Campaign of Russia to Constantinople (860)

In 860, Byzantium waged a fierce war with the Arabs in Asia Minor . In March, the garrison of the Lulon fortress, which had important strategic importance, surrendered to the Arabs. In April-May, the parties exchanged prisoners, but in early June, the Byzantine emperor Michael III left Constantinople at the head of the army to organize an invasion of the Abbasid caliphate . According to the Successor of Amartola, the eparch ^{[2] of} Oriha was left to protect the city. In the chronicle of Simeon Logofet, it is said that the news of the attack of Russia caught the emperor at Mavropotam (Black River). The exact location of this river is not known; there were several rivers with a similar name. Researchers attribute the Mavropotam to Cappadocia , an area in Asia Minor 500 km from Constantinople.

The attack was a complete surprise to the inhabitants of Constantinople, who did not expect an attack from the Black Sea. The capital of Byzantium was surrounded by a double high wall from the land. From the Bosphorus Strait and Golden Horn Bay, the wall was not high. Outside the walls and on the banks of the Bosphorus, there were many people who did not have time to escape.

The erroneous reading of one phrase in the 1st edition of Photius' homilies as “ we enslaved a few threshers ” led to the hypothesis that the Russ attack was caused by offenses inflicted by certain Russian workers ('threshers') in Constantinople. The error was soon discovered, but continues to be found from time to time in the works of historians ^[3] .

The tale of bygone years , and after it historians have long dated the attack on Constantinople as the year 866 , although the historian of the Russian church E.E. Golubinsky in the 1880s, according to Byzantine evidence, pointed to the years 860-861. ^[four]

In 1894, the Belgian scholar Franz Cumont published a chronicle he discovered of the reign of the Byzantine emperors, the so-called. The Brussels Chronicle ^[5] , which referred to the campaign of the Rus and gave the exact date - June 18, 860 ^[6] :

“Michael, the son of Theophilus [reigned] with his mother Theodora for four years and one for ten years, and with Basil for one year and four months. In his reign on June 18 in the 8th indict, in the summer of 6368, in the 5th year of his reign, the Dew came on two hundred ships that were defeated by the Christians by the representation of the most glorious Mother of God, completely defeated and destroyed. ” ^[7]

At sunset on June 18, about 860, about 200 Russian ships moored to the shores of the Bosphorus . John Deacon , Ambassador of the Venetian Doge Pietro II Orseolo and author of the Venetian Chronicle, reports on 360 ships. In addition to the number of Rus ships, the Italian chronicler of the turn of the X-XI centuries disagrees with the Byzantine chronicle and in assessing the results of the raid:

“At this time, the people of the Normans [Normannorum gentes] on three hundred and sixty ships dared to approach Constantinople. But since they could in no way harm the impregnable city, they defiantly devastated the neighborhood, having killed a large number of people there, and so returned in triumph [et sic praedicta gens cum triumpho ad propriam regressa est]. ” ^[8]

Presumably these ships were quite large, capable of accommodating 30-40 people, like typical Viking ships. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, the Prophetic Oleg , demanding a tribute from Constantinople , said that he had 40 people on board the ship, and if he could exaggerate, then there was no way to underestimate it. Larger ships of the Rus simply could not be led through the Dnieper rapids or the lower reaches of the Don, controlled by the Khazars. Thus, the total number of Rus participating in the raid was up to 8,000.

The appearance of ships was completely unexpected for residents. It is known that the Byzantines used advanced warning methods for that time, such as a chain of lights, but they did not expect an attack from the Black Sea. The landed warriors began to rob in the evening and all night the suburbs of Constantinople, to capture the people scattering in a panic. The situation was complicated by the fact that Michael III even withdrew part of the garrison to the war with the Arabs. The Byzantine fleet , which also did not show appreciable resistance to the Rus , fought with the Arabs and Normans in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas .

