In the next volumes of the Byzantine Library series, the Aletheia publishing house is starting to publish a series of general works by A.A. Vasiliev in Byzantine studies. In this regard, it seems necessary to say a few words about the author, his works on the history of Byzantium and the principles underlying the proposed publication.

Write about the biography of A.A. Vasiliev (1867-1953) is quite difficult, because there is almost no literature about him, there is also no archive of the scientist in Russia, and therefore the systematized information about his life presented below, taken from various sources, cannot claim to be an exhaustive picture of his life.

Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev was born in St. Petersburg in 1867. He studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University and received a wide education both in the field of Oriental languages ​​(Arabic and Turkish) and history, as well as in classical languages ​​and history, not counting the obligatory modern languages. According to A.A. Vasiliev, his scientific fate was determined by chance. Byzantine studies he was advised to take up by his teacher of Arabic, the famous Baron V.R. Rosen, who sent him to the no less famous Byzantinist V.G. Vasilevsky. The subsequent benevolent reception by V.G. Vasilevsky and the first acquaintance with Byzantine history as presented by Gibbon helped him choose the direction of specialization. Note, however, that a good background in Oriental studies allowed A.A. Vasiliev not only combine Byzantine and Arabic studies in his work, but also prove himself an Arabist in the proper sense of the word. A.A. Vasiliev prepared critical editions with a translation into French by two Arab Christian historians - Agafia and Yahya ibn Said. Apparently, A.A. Vasiliev had another opportunity to prove himself as a professional orientalist. Judging by one letter from M.I. Rostovtsev dated August 14, 1942, A.A. Vasiliev taught Arabic for some time at St. Petersburg University. The mentioned letter refers, among other things, to the fact that A.A. Vasiliev taught literary critic G.L. Lozinsky to the basics of the Arabic language.

For the scientific fate of A.A. Vasiliev's three years spent abroad as a scholarship holder of the Faculty of History and Philology were of great importance. Thanks to the support of V.G. Vasilevsky, P.V. Nikitin and I.V. Pomyalovsky A.A. Vasiliev spent 1897-1900. in Paris with a scholarship, first 600 rubles a year, then 1500 rubles. In France, he continued to study oriental languages ​​​​(Arabic, Turkish and Ethiopian). During the same years, he prepared master's and doctoral dissertations on the relationship between Byzantium and the Arabs. Soon, these works took the form of a two-volume monograph, translated, however, much later into French (see the list of works by A.V. Vasiliev below).

In the spring of 1902, together with N.Ya. Marrom, A.A. Vasiliev made a trip to Sinai, to the monastery of St. Catherine. He was interested in the manuscripts of Agathias stored there. In the same year, A.A. Vasiliev spent several months in Florence, also working on Agathia's manuscripts. The edition of the text prepared by him quickly appeared in the well-known French publication Patrologia Orientalist. The edition of the text of the second Arab Christian historian - Yahya ibn Said - was prepared by A.A. Vasiliev and I.Yu. Krachkovsky later - in the twenties and thirties.

Scientific career of A.A. Vasilyeva was successful. In 1904-1912. he was a professor at Derpt (Yurievsky) University. Hosted by A.A. Vasilyev also participated in the work of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople that existed before the First World War. In 1912-1922. he was a professor and dean of the historical and philological faculty of the St. Petersburg (later Petrograd) Pedagogical Institute. From the same 1912 to 1925 A.A. Vasiliev was a professor at Petrograd (later Leningrad) University. In addition, A.A. Vasiliev worked at RAIMK-GAIMK, where from 1919 he held the position of head. category of archeology and art of ancient Christian and Byzantine. In 1920-1925. he was already chairman of RAIMK.

It should also be noted that since 1919 A.A. Vasiliev was a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Without references to sources, the authors of the publication of letters M.I. Rostovtsev to A.A. Vasiliev is informed that by the decision of the General Meeting of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR of June 2, 1925, A.A. Vasiliev was expelled from the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and reinstated only posthumously, on March 22, 1990.

In 1934 he was elected a member of the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences. In subsequent years, A.A. Vasiliev was also president of the Institute. N.P. Kondakov in Prague, a member of the American Academy of the Middle Ages and - in last years life as chairman International Association Byzantinists.

A turning point in the life of A.A. Vasiliev began in 1925, when he went on an official business trip abroad, having no special idea to emigrate from Russia. However, several meetings in Paris with M.I. Rostovtsev, a well-known Russian historian of antiquities, who left Russia quite deliberately, decided the fate of A.A. Vasiliev. M.I. Rostovtsev suggested A.A. Vasiliev assistance in obtaining a place at the University of Wisconsin (Madison) due to the fact that M.I. Rostovtsev was moving from Madison to New Haven.

A.A. Vasiliev agreed and, having left for Berlin and Paris in the summer of 1925, in France he boarded a steamer to New York, having an official invitation for a year from the University of Wisconsin. In the autumn of the same 1925, he already had a job in America. Preserved in the Archives of S.A. Zhebelev and other scientists of the letter A.A. Vasilyev is shown at the same time that A.A. Vasiliev regularly continued to make requests through S.A. Zhebelev about giving his official status - he asked for an official extension of his business trip. His requests were satisfied by the People's Commissariat of Education and confirmed by the Academy of Sciences. However, in the end, July 1, 1928 was recognized as the deadline for extending his posting. A.A. Vasiliev did not return by this date, or ever later. Letter to S.A. Zhebelev, in which he explained the reasons for this, looks very diplomatic, gentle, but most likely not revealing the main one, because the words of A.A. Vasilyev about the concluded contracts, improved work, about the lack of earnings in Leningrad are undoubtedly related to the current situation, but they leave something in the shade.

Due to the fact that the archive of A.A. Vasilyeva is in the USA, here we involuntarily enter into the area of ​​assumptions. However, to characterize him as a person, it is extremely important to at least try to answer why A.A. Vasiliev accepted the invitation of M.I. Rostovtsev about his work in Madison and why he ended up staying in the USA. There are few opportunities to judge this, and yet a few subtle, sarcastically ironic remarks in the text of his “History of the Byzantine Empire” (for example, about Slavophilism in the USSR after the Second World War) allow us to assert that the entire ideological and political situation in the USSR was A.A. . Vasiliev is deeply alien. The ease with which A.A. Vasilyev decided to move to America, which is also largely due to the fact that family ties did not hold him back. Judging by the available documents, he had a brother and sister, but he remained single all his life.

Alexander Vasiliev

Byzantium and the Crusaders. Fall of Byzantium

Byzantium and the Crusaders

The Age of the Comneni (1081–1185) and the Angels (1185–1204)

First post:

Vasiliev A. A. History of Byzantium. Byzantium and the Crusaders: The Age of the Komnenos (1081 - 1185) and the Angels (1185 - 1204). Pg., Academia, 1923.

Foreword

In the great medieval movement of the crusades, which entailed a whole series of political, economic, religious and cultural changes both in the West and in the East, which put new demands on the world and opened up unexpected prospects for mankind, Byzantium fell to play the difficult and ungrateful role of a mediator link, which, receiving blows from the east from the ever-increasing Seljuk Turks, at the same time was in mortal danger from the western militias. While for Western Europe the era of the Crusades was the beginning of a new era of its life, for Byzantium the same era marked the beginning of its decline and, as the crusading movements developed, revealed more and more clearly the fatal symptoms of the tragic death of the empire of the Greek basileus.

The crusades were especially hard and acutely reflected on two sides of Byzantine life - political and economic. Politically, the gradually and relatively quickly degenerated idea of ​​crusading enterprises led the crusading hordes to the walls of Constantinople, which passed into the hands of the Latin conquerors. The Byzantine Empire with its center in Constantinople ceased to exist in 1204, and the restoration of Byzantium that emerged from Asia Minor and the recapture of Constantinople from the hands of the Latins in 1261 did not create the former world power in the state of the Palaiologos, but only resulted in the creation of a small, weak "Hellenic" states of local importance.

On the other hand, the economic power and importance of Byzantium, based on the beneficial role of an economic intermediary between the West and the East, have disappeared since the time of the Crusades, since Western Europe and the Muslim East, having come face to face with each other, tied up direct lines, so vital for both trade relations between the parties and the intermediary was no longer needed.

Of great and lively interest is the question of Byzantine culture in general in the era of the Crusades, when social conditions of life, religious interests and tasks, literary trends and trends changed and sometimes took on new forms from the interaction of Byzantine and Western influences.

Having in mind to print a number of separate monographs on various eras of the history of Byzantium, which should cover in general terms the entire course of the history of this state until the moment of its tragic death, in this first essay I set myself the task of acquainting the reader with the external and internal situation of Byzantium in the era of the Crusades. and, if possible, find out the attitude of the eastern empire to the crusades.

I consider it my duty to sincerely thank the Academia publishing house, which gave me the opportunity to print my book in a series of their publications so useful for the cultural life of Russia.

1. Characteristics of the emperors from the house of Komnenos

The revolution of 10811 enthroned Alexios Komnenos, whose uncle, Isaac, had already been emperor for a short time in the late fifties (1057-1059). The Greek surname Komnenos, mentioned in the sources for the first time under Basil II, came from a village in the vicinity of Adrianople. Later, having acquired large estates in Asia Minor, the Komnenos became representatives of large Asia Minor landownership. Both Isaac and his nephew Alexei came to the fore thanks to military talents. In the person of the latter, the military party and provincial large landownership triumphed on the Byzantine throne, and at the same time the time of troubles of the empire ended. The first three Komnenos managed to stay on the throne for a long time and peacefully passed it from father to son.

The energetic and skillful rule of Alexei I (1081 - 1118) honorably brought the state out of a number of severe external dangers that sometimes threatened the very existence of the empire. Long before his death, Alexei appointed his son John as heir, which caused great displeasure to his eldest daughter Anna, the famous author of the Alexiad2, who, being married to Caesar Nicephorus Bryennius, also a historian, drew up a complex plan on how to get John removed from the emperor and appointment of her husband as heir. However, the aged Alexei remained firm in his decision, and after his death, John was proclaimed emperor.

Having ascended the throne, John II (1118 - 1143) had to immediately go through difficult moments: a conspiracy against him was uncovered, headed by his sister Anna and in which his mother was involved. The plot failed. John was very merciful to the guilty, most of whom lost only their property. With his high moral qualities, John Komnenos earned universal respect and received the nickname Kaloioanna (Kaloyana), that is, Good John. Interestingly, in highly appreciated John's moral personality is agreed upon by both Greek and Latin writers. He was, according to Nicetas Choniates3, "the crown of all the kings (κορωνις) who sat on the Roman throne from the Komnenos family." Gibbon, stern in his assessment of Byzantine figures, wrote about this “best and greatest of the Komnenos” that “the philosopher Marcus Aurelius himself would not neglect his artless valor, which flowed from the heart, and not borrowed from schools.” An opponent of unnecessary luxury and excessive extravagance, John left a corresponding imprint on his court, which lived an economical and strict life under him; there were no past entertainments, fun and huge expenses with him. The reign of this gracious, quiet and highly moral sovereign was, as we will see below, almost one continuous military campaign.

The complete opposite of John was his son and successor Manuel I (1143 - 1180). A staunch admirer of the West, a Latinophile, who set himself as an ideal type of a Western knight, striving to comprehend the secrets of astrology, the new emperor immediately completely changed the harsh court environment of his father. Fun, love, receptions, sumptuous festivities, hunting, duels-tournaments arranged according to the Western model - all this spread in a wide wave across Constantinople. Visits to the capital by foreign sovereigns: Conrad III of Germany, Louis VII of France, Kylych-Arslan, Sultan of Iconium, and various Latin princes of the East cost extraordinary money.

An enormous number of Western European immigrants appeared at the Byzantine court, and the most profitable and responsible places in the empire began to pass into their hands. Both times Manuel was married to Western princesses: his first wife was the sister of the wife of the German sovereign Conrad III, Bertha of Sulzbach, renamed Irina in Byzantium; Manuel's second wife was the daughter of the Prince of Antioch, Maria, a Frenchwoman by birth, a wonderful beauty. The entire reign of Manuel was determined by his passion for Western ideals, his unrealizable dream of restoring a unified Roman Empire through the removal of the imperial crown from the German sovereign through the pope, and his willingness to conclude a union with the Western Church. Latin dominance and neglect of native interests caused general displeasure among the people; there was a strong need to change the system. However, Manuel died without seeing the collapse of his policy.

The son and heir of Manuel, Alexei II (1180 - 1183), was barely twelve years old. His mother Mary of Antioch was declared regent. The main power passed into the hands of Manuel's nephew Protosevast5 Alexei Komnenos, the ruler's favorite. The new government sought support in the hated Latin element. Popular irritation therefore grew. Empress Maria, who had been so popular before, began to be looked at as a “foreigner”. The French historian Diehl6 compares the position of Mary with the position in the era of the great French revolution of Marie Antoinette - you, whom the people called the "Austrian".

A strong party was formed against the powerful Proto-Sebast Alexei, headed by Andronicus Komnenos, one of the most curious personalities in the annals of Byzantine history, an interesting type both for the historian and for the novelist. Andronicus, nephew of John II and cousin of Manuel I, belonged to the younger, dethroned line of the Comneni, whose hallmark was an extraordinary energy, sometimes directed in an inappropriate way. This line of Comneni in its third generation gave rise to the sovereigns of the Empire of Trebizond, who are known in history under the name of the dynasty of the Great Komnenos. The “outcast prince” of the 12th century, “the future Richard III of Byzantine history”, in whose soul there was “something similar to the soul of Caesar Borgia”7, “Alcibiades8 of the Middle Byzantine Empire”, Andronicus was “a complete type of Byzantine of the 12th century with all his virtues and vices" 9. Handsome and graceful, an athlete and a warrior, well-educated and charming in communication, especially with women who adored him, frivolous and passionate, a skeptic and, in case of need, a deceiver and an oath-breaker, an ambitious conspirator and intriguer, in old age terrible for his cruelty, Andronicus , according to Dil, was that ingenious nature that could create from him a savior and revivalist of the exhausted Byzantine Empire, for which he, perhaps, lacked a little moral feeling.

Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev

History of the Byzantine Empire. T.2
History of the Byzantine Empire
A.A. Vasiliev

History of the Byzantine Empire.

Time from the Crusades to the Fall of Constantinople (1081–1453)
Chapter 1

Byzantium and the Crusaders. The Age of the Comneni (1081–1185) and the Angels (1185–1204)

Comneni and their foreign policy. Alexei I and foreign policy before the first Crusade. The struggle of the empire with the Turks and Pechenegs. First Crusade and Byzantium. Foreign policy under John II. Foreign Policy of Manuel I and the Second Crusade. Foreign policy under Alexei II and Andronicus I. Foreign policy of the time of the Angels. Attitude towards the Normans and the Turks. Formation of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom. Third Crusade and Byzantium. Henry VI and his Eastern Plans. Fourth Crusade and Byzantium. The internal state of the empire in the era of Komnenos and Angels. Internal management. Enlightenment, science, literature and art.

Komneni and their foreign policy
The revolution of 1081 installed Alexios Komnenos on the throne, whose uncle, Isaac, had already been emperor for a short time in the late fifties (1057–1059).

The Greek surname Komnenos, mentioned in the sources for the first time under Basil II, came from a village in the vicinity of Adrianople. Later, having acquired large estates in Asia Minor, the Komnenos became representatives of large Asia Minor landownership. Both Isaac and his nephew Alexei came to the fore thanks to military talents. In the person of the latter, the military party and the provincial large landownership triumphed on the Byzantine throne, and at the same time the troubled times of the empire ended. The first three Komnenos managed to stay on the throne for a long time and peacefully passed it from father to son.

The energetic and skillful rule of Alexei I (1081-1118) honorably brought the state out of a number of severe external dangers that sometimes threatened the very existence of the empire. Long before his death, Alexei appointed his son John as heir, which caused great displeasure to his eldest daughter Anna, the famous author of the Alexiad, who, being married to Caesar Nicephorus Bryennius, also a historian, drew up a complex plan on how to get John removed from the emperor and appointed her husband's heir. However, the aged Alexei remained firm in his decision, and after his death, John was proclaimed emperor.

