After in the two previous articles on "VO" we considered the existence of a princely and druzhina military organization among the early Slavs, we will describe the role of secret alliances and tribal militias as the basis of military forces of the 6th-8th centuries. among the Slavs.
Military gender associations
Some researchers, on the basis of folklore data, believe that "among the Slavs, military brotherhoods played a significant role in the early political organization" (Alekseev S. V.).
And with this, perhaps, it would be difficult to argue. Secret male alliances, primarily military alliances with tough initiations, ideas about werewolf warriors, warriors of wild animals are reflected in late folklore. Moreover, ethnographers cite a wide range of such secret male organizations around the world, but primarily in Africa, the classical country of secret societies, Australia and North America (for example, the Indians).
But in the absence of any data on such structures among the Slavs in the period under review, it is necessary to use comparative historical analysis and folklore material with caution.
The emergence of such militarized groups among the southern Slavs can only be associated with the period of the formation of statehood (not earlier). Partially rooted in a more ancient period, the "heroic" or youth epic was formed here during the struggle against Turkish aggression and in the subsequent time.
We repeat, the advancement of the Antic tribes, and earlier the Slovenian ones, was carried out exclusively within the framework of a single tribal system, it was its presence and the absence of the disintegration of the tribal community that did not allow the emergence of supra-tribal early state institutions: that is, "people" preferred tribal protection to other systems.
Therefore, it is not necessary to say that the folklore of relatively secret societies originates precisely in the 5th-7th centuries. Let me remind you that the transition from a tribal to a territorial community in Ancient Rus took place from the end of the 10th to the 12th centuries, just when the Eastern Slavs had a werewolf prince, but that's a different story.
For the period under review, written sources do not in any way allow us to talk about any stratification and social confrontation in society, the Slavs everywhere appear within the clan.
Extensive ethnographic material also testifies to this.
“With all this, the main, determining factor in the development of 'secret unions' should be considered, - wrote Yu. V. Andreev, - undoubtedly, property inequality, decomposing the primitive community, as well as the rudiments of exploitation of man by man emerging in it. In most "secret societies" the right to join and then move from one degree of "initiation" to another is usually bought, which, naturally, severely limits the composition of these associations, and especially the composition of their ruling elite. The main purpose of many unions is to protect the private property of their members. Therefore, they often arrogate to themselves the right to taboo various items, collect debts from non-performing debtors, try to regulate prices in the market, etc."
We repeat, we do not have any data on such processes in Slavic society in the period under review, which means that there was no need to create these structures, the whole tribe was an army, and secret alliances could not resist anyone. We have no data about some military brotherhoods, independent of the community and opposing it, and the conclusions drawn on the basis of folklore material do not give us the right to speak about this with confidence. We do not have reliable material on this score from the early history of Ancient Rus.
The slaughter (robbers) brotherhood is an institution of the period of the beginning of stratification in society, the appearance of enslaving slavery of fellow tribesmen (slaves), the disintegration of the clan community and former clan ties, the appearance of outcasts as a system, which was not the case under the rule of the clan. This situation for Ancient Russia was described under 996, when "robberies greatly increased" and the bishops advised Vladimir to use force, that is, we see that there is a disintegration of tribal relations, a transition to a neighboring community, and the allocation of new categories in society, including and standing outside the clan and opposing the clan.
One can only assume that within the framework of the tribal military organization of the Slavs and only in conditions of constant instability or during the migration period, that is, during the period of a real war, initiations took place. Otherwise, their necessity is difficult to explain for the agricultural peoples, which were the early Slavs.
The confusion that the vast material from Africa, North America and Oceania introduces in matters of secret alliances, initiations, etc. is not always, in our opinion, representative of the history of European peoples.
For example, in Sparta and similar city-states of Greece, these alliances were used as an instrument of constant terror against the Achaean population of the Peloponnese, turned into slaves of the fiscus (helots). Crypties are a state institution of a class society, the "secret union" here acts as a part of the state, as in the twentieth century. Death squads in Latin America rather than oppose it, although they may have their origins in the primitive initiatory initiations of Dorian youths.
There was an attempt to define fortifications-fortifications, such as Zimno (a settlement on the Luga river, a tributary of the Western Buka, Volyn, Ukraine) and Khotomel (lower reaches of the Goryn river, Brest region, Belarus), as gathering centers for youth "male unions" before hiking South. Khotomel stood on a hill, protected by an earthen rampart, and from the west by a moat. In Hotomel, remains of lamellar armor were found in the layers of the 7th-9th centuries. And Zimno was located on the promontory of the high bank of the river, was surrounded by a wall of wooden risers and horizontal logs fixed in grooves, as well as a palisade.
