Oleg's campaign against Constantinople: description, history and consequences. Campaign of the Prophetic Oleg to Constantinople

Russian-Byzantine War of 907- the legendary campaign of the ancient Russian prince Oleg to Constantinople.

The campaign is described in detail in the Tale of Bygone Years (early 12th century) and ended with the signing of a peace treaty in 907. Widely known in Russian society by the phrase: “The prophetic Oleg nailed his shield on the gates of Constantinople.” However, this raid is not mentioned in any Byzantine or other source, except for the Old Russian chronicles. In 911, a new Russian-Byzantine treaty was concluded, the authenticity of which is not questioned.

Position of Byzantium

At the beginning of the 10th century, Byzantium was ruled by Emperor Leo VI the Philosopher, who came into conflict with the church hierarchs over his 4th marriage. The main enemy of Byzantium during this period of time were the Saracens, who attacked Byzantine possessions in Asia Minor and carried out sea raids from the south. The most famous raid was the capture of the Greek city of Thessalonica by the pirate Leo of Tripoli in July 904. The Byzantine fleet under the command of Drungarius Imerius was unable to interfere with the Saracen flotilla, which consisted of only 54 ships.

Taking advantage of the weakness of the empire, in the same year 904, the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I took away part of the lands from Byzantium, which bought off with an annual tribute, regularly paying it until 913. In Europe at the beginning of the 10th century, a new force appeared, the Hungarians, who settled in Pannonia, defeating the Slavic state of Great Moravia. Soon European chronicles would be filled with reports of Hungarian raids on neighboring countries, but in the early 900s they posed a threat primarily to the Bulgarian kingdom, and Byzantine diplomacy tried to set them against Simeon I.

Although Byzantine sources do not record any conflicts with the Rus after the raid on Constantinople in 860, there is indirect evidence that raids continued later. Thus, in his military manual (written around 905) in the chapter on naval battles, Emperor Leo VI noted that the hostile people, “the so-called northern Scythians” (the name of the Rus in the Byzantine tradition), use small fast ships, since they cannot otherwise get out of rivers into the Black Sea.

Of the events close in time to 907, the Byzantine chronicles note the victory of their fleet over the Saracen fleet in October 906. In 907 and the following years, no major battles or wars were noted near Constantinople. The next battle took place in October 911 near Crete, in which the Byzantine fleet was defeated by the Saracens. 700 Rus fought for the Byzantines. In the summer of 913, the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I made a victorious campaign under the walls of Constantinople, which ended in a peace treaty beneficial for the Bulgarians.

Oleg's hike through The Tale of Bygone Years

“The Tale of Bygone Years,” the earliest surviving ancient Russian chronicle (beginning of the 12th century), begins the story of the campaign against Constantinople with a listing of the Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples and tribes that Oleg attracted to the campaign:

According to the chronicle, part of the army moved along the shore on horses, the other along the sea on 2 thousand ships, each of which could accommodate 40 people. However, the text of the Novgorod Chronicle of the younger edition, which, according to the historian Shakhmatov, contains in its original form part of the earliest unpreserved chronicle (Initial Code), does not speak of 2 thousand ships, but of 100 or 200 ships (“ And Oleg commanded to give tribute to the 100th, 200th ship..."). Historians avoid interpreting the unclear phrase of the initial chronicler of the 11th century, but from it the figure of 2000 ships is easily deduced by the later author of the Tale of Bygone Years (PVL). Otherwise, the author of the PVL follows the story of the Initial Code with a more precise indication of dates. The round figure of 200 ships could have been taken from the story of an earlier Russian raid on Constantinople in 860.

Then the legends begin in the description of the hike. Oleg put his ships on wheels and, with a fair wind, moved across the field to Constantinople. The frightened Greeks asked for peace and brought out poisoned wine and food, which Oleg did not accept. Then the Greeks agreed to Oleg’s conditions: pay 12 hryvnia to each soldier, make separate payments in favor of the princes of Kyiv, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Polotsk, Rostov, Lyubech and other cities. Novgorod was not included in the list of cities. According to the PVL, the tribute is also indicated at 12 hryvnia " on the oarlock", which leaves the mounted participants of the campaign without remuneration.

In addition to one-time payments, a permanent tribute was imposed on Byzantium and an agreement was concluded (agreement of 907) regulating the stay and trade of Russian merchants in Byzantium. After mutual vows, Oleg hung a shield on the gates of Constantinople as a sign of victory, then ordered the Greeks to sew sails: for Rus' from pavolok (golden-woven silk), for the Slavs from coprina (plain silk). According to the chronicle, upon returning to Kyiv with rich booty, the people nicknamed Oleg the Prophetic.

Some analogy with sails made of precious fabrics can be traced in the Scandinavian saga about the future Norwegian king Olaf Tryggvason, recorded by the monk Odd at the end of the 12th century. Olaf served under Prince Vladimir in the 980s and made a trip to Byzantium, according to the saga, for baptism. One of his military raids is described as follows: “ They say that after one great victory he turned home to Gardy [Rus]; They sailed then with such great pomp and magnificence that they had sails on their ships made of precious materials, and their tents were the same.»

If the ancient Russian chronicler talks about Rus'’s campaign against Constantinople in 860 exclusively according to Byzantine sources (Amartol’s chronicle), then the story about the campaign in 907 is based only on local oral traditions, some motives of which are reflected in the Scandinavian sagas. Although the legends themselves may not correspond to historical reality, they indicate that the campaign took place, although it apparently developed differently than the chronicle describes it.

Treaty of 907

According to the PVL, after the victory, Oleg concluded peace in Constantinople on very favorable terms. Russians coming to the city were actually supported by the Byzantine authorities and did not pay taxes. The contract is retold in words, the formal procedural content is omitted.

In September 911 (according to the PVL in 912 due to the beginning of the new year on March 1), a new agreement was concluded, a list of which is given in full in the chronicle. The content of the 907 treaty does not overlap in any way with the 911 treaty, with the exception of the names of the ambassadors, but almost literally reproduces a fragment from the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 944. The table below conveys the text of the 907 treaty in accordance with fragments from later Russian-Byzantine treaties.