Having ascended the throne, John II (1118–1143) had to immediately go through difficult moments: a conspiracy against him was uncovered, headed by his sister Anna and in which his mother was involved. The plot failed. John was very merciful to the guilty, most of whom lost only their property. With his high moral qualities, John Komnenos earned universal respect and received the nickname Kaloioanna (Kaloyana), i.e. Good John. It is interesting that both Greek and Latin writers agree in a high assessment of the moral personality of John. He was, according to Nikita Choniates, "the crown of all the kings (???????) who sat on the Roman throne from the Komnenos family." Severe in assessing Byzantine figures, Gibbon wrote about this "best and greatest of Komnenos" that "the philosopher Marcus Aurelius himself would not neglect his artless valor, which flowed from the heart, and not borrowed from schools."

An opponent of unnecessary luxury and excessive extravagance, John left a corresponding imprint on his court, which lived an economical and strict life under him; there were no past entertainments, fun and huge expenses with him. The reign of this gracious, quiet and highly moral sovereign was, as we will see below, almost one continuous military campaign.

The complete opposite of John was his son and successor Manuel I (1143-1180). A staunch admirer of the West, a Latinophile, who set himself as an ideal type of a Western knight, striving to comprehend the secrets of astrology, the new emperor immediately completely changed the harsh court environment of his father. Fun, love, receptions, sumptuous festivities, hunting, duels-tournaments organized on the Western model - all this spread like a wide wave over Constantinople. Visits to the capital by foreign sovereigns, Conrad III of Germany, Louis VII of France, Kylych-Arslan, Sultan of Iconium, and various Latin princes of the East, cost extraordinary money.

An enormous number of Western European immigrants appeared at the Byzantine court, and the most profitable and responsible places in the empire began to pass into their hands. Both times Manuel was married to Western princesses: his first wife was the sister of the wife of the German sovereign Conrad III, Bertha of Sulzbach, renamed Irina in Byzantium; Manuel's second wife was the daughter of the prince of Antioch, Maria, a Frenchwoman by birth, a wonderful beauty. The entire reign of Manuel was determined by his passion for Western ideals, his unrealizable dream of restoring a unified Roman Empire through the removal of the imperial crown from the German sovereign through the pope, and his willingness to conclude a union with the Western Church. Latin dominance and neglect of native interests caused general displeasure among the people; there was a strong need to change the system. However, Manuel died without seeing the collapse of his policy.

Manuel's son and heir, Alexei II (1180-1183), was barely twelve years old. His mother Mary of Antioch was declared regent. The main power passed into the hands of Manuel's nephew Protosevast Alexei Komnenos, the ruler's favorite. The new government sought support in the hated Latin element. Popular irritation therefore grew. Empress Maria, who had been so popular before, began to be looked at as a “foreigner”. The French historian Diehl compares the position of Mary with the position in the era of the great French revolution of Marie Antoinette, whom the people called the "Austrian".

A strong party was formed against the powerful Proto-Sebast Alexei, headed by Andronicus Komnenos, one of the most curious personalities in the annals of Byzantine history, an interesting type both for the historian and for the novelist. Andronicus, nephew of John II and cousin of Manuel I, belonged to the younger, dethroned line of the Comneni, whose hallmark was an extraordinary energy, sometimes directed in an inappropriate way. This line of Comneni in its third generation gave rise to the sovereigns of the Empire of Trebizond, who are known in history under the name of the dynasty of the Great Komnenos. The “outcast prince” of the 12th century, “the future Richard III of Byzantine history”, in whose soul there was “something similar to the soul of Caesar Borgia”, “Alcibiades of the Middle Byzantine Empire”, Andronicus was “a complete type of Byzantine of the 12th century with all his virtues and vices ". Handsome and graceful, an athlete and a warrior, well-educated and charming in communication, especially with women who adored him, frivolous and passionate, a skeptic and, in case of need, a deceiver and an oath-breaker, an ambitious conspirator and intriguer, in old age terrible for his cruelty, Andronicus , according to Dil, was that ingenious nature that could create from him a savior and revivalist of the exhausted Byzantine Empire, for which he, perhaps, lacked a little moral feeling.

A contemporary source for Andronicus (Nikita Choniates) wrote about him: “Who was born from such a strong rock as to be able not to succumb to the streams of Andronicus’ tears and not be enchanted by the insinuating speeches that he poured out like a dark source.” The same historian in another place compares Andronicus with the "manifold Proteus", an old soothsayer of ancient mythology, known for his transformations.

Being, despite his outward friendship with Manuel, under his suspicion and not finding himself active in Byzantium, Andronicus spent most of Manuel's reign wandering around various countries of Europe and Asia. Being sent first by the emperor to Cilicia, and then to the borders of Hungary, Andronicus, accused of political treason and an attempt on the life of Manuel, was imprisoned in Constantinople, where he spent several years and from where, after a series of extraordinary adventures, he managed to run away to be caught again and imprisoned for a few more years. Having again escaped from prison to the north, Andronik found refuge in Russia, with Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich of Galicia. The Russian chronicle notes under the year 1165: “Brother tsar kur (i.e. kir - lord) Andronik came running from Tsaryagorod to Yaroslav at Galich and Priya and Yaroslav with great love, and Yaroslav gave him several cities for consolation.” According to Byzantine sources, Andronik met Yaroslav with a warm welcome, lived in his house, ate and hunted with him, and even participated in his councils with the boyars. However, the stay of Andronicus at the court of the Galician prince seemed dangerous to Manuel, since the restless relative of the latter was already entering into relations with Hungary, with which Byzantium was at war. Manuel in such circumstances decided to forgive Andronicus, who "with great honor", according to the Russian chronicle, was released by Yaroslav from Galicia to Constantinople.

Having taken control of Cilicia, Andronicus did not stay long in the new place. Through Antioch, he arrived in Palestine, where he had a serious affair with Theodora, a relative of Manuel and the widow of the King of Jerusalem. The enraged emperor gave the order to blind Andronicus, who, having been warned of the danger in time, fled abroad with Theodora and wandered around Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia for several years, spending some time even in distant Iberia (Georgia).

Finally, Manuel's envoys succeeded in capturing Theodora, passionately loved by Andronicus, with their children, after which he himself, unable to bear this loss, asked the emperor for forgiveness. Forgiveness was given, and Andronicus brought Manuel complete repentance for the deeds of his past, stormy life. The appointment of Andronicus as the ruler of the Asia Minor region of Pontus, on the Black Sea coast, was, as it were, an honorable expulsion of a dangerous relative. At this time, namely in 1180, as is known, Manuel died, after whom his young son Alexei II became emperor. Andronicus was then already sixty years old.

Such was the main outline of the biography of the person on whom the population of the capital, irritated by the Latinophile policy of the ruler Mary of Antioch and her favorite Alexios Komnenos, pinned all their hopes. Very skillfully presenting himself as a defender of the trampled rights of the young Alexei II, who fell into the hands of evil rulers, and a friend of the Romans (???????????), ?ndronicus managed to attract the hearts of the exhausted population that idolized him. According to one contemporary (Eustace of Thessalonica), Andronicus "was dearer to most of God himself" or, at least, "immediately followed Him."

Having prepared the proper situation in the capital, Andronicus moved towards Constantinople. At the news of the movement of Andronicus, the large metropolitan crowd gave vent to its hatred towards the Latins: it furiously attacked the Latin dwellings and began beating the Latins, without distinguishing between sex and age; the intoxicated crowd smashed not only private houses, but also Latin churches and charitable institutions; in one hospital, the sick lying in their beds were killed; the papal ambassador was decapitated after being scolded; many Latins were sold into slavery in Turkish markets. This massacre of the Latins in 1182, according to F. I. Uspensky, “indeed, if not sown, then watered the seed of fanatical enmity of the West towards the East.” The almighty ruler Alexei Komnenos was imprisoned and blinded. After that, Andronicus made a solemn entry into the capital. To strengthen his position, he began to gradually destroy Manuel's relatives and ordered the empress mother Mary of Antioch to be strangled. Then, having forced himself to be proclaimed co-emperor and giving, with the jubilation of the people, a solemn promise to protect the life of Emperor Alexei, a few days later he gave the order to secretly strangle him. After that, in 1183, Andronicus, sixty-three years old, became the sovereign emperor of the Romans.

Appearing on the throne with tasks, which will be discussed below, Andronicus could maintain his power only through terror and unheard of cruelties, to which all the attention of the emperor was directed. In external affairs, he showed neither strength nor initiative. The mood of the people changed not in favor of Andronicus; discontent grew. In 1185 a revolution broke out, enthroning Isaac the Angel. Andronicus' attempt to escape failed. He was subjected to terrible torments and insults, which he endured with extraordinary stamina. During his inhuman suffering, he only repeated: “Lord, have mercy! Why are you crushing a broken reed?" The new emperor did not allow the torn remains of Andronicus to be honored with at least some kind of burial. With such a tragedy, the last glorious dynasty of the Komnenos on the Byzantine throne ended its existence.
Alexei I and foreign policy before the first Crusade
According to Anna Komnena, the educated and literary gifted daughter of the new emperor Alexei, the latter, in the first time after his accession to the throne, due to the Turkish danger from the east and the Norman from the west, "noted that his kingdom was in its death throes." Indeed, the external position of the empire was very difficult and over the years became even more difficult and difficult.

norman war
The Duke of Apulia, Robert Guiscard, having finished with the conquest of the Byzantine southern Italian possessions, had much broader plans. Wanting to strike at the very heart of Byzantium, he transferred military operations to the Adriatic coast of the Balkan Peninsula. Leaving the administration of Apulia to his eldest son Roger, Robert with his youngest son Boemund, later a famous figure in the first Crusade, having already a significant fleet, set out on a campaign against Alexei, having the immediate goal of the seaside city in Illyria Dyrrhachium (the former Epidamnus; in Slavic Drach; now Durazzo ). Dyrrhachium, the main city of the eponymous theme-dukat formed under Basil II the Bulgar-slayer, i.e. the area with the duka at the head of administration, beautifully fortified, was rightly considered the key to the empire in the west. From Dyrrhachium, the famous military road Egnatius (via Egnatia), built back in Roman times, began, going to Thessalonica and further east to Constantinople. Therefore, it is quite natural that the main attention was directed by Robert to this point. This expedition was "a prelude to the Crusades and a preparation for Frankish domination in Greece". "Robert Guiscard's Pre-Crusade was his very big war against Alexei Komnenos.

Alexei Comnenus, feeling the impossibility of coping with the Norman danger on his own, turned to the West for help, among other things, to the German sovereign Henry IV. But the latter, experiencing at that time difficulties within the state and not having yet completed his struggle with Pope Gregory VII, could not be useful to the Byzantine emperor. Venice responded to the call of Alexei, pursuing, of course, its own goals and interests. The Emperor promised the Republic of St. Mark for the assistance provided by the fleet, which Byzantium had little, extensive trading privileges, which will be discussed below. It was in the interests of Venice to help the eastern emperor against the Normans, who, if successful, could seize trade routes with Byzantium and the East, i.e. seize what the Venetians hoped to get their hands on in time. In addition, there was an immediate danger for Venice: the Normans, who had taken possession of the Ionian Islands, especially Corfu and Kefalonia, and the western coast of the Balkan Peninsula, would have closed the Adriatic Sea to Venetian ships.

The Normans, having conquered the island of Corfu, laid siege to Dyrrhachium by land and sea. Although the approaching Venetian ships liberated the besieged city from the sea, the land army that arrived led by Alexei, which included Macedonian Slavs, Turks, the Varangian-English squad and some other nationalities, suffered a severe defeat. At the beginning of 1082, Dyrrhachius opened the gates to Robert. However, this time an uprising broke out in southern Italy, forcing Robert to withdraw from the Balkan Peninsula, where the remaining Boemund, after several successes, was finally defeated. The new campaign undertaken by Robert against Byzantium also ended in failure. Some kind of epidemic opened up among his troops, the victim of which was Robert Guiscard himself, who died in 1085 on the island of Kefalonia, which is still reminded by its name of a small bay and a village at the northern tip of the island of Fiskardo (Guiscardo, from the nickname of Robert " Guiscard" - Guiscard). With the death of Robert, the Norman invasion of Byzantine territory ceased, and Dyrrachium again passed to the Greeks.

This shows that the offensive policy of Robert Guiscard in the Balkans failed. But on the other hand, the question of the southern Italian possessions of Byzantium was finally resolved under him. Robert founded the Italian state of the Normans, since he was the first to combine into one whole the various counties founded by his fellow tribesmen, and to form the Duchy of Apulia, which survived its brilliant period under him. The decline of the duchy following the death of Robert lasted for about fifty years, when the founding of the Sicilian kingdom opened a new era in the history of the Italian Normans. However, Robert Guiscard, according to Chalandon, “opened a new road for the ambition of his descendants: since then, the Italian Normans will turn their eyes to the east: at the expense of the Greek empire, Bohemond, twelve years later, will decide to create a principality for himself.”

Venice, which provided assistance with the fleet to Alexei Comnenus, received from the emperor enormous trading privileges, which created for the republic of St. The brand is absolutely exceptional. In addition to magnificent gifts to the Venetian churches and honorary titles with a certain content to the doge and the Venetian patriarch and their successors, the imperial charter of Alexei, or chrisovul, as the charters with the golden imperial seal were called in Byzantium, provided Venetian merchants with the right to buy and sell throughout the empire and freed them from any customs, port and other trade-related fees; Byzantine officials could not inspect their goods. In the capital itself, the Venetians received a whole quarter with numerous shops and barns and three marinas, which were called in the East rocks (maritimas tres scalas), where Venetian ships could freely load and unload. Chrysovul Alexei gives a curious list of the most important commercially Byzantine points, seaside and inland, open to Venice, northern Syria, Asia Minor, the Balkan Peninsula and Greece, on the islands, ending with Constantinople, which in the document is called Megalopolis, i.e. Great city. In turn, the Venetians promised to be loyal subjects of the empire.

The privileges granted to the Venetian merchants put them in a more favorable position than the Byzantines themselves. Christobulus Alexei Komnenos laid a firm foundation for the colonial power of Venice in the East and created such conditions for her economic predominance in Byzantium, which, it seemed, should have made it impossible for a long time the emergence of other competitors in this area. However, these same exclusive economic privileges granted to Venice subsequently, under changed circumstances, served as one of the reasons for the political clashes between the Eastern Empire and the Republic of St. Brand.
The struggle of the empire with the Turks and Pechenegs
Turkish danger from the east and north, i.e. on the part of the Seljuks and Pechenegs, so formidable under the predecessors of Alexei Komnenos, became even more intensified and aggravated under him. If the victory over the Normans and the death of Guiscard allowed Alexei to return Byzantine territory in the west to the Adriatic coast, then on other borders, thanks to the attacks of the Turks and Pechenegs, the empire was significantly reduced in size. Anna Komnena writes that "at the time in question, the eastern border of Roman rule was formed by the neighboring Bosporus, the western by Adrianople."

It seemed that in Asia Minor, almost completely conquered by the Seljuks, the circumstances were favorable for the empire, since among the Turkish rulers (emirs) of Asia Minor there was an internecine struggle for power, which weakened the Turkish forces and brought the country into a state of anarchy. But Alexei could not direct all his attention to the fight against the Turks in view of the attacks on the empire from the north of the Pechenegs.

