Confrontation: the land of Novgorod. Confrontation of civilizations in the cultural heritage of the North-West of Russia: the Novgorod period

In an abandoned industrial zone, "Americans and Russians" fought over chemical weapons

In one of the former republics of the USSR, on the territory of an officially mothballed, but continuing to function under a secret intergovernmental agreement, a plant for the production of chemical weapons, an accident occurred with an explosion and the release of a military substance. Upon learning of this, the United States prepared a "cleansing" group in order to get samples of chemical weapons of interest. Russia also sent radiation, chemical and biological protection units to the scene to block the area and completely eliminate the facility. And the confrontation began...

Just a game

No, don't think that something terrible has happened. This is just a legend of the open airsoft championship, which was held in Parfina on September 22-24.

Airsoft is a military-tactical game that originally meant training soldiers in combat. Later, the training turned into a game, the meaning of which is to complete as many tasks as possible and die as few times as possible.

There are a number of rules for the players, but besides the safety requirements, the culture of behavior on the playground and the scenario, it is important ... honesty. Indeed, how to understand whether a fighter was killed or not? Indeed, in airsoft, unlike paintball, they shoot with plastic balls, but they do not leave marks on clothes ... It's simple - the player who was shot must honestly raise his hand and leave the battlefield. As the participants themselves say, only honest people come to play airsoft - there is no place for others.

Together with a group of airsoft players, we are driving in the back of a KamAZ to the site of the official start of the game. Along the perimeter, the military guards the territory from stray mushroom pickers and onlookers. Although the balls are plastic, they hit painfully, no one needs injuries ... Looking at the stripes on the players' camouflage, you understand that the geography of the participants is not limited to the Novgorod region. There are representatives from Moscow, St. Petersburg, Tver, Pskov... Not bad for the first test game, as the organizers say.

At the launch site, the military from Luga introduce the audience to weapons samples. " Very heavy, do not lift, you will not go far with this”, - the boys from the Parfin school are discussing. Soldiers representing military equipment are smiling: after all, they have to make multi-kilometer forced marches with these weapons.

Start given

The organizer of the game and the managing partner of the Agency for Ready Solutions, Tatyana Chernikova, reported before the start of the competition that all the necessary safety measures were observed at the site: it meets high quality standards. Tatyana Chernikova thanked the guests for their participation, as well as the Government of the Novgorod Region for the opportunity to hold a large-scale tournament.

Veronika Minina, Deputy Governor of the Novgorod Region, in turn, opening the game, noted that such a championship is a good opportunity for the Parfinsky District to attract guests from all over the country.

After a short official part, the players dispersed to prepare for the game, and we, in the back of the familiar KamAZ, are returning to the camp. Let's go fun. Experienced airsoft players share their gaming life stories. Someone tells how he begged his wife for the fifth camouflage, someone about a new machine gun. " Wife told me to say that I'm not henpecked”, - finishing the story about buying new uniforms, says a tall, unshaven lover of war games.

The camp has a field kitchen, meals are organized for the players, you can immediately buy Dixer tactical shoes from the general sponsor of the event Zenden Group, try to shoot with airsoft weapons. Although all these little things are pleasant, they are useless to some avid players. " We came not to sleep, we came to play', they say.

Not by force, but by skill

The final battle of the second day clearly showed that in a war, albeit a game one, one needs not only physical strength, but also tactics. For example, numerous players of one of the teams, having taken, at first glance, an advantageous position, lost in tactics, were surrounded by the opposing team and shot.

The result of the game was not only good mood participants, a sea of positive emotions and photos in social networks. According to the organizers, a film about the war, airsoft and patriotism will be released about this championship.

The training game was successful, - summed up Tatyana Chernikova. - Experienced airsoft players noted that this project is more interesting and potentially more powerful than the existing ones. The organization of the tournament and household amenities were also at their best. In Parfin, everything was provided.

Already now we can safely say that the game "Confrontation: the land of Novgorod" has launched a new direction - military-patriotic tourism. After all, according to the organizers, this is not the last event in the Novgorod region. It is planned that tactical competitions on the Parfin site will be held annually.

Recall that large-scale competitions were organized by the Agency of Ready Solutions and the Territory of Active Games "Polygon" with the support of the Government of the Novgorod Region and brought together more than 2,000 people from 12 regions of Russia in the Parfinsky district.

Tatiana YAKOVENKO, Anastasia GAVRILOVA

Photo by Tatyana Yakovenko

History, as you know, repeats itself. Over the past centuries, the alignment of forces on the geopolitical map has changed many times, states have arisen and disappeared, by the will of the rulers of the army rushed to storm fortresses, many thousands of unknown warriors died in distant lands. The confrontation between Russia and the Teutonic Order can serve as an example of an attempt to expand the so-called "Western values" to the East of Europe, which ended in failure. The question arises of how great were the chances of the knightly army to win.

Initial setting

At the end of the twelfth century, she was in a position that can be characterized by the well-known expression "between the hammer and the anvil." Batu operated in the southwest, ruining and plundering the scattered Slavic principalities. From the Baltic side, the advance of the German knights began. The strategic goal of the Christian army, declared by the Pope, was to bring Catholicism to the consciousness of the indigenous population, who then professed paganism. The Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes had militarily weak resistance, and the invasion at the first stage developed quite successfully. In the period from 1184 until the end of the century, a series of victories made it possible to develop success, establish the Riga fortress and gain a foothold on the bridgehead for further aggression. Actually, the European crusade Rome announced in 1198, it was supposed to become a kind of revenge for the defeat in the Holy Land. Methods and true goals were very far from the teachings of Christ - they had a pronounced political and economic background. In other words, the crusaders came to the land of the Estonians and Livs to rob and seize. On the eastern borders, the Teutonic Order and Russia at the beginning of the 13th century had a common border.

Military conflicts of the initial stage

Relations between the Teutons and the Russians were complex, their character was formed on the basis of the emerging military and political realities. Trade interests prompted temporary alliances and joint operations against pagan tribes when situations dictated certain conditions. The general Christian faith, however, did not prevent the knights from gradually pursuing a policy of catholicization of the Slavic population, which caused some concern. The year 1212 was marked by a military campaign of the united fifteen thousandth Novgorod-Polochansk army against a number of castles. A brief truce followed. The Teutonic Order and Russia entered a period of conflicts that were to last for decades.

Western sanctions of the 13th century

The "Chronicle of Livonia" by Henry of Latvia contains information about the siege of Wenden Castle by the Novgorodians in 1217. The Danes, who wanted to snatch their piece of the Baltic pie, also became enemies of the Germans. They founded an outpost, the fortress "Taani linn" (now Revel). This created additional difficulties, including those related to supply. In connection with these and many other circumstances, I was forced to repeatedly revise my military policy and the Teutonic Order. Relations with Russia were complex, raids on outposts continued, and serious measures were required to counteract.

However, the ammunition did not quite match the ambitions. Pope Gregory IX simply did not have enough economic resources to conduct full-scale military operations and, in addition to ideological measures, he could only oppose Russian power with the economic blockade of Novgorod, which was done in 1228. Today, these actions would be called sanctions. They were not crowned with success, the Gotland merchants did not sacrifice their profits in the name of papal aggressive aspirations, and for the most part the calls for a blockade were ignored.

The myth of the hordes of "dog-knights"

More or less successful campaigns on the possessions of the knights continued during the reign of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, the victory near Yuryev made this city on the list of Novgorod tributaries (1234). In essence, the image of hordes of armored crusaders storming Russian cities, familiar to the mass consciousness, created by filmmakers (first of all, obviously, did not quite correspond to historical truth. The knights waged rather a positional struggle, trying to keep the castles and fortresses they had built, occasionally venturing into sorties, no matter how bold, just as adventurous. The Teutonic Order and Russia in the thirties of the XIII century had different resource bases, and their ratio was more and more not in favor of the German conquerors.

Alexander Nevskiy

The Novgorod prince earned his title by defeating the Swedes, who dared to land in 1240 on Russian soil, at the mouth of the Neva. The intentions of the "landing" were not in doubt, and the young, but already experienced military leader (his father's school) led his small detachment in a decisive offensive. The victory was a reward for courage, and it was not the last. The next crusade to Russia of the Teutonic Order, undertaken by the knights in 1242, ended badly for the invaders. The plan for the battle, which later became known as the "Battle on the Ice", was brilliantly thought out and successfully implemented. Prince Alexander Nevsky took into account the peculiarities of the terrain, used non-standard tactics, enlisted the support of the Horde, received serious military assistance from it, in general, applied all available resources and won a victory that glorified his name for centuries. Significant enemy forces went to the bottom, and the rest were killed or captured by the warriors. The year 1262 is marked in the history books as the date of the conclusion of an alliance between Novgorod and the Lithuanian prince Mindovg, together with whom the siege of Wenden was carried out, not entirely successful, but not unsuccessful either: the combined forces caused significant damage to the enemy. After this event, the Teutonic Order and Russia almost cease mutual military activity for six years. Treaties favorable to Novgorod on the division of spheres of influence are concluded.

End of the conflict

All wars eventually end. The long confrontation, in which the Livonian Teutonic Order and Russia came together, also ended. Briefly, one can mention the last significant episode of the long-term conflict - now almost forgotten. It took place in February 1268 and showed the impotence of the combined Danish-German army, which sought to reverse the overall strategic situation in its favor. At the first stage, the knights managed to push the positions of the warriors led by the son of Prince Alexander Nevsky Dmitry. This was followed by a counterattack by five thousand troops, and the enemy took to flight. Formally, the battle ended in a draw: the Russian troops failed to take the fortress besieged by them (perhaps such a task was not set for fear of heavy losses), but this and other smaller attempts to seize the initiative by the Teutons failed. Today, only preserved ancient castles remind of them.

Kuzmin A. G.

The specifics of the development of the Novgorod land in the XI-XIII centuries. was largely connected with the previous time, because it was in antiquity that the peculiar features of the Novgorod socio-political structure, the landmarks of the Novgorod economy, and the principles of the relationship of Novgorod with other lands of Russia were laid.

In the historical literature, the main discussions were associated with the beginning of Novgorod. The chronicle relates its occurrence to about 864: Rurik came from Ladoga and founded Novygorod (legends about more ancient existence cities did not develop until the 17th century). Among archaeologists, there are differences in the assessment of this ancient indication of the chronicle. A well-known connoisseur of Novgorod antiquities V.L. Yanin refers the emergence of Novgorod only to the 10th century. G.P. Smirnova argued that the oldest Novgorodian ceramics, similar to Western Slavic, was deposited in the oldest layers of Novgorod just at the time indicated in the annals - in the second half of the 9th century. But the discrepancies in chronology are not so fundamentally significant - they take into account different materials, from different excavations, used different ways dating (say, accurate dating modern methods street pavements indicates only the time of the appearance of these pavements, and not the settlement itself). It is more important to evaluate the content of the annalistic message: to what extent this source is reliable.

There are discrepancies in the definition of the ethnic composition of the original settlement of Novgorod. But this is natural: along the Volga-Baltic route from west to east there were multilingual detachments and simply settlers. In the legend about the calling of the Varangians, dated in the annals of 50-60 years. IX century, there are two Slavic tribes and three Finno-Ugric tribes as a federation that has already taken shape and, therefore, that arose earlier than this time. And here there are also ethnically indefinite “Varangians”, who clearly appeared here and came here before the events described, even if the measure far from the Baltic had to pay tribute to them.

Different opinions of researchers are predetermined by the fact that the early Novgorod chronicles retained less material than the later ones, the Sofia-Novgorod ones. This is especially noticeable when describing the events of the 11th century, which the Novgorod First Chronicle conveys, following mainly one of the editions of the Tale of Bygone Years (before 1115). It was this circumstance that gave rise to the widespread opinion that there was no independent chronicle writing in Novgorod until the 12th century. In principle, the discrepancies in the definition of the beginning of the Novgorod chronicle is one of the many consequences of different understanding of the very essence of chronicle writing: a single tree or the coexistence and struggle of various traditions expressing the interests of different political forces and ideological aspirations.

Judging by the preface to the First Chronicle of Novgorod, this collection appeared between 1204 and 1261. According to a number of signs, it is determined that the code was compiled in the middle of the 13th century, and later it was brought to the 30s. XIV century. It was up to the middle of the 13th century that the Novgorod source was used by the compiler of the Rostov collection. The code used the edition of the Tale of Bygone Years within chronological limits until 1115 (but without agreements), which served as the basis for this branch of the Novgorod chronicle, but it was neither the only one nor the oldest.