But in both cases, families' houses, craft workshops were found on the territory of the dwellings, that is, they could not be any special center for the collection of youth by a detachment (Kazansky M. M.).
The emergence of "secret societies" in the Slavic environment of the VI-VIII centuries. was devoid of meaning, since no contradictions arose within the framework of the kind, and the "male unions" of all peoples indicated by ethnographers were a mechanism of exploitation (women and children) and terror in the struggle for power, confrontation based on age and gender or ethnicity. There was no other need for their existence.
The Slavic community was not as militarized as the Germanic, and even more so the nomadic Turkic peoples, there was no strict gender division, when, for example, among the nomads, free men, and not warriors, did not do physical labor at all, giving themselves up exclusively to hunting and war … Agriculture required, first of all, male participation in production, the raid war in such a society was an additional, not the main activity, and it is on the basis of this fact that both weapons and combat skills should be considered.
As for the issues of totemism, it should be understood that totems were not necessarily among the "secret societies", but rather primarily among the tribes, but, for example, along with information about animal totems, we have reliable information about totem-trees among the Eastern Slavs - birch, pine - among the Serbs, oak - everywhere (Zelenin D. K.).
In Pseudo-Caesarea we read about Slovenes:
"The first live in obstinacy, willfulness, lack of beginning … eating foxes, and forest cats, and wild boars, echoing the same wolf howl."
If this is not an artistic exaggeration, discordant with the message of the informed author of the Strategicon, perhaps the Basileus of Mauritius himself, about the wealth of the Antes and Slavs in the fruits of agricultural activity, then, of course, we can assume that the Slavs eat totem animals, as well as on the contrary, just game shot in the forest.
The same can be said about the use of wolf howl, leaving aside the topic of borrowing such a roll call from the Turks. As we know, for example, the Polovtsian Khan Bonyak echoed with the wolves, “asked and wondered” them about the upcoming battle and its results.
A contemporary of the wars of the Emperor Heraclius and the siege of Constantinople in 629, the poet George Pisida, calls the Slavs wolves. Talking about the siege of the Roman capital, he wrote: "… from the other side, the Slav wolves suddenly ran out." And the archbishop of Thessalonica called the Slavs, who besieged his city, beasts. Perhaps this is just an artistic comparison, or perhaps we are talking about tribes that have a wolf with their totem, but this information, as it seems to us, makes it possible to interpret these words of the poet as freely as possible. For example, consider that he writes about the alliances of wolf lags (ghouls or "werewolves", the werewolf - among the Germans), or so not to consider. As well as from the stylistic comparison of Mikhail the Syrian that the Slavs roared like a lion at prey, it is hardly possible to draw a conclusion about the Slavic lion-totem or the tribe "lion" (585).
On the other hand, there is an opinion that the ethnonym of the West Slavic tribe Wilzi comes from the Old Polish - wolves, according to another version, from the Old Russian - giants, although there are no more tribal names by totem in this region. However, according to the information from the Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks, the Wilts proper called themselves Welatabi or Velet.
I repeat, the Slavic militia could easily echo with a wolf howl, as well as use the “familiar meaning of barbarian cries”, which the inhabitants of Thessaloniki besieged by the Slavs spoke about, but this is just information about battle cries, nothing more. It is worth saying that the battle cry or the whoop of the Cossacks during the attack surprised and struck their European opponents in the 19th - early 20th centuries. Here is how Mauritius Stratig writes about the "psychic attack" of the Slavs:
“If they have to dare to fight on occasion, they all move forward together, crying out. And if the enemies give in to their cry, they attack quickly; if not, they stop shouting and, not trying to test the strength of their enemies in hand-to-hand combat, they run away to the forests, having a great advantage there, because they know how to fight in a proper way in the gorges."
As for the "combat" age and gender groups, a comparative analysis tells us that during migration they were naturally used, we are talking about young men who, having organized themselves in mobs, could, for example, go on reconnaissance campaigns:
"In addition, the most prepared young men, using the right moment, secretly attacked the starters, as a result of which those who make a campaign against them are unable to harm their opponents."
The participation of young men, young people as skirmishers in the war is natural, it is not for nothing that the heroes of the South Slavic epos derive their name from the Yunaks, later this name simply had the meaning of a hero, a warrior without indicating age:
Yunak can't live without a fight
It's not a business to go for a plow
To the one who was born a young man, It's not a business to sow wheat
To the one who fought for the freedom.
