The epistolary legacy of the 20th century encyclopedist Alexander Aleksandrovich Lyubishchev (Fund No. 1033 in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences) is striking not only in its volume (about 15 thousand pages of letters to almost 700 correspondents), but also in the significance of the content, the depth of thought, and the significance of the problems discussed.

Many of the works of A. A. Lyubishchev were born in the course of correspondence as part of it or a natural continuation. Thus, the article "Ideology de Saint-Exupery", published in "Star" (1993, No. 10), was a letter to G. A. Vella, and the article "The Concept of a Great Sovereign", published in "Star" (1995, No. 8 ), appeared as a result of correspondence between A. A. Lyubishchev and D. A. Nikolsky, fragments from a letter to which dated 12/20/60, called by the author "If only?" and occupying 80 pages, are offered to the attention of the reader today.

On March 7, 1959, D. A. Nikolsky sent a letter to A. A. Lyubishchev with the following lines: “Let me introduce myself: Dmitry Aleksandrovich Nikolsky. Profession - doctor. Age - 71 years old. I come from the glorious and not far from you city of Arzamas. Education: gymnasium in Warsaw, Faculty of Medicine in the same place and at the Czech University of Prague. This should explain to you the side addiction of the writer to Slavic linguistics (his main addiction to Russian history - political, military, life, language)." The ensuing energetic correspondence lasted only two years, since on March 12, 1961, D. A. Nikolsky died. They exchanged opinions about the writers: A. K. Tolstoy, L. N. Tolstoy, N. S. Leskov, I. A. Bunin. But the most heatedly discussed topics were historical.

D. A. Nikolsky was fond of "fantasies", discussing what would be the course of history with alternative events. For example, if the Hundred Years War had ended with the triumph of England, if the abolition of serfdom in Russia had taken place 50 years earlier, if the uprising of December 14, 1825 had succeeded, etc. In response, A. A. Lyubishchev wrote: "What I like about you is that you pose the question" if? , and sent a number of his works to D. A. Nikolsky, including "The Apology of Martha Boretskaya" (published in the book "Thoughts about Many", Ulyanovsk, 1997, pp. 196-217), where he tried to construct a speech in defense of the last posadnik of Veliky Novgorod. D. A. Nikolsky, paying tribute to the style and erudition of Lyubishchev, nevertheless responded with critical remarks. A detailed response to this criticism was the letter "If only?".

The proposed fragments are interesting not only in terms of virtual history. The problems of progress, corruption, and alternative military service are unlikely to be considered irrelevant.

As for the subjunctive mood, no matter how historians deny it, it stubbornly does not want to leave the public consciousness, which is concerned about the fate of mankind. The modern theory of self-organization (synergetics) more and more clearly comes to the conclusion about the non-linearity, ambiguity, instability of the paths of evolution. In crisis situations, small impacts can lead to very large consequences. It is no coincidence that sociologists are looking at several scenarios for the possible development of events.

The theme of the former confrontation between Moscow and Novgorod itself is also not outdated. Thus, the Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences quite recently (1998, vol. 68, no. 11, pp. 970-974) published an article by A. V. Isachenko "If at the end of the 15th century Novgorod had won a victory over Moscow." Not considering the course of history as an absolute necessity, since in all historical processes there were and are turning points - crossroads, the author argues that "the Moscow version of Russian history did not turn out to be the most progressive, most successful, and was not even necessary." In conclusion, he writes: "If we assume that Novgorod instead of Moscow could become the leading force in Russia back in the 15th century, then the notorious" window "would be redundant: after all, the door to Europe through Novgorod would have been wide open."

The present is seen from the past as the future. In order for the lessons of history not to be wasted, it is not only useful, but also necessary, to study and evaluate the full range of possibilities.

The work was supported by the Russian Humanitarian Foundation, grant no. 97-03-04042а.

R. G. Barantsev

The defeat of Novgorod is a misfortune not only for Novgorod, but for the entire Russian people and even partly for all mankind.<<...>>

About the program and ideology. You write in a letter dated June 21, 1959: "Could Novgorod defeat Moscow? Without foreign aid - hardly." In addition to the device (which you described as pluto-ochlocracy,<<...>> Do you think that Moscow "there was a program and an ideology that Novgorod did not have. Moscow inherited the idea of ​​​​all-Russian unity and never forgot about the legacy of Rurik - Oleg - Vladimir. Novgorod did not have such a program. Its expansion was directed to the northeast and pursued not national, but purely mercantile goals (junk). In Novgorod itself there was a large party dissatisfied with its government and skillfully led by Moscow agents "(according to modern terminology - the fifth column of traitors).

One cannot but agree that the Moscow ideology was simpler and more accessible than the Novgorod one, and its effectiveness is largely due to its simplicity and accessibility. It is unlikely that Novgorodians could forget the legacy of Rurik: after all, Rurik sat down to reign in Novgorod, and according to the latest research of one of my friends, made in Australia (!), Rurik is the grandson of the last Novgorod prince Gostomysl (son of his daughter Ulmila). It is true that some simple ideologies are extremely effective and long supported by the principle: our fathers were saved by this doctrine, which means that we should not revise it. V. Yan (the author of the novel "Batu") has repeatedly heard in Asia about such an ideology of Batu Khan (Batu), passed down from generation to generation: "Whoever washes away dirt from himself, he washes away his happiness." That is why the Mongols are happy in battles, because they never douse themselves with water and do not wash themselves. The reasoning is quite logical: the Russians were conquered by the Mongols because they soared in the baths and dipped in the ice holes.

A similar logic survived into the 19th and 20th centuries. To what do the Anglo-Saxons, in particular the British, owe their success? Your energy. What is causing the energy? Consumption of large amounts of meat. And why the British can consume a lot of meat? Because they have excellent breeds of beef cattle. And what explains the excellent quality of meat breeds? clover consumption. And who provides pollination of clover to obtain seeds? Bumblebees. And who is the main enemy of bumblebees? Mice ravaging their earthen nests. And who kills mice? Cats. And who especially likes to keep cats? Old maids. Consequently, the power of England ultimately depends on the number of spinsters. Oddly enough, but the middle part of this outlandish chain (from clover to cats) was taken seriously even by Darwin. But during the childhood of Mahatma Gandhi, a popular school song in India was: "Look at the powerful Englishman! He commands the little Indian because, eating meat, he has a height of five cubits"(Nambudiripad E. M. S. Mahatma Gandhi, 1960, p. 14). But after some hesitation, Gandhi remained faithful to vegetarianism until the end of his life, and this did not prevent him from leading a successful movement for the liberation of India.

But if the "Asian" Gandhi managed to overcome the naive interpretation of the successes of the British, then in Europe [the case] turned out to be worse. From the ideological cesspools of history, "ideologies" were extracted: "Jews will destroy Russia"(Dostoevsky); "Beat the Jews, save Russia" (the slogan of our Black Hundred); "Kill the Jews, save Germany" (Hitler, who came to power in Germany in a completely "democratic" way). And it cannot be said that Hitler's ideology was ineffective: there was a moment when Germany stood at such a height that it had never stood in its entire history. But Nazism is extremely related to the Moscow ideology. It developed for a long time, but already in the time of the Ivanovs, as is known, the “theory” was defended: “Moscow is the third Rome”, the family of kings was derived from Augustus. In its finished form, as is known, the Moscow ideology was expressed in three words: Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality.

Orthodoxy did not at all imply loyalty to Christianity, but above all antagonism to Catholicism, Catholics were not only not considered Christians, but were equated almost with devil worshipers<<...>>.

Autocracy is one hundred percent despotism, not recognizing not only democratic, but also aristocratic restrictions. This spirit is still strong: any opponent of the aristocracy (according to the "theory of two camps") is already being listed as a democrat (it seems that Platonov was the first to manage to call Ivan the Terrible a "democratic tsar").

Nationality - against internationalism (which never disappeared in the Catholic world) gradually degenerated into a genuine Black Hundreds, Nazism, restrained only to a certain extent by the Church.