In this sense, it is important to refer to the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles of the 15th century. In general, the Sophia-Novgorod chronicles are more of a material for an annalistic code than the code itself. The chronicler leaves notes, possibly for himself, like: “seek in Kiev”, without disclosing the content of the corresponding text of the Tale of Bygone Years. It is precisely because of the incompleteness of work on the text in the annals that the same events are often duplicated under different years. But in this disordered material, traces of earlier Novgorod chronicle writing are visible, including those completely not reflected in the Novgorod First Chronicle. For example, the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles of the century provide material about the reign of Yaroslav (the first half of the 11th century), which the Tale of Bygone Years does not know. And this material is clearly of Novgorod origin.

A certain stage of work within the framework of this tradition was the compilation, compiled in the 80s of the XII century, presumably by German Voyata, who died in 1188. At the same time, it is important that in the Synodal (oldest) list of the Novgorod First Chronicle, this chronicler designates himself under the year 1144: “Establish me to remember Archbishop Saint Nifont.” It is highly probable that the Rostov Chronicle, namely, the “Old Chronicler of Rostov”, was also involved in this code. His influence is noticeable in the stories about Moses Ugrin, Yaroslav's sister Predslava, Mstislav "Fierce" and some others. Moreover, in this case, we are talking about a set, that is, the creation of a historical work characteristic of feudal Russia and Russia, connecting different written sources. In such vaults, previously compiled vaults were usually continued, often without revision. Therefore, most likely, during the 12th century, there was clearly more than one center for keeping chronicles in Novgorod.

Those researchers who recognized the existence of the Novgorod chronicle in the 11th century (A.A. Shakhmatov, B.A. Rybakov, a number of authors of the 19th century) usually looked for traces of it in the 50s. For Shakhmatov, this is Novgorodian material, brought in Kyiv for the first time in the “Initial Code of 1095” he proposed, and he looked for traces of it in the composition of “The Tale of Bygone Years”. B.A. Rybakov speaks of the Ostromir Chronicle, largely using the material of the Sophia-Novgorod chronicles, that is, with the inevitable entry into a different tradition than that reflected in the Tale of Bygone Years. This dating is confirmed by an important indication of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles under the year 1030. Compared to The Tale of Bygone Years, they add that in 1030 Yaroslav, after the creation of the city of Yuryev, returned to Novgorod and collected “300 books from elders and priestly children”. And then follows an extremely important “remembrance”: “Archbishop Akim of Novgorod reposed, and his disciple Ephraim, who taught us more, was bye.” Efrem, obviously, headed the Novgorod diocese, like Anastas and later Hilarion Kiev church. The first (or one of the first) Novgorod chronicler defines himself as a disciple of Ephraim, and this leads precisely to the middle of the 11th century, since Ephraim is already spoken of in the past tense, because Ephraim acted as the head of the Novgorod church until the Byzantine metropolis was established in Kyiv in 1037.

The basis of the Sophia-Novgorod chronicles is the code of 1418, which has not come down to us directly. But the compilers of the younger version of the Novgorod First Chronicle were apparently familiar with him. In the Sophia-Novgorod chronicles, there is a chronological confusion, which may indicate the absence of absolute dates in the original text: the dates were put down either by the chronicler of the middle of the 11th century, or by later chroniclers.

In the XII-XIII centuries. Novgorod land steadfastly held on to communal-republican forms of community life, which persisted for many centuries and were not completely crushed by the ideology and practice of serfdom. It has already been said that, in terms of the specifics of its socio-political structure, Novgorod is close to the cities of the Slavic Baltic Pomerania (South Baltic). This specificity was the originality of the Novgorod land within the framework of the East Slavic state and ethnic association: the initial weakness of the princely power; great authority of religious authority (both in paganism and Christianity); involvement in the socio-political processes of different segments of the population (in addition to serfs-slaves).

From the borders of the Novgorod land, this system of socio-political relations spread far to the east, right up to Siberia, as shown, in particular, by D.K. Zelenin. It is characteristic that such a system has become especially widespread in those territories where agriculture exists, but it is unstable, and therefore crafts and trade play an important role. Another point is also important - there has never been and never will be serfdom in these territories, since feudal estates here do not make sense: a smerd forcibly tied to a place will not give anything to its potential owner. On the other hand, “tributes” and “rents” will remain in these regions for centuries. The absence of serfdom was influenced by the fact that in the countryside, located in harsh and unstable climatic conditions, the initiative of each worker and the observance of the principle of “artel” were required. This, in turn, necessitated the preservation of the communal social structure, which was dominated by the principle of elective leaders, when persons holding elected positions carried out internal management of the community and representation of the community outside it.

To understand the peculiarity of the socio-political structure of Novgorod land, it is necessary to take into account the fact that there was a hierarchy of cities in Novgorod land - all cities were considered as “suburbs” of Novgorod and had to bear certain duties in relation to it. But inside each of these cities, management was built from the bottom up, as well as in Novgorod itself. Of course, with the deepening of social contradictions, between the “tops” and “bottoms” of urban society, confrontations often arose, and even an open struggle. But “smerd”, as the main category of the population, was a significant figure both at the beginning of the 11th century, and in the 12th century, and later, when the princes, in opposition to the boyars, supported precisely the “smerds”.

Novgorod land had its own specifics of interaction between Slavic and non-Slavic tribes. The fact is that non-Slavic tribes in most cases remained separate for quite a long time, and their inner life remained traditional. To Novgorod as a whole or to individual Novgorod secular and church feudal lords, these tribes were paid tribute, and the collection of such a “tribute” was the main form of subordination of non-Slavic tribes to the main city of the region or its “suburbs”. Among the tributary tribes of Novgorod were Izhora, Vod (near the coast of the Gulf of Finland), Karel, Tersky coast in the south of the Kola Peninsula, Em (Finns), Pechera, Yugra. Moreover, in the east, in the Urals (the lands of the Pechora and Yugra), there were no graveyards for collecting tribute, and special squads were sent there. The collection of "tribute" usually took place peacefully, with mutual consent, although, of course, there were cases when the Novgorod combatants were engaged in robberies. But in general, the Karelian-Finnish epic reflects the situation of Novgorod's relations with the eastern and northern tribes: there is no concept of an external enemy in it, and hostile forces are hiding in dungeons or in heaven.

Novgorod also claimed to collect tribute from the tribes of the Eastern Baltic. But from the end of the 12th century, German crusaders began to penetrate into this region, with whom Novgorod would later wage a constant and difficult struggle. The center of Novgorodian influence on the Eastern Baltic tribes was the city of Yuryev, founded in 1030 by Yaroslav the Wise. The struggle for Yuryev will long be the most important link in resisting the “onslaught to the east” of the crusaders. The tribes located on the territory of the Novgorod land itself, as a rule, acted in alliance with the Novgorodians against the onslaught of the Germans and Scandinavians from the west.

The main elements of Novgorod self-government proper are the veche, the institute of posadniks, the institute of thousands, the institute of elders and the economic and managerial positions associated with these institutions. Initially, the magi played an important independent role in paganism, and after the adoption of Christianity, bishops and archbishops. The role of these various institutions is revealed in connection with some kind of conflicts: either between the prince and the city, or within the dominant “golden belts” - contenders for the highest positions, or between the “tops” and the social “bottoms” of the city.

The usual impression of Novgorod self-government as an uncontrollable freemen is formed under the influence of the amount of chronicle news. But the annals do not report on the everyday, “routine” affairs of the annals, reflecting on their pages only some important events. But even the surviving information is evidence of the high political activity of the Novgorod population, which is possible only under conditions of a certain legal protection.

The cardinal institution in the system of self-government is the veche, which was a kind of continuation of the obligatory “people's assemblies” in any tribal associations (iterritorial and consanguineous). The very fact of the existence of the veche is often questioned, and under it is assumed some kind of narrow assembly of the “tops”, which passes off its decision as a “nationwide”. There were certainly such speculations, but they say that once matters were decided at a general meeting.

In the XII-XIII centuries, it was the “veche” and its decisions that corrected the behavior of the executive branch. People's meetings, which are actually recorded in the annals, most often appear as something extraordinary, caused by unexpected problems. At some stage, they apparently became so. But the need to turn to the opinion of the veche, even when solving obviously doubtful questions, is an argument in favor of the people's assembly: it cannot be forced, and therefore it must be deceived. Of course, the real things were often done behind the backs of the "eternal". But if Novgorod had to really resist someone or something, then it was impossible to do without a “veche”. Consequently, the very "extraordinary" nature of the people's assemblies is a kind of evidence of the "highest" criterion of power, as a duty to resolve urgent issues that have arisen before the entire tribal or territorial organization. And in some cases, it was the decision of the "veche" that blocked - right or wrong - the intentions of the boyars.

In the practice of Novgorod political life the opinion and decision of the “veche” had to be appealed to repeatedly, and in a number of cases chronicles report on the opposition of the “veche” between the aristocratic “Sofia” and the craft and merchant “Trading” side, that is, about meetings of various either territorially or socially united Novgorodians, with their own suggestions or requests. And often controversial issues were resolved on the bridge between the “Sofia” and “Trade” sides of Volkhov: who would throw whom off the bridge. Local issues were decided by the veche of urban settlements-ends. At such meetings, possible claims to the executive power of the city were also usually discussed.

The circle itself and the composition of the “eternal” in different times and it is not the same for different tribes, just as the “leaders” within the framework of veche meetings are not the same, which is evident in the practice of different lands of Russia. The inevitable “external influences”, caused, in particular, by the conditions of the settlement of the Slavs in the 6th - 9th centuries, as well as the process of deepening the social delimitation of both consanguineous and territorial collectives at the same time, are affecting.

The institution of "thousands" is clear from the very designation of the position. This is a traditional Slavic elective position from the “Earth”, within the framework of the “tenth”, “fiftieth”, “sotsky” and those following them. “Thousands” are those who were instructed to lead the militia of the city and the district. Naturally, the "thousands" sought to retain their rights, to save positions for posterity or in the immediate environment. But they had no formal rights to this, and therefore a struggle of potential candidates could unfold around this position.

The most significant in the historical perspective in Novgorod was the position of “posadniks” (a thorough monograph by V.L. Yanin is devoted to the institute of “posadniks”). The most confusing issue is the origin of this institution and the functions of posadniks in the 10th-11th centuries. Even the etymology, seemingly transparent, gives the possibility of a double interpretation: the posadnik, as “planted”, and the posadnik, as the manager of the “posad”, the trade and craft part of the cities. The main problem associated with the institution of posadnichestvo is the process of transforming a princely “planted” official into an elected republican position. In the "Tale of Bygone Years" the first Novgorod "posadniks" are mentioned in connection with the activities of the Kiev prince Yaropolk Svyatoslavich. At the same time, the fact that we are talking not about one posadnik, but about posadniks in the plural is important. They are also mentioned in the plural after Vladimir Svyatoslavich returned to Novgorod from the “overseas”: the prince sends them to Kyiv with parting words that he himself will soon go to Kiev against Yaropolk. Yaropolk's “posadniks” were not included in the later lists, which are usually opened by the name of Gostomysl. Gostomysl's name, apparently, was popular in Novgorod legends, and was used to justify the right of Novgorodians to choose posadniks and invite princes of their choice. This name itself will first appear in the Sofia-Novgorod annals, in which Gostomysl is presented as the predecessor of Rurik. Whether the name of Gostomysl was in the original Novgorod chronicle (according to B.A. Rybakov - in the Chronicle of Ostromir) remains unclear. In general, the very appearance of the name of Gostomysl is associated with the revival of Novgorodians' memories of the former freemen and the desire for their revival in the 15th century. But the same situation developed in the 11th century, after the death of Yaroslav the Wise. Accordingly, the message of the Sophia-Novgorod chronicles that Gostomysl is an “elder” elected by a mayor is relevant not only for the 15th, but also for the 11th century.

In the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, as well as in the lists of posadniks, the second name after Gostomysl is Konstantin (Kosnyatin) Dobrynich, who was the cousin of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich and, accordingly, the cousin of Yaroslav. In 1018, Constantine sharply opposed Yaroslav's attempt to escape, abandoning everything, to the Varangians. And this is also an indicator - the posadnik expressed the mood and will of the Novgorodians. Yaroslav severely dealt with a close relative. In the annals, all these events are attributed to the end of the second and the beginning of the third decade of the 11th century. According to V.L. Yanin, they should be transferred to the 30s, taking into account the duplication in the Sophia-Novgorod annals of all records for this time with a difference of about 16 years (this would correspond to the use of the Alexandrian space age, which determined the time from the “creation of the world” to the birth of Christ in 5492 years, that is, just 16 years earlier indicated in the Constantinople era).

