Introduction
This is a continuation of the cycle of our works on "VO", dedicated to the early political or, rather, the military-political history of the early Slavs.
We will consider the military organization, weapons and tactics of the Slavs of this period, based on historical sources.
What was the military organization of the early Slavs? The controversial issues related to it, I would like to consider in a number of articles, starting with this one.
First of all, it must be said that the Slavic military invasions posed a real military threat to Byzantium. As a result, a whole chapter was devoted to them in the "Strategicon of Mauritius" (without relativity about the authorship of this military work). Although many other enemies of the empire did not receive such an honor, for example, the Arabs, who literally in thirty or forty years will capture the entire east of the empire. This was the focus of the outstanding specialist in Byzantine military history V. V. Kuchma. But what kind of military system was it, not from the tactical point of view of that period: the “army” (Στράτευμα or Στpατός) or the “crowd” (“Ομιλoς), but in terms of organization?
Society and military organization
The military organization, especially during the period under review, directly stems from the social structure. Actually, the sources do not allow us to speak clearly about the level of development of certain tribes of this period, but related disciplines (anthropology, ethnography, partly archeology) indicate landmarks by indirect signs.
In previous articles on "VO" we noted the fact that Slavic society was at an early stage of pre-state development - it was a tribal society or an early stage of "military democracy", as was commonly believed in the middle and second half of the twentieth century.
In passing, we note that they are still trying to apply concepts such as "controlled anarchy" or "segmental society" to this period of Slavic history, but these concepts do not bring much clarity (M. Nistazopulu-Pelekido, F. Kurt).
Byzantine authors saw in the Slavic tribes a society that “are not ruled by one person, but since ancient times have lived in the rule of the people (democracy),” as Procopius of Caesarea wrote, and as the author of the “Strategicon” added:
"Since they are dominated by different opinions, they either do not come to an agreement, or, even if they agree, others immediately violate what has been decided, because everyone thinks the opposite of each other and no one wants to yield to the other."
Despite the significant threat that the Slavs posed for Constantinople, at the same time we see that they were significantly inferior to the neighboring peoples in weapons and military art.
What is the reason for this?
The “lagging behind” of the Slavs in military terms from their neighbors, primarily the Germans, and even nomadic peoples, was precisely the fact that they were at different stages of social development. Roughly speaking, the Slavs at the beginning of the 6th century, very estimated, were in the same phase as the West Germanic tribes in the 1st century. BC.
It is this position, again due to the late, in comparison with the Germanic ethnos, the genesis of the Slavs as such, and their institutions in particular, was reflected, obviously, in military affairs. Simply put, if you live by birth and you are surrounded by similar societies, then you simply do not have a need for chain mail and swords, you just have enough weapons that are used in the hunt. However, you have neither the technological nor the material capabilities to have it.
That is, in a settled Slavic society there was no need for additional weapons, except for the one that was used in production activities: an ax - everywhere; spear, bow and arrows - on the hunt.
As for the nomadic peoples with whom the Slavs had contacts, even if we assume the fact that they were at a similar social stage, then due to the development of military technologies and governance structures, the nomads dominated the farmers. But these same factors later became the most important reasons for the social lag of nomadic peoples (the development of technology did not lead to a change in society).
And if the society of the Sarmatians and Alans was more or less close in social structure to the early Slavs, then the Huns, and even more so the Avars, were familiar with a higher-order control system, which we wrote about in previous articles on "VO".
And one more addition. A natural question arises, why the Proto-Slavs or early Slavs, having contacts with neighbors who had advantages in military technologies, could not borrow them, for example, from the Sarmatians or the Goths?
In the VI century. sources, both written and archaeological, tell us about the same simple set of weapons among the Slavs, as before. It seems that the answer here is simple: as in our days, military technologies, sources of raw materials for them were seriously guarded by their owners: the sword could be captured or received as a gift, but it was either difficult or completely impossible to copy. And as Jordan emphasized, the Antes compensated for the lack of weapons with a numerical advantage [Getica 119, 246].
With the growth of the population, the surrounding resources were not able to feed the clan or family, which caused the need for a "surplus product" that was obtained through military operations, this prompted the Slavic society to move and change, but it must be borne in mind that changes in the tribal system are extremely slow, and this is directly related to military affairs and weapons.
Tacitus reported on the armament of the Wends - Proto-Slavs, which, according to many researchers, in the 1st century. they:
“… They wear shields and move on foot, and, moreover, with great speed; all this separates them from the Sarmatians, who spend their whole lives in a cart and on horseback."
[Tacit. G. 46.]
We will learn about the same weapon after several centuries. Even the involvement of the Proto-Slavic and early Slavic tribes, first by the Goths, and later by the Huns, in the migration movement did not lead to changes in weapons (we will consider weapons in detail in subsequent articles).