Undoubtedly, the propaganda of this ideology was not unsuccessful. The colossal growth of the Muscovite state is put on the personal account of the Moscow ideology - this terrible mask of Genghis Khan, which is still popular among the peoples of Asia (see the film "The Descendant of Genghis Khan"). Genghis Khan's ideology is far from alien to Western Europe. As far as I know, cultural Hungary is proud of the founder of Budapest, Attila (there is even, it seems, a monument to him) and V. Hugo is ready to come to terms with Napoleon's despotism in the name of the glory of his bloody victories. But glory bought with blood is only worthy of respect when it is the blood of martyrs who gave their blood for a great cause, and not the blood shed by soldiers and executioners.

It is an honorable thing to fight for the freedom of an oppressed people against the oppressors, but how often a liberated people itself becomes the oppressor of another people and under this oppression brings this or that new ideology, which embodies [in itself] the idea of ​​world domination: "Moscow is the third Rome", "the burden of the white man", "the struggle of the superior race with the inferior" etc.

Along with this ideology, there has long been another, if it carried out expansion, then peacefully (of course, these ideologies were often intertwined). This idea lies in the peaceful community of peoples, economic and cultural exchange. This kind of ideology is characteristic of the north of Russia. You see, you don't like the fact that during the expansion the Novgorodians pursued not national goals, but mercantile ones (junk). You like a soldier more than a merchant; for you, figures of the first rank are Hannibal and Napoleon. Contempt for merchants, especially in Russia, is widespread and largely understandable. Merchants pursue only their own gain, often use deception (the old saying "you can't deceive - you can't sell"), their activities are carried out in complete safety; not only protected by law, but even allows to produce lawlessness, thanks to their economic power ("do not sue the rich"), finally, their activities often lead to unjust wars. Two factors - selfishness and security - and lead to the fact that merchants are often looked upon with contempt, while warriors are surrounded by honor, since the military profession has two opposite attributes: altruism (a warrior pursues national, not personal interests) and danger . At the same time, it is forgotten that without an agency of exchange (which in a society of free competition is performed by a merchant), no society can exist, even a communist one, and such a society is conceivable (we should strive for it), where the function of a soldier will be completely unnecessary. Another circumstance is also forgotten: in a state with universal military service, the bulk of the army is made up of non-professional soldiers, who in peacetime perform a wide variety of socially useful functions, in particular the function of trade, while soldiers in peacetime do not perform any socially useful function, and sometimes perform the function oppression.<<...>> In the old days, with an abundance of robbers and pirates, the profession of a merchant was often extremely dangerous, more dangerous than the profession of a soldier in peacetime. Is it possible to say that in their activities the merchants were guided only by selfish considerations? For the masses, of course, this is true, just as it is true for most people, that they are guided in their activities primarily by personal interests, which does not exclude the fact that in difficult moments most people develop a social consciousness. But there is no doubt that in the development of culture, the merchants as a whole played a greater role than the military, although the latter also made their contribution. Who was the first Russian traveler in India? Merchant Afanasy Nikitin. The next two Russian distant travelers were also merchants. I think we have the right to be more proud of them than if Russian commanders, and not merchants, were the first to introduce India and other countries. Along with merchants, missionaries, as is well known, also played an important role in traveling.

It would be interesting to compare the role of different classes in the development of sciences. I remember the merchant Leeuwenhoek, the merchant Schliemann, remember that Engels was also engaged in commercial activities. As you know, the founders of art galleries in our country were the merchants Tretyakov and Shchukin (the latter died in Paris, where he was highly regarded as an art expert). That merchants very often abused their power of money is, of course, true, but absolutely every power corrupts, and not only the power of money, and where the law stands at its proper height, there the power of money is very limited. In Sweden, Germany, Finland, the use of the slogan "do not cheat - do not sell" at the beginning of the 20th century (as it is now - I don’t know) would have led to the rapid ruin of the merchant. And here in old Russia the power of money was not at all as great as is usually portrayed.<<...>>

Europeans have to be ashamed in front of China, which respected (as I don’t know now) peaceful professions above military ones. I was told that in the art of China, the god of war is depicted as a monster, and not as a wonderful husband, as is customary in Europe.

Therefore, it is absolutely wrong to consider the militant despotic ideology as Asian, and peace-loving European, because in addition to China (modern China seems to have begun to forget its old peace-loving tendencies), we have in Asia a country that is perhaps the most peace-loving country on record - India, and in Western Europe Spain and France the times of Louis XIV, in arrogant despotism, are in no way inferior to Asian despotisms. Despotism and militancy have manifested themselves to a greater or lesser extent in all countries, but in some they have declined, while in others they have increased. I consider this one of the signs of progressive development.<<...>>

We have every right to assert that there is undoubtedly progress in nature. Fanatic or short-sighted Darwinists and modern neo-Darwinists are obfuscated because truly progressive evolution (Lamarck's gradation, Severtsov's aromorphoses, etc.) is the greatest mystery and so far an absolutely insurmountable obstacle to the "theory" of natural selection. Darwinists believe that progressive evolution is not fundamentally different from evolution in general, and everything is explained by natural selection.

If progress exists in nature, then all the more it exists in the evolution of human society, but not of man as an organism. Man as a social being exists for such a short time that there seems to be no significant progress in his physical and spiritual organization. But there is progress in society in the sense of "humanization", although it does not proceed in a straight line, but in a zigzag manner. Apparently, all the tribes were characterized by cannibalism, the killing of old people, slavery, merciless treatment of prisoners, periodic hunger strikes, a hunting lifestyle that required a vast territory to support the miserable existence of a small population. It is true that the 20th century, compared with the second half of the 19th century, represents a regression on the points of hunger strikes and the merciless conduct of wars, but Nazism, which preaches that it should treat the enemy mercilessly, we rightly consider a regressive trend. About 5 million Indians lived in the place of the United States and Canada before the advent of the Europeans, who were still cramped: they fought cruel wars with each other (tortured and scalped prisoners and from time to time experienced severe hunger strikes). Now in their place (there are about half a million Indians left, that is, their number has decreased tenfold) there live almost 200 million, there are no hunger strikes, the standard of living is immeasurably higher, and a hundred years have passed since the last civil war.

How to view this process? How progressive or regressive or how indifferent? Despite the undoubted cruelties committed by the Anglo-Saxons in North America, I am still inclined to consider this process progressive, although a better process would be conceivable, which, in my opinion, was carried out in Latin America, where the Indians survived in huge numbers. Played a role in the latter case, the Catholic religion, devoid of narrow nationalism and racism. And the stages of social evolution you despise: "communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist" are not at all so bad, but as a first approximation for characterizing a truly progressive evolution, they are even good.<<...>> Indisputable, sorry for the expression, progress is the transition to the cultivation of the land, which immediately greatly expanded the production resources of man. But connected with this is the possession of land and the need to defend this land. Maybe there were completely peaceful farmers, but they apparently could not stand the competition with their warlike neighbors. When I lived in Samara at the end of the twenties, a friend of mine, a very efficient archeologist, told me that excavations in the Samara province uncovered the remains of agricultural tribes: they found many agricultural tools and no traces of weapons. Apparently, these respectable peaceful farmers were swept away by hordes of predators - the predecessors of Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Ivan the Terrible and other bastards.<<...>> The need for defense against predatory neighbors led to the need to create a hierarchy, a certain state structure, eventually leading to feudalism, where power belonged to large landowners. The living symbol of the new system was the horse. If a dog brought a person into people, then a horse - into feudal lords (knight, rider, cavalier, etc.). Further progress is connected with the development of cities, trade and industry, the dominance of money. From the word city (burg), this period is called bourgeois, from money - capitalist. The sheep can serve as a living symbol of this period, since the development of the woolen industry was a very important element in the development of capitalism in the advanced country of this period, England. No one seems to deny the enormous significance of this period in the history of mankind, but, like any social system, it is also not flawless. An impeccable system will be only one where, as in the Kingdom of God, "perfect freedom of the parts with the perfect unity of the whole" will be ensured. So far, either freedom prevails, reaching the freedom to rob one's neighbor, or unity, reaching totalitarianism. This perfect, but as yet far from achieved, system should, in my opinion, be called socialism in the true sense of the word.