The latter, in their actions against Byzantium, found allies within the empire in the person of the Paulicians who lived on the Balkan Peninsula. The Paulicians were an Eastern dualistic religious sect, one of the main branches of Manichaeism, founded in the 3rd century by Paul of Samosata and reformed in the 7th century. Living in Asia Minor, on the eastern border of the empire, and firmly defending their faith, they were at the same time excellent warriors who caused a lot of trouble to the Byzantine government. As you know, one of the favorite methods of the Byzantine government was the resettlement of various nationalities from one area to another, for example, the Slavs to Asia Minor, and the Armenians to the Balkan Peninsula. A similar fate befell the Paulicians, who were resettled in large numbers from the eastern border to Thrace in the 8th century by Constantine V Copronymus and in the 10th century by John Tzimiskes. The city of Philippopolis became the center of Paulicianism on the Balkan Peninsula. By settling an eastern colony in the vicinity of this city, Tzimiskes, on the one hand, succeeded in removing stubborn sectarians from their fortified cities and castles on the eastern frontier, where they were difficult to deal with; and on the other hand, he expected that on the site of the new settlement, the Paulicians would serve as a strong bulwark against the frequent attacks on Thrace by the northern "Scythian" barbarians. In the 10th century, Paulicianism spread throughout Bulgaria thanks to the reformer of this doctrine, priest Bogomil, after whom Byzantine writers call his followers Bogomils. Bogomilism later moved from Bulgaria to Serbia and Bosnia, and then to Western Europe, where the followers of the Eastern dualistic teachings had various names: Patareni in Italy, Cathars in Germany and Italy, Poblicans (i.e. Paulicians) and Albigensians in France, etc. .d.

The Byzantine government, however, was mistaken in its calculations on the role of the eastern sectarians settled on the Balkan Peninsula. First, it did not anticipate the possibility of a rapid and widespread spread of heresy, which actually happened. Secondly, Bogomilism became the spokesman for the national Slavic and political opposition against the heavy Byzantine administration in the ecclesiastical and secular areas, especially within Bulgaria conquered under Basil II. Therefore, instead of defending the Byzantine borders from the northern barbarians, the Bogomils called on the Pechenegs to fight against Byzantium. The Cumans (Polovtsy) joined the Pechenegs.

The struggle against the Pechenegs, despite temporary successes, was very difficult for Byzantium. At the end of the eighties, Alexei Komnenos suffered a terrible defeat at Drystra (Silistria), on the lower Danube, and he himself barely escaped captivity. Only discord over the division of booty that arose between the Pechenegs and Cumans did not allow the former to fully use their victory this time.

After a short rest, bought from the Pechenegs, Byzantium had to endure the terrible time of 1090-1091. The Pechenegs, who invaded again, after a stubborn struggle, reached the walls of Constantinople. Anna Komnena says that on the day of the celebration of the memory of the martyr Theodore Tyron, the inhabitants of the capital, who usually visited in huge numbers the temple of the martyr located in the suburbs outside the city wall, could not do this in 1091, since it was impossible to open the city gates because of the Pechenegs.

The position of the empire became even more critical when the Turkish pirate Chakha began to threaten the capital from the south. Having captured Smyrna and some other cities on the western coast of Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegean Sea with the help of the fleet he created, Chakha decided to strike Constantinople from the sea, thus cutting off his way to food. But wishing that the blow he had planned was more real, he entered into relations with the Pechenegs in the north and with the Seljuks of Asia Minor in the east. Confident in the success of his enterprise, Chakha already called himself emperor (basileus) in advance, adorned himself with signs of imperial dignity and dreamed of making Constantinople the center of his state. We must not lose sight of the fact that both the Pechenegs and the Seljuks were Turks who, thanks to intercourse, came to the consciousness of their kinship. In the person of Chakha, an enemy appeared for Byzantium, who, according to V. G. Vasilevsky, “with the enterprising courage of a barbarian, combined the subtlety of Byzantine education and excellent knowledge of all the political relations of the then Eastern Europe, who planned to become the soul of the general Turkish movement, who wanted and could give senseless Pecheneg wanderings and robberies, a reasonable and definite goal and general plan. It seemed that the Turkish Seljuk-Pecheneg kingdom was to be founded on the ruins of the Eastern Empire. The Byzantine Empire, in the words of the same V. G. Vasilevsky, "drowned in the Turkish attack." Another Russian Byzantinist, F.I. Uspensky, writes about this moment as follows: “The position of Alexei Komnenos in the winter of 1090-1091 can only be compared with the last years of the empire, when the Ottoman Turks surrounded Constantinople from all sides and cut it off from external relations” .

Alexei understood the horror of the state of the empire and, following the usual Byzantine diplomatic tactics of setting some barbarians against others, turned to the Polovtsian khans, these “allies of despair”, whom he asked to help him against the Pechenegs. The wild and stern Polovtsian khans, Tugorkan and Bonyak, well-known in the Russian chronicle, were invited to Constantinople, where they met with the most flattering welcome and received a sumptuous meal. The Byzantine emperor humbly asked for help from the barbarians, who behaved familiarly with the emperor. Having given Alexei his word, the Polovtsians kept it. On April 29, 1091, a bloody battle took place, in which the Russians probably participated along with the Polovtsy. The Pechenegs were defeated and mercilessly exterminated. On this occasion, Anna Komnena remarks: “One could see an extraordinary spectacle: an entire people, considered not tens of thousands, but exceeding any number, with wives and children, completely died on that day.” The battle just mentioned was reflected in the then composed Byzantine song: “Because of one day, the Scythians (as Anna Komnena calls the Pechenegs) did not see May.”

With their intervention in favor of Byzantium, the Polovtsy rendered a tremendous service to the Christian world. “Their leaders,” according to the historian, “Bonyak and Tugorkan, should rightly be called the saviors of the Byzantine Empire.”

Alexei triumphantly returned to the capital. Only a small part of the captured Pechenegs was not killed, and these remnants of such a terrible horde were settled east of the Vardara River and later entered the ranks of the Byzantine army, where they constituted a special branch of the army. The Pechenegs, who managed to escape from extermination beyond the Balkans, were so weakened that for thirty years they did nothing in Byzantium.

Chakha, terrible for Byzantium, who did not have time to help the Pechenegs with his fleet, lost part of his conquests in a collision with Greek naval forces. And then the emperor managed to excite the Nicene sultan against him, who, having invited Chakha to a feast, personally killed him, after which he entered into a peace agreement with Alexei. Thus, for Byzantium, the critical situation of 1091 was happily resolved, and the next year, 1092, was already flowing for the empire in a completely changed situation.

In the terrible days of 1091, Alexei was looking for allies not only in the person of the barbarian Polovtsy, but also among the people of the Latin West. Anna Comnena writes: "He made every effort to summon a mercenary army from everywhere by letters." That such messages were sent to the West is evident from another passage by the same author, who writes that Alexei soon received "a mercenary army from Rome."

In connection with the events described, historians analyze the message of Alexei Comnenus, usually known in literature, to his old acquaintance, who had traveled a few years before from the Holy Land through Constantinople, Count Robert of Flanders. In this message, the emperor draws the desperate situation of “the most holy empire of Greek Christians, greatly oppressed by the Pechenegs and Turks”, speaks of the murders and desecration of Christians, children, youths, wives and virgins, that almost the entire territory of the empire is already occupied by enemies; “Almost only Constantinople remains, which the enemies threaten to take away from us in the near future, if the quick help of God and faithful Latin Christians does not arrive in time for us”; the emperor "runs in the face of the Turks and Pechenegs" from one city to another and prefers to give Constantinople into the hands of the Latins than the pagans. The epistle, to arouse the jealousy of the Latins, enumerates a long line of shrines kept in the capital, and recalls the countless riches and jewels accumulated in it. “So, hasten with all your people, strain all your strength to ensure that such treasures do not fall into the hands of the Turks and Pechenegs ... Act while you have time so that the Christian kingdom and, more importantly, the Holy Sepulcher are not lost to you and so that you may receive not condemnation, but a reward in heaven. Amen!"

V. G. Vasilyevsky, who attributed this message to 1091, wrote: “In 1091, a direct cry of despair reached Western Europe from the shores of the Bosphorus, a real cry of a drowning man who can no longer distinguish whether a friendly or hostile hand will be extended to save him. The Byzantine emperor now did not hesitate to open before the eyes of strangers all that abyss of shame, disgrace and humiliation into which the empire of Greek Christians had been cast down.

This document, depicting in such vivid colors the critical situation of Byzantium around 1090, has caused a whole literature. The fact is that it has come down to us only in the Latin edition. The opinions of scientists are divided: while some scientists, and among them Russian scientists V. G. Vasilevsky and F. I. Uspensky, consider the message to be genuine, others (from the newer ones - the Frenchman Rian) consider it to be fake. The latest historians who have dealt with this issue are inclined, with some limitations, to the authenticity of the epistle, i.e. recognize the existence of the original message addressed by Alexei Comnenus to Robert of Flanders, which has not come down to us. The French historian Chalandon admits that the middle part of the epistle was composed using the original letter; the Latin message that has come down to us as a whole was compiled by someone in the West to excite the crusaders shortly before the first campaign (in the form of an excitatorium, that is, an encouraging message). In essential terms, agrees with the opinion of V. G. Vasilevsky regarding the authenticity of the message and the later publisher and researcher of the latter, the German scientist Hagenmeyer. In 1924, B. Leib wrote that this letter was nothing more than an exaggeration (amplification) made shortly after the Council of Clermont on the basis of an indisputably genuine message that the emperor sent to Robert in order to remind him of the promised reinforcements. Finally, in 1928, L. Breyet wrote: “Perhaps, if we follow Chalandon's hypothesis, that, having arrived in Flanders, Robert forgot about his promises. Alexei then sent him an embassy and a letter with a text, of course, completely different from the one that has come down to us. As for this apocryphal letter, it could have been compiled with the help of an authentic one, at the time of the siege of Antioch, in 1098, in order to ask for support in the West. Alexei's letter, therefore, has nothing to do with the prehistory of the Crusade. In his history of the first Crusade X. Siebel considered Alexei's letter to Robert of Flanders as an official documentary source related to the Crusade.

I dwelled a little more on the question of the message of Alexios Komnenos to Robert of Flanders, since it is connected in part with the important question of whether the emperor called the West to the Crusade or not, which will be discussed below. In any case, based on the exact indication of the contemporary Anna Komnina that Alexei sent messages to the West, we can also recognize the fact that he sent a message to Robert of Flanders, which formed the basis of the decorated Latin text that has come down to us. It is very likely that this message of Alexei was sent precisely in the year 1091, which was critical for Byzantium. It is also quite possible that in 1088-1089. the emperor's message was sent to the Croatian king Zvonimir with a request to take part in the struggle of Alexei "against the pagans and infidels."

Success against external enemies was accompanied by the same success against internal enemies. Conspirators and pretenders who wanted to take advantage of the state's predicament were exposed and punished.

Even before the time of the first Crusade, in addition to the above-mentioned peoples, under Alexei Komnenos, Serbs and Magyars began to play a certain role. In the second half of the 11th century, Serbia achieved independence, which was formalized by the adoption of the title of king (king) by the Serbian prince. It was the first Serbian kingdom with its capital in Shkodra (Shkoder, Skadar, Scutari). The Serbs participated in the army of Alexei during the war already known to us with the Normans, but left the emperor at a dangerous moment. After the return of Byzantium from the Normans, Dyrrachius, Alexei and Serbia began hostile actions, which, in view of the already described difficult conditions for the empire, could not be particularly successful for the emperor. However, shortly before the Crusade, peace was concluded between the Serbs and the empire.

Relations with Hungary (Ugria), which even earlier took an active part in the Bulgarian-Byzantine struggle of the 10th century under Simeon, also became somewhat more complicated during the time of Alexei Komnenos due to the fact that at the end of the 11th century, continental Hungary, under the sovereigns of the Arpad dynasty, began to strive south to to the sea, namely to the coast of Dalmatia, which caused discontent both from Venice and from Byzantium.

So, by the time of the first Crusade, the international policy of the empire had greatly grown and become more complex and set new tasks for the state.

However, by the mid-nineties of the 11th century, Alexei Komnenos, who had freed himself from the numerous dangers that threatened the empire and, it seemed, had created conditions for a peaceful life for the state, could gradually gather strength to fight the eastern Seljuks. For this purpose, the emperor undertook a series of defensive works.

But at this time, Alexei Komnenos heard about the approach of the first crusader detachments to the borders of his state. The first Crusade began, which changed the plans of Alexei and directed him and the empire along a new path that later became fatal for Byzantium.
First Crusade and Byzantium
The era of the Crusades is one of the most important in world history, especially in terms of economic history and culture in general. For a long time, religious problems obscured other aspects of this complex and heterogeneous movement. The first country where the significance of the Crusades was fully realized was France, where in 1806 the French Academy and then the National Institute established a special prize for best work on the topic: "On the influence of the crusades on the civil freedom of the European peoples, their civilization and the progress of science, trade and industry." Of course, in early XIX century it was still premature to discuss this problem comprehensively. It still hasn't been resolved yet. However, it is important to note that from that moment on, the Crusades were no longer spoken of exclusively from a religious point of view. Two works were awarded by the French Academy in 1808. One of them is the study of the German scientist A. Heeren (A. Heeren), published simultaneously in German and French under the title "Study on the Impact of the Crusades on Europe", and the work of the French author Choiseul-Delcour - "On the Impact of the Crusades on the State of European peoples." Although both are outdated from a modern point of view, these books are of interest, especially the first.

The Crusades were, of course, the most important epoch in the history of the struggle between the two world religions - Christianity and Islam - a struggle that has dragged on since the seventh century. Not only religious motives played a role in this historical process. Already in the first Crusade, which most strongly reflected the idea of ​​a crusading movement for the liberation of holy places from the hands of the infidels, one can note worldly goals and earthly interests. "Among the knights there were two parties - the party of religious-minded (the religiousminded) and the party of politicians." Quoting these words of the German scientist B. Kugler, the French scientist F. Chalandon adds: "This statement of Kugler is absolutely true." However, the more closely historians study the internal conditions of life in Western Europe in the 11th century, in particular economic development Italian cities of this time, the more they are convinced that economic phenomena also played a very significant role in the preparation and conduct of the first Crusade. With each new Crusade, this worldly stream made its way into them more and more strongly in order to finally win a final victory over the original idea of ​​\u200b\u200bmovement during the Fourth Crusade, when the crusaders took Constantinople and founded the Latin Empire.

Byzantium played such an important role in this era that the study of the Eastern Empire is absolutely necessary for a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of both the genesis and the very course of the development of the Crusades. Moreover, most researchers who have studied the Crusades viewed the problem from an overly "Western" perspective, with a tendency to make the Greek Empire "the scapegoat for all the mistakes of the crusaders".

Since their first appearance on the arena of world history in the thirties of the 7th century, the Arabs, as is known, conquered Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, the eastern regions of Asia Minor, the Caucasian countries, Egypt, the northern coast of Africa, and Spain with amazing speed. In the second half of the 7th century and at the beginning of the 8th century, they twice besieged Constantinople, from which they were both times not without difficulty recaptured thanks to the energy and talents of the emperors Constantine IV Pogonatus and Leo III the Isaurian. In 732, the Arabs who invaded Gaul from the Pyrenees were stopped by Charles Martel at Poitiers. In the 9th century, the Arabs conquered the island of Crete, and by the beginning of the 10th century, the island of Sicily and most of the southern Italian possessions of Byzantium had passed into their hands.

These Arab conquests were of great importance for the political and economic situation in Europe. As A. Pirenne said, “the lightning advance of the Arabs changed the face of the world. Their sudden invasion destroyed ancient Europe. It put an end to the Mediterranean union, which constituted its strength ... The Mediterranean Sea was a Roman lake. It has become largely a Muslim lake.” This statement of the Belgian historian must be accepted with some reservations. Economic ties between Western Europe and Eastern countries were limited to Muslims, but not interrupted. Merchants and pilgrims continued to travel in both directions and exotic oriental products were available in Europe, for example in Gaul.

Initially, Islam was characterized by tolerance. Separate cases of attacks on Christian churches, which for the most part did not have a religious lining, happened in the 10th century; but such deplorable facts were only accidental and transient. In the areas conquered from Christians, they, for the most part, preserved churches, Christian worship and did not create obstacles for the affairs of Christian charity. In the era of Charlemagne, at the beginning of the 9th century, new churches and monasteries were restored and built in Palestine, for which Charles sent abundant "alms"; Libraries were set up in churches. Pilgrims freely traveled to holy places. This relationship between the Frankish empire of Charlemagne and Palestine, in connection with the exchange of several embassies between the Western monarch and the caliph Harun al-Rashid, led to the conclusion, supported by some scholars, that a kind of Frankish protectorate was established in Palestine under Charlemagne - insofar as Christian interests in the Holy Land were affected; the political power of the caliph in this country remained unchanged. On the other hand, another group of historians, while denying the importance of this relationship, say that the protectorate never existed and that "it is a myth, like the legend of Charles's crusade into Palestine." The title of one of the latest articles on this subject is "The Legend of Charles' Protectorate in the Holy Land." The term "Frankish protectorate", like many others, is conditional and rather vague. The important thing here is that from the beginning of the 9th century the Frankish Empire had very extensive interests in Palestine. This was a very important fact for the subsequent development of international relations that preceded the Crusades.