Another Novgorod posadnik in the 11th century was Ostromir, who commissioned the production of the famous “Ostromir Gospel”. In the story about the campaign against the Greeks in 1043, his son Vyshata is mentioned as the governor of Vladimir. Later, the same Vyshata in 1064 left Novgorod for Tmutarakan together with Prince Rostislav Vladimirovich. The date 1064 is doubtful. In the "Ostromir Gospel" its owner is defined as "close" to Izyaslav, that is, a relative of Izyaslav. And Izyaslav will lose the Kyiv table, first in 1068, and then in 1073, when the main antagonist of Izyaslav, Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, occupies the Kyiv table. The confrontation with the family of Svyatoslav presupposes the events of 1068. Rostislav also had to face the son of Svyatoslav Gleb, who occupied Tmutarakan. Obviously, Ostromir was also associated with this branch of the descendants of Yaroslav, who turned out to be outcasts. But the question of the relationship within the princely and posadnik branches of power in this case is not clear. In all likelihood, Rostislav fled, unable to resist some candidate for the Novgorod table, nominated by Vseslav or Svyatoslav.

In the chronicle under the year 1054 - the date of the death of Yaroslav the Wise - it is said about the death of Ostromir in a campaign against the Chud. But the “Ostromir Gospel” refers to 1057, therefore, the early Novgorod chronicles did not preserve the exact dating (this inaccuracy can serve as an argument in favor of the fact that the oldest Novgorod chronicle did not have dates “from the Creation of the World”).

Subsequently, the institute of posadnichestvo was strengthened in Novgorod due to the fact that the Kievan princes sent here still incapacitated children, for whom and on behalf of whom the governors and posadniks sent with them ruled. Rostislav was 14 years old when his father Vladimir died. Mstislav Vladimirovich was first sent to Novgorod at about the age of 12 (and stayed in his first arrival in Novgorod for 5 years, until 1093). The lists of posadniks during this time give a number of names that are not reflected in other sources. The reign of Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav Vladimirovich as a whole is the time of a noticeable strengthening of the power of the Kiev prince, the strengthening of a certain unity of different lands under his rule. The second stay of Mstislav in Novgorod falls on 1096–1117, and the attempt of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who reigned in Kyiv after the death of Vsevolod and until his death in 1113, to exercise the right of the first person was rejected by the Novgorodians, who preferred Mstislav. But the transition of Mstislav to Kyiv in 1117 broke the harmony. Mstislav left his son Vsevolod in Novgorod with a promise that he would never leave Novgorod. However, immediately after the death of Mstislav in 1132, the new Kyiv prince Yaropolk transferred Vsevolod to Pereyaslavl, from where he was soon expelled by his uncles Yuri and Andrei. Vsevolod was forced to return back to Novgorod, but there he was reminded of "treason", and in 1136 he was expelled in disgrace. Apparently, Vsevolod had previously been kept only by the authority and power of his father, who occupied Kyiv, and the conflict of 1132 only exposed the real relationship between the prince and the “Earth”, which was rising, restoring in some cases the ancient forms of self-government. The Novgorod chronicler notes that both Pskov and Ladoga residents took part in the exile of Vsevolod Mstislavich in 1132, and in general “be great in people”. True, then the Novgorodians and their "suburbs" "repented." But 1136 finally marked new form relations of the entire Novgorod land with the invited princes (Ladoga and Pskov also participated in this decision).

1136 is a significant date both for Novgorod and for Russia as a whole. It was from that time that the principle of “seniority” and the principle of “fatherhood” actually ceased to operate. It was noted in the literature that more than 30 coups would take place in Novgorod over the next century. And unrest arose not only because of the struggle at the top, among the posadniks and the “golden belts”. Social problems also constantly surfaced on the surface of public life, and some of the invited princes were already accused by the boyars of preferences given to smerds. In general, the archaization of social relations in the Novgorod land turned out to be one of the reasons for the development of bourgeois relations in the north of Russia, while in the center and in the southern limits feudalism would introduce feudal relations.

In the second half of the 12th - early 13th centuries, the Novgorodians would maneuver between the competing branches of the Yaroslavichs. So, having expelled Vsevolod Mstislavich (Monomakhovich), they immediately invited Svyatoslav Olgovich, one of the main rivals of the Monomakhoviches. Naturally, such a turn did not suit many in Novgorod and Pskov. In the turmoil of 1136-1138, the Pskovites would accept Vsevolod Mstislavich, and the Novgorodians would stick to Svyatoslav Olgovich, although he did not receive much support in Novgorod either. The conflict arose with the prince and with Bishop Nifont, as noted above, on everyday grounds. And it is not surprising that Svyatoslav Olgovich soon left Novgorod.

In Novgorod, traditionally, the church authorities have always played an important role. At the same time, in the second half of the 12th century, ecclesiastical and political contradictions also appeared, and not only in connection with the conflict between Bishop Nifont and Metropolitan Kliment Smolyatich. It was in 1136 that the monk of the Antoniev Monastery Kirik wrote his famous “Teaching” - a reflection on chronology with access to both mathematics and astronomy. In conclusion of his text, he spoke very positively about Svyatoslav Olgovich, putting him ahead of Nifont. Later, Kirik would write an “Inquiry” to Niphon on a wide range of issues. Among these issues there is one very fundamental one: the replacement of penances (church punishments of the Byzantine model) with custom-made liturgies. Perhaps this question is connected with the peculiar traditions of the St. Anthony Monastery itself, close to the Irish Church. Recall that the founder of the monastery, Anthony the Roman, sailed to Novgorod from the West of Europe “on the rock”, swimming “on the rock” was a specific feature of the Celtic saints. In addition, it was in the Irish Church that penance was replaced by custom-made liturgies. Consequently, Kirik's question to Nifont was connected with the actual practice that was preserved in the St. Anthony Monastery. And Nifont answered such questions harshly and harshly.

The Novgorod events of 1156 were a kind of continuation of this theme. Nifont died in Kyiv without waiting for the Metropolitan. And the chronicler, defending Nifont, cites different opinions about him: “He went to go to Kiev against the metropolitan; and many others said, as if, having beaten Saint Sophia, he went to Tsesaryugrad. No less interesting is the unique incident that took place in Novgorod after the death of Nifont: “In the same summer, the whole city of people gathered, deigning to appoint a holy man as bishop, and God chose the name of Arcadius; and all the people went, girded from the monastery of the Holy Mother of God. Bishop Arkady was installed, as it were, temporarily, until he was approved by the metropolitan, and Arkady went to Kyiv for approval only two years later. It seems that in this situation, the relapse of the Irish or Arian tradition, characteristic of early Russian Christianity, is again manifested - the election of bishops by the decision of the community. Moreover, in the Irish church, the bishop was an administrative and economic position, while among the Arians, it was a liturgical position. In the actual political practice of Novgorod, bishops combined both of these functions, often pushing aside both princely power and posadnichestvo administration.

Vladyka Arkady headed the diocese until 1163. Then there was a two-year break in the annals, when the place of the bishop apparently became rusticated. And in the article of 1165, two archbishops appointed for Novgorod in Kyiv are mentioned at once: Ilya and Dionysius. The chronicler writes about the latter with obvious sympathy. Apparently, the wording of the article is unsuccessful: first it says about the approval of Elijah, and at the end of the article about the death of Dionysius.

Ilya occupied the chair for twenty-one years (until 1187) and he managed to strengthen both his personal authority and the authority of the Sofia chair. The chronicle is also positively evaluated by the activities of his brother Gabriel in 1187–1193. - mainly the construction of churches, which may indicate either the actual position of the church, or the personality of a chronicler close to these archpastors.

Perhaps it was thanks to such a long actual reign of Ilya and his brother that the internal situation of Novgorod in the last third of the 12th century relatively stabilized. In addition to the specified stabilization element - increasing the authority of the Sofia See - this was also facilitated by external circumstances: the need to counter the growing threat in the Baltic from the German crusaders, and difficult relations with the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal Russia Andrei Bogolyubsky and Vsevolod the Big Nest.

Novgorod was vitally interested in maintaining normal business relations with the "great" princes who controlled the Volga-Baltic route and the lands that saved Novgorodians in the often repeated years of crop failure. But the grand dukes sought to subjugate Novgorod, and the Novgorod “freemen” sought “parity” relations. Therefore, wanting to limit the limits of princely power, the Novgorodians reduced the number of lands from which the prince could receive tribute. This will be directly recorded in the charters of the 13th century, but as a trend, such a situation existed from the very beginning. It's just that in the 13th century the feudal nature of socio-economic relations was more clearly expressed, and the treaties more specifically defined the territories from which the princes could collect "tribute".

In the XII-XIII centuries. there is a strengthening of the social elite of Novgorod, which gave rise to another problem: the dissatisfaction of the social lower classes with the abuses of city power was growing. In 1209, when the Novgorodians participated in the campaign of Vsevolod Yuryevich the Big Nest and reached the Oka, a social explosion took place in the city, aimed "at the posadnik Dmitry and his brothers." The veche accused the rulers of Novgorod of numerous abuses: “Command the citizens of Novgorod to imate silver, and to take chickens in the volost, to take wild vera by the merchant, and to carry wagons, and all other evil.” By the decision of the veche, “going to their yards by robbery”, the villages of the posadnik and his entourage were sold, the servants were taken away, each Novgorodian got three hryvnias from the stolen property. The chronicler stipulates that it is impossible to count the fact that someone "grabbed" and "from that lot you got rich."

There is considerable literature about this uprising. And there is a fundamental difference in the assessments of this social explosion: whether it was of an anti-feudal or intra-feudal character. It seems that, as in many other cases, the material testifies to intra-feudal conflicts - as a result of the uprising, the loot was redistributed. But at the same time, the way out to the fundamental problem remains - in the events of 1209, the confrontation between the “Earth” and “Power” is clearly traced.

Novgorod was the main diplomatic and commercial window of Russia to Northern Europe, and a significant number of acts have been preserved that contractually determined relations with Western partners. The largest number of contracts is associated with Lübeck, the Gotha coast and German cities. In this regard, the incident with the “Varangians”, which is reported by the Novgorod Chronicle under 1188, is of interest. The Novgorodians were robbed by the Varangians "at G'tekh", and by the Germans "in Khoryuzhka and Novotorzhets". In response, in Novgorod they closed the exit to the sea and sent the ambassador of the Varangians. Under 1201, this story continues: again the Varangians “desert without peace across the sea”, and in the same autumn “the Varangians came by a mountain (that is, by land, through the Eastern Baltic) to the world, and gave them peace with all their will.”

These two reports are interesting in that one of the traditional treaties between Novgorod and Lübeck, the Gotha coast and the German cities, that is, the southern coast of the Baltic, which at that time belonged to Germany, dates back to this time. The treaties usually dealt with peace, embassy and trade relations, and court, since judicial traditions differed in different lands and cities. Lübeck remained one of the main shopping centers in the Baltic, and even in the documents of the XIV century it was placed “in Russia”. The “Gothic coast” was a transit point for merchants along the Volga-Baltic route, and there were trade bases for almost all the peoples involved in trade along this route. As for the cities of Khoruzhek and Novotorzhets, their Slavic etymology is quite clear, but the question of their localization remains controversial.

A whole range of problems characterizing Novgorod society is represented by the events of 1227-1230, marked by chronicles (primarily Novgorod First and Nikon) with a few fragmentary and contradictory phrases. There are different readings and different assessments of what happened in the literature. And the problems are difficult to understand outside the context of the entire Novgorod and Old Russian history.

Judging by individual chronicle phrases, in 1227 - 1230 there were famine years in Novgorod and “lack of food” affected for three years (in 1230, more than three thousand Novgorodians filled the “student houses” with corpses, and dogs could not eat the corpses scattered through the streets) . The years of famine created many problems. First of all, where and at whose expense to deliver the missing products to the city. And immediately contradictions arose, the nature of which is disputed by historians: class, or non-class. In 1227, the beginning of the "hungry years" was marked by the appearance of seemingly already forgotten Magi. The ancient sorcerers directly linked the phenomena of nature with the nature of power: “badness” was considered a sign of inept and incompetent power, which could be subjected to any punishment.