I personally believe that the progress of human society is associated with a gradual transition through the stages: 1) hunting (in the broad sense of the word: the use of finished products; there is no culture in the widest sense of the word, with the exception of the manufacture of hunting tools, but this is already at the final stage this period) 2) cattle breeding; 3) agricultural and 4) industrial and commercial. The last, fifth stage could be called harmonious, where there is no longer a spontaneous growth of society, and everything is based on a truly scientific organization.

"Compassion" refers to the monarchs, the people do not deserve compassion.

But maybe in those days everyone thought so? The events described by Shakespeare date back to the very beginning of the thirteenth century. But in the twelfth century in Russia there existed (although, perhaps, it was not widespread) a different approach to business. In the book by V. Klyuchevsky "Boyarskaya Duma" (1902, p. 65) such an episode from Russian history is told.

In 1127 Prince. Vsevolod expelled his uncle Yaroslav from Chernigov. Grand Duke Mstislav, who had sworn to Yaroslav to plant him in Chernigov, began to prepare for a campaign. Vsevolod began to belittle Mstislav to postpone the campaign, persuaded and bribed his boyars. Yaroslav appeared to Mstislav and reminded him of the kissing of the cross. The abbot of a Kyiv monastery, respected by all, did not give anyone the word to speak in favor of the campaign, and did not allow Mstislav to go to Vsevolod, saying: "It is less of a sin to break the kiss of the cross than to shed Christian blood." He called "the whole cathedral of priests", who said to the prince: "be reconciled! we take upon ourselves your sin." Mstislav obeyed the council and wept about it all his life, adds the chronicler.

Karamzin condemns Mstislav and considers loyalty to the word even in such cases mandatory. Mstislav's guilt is indisputable - he took an ill-considered oath, and for this he really had to repent. But if a thoughtless oath requires a much more serious crime, then permission from the oath by some authoritative person or organization is necessary.<<...>>

The absolutization of a venerable principle (loyalty to one's word, oath) leads to absurdity: as always, the decisive factor must be the mind or the design of such a system that no dilemma arises. With limited power, the change of power is carried out bloodlessly (as in Novgorod).

And in relation to power, there has long been a struggle between two principles: 1) progressive: the principle of inheritance of power is only a convenient method for eliminating internecine strife, but by no means gives the right to absolute power; power is justified only by the benefits brought to the people; 2) reactionary, strictly legitimistic: no matter what crimes the government commits, it is not subject to the judgment of its subjects, who must support it resolutely in all cases. Before the Tatar invasion, the first, progressive principle, if not dominated, then had a significant influence in Russia. In Novgorod, it survived until the very end of independence and was crushed only by the triumphant, overrunning Moscow.<<...>>

The struggle between legitimism and democracy in the broad sense of the word (power may not be of popular origin, but must necessarily pursue the interests of the people) was also waged in the West. In the dispute between Elizabeth and Mary Stuart, the latter stood entirely on legitimist grounds and personally I have absolutely no sympathy (like Jephthah, King Herod and other "Legitimists"). Against the great Elizabeth was another "Legitimist" - Ivan the Terrible, and their correspondence clearly reveals the worldview of both. Grozny ordered to find out from Elizabeth the possibility of asylum (saving his own skin), offered her asylum in case of danger, but Elizabeth condescendingly promised Ivan a reception in England, she herself refused asylum, rightly not wanting to discredit herself before her subjects with such suspicion (see "Messages Ivan the Terrible", 1951, pp. 614-616). Grozny believes that the main task of a true sovereign is not "commercial profits", but "the sovereign's honor" (ibid., p. 616).<<...>>

Grozny doesn't even consider "trading men" to be people. Here is the first distortion of the rational principle of power: absolute legitimism. The second - from the presence of just wars - defensive and liberation - a conclusion is made about the beneficence and necessity of wars in general: the ideology of Bismarck, Moltke, Hitler and, to our great regret, Dostoevsky.

The regressive development of Russian ideology and the progressive development of English ideology, of course, has a main basis in the course of their history. England was protected from enemies by sea, while Russia was constantly attacked, and our kings used this circumstance for their personal exaltation. In one of my previous letters I pointed out the opinion of Macaulay*, who explains the progressive history of England precisely by this circumstance: there is no great threat, there is no need for a standing army, the instrument of despotism. In a letter of April 18 (p. 3) you dispute this opinion, considering that everything is explained by the spirit of the English nation, since the island position did not prevent numerous invasions. Yes, but only until the 11th century, since then there have been no successful invasions. Napoleon failed to invade England, although England is next door to France, and succeeded in invading distant Russia, all the way to Moscow. If we talk about the national character, then the Russians, who eliminated all intrusions into their territory, had a greater desire for independence, and not the inhabitants of the British Isles, where the conquerors (Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans) strengthened themselves as masters on the islands and either took root there, or voluntarily left (the Romans).

* Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859) - English historian, foreign corporative member. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. The main works - on the history of England in the XVII-XVIII centuries.

I think that is why it can be definitely said that the ideology of Novgorod, like all the countries of Northern Europe (Scandinavia and England), was incomparably more progressive than Moscow. The opinion that progressive ideology always wins is too immoderate optimism. The victory of the typhus or yellow fever virus over the individual does not mean the progressive nature of the viruses. This is a temporary defeat of a more perfect, but not yet sufficiently perfect organism, which in the end still defeats the regressive organism: now both typhus and yellow fever have almost disappeared. Therefore, a progressive-minded person has the right to treat the Moscow ideology with the same hostility as to the typhus virus, especially since the "Moscow virus" is highly contagious. Here I fully agree with the opinions of my favorite writer A. K. Tolstoy: "My hatred for the Moscow period, - says gr. Tolstoy in one letter, - there is my idiocracy ... My hatred of despotism is myself ... "(Complete collection of works, published by A. F. Marx, vol. 1, 1907, p. 520). This is beautifully expressed by him in a speech delivered on March 14, 1869 (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 4, 1908, p. 302):

"... all of us, no matter how many of us there are - from high dignitaries who have entire regions under their patronage, to modest writers - cannot better contribute to the transformation begun by our sovereign, as trying, each to the best of our ability, to eradicate the remnants of what struck us of the once Mongol spirit, under whatever guise they may still be hiding in our country.It is the duty of all of us, to the best of our ability, to erase the traces of this alien element, instilled in us by force, and to help our homeland return to its primitive European channel, to the channel of law and legality, from which unfortunate historical events forced it out for a time... In the name of our glorious past and bright future, allow me, mm. , from end to end, and for all subjects of the Sovereign Emperor, no matter what nationality they belong to"(the last words are directed against Russifiers).

A. K. Tolstoy's view of Russian history, in my opinion, outstripped the views of most of his contemporary historians. After all, it was officially believed that the Russian state began with the calling of the Varangians (and a monument was erected in Novgorod to the millennium of Russia). And Tolstoy writes (vol. 4, p. 208):

"The Scandinavians did not establish, but found the veche already completely established. Their merit is that they confirmed it, while disgusting Moscow destroyed it - Moscow's eternal shame! There was no need to destroy freedom in order to subdue the Tatars. to replace it with a stronger one. Collecting Russian land! Collecting is good, but you need to know what to collect. A handful of earth is better than a huge pile ... "

Novgorodians of that time (before the fall of Novgorod) A. K. Tolstoy did not idealize at all. Again from the same volume (pp. 232-233):

"The fall of Novgorod ... fascinated me, but, rummaging through it, I found that the Novgorodians of that time were decent pigs who deserved nothing better than to fall into the mouth of Moscow, like Rome into the mouth of Caesar."