In the second half of the 10th century, the brilliant victories of Byzantine arms under Nikephoros Fokas and John Tzimisces over the Eastern Arabs made Aleppo and Antioch vassal states of the empire, and after that the Byzantine army may have entered Palestine. These military successes of Byzantium had their response (repercussion) in Jerusalem, so that as a result, the French historian L. Breuille considered it possible to speak of a Byzantine protectorate in the Holy Land, which put an end to the Frankish protectorate.

The passage of Palestine in the second half of the 10th century (969) under the rule of the Egyptian Fatimid dynasty, apparently, did not at first introduce any significant change in the favorable position of Eastern Christians and in the safety of visiting pilgrims. However, things changed in the 11th century. From this time for our question it is necessary to note two important facts. The mad Fatimid caliph al-Hakim, this “Egyptian Nero”, opened a cruel persecution of Christians and Jews throughout the entire space of his possessions. At his command, in 1009 the Church of the Resurrection and Golgotha ​​in Jerusalem were destroyed. In his fury at the destruction of churches, he stopped only because he feared a similar fate for mosques in Christian areas.

When L. Breyet wrote about the Byzantine protectorate in the Holy Land, he had in mind the statement of the eleventh-century Arab historian Yahya of Antioch. The latter relates that in 1012 a leader of the nomads rebelled against the Caliph, seized Syria and obliged the Christians to rebuild the Church of the Nativity in Jerusalem, and named one bishop of his choice Patriarch of Jerusalem. Then this Bedouin "helped this patriarch rebuild the Church of the Nativity and restored many places, to the best of his ability." Analyzing this text, W. R. Rosen noted that the Bedouin acted in this way "perhaps in order to win the favor of the Greek emperor." L. Breuille attributed Rosen's hypothesis to Yahya's text. Under these conditions, it is impossible with such confidence, as does L. Breuillet, to assert the truth of the theory of the Byzantine protectorate over Palestine.

However, in any case, only at the beginning of the restoration in the Holy Land, after the death of al-Hakim in 1021, did the time of tolerance come for Christians. Peace was concluded between Byzantium and the Fatimids, and the Byzantine emperors were given the opportunity to begin the restoration of the Church of the Resurrection, the construction of which was completed in the middle of the 11th century under Emperor Constantine Monomakh. The Christian quarter was surrounded by a strong wall. Pilgrims after the death of al-Hakim again received free access to the Holy Land, and sources during this time note among other persons one of the most famous pilgrims, namely Robert the Devil, Duke of Normandy, who died in Nicaea in 1035, on the way from Jerusalem . Perhaps at the same time, that is, in the thirties of the XI century, came to Jerusalem with the Scandinavian squad, who came with him from the north, and the famous Varangian of that era, Harald Gardrad, who fought against the Muslims in Syria and Asia Minor. The persecution of Christians soon resumed. In 1056 the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was closed and more than three hundred Christians were expelled from Jerusalem. The Church of the Resurrection was apparently rebuilt after the destruction with due splendor, as evidenced, for example, by the Russian pilgrim hegumen Daniel, who visited Palestine in the early years of the 12th century, i.e. in the early days of the existence of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, founded in 1099, after the first Crusade. Daniel lists the columns of the temple, speaks of a marble field and six doors, and gives interesting information about the mosaics. In him, we find reports of many churches, shrines and places in Palestine associated with New Testament memories. According to Daniel and the contemporary Anglo-Saxon pilgrim Zevulf, the “filthy Saracens” (i.e. Arabs) were unpleasant because they hid in the mountains and caves, sometimes attacked pilgrims passing along the roads for the purpose of robbery. "The Saracens have always set a trap for the Christians, hiding in the mountain valleys and caves of the rocks, guarding day and night for those whom they might attack."

Muslim tolerance towards Christians also manifested itself in the West. When, for example, at the end of the 11th century, the Spaniards took the city of Toledo from the Arabs, they, to their surprise, found Christian churches in the city untouched and learned that worship was performed without hindrance in them. At the same time, when, at the end of the same 11th century, the Normans conquered Sicily from the Muslims, they, despite more than two centuries of domination of the latter on the island, found on it a huge number of Christians who freely professed their faith. So, the first event of the 11th century that had a painful response in the Christian West was the destruction of the Church of the Resurrection and Golgotha ​​in 1009. Another event related to the Holy Land took place in the second half of the 11th century.

The Seljuk Turks, after they defeated the Byzantine troops at Manzikert in 1071, founded the Rumian, otherwise Iconic, Sultanate in Asia Minor and then began to successfully advance in all directions. Their military successes had an echo in Jerusalem: in 1070, the Turkish commander Atzig went to Palestine and captured Jerusalem. Shortly thereafter, the city revolted, so that Atzig was forced to begin the siege of the city again. Jerusalem was taken a second time and subjected to a terrible sack. Then the Turks captured Antioch in Syria, settled in Nicaea, Cyzicus and Smyrna in Asia Minor and occupied the islands of Chios, Lesbos, Samos and Rhodes. Conditions for the stay of European pilgrims in Jerusalem have deteriorated. Even if the persecution and oppression attributed to the Turks by many researchers are exaggerated, it is very difficult to agree with the opinion of W. Ramsay about the softness of the Turks towards Christians: “The Seljuk sultans ruled their Christian subjects in a very mild and tolerant manner, and even with prejudice, historians of Byzantium, regarding them, allowed themselves only a few hints about Christians, who in many cases preferred the power of sultans to the power of emperors ... Christians under the rule of the Seljukids were happier than in the heart of the Byzantine Empire. The most unfortunate of all were the Byzantine border regions, which were subjected to constant attacks. As for religious persecution, there is not a single trace of them in the Seljuk period.”

Thus, the destruction of the Church of the Resurrection in 1009 and the passing of Jerusalem into the hands of the Turks in 1078 were the two facts that deeply affected the religiously inclined masses of Western Europe and aroused in them a strong outburst of religious inspiration. It finally became clear to many that in the event of the death of Byzantium under the onslaught of the Turks, the entire Christian West would be in terrible danger. “After so many centuries of horror and devastation,” wrote the French historian, “will the Mediterranean fall again under the pressure of the barbarians? Such is the painful question that arose by 1075. Western Europe, slowly rebuilt in the 11th century, will take upon itself the burden of responding to it: it is preparing to respond to the mass offensive of the Turks with a crusade.

The immediate danger from the ever-increasing strengthening of the Turks was experienced by the Byzantine emperors, who, after the defeat of Manzikert, as it seemed to them, could no longer cope with the Turks on their own. Their eyes were directed to the West, mainly to the pope, who, as the spiritual head of the Western European world, could by his influence induce the Western European peoples to provide all possible assistance to Byzantium. Sometimes, as we have already seen in the example of the appeal of Alexei Comnenus to Count Robert of Flanders, emperors also addressed individual secular rulers in the West. Alexey, however, had in mind a number of auxiliary forces rather than powerful and well-organized armies.

The popes reacted very sympathetically to the appeals of the eastern basileus. In addition to the purely ideological side of the matter, namely, helping Byzantium, and with it the entire Christian world, and liberating holy places from the hands of the infidels, the popes, of course, also had in mind the interests of the Catholic Church in the sense of further strengthening, if the enterprise was successful, papal power and the possibility of the return of the Eastern Church to the bosom of the Catholic Church. The church rupture of 1054 could not be forgotten by the popes. The initial idea of ​​the Byzantine sovereigns to receive from the West only auxiliary mercenary detachments subsequently turned, gradually, mainly under the influence of papal preaching, into the idea of ​​a crusade of Western Europe to the East, i.e. about the mass movement of the Western European peoples with their sovereigns and the most prominent military leaders.

Back in the second half of the 19th century, scientists believed that the first idea of ​​​​the crusades and the first call for them came at the end of the 10th century from the pen of the famous Herbert, who was pope under the name Sylvester II. But at present, in this epistle "From the face of the ruined Jerusalem Church to the Church of the Ecumenical", which is in the collection of Herbert's letters, where the Church of Jerusalem appeals to the Ecumenical with a request to come to her aid with her generosity, the best experts on the question of Herbert see, firstly, Herbert's original work, written by him before the time of the papacy, contrary to the opinion of some about the later falsification of the epistle, and, secondly, they see in it not a project for a crusade, but a simple circular epistle to the faithful to encourage them to send alms to maintain the Christian institutions of Jerusalem . We must not forget that at the end of the 10th century the situation of Christians in Palestine did not yet give any grounds for a crusade.

Even before the Komnenos, under the threat of the Seljuk and Ouzo-Pecheneg danger, Emperor Michael VII Duka Parapinak addressed a message to Pope Gregory VII, asking him for help and promising the last connection of the churches. The Pope sent a number of messages exhorting him to help the dying empire. In a letter to the Count of Burgundy, he wrote: “We hope ... that, after the submission of the Normans, we will cross over to Constantinople to help the Christians, who, being greatly depressed by the frequent attacks of the Saracens, eagerly ask us to extend a helping hand to them.” In another letter, Gregory VII mentions "the miserable fate of such a great empire". In a letter to the German sovereign Henry IV, the pope wrote that “the majority of overseas Christians are exterminated by the pagans in an unheard of defeat and beaten daily like cattle, and that the Christian race is destroyed”; they humbly beg us for help, “so that the Christian faith in our time, which God forbid, does not perish completely”; obedient to papal conviction, the Italians and other Europeans (ultramontani) are already preparing an army of more than 50,000 people and, putting the pope at the head of the expedition, if possible, want to rise up against the enemies of God and reach the Holy Sepulcher. “To this matter,” the pope writes further, “I am also particularly motivated by the fact that the Church of Constantinople, which does not agree with us regarding the Holy Spirit, strives for agreement with the apostolic see.”

As you can see, these letters are far from talking only about a crusade to liberate the Holy Land. Gregory VII drew up a plan for an expedition to Constantinople to save Byzantium, the main defender of Christianity in the East. The help brought by the Pope was conditional on the reunification of the churches, the return to the bosom of the Catholic Church of the “schismatic” Eastern Church. One gets the impression that the above letters deal more with the defense of Constantinople than with the recapture of the holy places, especially since all these letters were written before 1078, when Jerusalem passed into the hands of the Turks and the situation of the Palestinian Christians worsened. Therefore, it is possible to assume that in the plans of Gregory VII, the holy war against Islam was in second place, and that the pope, arming Western Christianity to fight the Muslim East, had in mind the "schismatic" East. The latter, for Gregory VII, was more terrible than Islam. In one letter about the lands occupied by the Spanish Moors, the pope openly stated that he would prefer to leave these lands in the hands of the infidels, i.e. Muslims than to see them fall into the hands of the rebellious sons of the church. Considering the letters of Gregory VII as the first plan of the crusades, the connection between this plan and the division of the churches in 1054 should be noted.

Like Michael VII Parapinakus, Alexei Komnenos, especially experiencing the horrors of 1091, also turned to the West, asking for the sending of hired auxiliary detachments. But, thanks to the intervention of the Polovtsy and the violent death of the Turkish pirate Chahi, the danger for the capital passed without Western help, so that in the next 1092, from the point of view of Alexei, the auxiliary western detachments seemed no longer necessary for the empire. Meanwhile, the work begun in the West by Gregory VII assumed wide proportions, mainly thanks to the convinced and active Pope Urban P. The modest requests of Alexei Comnenus for auxiliary troops were forgotten. It was now about a mass invasion.

Historical science, since the first critical study of the first Crusade by the German historian Siebel (the first edition of his book was published in 1841), notes the following main - from a Western point of view - causes of the crusades: 1) The general religious mood of the Middle Ages, which intensified back in XI century thanks to the Cluniac movement; in a society suppressed by the consciousness of sinfulness, there is a desire for asceticism, hermitage, for spiritual exploits, for pilgrimages; under the same influence were theology and philosophy of that time. This mood was the first common cause that raised the masses of the population to the feat of liberating the Holy Sepulcher. 2) The rise of the papacy in the 11th century, especially under Gregory VII. For the papacy, the crusades seemed highly desirable, as they opened wide horizons for the further development of their power: if the enterprise succeeds, the initiators and spiritual leaders of which they should be, the popes will extend their influence to a number of new countries and return to the bosom of the Catholic Church " schismatic" Byzantium. The ideal aspirations of the popes to help Eastern Christians and liberate the Holy Land, especially characteristic of the personality of Urban II, were thus mixed with their aspirations to increase papal power and power. 3) Worldly, secular interests also played a significant role among various social classes. The feudal nobility, barons and knights, participating in the general religious impulse, saw in the crusade an excellent opportunity to satisfy their love of glory, militancy and increase their means. Suppressed by the weight of feudal lack of rights, the peasants, carried away by religious feelings, saw in the crusade at least a temporary liberation from the difficult conditions of feudal oppression, a delay in paying debts, confidence in the protection of abandoned families and meager property by the church and deliverance from sins. Later, other phenomena were emphasized by historians in connection with the origins of the first Crusade.

In the 11th century, Western pilgrimages to the Holy Land were especially numerous. Some pilgrimages were organized in very large groups. In addition to individual pilgrimages, entire expeditions were undertaken. So, in 1026-1027. seven hundred pilgrims, among whom was a French abbot and a large number of Norman knights, visited Palestine. In the same year, William, Count of Angouleme, accompanied by a number of abbots from the west of France and a large number of nobles, traveled to Jerusalem. In 1033 there were more pilgrims than ever before. However, the most famous pilgrimage took place in 1064-1065, when more than 7,000 people (usually said to be more than 12,000) under the leadership of Gunther, bishop of the German city of Bamberg, went to worship the holy places. They passed through Constantinople and Asia Minor and, after numerous adventures and losses, reached Jerusalem. A source on this great pilgrimage states that "out of the seven thousand who set out, less than two thousand returned," and those who returned were "considerably impoverished." Günther himself, head of the pilgrimage, died early. "One of the many lives lost in this adventure" (adventure).

In connection with these peaceful pre-Crusade pilgrimages, the question arose whether the 11th century could be regarded, as has often been done, as a period of transition from peaceful pilgrimages to the military expeditions of the Crusader period. Many scholars have sought to substantiate this, in view of the fact that, due to the new situation in Palestine after the Turkish conquest, groups of pilgrims began to travel armed in order to protect themselves from possible attacks. Now, when, thanks to E. Joranson, it is precisely established that the largest pilgrimage of the 11th century was carried out exclusively by unarmed people, the question inevitably arises: “Was any of the pilgrimages of the time before the Crusades an expedition with weapons?” Of course, sometimes the pilgrim knights were armed, however, "although some of them wore chain mail, they were still peaceful pilgrims" and were not crusaders. They played a significant role in the prehistory of the Crusades due to the information they carried to Western Europe about the situation in the Holy Land, awakening and maintaining interest in it. All these pilgrimage expeditions took place before the Turks conquered Palestine. One of the newest studies on pilgrimage in the 11th century before the Turkish conquest has revealed the oppression of pilgrims by the Arabs long before the Seljuk conquest, so that the statement "as long as the Arabs held Jerusalem, Christian pilgrims from Europe could move freely" is too optimistic.

There is no information about pilgrimages in the 11th century from Byzantium to the Holy Land. The Byzantine monk Epiphanius, the author of the first Greek itinerary to the Holy Land, compiled a description of Palestine before the Crusades, but his lifetime cannot be determined with accuracy. The opinions of researchers differ: from the end of the VIII century to the XI.

