mathematician and inventor Girolamo Cardano (1501-1576). It was then that Europe learned about the "Archimedes screw" and about the "gimbal". The legendary biography of Archimedes generally coincides in many respects with the biography of Cardano. At the same time, “Archimedes”, like other “names of the ancients,” is by no means a name. In Greek, this expression means "Beginning of beginnings" - it is, rather, the title of the textbook. The “Elements” of Euclid (that is, in Greek, “The Illustrious One”) are widely published simultaneously with the works of François Vieta (1540-1603), who created modern algebra. All astronomical knowledge,which can be extracted from observations with the naked eye, are set out in the writings of two Nikolaev: Cardinal Kuzansky (1401-1464) and Copernicus (1473-1543). And it was at the time of Copernicus that the works of the “ancient” astronomers Hipparchus and Ptolemy, etc., “emerge”.
These examples illustrate the substitution of the artificial concept of “Renaissance” for the natural process of development of science and culture. The very concept (“Renaissance”) was born in France only at the end of the 17th century, during the Counter-Reformation, when, in fact, the division of the inheritance of the united Byzantine Empire, of which the “Reformation” and “Counter-Reformation” were part, ended.
This division and the formation of new empires took place in the conditions of an ideological compromise between “clericals” (ie, supporters of the world domination of the institution of the papacy) and “humanists” (ie, supporters of the supremacy of secular power). The first were satisfied with the recognition of the "antiquity" of the church and the institution of the papacy within the agreed chronology of the "new era", and the second were satisfied with the recognition of the "revival" in the new empires of the traditions of "ancient civilizations", from which the genealogies of new rulers and secular nobility were derived, designed to justify their "hereditary”The right to enslave their own peoples.
Slavery, as such, has existed throughout the history of human civilization. However, during the Byzantine Empire, there were much more free people than slaves. The slave belonged to his master in soul and body, for which the master was obliged to support the slave. The "humanism" of the reformers did not emancipate the slaves - it only divided the functions of the slave owners: the secular government got the body, and the church - the soul, but already a much larger number of slaves, which, in fact, became the overwhelming majority of the population.
Byzantine first utopian Pleton at the beginning of the 15th century. dreamed of reforming Byzantium into a world welfare state. And at the end of the same century, the Chancellor of Florence and the founder of political science, Niccolo Machiavelli, formulated the thesis that still determines the relationship of the authorities to history: “history is needed by the ruler as it allows him to most effectively rule his people”. This thesis is the basis of the entire traditional history, composed in the 16th-19th centuries, which is more correctly called “political historiography”.
As a result, instead of the natural progressive development of the civilizational process in the history of each European state, periods of “ancient” flourishing, subsequent “decline” and “revival” appeared, separated in time and space. This is how a single Byzantine history (it is also Bosnian, that is, God's, that is, the history of the “promised land”) of the 13th-15th centuries. for some it turned into “Igo”, and for others it became “(Proto) Renaissance”.
And for those who do not believe this, you can clearly demonstrate the border between the "yoke" and the "renaissance": attach a ruler to the modern map of Europe from St. Petersburg to the heel of the Italian "boot", and on the right there will be mainly Orthodox Russia, Belarus, Serbia, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria and predominantly Muslim Albania and Turkey, and on the left are predominantly Catholic and reformist Lithuania, Poland, Croatia, Italy, etc. to the West. So the “yoke” is to the right, and the “renaissance” to the left.
The border of this section of the XVI century. runs straight through its center - Slavic Bosnia, whose Muslim language practically does not differ from Serbo-Croatian (or, if you like, from Croatian-Serbian) and is the direct heir of the same common European spoken language of the 15th century, about which Karamzin wrote.
What has changed over the past 500 years since the disunity of Europe, from the point of view of the idea of uniting mankind, recorded in the UN Charter - let the reader decide for himself …