As a result, the Magi preachers were punished: for the first time in the history of Russia (unlike Western Europe), bonfires lit up; four Magi were burned at the stake. The chronicler, perhaps even contemporary to the events, condemned this action, noting that surrounded by Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (who at that time occupied Pereyaslal Zalessky and corrected the functions of the Novgorod prince), the punitive action of the Novgorodians was negatively reacted to. Since the burning took place in the Sofia courtyard, it can be assumed that the initiators of the execution were in the office of the archbishop. As a result, Archbishop Anthony was forced to leave "of his own free will", and the wrath of the Novgorodians fell upon his successor Arseny.

Secular power has also changed. Prince Yaroslav left the Novgorod table and returned to Pereyaslavl, but Prince Mikhail Chernigov appeared in Novgorod, who “kissed the cross on all the will of Novgorod” and the previous letters, and “because we don’t pay freedom for 5 years of Denmark, who fled to a foreign land.” In other words, those who fled either from violence or from hunger were exempted from tribute for five years. Those who remained in their places paid tribute in the same volumes.

The year 1228 was also marked by yet another manifestation of Novgorodian democracy. Archbishop Arseniy, who replaced Anthony, was not accepted by the “simple child”. Moreover, an accusation was brought against him at a veche “in the prince’s court” that he eliminated Anthony, “giving the prince a bribe.” Arseniy was also accused of staying warm for too long. He was expelled, almost torn to pieces on the square in front of the St. Sophia Cathedral, and he escaped death only by shutting himself up in the temple. Anthony was returned to the chair again, and the courts of the secular rulers of the city were plundered. With the arrival of Mikhail of Chernigov in the city, another precedent was created: a candidate for archbishop was elected by lot from three candidates, abandoning those previously elected and approved. As a result, Spiridon, the deacon of the Yuryevsky monastery, turned out to be the elected archbishop.

The terrible famine of 1230 caused a new surge of protests and indignations in the social ranks of Novgorod. Yards and villages of the posadnik, the thousandth and their entourage were looted. New posadniks and thousandths were elected, and the property of the killed and expelled is divided “by a hundred” (that is, by “hundreds”). The "hundred" system, traditional for the Slavs, will be preserved for a long time in the north of Russia. And it remained a form of self-government, including in the organization of not always understandable “riots”.

On July 14, 1471, 545 years ago, the famous Battle of Shelon took place between Moscow and Novgorod. What happened that day and why we know so little about the battle, says the science department of Gazeta.Ru.

The history of the confrontation between Moscow and Novgorod occupies a special place in the history of our country. These two principalities vied with each other for the right to possess political, economic and religious supremacy in Russia for centuries. Moscow defended the right to control all the principalities, while Novgorod tried to maintain its unique republican spirit. Moscow princes during the XIV-XV centuries made several attempts to annex the principality of Novgorod, but none of them was successful. But the next confrontation that began in the late spring of 1471 brought Moscow a long-awaited success, although she had to pay dearly for this.

"Traitor to Orthodoxy"
Two betrayals immediately outraged the masses of Novgorod, and this caused a split among the boyars, which led to a weakening of the military power of the city.
Ivan III was well aware that a good moment had come to finally annex the principality of Novgorod, but he decided to act cunningly, in a diplomatic way - through the church.
The Metropolitan of Moscow accused Novgorodians of treachery and demanded that the population of the city refuse to support the Polish-Lithuanian guardianship. This threat mobilized both sides at once, and in the spring of 1471 Ivan III decides to organize an all-Russian "crusade" against Novgorod, which was perceived by the rest of the principalities as a "treason to Orthodoxy." The religious coloring of the campaign gave it even greater significance and importance.

Beginning in March 1471, Ivan III began to prepare for the campaign. Due to special climatic conditions the area around Novgorod it was necessary to choose the right strategy, and most importantly - the time of the offensive.
For this, a church-service council was convened, at which it was decided to organize a campaign in early summer.
In addition, it was important for Ivan III to enlist the support of allied principalities and troops. At the council, they decided to involve the Vyatchans, Ustyuzhans, Pskovians, and the prince of Tver in the campaign. Western, southern and eastern were chosen as the strategic direction of attack in order to encircle Novgorod, cut it off from all retreat routes that led to Lithuania. A more precise plan of action was also developed, according to which two strong detachments were to approach Novgorod from the west and east, and from the south the main blow was delivered under the command of Ivan III himself. It is worth noting that the fact of convening a church service council was a new phenomenon in the political practice of medieval Russia. Not just the eldest of the Russian princes went on a campaign, but the head of the entire Russian land. This once again emphasizes the peculiarity and significance of the upcoming campaign.

Camping diary
We don't know much about this trip. The main sources are three chronicles, in which information about the military campaign of 1471 is fragmentary and does not coincide in places. The basis is the Moscow grand ducal chronicle, which contains the prince's travel diary.
It is assumed that Ivan III led him during the campaign, writing down various details, dates and impressions there.
But when the diary was included in the chronicle, its content was subject to significant adjustments and reductions, which makes it difficult to read it today. In addition, we have some evidence set forth in the Novgorod and Pskov chronicles, which contain references to the campaign of 1471, but in some places differ significantly from the official Moscow version.

Ivan III needed to prepare an army for the offensive. Princes Daniil Kholmsky, Fyodor Davydovich Motley-Starodubsky, and also Prince Obolensky-Striga stood at the head of the 10,000th detachment.
All were experienced governors, participated in military campaigns earlier and posed a serious threat to the Novgorod militia.
But a more significant part of the Moscow army was the allies who joined them: the Tver, Pskov and Dmitrov troops. The principality of Tver has been a rival of Moscow for a long time, but the fact of the alliance in the campaign against Novgorod testifies to the recognition by Tver of the leading role of Moscow. From Tver were princes Yuri and Ivan Nikitich Zhito, who provided Moscow with an impressive army.

Another important ally of Moscow was Pskov. His political position for a long time was special. Recognizing the power of the Grand Duke of Moscow over itself, Pskov retained a significant degree of independence in its foreign policy actions, he himself disposed of his militia and was reluctantly drawn into the war with Novgorod. Moreover, for a long time there was an alliance between Pskov and Novgorod, but after the events of 1460, when Pskov sided with Moscow during the battles on the Livonian border, the situation changed. Thus, the campaign of 1471 is distinguished by the scale of the allied troops drawn into it, which used to be enemies of Moscow.

Novgorod militia
Novgorod was also actively preparing for battle. The boyars gathered all the able-bodied citizens and forced them to go to war. The number of the Novgorod army many times exceeded the Moscow one and reached 40 thousand, but its combat effectiveness was much lower due to the unpopularity of the war among the Novgorod population.
Novgorod's strategy was to disunite the Moscow army and destroy it piecemeal.

The main striking force of Novgorod was the cavalry, which the boyars sent to the Pskov road in order to prevent the detachment of Prince Kholmsky from connecting with the Pskov formation. Also, the Novgorod infantry was supposed to land on the south coast near the village of Korostyn and defeat the detachment of Prince Kholmsky. The third direction of the Novgorod plan was Zavolochye, where the detachment of Prince Vasily Shuisky operated, which, however, was cut off from the main military forces. It is obvious that, despite the presence of an offensive plan, the Novgorod troops were very dispersed and poorly organized. According to the chronicle, after the invasion of the Grand Duke's troops on Novgorod land, the leadership of Novgorod made an attempt to enter into negotiations and sent an ambassador to the Grand Duke with a request for "danger". However, "at the same time" the Novgorodians "sent their army in court along the Ilmer lake of many people from Veliky Novgorod."

"... Ordering them to go across the Sholon River to take off from the Pskovites"
At the end of June 1471, Ivan III ordered the troops of Prince Danila Dmitrievich and Fyodor Davydovich to move towards Rusa, the most important strategic point on the way to Novgorod.
With noticeable speed, which is noted in the annals, in five days the Moscow troops burn and destroy the city.
Then, instead of continuing to move closer to Novgorod, the governors make a decision “from Rusa to go to Daman town”, located in the southeast direction from Novgorod. In turn, Ivan III gives a directive in which he notes that “ordering them to go across the Sholon River to take off from the Pskovites. And under the Demon he ordered Prince Mikhail Andreevichi to stop with his son Prince Vasily and with all his howls ".

Despite the importance of mastering the Demon City, it did not make any sense for the future strategy of conducting a military campaign. And Ivan III understood this perfectly, unlike his governors. This episode, in particular the prince's directive of July 9, largely predetermined the further fate of the campaign and led to the battle on the Shelon River. Ivan III clearly defined the main and secondary in organizing the movement of his troops and the capture of cities. The withdrawal of troops from the Novgorod direction would weaken the threat looming over the city, and untie the hands of the Novgorodians for further active actions. Mastering the Demon was considered as a secondary task, for the solution of which the small forces of the Tver specific prince were allocated. The main thing was to connect with the Pskov troops and give battle to the Novgorodians, the place for which was chosen on the left bank of the Shelon River, between its mouth and the city of Soltsy.

"About the battle on Sholoni"
Oddly enough, we know very little about the battle itself. We have fragmentary information from the Pskov chronicle, which, however, writes about the participation of the Pskovians in this battle, although it is known from the official Moscow chronicle that the Pskov troops never reached the battlefield. The only full-fledged source from which some details of the battle can be learned is the Moscow Grand Duke Chronicle.
The Novgorod army under the command of Dmitry Boretsky, Vasily Kazimir, Kuzma Grigoriev and Yakov Fedorov camped for the night at the mouth of the Dryan River, a tributary of the Shelon River. On the morning of July 14, a skirmish began across the river. The suddenness of the attack by the trained and hardened troops of Prince Kholmsky caught the Novgorodians by surprise. Moscow troops continued to cross, attack the Novgorodians who had fled, despite their numerical superiority. In general, this is all that we know about the battle: the unexpected rapid crossing of the Muscovites across the river, the courage of the troops, the abundant shelling of the Novgorodians with arrows, which knocked out their cavalry from the battle, and their further defeat.
In this battle, the Novgorodians lost about 12 thousand killed and 2 thousand prisoners.

However, today we know more about the differences that were present in the texts of the annals than about the battle itself. One of the striking discrepancies is the mention in the Novgorod chronicle of the Tatar detachment, which allegedly helped the Moscow army defeat the Novgorodians. According to the official grand ducal chronicle, there were no Tatars in the troops of Prince Kholmsky and Fedor Davidovich - they were in the second echelon with Prince Ivan Striga Obolensky. The Tatars could not participate in the battle on Shelon. Other discrepancies relate mainly to the details of the consequences of the battle, for example, the retreat of the Muscovites across the river after the victory, which seems unimaginable. But all three texts of the annals converge in the complete defeat of the Novgorod troops by Moscow, which testifies to the most important strategic victory of the Moscow principality in the confrontation with Novgorod. It was not finally annexed, but after this campaign, following the signing of the Treaty of Korostyn on August 11, 1471, which ended this war, the status of Novgorod changed greatly. The city became an integral part of the Russian land. This was the great merit of Ivan III and his military talent.

“To the victims of Russian hard times - eternal memory. To the creators of United Russia - the eternal gratitude of descendants"
The place of the Battle of Shelon in the general historical memory is still not entirely clearly defined. On July 7, 2001, with the blessing of Archbishop Leo of Novgorod and Staraya Russa, in the Church of the Apostle Evangelist John the Theologian in the village of Velebitsy, Soletsky District, Novgorod Region, after the liturgy, a procession was held, after which a six-meter oak cross was erected and illuminated, on which a memorial plaque was placed with the words:
“To the victims of Russian hard times - eternal memory. To the creators of United Russia - the eternal gratitude of descendants.
Eight years later, on December 8, 2009, on the banks of the Shelon in the village of Skirino, at the alleged site of the battle between the detachments of Novgorodians and Muscovites, a memorial sign was erected. Few people remember the events that took place on July 14, 1471, but, as history has shown, their consequences greatly influenced not only the history of Novgorod, but also the Moscow principality, and all of Medieval Russia. The historian Nikolai Kostomarov, who visited these places, recalled: “Having traveled several miles, on a sandy shore overgrown with shrubs, we found a large, rather high hill, and when we began to dig the ground on it with umbrellas, we saw that this whole hill consisted of human beings. bones. Here flowed the almost dried-up river Dran, which flows into the Shelon. I realized that this burial mound was the burial place of the Novgorodians, who were defeated on the banks of the Shelon a little higher than this place and fled to the Drani River, where another time the fugitives suffered a final defeat. Taking two skulls as a souvenir, we drove on and arrived at the chapel, under which was the grave of the soldiers who fell in battle; every year a memorial service is performed for them.