Information about Oleg’s campaign from other sources

The Novgorod First Chronicle of the younger edition sets out events differently, naming two campaigns against Byzantium by Igor and his commander Oleg, dating them to 920 and 922:

Moreover, the description of the campaign of 920 reproduces the well-documented campaign of Prince Igor in 941.

The Byzantine chronicle of Pseudo-Simeon (last third of the 10th century) tells about the Dews (Rus):

In this fragment, some researchers are ready to see elements similar to the Magi’s prediction of the coming death of Oleg, and in Rosa himself - of the Prophetic Oleg. In popular literature, V. D. Nikolaev’s constructions about the raid of the Ros-Dromites on Byzantium in 904 are widely cited. The Rosses, according to Nikolaev (Pseudo-Simeon does not mention this), were defeated at Cape Tricephalus by the Byzantine admiral John Radin, and only part of them escaped from the “Greek fire” thanks to the insight of their leader.

A.G. Kuzmin, examining the text of the “Tale of Bygone Years” about Prince Oleg, suggested that the chronicler used Greek or Bulgarian sources about Oleg’s campaign. The chronicler quotes the words of the Byzantines: “ This is not Oleg, but Saint Dmitry, sent to us by God.” These words may indicate the events of 904, when Constantinople did not provide assistance to the city of Thessalonica, whose patron was Demetrius of Thessalonica, as a result of which the city’s inhabitants were massacred and only part of them were redeemed from the hands of Arab pirates. In a phrase of the Byzantines about St., incomprehensible from the context. Dmitry could contain a hint of Dmitry's revenge on Constantinople, which was guilty of the sack of Thessalonica.

Interpretations

The campaign is known exclusively from Russian sources; the Byzantine ones remain silent about it. Only in the “History” of Leo the Deacon is there evidence of the reality not so much of the campaign as of the peace treaty: John Tzimiskes, during negotiations with Svyatoslav, reminds him, like Prince Igor, “ despising the oath agreement", attacked the Byzantine capital. Here, according to M. Ya. Syuzyumov and S. A. Ivanov, as well as A. A. Vasiliev, this refers to Oleg’s treaty of 911, concluded after the campaign of 907 and known from the Tale of Bygone Years.

G. G. Litavrin found the agreement to be such that it “ without military pressure from Rus' was absolutely impossible" When the empire concluded an agreement with another country, the main copy of the contractual document was drawn up on behalf of the emperor, then the same in Greek, but on behalf of the ruler of the other country, and this document was translated into the language of the people with whom the agreement was being made. The famous linguist, academician S.P. Obnorsky concluded that the text of the 911 treaty was translated, replete with Greekisms and violations of the requirements of Russian syntax.

Thus, the texts of the treaties included in the Tale of Bygone Years indicate that the campaign was not a complete fiction. Some historians are inclined to explain the silence of Byzantine sources by the incorrect dating of the war in the Tale. There have been attempts to connect it with the raid of the "Rus-Dromites" in 904, at a time when Byzantium was fighting the pirate Leo of Tripoli. The most likely hypothesis was put forward by B. A. Rybakov and L.N. Gumilev: the description of the 907 campaign in the Tale actually refers to the war of 860, which was replaced by a message about the unsuccessful raid of Askold and Dir in 866, inspired by Byzantine legends about the miraculous deliverance of Christians from hostile pagans.

This is all the more likely since Rus', from the beginning of the 10th century, appears in Greek texts as an ally of Byzantium. Patriarch Nicholas the Mystic (901-906 and 912-925) threatens Bulgaria with Russian invasion; 700 Russian mercenaries took part in the unsuccessful Byzantine expedition to Crete in 911.

In his work devoted to the campaign of the Prophetic Oleg to Constantinople, Byzantine scholar A. A. Vasiliev came to the conclusion that Oleg’s raid was not an invention of the ancient Russian chronicler, who, in the tradition of the Scandinavian heroic sagas, turned an ordinary predatory raid on Byzantine possessions into an epoch-making event.

Dating of the campaign

In addition to the question of whether Oleg’s campaign described in the “Tale of Bygone Years” took place, there is the problem of dating such a campaign.

The date of 907 in the “Tale of Bygone Years” is conditional and arose as a result of complex calculations by chroniclers when combining the absolute and relative chronology of sources that had dates indicated in different eras. Initially, the story about Oleg’s reign had no dating, so later the story was divided into parts that gravitated towards the dates of the beginning and end of Oleg’s reign.

According to A.G. Kuzmin, initially the information about the end of Oleg’s reign was dated in the “Tale of Bygone Years” in 6415 (907), but when compared with the date of the treaty of 911, the dating was changed, so two chronicle articles appeared that spoke about the campaign, the conclusion agreement and the death of Oleg. Thus, two agreements appeared in the chronicle (the text and its “retelling”). Thus, the events described in the articles of 907 and 912 were initially not dated in any way, but were connected, as, for example, in the text of the “Joachim Chronicle”, which does not contain absolute dating and information about the death of the prince: “After that, Oleg possessed that entire country, conquered many peoples, went to fight against the Greeks by sea and forced them to buy peace, and returned with great honor and many riches.”

According to indirect data, the campaign dates back to 904-909. The lower date, 904, is determined by the news of the allied Ros-Dromites and the Arab attack on Thessaloniki. The upper date, 909-910, is determined by the news of the Rus' reconnaissance campaign in the Caspian Sea, which was followed by a campaign in 913. The Rus who made this campaign could not pass through the Black and Azov Seas to the Don without allied relations with Byzantium. The union of Rus' and Byzantium by 909-910 is confirmed by the data of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (mid-10th century) on the participation of Russian auxiliary ships in the Cretan expedition of 910.

At the same time, the Tale of Bygone Years also contains a relative dating of the campaign. The text says that the prophecy of the Magi about Oleg’s death came true in the fifth summer after his campaign against Constantinople. Oleg’s “death” can be dated no later than July 912 (the sacrifice mentioned by V.N. Tatishchev when Halley’s Comet appeared), or the autumn of this year indicated in the chronicle (the time of Polyudya). The campaign of 913 put an end to Oleg’s career (he died or went north). Consequently, the campaign against Byzantium took place in 907-908, and the chronicler was not mistaken in his calculations. The accuracy of the relative date indicated in the legend is confirmed by another place in the Tale - in the year 1071 it is said that a sorcerer appeared in Kyiv: “...He told people that in the fifth year the Dnieper would flow backward and that the lands would begin to move” Apparently, a five-year period of prophecy was usual for the Magi.