Of course, nothing like that in the period of the VI-VIII centuries. it is not necessary to say, within the framework of the tribal system or the early so-called. military democracy among the Slavs about any opposition of the warrior to the farmer, and the young - to the old is not necessary, this is a structure of clear vertical subordination, where each of its members has a certain functional, both in war and in peaceful life. This is a system governed not by economic relations, but by kinship ties.
Slavic society of this period (VI-VIII centuries) is rather rich in the fruits of its labor, rather than war. "They have a wide variety of cattle and grains," writes Mauritius, author of the Statigokon, "stacked in stacks, especially millet and spelled."
Tribal militia
Sources tell us about the presence of a popular assembly, councils of elders, or simply elders and military leaders. In such a society, war is everyone's business, even those who stand outside the framework of its slaves, and then they are attracted to the war, it is not for nothing that the author of the Startegicon points out that one should not trust the defectors from the Slavs, even if they are Romans, once captured by them, “changed over time, forgetting about their own and giving preference to the favors of their enemies."
What was the structure of the tribal militia?
Retreat. When it comes to the militia, in particular, the city militia of Ancient Russia, the image formed in the USSR under the influence of the school of B. D. Grekov and presented even in the modern school is often drawn, namely: the city militia was the same as in medieval Europe, helped professional vigilante. Let's leave this controversial historiographical statement aside for now, note that even in Ancient Russia the so-called city militia, and in fact, the regiments of the warriors of the entire volost or land, were the main army of cities or land, where the squads were sharply inferior to them in size, and often even in strength, and the militia were not transported under the "knights". But I think about this, I will write later. About the period we are considering B. D. Grekov wrote, recognizing the strength of the tribal militia:
"VI century. finds the Slavs and Ants in a state of "military democracy". In the same century, the Slavs and Antes made more progress in military affairs …"
So, at the heart of the military organization of the Slavs was the army-people or tribal militia of all capable men.
Returning to the question of the squad, it is worth repeating that we have absolutely no data regarding it in the sources.
But in the scientific literature there is an opinion that the beginnings of the squads as units for performing certain tasks have existed since the "Ant period", but these were not professional squads (Sedov V. V.).
So, in 585, as Mikhail the Syrian reports, when the army of Slavins (Sklavins), that is, the entire male population, with the Avar kagan was on a campaign against Byzantium, the Antes attacked their lands, completely plundering them.
The Byzantine border guards, as reported by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, crossed the Danube into Dalmatia and plundered villages, "while the men and boys were on a military campaign."
The legendary prince Kiy makes his trip-trip to Constantinople with all his kind, that is, all the male warriors.
Croats howl in Dalmatia with the Avars, conquering their homeland, all the people, led by a clan of five brothers.
The tribes led by Hatzon (Hotimir or Khotun) make a transition to the south, where all the militia first devastates (liberates) the rural territory, plunders the islands and the coast, and then occupies territories in Macedonia and Greece. In the end, the testimony of the Russian chronicler says: a race has arisen for a race.
The very terms associated with the army that have come down to us speak about this: howl is a militia warrior, voivode - howl, the one who leads the militia to war, war, slaughter, boyar - from battle, battle, howl is the "commander" of the militia detachment, in fact, and the war, and the army - this is a clash of warriors and the organization of community warriors. You should not look for Turkic roots in the term "boyar", the Bulgarian "boils" are consonant with the boyars, but have an independent origin. How else to explain this term on the territory of Ancient Russia, long before the borrowing of writing from Bulgaria? However, through writing, important social institutions and titles are not borrowed. We also have terms such as "army" and "warriors".
So, the structure of the troops of the early Slavs is a tribal militia, it is quite possible, often without the presence of a single leader due to the absence of the need for him.
Fighting or battles of the Early Middle Ages for all peoples are individual clashes of warriors, the task of the leader was to bring the army to the battlefield, build it in some way, for example, in a "pig", in a system traditional for the Germans, and then the battle went on almost by itself. himself, the role of the commander was reduced to setting an example in battle with his own hand. The Byzantine armies were partly an exception in this situation, but their commanders also stood in the battle ranks and actively fought. Based on the Slavic tactics of ambushes and the constant use of fortifications and shelters (more on this in subsequent articles), a single management was unnecessary: each clan lived and fought independently. For comparison, we present the message of Julius Caesar about the Germanic tribes that were at a similar stage of development:
"The more a certain community devastates neighboring lands and the wider the desert surrounding it, the greater its glory."