The year 1240 is the middle point of the time interval of the XII-XIV centuries, a dramatic and long "transitional period" in the history of the peoples of Northern and North-Eastern Europe. Crusades of the Swedish, Danish, German knights in the lands of the Slavic, Letto-Lithuanian, Baltic-Finnish peoples, where Novgorod Rus became the extreme northeastern arena of military confrontation, were the result of the stabilization of ethnopolitical formations that completed the formation of feudal-Christian Europe and at the same time put an end to the previous integration of the pagan or semi-pagan “Baltic civilization of the early Middle Ages”.

This year was also a critical point within the period of a kind of “transmutation” of the Old Russian ethnic community. Without going into the discussion L.N. Gumilyov and his opponents regarding whether the two-century segment of the XIII-XIV centuries should be exactly. considered the beginning of the ethnogenesis of the Russians proper, one cannot fail to state the qualitative significance of the upheavals of the 13th century: whether they were blows from the East, which were extremely hard to bear, or blows from the West, repelled by Prince Alexander Yaroslavich. - One way or another, it was the end of the confederation, in turn, the federal formations of the XII - the first half of the XIII century. ancient Russian principalities that replaced Kievan Rus, although they retained the consciousness of state-confessional unity. The image of the holy and faithful Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky became the embodiment of this consciousness in Russian culture.

The north-west of the Novgorod land - the place of the military deeds of the prince - from the middle of the XIII century, with the activities of the descendants of Alexander and his successors, and mainly the military-territorial administration of the "boyar republic" of the Lord Veliky Novgorod of the XII-XV centuries, acquires the features of an outwardly outlined ( first of all, the system of stone border fortresses, unique among Russian antiquities) and internally structured unity, in the following centuries of the “Moscow period” defined as “Votskaya Pyatina of Veliky Novgorod”. One hundred years after the Battle of the Neva, since the 1330s, the governor of Novgorod, the service prince of Turov-Pinsky, the son of the Grand Duke of Lithuania Narimont, in Orthodoxy Gleb Gediminovich, and his successor relatives, as Novgorod administrators, are heading, located in the oldest of the fortresses of the region Ladoga, a "small federation" of the Slavic and Finnish lands of Veliky Novgorod, fixed by a system of stone Novgorod fortresses of the 13th-14th centuries: Korela - in the land of Korela, Oreshek - in the land of Izhora, Koporye - in the land of water. This federation first appears in essence during the life of Prince Alexander Nevsky, in any case, it is fixed within a decade from the date of his death, when, under 1270, an annalistic formula appears: “come together to Novgorod the whole Novgorod volost: Plskovichi, Ladozhane, Korela, Izhera, Vozhane." The Northwest has been developing this federal potential for several centuries, until the fatal clashes with Moscow and, as a result of this, the next crisis of the late 16th-17th centuries. But, in turn, this stage of ethnohistorical evolution was preceded and opened by its similar structural crisis, which isolated and directed the historical destinies of the ninth-thirteenth centuries. large regions of Ancient Russia.

Mongol-Tatar invasion 1237-1241 not just destroyed the unstable, but the real "confederation" of the ancient Russian principalities; a decisive impetus was given to further, independent and different in direction development, which ended as a result of the crystallization of modern East Slavic peoples (Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians). Undoubtedly, the ethnic process unfolded under the influence of a number of other, deep and objective factors. However, the blow of the Batu Horde was the most important, critical event that determined and completed the ethno-political disintegration of Ancient Russia that took place under the conditions of “feudal fragmentation”.

Alexander Yaroslavich, at the age of 18, witnessed this collapse and inherited from his father and uncle not only the Novgorod, Kyiv, Vladimir “princely table”, but also the system of relations that tragically collapsed under the powerful blow of the Horde, previously expressed by retaining the meaning of confessional and political for centuries to come. ideal with the annalistic concept of "Russian land". Real Russia in the middle of the XIII century. - dynamic, internally contradictory state.

Russia of Vladimir-Suzdal, the core of the emerging Russian people, was defeated and submitted to the Horde. Her cities were devastated and burned, the princes either laid down their heads on the battlefield, or bowed them before the Horde force.

Kievan Rus, southern, devastated to complete depopulation; the remnants of the population rushed to the north, under the protection of the Vladimir princes and the oppression of the Tatar Baskaks.

Russia of Galicia, Carpathian, however, is still alive. Its stone cities are full of strong boyars and hosts, the prince competes with Lithuania and Hungary, is titled king and hatches plans not only for resistance, but also for opposition to the Horde (the unfulfilled "reconquista" of princes Daniil Romanovich and Andrei Yaroslavich, rival brother of Alexander Nevsky).

Northern Russia, Novgorod, - in an unstable balance of power. throughout the 13th and 14th centuries. inaccessible to the Batu troops, it constantly fluctuates under the influence of internal and external factors. The confrontation between Pskov and Novgorod is ripening, and military clashes with the Order alternate with allied actions (as well as clashes with the Baltic tribes). Novgorodians are in internal strife, either expelling or re-calling the Vladimir-Suzdal princes, starting with Alexander and his sons, not wanting to submit to either the pressure of the Swedes and Germans from the west, or the Tatars and the grand ducal power subordinate to them from the east. The fate of the Nizovsky lands of Russia is not equivalent to the fate of Novgorod. It was during these decades that self-consciousness, which in the works of V.T. Pashuto at one time was expressed by the term "Upper Russia" based on chronicle data.

At the same time, Upper Russia is a consequence of the centuries-old process of ethnic differentiation, integration, interaction of all the main components of the population of Northern Europe - northern Indo-Europeans and Finno-Ugric peoples (Balts and Finns, Scandinavians and Slavs). The uniqueness of the region in European history, the significance of the processes taking place here is determined precisely by this thousand-year interaction.

The formation of a stable interaction of all the constituent ethnic components of Upper Russia (a region approximately corresponding to the modern Leningrad, Novgorod and Pskov regions of the RSFSR) begins no later than the turn of the 7th-8th centuries. and ends in the 12th century. The Slavs here assimilated the Baltic-Finnish substrate (unlike the Volga-Finnish - in Vladimir, or the Baltic - in the Smolensk-Polotsk lands of Ancient Russia) and dissolved the Varangians, Scandinavian immigrants in their composition (keeping the memory of this in chronicles and oral texts). It is very likely that on the northeastern outskirts of the region, in the Ladoga region, until the 13th century. a mixed Scandinavian-Finnish population is preserved, according to D.A. Machinsky - "flasks" of written sources. The consolidation of other peripheral ethno-political formations of the Finnish population, tribal associations - the confederates of Novgorod is traced even more clearly: Korels, Izhors, Vodi. Stable neighborly relations connect Upper Russia with the tribes and lands of the Baltic states and Finland (see map).

The stability of the position, the originality and stability of the structural ties of Upper Russia as a special region of Northern Europe are combined with its deep and stable internal structure, reflecting the chronological depth and various stages of the formation of this region. Linguistic and archaeological research recent years conducted by us together with Professor A.S. Gerdom on the basis of the Inter-Faculty Problematic Seminar of the University, make it possible to single out very stable “internal borders” within Upper Russia, on the one hand, isolated territorial divisions corresponding to the dialectal division of the Slavic population of the Novgorod land (not to mention non-Slavic areas, just as clearly isolated). On the other hand, if we draw on archaeological data, these boundaries are fixed in different time ranges, which makes it possible to single out the main stages in the formation of the population, according to the terminology of A.S. Gerda, - "demogenesis" of Upper Russia.

The most important of these borders - along the Volkhov-Ilmen-Lovati, from north to south from Lake Ladoga, divides the territory into two parts ("Eastern Novgorod" and "Western Novgorod" cultural areas according to linguistic definitions); at the earliest stages of settlement of the territory, in the Mesolithic - Neolithic era (until the 6th millennium BC), this border turns out to be part of a wider "no man's land" with a lack of population (which may be caused by the hydrographic conditions of the post-glacial era), delimiting the ancient ethno-cultural arrays, one of which gravitates towards the southwestern Baltic, the other - towards the Volga-Oka interfluve; a careful retrospective allows us to see in these arrays the underlying basis of at least the Baltic-Finnish and Volga-Finnish population, and, thus, the Volkhov-Lovat line acts primarily as the most important of the internal borders of the Finno-Ugric language array, a kind of “tectonic fault” of the substrate underlying foundations of the demographic structure of Upper Russia (map, 6).

The latitudinal boundary, along the line of the Western Dvina-upper reaches of the Velikaya-upper reaches of the Lovat, also showing through the complex of linguistic and archaeological data, separates the region from the south. Its stabilization can be attributed to the III millennium BC. e., and despite the subsequent “shift” associated with the settlement of the “battle ax cultures” of the Late Neolithic of the Bronze Age (linguistically attributed as “Northern Indo-Europeans”, if not included in the discussion about a more in-depth ethno-definition), from the 1st millennium BC e. throughout the Iron Age and up to the Old Russian time inclusive, it acts as a stable frontier. In linguistic terms, the border is between the Finno-Ugric (in the north) and the Indo-European language array, the latter being represented, of course, primarily by the Balto-Slavic branch of the Indo-European language family (map, 7 ).

The boundary, distinguished independently by linguistic and archaeological data, separates the Western Priilmenye-Upper Luga microregion, as well as the area in the lower and middle reaches of the Great Pskov Lake River. Both areas for a long time act either as a “borderland” of neighboring mutually overlapping cultural groups, or often as an empty “no man's land”. Its development from the "era of long mounds and hills" of the 7th-8th centuries. - without striving for an unequivocally rigid ethnic attribution of one or another group of monuments - it is impossible not to associate with the Slavic settlement in the region (map, 8 ).

It is significant in this case that both the highest concentration of the Slavic ethnos, and its distribution along the basic communication routes and key points Upper Russia from Novgorod to Ladoga are associated with the development of "no man's" regions and territories; First of all, this should be explained by the originality and effectiveness of the landscape-economic stereotype, genetically related to Central European conditions and first spread in the region by the Slavic population. The Lovat-Volkhov route, developed by this agricultural population, in the VIII-XI centuries. from the border zone it becomes a factor of ethno-cultural integration and, moreover, an important component of the pan-European continental highway, the annalistic Way from the Varangians to the Greeks. It is the processes developing along this path and the continuously unfolding system of communications based on it that in the 9th-13th centuries. determined the further course of Russian history, and consequently, the place and significance of the North-West of the Novgorod land.

Beginning in March 1471, Ivan III began to prepare for the campaign. Due to the special climatic conditions of the area around Novgorod, it was necessary to choose the right strategy, and most importantly, the time of the offensive.
For this, a church-service council was convened, at which it was decided to organize a campaign in early summer.
In addition, it was important for Ivan III to enlist the support of allied principalities and troops. At the council, they decided to involve the Vyatchans, Ustyuzhans, Pskovians, and the prince of Tver in the campaign. Western, southern and eastern were chosen as the strategic direction of attack in order to encircle Novgorod, cut it off from all retreat routes that led to Lithuania. A more precise plan of action was also developed, according to which two strong detachments were to approach Novgorod from the west and east, and from the south the main blow was delivered under the command of Ivan III himself. It is worth noting that the fact of convening a church service council was a new phenomenon in the political practice of medieval Russia. Not just the eldest of the Russian princes went on a campaign, but the head of the entire Russian land. This once again emphasizes the peculiarity and significance of the upcoming campaign.

A source

In 1462, Vasily the Dark died. With the accession to the throne of Ivan III, a terrible danger hung over Novgorod. No wonder Ivan III for the first time in Russian history was nicknamed the Terrible, and only later did he get the "fierce grandson" Ivan IV.

The only salvation of the Lord of Veliky Novgorod could be the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. From the 12th century Novgorodians defended their independence, balancing between the Vladimir-Suzdal princes. Now the whole of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus belonged to the fierce Ivan.

Let's look at the confrontation between Moscow and Novgorod not through the eyes of historians of the 19th and 20th centuries, but through the eyes of Novgorodians of the 15th century. They could not foresee the Union of Brest, the Polonization of Lithuanian Rus, the wild arbitrariness of the Polish magnates in the 17th-18th centuries, etc. In their time, most of the Lithuanian princes and lords professed Orthodoxy, there was still religious tolerance. Many Lithuanian cities received the Magdeburg Law, albeit not always in full. Finally, the people of Novgorod got used to seeing serving Lithuanian princes on the Settlement. A rhetorical question, so why should we, following the historians, call a part of the Novgorod population that gravitated towards Lithuania traitors?