The dating of the campaign is also confirmed by the dynamics of Byzantine-Bulgarian relations. In 904, the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I made a campaign against Thessalonica, plundered by the Arabs, trying to expand his possessions. In 910-911 he is going to start a war with Byzantium, but he will start it only in 913. The Byzantines used the Russian fleet as one of the deterrents against the Bulgarians.

The reasons that prompted Oleg to attack Constantinople are already known to us from the previous ones: on the one hand, this is the desire of the new ruler of Dnieper Rus' to achieve recognition of his status from the empire and thereby confirm and extend the validity of the “Russian”-Byzantine treaty; on the other hand, the reluctance of the imperial authorities to be in allied relations with the pagans and provide them with trade and any other benefits. The immediate cause of the conflict, judging by the text of the treaty of 911, was some kind of skirmishes between the Rus and the Greeks, in which it came down to a “strike with a sword.”

Oleg's campaign against Constantinople is described in detail in The Tale of Bygone Years. The “conspiracy of silence” that surrounds this event in Byzantine literature appears in striking contrast to the chronicler’s awareness. However, there is still one indirect evidence. In Leo the Deacon we find news that Emperor John Tzimiskes threatened Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich with the fate of his father, who “disdained the oath agreement” - this, of course, is a clear allusion to the previous Byzantine-“Russian” agreement, violated by Igor in 941.

Unfortunately, the detail of the chronicle story does not at all guarantee the accuracy of the information it conveys. First of all, this concerns chronology. The Tale of Bygone Years dates Oleg's campaign against Constantinople to 907. At the same time, it dates preliminary negotiations with the Greeks, the results of which received legal formalization only in 911, when the second, “expanded” embassy of Prince Oleg signed the famous treaty. The reasons for this diplomatic delay are left without any explanation. The chronicler simply filled the resulting time gap with “empty years.” It is difficult to say what considerations motivated him in this case*. But in fact, both events occurred in the same year, evidence of which can be found in the “Tale” itself. In the article marked 907, Oleg’s ambassadors negotiate with the “King of the Walnuts,” the brothers “Leon and Alexander.” Meanwhile, this message can only be true in relation to 911, because it was in this year that Emperor Leo VI the Wise appointed Alexander as his co-ruler. Thus, the standing of “Rus” under the walls of Constantinople most likely lasted throughout August 911 and ended on September 2, the day the treaty was signed.

*It seems that the four-year interval between the campaign and the signing of the treaty in the “Tale” is somehow connected with calculations of the time of Oleg’s death: “and I came to Kyiv, and stayed for 4 years, in the 5th year I remember my horse, from him the Magi told the Magi to die Olgovi" (see about this: Kuzmin A.G. Initial stages of ancient Russian chronicle writing. M., 1977. S. 264 - 265; Nikitin A.L. Foundations of Russian history. M., 2000. S. 183 - 184).

The entire article 907 is no more reliable than the date set. This is no wonder, because the chronicler, in fact, composed a hymn in honor of the prophetic prince, in whose person the Russian land triumphed over the Greeks. To take the hymns at their word would, of course, be naive. When reading the story of Oleg’s overseas exploits, it should be remembered that the relationship between history and poetry here is approximately the same as between the Iliad and the real siege of Troy.

The epic grandeur of the campaign planned by Oleg becomes obvious from the very first lines. He allegedly manages to assemble a huge fleet - 2000 “ships”. The chronicler needs this fantastic figure, of course, only in order to send along with Oleg all his “Tolkoviny” (allies) - “many Varangians, and Slovenians, and Chud, and Krivichi, and Meryu, and Derevlyans, and Radimichi, and Polyans , and the North, and the Vyatichi, and the Croats, and the Dulebs, and the Tivertsy” (moreover, the last four Slavic tribes, according to the chronicle narrative itself, have not yet been “tortured” by the Kyiv princes as tribute). But even this armada of “ships” is not able to accommodate all of Oleg’s “warriors”, of which, we note, there are already 80,000 (based on 40 people per boat - the number indicated in the chronicle), so the other part of them “went” to Constantinople by land , “on horseback,” although equestrian squads among the Rus and Eastern Slavs did not yet exist.

Having mobilized the entire Russian land under Oleg’s banners, the chronicler, however, failed to properly dispose of this countless army. It is literally melting before our eyes. The horse army is the first to disappear, since Oleg’s treaty requires tribute from the Greeks only for the “men” in the “ships”. And then, as if all the Varangian-Finno-Slavic “talkies” fall through the ground, instead of which “Rus” suddenly appears, whose interests are the only ones taken into account in negotiations with the “kings”. This turn of events convinces us that in fact the naval campaign of 911 was carried out by the forces of Oleg’s squad; The militia of the East Slavic tribes did not participate in the raid.

However, in the list of “interpretations” worthy of attention are the “Slovenians”, who later appear in the joke with the sails: “And Oleg said: “Sew the sails of the Russians, and the Slovenes are sprinkled,” and so it was... And Rus' raised the sails of the Slovenes, and the Slovenes are sprinkled, and the wind tore them apart; and deciding to the Slovenes: “let’s take our thick sails [sails made of rough canvas], the essence of the Slovenes’ sails is not given.” Pavoloka in Rus' was the name for expensive fabric of two types: silk and “paper” (cotton). The “Slovenians” also got “woolly” sails, but made of cotton fabric - easily torn (“crumbly”). The meaning of the anecdote is apparently the same as in the fairy tale about tops and roots: dividing the expensive “pavoloks” looted from the Greeks - silk and paper stock - the “Slovenians” were flattered by something more luxurious and durable in appearance than silk, but unsuitable for seaworthiness. actually fabric.