More than once, on the pages of sources of this time, we come across information about "national" weapons, not to mention the "national" clothes of certain tribes. In the "Chronicle of Fredegar" it is reported that the ambassador of the Franks, in order to get to the Slavic king Samo, had to change into Slavic clothes.
Here a significant factor was the social moment, which formed the military organization of the Slavs and indirectly influenced armaments.
So, Slavic society stood at an early stage of the tribal system with signs of "controlled anarchy", as written by Byzantine authors (Evans-Pritchard E., Kubel L. E.).
When considering the organization of the army, we proceed from the well-known military structures of the Indo-European ethnic groups during the transition of society to the pre-state and early state stages. And they consisted of the following parts: squads of the military leader; sometimes, there were independent military organizations, such as secret and age and gender militarized unions; mobs, robber organizations (such as berserkers). Some of them could later be transformed into the squads of the prince as a ruler. And finally, the main one was the militia of the entire tribe.
How things were with the early Slavs, we will consider below.
In this article we will study the situation with the Slavic "nobles" or the military aristocracy, in the next article - the question of the prince and the squad in the VI-VIII centuries.
Military know
For the emergence of a squad or a professional "military-police" organization, an important condition has always been the presence of legitimate leaders in large numbers, but the Slavic tribal organization at this stage did not imply such a system. Neither written nor archaeological sources give us such information, and at the next historical stages we also do not observe these institutions. Unlike, for example, the Homeric Greeks with a huge number of "heroes" and Basileus or Scandinavia, where already in the Vendelian period (VI-VIII centuries) there were a lot of local, territorial kings and, in addition, "sea", which contributed to the creation of this system with the aim of both the struggle among themselves, and for trips to other lands in the name of glory and wealth. And Tacitus draws us a German society with well-established princely squads and nobles who lead an idle lifestyle in non-war.
“Nobles, leaders, warriors, undoubtedly,” writes A. Ya. Gurevich, “stood out from the bulk of the population both by their way of life, belligerent and idle, and by the innumerable riches that were stolen by them, received as a gift or as a result of commercial transactions..
We do not see anything of the kind in the Slavic society of the period under consideration.
It is worth paying attention to the episode with a certain prisoner Helbudy (who was an ant by birth), bought by one ant from the Sklavins, his name was consonant with the name of the Roman military commander, and this ant wanted to secretly return him for money to Constantinople, thinking that he was a commander. When “the rest of the barbarians” learned about this, almost all the Antes gathered, who legally believed that the benefits of the liberation of the Byzantine “stratig” should go to everyone. That is, for this tribal society it is still difficult to talk about the concentration of treasures among individuals, all captured wealth is distributed by means of fortune telling, and what is the separate share of the leader, at this stage we do not know.
Antsky leaders Mesamer or Mezhimir, Idariziy, Kelagast, Dobret or Davrit, mentioned under 585, and "Riks" Ardagast (end of the 6th century), whose name, perhaps not by chance, has its origin, according to one of the versions, from the god Radegast, just like Musokiy (593), and Kiy is the obvious leader of a clan or tribe, and not a separate squad. The same can be said about the Slavic archons, the northerner Slavun (764-765), Akamir, who participated in the conspiracy of the Byzantine nobility in 799, and Nebula, who fought in Asia.
During the siege of Thessalonica at the beginning of the 7th century. the Slavic tribes were commanded by "Exarch" Hatzon, but his power was conditional, the tribal leaders obeyed him insofar as there was no need to talk about any system of government. And as Mauritius Stratigus wrote at the beginning of the 7th century, "since they have many leaders who do not agree with each other." That is, historical documents captured the earliest stage of the formation of "nobility", "nobility" among the Slavs, the same process took place among the Germanic tribes on the Roman border about six centuries earlier, when from the ranks of free tribesmen stood out persons "who played the most outstanding role in organizing the military defense of the tribe”(AI Neusykhin).
In this regard, it is worth noting that during the reign of Samo, the Alpine Slavs and Sorbs were headed by, judging by the names, tribal leaders with military functions, not military ones, and even more so, political leaders - princes: the leader of the Alpine Slovenes, Valukka - the origin of the name from "great, old", and the head of the Sorbs Dervan - from "old, senior". Moreover, the second edition of the Annals of the Franks speaks of the "king" Dragovit (end of the 8th century):
“… After all, he far surpassed all the kings [princes. - V. E.] (regulis) of the Wilts and the nobility of the family, and the authority of old age."
We believe that the translation "tsars" does not reflect the real situation, of course, we are talking about the princes of the tribes who were part of the union of the Wilts or Velets. Thus, this is another strong evidence that the tribal union is headed by a typical leader of the tribe, who possesses nobility and authority due to his age and experience, and not exclusively a military leader.