Before the first Crusade, Europe had already experienced three real crusades - the war of Spain against the Moors, the Norman conquest of Apulia and Sicily, and the Norman conquest of England in 1066. Moreover, in Italy in the 11th century, a special economic and political movement arose - centered in Venice. Peace on the shores of the Adriatic served as a solid basis for the economic power of Venice, and the famous document of 1082, given to Venice by Alexios Komnenos, opened the Byzantine markets to the Republic of St. Mark. "From that day, the world trade of Venice began." At that time, Venice, like many other southern Italian cities that still remained under Byzantine rule, traded with Muslim ports. At the same time, Genoa and Pisa, which in the 10th and early 11th centuries were repeatedly attacked by Muslim pirates of North Africa, undertook an expedition in 1015-1016 to Sardinia, which was in the hands of the Muslims. They managed to recapture Sardinia and Corsica. The ships of both cities filled the ports of the North African coast, and in 1087, with the blessing of the pope, they successfully attacked the city of Mehdia on the North African coast. All these expeditions against the infidels were due not only to religious enthusiasm or the spirit of adventure, but also to economic reasons.

Another factor in the history of Western Europe that is associated with the beginning of the Crusades is the increase in population in some countries, which began around 1100. It is absolutely certain that the population increased in Flanders and in France. One aspect of the movement of masses of people at the end of the 11th century was the medieval colonial expansion from some Western European countries, especially from France. The eleventh century in France was a time of constant famine, crop failures, severe epidemics and harsh winters. These harsh living conditions led to a decrease in population in areas previously full of abundance and prosperity. Taking into account all these factors, one can conclude that by the end of the 11th century Europe was spiritually and economically ready for a crusading enterprise in the broadest sense of the word.

The general situation before the first Crusade was completely different from the situation before the second. These fifty-one years, 1096-1147, were among the most important eras in history. During these years, the economic, religious and all cultural aspects of European life changed radically. New world was opened to Western Europe. The subsequent Crusades did not add much to the life of this period. They were only a development of the processes that took place in these years between the first and second Crusades. And it is strange to read from one Italian historian that the first Crusades were "fruitless madness" (sterili insanie).

The First Crusade is the first organized offensive of the Christian world against the infidels, and this offensive was not limited to central Europe, Italy and Byzantium. It began in the southwestern corner of Europe, in Spain, and ended in the endless steppes of Russia.

As regards Spain, Pope Urban II, in his letter of 1089 to the Spanish counts, bishops, vice comites, and other noble and powerful persons, urged them to remain in their own country instead of going to Jerusalem, and to direct their energy towards restoration Christian churches destroyed by the Moors. It was the right flank of the crusading movement against the infidels.

In the northeast, Russia fought desperately with the wild hordes of Polovtsians (Kumans), who appeared in the southern steppes around the middle of the 11th century, ruined the country and disrupted trade, occupying all roads leading from Russia to the east and south. V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote in this regard: “This almost two-century struggle of Russia with the Polovtsy has its own significance in European history. While Western Europe undertook an offensive struggle against the Asian East with crusades, when the same movement against the Moors began in the Iberian Peninsula, Russia covered the left flank of the European offensive with its steppe struggle. But this historical merit of Russia cost her dearly: the struggle moved her from her settled Dnieper places and abruptly changed the direction of her future life. Thus, Russia participated in the general Western European crusading movement, defending itself and at the same time Europe from pagan barbarians (infidels). “If the Russians thought to accept the cross,” B. Leib wrote, “they could be told that their first duty to serve Christianity is to defend their own country, as the Pope wrote to the Spaniards.”

The Scandinavian kingdoms also participated in the first Crusade, but they joined the main army in small formations. In 1097, the Danish nobleman Svein led a detachment of crusaders to Palestine. In the Nordic countries, there was no excess of religious enthusiasm and, as far as is known, most of the Scandinavian knights were driven less by Christian aspirations than by love of war and adventure, the hope of booty and glory.

At that time there were two Christian countries in the Caucasus - Armenia and Georgia. However, after the defeat of the Byzantine army at Manzikert in 1071, Armenia fell under the rule of the Turks, so there was not even a question about the participation of Caucasian Armenians in the first Crusade. As for Georgia, the Seljuks captured the country in the 11th century, and only after the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, David the Builder expelled the Turks. This happened around 1100, or, as the Georgian chronicle states, when "the Frankish army moved forward and, with God's help, took Jerusalem and Antioch, Georgia became free, and David became powerful."

When in 1095, in connection with all the Western European complications and projected reforms, the victorious (victorious) Pope Urban II assembled a cathedral in Piacenza, an embassy from Alexios Comnenus arrived there asking for help. This fact was denied by some scientists, but modern researchers of this problem have come to the conclusion that Alexei really turned to Piacenza for help. Of course, this event was not yet the "decisive factor" that led to the Crusade, as Siebel claimed. As before, if Alexei asked for help in Piacenza, he did not think about crusading armies, he did not want a crusade, but mercenaries against the Turks, who over the past three years 1 began to pose a great danger in their successful advance in Asia Minor. Around 1095, Kılıç Arslan was elected sultan in Nicaea. “He summoned to Nicaea the wives and children of those soldiers who were there at that time, settled them in the city and again made Nicaea the residence of the sultans.” In other words, Kılıç Arslan made Nicaea his capital. In connection with these Turkish successes, Alexei could turn to Piacenza for help, however, it was not his intention to crusade to the Holy Land. He was interested in helping against the Turks. Unfortunately, there is little information about this episode in the sources. One modern scholar remarked: "From the Cathedral of Piacenza to the arrival of the Crusaders in the Byzantine Empire, the relationship between East and West is shrouded in darkness."

In November 1095, a famous cathedral met at Clermont (in Auvergne, central France), which gathered so many people that there was not enough housing for all the arrivals in the city and many were accommodated in the open. At the end of the council, at which a number of the most important current cases were considered, Urban II addressed the audience with a fiery speech, the original text of which has not reached us. Some eyewitnesses of the meeting, who recorded the speech by heart, tell us texts that differ greatly from each other. The Pope, having outlined in vivid colors the persecution of Christians in the Holy Land, urged the crowd to raise their arms to free the Holy Sepulcher and Eastern Christians. With cries of "Dieu le veut"! ("Deus lo volt" in the chronicle) the crowd rushed to the pope. At his suggestion, red crosses were sewn on the clothes of the future participants of the campaign (hence the name "crusaders"). They were given absolution, forgiveness of debts, and protection of their property by the church during their absence. The crucifixion vow was considered immutable, and its violation entailed excommunication from the church. From the Auvergne, enthusiasm spread throughout France and other countries. A vast movement to the East was created, the true dimensions of which at the Clermont Cathedral could not even be foreseen.

Therefore the movement evoked at the Council of Clermont and culminated in the following year in the form of a crusade is private matter Urban II, who found extremely favorable conditions for the implementation of this enterprise in the living conditions of the Western European Middle Ages in the second half of the 11th century.

In view of the fact that the [Turkish] danger in Asia Minor became more and more threatening, the question of the first Crusade was practically decided in Clermont. News of this decision reached Alexei as an unexpected and disconcerting surprise. The news was disconcerting, for he did not expect and did not want help in the form of a crusade. When Alexei called on mercenaries from the West, he invited them to defend Constantinople, that is, in other words, his own state. The idea of ​​liberating the Holy Land, which had not belonged to the empire for more than four centuries, was of secondary importance to him.

For Byzantium, the problem of a crusade did not exist in the 11th century. Religious enthusiasm did not flourish either among the masses or among the emperor, and there were no preachers of the crusade. For Byzantium, the political problem of saving the empire from its eastern and northern enemies had nothing to do with a distant expedition to the Holy Land. Byzantium had its own "crusades". There were brilliant and victorious expeditions of Heraclius against Persia in the 7th century, when the Holy Land and the Life-Giving Cross were returned to the empire. There were victorious campaigns under Nikephoros Fokas, John Tzimiskes, and Basil II against the Arabs in Syria, when the emperors planned to finally regain control of Jerusalem. This plan did not come to fruition, and Byzantium, under the menacing pressure of the stunning Turkish successes in Asia Minor in the eleventh century, gave up all hope of regaining the Holy Land. For Byzantium, the Palestinian problem at that time was redundant. In 1090-1091. she was a stone's throw from death, and when Alexei asked for Western help, and in return received news of the approach of the crusaders, his first thought was to save the empire. In the “Muses”, written by Alexei in iambic verses, a poem that, as one might think, is a kind of political testament to his son and heir John, there are the following interesting lines about the first Crusade:

“Do you remember what happened to me? From the movement of the West towards this country, there must be a decrease in the high dignity of the New Rome and the imperial throne. That is why, my son, it is necessary to think of sufficient accumulation to fill the open mouths of barbarians who breathe hatred against us, in case a large army rises against us and rushes at us, which in its anger would begin to throw lightning bolts against us, while a large number of enemies would surround our city.”

With this fragment from the “Muses” of Alexei, one can compare the following passage from the “Alexiad” by Anna Komnena, also about the first Crusade: “And so, a desire arose in men and women, the like of which no one’s memory knew. Simple people sincerely wanted to bow to the Holy Sepulcher and visit holy places. But some, especially such as Boemund and his like-minded people, harbored a different intention: would they not succeed in capturing the royal city itself in addition to the rest of the gain.

These two statements - the emperor and his learned daughter - clearly show the attitude of Byzantium towards the Crusades. In Alexei's assessment, the crusaders are placed in the same category as the barbarians who threaten the empire, the Turks and the Pechenegs. As for Anna Comnene, she only casually mentions the "simple" people among the crusaders who sincerely intended to visit the Holy Land. The idea of ​​a crusade was absolutely alien to the Byzantine mentality of the late 11th century. The ruling circles of Byzantium had one desire - to turn away the formidable Turkish danger that threatened from the east and north. That is why the first Crusade was an exclusively Western enterprise, politically only slightly connected with Byzantium. In truth, the Byzantine Empire provided the crusaders with a certain number of military formations, which, however, did not go beyond Asia Minor. Byzantium did not take any part in the conquest of Syria and Palestine.

In the spring of 1096, thanks to the sermon of Peter of Amiens, sometimes called the "Hermit", to whom a now rejected historical legend ascribes the initiation of the crusading movement, a crowd gathered in France, mostly from poor people, petty knights, homeless vagabonds with wives and children, almost without weapons , and moved through Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria to Constantinople. This undisciplined militia, led by Peter of Amiens and another preacher, Walter the Indigent, who did not know where they were going, and were not accustomed to obedience and order, plundered and ruined the country along the way. Alexei Komnenos learned with displeasure of the approach of the crusaders, and this displeasure turned into some fear when news of the robberies and devastation committed by the crusaders along the road reached him. Approaching Constantinople and settling down in its vicinity, the crusaders began, as usual, to engage in robbery. The alarmed emperor hurried to send them to Asia Minor, where they were easily killed by the Turks near Nicaea. Even before the last catastrophe, Peter the Hermit returned to Constantinople.

The story of the unsuccessful militia of Peter and Walter was, as it were, an introduction to the first Crusade. The unfavorable impression left by these crusaders in Byzantium extended to subsequent crusaders. The Turks, having easily put an end to the unprepared crowds of Peter, gained confidence in the same easy victory over other crusading militias.

In the summer of 1096, the crusading movement of counts, dukes and princes began in the West, i.e. already gathered a real army.

None of the Western European sovereigns took part in the campaign. The German sovereign Henry IV was completely occupied with the struggle with the popes for investiture. The French king Philip I was under excommunication for his divorce from his lawful wife and marriage to another woman. William the Red of England, thanks to his tyrannical rule, was in constant struggle with the feudal lords, the church and the masses, and with difficulty held power in his hands.

Among the leaders of the knightly militias were the following most famous persons: Gottfried of Bouillon, Duke of Lower Lorraine, to whom later rumor gave such an ecclesiastical character that it is difficult to distinguish his actual features; in fact, it was not devoid of religiosity, but far from an idealistic feudal lord who wanted to reward himself in the campaign for the losses he had suffered in his state. Two brothers went with him, among whom was Baldwin, the future king of Jerusalem. Under the leadership of Gottfried, the Lorraine militia acted. Robert, Duke of Normandy, son of William the Conqueror and brother of the English sovereign William the Red, took part in the campaign because of dissatisfaction with the insignificant power in his duchy, which he pledged to the English king for a certain sum before setting off on a campaign. Hugh of Vermandois, brother of the French king, filled with vanity, sought fame and new possessions and enjoyed great respect among the crusaders. The rough and quick-tempered Robert Fries, son of Robert of Flanders, also took part in the campaign. For his crusading deeds, he was nicknamed Jerusalem. The last three persons became at the head of three militias: Hugo Vermandois at the head of the middle French, Robert of Normandy and Robert Fries at the head of two northern French militias. Raymond, Count of Toulouse, a famous fighter with the Spanish Arabs, a talented commander and a sincerely religious person, stood at the head of the southern French, or Provencal, militia. Finally, Bohemond of Tarentum, the son of Robert Guiscard, and his nephew Tancred, who became the head of the South Italian Norman militia, took part in the campaign without any religious grounds, and in the hope, if possible, to settle their political scores with Byzantium, according to towards which they were convinced and stubborn enemies, and, obviously, Boemund aimed his desires at capturing Antioch. The Normans introduced a purely worldly, political stream into the crusading enterprise, which ran counter to the basic position of the crusading cause. Bohemond's army was perhaps the best prepared of all the other crusading detachments, "for it had many people who dealt with the Saracens in Sicily and with the Greeks in southern Italy." All crusader armies pursued independent tasks; there was no general plan, no commander in chief. As you can see, the main role in the first Crusade belonged to the French.

One part of the crusader militias went to Constantinople by land, the other part by sea. Along the way, the crusaders, like the previous militia of Peter of Amiens, plundered passable areas and carried out all sorts of violence. A contemporary of this passage of the crusaders, Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, in a letter to one bishop, explaining the reason for his long silence, blames the crusaders for this; he writes: “My lips are compressed; in the first place, the passage of the Franks, or the attack, or, I don't know what to call it, has so captured and occupied us all that we don't even feel ourselves. We drank the bitter cup of attack to our full ... Since we are accustomed to Frankish insults, we endure misfortunes more easily than before, for time is a convenient teacher of everything.

Alexei Komnenos must have been distrustful of such defenders of the cause of God. Not needing any foreign help at all at the moment, the emperor looked with displeasure and apprehension at the crusader militias approaching his capital from different sides, which in their numbers had nothing to do with those modest auxiliary detachments that the emperor appealed to the West. The accusations of Alexei and the Greeks of treachery and deception against the crusaders, previously raised by historians, should now disappear, especially after due attention was paid to the robberies, robberies and fires perpetrated by the crusaders during the campaign. The harsh and anti-historical characterization of Alexei, given by Gibbon, who wrote: “In a style less important than the style of history, I might perhaps compare Emperor Alexei with a jackal, which, as they say, follows in the footsteps of a lion and devours his leftovers, also disappears” . Of course, Alexei was not a person who humbly picked up what the crusaders left him. Alexei Komnenos showed himself to be a statesman who understood what a formidable danger the Crusaders brought with them to the existence of his empire; therefore, his main idea was to transport, as soon as possible, the restless and dangerous newcomers to Asia Minor, where they had to do the work for which they came to the East, i.e. fight the infidels. In view of this, an atmosphere of mutual distrust and hostility was immediately created between the Latins and Greeks who came; in their person not only schismatics met, but also political opponents, who subsequently would have to resolve the dispute among themselves with weapons. One enlightened Greek patriot and learned writer of the 19th century, Vikelas, wrote: “For the West, the crusade is a noble consequence of religious feeling; this is the beginning of a renaissance and civilization, and the European nobility can now rightly be proud of being the granddaughter of the crusaders. But the Eastern Christians, when they saw how these barbarian hordes plunder and ravage the Byzantine provinces, when they saw that those who called themselves defenders of the faith were killing the priests under the pretext that the latter were schismatics, the Eastern Christians forgot that these expeditions originally had a religious purpose and a Christian character. According to the same author, "the appearance of the crusaders marks the beginning of the decline of the empire and heralds its end." The latest historian of Alexei Komnenos, the Frenchman Chalandon, considers it possible to apply in part to all the crusaders the characteristic given by Gibbon to the companions of Peter of Amiens, namely: “The robbers who followed Peter the Hermit were wild beasts, without reason and humanity.”