Here the chronicler is clearly retelling a “Russian” squad legend known to him, which depicts some kind of conflict between “Rus” and the “Slovenes” over the division of booty or squad “honor”. Moreover, the “Slovenians” were included in the “interpretations” only due to the fact that they are the characters in this anecdote, and only in order to give the chronicler the opportunity to tell it (the chronicler knows nothing else about the “Slovenians”). In the mouth of a Kyiv scribe of the 11th century. the story with the sails sounds like a mockery of the Novgorodians, the rivals of the “Polyan-Rus”. Therefore, “Slovenes” are inserted into the list of “Tolkovinas” immediately after the Varangians, and, being in this place, they should designate Ilmen Slovenes. Despite the fact that the chronicler in this case went from anecdote to history, all commentators on this passage still call the “Slovenes” Novgorodians. Meanwhile, the Slavic contingent of the “Russian” army, apparently, was represented, perhaps, led by a governor (the motive of rivalry between the squads of the prince and the governor is developed later in the “Tale”, in the story of the Drevlyan tribute). It is characteristic that the text of the agreement does not mention “Slovenians”. This could only happen if they were part of “Rus” - a circumstance that was quite natural for, and completely impossible for the Ilmen Slovenes.

In light of the above, a tenfold reduction in the number of Oleg’s “ships” will look like the most likely figure. By the way, this is exactly what the incredulous editor of the Commission List of the Novgorod I Chronicle did.

The description of military operations at the walls of Constantinople again raises the question of the actual relationship of the entire chronicle article of 907 to the “legends of deep antiquity” and, even more so, to the “memoirs of the participants in the campaign.” It has been noted, for example, that the story about the robberies and robberies of “Rus” in the vicinity of Constantinople (“and you fought near the city, and committed many murders to the Greeks, and destroyed many chambers, and burned churches; and in their name, the plunderers, some were flogged, others were tormented , some I shot, and others were swept into the sea, and I did a lot of evil to Rus' to the Greeks, as much as they did wars”) is compiled from reports of two Byzantine sources - the Continuator of the Chronicle of George Amartol and the Life of Vasily the New - about the attack on Constantinople by Prince Igor in 941 .( Shakhmatov A. A. “The Tale of Bygone Years” and its sources // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences, IV. M.; L., 1940. S. 54 - 57, 69 - 72). This gave rise to a number of researchers to argue that the 911 treaty “does not have any hint of hostile relations between the Russians and the Greeks” ( Bakhrushin S.V. Works on source study, historiography and history of Russia in the era of feudalism. M., 1987. S. 30 - 31; Tikhomirov M.N. Historical connections of Russia with the Slavic countries and Byzantium. M., 1969. P. 109). There is some truth in these arguments, but it would be wrong to completely deny the authenticity of the chronicle account of the atrocities of the Rus. In medieval and, in particular, Old Russian literature, there are many descriptions of real events using (sometimes verbatim) ancient, biblical, etc. "model" texts ( Bibikov M.V. Byzantine historical prose. M., 1996. S. 30 - 31). Meanwhile, the text of Oleg's treaty retained clear traces of the fact that the swords of the Rus were stained with the blood of the civilian population of the Byzantine Empire. Its “chapters” open with a statement about the end of violence: “At the first word, let us make peace with you, Greeks,” and at preliminary negotiations, Emperors Leo and Alexander demanded that the Russians no longer “do dirty tricks in the villages and in our country.”

But the cited criticisms are correct in the sense that there really was no “Russian-Byzantine war,” that is, full-scale military action, in 911. Oleg did not sail to Constantinople to fight with Byzantium; the demonstration of military force was supposed to persuade the Greeks to conclude a peace treaty. Oleg's strategic plan was to break into the Golden Horn Bay (the Byzantine fleet at that time was involved in naval operations against the Arabs in the Mediterranean). This vulnerable spot of the Byzantine stronghold had been known to the Russians since 860. Then they managed to take the city by surprise. But now, for some reason, the surprise attack failed, and the entrance to the bay was securely blocked by a chain stretched between both banks. And yet Oleg carried out a maneuver, thanks to which, 542 years later, Mehmed II entered the Church of Hagia Sophia as a winner. At this point in his story, the chronicler again resorts to poeticization of history: “And Oleg commanded his howls to make wheels and put ships on wheels, and with a fair wind they raised the sails... and went to the city.” The peninsula separating the inner harbor of Constantinople from the sea is covered with vineyards, arable land and quite mountainous; in order to make the boats placed on wheels here move, a wind of such extraordinary strength is needed that it would rather disrupt the entire enterprise than help it come true. But there is nothing incredible in the very fact of transporting the boats overland to the Golden Horn Bay. Of course, the ships were unlikely to be placed on wheels; rather, they were laid on round rollers and pulled by a drag. Wood in the required quantity could be obtained without difficulty - the Thracian forests were then approaching Constantinople itself.

The success of this maneuver stunned the Greeks. Seeing enemy ships floating in the middle of the bay, which was considered inaccessible, the co-emperors agreed to begin negotiations with Oleg. They were also forced to take this step by the repentant mood that gripped the population of the capital. Suddenly they remembered how several years before, in 904, the imperial authorities refused to help Thessalonica, which was under siege by the Arabs. The inhabitants of Thessalonica were outraged that they were abandoned to their fate, and prophesied that Saint Demetrius, the patron saint of the city, would certainly punish Constantinople for this betrayal. And now in the capital on every corner one could hear: “It is not Oleg, but Saint Dmitry himself who was sent to us by God.” It was unthinkable to resist the heavenly punishment. Further intransigence of the government to the demands of the barbarians, who merely sought to have a profitable bargain in the Constantinople market, threatened to lead to open rebellion. Both of these circumstances - Oleg’s seizure of the territory of the Golden Horn and the tense situation inside the city - ensured unforgettable diplomatic success for the ambassadors “of Russian descent.”