Such a society needed a military leader during the period of campaigns and migrations. And we even have indirect evidence of how the choice of such a "prince" took place; this ceremony was preserved in several Slavic countries, of course, having undergone significant changes. In the Late Middle Ages in Carinthia or Korushki (in Slovenian) the selection ceremony (last time in 1441), festive-formal rather than real, took place with the participation of the entire people, while in Croatia and Serbia - only in the presence of the nobility (zhupanov, bans, sotsky, etc.).
It is hardly possible to agree with those who believe that this was due to the fact that the Franks destroyed the generic nobility of the Slovenes while it was preserved in Croatia. Most likely, Croatian society went further into development, and the unnecessary element of the formal participation of "all" people was excluded. Initially, the key role in this process was played by the entire people or free farmers - kozeses, and the procedure looked like this: the oldest kozez sat on the Prince's stone - a throne, under which a piece from an ancient Roman column was used. It can be assumed that earlier this action was performed by an elder - the head of the clan or the head of the tribe. With him stood a spotted bull and a mare. Thus, there was a transfer of "power" or "military power" - to the prince or the leader. The ruler was dressed in a folk costume, presented with a staff, a symbol, perhaps, of the judiciary, and he with a sword in his hand climbed to the throne, then he turned to each of the four cardinal points. Turning to the cardinal points meant that enemies who came from either of these directions would be defeated. In the XV century. the ceremony went to the church, after which the ruler sat on a stone throne, which stood on the Goslovetsky field in Krnsky grad, previously it was the Roman city of Virunum, in the province of Norik, now the Zollfeld valley, Austria.
In this ceremony, of course, one can see the features of the early election of military leaders, the period of military migration of the Slavs.
Thus, it can be clearly said that in the period under review, the tribal institutions did not single out from their midst either a sufficient number of military leaders, or a residual number of soldiers who live exclusively thanks to their military craft. Society did not need such a structure, nor could it afford it.
The princely power becomes decisive for society when it stands above the tribal organization, and in order to carry out its normal functioning, a squad is needed as an instrument of policy and suppression of conservative tribal institutions.
This stage in the Slavic society of the VI-VII, and, possibly, in the VIII century. has not yet arrived.
Sources and Literature
Helmold from Bosau Slavic Chronicle. Translation by I. V. Dyakonova, L. V. Razumovskaya // Adam of Bremen, Helmold from Bosau, Arnold Lubeck, Slavic Chronicles. M., 2011.
Jordan. About the origin and deeds of the Getae. Translated by E. Ch. Skrzhinsky. SPb., 1997. S. 84., 108.
Cornelius Tacitus On the origin of the Germans and the location of the Germans Translated by A. Babichev, ed. Sergeenko M. E. // Cornelius Tacitus. Composition in two volumes. S-Pb., 1993.
Procopius of Caesarea War with the Goths / Translated by S. P. Kondratyev. T. I. M., 1996.
Strategicon of Mauritius / Translation and comments by V. V. Kuchma. S-Pb., 2003. S. 196.; Procopius of Caesarea War with the Goths / Translated by S. P. Kondratyev. T. I. M., 1996.
Theophanes the Confessor Translated by G. G. Litavrin // Code of the oldest written information about the Slavs. T. II. M., 1995.
The Chronicle of Fredegar. Translation, comments and entry. Article by G. A. Schmidt. SPb., 2015.
Brzóstkowska A., Swoboda W. Testimonia najdawniejszych dziejów Słowian. - Seria grecka, Zeszyt 2. - Wrocław, 1989.
Curta F. The Making of the Slavs: History and Archeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500-700. Cambridge, 2001.
Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou M. "Les Slaves dans l'Empire byzantine". In The 17th International Byzantine Congress. Major Papers. Dumbarton Oaks / Georgetown University, Washington D. C., August. N-Y. 1986.
Gurevich A. Ya. Selected Works. Vol. 1. Ancient Germans. Vikings. M-SPb., 1999.
Kubbel L. E. Essays on potestarno-political ethnography. M., 1988.
Naumov E. P. Serbian, Croatian and Dalmatian zones in the VI-XII centuries // History of Europe. Medieval Europe. T.2. M., 1992.
A. I. Neusykhin Problems of European Feudalism. M., 1974.
S. V. Sannikov Images of the royal power of the era of the great migration of peoples in Western European historiography of the 6th century. Novosibirsk. 2011.
A. A. Khlevov Harbingers of the Vikings. Northern Europe in the I-VIII centuries. SPb., 2003.
Shuvalov P. V. Urbicius and the "Strategicon" of Pseudo-Mauritius (part 1) // Byzantine Times. T. 61. M., 2002.