So, is it right that Novgorod was conquered by Moscow? No, Tolstoy's words mean only that indeed there were signs of corruption in Novgorod, which greatly facilitated the conquest. I think that these painful phenomena were not an incurable vice, and our northern republic could have freed itself from them by internal forces, if predatory ferocious Moscow had not taken advantage of them. Indeed, the history of Scandinavia was also full of periods of depression: the geographical position and the old military reputation saved Scandinavia from being conquered by external enemies, and gradually these countries became countries that were not inferior to anyone in culture, although they also had shortcomings, for which their compatriots (for example, Ibsen) they are seriously criticized. The decisive role in this depression was undoubtedly played by the weakness of the Novgorod military organization. Let's move on to this.

On the military organization of Novgorod. You quite clearly depict the shortcomings of the military organization of Novgorod (letter of June 21, 1959, p. 3). “The military forces of Novgorod, despite its wealth, turned out to be insolvent. This, of course, is the fault of the selfish and greedy Novgorod rulers, who thought more about their pocket than about a good organization of state defense. The fighting efficiency of the Novgorod army was very low. The reason must be considered poor discipline; the vicious state system did not allow her to be brought up in the Novgorod militia.<<...>>. From a warrior, completely different mental qualities are required than from a robber. Novgorodians managed to sit out from the grassroots under Bogolyubsky, but they turned out to be of little use in a field, mobile war. As a result - Shelon".

Many things can be said about these words:

a) Novgorodians were not always distinguished by poor military organization. Let us recall the Battle of the Ice, where, under the leadership of Alexander Nevsky, a knightly army, first-class for that time, was defeated. Bogolyubsky was not "sent out", but utterly defeated his troops, and, as you know, a huge number of prisoners led to a sharp drop in the price of serfs. Moscow was not distinguished by high qualities in field maneuver warfare, constantly yielding to Poland in this respect. The first-class military organization of Russia was created only by Peter. I am deeply civilian, but I am forced to admit that a good military organization is an unusually difficult thing, by no means reducible to one discipline. Some peoples in certain periods of their existence created such a brilliant military organization that allowed them to dominate their neighbors, despite the huge numerical superiority of the latter. Examples can be cited (even without looking far into the depths of centuries) enough. The Normans in general, ending with the major Swedish commanders, the English of the time of Henry V, from our closest neighbors - Lithuania. A tiny people, and what a huge force they represented for a long time. The already achieved high level of military organization may be lost: take the empires of Tamerlane and the Great Mogul. In the latter two cases, despotism persisted to the very end of the empire, armies were powerful, discipline (judging by the punishments and the abundance of capital punishment) was sufficiently maintained, and yet the well-armed and numerous armies were defeated by much smaller opponent armies: recall the conquest of India by Clive * or Russian conquest of Central Asia.

* Robert Clive (1725-1774) - English colonial figure. In 1757 he commanded the troops of the English East India Company at the Battle of Plassey.

b) But not every reduction in the military potential of the state is proof of the degradation of statehood. It is such only when the state continues to adhere to militant purpose. The defeat of the army of Napoleon III in the Franco-Prussian war undoubtedly testifies to the failure of the French government, since Napoleon III, as the Bonapartist should have seen, saw military glory as the main task of his reign and himself sought war with Prussia (a rare case when both sides wanted war ), and, for example, the defeat of the Italian troops by the French during the Renaissance does not compromise Italy at all, since peace-loving Italy did not have a warlike spirit at all and fell victim to the predatory France of that time, which crushed the cultured and peace-loving Languedoc even earlier. And we still have a widespread militaristic ideology, which considers any military defeat not only as a misfortune, but also as a shame. And the Italians are not at all bad commanders. Not to mention the Roman Empire and the Lombards. Let's remember the battle of Legnano, where the Italians defeated the mighty Barbarossa, let's remember a long series of outstanding Italian commanders and finally the idol not only of the French, but also of many Russians (at least Lermontov) - Napoleon, who was Italian by blood, not French.

The disappearance of the warlike spirit of a combat-ready tribe, from the point of view of the common humanity, is not a regression, but a progress. This progress is only fraught with danger in the presence of savage neighbors, which happened to Novgorod, as Klyuchevsky writes (vol. 2, p. 101):

"Since the middle of the fourteenth century, a lull has set in in the external relations of Novgorod, occasionally interrupted by clashes on the western borders. But he did not take advantage of the century-old peace to renew and strengthen his old military structure, on the contrary, apparently, he allowed it to decline in the usual hope among the rivals princes to find an ally. But by the middle of the 15th century there were no more rivals in Russia fighting for Novgorod: only Moscow and Lithuania fought for it ... Moscow threatened Novgorod with the destruction of liberty. To save it, it remained to seek salvation from Lithuania; but the alliance with Lithuania seemed a betrayal of their native faith and land in the eyes of not only the rest of Russia, but also a significant part of Novgorod society itself.In the last years of independence, the Novgorodians painfully felt their oversight... rati, Novgorod hastily put on horses and moved into the field 40 thousand of all kinds of rabble, potters, carpenters and other artisans, who, according to chronicles, never been on a horse. On Shelon, 4 1/2 thousand Moscow rati were enough to utterly smash this crowd, laying 12 thousand on the spot.

The Novgorodians were punished for their love of freedom and peacefulness and their lack of political foresight. With the West, the Swedes obviously had complete peace (in contrast to the constant skirmishes of the time of Alexander Nevsky), they achieved a truly "peaceful coexistence" with their neighbors, with the exception of Moscow. But the "Moscow character" is ill-suited for peaceful coexistence.

c) Robbers and warriors. If you believe your words, then the Novgorodians are characterized by a robber psychology (Ushkuyniki, a typical example is Buslaev), for Muscovites, obviously, a military one. No one denies that there was a time when the Novgorod ushkuyniki caused a lot of trouble to their neighbors, but in the 15th century their raids were significantly reduced: peace could not be established with Sweden near Novgorod if the ushkuyniki were engaged in their activities as intensively as in the time of Alexander Nevsky<<...>>. The robberies did not weaken, but intensified with the establishment of despotism. Under Ivan IV, there were not fewer, but more robbers near Moscow than under Ivan Kalita, not to mention the fact that the "progressive army of guardsmen" was entirely robbers.

But maybe the conquest of Novgorod by Ivan III was carried out by the correct "military" way (is there such a correct military way?), without any robbery? And on this score, Klyuchevsky gives an unequivocal answer (vol. 2, p. 100): "While the Ivanov regiments smashed the Novgorodians in the lower regions, the people themselves voluntarily gathered in large crowds and went to the Novgorod land for booty, so that, according to the chronicler, the whole region was devastated to the very sea."

What is it - warriors or robbers? In my opinion, the worst kind of bandits are marauders. And the chronicler even sums up the "ideological basis" for such a robbery - a retreat to Latinism. Mass robberies are often covered by ideology: the crusades, which led to the defeat of Byzantium by the crusaders, the defeat of the Albigensians. This approach has not disappeared in the twentieth century.<<...>>

The condemnation of robbers and the exaltation of warriors arose relatively late. In the old days, no such distinction was made, and the robbery past of a certain individual did not prevent him from making a brilliant political career.<<...>> Harald Gardrada was initially rejected by Yaroslavna, and when he returned with a brilliant pirate glory (see A. K. Tolstoy, vol. 4, p. 205), he became her husband and Norwegian king.<<...>>

And in Pushkin's Finn's story from "Ruslan and Lyudmila" and in "The Tale of the Dead Princess" one hundred percent robbers are considered as heroes and heroes.

From a purely technical, organizational point of view, the major commanders turned out to be simply the most talented and energetic robbers; this is true to this day. From a purely ideological point of view, the difference between a respectable warrior and a contemptible robber is very great. A warrior in the broad sense of the word (including respectable revolutionaries) does not pursue personal goals, is not bloodthirsty and is limited to the possible minimum of violence, raises the sword only for lofty goals: defense of the homeland from the invasion of barbarians, liberation of enslaved peoples, protection of the offended and oppressed. (This is how, for example, Vl. Solovyov justifies the profession of a warrior in the famous "Three Conversations"). But, taking this point of view, we are already abandoning the absolutization of patriotism. If, in order to justify the profession of a soldier, Vl. Solovyov cites the story of the old general about the defeat of the Turkish gangs that committed atrocities against the Armenians, which means that if my state commits atrocities, I am not obliged to defend it. Slogan "right or wrong - my fatherland!" at best, it denotes the weakness of a person who does not refuse to defend the fatherland even when it wages an unjust war, but we do not need to admire him or follow him. Another slogan is more honorable: "There is no Greek and Jew, barbarian and Scythian, slave or free." Slogan "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" also denies absolute patriotism (for strangers, but not for our own, we note in passing).