Supporters of Lithuania in Novgorod were led by the boyars Boretsky. The beginning of a decisive battle with Moscow can be considered the autumn of 1470. On November 5, the Novgorod lord Jonah died. Two days after his death, Mikhail Alexandrovich, brother of the Kiev prince Semyon, arrived in Novgorod from Lithuania. Mikhail arrived with the Kiev squad and received the status of a serving prince. It is curious that the governor of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III was in Novgorod at the same time. Actually, there was nothing unusual in this for the Republic, we remember how often two princes were kept at the feeding at once. But here the situation was quite different. If Michael with some tension can be considered a condottiere, then Ivan III considered his governor equal to the governors in Rostov, Mozhaisk and other cities captured by Moscow.

The Boretsky party, headed by Martha, the widow of the posadnik Isak Boretsky, suffered a serious setback in choosing a new lord. Martha wanted to see Pimen, who was in charge of the treasury under Jonah Sophia, as archbishop. But according to the Novgorod custom, the lord was chosen by lot from three applicants. They were Pimen, Barsony (confessor of the late Jonah) and Protodeacon Theophilus.

On November 15, 1470, a veche gathered at the Sophia (sovereign) court. The lot fell on Theophilus. Boretsky's opponents took the opportunity and demanded an audit of the sovereign's treasury. Veche agreed - Russian people have always hated bribe-takers and embezzlers. I do not presume to judge whether Pimen stole church money, but a large shortage was discovered. They seized Pimen, beat him for a long time, ruined his yard and decided to exact a thousand rubles from him.

The point, of course, was not a thousand rubles. The Boretskys and other boyars - opponents of Moscow - had large funds, the problem was a sharp drop in the prestige of the Lithuanian party.

The archdeacon Theophilus, chosen by the bishop, was a gray, spineless person. He was little worried about the fate of the Lord Veliky Novgorod, and was only interested in his own well-being. He did not want either the complete subordination of Novgorod to Ivan III, or the victory of the Lithuanian side. Theophilus feared that in the latter case his influence would drop sharply, in which he was indeed right. Meanwhile, the ferocious Ivan, meanwhile, was quieter than water, lower than grass, and sent benevolent letters to Novgorod, which served as a strong weapon for the pro-Moscow party.

The parties agreed to the meeting. The Lithuanian party won, and the veche adopted a "deed of agreement" with the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir. According to the agreement, the king undertook to keep his governor from among the Orthodox lords in Novgorod. The governor, the butler and the tiuns, living in the Settlement, were not supposed to have more than fifty people with them. If the Grand Duke of Moscow, or his son, or brother went to Novgorod in a war, the king, together with the Lithuanian Rada, had to go to the aid of the Novgorodians. If the king, without reconciling Novgorod with the Moscow prince, goes to the Polish or German land, and without him Moscow goes to Novgorod, then the Lithuanian Rada must go to defend Novgorod. The king undertook not to oppress the Orthodox faith, and wherever the Novgorodians want, they will set themselves a lord there, and the king will not build Catholic churches neither in Novgorod, nor in the suburbs, nor throughout the land of Novgorod.

In the event of the implementation of this agreement, nothing would have changed in the life of Novgorodians for many decades. Another question is whether the troubled wave of Catholic expansion and Polonization at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries would bypass free Novgorod?

The plans of the Lithuanian party were crossed out by an insignificant event that seemed to have nothing to do with Novgorod. Prince Semyon Alexandrovich died in Kyiv. Upon learning of his brother's death, on March 15, 1471, Prince Michael abandoned Novgorod and went to Lithuania with his retinue. Of course, he did not go to lay flowers on the grave. Information reached Mikhail that Casimir decided to take Kyiv from the Olelkovich dynasty and plant his governor there. Leaving Novgorod, Mikhail's squad robbed something in the Novgorod volosts. It seems to be an everyday thing - in those days no one could do without it. But the pro-Moscow elements made a terrible fuss about this in Novgorod.

And in May 1471, Grand Duke Ivan III convenes his brothers, the metropolitan, bishops, boyars and voivode for a thought and announces that it is necessary to go on a campaign against the Novgorodians for their “retreat”. The question arose whether to attack immediately or wait until winter. Novgorod land is replete with lakes, rivers, impenetrable swamps, and therefore the former grand dukes tried not to go on campaigns against Novgorod in the summer, and whoever went, he lost many people. Nevertheless, they decided to act immediately, and Ivan III took up orders before his departure. He left Moscow to his son Ivan the Young, and ordered his brother Andrei Vasilyevich the Elder to be with him, along with the Tatar service prince Murtoza. The Grand Duke took with him the brothers Yuri, Andrei Menshoi and Boris, Prince Mikhail Andreevich Vereisky with his son, and another Tatar servant prince Danyar.

Messengers immediately flew from Moscow to Tver and Vyatka with orders to go to Novgorod. Both the Principality of Tver and the Vyatka Territory possessed significant armed forces, and if they had supported Veliky Novgorod, Ivan would not have seemed a little. But, alas, the stinginess and cowardice of the Tver prince Mikhail Borisovich and the greed of the Vyatchans (Khlynovtsy) decided the matter. They supported Moscow with all their might. Not much time passed, and the Grand Duke of Moscow thanked the Allies as he deserved. In September 1485 Ivan III laid siege to Tver. On September 15, the city capitulated, and Ivan III presented the Principality of Tver to his eldest son, Ivan the Young.

After 4 years, Ivan III will deal with Vyatka. The Moscow army, together with the detachment of the Kazan Khan Makhmet-Alin, on August 16, 1489, will besiege Khlynov (Vyatka). The city will be forced to surrender. With Khlynov, Ivan III will do the same as with Veliky Novgorod - mass executions will be followed by total eviction of citizens to Borovsk, Aleksin, Kremenets, Dmitrov, etc. In turn, part of the population of these cities will be sent to Vyatka, to places “not so remote” for them.

But all this will be later, and now the Khlynovites have sent an army to Novgorod. The Moscow army went to the republic through the Tver principality, and Mikhail Borisovich undertook to provide him with food and everything necessary. On the way to Ivan III, the Tver army also joined under the command of Prince Mikhail Fedorovich Mikulinsky.

At the insistence of Ivan III, his "younger brother" Pskov also spoke out against Novgorod. (Ivan's son Vasily III will put an end to Pskov).

The offensive of Ivan's troops was accompanied by unprecedented psychological pressure on the Novgorodians from the pro-Moscow party. The Solovetsky hermit Zosima walked around Novgorod and declared that at the feast at the Boretskys he saw the noblest boyars without heads. (Subsequently, Ivan III executes them). Someone said that on the coffins of two archbishops of Novgorod, resting in the Martyrian porch near St. Sophia, they saw blood; at the Khutyn Savior, bells rang of their own accord; in the convent of Euphemia in the church on the icon of the Mother of God, tears rolled from the eyes like a stream; noticed tears on the icon of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in Nikitinskaya Street, and on Fedorova Street water poured from the branches and from the top of the poplars (willows), and it was like tears.

Rumors spread around Novgorod that Marfa Boretskaya was marrying a Lithuanian prince, and even mythical candidates were named. Suppose that there would be at least a conversation, even a line in a letter from Martha, immediately or later, Moscow would blame her and ring all the bells.

Moscow clerks and chroniclers lied as best they could: “Infidels do not know God from the beginning; and these Novgorodians had been in Christianity for so many years and in the end began to retreat to Latinism; the Grand Duke went against them not as Christians, but as foreigners and apostates from Orthodoxy; they retreated not only from their sovereign, but from the Lord God himself; just as his great-grandfather, Grand Duke Dimitri, armed himself against the godless Mamai, so the faithful Grand Duke John went against these apostates.

So, Novgorodians, who want to live according to the customs of their fathers and grandfathers, protecting their property and lives, are compared with Khan Mamai, who is going to rob Russia. A rhetorical question, who is more like Mamai - Martha Boretskaya or Ivan III? Well, okay, let's forgive the Moscow deacon, after all, he was paid money, and for disobedience they could even take his head off. But the serious historian S. M. Solovyov precedes the above citation from the Moscow chronicle with his conclusion: “Even before, the chronicles reflect the dislike of the northeastern population towards Novgorod; but now, when describing the campaign of 1471, we notice a strong bitterness.

How could Solovyov agree that the Novgorodians renounced Orthodoxy and “the Lord God himself”? But in the same book III of the works of Sergei Mikhailovich, it is said that by 1470 Kyiv, which had been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for more than 150 years, was generally an Orthodox city, and there were fewer Catholics in it than Germans in 1469 in Novgorod.

On June 29, Ivan III entered Torzhok with an army. And on July 14, a battle between Muscovites and Novgorodians took place on the Shelon River. The official chronicler claims that there were 4,000 Muscovites and 40,000 Novgorodians (maybe it was only about Muscovites, and Tatars, Tverichi, etc. were not taken into account). Meanwhile, it was the blow of the Tatar troops to the rear of the Novgorodians that decided the outcome of the battle. I note that the low morale of the Novgorod army also played an important role here. So, the “ruling regiment” did not take part in the battle at all, and its soldiers calmly watched how the Tatars killed their fellow countrymen.

Ivan III ordered the execution of the most noble Novgorodians taken prisoner at Shelon - the son of Martha Boretskaya Dmitry, Vasily Seleznev-Guba, Kiprian Arbuziev and the archbishop's bowler Jeremiah Sukhoshchek.

At the end of July, Moscow troops approached Novgorod. In the city itself, the “fifth column” was in full swing. A Fallen Man and his comrades pounded fifty cannons that stood on the walls with iron at night before they were seized by the watchmen. The traitors were torn to pieces by the people, but it was already impossible to put the guns into operation.

Novgorod capitulated. By order of the Grand Duke of Moscow, two treaty letters were drawn up. According to them, Novgorod renounced the alliance with the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir, pledged not to accept enemies and all the villains of the Grand Duke (namely, the son of Shemyaka Ivan Mozhaisky and Vasily Yaroslavich Borovsky). Now only the Metropolitan of Moscow could appoint Vladyka in Novgorod. Novgorodians pledged not to take revenge on all members of the "fifth column". Novgorod was losing part of its northeastern possessions. And, it goes without saying, the townspeople had to pay 15.5 thousand rubles “for misconduct”.

In contrast to the previous treaties between Novgorod and the Grand Duchies of Vladimir and Moscow, the treaty included not one, but two princes of Moscow at once - Ivan Vasilyevich and Ivan Ivanovich. The fact is that Ivan III was suspicious, and just in case he crowned his son.

November 23, 1475 Ivan III arrived in Novgorod. In addition to the usual requisitions, the prince ordered that several dozen noble Novgorodians who were objectionable to him be seized and sent in chains to Moscow, and another 1,500 rubles were to be torn from their families.

How much the Grand Duke acquired in Novgorod this time is unknown, since he took it in parts. For example, Vladyka Theophilus brought Ivan “three sets of cloth, 100 shipbuilders (chervonets), a fish tooth, and two barrels of wine on the wire.” And the posadnik Foma Andreyevich Kuryatnik, together with the tysyatsky, brought Ivan a thousand rubles from all of Veliky Novgorod.

On January 26, 1471, the Grand Duke left Novgorod and already on February 8 was in Moscow (it's faster to get to the sledge track). And in March, Bishop Theophilus came to Moscow with the boyars to ask for the release of imprisoned Novgorodians. Ivan received Vladyka well, treated him, but did not release a single prisoner.

Several Novgorod boyars also arrived in Moscow to seek trial from the Grand Duke, since in Novgorod they did not count on success in their civil claims. Among them was the former posadnik Vasily Nikiforovich Penkov. And then Ivan III made a cunning move - he demanded that the Novgorod boyars swear allegiance to him as a sovereign. So, on February 27, 1477, Nazar from Podvoi and the clerk of the vecha Zakhar came to Ivan III with a petition. In Moscow, they were taken for ambassadors from the lord and from all of Veliky Novgorod. Nazar and Zakhar called the Grand Duke and his son sovereigns, not masters. (With the establishment of the autocracy, titles gained immense importance, which later played a significant role in the state history of Russia, and more than once served as a pretext for wars.) The Grand Duke immediately found fault with the phrase of the Novgorodians, and the question of the title became a pretext for reprisals against Novgorod. He sent his ambassadors to Novgorod, the boyars Fyodor Davidovich and Ivan Tuchkov, and the clerk Vasily Dalmatov specifically on this issue.