[Notes on the Gallic War. VI. 23.]
Such a structure underlies the Slavic army not only in the 6th century, but also later, since the beginning of the collapse of tribal relations and the transition to a territorial community, little has changed in the management of the army instead of or together with the tribal leaders: zhupans, pans, elders, boyars appeared princes, but the absence of strong Slavic associations, the isolation of tribal formations, their constant search for momentary benefits, as well as pressure from enemy neighbors who had a more perfect structure for war (Romans, Germanic tribes, Proto-Bulgarians and Avars) did not contribute to the development of military organization.
When I write “about the search for momentary profit,” it is difficult to understand whether this property was a reluctance to negotiate for a common benefit, as noted by Mauritius Stratig, the specifics of this stage in the development of the tribal organization or the ethnic feature of the Slavs.
Observing some features of this behavior right up to our days, we are all inclined to assume that we are still talking about stages, and here it is appropriate to draw a comparative historical parallel from the history of the ethnos of another language group - the Israelis.
After the invasion of Canaan and the death of the formidable tribal leader Joshua, the union broke up instantly, the tribes began to quarrel among themselves, to become dependent on the Canaanites, being in the territory where the cities remained in the hands of the natives.
So, for this period, we can confidently speak of a tribal military organization or general arming of the community members. So, during the siege of Thessalonica at the beginning of the 7th century. the Slavs fought, “… Having with him on land his family, together with their property; they intended to settle them in the city after [his] capture."
The tribes that besieged the city, under the leadership of Hatzon, are the whole people, from small to large. Incidentally, this tribal militia possessed skills such as sea voyages and the creation of siege engines (see continuation).
Comparing with the Germans, I will quote from Tacitus (50s - 120 AD), emphasizing the key incentive of these warriors:
“… But most of all they are motivated by the fact that cavalry detachments and battle wedges are not formed at the whim of circumstances and do not represent random assemblies, but consist of family ties and blood kinship; besides, their loved ones are next to them, so that they can hear the cries of women and the cries of babies, and the share of each of these witnesses is the most sacred thing that he has, and their praise is dearer than any other."
[Tacit. G. 46.]
Thus, for the VI-VIII centuries. we can say that the main military unit among the Slavs was the army-tribe, or clan. It was this structure that was the main one in the war, the sources that have come down do not allow us to talk about either the princely professional squads, or about "secret military alliances" for this period as not corresponding to the social structure of the early Slavs.
Sources and Literature:
Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. On the management of the empire. Translation by G. G. Litavrina. Edited by G. G. Litavrina, A. P. Novoseltsev. M., 1991.
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.
PVL. Preparation of the text, translation, articles and comments by D. S. Likhachev. SPB., 1996.
PSRL. Vol. 1. Laurentian Chronicle. M., 1997.
The collection of the oldest written information about the Slavs. T. II. M., 1995.
Sirotko Gencho Translation ed. E. Knipovich // Bulgarian Literature // Foreign Literature of the Middle Ages. Compiled by V. I. Purishev. M., 1975.
Strategicon of Mauritius / Translation and comments by V. V. Kuchma. S-Pb., 2003. S. 191.
Alekseev S. V. Slavic Europe of the 5th-6th centuries. M., 2005.
Andreev Yu. V. Men's unions in the Dorian city-states (Sparta and Crete) SPb., 2004.
Pletneva L. G. History of Sparta. The period of archaism and classics. SPb., 2002.
Sedov V. V. Slavs. Old Russian people. M., 2005.
Kazansky M. M. On the military organization of the Slavs in the V-VII centuries: leaders, professional warriors and archaeological data // "With fire and sword" Stratum plus №5.
Zelenin D. K. Totemic cult of trees among Russians and Belarusians // Izvestiya AN SSSR. Vii. No. 8. L., 1933.
Levi-Strauss K. Structural Anthropology. M., 2011.
Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. M7, 1953.
Sedov V. V. Slavs. Old Russian people. M., 2005.
Rybakov B. A. Early culture of the Eastern Slavs // Historical journal. 1943. No. 11-12.
Caesar Guy Julius Notes. Per. MM. Pokrovsky edited by A. V. Korolenkova. M., 2004.
Kosidovsky Z. Biblical legends. Legend of the Evangelists. M., 1990.
Die Slawen in Deutschland. Herausgegeben von J. Herrmann, Berlin. 1985.