If a warrior refuses noble goals, if war turns into a favorite pastime for him, with anyone, just to fight for the glory of his community (Taras Bulba), fatherland (Suvorov) or his own person (Napoleon), then more or less a dose of genuine banditism, and in extreme cases (Hitler) such types cause more disgust than the most nightmarish bandits, despite the huge scope and external success of their deeds. But, unfortunately, such super bandits are sometimes able to inspire their wild "ideology" to the broad masses of the people. The same thing happened in Russia in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Klyuchevsky writes about the reasons for the enmity towards Novgorod of Nizovaya Rus (vol. 2, p. 100): "The peculiar political life of Novgorod, the frequent campaigns of Novgorod "fellows" who ruined the oncoming cities of Nizovaya Rus along the Volga and its tributaries, early and close trade and cultural ties Novgorod with the German Catholic West, and finally, and most of all, an alliance with the Lithuanian king the papezhnik ... In the eyes of the grassroots chronicler, Novgorodians are worse than infidels. "Infidels, - According to him, - from the beginning they do not know God; these same Novgorodians had been in Christianity for so long, and in the end they began to retreat to Latinism; Grand Duke Ivan attacked them not as Christians, but as foreigners and apostates. We see that Catholics were not considered Christians, not only in the dark people (see verses, p. 42), some chroniclers also held such a "cultural" view. It is quite clear that when Novgorod drew closer to Lithuania and Catholic Poland, this was considered a betrayal of Christianity, and when the Ivans, together with the Tatars, went to Christian Poland and Livonia and subjected the latter to a merciless defeat, this, it turns out, is a reasonable patriotic policy that everyone should obey. Russians who found themselves under the rule of a senseless and merciless despot. It was not the "voice of blood" that moved our autocrats, but the "voice of bloodthirstiness", the true "voice of blood" stood for the northern and western orientation.<<...>>

For me personally, such a national hero as George Washington is a much more dubious figure than [Marfa] Boretskaya. Washington was an officer in the English army, took a personal part in the conquest of Canada, raised an uprising against the king, who could be considered his rightful master not only by birth, but also by his voluntary oath, he fought with fellow tribesmen and fellow believers and enlisted the help of his primordial enemies. fatherland - the French. Finally, the very reason for the revolt of the United States against England was not very valid: the British did not rage in America, they only introduced taxes and duties without the consent of the American colonists. The only difference is that the poorly organized army of American insurgents was able to withstand the British, also helped by the imperfection of the British War Office, the distance from the mother country and the slowness of communications. In our country, the death of Novgorod was facilitated by the Black Hundred ideology, which was not inferior in reactionaryness to the ideology of the masses of the people who came running to watch the auto-da-fé, and with rare exceptions did not interfere with the work of the Inquisition. This Black Hundred ideology has not disappeared even now. And, unfortunately, not one of the glorious Polish kings, like Casimir the Great, Stefan Batory or Jan Sobessky, sat on the Polish throne, but the insignificant Casimir IV.

Well, what if things had happened differently? Your opinion (letter 21.VI.1959, pp. 3-2): “What would have happened if Novgorod had won, that is, if it had survived the fight against Ivan III? He did not set himself broad unifying goals. The most that he could do with luck was to annex Tver. There was also a Lithuanian followed by a merger with Lithuania and the inevitable Polonization of the boyars and living people and the birth of an anarchist gentry. Novgorod, incorporated by Lithuania, would not resist the Polish temptations, like Polotsk, Minsk and Kyiv. In the Polish Senate, along with the Radziwills, Vishnevetskys and Ostrozhskys "The Boretskys would have been. Reinforced by the resources of Novgorod, the Commonwealth would have become a firm foot in the Baltic, eliminated the Crimean hyena and eventually captured Moscow. I lack the imagination to foresee further. This entire huge conglomerate would have been infected with Polish syphilis and died from internal gangrene."

I must say that you complain in vain about the lack of imagination, but I think that your forecast is not dictated by reason, but by Polonophobia, which, unfortunately, is widespread among Russians. After all, the self-will of the gentry and the weakness of the Polish kings arose long ago. How, then, could a country infected with "Polish syphilis" liquidate not only Crimea, but also take over Moscow, apparently a healthy organism? You yourself write that Novgorod as a state did not have aggressive (unifying) goals. How could anarchist Poland force this non-aggressive state to take part in its conquest (also very dubious) plans?

You, like many others, believe that the death of Poland is a consequence of its political organization and, in particular, the notorious liberum veto. One gentry at the Sejm says: nie pozwalam, a wise decision breaks down, progress is delayed. Such a result is conceivable in the modern international diet, the United Nations, where the unanimity of the great powers is required, of which one with its nie pozwalam can frustrate a really useful decision and the rest of the states are powerless to do anything. In the Polish Sejm, I think, the lone gentry, who thwarted a useful decision with his veto, risked his life greatly: armed clashes in Poland were not uncommon. Poland had all the conditions for development into a normal free state. This is not my original opinion, at one time it was the opinion of progressive Russian people, as opposed to reactionaries like Katkov and others (now we largely defend the views of Katkov, scolding him at the same time). Let us take, for example, the opinion of Chernyshevsky, to whom in this case I fully subscribe. I am quoting from Plekhanov's articles in Selected Philosophical Works in five volumes (vol. IV, 1958, p. 150), and Plekhanov quotes Chernyshevsky's opinion without contesting it. Chernyshevsky is attracted by the ancient life of Poland with its political freedom.

"In the Polish absence of bureaucratic centralization lies the desire to implement a different order of society than that reached by other powers(here, of course, the Muscovite state is meant. - A. L. ), -order based not on the sacrifice of the individual to the abstract idea of ​​the state, embodied by the will of power, but on the agreement of free individuals for mutual well-being. "Although Polish society was completely aristocratic, the circle of the privileged could expand more and more and embrace the abandoned, outcast, of all rights to the masses of the people, if the concept of citizenship became wider and grew to universal ideas, not bound by temporary prejudices that limit their completeness.

Chernyshevsky sharply disagrees with official historians about the results of the unification of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with Poland:

"It's time to stop being one-sided, to be unfair to Poland, we recognize at least the beneficial effect of her influence on Russia, even in relation to enlightenment. Let's take the degree of mental education in those parts of the Russian world that has united with Poland, and compare it with that in In this regard, it was in that part of our all-Russian fatherland that remained original - in the form of the Muscovite State Did not enlightenment go to Moscow in the 17th century from Little Russia, and did not it prepare all our subsequent education?

And is it not under the influence of Poland that it increased in Little Russia?

Pre-Tatar Russia had a high culture, losing it during the Tatar region is not a shame, but a misfortune, but the fact that Muscovite Russia created a new disgusting ideology from the excrement of the Tatar region is both a shame and a misfortune. Poland and Lithuania did not suffer from the Tatars and not only preserved, but also greatly developed their culture. And why then did Poland die (fortunately, temporarily)? Exclusively because of its geographical location.