Having convened a veche, the grand-ducal ambassadors said: “The Grand Duke ordered to ask Novgorod: what kind of state does he want?” "We don't want any state!" shouted the excited Novgorodians. “But Veliky Novgorod,” the ambassadors continued, “sent to the Grand Duke from the lord and from all the people of Veliky Novgorod the ambassadors of theirs, Nazar and Zakhar, to beat the brow of the state, and the ambassadors called the Grand Duke the sovereign.” “Veche did not send anyone! shouted the Novgorodians. - Veche never called the Grand Duke sovereign! From time immemorial, as our land has become, we have called some prince a sovereign. And what the Grand Duke was told that we sent was a lie!

The Novgorodians asked the Grand Duke's ambassadors to explain to them what a change would be when Novgorod called the Grand Duke sovereign instead of master. They said: “If you called him a sovereign, then you asked for him, and his court should be in Veliky Novgorod, and his tiuns should sit in all the streets, and Yaroslav’s court should be given to the Grand Duke, and you should not intervene in his courts!”

The Novgorodians finally realized that they wanted to deprive them of their last rights and shouted: “How dare you go to Moscow to judge and swear allegiance to the Grand Duke, as a sovereign! and judge in Novgorod! Let those who went to sue come here!”

On May 31, Vasily Nikiforov Penkov and Zakhar Ovinov were dragged to the veche. "The translator! - Novgorodians shouted at Vasily. “You were with the Grand Duke and kissed his cross on us!” Vasily replied: “I was with the Grand Duke and kissed his cross in that to serve me, the great sovereign, with truth and goodness, and not on my sovereign Veliky Novgorod and not on you, my Lord and brethren!” Then they “pressed” Zakhar, and he pointed to Vasily that he kissed the cross on behalf of Novgorod.

The form of the oath adopted in Moscow was not known in Novgorod before the destruction of the veche. Its text was very servile, unusual for free people, as the Novgorodians considered themselves to be. The one who took the oath in Moscow pledged, in case of need, to act against Novgorod and report to the Grand Duke about any resistance to him or ill will.

Immediately at the veche, the people beat Vasily and Zakhar to death. The Novgorod authorities kept the grand-ducal ambassadors in Novgorod for 6 weeks and then gave them the following answer: “We bow our lords to our great princes, but we do not call them sovereigns; court to your governors in the old days, on the Settlement; but we will not have your princely court, and we will not have your tiuns; we will not give you Yaroslav's palace. As you and I ended the world in Korostyn and kissed the cross, so at that end we want to live with you; and with those who acted without our knowledge, you, sovereign, find out yourself: as you wish, so execute them; but we, too, where we catch, there we will execute; but to you, our masters, we beat our foreheads so that they hold us in the old way, according to the kiss of the cross.

Since the summer of 1471 was as dry as ever, Ivan III expected autumn. November 23, Ivan with the army was already at Sytin, 30 miles from Novgorod. Here Vladyka Theophilus came to him with a mayor and living people and began to beat him with his forehead: “Mr. Sovereign, the great Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia! You put your anger on your fatherland, on Veliky Novgorod, your sword and fire walk on Novgorod land, Christian blood is shed, have mercy on your fatherland, calm your sword, quench the fire so that Christian blood does not shed: Lord, perhaps! Yes, you put disgrace on the boyars of Novgorod and brought them to Moscow on your first visit: have mercy, let them go to your fatherland in Novgorod the Great.

The Grand Duke did not answer the ambassadors, but invited them to dine. Then the next day, the Novgorod ambassadors went to Ivan III's brother Andrei the Lesser, brought gifts and asked him to put in a good word to the Grand Duke for Novgorod. Then the ambassadors went to Ivan III with a request that he ordered to talk with the boyars. The Grand Duke sent three boyars to them "for a talk." The ambassadors offered them the following conditions: that the Grand Duke go to Novgorod for the fourth year and take 1,000 rubles each; would have ordered the court to judge his governor and mayor in the city, and with what they could not cope, the Grand Duke would then judge when he himself arrived in the fourth year, but he would not call him to Moscow. So that the Grand Duke does not order his deputies to judge the sovereign and posadnik courts, so that the grand ducal subjects in their lawsuits with Novgorodians would be sued before the governor and posadnik, and not at Gorodishche. Instead of answering, Ivan III ordered his governors to approach Novgorod, occupy the Settlement and suburban monasteries.

On November 27, the Moscow army stood at the walls of the city. On December 4, Vladyka Theophilus came to the Moscow camp with posadniks and living people and beat him with his forehead so that the sovereign would grant, indicate to his fatherland how God would put his fatherland in his heart to favor. The answer was the same: "Our fatherland wants to beat us with its forehead, and it knows how to beat with its forehead." The ambassadors returned to Novgorod, and the next day they came to Ivan with a confession that Novgorod really sent Nazar and Zakhar to Moscow to call the Grand Duke sovereign. “If so,” Ivan ordered them to answer, “if you, Vladyka, and our entire fatherland, Veliky Novgorod, have appeared guilty before us and ask how our state should be in our fatherland, Novgorod, then we declare that we want the same state and in Novgorod, what in Moscow.

On December 7, during the next visit of the ambassadors, Ivan III explained what he wanted: “Our state is such that there will be no veche bell in Novgorod; there will be no posadnik, but we will keep the state; volosts, villages we own, as we own in the Lower Land, so that we have something to be in our fatherland, and which of our lands are yours, and you give them to us; do not be afraid of the conclusion, we do not intervene in the boyar estates, but the court will be in the old days, as the court stands in the earth. Novgorodians were forced to agree.

Then the Moscow boyars turned to the Novgorodians: “The Grand Duke ordered you to say: Veliky Novgorod must give us volosts and villages, without that we cannot keep our state in Veliky Novgorod.” Novgorod offered two volosts to the boyars: Luke the Great and Rzhev Pustaya, but the Grand Duke did not agree. Then they offered ten volosts, and then Ivan III refused. The people of Novgorod offered the prince himself to appoint as many volosts as he needed. Ivan did not lose his head and appointed half of the volosts of the sovereign and monastic and all Novotorzhsky, no matter whose they were.

Then tribute negotiations began. At first, the Grand Duke wanted to take half a hryvnia from obzhi. Novgorod obzha was made up of one person plowing on one horse. Three obzhis made up a plow, plowing on three horses and a third one also made up a plow.

On January 20, 1478, Ivan III appointed Ivan and Yaroslav Vasilyevich Obolensky as his governors in the city. Before leaving, the Grand Duke ordered to seize the merchant headman Mark Panfilyev, the noblewoman Marfa Boretskaya with her grandson Vasily Fedorov, five more noble Novgorodians, and take them to Moscow, and Ivan tidied up their estates for himself. All agreements ever concluded by the Novgorodians with the Lithuanian princes were also seized.

On February 17, Ivan left Novgorod and on March 5 arrived in Moscow. After him, a veche bell was brought to Moscow and raised to the bell tower on Kremlin Square.

After that, it seemed to the Novgorodians that the Grand Duke had left them alone. But, alas, on October 26, 1479, Ivan III again moved to Novgorod allegedly “in peace”, fortunately, the Novgorodians did not give any reasons for war. However, approaching Novgorod, Ivan ordered to open artillery fire (Aristotle Fiorovanti commanded the "cannon squad"). From the moment he arrived in Moscow in 1475, Aristotle served as Feldzeugmeister General, speaking the language of the 18th - early 20th centuries. Aristotle designed cannons, molded and forged them, taught how to shoot cannons and control the fire of guns in battle.

After several days of bombardment, the city gates opened and the bishop and the clergy came out, carrying crosses and icons, followed by the posadnik, the thousand, the elders of the five ends, the boyars and many people. All fell on their faces before the Grand Duke and begged for mercy and forgiveness. Ivan III told them: “I, your sovereign, give peace to all the innocent in this evil; don't be afraid of anything." Nevertheless, having occupied the city, Ivan ordered to seize over fifty Novgorodians and subjected them to terrible torture. “Here only the Grand Duke found out about the participation of the lord in the conspiracy and about the relations of his brothers with the Novgorodians.”

Our great historian wrote this quite seriously. Both Ivan III and his "fierce grandson" Ivan IV thought very little about the logic of their accusations. In 1569, Ivan the Terrible will accuse the inhabitants of Novgorod that they de “give Novgorod and Pskov to the Lithuanian king, and they wanted to kill the tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia with malicious intent, and put Prince Volodymyr Ondreevich in the state.”

The casket was opened simply - Ivan III and his grandson needed money and a lot of money, and at the same time they needed to prepare material for the massacre of their siblings. In particular, Ivan III dreamed of getting into the sovereign (archbishop's) treasury. Of course, the cowardly Theophilus was not involved in anything.

The accusations revealed under torture gave reason to arrest Theophilus. He was sent into confinement in the Moscow Chudov Monastery, all the wealth of the archbishop was taken to Moscow. Instead of Theophilus, at the behest of Ivan III, Metropolitan Gerontius appointed Archpriest Simeon of Moscow, who was renamed Sergius at his consecration. Sergius behaved arrogantly with the Novgorodians and slighted the local clergy. Soon Sergius began to be tormented by visions. First in a dream, and then in reality, long-departed Novgorod lords (archbishops) began to come to him. “Why, madman,” they said, “why did you dare to accept the appointment of our hierarchship, in the place of the desecrated, unjustly overthrown and still living ruler? Not according to the rules, you dared to sit on the martyr's throne! Leave him alone!". Sergius at first strengthened himself, but then oddities appeared in his behavior. Either he “leaves his cell without a mantle, or sits under the church of St. Sophia or at the Euthymian porch and looks senselessly.” The matter ended with the fact that Sergius was completely speechless. The Moscow authorities officially declared that the Novgorodians took away his mind by magic.

On June 26, 1484, Sergius was taken to the Trinity Monastery near Moscow. Ivan III took up the selection of candidates for the place of Sergius. The Chudov Archimandrite Gennady Gonzov turned out to be the best, since the archimandrite "and gave two thousand rubles (for the appointment) to the Great Prince." Gennady went to Novgorod. And the weak Sergius, returning to the Trinity Monastery, came to his senses and lived for another 20 years. Apparently, even such a pro-Moscow-minded clergyman was horrified by the outrages perpetrated by the Moscow governors Yakov Zakharyevich and Yuri Zakharyevich Koshkin in Novgorod.

In 1487, on the denunciation of Yakov Zakharyevich, Ivan III expelled fifty families of the best merchants from Novgorod and transferred them to Vladimir. IN next year Yakov and Yuri discover a "terrible" plot by the Novgorodians who wanted to kill the brothers. Mass executions begin in Novgorod - some are hanged, some are beheaded. On the denunciation of the Zakharyevichs, Ivan III ordered seven thousand living people (households) to be evicted from Novgorod and settled in Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod, Vladimir and other cities. In the following year, 1489, Ivan III ordered all other (indigenous) living people to be evicted from Novgorod. They were also resettled in central Russia, and many were killed along the way. In place of the expelled Novgorodians, carts with immigrants from all over Russia arrived.

On this occasion, N. I. Kostomarov wrote: “Thus finished off the Moscow sovereign Novgorod, and almost wiped out a separate northern nationality from the earth. Most of the people in the volosts were killed during two devastating campaigns. The entire city was evicted. The place of the expelled old-timers was taken by new settlers from the Moscow and Nizovaya Zemlya. Landowners who did not die during the devastation were also almost all evicted; others fled to Lithuania.”

Needless to say, in the 80s of the 15th century, the overwhelming majority of foreign merchants, who previously occupied a whole block in the city - the “German court”, left Novgorod. Undoubtedly, there was a lot of violence in free Novgorod, but foreigners were reliably protected from it. Novgorodians could enter the same "German court" only during the day. The strict order in commercial transactions was replaced by the atrocities of the Zakharyeviches. And there was no one to trade with - all partners of foreign merchants were executed or expelled from Novgorod.

So the trade relations of Novgorod the Great collapsed, delivering huge funds to the republic. Ivan III "slaughtered the goose that laid the golden eggs."

In general, for the history of Russia, the destruction of the trade relations of Novgorod, and 30 years later, Pskov, led to the virtual isolation of Russia for 200 years from Western Europe. In the west, Russia was fenced off from Europe by hostile Lithuania and Poland, in the south - by the Ottoman Empire. The northwestern window to Europe was boarded up by Ivan III himself, and at the beginning of the 17th century the Swedes only patched up the cracks.

Notes:

Notes

1 The official division of the churches into Orthodox and Catholic occurred in 1054, but the actual split was already in the 9th century. For the convenience of the reader, hereinafter I will refer to the Western clergy as the clergy who are subordinate to the Pope of Rome, and, accordingly, as the Eastern clergy, the pastors who are subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

12 Here it is worth noting a curious detail: hereinafter, Russians and Poles swear and reconcile, understanding each other without translators, which serves as reliable evidence of the extreme closeness of the ancient Russian and Polish languages.