Oleg's treaty with the Greeks

The signing of a long-term peace treaty was preceded by negotiations to end hostilities. Oleg wanted to receive a “tribute” - a ransom for his “warriors”. This place in the Tale is generally quite dark. The chronicler gives a double calculation of tribute: first, Oleg “commanded” to give tribute “for 2000 ships, 12 hryvnia per person, and 40 men per ship”; but his ambassadors, who came to Constantinople, asked to “give 12 hryvnia per key to the wars for 2000 ships.” Historians have explained the obvious discrepancy between the sizes of these two tributes in different ways. But few people took into account the capabilities of the imperial treasury and considerations of imperial prestige. Even if, following the Novgorod I Chronicle, we estimate the strength of Oleg’s army at 8,000 people (200 rooks of 40 soldiers each), then the tribute required for them will be 96,000 hryvnia or 2,304,000 spools (the hryvnia of the early 10th century was equal to about a third of a pound, that is, 24 Byzantine spools). Here we must remember that the Byzantine treasury received approximately 8,000,000 zolotniks annually and that Emperor Mauritius quarreled to death with the Avar Khagan Bayan over 100,000 zolotniks - an amount 23 times less than what we received as a result of a tenfold reduction in the number of Oleg’s soldiers! (According to the chronicle, it turns out that Oleg demanded to pay him three annual budgets of the empire - another evidence of the fantastic nature of the chronicle calculation of his army.) But the international status of the Avar Kagan far exceeded the dignity of the “blessed Russian prince.”

It seems that the tribute of 12 hryvnia per warrior is a creation of the heated imagination of the ancient Russian warriors, which was included in the chronicle from their “Constantinople” legends. The two systems for calculating tribute probably reflect the fact that Oleg, excited by the success achieved, initially asked for too much, but then, during the negotiations, agreed to take “according to rank.” The expression “12 hryvnia per key” is usually understood as payment per key (steering) oar, that is, per boat. However, V. Dal in his dictionary (article “Klyuch”) also indicates that among the Western Slavs the word “key” means an estate of several villages and hamlets with a town, governed by a key. “Oleg’s rook power,” he writes, “was probably divided into keys according to the volosts from which the boats were sent, or according to private commanders over the keys, departments of people.” Considering Oleg’s Carpathian origin, perhaps this interpretation of the size of the tribute received from the Greeks should be preferred. Another part of the tribute was given in precious things and products. Returning to Kyiv, Oleg took with him “gold, and grass, and vegetables, and wine, and all sorts of ornaments.”

Another important point of the negotiations was the “structures” that the Greeks pledged to “give to Russian cities.” The text immediately following the list of cities regulates the conditions of detention of “Russian” ambassadors and merchants: “let them eat a month for 6 months, bread and wine, and meat, and fish, and vegetables; and let them give them [bath] as much [as] they want; and then go home to Rus', and let them take from our Tsar on the way the brush, and anchors, and ropes, and sails, and as much as they need.” With the second mention of cities, the agreement determines the order of trade for Russian merchants: “and let them enter the city through the same gates with the Tsar’s husband, without weapons, 50 men each, and let them make purchases as they need, without paying a toll [duties] in any way.” with what". Thus, by “way of life” we must understand the trade charter, which stipulates the rules of trade of the Rus on the Constantinople market. As we can see, Oleg achieved extremely favorable conditions for the “Russian” merchants: they received support from the imperial treasury and were exempt from duties.

The agreement was sealed with an oath. Emperors Leo and Alexander “kissed the cross themselves, and Olga took the company [oath], and his men, according to Russian law, swore by their weapons, and by Perun, their god, and Volos, the god of cattle, and established peace.” The name Volos does not at all prove that among Oleg’s ambassadors there were representatives of the Slavic aristocracy of Kyiv. This deity was also known to the Western Slavs and, most likely, the ambassadors who swore by Volos belonged to the Croats or Moravians.

On September 2, fourteen “men from the Russian family” signed a written agreement on “irreversible and shameless” love between the Rus and the Greeks. His articles can be divided into four main sections:

1. The procedure for examining and punishing criminal offenses committed by the Russians or Greeks against each other on the territory of the Byzantine Empire. Murder, as required by imperial law, was punishable by death and confiscation of property, with the exception of that part that was due to the murderer's wife. For causing bodily harm, a fine was imposed on the perpetrator (“five liters of silver according to Russian law”), and if he was “unmovable,” then he had to remove “the very ports” from himself. The caught thief was exacted three times the amount taken; if they resisted capture, the owner of the stolen property could kill him with impunity. The verdict was passed only on the basis of irrefutable evidence; at the slightest suspicion of falsity of testimony, the opposing party had the right to reject it, swearing “according to their faith.” Perjury was punishable by execution. The parties agreed to extradite escaped criminals to each other.

2. Providing mutual assistance on the territory of other states. In the event of a shipwreck of a Byzantine merchant ship near the coast of any other country, the nearby “Russian” merchants were obliged to take the ship and crew under guard and escort the cargo to the borders of the empire or to a safe place. If trouble overtook the Greeks near the “Russian land”, then the ship was transported to the latter, the goods were sold and the proceeds were to be transported to Constantinople with the first embassy or trade caravan. Violence, murders and robberies committed by the Russians on the ship were punished in the above manner. The agreement is silent about the fact that “Russian” merchants had the right to demand the same from the Greeks. This circumstance is probably due to the fact that the Rus went on trade expeditions in entire flotillas (according to rough estimates, one trade caravan arriving from Kyiv to Constantinople in the middle of the 10th century consisted of at least a thousand people - see. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. About managing an empire. Note 63. P. 329). The large number of “Russian” merchants is also reflected in the Greek demand to limit their access to Constantinople: they had to enter the city through one gate of 50 people. It is clear that with such a scale of trading enterprises, the Rus did not need outside help.

3. Redemption of “Russian” and Greek slaves and prisoners of war and capture of fugitive slaves. Seeing a Greek captive at the slave market, the “Russian” merchant had to ransom him; The Greek merchant was obliged to do the same in relation to the captive Rus. In the homeland of the slave, the merchant received the ransom amount for him or the average price of the slave at the current exchange rate (“20 zlotys”). In the event of a "rati" (war) between the "Russian Land" and Byzantium, a ransom of prisoners of war was provided for - again at the average price of a slave. Runaway or stolen “Russian” slaves were to be returned to their owners; the latter could search for them on the territory of the empire, and the Greek who resisted the search of his house was considered guilty.