Let's take a look at the geographical map. To the west of Russia we have a whole belt of nationalities that either did not have independent statehood at all, or lost it quickly, or lost it for a more or less long time. From north to south: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece - eleven in all. Well, they were all infected with state syphilis? But all these are original nationalities. Most of them are distinguished by high and peculiar qualities, and one can not talk about the contribution of Greece to world culture. The reason for their temporary disappearance from the political arena is the proximity to large predators, primarily Moscow and the Turkish Empire. Speaking in medical terms, this is no longer syphilis, but something worse - a malignant tumor that also affected neighboring states. Peter the Great largely removed this tumor, but not completely; after his death, relapses began. Alexander II removed a lot, but "they did not know their own", the tsar was killed by those who believed that surgical methods of influence were needed. An outstanding surgeon, Lenin, also appeared, but he also did not have time, and metastases are now more pronounced than in tsarist times. They erected a monument to Yuri Dolgoruky (and the ship sails under his name), completely falsified Ivan Susanin (it turns out that he does not save Mikhail Fedorovich, but Minin!) And, according to the old Black Hundred tradition, the performance is given political significance, and each opera season begins with this opera falsified by Skopin -Shuisky (he, who solemnly entered Moscow next to Delagardie, turned out to be fighting the Swedish intervention!), and of course the struggle of Marfa Boretskaya (in the Essays on the History of the USSR) with Moscow is considered treason. Of course, it is forgotten that the Ivans committed a triple betrayal: 1) betrayal of the Slavic cause, Christianity and Western culture, the fight against the Tatars against the West; 2) betrayal of the agreement with Novgorod after Shelon, where Novgorod retained autonomy, which was sympathized not only with the Vecheviks, but also with such a respected figure as Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod (see Klyuchevsky, vol. 2, p. 101); 3) finally, the terrible defeat of Novgorod by the nightmare of our history by Ivan the Terrible on a deliberate fake. All this is a historical necessity, it turns out!

Well, what about the terrible threat of Polonization and the loss of the Orthodox faith? Of course, one of the curiosities of our time is that people are especially indignant at the desire to catholicize Russia, the godless Bolsheviks, who close both Catholic and Orthodox churches, turn out to be special zealots of Orthodoxy! Of course, a certain number of the population in Poland converted to Catholicism, the Unia became very widespread in Western Ukraine - an excellent solution to the problem of unity of churches. In 1959, I had to visit Western Latvia - Latgale, which was part of the Polish state. There was a completely peaceful coexistence of four religions: Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and Russian schismatics-priests.

Well, what about the threat of nationality - Polonization? Let us ask ourselves the question: is the preservation of nationality the leading postulate of statehood? I think no. It goes without saying that forced conversion to another nation is unacceptable, but, as the same Chernyshevsky rightly says, the upper class in Western Russia had both the rights and the means to defend their faith and their language and save their people from humiliation, however, enslaved by him. The Western Russian aristocracy itself must be blamed for having become completely Polish. “They didn’t manage to save themselves - there’s nothing to blame on others,” Chernyshevsky notes. Chernyshevsky's words only need to be amended to say that there was no question of "complete Polonization" of Western Russian aristocrats. Many have retained their nationality. I personally know such a family - Mordukhai-Boltovskie. I know another family, Belarusians of the Catholic faith (before the Revolution, even in official circles, they were inclined to equate the concepts of Pole and Catholic).

The voluntary assimilation of one nationality by another is neither a disgrace nor a misfortune for one or the other side. Russians (in the broad sense of the word, including Ukrainians) assimilated a colossal number of nations: Berendei, Polovtsy, various Finnish northern peoples, a huge admixture of Tatar blood.<<...>> How many people of German origin sincerely and honestly consider themselves Russian. Let us recall the Turkestan governor-general Kaufman. In his will, he wrote: "Bury me near Tashkent, so that they know that this is Russian land, in which a Russian person is not ashamed to lie." As you know, the Kaufmanskaya station has survived to this day, as, indeed, most of the Central Asian "general" stations. I knew one Baer, ​​who was well aware of his German origin, but was a very nationalistic Pole. He even pointed out that many Germans who moved to Poland under the Magdeburg rights became completely Polished.<<...>>

But far from being a nationalist, I not only do not object to the preservation of nationalities, but I very much sympathize with their preservation. We protect even wild animals from extinction, all the more we must strive to preserve all the diversity of languages ​​that has arisen in humanity. But what about culture? If all nationalities, including such small ones as, say, the Abkhazians, Svans, Avars, etc., have the right to develop an independent culture, then things will end in Babylonian pandemonium and small peoples will always be at a disadvantage, since it is impossible to translate scientific literature to all languages. Our Marxists usually say that in time there will be no nations and there will be a common language. This, in my opinion, is both impossible and undesirable, but there is an excellent way out. Each person must know at least two languages: one is international, the other is his national. All scientific literature - in the international language, in their own - fiction. And then there should be no limit to the fragmentation of languages. Some fractional dialects will naturally die off, but not only will such a magnificent language as Ukrainian be preserved, but also numerous dialects of the Russian (Great Russian) language. Living in Perm, I listened with pleasure to the conversations of local residents with their many archaisms: "What do you mean?", "Corruptible mittens?", "Guy-from" and so on. It seems that you are present at one of the scenes of "Khovanshchina". Our common correspondent Lev Uspensky * struggles with the "incorrect": "extreme" instead of "last", "where" instead of "where" and so on. It is believed that all provincialisms must disappear. Why? In Italy, in addition to the general literary (Tuscan) dialect, there are local ones: Neapolitan, Venetian, etc., in which they sing songs (the competition for new songs at the summer holidays in Naples is usually held in the Neapolitan dialect), write dramas and so on. Back in 1909, while working at the Zoological Station in Naples, I sat in the same room with two young Swiss zoologists. They were Swiss Germans, but their conversation was completely incomprehensible to us. And they told us that the Swiss Germans, even intelligent, scientific articles, write in the common German language, and speak among themselves in a dialect in which they write both poems and artistic prose.

* Lev Vasilievich Uspensky (1900-1978) - Russian Soviet writer, author of the book "A Word about Words" (L., 1954 and other ed.) and other popular books about the Russian language.

Considering, therefore, the preservation of the nation desirable, let us ask ourselves whether there was even the slightest danger of the Russian nationality being dissolved in the Polish one? Not the slightest, of course. There were many Russians and Ukrainians in Lithuania, after the Union of Lublin many of them went to Poland, and they not only retained their nationality, but also had a huge influence on the course of state affairs. It is known that there were even negotiations on the election of Ivan the Terrible as the Polish king, and Fedor Ioannovich was even elected king in the Polish Sejm. The peaceful unification of Poland and Russia could be carried out on the initiative of Poland. As you know, the "Moscow character" got in the way. They did not agree on "where to be crowned." Ours demanded that the new Polish king be crowned in Moscow, considering Poland simply as a new Russian region. The concept of autonomy was absolutely inaccessible to the Moscow tsars, not excluding even the best, Peter the Great. Did Pushkin mean the difference between Poland and Russia, or did it happen unintentionally, but he put quite clear words into Mazepa's mouth: Without sweet liberty and glory
We bowed our heads for a long time
Under the auspices of Warsaw,
Under the autocracy of Moscow. I think that here Pushkin (even Aristotle said that poets often do not clearly understand what they say) unconsciously expressed the correct idea. Consciously, he fully adhered to the "Moscow ideology":

Will Slavic streams merge into the Russian sea?
Will it run out? Here is the question.

The third solution: the free association of completely autonomous states, he simply did not understand. But this was understood by the one whom he often and not without reason called a tyrant: Alexander I. He sacredly observed the autonomy of Finland promised by him, like Alexander II, and the valiant Finns not only honestly fought for the interests of a country alien to them (in the Russian-Turkish war) , but, as can be judged from correspondence from Finland, they preserved in Helsinki both a monument and a square (or street) dedicated to the one who honestly fulfilled his obligations. They would have the right, in resentment for later violations of their rights, to destroy all memory of Russian rule.<<...>>

Annotation. Three main stages of the confrontation between the Russian and Western European civilizations on the Novgorod land in the period from the 13th to the 15th centuries are considered, from the Battle of the Neva (1240), the siege and capture of Landskrona (1301) - to the foundation of the Oreshek fortress on an island at the mouth of the Neva and the signing of the famous Orekhovets Treaty on "eternal peace" (1323). The key ways of including this topic into the urban planning, architectural and monumental heritage of St. Petersburg are traced.

Keywords: cultural heritage, Russian world, confrontation of civilizations, Novgorod lands.