The Byzantines vaguely imagined who attacked them. Photius already in the days of the siege called the Rus "the people of the north ", "the people from the ends of the earth ." In his sermon, Patriarch Photius colorfully described the ritual sacrifices of the Rus , which he considered God's punishment for the sins of the inhabitants:

“One could see the babies being torn away from the breasts and milk, and at the same time from life, and their ingenuous coffin - about grief! - rocks on which they were broken; mothers weeping with grief and stabbed next to newborns, frantically letting out their last breath ... not only human nature was overtaken by their atrocities, but also by all their dumb animals, bulls, horses, birds and others that got in the way, pierced by their ferocity; the bull was lying next to the man, and the child and the horse had a grave under one roof, and the women and birds were stained with each other's blood. ” ^[9]

The campaign of the Russians affected not only the capital of Byzantium, but also the surrounding places, in particular the Princes' Islands in the Sea of ​​Marmara . The disgraced Constantinople Patriarch Ignatius, being in exile on one of the islands, barely escaped death, as Nikita Paflogonyan reports in “The Life of Patriarch Ignatius,” an essay from the beginning of the 10th century:

“At this time, people stained by the murder more than any of the Scythians , called Ros, came to Stenon by the Euxin Pontus and ruined all the villages, all the monasteries, now raided the islands near Byzantium [Constantinople], robbing everything [ precious] vessels and treasures, and capturing people, he killed them all. In addition, in a barbaric outburst, having raided the patriarchal monasteries, they seized in anger everything they found, and seizing there twenty-two noble inhabitants, they chopped all the axes down on the stern of the ship. ”

The texts of homilies (sermons) with which Patriarch Photius addressed the inhabitants of Constantinople during his siege by the Russians and shortly after their retreat were preserved. The second homilia is supposedly dated August 4 , by which time the Rus had left the vicinity of the city. Photius reports that the attackers left with huge booty. He does not say anything about the reason for the departure of the Rus, considering it a miracle that they did not take Constantinople:

“For as soon as the vestments of the Virgin passed the walls, the barbarians, abandoning the siege, left the camp, and we were redeemed from the upcoming captivity and rewarded with unexpected salvation ... The invasion of the enemies was unexpected - their retreat was also accidental ...” ^[10]

At the same time, Photius unequivocally emphasizes that the retreat of the attackers from Constantinople occurred on the initiative of the Rus themselves:

“Oh, how then everything was upset, and the city was barely raised, so to speak! When it was easy to take it, and it was impossible for the inhabitants to defend it, it obviously depended on the will of the enemy — to suffer or not to suffer ... The salvation of the city was in the hands of the enemies and its preservation depended on their generosity ... the city was not taken by their mercy and ingloriousness attached to suffering this magnanimity strengthens the painful feeling of captivity. ” ^[9]

Later authors, such as the successor to the chronicle of George Amartol , Leo Grammatik, and Theodosius Melitensky , report that Michael III quickly returned to the capital without troops, “ barely making his way ”, and together with Photius he offered prayers to God and immersed the Mother of God in the sea. Suddenly a strong storm arose and scattered the vessels of the Rus, after which they fled. This legend is repeated even later by the Brussels Chronicle and The Tale of Bygone Years .

On the other hand, Photius, an eyewitness and participant in the events, does not report the emperor’s return to the besieged capital, which completely excludes this scenario, but speaks of a calm sea. A letter dated September 28, 865 of Pope Nicholas I to Emperor Michael III contains mention of the recent looting of the surroundings of Constantinople by pagans ( pagani ) who left without any revenge ( nulla fit ultio ). ^[11] In the Venetian Chronicle of John Deacon, not interested in glorifying the Byzantine church and the emperor, the forwards ( normanorum gentes ) “returned with triumph” ( triumpho ad propriam regressa est ). The successor of Theophanes in the Biography of Emperor Basil calls the people of the Roses “ irresistible ”, referring to the baptism of the Rus soon after the raid of 860. The story of the miraculous punishment of the Rus, thus, turns out to be nothing more than a pious fantasy of the Byzantine chroniclers.