4. Conditions for hiring Russians for military service. When announcing the recruitment of mercenaries into the army, the Byzantine emperors were obliged to recruit into the service all the Rus who wished it, and for the period that would suit the mercenaries themselves (the Rus sought long-term mercenary service, up to lifelong). The property of a killed or deceased mercenary, in the absence of a will, was transferred to his neighbor “to Rus'.”

The negotiations ended with a solemn ceremony, which was supposed to show the barbarians the power of the empire and encourage Oleg to follow the example of previous “Russian” princes who converted to Christianity. The Russian ambassadors were invited to the Church of Hagia Sophia to inspect Christian shrines: “Tsar Leon honored the Russian ambassadors with gifts, gold and pavilions... and put your men to them, show them the church beauty, and the golden plates, and in them real wealth: there is a lot of gold , and trails, and precious stones, and the passion of the Lord, a crown and a nail, and a scarlet robe, and the relics of saints, teaching them to their faith and showing them the true faith; and so release them to your land with great honor.” But it seems that none of the Rus wanted to leave.

Before leaving his camp, Oleg once again confirmed his firm intention to maintain “incorruptible and shameless love” with the Greeks, ordering his shield to be hung on the city gates, “showing victory.” This symbolic act is usually interpreted in a completely opposite sense - as a sign of the victory of the Rus over Byzantium. However, the word “victory” in the 11th - 12th centuries. it also had the meaning of “protection, patronage” (cf. victorious - “intercessor, defender” in the Assumption Collection). Likewise, the shield nowhere and never symbolized victory, but only protection, peace, cessation of warfare. The raising of his shield by the leader of the army during a battle meant a call for the start of peace negotiations; in 1204, noble crusaders hung their shields on the doors of the houses they occupied in Constantinople to prevent other knights from plundering them. The prophetic prince left his talisman to the Greeks, which was supposed to protect the city from enemy attacks; he returned to his own not as a conqueror of Byzantium, but as its ally and defender.

Russian-Byzantine War of 907- the legendary victorious campaign of the ancient Russian prince Oleg to Constantinople.

Then the legends begin in the description of the hike. Oleg put his ships on wheels and, with a fair wind, moved across the field to Constantinople. The frightened Greeks asked for peace and brought out poisoned wine and food, which Oleg did not accept. Then the Greeks agreed to Oleg’s conditions: pay 12 hryvnia to each soldier, make separate payments in favor of the princes of Kyiv, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Polotsk, Rostov, Lyubech and other cities. Novgorod was not included in the list of cities, which is consistent with the archaeological date of the city's formation (after 931). According to the PVL, the tribute is also indicated at 12 hryvnia " on the oarlock", which leaves the mounted participants of the campaign without remuneration.

In addition to one-time payments, a permanent tribute was imposed on Byzantium and an agreement was concluded (agreement of 907) regulating the stay and trade of Russian merchants in Byzantium. After mutual vows, Oleg hung a shield on the gates of Constantinople as a sign of victory, then ordered the Greeks to sew sails: for Rus' from pavolok (golden-woven silk), for the Slavs from coprina (plain silk). According to the chronicle, upon returning to Kyiv with rich booty, the people nicknamed Oleg the Prophetic.

Some analogy with sails made of precious fabrics can be traced in the Scandinavian saga about the future Norwegian king Olaf Tryggvason, recorded by the monk Odd at the end of the 12th century. Olaf served under Prince Vladimir in the 980s and made a trip to Byzantium, according to the saga, for baptism. One of his military raids is described as follows: “ They say that after one great victory he turned home to Gardy [Rus]; They sailed then with such great pomp and magnificence that they had sails on their ships made of precious materials, and their tents were the same.»

If the ancient Russian chronicler talks about Rus'’s campaign against Constantinople in 860 exclusively according to Byzantine sources (Amartol’s chronicle), then the story about the campaign in 907 is based only on local oral traditions, some motives of which are reflected in the Scandinavian sagas. Although the legends themselves may not correspond to historical reality, they indicate that the campaign took place, although it apparently developed differently than the chronicle describes it.

Treaty of 907

The Byzantine chronicle of Pseudo-Simeon (last third of the 10th century) tells about the Dews (Rus):

“The Ros, or also the Dromites, received their name from a certain powerful Ros, after they managed to escape the consequences of what the oracles predicted about them, thanks to some warning or divine illumination of the one who ruled over them. They were called Dromites because they could move quickly.”

In this fragment, some researchers are ready to see elements similar to the Magi’s prediction of the impending death of Oleg, and in Rosa himself - the Prophetic Oleg. In popular literature, V.D.’s constructions are widely cited. Nikolaev about the raid of the Ros-Dromites on Byzantium in 904. The Rosses, according to Nikolaev (Pseudo-Simeon does not mention this), were defeated at Cape Tricephalus by the Byzantine admiral John Radin, and only part of them escaped from the “Greek fire” thanks to the insight of their leader.

Thus, the texts of the treaties included in the Tale of Bygone Years indicate that the campaign was not a complete fiction. Some historians are inclined to explain the silence of Byzantine sources by the incorrect dating of the war in the Tale. There were attempts to connect it with the raid of the “Rus-Dromites” in , at a time when Byzantium was fighting the pirate Leo of Tripoli. The most likely hypothesis was put forward by B. A. Rybakov and L. N. Gumilyov: the description of the 907 campaign in the Tale actually refers to the war of 860, which was replaced by a message about the unsuccessful raid of Askold and Dir in 866, inspired by Byzantine legends about the miraculous deliverance of Christians from hostile pagans.

This is all the more likely since Rus', from the beginning of the 10th century, appears in Greek texts as an ally of Byzantium. Patriarch Nicholas the Mystic (- and -) threatens Bulgaria with a Russian invasion, 700 Russian mercenaries took part in the unsuccessful Byzantine expedition to Crete in .

In his work devoted to the campaign of the Prophetic Oleg to Constantinople, Byzantine scholar A.A. Vasiliev came to the conclusion that Oleg’s raid was not an invention of the ancient Russian chronicler, who, in the tradition of the Scandinavian heroic sagas, turned an ordinary predatory raid on Byzantine possessions into an epoch-making event.