So, in 1096, the era of the Crusades began, so fraught with diverse and important consequences both for Byzantium and the East in general, and for Western Europe.

The first story about the impression that the beginning of the crusading movement made on the peoples of the East comes from the Arab historian of the twelfth century, Ibn al-Qalanisi: ) began to receive a whole series of reports that the armies of the Franks appeared from the sea in Constantinople with forces that cannot be counted because of their multitude. When these messages began to follow one after another and passed from mouth to mouth everywhere, people were seized with fear and confusion.

After the crusaders gradually gathered in Constantinople, Alexei Komnenos, considering their militias as hired auxiliary squads, expressed a desire that he be recognized as the head of the campaign and that the crusaders bring him a vassal oath and promise to transfer to him, as their overlord, the regions conquered by the crusaders on East. The crusaders fulfilled this desire of the emperor: the oath was taken and the promise was given. Unfortunately, the text of the vassal oath given by the leaders of the crusading movement has not been preserved in its original form. In all likelihood, Alexei's requirements for various lands were not the same. He was looking for direct acquisitions in those areas of Asia Minor, which shortly before were lost by the empire after the defeat at Manzikert (1071) and which were a necessary condition for the strength and lasting existence of the Byzantine state and the Greek people. As for Syria and Palestine, already lost by Byzantium, the emperor did not put forward such demands, but limited himself to the claims of supreme fief domination.

Having crossed into Asia Minor, the crusaders began military operations. In June 1097, after the siege, Nicaea surrendered to the crusaders, which they, despite their reluctance, had to hand over to the Byzantines by virtue of a treaty concluded with the emperor. The next victory of the crusaders at Dorilea (now Eski-Shekhir) forced the Turks to clear the western part of Asia Minor and retreat inland, after which Byzantium had a full opportunity to restore its power on the Asia Minor coast. Despite natural difficulties, climatic conditions and Muslim resistance, the crusaders advanced far to the east and southeast. Baldwin of Flanders took possession of the city of Edessa in Upper Mesopotamia and formed his principality from its region, which was the first Latin possession in the East and a stronghold of Christians against Turkish attacks from Asia. But Baldwin's example had its dangerous, negative side: other barons could follow his example and establish their own principalities, which, of course, should have served to great detriment to the very goal of the campaign. This fear was later justified.

After a long exhausting siege, the main city of Syria, the beautifully fortified Antioch, surrendered to the crusaders, after which the road to Jerusalem was free. However, because of Antioch, a fierce strife broke out between the leaders, ending with the fact that Boemund of Tarentum, following the example of Baldwin, became the sovereign prince of Antioch. Neither in Edessa, nor in Antioch did the crusaders no longer take the vassal oath to Alexei Comnenus.

Since the majority of their militia remained with the leaders who founded their principalities, only the miserable remnants of the crusaders, including 20,000 - 25,000 people, approached Jerusalem; they came exhausted and utterly weakened.

At this very time, Jerusalem passed from the Seljuks into the hands of a powerful Egyptian caliph from the Fatimid dynasty. After a fierce siege of fortified Jerusalem, on July 15, 1099, the crusaders stormed the Holy City, the ultimate goal of their campaign, made terrible bloodshed in it and plundered it; many treasures were taken away by the chiefs; The famous Mosque of Omar was looted. The conquered country, which occupied a narrow coastal strip in the region of Syria and Palestine, received the name of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, whose king was elected Gottfried of Bouillon, who agreed to accept the title of "Defender of the Holy Sepulcher". The new state was organized according to the Western feudal model.

The crusade, which resulted in the formation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and several separate Latin principalities in the East, created a complex political environment. Byzantium, pleased with the weakening of the Turks in Asia Minor and the return of a significant part of the latter under the rule of the empire, was at the same time alarmed by the appearance of crusading principalities in Antioch, Edessa, Tripoli, which began to represent a new political enemy for Byzantium. The suspicion of the empire gradually increases so much that Byzantium in the 12th century, opening hostile actions against its former allies - the crusaders, does not stop at making alliances with its former enemies - the Turks. In turn, the crusaders, who settled in their new possessions, fearing the strengthening of the empire dangerous for themselves from Asia Minor, make alliances with the Turks against Byzantium in the same way. In this alone lies the complete degeneration in the twelfth century of the very idea of ​​crusading enterprises.

It is impossible to talk about a complete break between Alexei Komnenos and the crusaders. The emperor, if he was especially dissatisfied with the formation of the aforementioned independent principalities by the Latins, who did not take a vassal oath to Alexei, nevertheless did not refuse the crusaders all possible assistance, for example, when transporting them from the East home to the West. The gap took place between the emperor and Bohemond of Tarentum, who, from the point of view of the interests of Byzantium, increased excessively in Antioch at the expense of neighbors, weak Turkish emirs, and Byzantine territory. Antioch became the main center of Alexei's aspirations, with whom the head of the Provencal militia, Raymond of Toulouse, became close, dissatisfied with his position in the East and also saw his main rival in Boemund. The fate of Jerusalem for Alexei was of secondary interest at the moment.

The struggle between the emperor and Bohemond was inevitable. A convenient moment for Byzantium seemed to come when Boemund was unexpectedly captured by the Turks, namely the emir from the Danishmend dynasty, who conquered Cappadocia at the very end of the 11th century and formed an independent possession, which, however, was destroyed by the Seljuks in the second half of the 12th century . Alexei's negotiations with the emir on the extradition of Boemund's money to him for a certain amount of money failed. Ransomed by others, the latter returned to Antioch, and to the demand of the emperor, who referred to the conditions concluded with the crusaders, to transfer Antioch to him, he answered Alexei with a decisive refusal.

At this time, namely in 1104, the Muslims won a great victory over Bohemond and other Latin princes at Harran, south of Edessa. This defeat of the crusaders almost led to the destruction of Christian possessions in Syria, but on the other hand inspired the hopes of both Alexei and the Muslims; both looked with pleasure at the inevitable weakening of Bohemond. Indeed, the Battle of Haran destroyed his plans to establish a strong Norman state in the East; he realized that he did not have enough strength to again fight the Muslims and his sworn enemy, the Byzantine emperor. Further stay in the East had no goal for Boemund. In order to break the Byzantine power, it is necessary to strike at Constantinople with the new forces recruited in Europe. In view of all these circumstances, Boemund boarded a ship and headed for Apulia, leaving his nephew Tancred in his place in Antioch. Anna Comnena tells a curious story, written not without humor, about how Boemund, for greater safety during a sea voyage from the attack of the Greeks, pretended to be dead, was put in a coffin and made his way to Italy in the coffin.

Bohemond's return to Italy was greeted with great enthusiasm. People gathered in crowds to look at him, as a medieval author says, "as if they were going to see Christ himself." Having gathered an army, Boemund began hostilities against Byzantium. The pope himself blessed Bohemond's intentions. His expedition against Alexei, explains the American historian, “ceased to be just a political movement. It has now received the approval of the church and acquired the dignity of a crusade."

Bohemond's troops were most likely recruited from France and Italy, but in all likelihood there were also British, Germans and Spaniards in his army. His plan was to repeat the campaign of his father, Robert Guiscard, in 1081 - that is, to take Dyrrhachium (Durazzo) and then go through Thessaloniki to Constantinople. But the campaign was unsuccessful for Boemund. He suffered a defeat near Dyrrhachium and was forced to make peace with Alexei on humiliating conditions for himself. Here are the main points of the agreement: Boemund declared himself a fief of Alexei and his son John, pledging to help the empire against all its enemies, whether they be Christians or Muslims; promised to transfer to Alexei all the conquered lands that used to belong to Byzantium; as for the lands that did not belong to Byzantium and which in the future may be taken away from the Turks or Armenians, Boemund must consider them as lands ceded to him by the emperor; he will regard his nephew Tancred as an enemy if he does not agree to submit to the emperor; The Patriarch of Antioch will be appointed by the emperor from among persons belonging to the Eastern Church, so that there would be no Latin Patriarch of Antioch. The cities and provinces guaranteed to Boemund are listed in the agreement. The document ends with Bohemond's solemn oath on the cross, the crown of thorns, the nails and the spear of Christ that the clauses of the treaty will be observed by him.

This collapse of all the plans of Boemund ends, in fact, his stormy and, perhaps, fatal activity for the crusades. In the last three years of his life, he no longer played any role. He died in 1111 in Apulia.

The death of Boemund made Alexei's position difficult, since Tancred of Antioch did not agree to fulfill his uncle's agreements and transfer Antioch to the emperor. The latter had to start all over again. A plan for a campaign near Antioch was discussed, which, however, was not carried out. Evidently, the empire was not in a position to undertake this difficult expedition at the present time. The cause of the campaign near Antioch was not even helped by the death of Tancred, who died shortly after Bohemond. The last years of the reign of Alexei were occupied mainly by almost annual and often successful for the empire wars with the Turks in Asia Minor.

In the external life of the empire, Alexei completed a difficult task. Very often, Alexei was judged from the point of view of his attitude towards the crusaders, losing sight of the totality of his external activities, which is completely wrong. In one of his letters, a contemporary of Alexei, Archbishop Theophylact of Bulgaria, using the expression of the psalm (79; 13), compares the Bulgarian theme with a vine, which "is cut off by all those passing along the path." This comparison, according to the just remark of the French historian Chalandon, can be applied to the Eastern Empire of the time of Alexei. All his neighbors tried to use the weakness of the empire to wrest this or that area from him. The Normans, Pechenegs, Seljuks and Crusaders threatened Byzantium. Alexei, who received the state in a state of weakness and confusion, managed to give them all a proper rebuff and thus stopped the process of disintegration of Byzantium for quite a long time. State borders under Alexei, both in Europe and in Asia, expanded. Everywhere the enemies of the empire had to retreat, so that from the territorial side his rule marks an unconditional progress. The accusations against Alexei, especially often expressed earlier, for his attitude towards the crusaders should disappear, since we look at Alexei as a sovereign who defended the interests of his state, to whom Western newcomers, seized with a thirst for robbery and booty, posed a serious danger. Thus, in the field of foreign policy, Alexei, having successfully overcome all difficulties, improved the international position of the state, expanded its borders, and for some time stopped the successes of enemies pressing on the empire from all sides.
Page 1

From the book Empire - I [with illustrations] author

9. Some general considerations on the history of coins 9. 1. Are the portraits similar or different on different coins? Sometimes you can hear the opinion that the images of the same king on his coins of different minting and different types- “usually similar”, and coin portraits of different kings -

From the book Empire - II [with illustrations] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

2. 3. The matrix of links for the list "VI" and the components of the chronicle in the history of Byzantium. The relationship matrix M(k=4, p=13, L_2, VI) for the list of names of Byzantine emperors is shown in fig. 42. See the designations introduced in paragraph 3. 1. 5 of this Appendix. For visual representation

From the book The Great Trouble. End of Empire author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

10. A Few General Considerations on the History of Coins 10.1. Are the portraits on different coins similar or not? Sometimes you can hear the opinion that the images of the same king on his coins of different mintage and different types are “usually similar”, and the coin portraits of different kings are

From the book New Chronology and Concept ancient history Russia, England and Rome author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

Part 3. Chronology and general concept of the history of Rome and

author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

Chapter 7 Chronology of Rome and Byzantium The problem of reconstructing the correct history 1. The structure of the modern "History Textbook" Let us recall the first main results of the new chronology obtained by A.T. Fomenko, see the books "Numbers against Lies", ch. 6, and "Antiquity is

From the book Book 2. The Secret of Russian History [New Chronology of Russia. Tatar and Arabic languages ​​in Russia. Yaroslavl as Veliky Novgorod. ancient english history author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

2. The principle of fairness of "common places" in old documents traces of true history and remnants of the original chronological tradition

From the book History of the Byzantine Empire VI - IX centuries author Uspensky Fedor Ivanovich

Chapter XI Slavic settlements in Greece. Hellenism in the history of Byzantium Casting a general glance at the time of the reign of Irene, we must admit that two facts give it a certain character and important historical significance: the convening of a council to resolve the iconoclastic issue

author

From the book History of the Byzantine Empire. T.1 author Vasiliev Alexander Alexandrovich

Chapter 1 Outline of the development of the history of Byzantium General popular reviews of the history of Byzantium. Essay on the development of the history of Byzantium in Russia. Periodicals, reference books,

From the book History of the Byzantine Empire. T.1 author Vasiliev Alexander Alexandrovich

From the book Period of the Macedonian dynasty (867 - 1057) author Uspensky Fedor Ivanovich

CHAPTER I NEW HISTORICAL CONTENT IN THE HISTORY OF BYZANTINE AND NEW PERSONS: KING BASIL I AND PATRIARCH PHOTIOS From the middle of the 9th century. the history of Byzantium acquires a somewhat more definite character in the sense of achieving the political and cultural tasks directly facing the empire

author Vasiliev Alexander Alexandrovich

Chapter 1 Outline of the development of the history of Byzantium General popular reviews of the history of Byzantium. Essay on the development of the history of Byzantium in Russia. Periodicals, reference books,

From the book History of the Byzantine Empire. Time before the Crusades until 1081 author Vasiliev Alexander Alexandrovich

From the book History of the Byzantine Empire. The era of unrest author Uspensky Fedor Ivanovich

Chapter XI Slavic settlements in Greece. Hellenism in the history of Byzantium Casting a general glance at the time of the reign of Irene, we must admit that two facts give it a certain character and important historical significance: the convening of a council to resolve the iconoclastic issue and

From the book Book 1. Empire [Slavic conquest of the world. Europe. China. Japan. Russia as a medieval metropolis of the Great Empire] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

10. A Few General Considerations on the History of Coins 10.1. Are the portraits on different coins similar or not? Sometimes you can hear the opinion that the images of the same king on his coins of different mintage and different types are “usually similar”, and the coin portraits of different kings are

From the book History of State and Law of Russia author Timofeeva Alla Alexandrovna

Topics of written works on the history of the state and law of Russia 1. The role of the Varangians in the formation and development of Kievan Rus: basic concepts.2. "The Tale of Bygone Years" as a historical and legal source.3. Kievan Rus - early feudal monarchy.4. Russia and Tatar-Mongols.5.

Chapter 5. The Age of Iconoclasm (717-867) Isaurian or Syrian dynasty (717–802) Relations with Arabs, Bulgarians and Slavs Internal Activities of the Emperors of the Isaurian or Syrian Dynasty Religious contradictions of the first period of iconoclasm The coronation of Charlemagne and the significance of this event for the Byzantine Empire The results of the activities of the Isaurian dynasty Successors of the House of Isauria and the Time of the Amorian or Phrygian Dynasty (820–867) External Relations of the Byzantine Empire First Russian attack on Constantinople Fighting Western Arabs Byzantium and the Bulgarians in the era of the Amorian dynasty The Second Period of Iconoclasm and the Restoration of Orthodoxy. Division of churches in the ninth century Literature, education and art Chapter 6. The era of the Macedonian dynasty (867-1081) The question of the origin of the Macedonian dynasty External activities of the sovereigns of the Macedonian dynasty. Relations of Byzantium to the Arabs and to Armenia Relations of the Byzantine Empire with the Bulgarians and Magyars Byzantine Empire and Russia Pecheneg problem Relations of Byzantium to Italy and Western Europe Social and political development. church affairs Legislative activity of the Macedonian emperors. Social and economic relations in the empire. Prochiron and Epanagoge Vasiliki and Tipukit Eparch's Book "Powerful" and "poor" provincial government Time of Troubles (1056–1081) Seljuk Turks Pechenegs Normans Enlightenment, science, literature and art Name index

To the reprint of the cycle of general works by A. A. Vasiliev on the history of Byzantium A.G. pear

The main milestones in the life of A. A. Vasiliev

In the next volumes of the Byzantine Library series, the Aletheia publishing house is starting to publish a series of general works by A. A. Vasiliev on Byzantine studies. In this regard, it seems necessary to say a few words about the author, his works on the history of Byzantium and the principles underlying the proposed publication.

It is quite difficult to write about the biography of A. A. Vasiliev (1867–1953), because there is almost no literature about him, there is also no archive of the scientist in Russia, and therefore the systematized information about his life presented below, taken from various sources, cannot claim to be an exhaustive picture his life.

Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev was born in St. Petersburg in 1867. He studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University and received a wide education both in the field of Oriental languages ​​(Arabic and Turkish) and history, as well as in classical languages ​​and history, not counting the obligatory modern languages. According to A. A. Vasiliev himself, his scientific fate was determined by chance. He was advised to study Byzantine studies by his teacher of the Arabic language, the famous Baron V.R. Rosen, who sent him to the no less famous Byzantinist V.G. Vasilevsky. The subsequent benevolent reception of V. G. Vasilevsky and the first acquaintance with Byzantine history as presented by Gibbon helped him choose the direction of his specialization. We note, however, that a good background in Oriental studies allowed A. A. Vasiliev not only to combine Byzantine and Arabic studies in his work, but also to prove himself an Arabist in the proper sense of the word. A. A. Vasiliev prepared critical editions with a translation into French of two Arab Christian historians - Agafia and Yahya ibn Said. Apparently, A. A. Vasiliev had another opportunity to prove himself as a professional orientalist. Judging by one letter to M. I. Rostovtsev dated August 14, 1942, A. A. Vasiliev taught Arabic at St. Petersburg University for some time. The mentioned letter refers, among other things, to the fact that A. A. Vasilyev taught the literary critic G. L. Lozinsky the basics of the Arabic language at the university.

For the scientific fate of A. A. Vasiliev, the three years he spent abroad as a scholarship holder of the Faculty of History and Philology were of great importance. Thanks to the support of V. G. Vasilevsky, P. V. Nikitin and I. V. Pomyalovsky, A. A. Vasiliev spent 1897–1900. in Paris with a scholarship, first 600 rubles a year, then 1500 rubles. In France, he continued to study oriental languages ​​​​(Arabic, Turkish and Ethiopian). During the same years, he prepared master's and doctoral dissertations on the relationship between Byzantium and the Arabs. Soon, these works took the form of a two-volume monograph, translated, however, much later into French (see the list of works by A.V. Vasiliev below).

In the spring of 1902, together with N. Ya. Marr, A. A. Vasilyev undertook a trip to Sinai, to the monastery of St. Catherine. He was interested in the manuscripts of Agathias stored there. In the same year a. but. Vasiliev spent several months in Florence, also working on Agathia's manuscripts. The edition of the text prepared by him quickly appeared in the well-known French publication Patrologia Orientalist. The edition of the text of the second Arab Christian historian - Yahya ibn Said - was prepared by A. A. Vasiliev and I. Yu. Krachkovsky later - in the twenties and thirties.

The scientific career of A. A. Vasiliev was successful. In 1904–1912 he was a professor at Derpt (Yuryevsky) University. A. A. Vasiliev also took part in the work of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople that existed before the First World War. In 1912–1922 he was a professor and dean of the historical and philological faculty of the St. Petersburg (later Petrograd) Pedagogical Institute. From the same 1912 to 1925, A. A. Vasiliev was a professor at the Petrograd (later Leningrad) University. In addition, A. A. Vasiliev worked at RAIMK-GAIMK, where from 1919 he held the position of head. category of archeology and art of ancient Christian and Byzantine. In 1920–1925 he was already chairman of RAIMK.

It should also be noted that since 1919 A. A. Vasiliev was a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Without reference to sources, the authors of the publication of letters from M. I. Rostovtsev to A. A. Vasiliev report that by the decision of the General Meeting of the USSR Academy of Sciences of June 2, 1925, A. A. Vasiliev was expelled from the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and was reinstated only posthumously, on March 22, 1990 G. .

In 1934 he was elected a member of the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences. In subsequent years, A. A. Vasiliev was also president of the Institute. in Prague, a member of the American Academy of the Middle Ages and - in the last years of his life - chairman of the International Association of Byzantine Artists.

The turning point in the life of A. A. Vasiliev was 1925, when he went on an official business trip abroad, having no special idea to emigrate from Russia. However, several meetings in Paris with M. I. Rostovtsev, a well-known Russian historian of antiquities, who left Russia quite deliberately, decided the fate of A. A. Vasiliev. As early as 1924, M. I. Rostovtsev offered A. A. Vasiliev assistance in obtaining a place at the University of Wisconsin (Madison) due to the fact that M. I. Rostovtsev himself was moving from Madison to New Haven.

A. A. Vasiliev agreed and, having left for Berlin and Paris in the summer of 1925, in France he boarded a steamer to New York, having an official invitation for a year from the University of Wisconsin. In the autumn of the same 1925, he already had a job in America. The letters of A. A. Vasiliev, preserved in the Archives of S. A. Zhebelev and other scientists, show at the same time that A. A. Vasiliev himself regularly continued to make requests through S. A. Zhebelev to give his official status - he asked about the official extension of his business trip. His requests were satisfied by the People's Commissariat of Education and confirmed by the Academy of Sciences. However, in the end, July 1, 1928 was recognized as the deadline for extending his posting. A. A. Vasiliev did not return either by this date, or ever later. The letter to S. A. Zhebelev, in which he explained the reasons for this, looks very diplomatic, soft, but, most likely, does not reveal the main thing, because the words of A. A. Vasiliev about contracts concluded, improved work, about the lack of earnings in Leningrad have, Undoubtedly, the attitude to the current situation, but something is left in the shade.

In view of the fact that the archive of A. A. Vasiliev is located in the USA, here we involuntarily enter into the realm of assumptions. However, to characterize him as a person, it is extremely important to at least try to answer why A. A. Vasiliev accepted the invitation of M. I. Rostovtsev to work in Madison and why he ended up staying in the USA. There are few opportunities to judge this, and yet a few subtle, sarcastically ironic remarks in the text of his "History of the Byzantine Empire" (for example, about Slavophilism in the USSR after the Second World War) allow us to assert that the entire ideological and political situation in the USSR was A.A. Vasiliev is deeply alien. The ease with which A. A. Vasiliev decided to move to America is also largely due to the fact that he was not held back by family ties. Judging by the available documents, he had a brother and a sister, but he remained single all his life.

Comparison of some facts allows, as it seems, to reveal another important reason for A. A. Vasiliev's determination to leave. It has already been said above that at the turn of the century, for about five years in total, A. A. Vasiliev worked very fruitfully abroad, being a scholarship holder and being on official business trips. If we take into account all the features of the development of the USSR in the twenties and thirties, then we cannot help but admit that the opportunity to work in foreign scientific centers for A. A. Vasilyev became more and more problematic - scientific business trips abroad became over time not the norm, but an exception to the rules, especially for scientists of the old formation. The materials cited by I. V. Kuklina show that after moving to America, A. A. Vasiliev spent most of his free time traveling, sometimes traveling for the purpose of scientific work, sometimes just as a tourist.

The presented material allows us to come to something unexpected, but according to the logic of events, a completely natural conclusion. One of the subjectively important reasons for A. A. Vasiliev's departure was to be the desire to retain the opportunity to freely move around the world for both scientific and tourist purposes. He could not but understand that in the conditions of the USSR of the twenties and thirties no one could guarantee him such a thing.

In other words, in 1925-1928. A. A. Vasiliev was faced with a choice - either Soviet Russia, the political regime in which and living conditions became alien to him, or another country, but a much more understandable ideological and political situation and a familiar lifestyle.

Not without hesitation, A. A. Vasiliev chose the latter. What is the reason for the hesitation? The point here, apparently, is in the character traits of A. A. Vasiliev, who, apparently, was not a very decisive person, who always preferred compromises and the absence of conflicts. Probably, one can also say that A. A. Vasilievna felt comfortable and cozy in America in everything. There is almost no information in the surviving letters about the perception of America by A. A. Vasiliev. However, it is no accident, of course, that A. A. Vasiliev wrote to M. I. Rostovtsev in August 1942: “Do I have it, this joy of life? Isn't it a long-standing habit of appearing not to be who I am? After all, in fact, you have more reason to love life. Don't forget that I always have to try to fill my loneliness - to fill it artificially, certainly externally. Quite possibly, these words - an involuntary confession in a forced pretense and a carefully concealed escape from loneliness - are key to understanding inner peace, psychology and activity of A. A. Vasiliev as a person in the second period of his life. Only new publications can confirm or not confirm this. archival documents. Be that as it may, here it seems important to emphasize the following fact from his biography.

The scientific biography of Alexander Alexandrovich developed brilliantly, however, working until the last days, spending his life in numerous travels, he remained alone on a personal level, and died in a nursing home.

In America, most of his life was associated with Madison and the University of Wisconsin. A. A. Vasiliev spent the last ten years in Washington, in the famous Byzantine center Dumbarton Oaks, where in 1944-1948. he was a Senior Scholar, and in 1949-1953. – Scholar Emeritus.

In the scientific heritage of A. A. Vasiliev, a special place is occupied by two plots that have become the most important in his entire long scientific life. These are Byzantine-Arab relations and a cycle of general works on the history of Byzantium, which is now being republished, covering the entire period of the existence of the empire. Unlike his older contemporary, Yu. A. Kulakovsky, for whom the composition of a general plan on the history of Byzantium became the main scientific work, the role of the "History of the Byzantine Empire" in the scientific heritage of Alexander Alexandrovich is different.

The original Russian text of the work was published in four volumes between 1917 and 1925. The first volume of the original Russian version of the publication, “Lectures on the History of Byzantium. Volume 1. Time before the Crusades (until 1081) ”(Pg., 1917). The book is a summary of the events of the period under review, without notes, with minimal literature on the issue at the end of the chapters, with chronological and genealogical tables. There are almost no conclusions in the book, as well as many sections that A. A. Vasiliev added later. From a purely technical (typographical) point of view, the book was published poorly. Noteworthy is very low-grade paper and fuzzy printing in places.

Three small volumes, which are a continuation of the 1917 edition, published in 1923-1925, look fundamentally different in all respects. Publishing house "Academia":

A. A. Vasiliev. History of Byzantium. Byzantium and the Crusaders. The era of the Komnenos (1081–1185) and the Angels (1185–1204). Pb., 1923; A. A. Vasiliev. History of Byzantium. Latin rule in the East. Pg., 1923; A. A. Vasiliev. History of Byzantium. Fall of Byzantium. The era of the Palaiologos (1261–1453). L., 1925.

Lectures by A. A. Vasiliev and the above three monographs made up the cycle of general works on Byzantine history, which the author revised and republished throughout his life. As can be seen from the list of references, the general history of Byzantium by A. A. Vasiliev exists in publications in many languages, but the following three are the main ones: the first American - History of the Byzantine Empire, vol. 1–2. Madison, 1928–1929; French - Histoire de l "Empire Byzantin, vol. 1-2. Paris, 1932; second American edition - History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453. Madison, 1952. The latest edition is in one volume, which is achieved by printing on thinner paper.

The second American edition is the most scientifically advanced. It is important, however, to note that, despite numerous insertions and additions, despite the abundance of notes, the second American edition and the original Russian versions turn out to be strikingly close. It is enough to put them side by side in order to discover with no small surprise that at least 50% of the text of the latest American edition is a direct translation from the original Russian versions. The number of inserts and additions is really large, and yet the original Russian versions of 1917-1925. continue to form the basis, the backbone, even of the last American edition of the work. That is why this edition is based on the method of textual analysis, and not a direct translation of the entire text from the 1952 edition.

In all those cases when a Russian prototext was identified for the English text of the work, the editor reproduced the corresponding places in the original Russian versions on the basis that it is pointless to translate into Russian what already exists in Russian. This reproduction, however, was never mechanical, because the processing of the text of the original Russian versions by A. A. Vasiliev was multifaceted - individual words and phrases were removed most often for stylistic reasons, in some cases the phrases were rearranged. Quite often, A. A. Vasiliev resorted to a different organization of the text on the page - as a rule, in the second American edition, the paragraphs, in comparison with the original Russian versions, are larger. In all such controversial cases, the latest American edition was preferred.

Thus, the text of the work of A. A. Vasiliev given in these volumes is ambiguous in its composition. Approximately in 50–60% of cases this is a reproduction of the corresponding passages of the original Russian versions, in approximately 40–50% it is a translation from English.

All inserts and additions, as well as most of the notes, have been translated from English. The last reservation is due to the fact that a number of not specifically noted notes are translated from the French edition. This is explained by the following circumstance. A. A. Vasiliev, shortening the text of the notes when preparing the second American edition, sometimes shortened them so much that some information essential for characterizing a book or journal was lost.

The consolidated bibliographic list at the end of the work is reproduced almost unchanged, with the exception of the division of Russian and foreign works accepted in Russia. The appearance in the bibliography of a number of works published after the death of A. A. Vasiliev is explained by the following two points. A. A. Vasiliev quotes some well-known Russian authors in English translations (A. I. Herzen, P. Ya. Chaadaev), with reference to English translations, A. A. Vasiliev also quotes from some authors, or works that are world famous (Hegel, Montesquieu, Koran). In all these cases, A. A. Vasiliev's references are replaced by the latest Russian editions. According to the 1996 edition (Aletheia Publishing House), the well-known Russian Byzantinist of the beginning of the century is also quoted.

The index to the work was compiled anew, but taking into account the index of the latest American edition.

In conclusion, a few words about the characteristics of the work as a whole and its place in the history of science. "History of the Byzantine Empire" by A. A. Vasiliev is one of the unique phenomena in the history of historical thought. Indeed, there are very few general histories of Byzantium written by one researcher. One can recall two German works written and published somewhat earlier by A. A. Vasiliev. This – H. F. Hertzberg. Geschichte der Byzantiner und des Osmanischen Reiches bis gegen Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1883; H. Gelzer. Abriss der byzantinischen Kaisergeschichte. Munchen, 1897. All other general works on Byzantine history, written by one author, have been written. Russian researchers, mostly students of academician V. G. Vasilevsky. These are Yu. A. Kulakovsky, F. I. Uspensky, A. A. Vasiliev, G. A. Ostrogorsky. Of the works written by these authors, only the work of F. I. Uspensky and the published cycle of works by D. A. Vasilyev really cover all aspects of the life of the empire. The “History of Byzantium” by Yu. A. Kulakovsky, comprehensive in scope of material, was brought only to the beginning of the Isaurian dynasty. The repeatedly republished work of G. A. Ostrogorsky “Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates” describes the history of Byzantium primarily as the history of the state and state institutions.

Thus, the work of A. A. Vasiliev is in many respects comparable to the “History of the Byzantine Empire” by F. I. Uspensky, however, as will be shown below, there are significant differences between them.

"History of the Byzantine Empire" by A. A. Vasiliev is an excellent example of a general work, where briefly, clearly, with a large number of references to the main sources and studies, a description of all periods of the history of Byzantium is given. Foreign policy history is presented by A. A. Vasiliev in full. The problems of internal history are treated unevenly, although the main problems of the internal life of each period are touched upon or mentioned. Each chapter, that is, respectively, each period, ends with A. A. Vasiliev with a description of literature and art. The problems of trade and trade relations are considered only in connection with Cosmas Indikoplove and the time of Justinian. A. A. Vasiliev almost does not touch upon the peculiarities of the life of the provinces. For some reason, the problems of social and economic relations in the empire are considered in detail only for the time of the Macedonian dynasty.

The uniqueness of the work of A. A. Vasiliev lies, among other things, in a rather successful attempt to synthesize the achievements of Western European, American and Russian historical science. The work is replete with references to the works of Russian and Soviet historians, which is generally not very characteristic of Western European and American science.

The peculiarities of the work should also include the manner of presenting the material. The author narrates events in a narrative style without giving them mostly explanations or interpretations. The exceptions are some particularly important events, such as the Arab conquests, iconoclasm or the crusades. The explanation of A. A. Vasiliev in this case consists in a systematic presentation of all available points of view on this issue.

A significant difference between the work of A. A. Vasiliev and the “History of the Byzantine Empire” by F. I. Uspensky, as well as in general from studies of Russian Byzantine studies, should be called inattention to problems of a socio-economic nature. Behind this, it seems, was partly the lack of interest of A. A. Vasiliev in this problem, partly - one objective factor.