The reasons for the departure of the Russ are unknown. Historians put forward different versions: either the Russians were afraid of the approach of the Byzantine army, or simply did not want to get involved in the siege, satisfied with rich booty, or hoped to conclude a profitable trade agreement with the empire. According to some versions, the legendary victorious campaign of the Prophet Oleg to Constantinople in 907 , known only from the "Tale of Bygone Years", but not mentioned by any other sources, could reflect the memories of the success of the 860 raid.

Sedov V.V., in his concept of “ Russian Haganate, ” suggested that this could be due to the unsuccessful mission of the Russian embassy in Constantinople in 838 ^[12] .

The embassy of the Rus in Constantinople soon after the campaign is known from the district epistle of Patriarch Photius to the eastern patriarchs (early 867 ) and from the successor of Theophanes. The conditions of the concluded agreement are not given, however, both sources indicate the desire of the Rus to be baptized. Photius satisfied this desire and sent the bishop to the Rus :

“... even for many people, many times famous and leaving everyone behind in ferocity and bloodshed, the very so-called people of Ros are those who, having enslaved the people who lived around them and therefore became too proud, raised their hands to the Romey state itself! But now, however, they have also changed the pagan and godless faith, in which they formerly resided, to the pure and genuine religion of Christians ... putting them in the position of subjects and hospitals instead of the recent robbery and great daring against us. And at the same time their passionate desire and zeal for faith so inflamed them that they received the bishop and pastor and met Christian rites with great zeal and diligence. ” ^[13]

The successor of Theophanes contains another story, compiled in the 950s, about the baptism of the Rus during the time of Basil I (867–886) and Patriarch Ignatius (867–877). According to him, the Byzantines themselves, by gifts, persuade the Rus to accept Christianity, while the head of the Russian church receives the rank of archbishop . The possible baptismal date in the history of the Theophanes Continuer is closely related to the possible baptismal date according to Photius , but if in both cases we are talking about the same event, then the testimony of the participant in the baptism of Patriarch Photius is more reliable.

The reports of the first baptism of the Rus do not indicate exactly where this people lived and who was their ruler. It is considered quite established in the church-academic environment ^{[14] [15]} that the princes Askold and Deer, with “bolyars” and some people, were baptized in Kiev from the bishop (possibly from Cyril and Methodius ), sent by the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople at the beginning or mid 860s .

K. Zuckerman speaks out against the opinion of those scholars who consider the messages of Photius and the Continuer Theophanes as describing the same event, and offers a hypothesis based on parallels in the church history of Bulgaria and Russia . According to this version, the Russes , like the Bulgarians , were dissatisfied with the lack of church independence ( autocephaly ), a manifestation of which is the fact that the head of their church has only an episcopal, not an archbishopric, dignity. Dissatisfaction could also be caused by the relationship of Photius to them as new subjects of the Byzantine Empire. The Russians expelled their bishop, and the new emperor Vasily I and Patriarch Ignatius had to please them with gifts and greater church autonomy. Similarly, at about the same time, Bulgarian Tsar Boris I , having not achieved autocephaly for his church, drove out the Byzantine clergy and invited the missionaries of Pope Nicholas . In 870, Ignatius managed to lure Bulgaria from the pope to himself, raising the church representation of the Greek hierarch to the rank of archbishop, which was a serious political concession. In Russia , probably events developed in a similar way.