Dating of the campaign

In addition to the question of whether Oleg’s campaign described in The Tale of Bygone Years took place, there is the problem of dating such a campaign.

The year 907 in the history of Rus' was marked by the legendary campaign against Constantinople (or, as it was also called, Constantinople), which was led by the Novgorod prince Oleg. This event is associated with a lot of speculation and doubt on the part of historians, many of whom do not believe in its authenticity for a number of reasons. In this article we will tell you in detail about Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople (summary), and we will try to figure out whether this event really happened as the ancient Russian chronicles depict it.

Who is Prince Oleg?

Oleg was the prince of Novgorod and the great from 882 to 912, which was the year of his death. After he received power over the Novgorod land (which happened after the death of Rurik) as regent of the minor Igor, he captured ancient Kyiv. It was this city that at that time was destined to become the capital and symbol of the unification of the two main centers for the Slavs. That is why historians often consider him as the founder of the Old Russian state. And Oleg’s subsequent campaign against Constantinople became the reason for him to be called “Prophetic”.

Why was Oleg called the Prophetic?

As The Tale of Bygone Years tells us, Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople took place in 907. The chronicle talks about how the city was besieged and taken, and the courage and sharp mind of the prince, who outwitted the Byzantines, is glorified. According to this source, he refused to take poisoned food from them, which is why he was nicknamed “The Prophetic One.” This is exactly what people in Rus' began to call Oleg, who defeated the Greeks. In turn, his name comes from Scandinavia, and when translated means “saint”.

March to Constantinople

As already mentioned above, the content of the campaign and the Russian-Byzantine war is described in PVL (Tale of Bygone Years). These events culminated in a peace treaty being signed in 907. This became popular among the people thanks to the following words: “The prophetic Oleg nailed his shield on the gates of Constantinople.” But, nevertheless, this campaign is not mentioned in Greek sources, and, in general, it is not mentioned anywhere except in Russian legends and chronicles.

In addition, already in 911 the Russians signed a new document. Moreover, none of the historians doubt the authenticity of the conclusion of this agreement.

Byzantium and the Rus

It should be noted that after the Rus' campaign against Constantinople in 860, Byzantine sources indicate nothing about conflicts with them. However, there is a number of indirect evidence confirming the opposite. For example, the instruction of Emperor Leo IV already at the beginning of the 10th century contains information that the hostile “northern Scythians” use small ships sailing at high speed.

Oleg's hike through The Tale of Bygone Years

As the legend about Oleg’s campaign says, Constantinople was taken not only with the involvement of the Slavs, but also the Finno-Ugric tribes, which are listed in the ancient Russian written monument of the early 12th century - “The Tale of Bygone Years”. If you believe the chronicle, some warriors rode horses along the coast, while others moved by sea with the help of two thousand ships. Moreover, each ship accommodated more than thirty people. Historians are still hesitant about whether to believe the “Tale of Bygone Years” and whether the data about the campaign indicated in the chronicle are genuine.

Legends in the description of the trip

The legend about Prince Oleg's campaign against Constantinople contains a large number of legends. For example, the narrative indicates that the ships moved on wheels, on which they were placed by Oleg. The Byzantines were afraid of the Rus heading towards Constantinople and asked for peace. However, they brought back poisoned dishes, which the prince refused. Then the Greeks had no choice but to give their consent to what Oleg proposed. As the legend says, they had to pay 12 hryvnias to all soldiers, as well as a separate amount to the princes in Kyiv, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Rostov and other cities except Novgorod. But the prince’s victories did not end there. In addition to a one-time payment, the Greeks of Byzantium had to pay a permanent tribute to the Rus, and also agree to conclude an agreement (we are talking about the same agreement signed in 907), which was supposed to regulate the conditions of stay and trade of Russian merchants in Greek cities. The parties took mutual oaths. And Oleg, in turn, committed that very famous act, which made him legendary, according to legend, in the eyes of the common people. He hung a shield on the gates of the capital of Byzantium, Constantinople, as a victorious symbol. The Greeks were given the order to sew sails for the Slavic army. Chronicles say that it was after Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople was completed in 907 that the prince became popularly known as the “Prophetic One.”

However, if the stories of the ancient Russian chronicler about the Rus' raid on Constantinople in 860 are based only on Byzantine chronicles, then the story about this raid is based on information obtained from legends that were not written down. Moreover, several plots coincide with similar ones from the Scandinavian sagas.

Treaty of 907

What were the terms of the agreement, and was it concluded? If you believe the Tale of Bygone Years, then after the victorious actions of Prince Oleg in Constantinople, a document quite beneficial for Rus' was signed with the Greeks. The goal of its main provisions is considered to be the resumption of peaceful and good neighborly relations between these peoples and states. The Byzantine government took upon itself the obligation to pay the Rus a certain amount of annual tribute (and its size was quite substantial), as well as to pay a one-time payment of indemnity - both in money and in things, gold, rare fabrics, etc. The agreement stipulated the above the amount of ransoms for each warrior and the amount of monthly allowance that the Greeks had to give to Russian merchants.

Information about Oleg’s campaign from other sources

According to the information of the Novgorod First Chronicle, a number of events occurred in a different way. At the same time, the campaigns against Constantinople were carried out under the leadership and the “Prophetic” was just a governor. The chronicle describes Oleg’s legendary campaigns against Constantinople as follows. The year is indicated as 920, and the dating of the next raid places the events in 922. However, the description of the campaign in 920 is similar in detail to the description of Igor's campaign of 941, which is reflected in several documents.

The information contained in the Byzantine chronicles, written by Pseudo-Simeon at the end of the 10th century, provides information about the Rus. In one of the fragments, some historians see details pointing to the predictions of the sages about the future death of Oleg, and in the personality of Ross - the prince himself. Among popular science publications there is an opinion expressed by V. Nikolaev about the campaigns of the Russians against the Greeks, carried out around 904. If you believe his constructions (which were not mentioned in the chronicles of Pseudo-Simeon), then the Dews were defeated at Tricephalus by the Byzantine leader John Radin. And only a few managed to escape from the Greek weapons due to the insight of their prince.