Reading the Manuscript of Magnush, King of Sveisk, one of the most famous texts created in the North-West of the Russian lands, most likely at the beginning of the 15th century, and devoted primarily to the confrontation between Russian and Western European civilizations, we draw attention to a fairly clear historiosophical scheme dividing this confrontation into three key steps.

The first of them is the coming to Russia of one of the largest Swedish military leaders, and later the primate of the Swedish state, Jarl Birger. The campaign was directly adjacent to the military operations undertaken in the framework of the so-called second crusade against the Finnish pagans, and thus belonged to the number of not only military-political, but also religious-political enterprises. In the Life of Alexander Nevsky, for all its brevity, this moment is emphasized repeatedly and very clearly: Birger came "from the Western country, who are called the servants of God", he is "the king of a part of Rome" and, thus, a representative of the entire Western Christian world. Birger Magnusson's ability to develop land is beyond doubt: as Swedish tradition remembers, a decade later he founded Stockholm, which later became the capital of Sweden.

Novgorod was defended by the largest commander and politician of the then Russian world, Prince Alexander Yaroslavich. The text of his Life repeatedly emphasizes the piety of the prince - we are talking about praying in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral during the performance of troops, and about speaking with small forces, “hoping on St. Trinity", and about the vision of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb on the night before the battle. Thus, for the Russian side, it was not only a physical battle, but also a spiritual battle.

As the Manuscript of Magnush briefly reports, Birger - or, as we called it, "mester Belger" - was defeated on the Izhora River (1240), and Prince Alexander won a glorious victory, earning the honorary title of Nevsky (since the battle took place near the mouth of the Neva, with both sides fighting primarily for control of it). Thus, the first confrontation between Russia and Europe on the banks of the Neva ended with the expulsion of uninvited guests from the West and the preservation of Novgorod's control over the Neva lands.

The second stage began with the arrival of a new army from the West to the Neva. They were led by an experienced commander and statesman, who also happened to be at the head of the Swedish state for some time, named Thorgils Knutsson. The new invasion actually completed the third crusade, during which the Swedes managed to annex vast lands on the territory of modern Finland and establish their outpost on the Karelian Isthmus - the fortress city of Vyborg (1293). Arriving at the mouth of the Neva, the Swedes intended to build on their success. According to historians, the fortress, founded by them on a cape formed by the main course of the Neva River and smaller in width and depth of the Okhta, covered almost 15 thousand square meters in area. m, which is almost twice the area of ​​the Vyborg fortress.

For the construction of the newly founded fortress, architects (or military engineers) who had previously built in Rome were invited, with the blessing of the Pope. Finally, the fortress, founded in the middle of dense forests and swampy swamps, was immediately given the loud name "Landskrona", that is, the Crown ("-krona") of the earth ("Lands-"). "Nomen est omen", as they said in classical antiquity: the program is visible in the name. The Swedes definitely came "in earnest and for a long time."

The keen eye of the Novgorodians immediately discerned the key points of the Swedish plan. According to the Novgorod Chronicle I, “having come from the zamorie, the Great in strength to the Neva, bringing masters from their land, the master deliberately brought from great Rome from the pope, placing the city over the Neva at the mouth of the Okhta River, and establishing it with unspeakable firmness ... slandering it The Crown of the Earth". As you can see, in the short message of the chronicler, both “great power”, and “masters from the Pope”, and the proud name of the fortress were mentioned.

The organization of resistance fell to the lot of Prince Andrei Alexandrovich, the son of Alexander Nevsky, who had already rebuffed the Swedes more than half a century before the events described. The following year, 1301, Prince Andrei came with the Novgorod army, “taking the city, and beat the governors and the Germans” (we continue to quote the Magnush Manuscript). The second clash of civilizations thus ended with a military victory and the expulsion of the invaders.

The mouth of the Neva again remained undeveloped. In this regard, a natural question arises why the Novgorodians did not attend to the foundation of their own powerful fortress at the mouth of the Neva, especially since the Swedes had already reached a little north of these places, to Vuoksa, then navigable along its entire length, approximately along the Vyborg line (in the west) - Korela (now Priozersk, in the east), and clearly indicated their interest in the development of the Neva lands. A number of explanations for this strategy can be found in the scientific literature, from an understandable reluctance to build under the constant threat of attack from the sea to the desire not to create a commercial competitor to Novgorod, located closer to Western trading partners.

It seems to us worthy of attention the thought expressed on another occasion by D.S. Likhachev, who believed that the undeveloped, virgin space could have a special, almost sacred meaning in the eyes of Novgorodians. As a meaningful example, the scientist referred to the so-called Red Field, which encircled the historical core of Novgorod, but deliberately left unbuilt - a space only on the horizon surrounded by a string of suburban monasteries and temples. “Not a single building, not a single tree interfered with seeing this majestic crown that Novgorod surrounded itself on the horizon, creating an unforgettable image of a developed, settled country - space and comfort at the same time.” If our reasoning is correct, then the mouth of the Neva could be considered by Novgorod city planners as a kind of analogue of the Red Field, which in fact implied a strategy for saving not only what we now call cultural, but also natural heritage.

In the third stage, the strategy of both sides changed significantly. Novgorodians stopped passively reacting to Western invasions and founded in 1323 on Orekhovy Island, at the very source of the Neva from Lake Ladoga, the Oreshek fortress. Historical logic required the continuation of this reasonable step by founding a fortress at the mouth of the Neva, at the confluence of this river into the Gulf of Finland, but it had to be expected for more than three and a half centuries - until Peter I founded St. Petersburg. As for the Swedes, having suffered two large-scale defeats (and a number of less significant ones that we did not mention), they were concerned not so much with the conquest of new lands, but with the delimitation of already conquered possessions with their neighbors.

As a result, representative delegations from both sides arrived in the newly founded Russian fortress, which, after short negotiations, signed the famous Orekhovets peace treaty (1323). This agreement, according to which a clear border was established along its entire length between the lands of Veliky Novgorod and the Kingdom of Sweden, and moreover, between the Russian world on its northwestern borders and Western European civilization, was destined to operate for more than 270 years, until the Tyavzinsky world ( 1595), which was concluded on our part in the suburbs of Ivangorod by Moscow diplomats.

Getting acquainted with the text of the Orekhovets Treaty, we can highlight several aspects that are essential for our topic. First of all, from the Novgorod side, it was signed by the grandson of Alexander Nevsky, Grand Duke Yuri Danilovich. On the Swedish side, the introductory formula indicates the participation of “the Svean prince Manush Orikovits”, that is, the Swedish king Magnus Eriksson (as explained below, he did not personally participate in the signing ceremony, entrusting this to his diplomats). Thus, the delimitation of spheres of influence on the Neva lands again required the direct participation of senior officials from both sides, which spoke of its importance for both Novgorod and Sweden.

Further, the text of the treaty, significant not only for Novgorod, but also for ancient Russian diplomacy in general, was approved at two levels - political and legal and sacred. By the first we mean following the canons of European international law of that time, to which the Swedish side was accustomed, but for the Novgorod side it was new. As noted in the Manuscript of Magnush, “I have made a division between the earth and the water, who owns what, and I have written and printed letters.” The last formula, highlighted by us in the text of the quote in italics, means following the legal norms of that time.

Having noted this important fact, it is necessary to make a reservation that behind the scene of the negotiations there was another, third player, relations with which were very significant for both the Novgorod and the Swedish sides. We are talking, of course, about the Hanseatic League, whose priorities included the complete legal regulation of the operation of trade routes in the east of the Baltic. As a result, the text of the agreement also included guarantees for the Hanseatic merchants from Lübeck and the “German land” as a whole (“... guests to visit without mischief from all German land: from Lyubka, from the Goth coast and the Sveisky land along the Neva to Novgorod the mountain and water, and the Sveyam of all the guests from the Choice of the City cannot be reimagined, and the way beyond the sea is also clear for our guest.