The Tale of Bygone Years reports:

Askold and Dir remained in this city, gathered many Varangians and began to own the land of the glades. Rurik reigned in Novgorod.
[.......]
In the year 6374 ( 866 ). Askold and Dir sent war on the Greeks and came to them in the 14th year of the reign of Michael. The tsar was at that time on a campaign against the Hagarians, he had already reached the Black River, when the diocese sent him news that Russia was marching on Constantinople, and the tsar returned. These entered the Court, many Christians were killed and besieged Constantinople by two hundred ships. The king, however, entered the city with difficulty and prayed with Patriarch Photius all night in the Church of the Holy Virgin in Blachernae, and they carried out the divine robe of the Holy Virgin with songs and dipped its floor in the sea. There was silence at that time and the sea was calm, but then a storm came up with the wind, and huge waves rose again, scattered the ships of the godless Russians, and nailed them to the shore, and broke, so few of them managed to escape this trouble and return home .

The “ Novgorod First Annals of the Lesser Vault ” ^[16] , according to the convincing opinion of the Russian linguist Shakhmatov , ^[17] contains in the initial part information from the more ancient annals of the 11th century . In the description of the campaign, this chronicle does not mention the participation of Askold and Dir in it, as well as their relationship with Rurik . Based on this, many historians ^[18] suggest that the information of the “ PVL ” (written in the XII century ) about Askold and Dir as leaders of the campaign against Constantinople is the latest insertion of the Russian chronicler ^[19] , designed to unite disparate information on the ancient history of Russia .

The description of the campaign to Constantinople itself in ancient Russian chronicles is borrowed from the Slavic translation of the Byzantine chronicle of the successor George Amartol . The text of the chronicle repeats the fantastic details of this unreliable late source and radically contradicts the testimony of an eyewitness of events - Patriarch Photius . Thus, the fantastic story about the emperor’s return to Constantinople and the storm that supposedly destroyed the “godless dews” near the walls of the besieged city after the joint prayer of the patriarch and emperor was exactly reproduced. Thus, the first Russian chroniclers of the late XI - early XII centuries did not preserve any information about the circumstances of the campaign of the IX century . As noted by K. Zuckerman, the Russian chroniclers, using a Byzantine source (in this case, the least reliable), turned the successful campaign of the Russians into complete defeat. In the first Russian chronicles, there was no information about the baptism of Russia under Photius , since the successor of George Amartol did not mention this event.

An Italian historian of the 15th century, Flavio Biondo, in a report on the Norman attack on Constantinople in 860 noted that the Normans had returned to the British Sea (Britannicum mare). Visa historian A. A. Vasiliev discussed the possibility of an attack of Russia from the Mediterranean Sea, since an Arab scholar at the end of the 9th century, al-Yakubi , writing about the Norman attack on Spanish Seville in 844 , called the attackers “al-majus, who are called ar Russian ". ^[20] T. M. Kalinina, having collected information about the Norman attack on Seville, suggested that those Rus were most likely the Vikings from Scandinavia, robbing along the coast of Western Europe and penetrating the Mediterranean Sea through Gibraltar. ^[21]

Most historians adhere to the version set forth in ancient Russian chronicles, since Nikita Paflogonyan definitely indicated that the attack occurred from the Black Sea. Photius in the 1st homilia called the attacking enemies the Scythians , which, like the first baptism of Russia, indicates the homeland of the Rus in Eastern Europe.

There is also a version according to which the “dews” of Patriarch Photius and, accordingly, the participants in the campaign of 860 were actually Baltic Rugs and / or Dalmatian non-Russians ^[22] .

• Russian-Byzantine wars
• Caspian hikes of the Rus
• Raid of the Rus on Berdaa (943)
• Great pagan army

• Anikin D. V. “The campaign of Askold and Dir to the Greeks in 866 (6374)” [1] from [2]
• Kuzenkov P.V. Campaign of 860 to Constantinople and the first baptism of Rus in medieval written sources. // The oldest states of Eastern Europe. 2000: Problems of source study. M., 2003. S.3-172.

Source Texts

• • Homilies Preface and List of Abbreviations
  • His Holiness Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, the first homily “On the Invasion of the Dews”
  • His Holiness Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople, the second homily "On the invasion of the dews"
• "The Tale of Bygone Years." 866 year. - translated by D. S. Likhachev