All reprints of A. A. Vasiliev's works refer to the American period of his life. In the United States, Alexander Alexandrovich is not accidentally considered the founder of American Byzantine studies. In the mid-twenties, A. A. Vasiliev began his activities almost from scratch. That is why it is clear that A. A. Vasiliev in the United States was expected not from narrowly specialized studies, but precisely the development of a general, comprehensive course in the history of Byzantium. The work of A. A. Vasiliev fully satisfied these requirements.

It is possible that it is precisely this general nature of the work of A. A. Vasiliev, the peculiarities of the presentation, when the problems are not so much revealed as described, as well as the inattention to socio-economic issues, led to the following unexpected fact. The "History of the Byzantine Empire" exists in translations into many languages, but it is practically not referred to in the scientific literature, in contrast, for example, to the "History of the Byzantine Empire" by F. I. Uspensky.

However, this fact can be understood if we look at the work of A. A. Vasiliev from the other side. Unlike the three-volume "History of Byzantium" by Yu. A. Kulakovsky, which remained in history precisely because of the extremely detailed in essence and fictionalized in form presentation, "History of the Byzantine Empire" by A. A. Vasiliev is distinguished by a much more concise presentation, a more academic style of presenting the material , although at the same time a considerable number of subtle, maliciously ironic remarks, sometimes addressed to the characters of Byzantine history, and sometimes addressed to A. A. Vasiliev's contemporaries.

More importantly, however, is something else. As already noted, despite all the additions and insertions, despite the abundance of new notes, the general nature of the work of A. A. Vasiliev from 1917 to 1952. did not change. His work, written and published as a course of lectures, a collection of material for students, has remained as such. It is no coincidence that the percentage of direct textual correspondences between the 1952 edition and the original Russian versions is so high: A. A. Vasiliev did not change the essence of the work. He constantly changed and modernized the scientific apparatus, took into account the latest points of view on a particular issue, but at the same time he never went beyond the genre that requires only a competent presentation of facts and only outlines, a brief indication of the scientific problems that are associated with the topic. or other period. This applies not only to the problems of inner life, social and public relations, mainly not considered by A. A. Vasiliev, but also to problems, for example, source studies, analyzed by the author in sufficient detail. Thus, mentioning the extremely complex history of the text of Georgy Amartol, A. A. Vasiliev only slightly touched on the no less complex - although in a somewhat different respect - history of the text of John Malala.

Summing up, I would like to note that the “History of the Byzantine Empire” by A. A. Vasiliev was written in a certain sense of the word in the traditions of two schools of Byzantine studies - Russian and Western European, while not fully fitting into any of them. A. A. Vasiliev returned to his “History of the Byzantine Empire” several times throughout his life, but this work, apparently, should not be called the main scientific work of Alexander Alexandrovich. This book is not a study of the history of Byzantium. Due to the above features of the work of his History of the Byzantine Empire, this exposition of Byzantine history, in which all problematic moments are relegated to the background, being either only named or described externally. The latter circumstance is explained primarily by the role that A. A. Vasiliev played in the scientific life of the USA. Having turned out to be the actual founder of American Byzantine studies by the will of fate, A. A. Vasiliev was forced to deal primarily with the development of not particular problems, but the general course of the history of Byzantium as a whole.

Any phenomenon, however, must be evaluated by what it gives. And in this sense, the “History of the Byzantine Empire” by A. A. Vasilyev can give the modern reader a lot, because the recent general works on the history of Byzantium that exist in Russian (the three-volume “History of Byzantium” (M., 1967); the three-volume “Culture of Byzantium” ( M., 1984-1991)), are unequal, being written by different authors and focused mainly on specialists. Until now, there has not been a complete presentation of the history of Byzantium in Russian that would be concise, clear and well written, with a modern scientific apparatus that would make it possible to make inquiries and, as a first approximation, to realize the problems of any period of Byzantine history. These indisputable and very important merits of the work of A. A. Vasiliev will ensure its long life among a fairly wide circle of readers.

A few words in conclusion about the editor's notes. They are mainly devoted to textological issues related to the understanding of the text, or to discrepancies between the original Russian version and subsequent editions in foreign languages. The editor did not specifically set himself the goal of completely modernizing the scientific apparatus of the work of A. A. Vasiliev, taking into account the latest points of view on all the problems considered in the book. This is done only in some of the most important places, and also in cases where the views of A. A. Vasiliev have become outdated in the light of studies published in recent years.

List of works by A. A. Vasiliev

a) Monographs

1. Byzantium and the Arabs. Political relations between Byzantium and the Arabs during the Amorian dynasty. SPb., 1900.

la. Byzantium and the Arabs. Political relations between Byzantium and the Arabs during the Macedonian dynasty. SPb., 1902

French translation of the work: Byzance et les Arabes. 1. La dynastie d "Amorium (820-867). Bruxelles, 1935. (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae, 1.)

Byzance et les Arabes. II, 1. Les relations politiques de Byzance et des arabes a l "epoque de la dynastie macedonienne. Bruxelles, 1968. (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae, II, 1.)

2. A learned trip to Sinai in 1902. - Communications of the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society, vol. XV, 1904, N 3.

In my presentation I have followed a chronological account of events, dividing the book into six chapters. Like any other scheme, the chronological scheme of the construction of this book is, of course, only a trial, and I am fully aware that sometimes it leads to serious inconvenience. External history suffers from such a scheme only minimally, but in the presentation of internal history it leads to the fact that parts of the same sequential process are separated into different chapters, which leads to ambiguity, fragmentation and repetition. This, as will be seen, happened in the description of such processes as the spread of the Slavs in the Balkans, the emergence and development of the theme system, and in the story of the Pechenegs in the 11th century.

Of the scientists who wrote reviews of this book in Russian or Western European periodicals, I am especially grateful to two of my esteemed colleagues - V.V. , having looked at the English edition, how helpful their comment was, to which I followed carefully.

Mrs. S. M. Ragozina, who translated my book, did it with amazing conscience, for which I am deeply grateful to her.

To Professor H. B. Lathrop of the University of Wisconsin, I owe more than I can say for his involvement in this matter. With indefatigable courtesy he went over and corrected the manuscript, making valuable remarks which were usefully inserted. The kind of help I have seen from Professor Lathrop cannot be forgotten and I ask him to accept my most sincere thanks.

The University of Wisconsin not only paid for the cost of translation, but even publishes this volume as one of the university research issues. As a modest token of my gratitude, I would like to take this opportunity to dedicate this volume to the University of Wisconsin, which - in my short time at Madison - I have learned to love and respect.

Preface by Charles Diehl to the French edition A. A. Vasiliev. Histoire de l "Empire Byzaitin. Traduit du russe par P. Brodin et A. Bourguina. Preface de M. Ch. Diehl de Ílnstitut. Tome 1 (324–1081). Paris, 1932. (translated by scientific editor)

The history of the Byzantine Empire has been almost completely updated in the last 30-40 years. Important documents relating to many periods of its history were discovered. Significant studies have examined the various periods with the necessary scientific thoroughness. However, we lacked a general history of the Byzantine Empire, which would use these studies and, taking into account the latest results, would set out in full the fate and evolution of the monarchy of the Basileus. General work undertaken in Russia by Yu. A. Kulakovsky and F. I. Uspensky remained unfinished. The first stops at the year 717, the second - in the form in which it is now published - at the end of the 9th century. Bury's valuable work only covered comparatively short periods of Byzantine history. The general reviews that Geltzer, Jorga, Norman Baines, and to which - I think I'll be excused - I will add my own, were only popular works, not useless, perhaps, but certainly quite general.

It was thus a very happy idea that in 1917 A. A. Vasiliev came up with the publication of the first volume of the History of the Byzantine Empire, in which it went up to 1081, supplemented between 1923 and 1925. the second volume in three editions, where events were brought up to the fall of the empire in 1453. However, this work was written in Russian, a language that many people, and even among the Byzantines, in the West know little or do not know at all. That is why it turned out to be very timely desire of A. A. Vasiliev to give in 1928–1929. English translation of his book, which in fact, due to the amount of work that the author has invested in revising, correcting and supplementing the book, has become almost a completely new work. And since A. A. Vasiliev put the same careful attention into the French edition, which I have the pleasure to present to the reader, we can actually say that this work reflects the exact state and complete bibliography of our knowledge about Byzantium in 1931.

And this in itself is enough to characterize the significance of the work.

Is it necessary to add that A. A. Vasiliev was perfectly prepared for writing such a work with all his works? From 1901–1902 he made himself known thanks to the important two-volume work "Byzantium and the Arabs in the era of the Amorian and Macedonian dynasties." He published, in addition, with a French translation, important texts - "World History", which he wrote in Arabic in the tenth century. Agapius of Manbij, and such a significant work as "The History of Yahya of Antioch (XI century)". Knowing, moreover, quite naturally, the Russian language and thus able to make use of all the significant works published in Russian on Byzantine history, he was better equipped than anyone else to write this general history, which he also carried out in French. the translation of which is now being published.

This is not the place to analyze even briefly these two volumes. I would like to highlight just a few of their features. First of all, this is an introduction, formed by the first chapter, where, on about fifty pages, the development of Byzantine studies from Ducange to the present day in the West and in Russia is very interesting and balanced. On the other hand, I would like to point out the two long chapters that complete the second volume, on the Empire of Nicaea and on the era of the Palaiologos. For other periods of history considered by him, Vasiliev had valuable literature. Here, on the contrary, for the period of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, still so incompletely studied, the task was much more time-consuming and complex. That is why Vasiliev's "History" renders a great service, bringing a little bit of order, accuracy and clarity into this complex era.

These are the features of the entire work as a whole, which will make it valuable even for readers who are little familiar with the events of Byzantine history. We must also thank Mrs. A. Burgina and Mr. P. Brodin for their excellent translation, which placed at the disposal of the French public and especially university students a book that we lacked and which conveys to us in the best possible way the latest results of the science of Byzantine research.

Charles Diehl

Preface to the second American edition. A. A- Vasiliev. History of the Byzantine Empire. 324–1453. Madison, 1952 (translated by scientific editor)

My History of the Byzantine Empire, now in a new English edition, has a very long history. Its original text was published in Russia, in Russian. The first volume was in print in the last months of the existence of imperial Russia and in the first days of the first revolution and was published in 1917 without notes under the heading "Lectures on the history of Byzantium (before the Crusades)". The second volume in three volumes, "Byzantium and the Crusaders", "Latin Dominion in the East", "The Fall of Byzantium" was published in 1923-1925, and was provided with references to literature and sources. The Russian edition is now completely outdated.

The first English edition appeared twenty-three years ago (1928–1929) in two volumes in the University of Wisconsin Research Series. It was based on the text of the Russian original, which I have completely revised, supplemented and updated. This edition has long become a bibliographic rarity and is practically inaccessible.

In 1932 I revised and greatly expanded the text for the French edition, which appeared in Paris the same year. It is also almost inaccessible. Later I made some changes for the Spanish edition, which appeared in Barcelona in 1948. The Turkish edition of the first volume of the work appeared in Ankara in 1943; This is a translation from the French edition. Produced in sufficient numbers, this edition is completely unavailable, so that even I, the author, do not have my own copy and have only seen this edition in the Library of Congress.

The second English edition is based on the French edition. However, 19 years have passed since 1932, since the appearance of the French edition, and during this time many valuable works have appeared that had to be taken into account when preparing a new edition. In 1945, in accordance with the wishes of the University of Wisconsin, I revised the text for a new edition and even added a section on Byzantine feudalism. This revision, however, was made in 1945, and during 1945-1951. important new research has emerged. I have tried my best to make the necessary additions, but this work has proceeded sporadically, not systematically, and I am afraid that there are many significant gaps in regard to the work of the most recent period.

Over the past two years, my former student and now renowned professor at Rutgers University, Peter Haranis, has helped me immensely, especially with regard to bibliography, and it is my duty and pleasure to express my deepest gratitude to him. As I said in the preface to the first English edition, it was not my task to give a complete bibliography of the subjects studied, so in both the text and the bibliography I give references only to the most important and latest publications.

Fully aware that the chronological arrangement of my book sometimes presents serious difficulties, I have not changed it in this edition. If I did that, I would have to write an entirely new book.

My heartfelt thanks go to Mr. Robert L. Reynolds, Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin and also the Department of Geography at the University of Wisconsin, who was very kind and cooperative with the publishers of this book in the preparation of the maps. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to Mrs. Ednah Shepard Thomas, who reviewed the manuscript with amazing diligence and corrected any inaccuracies in my English. Finally, I want to thank Mr. Kimon T. Giocarinis for the hard work of indexing this book.

A. A. Vasiliev

Dumbarton Oaks Harvard University Washington, D.C.

A. A. Vasiliev did not have time to get acquainted with one important work, where all the questions he analyzes in this section are considered in great detail: H. V. Pigulevskaya. Byzantium on the way to India. From the history of Byzantine trade with the East IV-VI centuries. M.; JI., 1951; idem. Byzanz auf den Wegen nach Indien. Aus der Geschichte des byzantinischen Handels mit dem Orient von 4. bis 6. Jahrhundert. Berlin, 1969.

The following two editions were used in the writing of this article: I. V. Kuklina. A. A. Vasiliev: “works and days” of a scientist in the light of unpublished correspondence. - In the book: Archives of Russian Byzantines in St. Petersburg. Ed. I. P. Medvedev. SPb., 1995, p. 313–338. Sirarpie Der Nersessian. Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev. Biography and Bibliography. - Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 9–10. Washington (D.C.), 1956, Pp. 3–21. In Soviet times, a brief, benevolently neutral note was published about A. A. Vasiliev in the first edition of the TSB (vol. 9, M., 1928, pp. 53–54), and a short article by I. P. Medvedev in the next edition: Slavic studies in pre-revolutionary Russia. Biobibliographic dictionary. M., 1979, p. 92–94. Recent works about A. A. Vasiliev: G. M. Bongard-Levin and I. V. Tunkina p. 317 Islam

However, it would be wrong to say that A. A. Vasiliev's work does not contain the author's conclusions and point of view. There are separate generalizing phrases in each chapter. It is important, however, to note that only the second chapter ends with a brief summary historical development the whole period,

Wed in this regard, the position of V. G. Vasilevsky: G. G. Litavrin. Vasily Grigorievich Vasilevsky - founder of the St. Petersburg Center for Byzantine Studies (1838–1899). - Byzantine timeline, 1 . 65, 1994, p. 10.

It is interesting to note the following fact: a textual comparison of the original Russian versions with the second American edition shows that quite often A. A. Vasiliev did not include in subsequent reprints the paragraphs and phrases on socio-economic issues that were in the original Russian versions. One example: only in the second American edition it was restored in the same place where it was in the original Russian version of 1925 - a section on Byzantine feudalism. (In this edition, this is the last section of chapter eight.) This text is missing from all previous editions.

I. F. Fikhman. An introduction to documentary papyrology. M., 1987, p. 283–255.

Here I would also like to note that A. A. Vasiliev, giving quite detailed characteristics of all chroniclers, does not touch upon the causes of the emergence of this historical genre. See, in particular: Culture of Byzantium. First half of IV-half of VII centuries. M., 1984, p. 245–246.

For reasons not entirely clear, the publishers of the Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae series, under the general heading - A. A. Vasiliev. Byzance et les arabes - published two works, only remotely related to the work of A. A. Vasiliev. This - A. A. Vasiliev. Byzance et les arabes. T. II, 2. La dynastie macedonienne, 2-ieme partie. Extraits des sources arabes, traduits par M. Canard. Bruxelles, 1950, and A. A. Vasiliev. Byzance et les arabes. Vol. 3. Die Ostgrenze des Byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 von E. Honigmann. Bruxelles, 1961. If the appearance of the first of these works under the name of A. A. Vasilyev can be understood - A. A. Vasilyev himself noted it as his own in the consolidated bibliography of the second American edition, then the publication of the monograph by E. Honigman with the name of Vasilyev is incomprehensible and practically , nor logically.

On the title page of both volumes of the first American edition of the work is the following inscription - University of Wisconsin Studies in the Social Sciences and History, n. 13 (first volume), n. 14 (second volume). Science editor's note.

Then - a professor at the University of Petrograd, now - a professor at the University of Madison (Wisconsin). (Note by Sh. Diel.)