Speaking of the sacred aspect, we mean the fact that both in the opening and closing formulas of the Orekhovets treatise, the kissing of the cross was mentioned, which confirmed the agreements reached. In the first case, it is mentioned that it claimed "eternal peace", that is, not a temporary agreement, but a full-fledged and long-term agreement of the highest priority status at that time. In the second case, the punishments of God himself and the Holy Mother of God were invoked on the head of the violator of the agreement. Thus, the establishment of "peace on the Neva" was conceived as corresponding not only to the commercial interests of both sides, but also to their highest spiritual values.

Getting acquainted with the text of the Magnusz Manuscript, we can make one more important remark in this regard. Its author was well acquainted with local realities: Izhora, Neva, Oreshek, Koporye are mentioned in the text of the Manuscript. It is also said about the men of Novgorod, who defended their state from foreign invaders. However, the main thing for the author is the all-Russian cause of defending the Fatherland. Russia is mentioned in the text four times, and in contexts that do not give grounds for conclusions of a different plan. “Do not step on Russia at the kissing of the cross,” that is, do not violate its sacred boundaries, - it is said at the very beginning of the text of the Manuscript. “Do not step on Russia at the kissing of the cross, and whoever steps on him will be fire and water,” says the end of this text.

Here it is necessary to make a reservation that, quoting in the previous presentation the text of both the Orekhovets peace treaty and the Magnusz Manuscript, we understand the difference between them well. The first of the mentioned documents is a business text created directly during the events of the beginning of the 14th century. - so to speak, in medias res. The second of them is a literary text written in the form of an apocryphal testament of the Swedish king, moreover, it was created at the beginning of the next, XV century, that is, after a decent amount of time after the events described in it.

All this is true, but the Magnush Manuscript was very much appreciated in Ancient Russia, it was rewritten many times and became part of a number of authoritative chronicles - first of all, the Sofia I Chronicle, which we quoted above. Based on considerations of this kind, we considered it correct to bring to our consideration the text of the Magnusz Manuscript, believing that it reflected some of the historiosophical attitudes that were important for medieval Novgorodians.

As a result of the three stages briefly described above, which included military confrontation, trade cooperation, and, to some extent, the exchange of cultural values, in our North-West, a border was established not only between the possessions of Veliky Novgorod and Sweden, but also between the Russian the world and Western European civilization as a whole. Being included in the Novgorod cultural heritage, it was rather quickly rethought in our country as part of the all-Russian heritage. As a result, having returned the Neva lands and founded St. Petersburg on them, Peter I, in fact, only continued the work of his ancestors, expanding and deepening his tasks and goals.

The events of that time are reminiscent of a modest church with a chapel and a memorial stone placed by descendants near the mouth of the Izhora, that is, on the site of the Neva Battle. However, a much more important role in Russian history was played by the transfer of the relics of the holy noble prince Alexander Nevsky, which had previously been kept in Vladimir, to the monastery founded by Peter I in the new capital of Russia. The place for the founding of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery was chosen literally the next year after the founding of St. Petersburg, formally the year of its foundation is considered to be 1713. By the end of the 18th century, the status of the monastery was elevated to a lavra, which put it on a par with such ancient and venerable spiritual centers Russian civilization, like the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and, of course, the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra.

It is worth mentioning that the main street of St. Petersburg - Nevsky Prospekt - got its name from the Neva River, in fact, only indirectly. Directly, it points to the same Alexander Nevsky Lavra, which was reflected in the earlier name of the avenue, which contains a rather long for today's taste, but quite correct definition - namely, "The big promising road to the Nevsky Monastery." As historians remember, the modern, more lapidary name was fully established only by 1781.

This is a well-known fact; less often we remember that closer to the city center, right on Nevsky Prospekt, there has long been a monument to Alexander Nevsky. We are talking about the beautiful "round sculpture" made by Academician S.S. Pimenov at the very beginning of the 19th century. and placed at the northern, that is, overlooking Nevsky Prospekt, facade of the Kazan Cathedral. The sword thrown at the feet of the prince with the image of a lion - the ancient emblem of Sweden - reminds posterity of the clash of civilizations that took place in former times on the banks of the Neva.

And very few people remember that the image of the helmet of Alexander Nevsky can still be seen on the space of one of the bas-reliefs installed on the pedestal of the Alexander Column, set in the middle of Palace Square, directly opposite the royal palace, in 1834.

Thus, the monumental and architectural text of the historical center of St. Petersburg with sufficient completeness embodied the main features of the bright image of Alexander Nevsky, directly connected in the cultural heritage of Russians with the confrontation and dialogue of civilizations that took place in Novgorod times on the northwestern borders of the Russian world.

NOTES

Here and below we quote the Old Russian original of the Life according to the publication: The Tale of the Life of Alexander Nevsky / Preparation by V.I. Okhotnikova // Military Tales of Ancient Russia. - L.: Lenizdat, 1985. - S. 120-127.

In earlier works, we have already been able to analyze in the necessary detail why this vision was presented not to the prince himself, but to his younger associate, named Pelugius (see, for example: Spivak D.L. Metaphysics of Petersburg: Beginnings and Foundations. - St. Petersburg: Aleteyya, 2005. - S. 35-38).

The life speaks, in fact, of the coming of a foreign army not from the west, but “from the midnight country,” that is, from the north, which is quite understandable, since its authors looked at the scene from Novgorod, that is, from the south.

We are talking here about the first confrontation only within the framework of the Novgorod period and only in relation to the historiosophical scheme of the Magnusz Manuscript. Historically, before that there was the calling of the Varangians, and many other contacts, the analysis of the inter-civilizational potential of which is part of the tasks of a special work.

Here and below we give modern geographical names, without specifically stipulating this. In those years, for the Swedes, these were the Nie (n) and Svarto (that is, Black) rivers, respectively.

Cit. on: Shaskolsky I.P. Russia's struggle to maintain access to the Baltic Sea in the 14th century. - L .: Nauka, 1987. - S. 16.

Likhachev D.S. Ecology of culture // Idem. Native land. - M.: Enlightenment, 1983. - S. 89.

Here it is necessary to make a reservation that Russian settlements existed on the site of later St. Petersburg in the Middle Ages - for example, the village of Nevsky Estuary. However, they could not be compared either in size or in importance with such nearby fortresses as Oreshek, Korela and Vyborg.

For the sake of completeness, it is worth mentioning that another monument to Prince Alexander Nevsky - the work of the sculptor V.G. Kozenyuk - was installed in St. Petersburg on the square in front of the main entrance to the Alexander Nevsky Lavra relatively recently, on the eve of the city's tercentenary.

This image reproduces the outlines of an ancient helmet, which is kept in the collection of the Moscow Armory. According to the legend, which, however, does not find convincing documentary evidence, it once belonged to the holy noble prince.

Spivak D.L., 2019.

The article was received by the editors on February 20, 2019.

Spivak Dmitry Leonidovich,
doctor of philosophical science,
Head of the Center for Fundamental Research in the Sphere of Culture of the Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after V.I. D.S. Likhachev (St. Petersburg),
e-mail: [email protected]

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. The 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 ethno-political 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 at the end of the 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 9th-13th 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 for 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 of recent years, carried out by us together with Professor A.S. Gerdom on the basis of the Inter-Faculty Problematic Seminar of the University, allow us 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 the non-Slavic regions, 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 break" 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 unambiguously 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 indicative in this case that both the highest concentration of the Slavic ethnos and its distribution along the basic communication routes and key points of 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.

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. “It’s very heavy, you can’t lift it, you won’t go far with it,” 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, Tatiana Chernikova, reported before the start of the competition that all the necessary security measures were taken 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 are returning to the camp in the back of our familiar KamAZ. 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. “My wife told me to say that I am not henpecked,” says a tall, unshaven lover of war games, finishing the story about buying new uniforms.

There is a field kitchen in the camp, food for the players is organized, 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 didn't come 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 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.

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.

Even now we can safely say that the game "Confrontation: Novgorod Land" 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

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 spectators could inspect weapons and special vehicles.

“Players participated in an exciting struggle for victory in atmospheric locations, complemented by real military equipment. A pleasant surprise for the athletes was the original game scenario, developed by a team of professional airsoft players. The two teams had 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.