13 A river south of Kyiv.

127 Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. Book. III. S. 17.

128 Ibid.

129 Bishop's Regiment - a squad maintained by church funds and subordinated directly to Bishop Theophilus.

130 In the 18th-19th centuries, such a decommissioning of smooth-bore muzzle-loading guns was called “driving a ruff”. As you can see, Upadysh and the company acted competently and professionally.

131 Martha Boretskaya spent the rest of her life in Moscow prisons and monasteries. She was buried in the Mlevsko-Trinity Monastery on the river. Firm. Currently, her burial place is lost.

132 Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. Book. III. S. 33.

133 It was not in vain that Ivan III collected dirt on his brothers. On September 19, 1491, Andrei Vasilyevich Bolshoi will be accused of treason, put in prison, and by November 1493 he will starve to death. Together with Prince Andrei, his children, fifteen-year-old Ivan and seven-year-old Dmitry, will also be imprisoned. Ivan spent over 30 years in prison in chains and died on May 19, 1522 in Vologda. Dmitry spent 49 (!) years in prison in Pereyaslavl. On December 20, 1540, the boyar duma, on behalf of the ten-year-old Ivan IV, released the sufferer, but he died a few months later.

134 In those days, one ruble could buy 200 poods of wheat.

Kuzmin A. G.

In the historical literature, the main discussions were associated with the beginning of Novgorod. The chronicle relates its origin to about 864: Rurik came from Ladoga and founded Novygorod (legends about the more ancient existence of the city did not form earlier than the 17th century). Among archaeologists, there are differences in the assessment of this ancient indication of the chronicle. A well-known connoisseur of Novgorod antiquities V.L. Yanin refers the emergence of Novgorod only to the 10th century. G.P. Smirnova argued that the oldest Novgorodian ceramics, similar to Western Slavic, was deposited in the oldest layers of Novgorod just at the time indicated in the annals - in the second half of the 9th century. But the discrepancies in chronology are not so fundamentally significant - different materials are taken into account, from different excavations, different dating methods are used (for example, accurate dating of street pavements by modern methods indicates only the time of the appearance of these pavements, and not the settlement itself). It is more important to evaluate the content of the annalistic message: to what extent this source is reliable.

Different opinions of researchers are predetermined by the fact that the early Novgorod chronicles retained less material than the later ones, the Sofia-Novgorod ones. This is especially noticeable when describing the events of the 11th century, which the Novgorod First Chronicle conveys, following mainly one of the editions of the Tale of Bygone Years (before 1115). It was this circumstance that gave rise to the widespread opinion that there was no independent chronicle writing in Novgorod until the 12th century. In principle, the discrepancies in the definition of the beginning of Novgorod chronicle writing are one of the many consequences of different understanding of the very essence of chronicle writing: a single tree or the coexistence and struggle of various traditions expressing the interests of different political forces and ideological aspirations.

Those researchers who recognized the existence of the Novgorod chronicle in the 11th century (A.A. Shakhmatov, B.A. Rybakov, a number of authors of the 19th century) usually looked for traces of it in the 50s. For Shakhmatov, this is Novgorodian material, brought in Kyiv for the first time in the “Initial Code of 1095” he proposed, and he looked for traces of it in the composition of “The Tale of Bygone Years”. B.A. Rybakov speaks of the Ostromir Chronicle, largely using the material of the Sophia-Novgorod chronicles, that is, with the inevitable entry into a different tradition than that reflected in the Tale of Bygone Years. This dating is confirmed by an important indication of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles under the year 1030. Compared to The Tale of Bygone Years, they add that in 1030 Yaroslav, after the creation of the city of Yuryev, returned to Novgorod and collected “300 books from elders and priestly children”. And then follows an extremely important “remembrance”: “Archbishop Akim of Novgorod reposed, and his disciple Ephraim, who taught us more, was bye.” Efrem, obviously, headed the Novgorod diocese, like Anastas and later Hilarion the Kiev church. The first (or one of the first) Novgorod chronicler defines himself as a disciple of Ephraim, and this leads precisely to the middle of the 11th century, since Ephraim is already spoken of in the past tense, because Ephraim acted as the head of the Novgorod church until the Byzantine metropolis was established in Kyiv in 1037.

In the practice of Novgorod political life, the opinion and decision of the “veche” had to be addressed repeatedly, and chronicles report in a number of cases about the confrontation between the “veche” of the aristocratic “Sofia” and the handicraft and merchant “Trading” side, that is, about meetings of different either territorially or socially united Novgorodians, with their own proposals or demands. And often controversial issues were resolved on the bridge between the “Sofia” and “Trade” sides of Volkhov: who would throw whom off the bridge. Local issues were decided by the veche of urban settlements-ends. At such meetings, possible claims to the executive power of the city were also usually discussed.

The circle itself and the composition of the "eternal" at different times and among different tribes is not the same, just as the "leaders" in the framework of veche meetings are not the same, which can be seen in the practice of different lands of Russia. The inevitable “external influences”, caused, in particular, by the conditions of the settlement of the Slavs in the 6th - 9th centuries, as well as the process of deepening the social delimitation of both consanguineous and territorial collectives at the same time, are affecting.

Subsequently, the institute of posadnichestvo was strengthened in Novgorod due to the fact that the Kievan princes sent here still incapacitated children, for whom and on behalf of whom the governors and posadniks sent with them ruled. Rostislav was 14 years old when his father Vladimir died. Mstislav Vladimirovich was first sent to Novgorod at about the age of 12 (and stayed in his first arrival in Novgorod for 5 years, until 1093). The lists of posadniks during this time give a number of names that are not reflected in other sources. The reign of Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav Vladimirovich as a whole is the time of a noticeable strengthening of the power of the Kiev prince, the strengthening of a certain unity of different lands under his rule. The second stay of Mstislav in Novgorod falls on 1096–1117, and the attempt of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who reigned in Kyiv after the death of Vsevolod and until his death in 1113, to exercise the right of the first person was rejected by the Novgorodians, who preferred Mstislav. But the transition of Mstislav to Kyiv in 1117 broke the harmony. Mstislav left his son Vsevolod in Novgorod with a promise that he would never leave Novgorod. However, immediately after the death of Mstislav in 1132, the new Kyiv prince Yaropolk transferred Vsevolod to Pereyaslavl, from where he was soon expelled by his uncles Yuri and Andrei. Vsevolod was forced to return back to Novgorod, but there he was reminded of "treason", and in 1136 he was expelled in disgrace. Apparently, Vsevolod had previously been kept only by the authority and power of his father, who occupied Kyiv, and the conflict of 1132 only exposed the real relationship between the prince and the “Earth”, which was rising, restoring in some cases the ancient forms of self-government. The Novgorod chronicler notes that both Pskov and Ladoga residents took part in the exile of Vsevolod Mstislavich in 1132, and in general “be great in people”. True, then the Novgorodians and their "suburbs" "repented." But the year 1136 finally marked a new form of relations between the entire Novgorod land and the invited princes (Ladoga and Pskov also participated in this decision).

These two reports are interesting in that one of the traditional treaties between Novgorod and Lübeck, the Gotha coast and the German cities, that is, the southern coast of the Baltic, which at that time belonged to Germany, dates back to this time. The treaties usually dealt with peace, embassy and trade relations, and court, since judicial traditions differed in different lands and cities. Lübeck remained one of the main trading centers in the Baltic, and even in the documents of the XIV century it was placed “in Russia”. The “Gothic coast” was a transit point for merchants along the Volga-Baltic route, and there were trade bases for almost all the peoples involved in trade along this route. As for the cities of Khoruzhek and Novotorzhets, their Slavic etymology is quite clear, but the question of their localization remains controversial.

In an abandoned industrial zone, "Americans and Russians" fought over chemical weapons

Just a game

No, don't think that something terrible has happened. This is just a legend of the open airsoft championship, which was held in Parfina on September 22-24.

Start given

Not by force, but by skill

The result of the game was not only the good mood of the participants, the sea of positive emotions and photos in social networks. According to the organizers, a film about the war, airsoft and patriotism will be released about this championship.

Tatiana YAKOVENKO, Anastasia GAVRILOVA

Photo by Tatyana Yakovenko

Initial setting

Military conflicts of the initial stage

Western sanctions of the 13th century

The "Chronicle of Livonia" by Henry of Latvia contains information about the siege of Wenden Castle by the Novgorodians in 1217. The Danes, who wanted to snatch their piece of the Baltic pie, also became enemies of the Germans. They founded an outpost, the fortress "Taani linn" (now Revel). This created additional difficulties, including those related to supply. In connection with these and many other circumstances, he was forced to repeatedly revise his military policy and the Teutonic Order. Relations with Russia were complex, raids on outposts continued, and serious measures were required to counteract.

The myth of the hordes of "dog-knights"

More or less successful campaigns on the possessions of the knights continued during the reign of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, the victory near Yuryev made this city on the list of Novgorod tributaries (1234). In essence, the image of hordes of armored crusaders storming Russian cities, familiar to the mass consciousness, created by filmmakers (first of all, obviously, did not quite correspond to the historical truth. The knights were more likely to fight in position, trying to keep the castles and fortresses they built, occasionally deciding to sorties The Teutonic Order and Russia in the thirties of the 13th century had different resource bases, and their ratio was more and more not in favor of the German conquerors.

Alexander Nevskiy

End of the conflict

By the middle of the 15th century, during the reign of Ivan III, Novgorod was going through times of crisis.
In the city, there were constant uprisings of the townspeople against the nobility due to the oppression of the lower and middle strata of the urban population.
The local Novgorod boyars, in whose hands power was concentrated, could not put an end to the uprisings on their own. For this, it was decided to conclude an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian king, who sent his governor, Prince Mikhail Olelkovich, to manage the troubled city. Another important step towards pacifying the uprising and establishing the power of the principality was the selection of a new Novgorod archbishop after the death of Ion, who had previously held this post. By tradition, the candidacy was to be submitted for approval by Moscow, but this time Novgorod decided to reckon with the Lithuanian Orthodox Metropolitan, who was in Kyiv. At the same time, Novgorod foresaw the future aggression of the Moscow prince Ivan III in advance and concluded an allied agreement with the Polish-Lithuanian king Casimir IV.

"Traitor to Orthodoxy"
Two betrayals immediately outraged the masses of Novgorod, and this caused a split among the boyars, which led to a weakening of the military power of the city.
Ivan III was well aware that a good moment had come to finally annex the principality of Novgorod, but he decided to act cunningly, in a diplomatic way - through the church.
The Metropolitan of Moscow accused Novgorodians of treachery and demanded that the population of the city refuse to support the Polish-Lithuanian guardianship. This threat mobilized both sides at once, and in the spring of 1471 Ivan III decides to organize an all-Russian "crusade" against Novgorod, which was perceived by the rest of the principalities as a "treason to Orthodoxy." The religious coloring of the campaign gave it even greater significance and importance.

A source

Yesterday about the airsoft tournament "Confrontation: Novgorod land".

Recall that the open airsoft championship of the Russian Federation was held from September 22 to 24 in Parfin, in an abandoned industrial area. The championship was organized by the Agency of Ready Solutions and the Territory of Active Games Polygon with the support of the Government of the Novgorod Region.

Guests from 12 regions of Russia came to Parfino, and this is just the beginning, the regional government promises. It is planned that tactical competitions on the Parfin site will be held annually. This was announced by Vice-Governor Veronika Minina at the opening of the tournament.

According to her, this tournament is a good opportunity for the Parfinsky district to attract guests from all over the country.

The organizer of the game and managing partner of the Agency for Ready Solutions, Tatyana Chernikova, reported before the start of the competition that all the necessary security measures were observed at the site and it meets high quality standards. She thanked the regional government for the opportunity to hold a large-scale tournament.

The combat atmosphere at the site was created by specialists of the regional department of the Ministry of Emergency Situations. Rescuers and doctors were on duty on the site throughout the game. And near the playing area, the regional DOSAAF put up military equipment so that the audience could inspect weapons and special vehicles.

“Players participated in an exciting struggle for victory in atmospheric locations, complemented by real military equipment. pleasant surprise for the athletes there was also an original game scenario developed by a team of professional airsoft players. The two teams were to seize the enemy's strategic facilities, discover the place where the dangerous virus is stored, and also perform secret tasks to neutralize it," the press center of the regional government told us.

Liked the article? Share it

Print article