A. Kuzmin, when studying the text of the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years” about the actions of Oleg, suggested that the author used texts from Bulgarian or Greek sources about raids led by the prince. The chronicler quoted the phrases of the Greeks: “This is not Oleg, but Saint Demetrius, who was sent to us by God.” Such words indicate, according to the researcher, the time of events in 904 - the Byzantines did not provide assistance to the Thessalonians. And Demetrius of Thessalonica was considered the patron of the robbed city. As a result, a large number of residents of Thessalonica were slaughtered, and only some of them were able to be freed from the Arab pirates. These words of the Greeks about Demetrius, unclear in context, could contain indications of revenge from the saint on Constantinople, who was indirectly guilty of such a fate for the population.

How do historians interpret chronicle information?

As mentioned above, information about the raid is contained only in Russian chronicles, and nothing is indicated in this regard in the Byzantine writings.

However, if we look at the text part of the document fragments, which is given in the Tale of Bygone Years, we can say that, after all, the information about the campaign of 907 is not completely fictitious. The lack of data in Greek sources is explained by some researchers by the incorrect date to which the war is attributed in the Tale of Bygone Years. There are a number of attempts to connect it with the campaign of the Rus (Dromites) in 904, while the Greeks fought with an army of pirates led by Leo of Tripoli. The theory that most closely resembles the truth belongs to the author of Boris Rybakov and, according to their hypothesis, information about the raid in 907 should be attributed to the events in 860. This war was replaced by information about unsuccessful campaigns under leadership that was inspired by legends about the extraordinary liberation of the Christian population from pagan tribes.

Dating of the campaign

It is not known exactly when exactly Prince Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople took place. The year to which these events refer (907) is arbitrary and appeared after the chroniclers made their own calculations. From the very beginning, the legends about the prince’s reign did not have an exact date, which is why later information was divided into stages that were attributed to the initial and final periods of his reign.

In addition, the Tale of Bygone Years contains information about the relative dating of the raid. It contains information that what was predicted by the sages (the death of the prince) actually happened five years after the campaign against Constantinople took place. If Oleg died no later than 912 (this is evidenced by the data on sacrifices in Tatishchev’s works, which took place during the appearance of Halley, the legendary comet), then the author calculated everything correctly.

The significance of Oleg's campaign against Constantinople

If the campaign really happened, then it can be considered a significant event. The document that was signed as a result of the campaign should be considered as a defining moment in the relations between the Greeks and the Russians for the next decades. Subsequent historical events, one way or another, were connected with the raids carried out by Prince Oleg, regardless of their correct dating.

Oleg's campaign against Byzantium. After the turbulent events of the 60s. 9th century Rus' retreats into the shadows for a while. Her voice is not heard on the international stage. Her diplomacy is silent. But Rus' does not freeze; rapid socio-economic processes are taking place, ancient Russian statehood is developing. It was after 860 that the north and south of the country - the Novgorod and Kiev lands - were united into a political whole. A political core of the East Slavic lands is being created, to which tribal unions of other Eastern Slavs are joining one after another.

These events were associated with Oleg's campaign to the south. Moving from Novgorod at the head of a large army, consisting of Varangians, Novgorod Slovenes, Krivichi and non-Slavic warriors - Meri, Vesi, Chud, he captured Smolensk, Lyubech and appeared near Kiev. Askold and Dir, who reigned there, were killed, and Oleg remained in Kyiv, making it the center of his state. “Behold the mother of the Russian city,” he allegedly said. The Tale of Bygone Years reports this. Subsequently, Oleg annexed the lands of the Drevlyans, Northerners, Radimichi and, thus, united all the main Russian tribal unions under the rule of Kyiv. He freed the northerners and Radimichi from paying tribute to the Khazars. Only the Vyatichi, who were not included in Rus', continued to be dependent on the Khazar Khaganate.

Thus, not only were the internal political problems of unifying the East Slavic tribal unions into a single Russian state being solved, but the process of liberating Russian lands from the foreign yoke was also underway, and the state sovereignty of Rus' was strengthened.

At the same time, in order to further stabilize the international positions of Rus', the young unified state had to conclude two diplomatic agreements: one with the Varangians, the other with the Hungarians.

The Varangians - inhabitants of the southern shores of the Baltic Sea, possibly of Slavic origin, as proven by some domestic, including Soviet, historians, the closest neighbors of the Novgorod Slavs, Chud, Vesi and other northern tribes - have long attacked the Novgorod lands and even laid tribute on the Novgorod Slavs However, then the Varangian dominance was overthrown and tribute was eliminated. But, according to the chronicle, civil strife began in the Slavic lands, which led to the fact that the Novgorodians sent messengers to their neighbors with a request to send them a prince, since there was no “order” in their land and there was unrest. In the so-called Joachim Chronicle, the information of which was reflected in the work of the historian of the 18th century. V.N. Tatishchev, it was pointed out that the calling of the prince from the outside by the Novgorodians was explained by the dynastic crisis, the lack of an heir to the deceased Novgorod prince and the appeal of the Novgorodians to his relatives from the Baltic Slavs. Without going into the meaning of the legend about the “calling” of the Varangians, we note that later inviting the prince from outside remained a Novgorod tradition. The prince commanded the army and guarded the lands of the Novgorod principality. There is no doubt that the state originated here long before the calling of the Varangians. Let us remember that the Novgorodians, led by Bravlin, went to Chersonesus and Surozh back in the 9th century.

Rurik, and then Oleg, apparently contributed to the stabilization of power in the Novgorod lands. In 882 Oleg united Novgorod and Kyiv.

But the Varangians did not give up raiding the northwestern Russian lands, and then they would turn! dangerous neighbors into allies, Oleg concluded an agreement with him. The Tale of Bygone Years reports that Oleg “statutorily,” that is, punished, gave Novgorod! to the Varangians an annual tribute of 300 hryvnia “dividing the world”, Rus' provided them with this tribute right up to their deaths! Yaroslav the Wise, that is, until 1054. For almost 150 years, Rus' was buying off its warlike neighbors.

This kind of “peace” was quite in the spirit of the times. And it is not at all necessary that the weakest pay the strongest. At times, Byzantium, the Arab Caliphate, and Persia - these powerful states of the early Middle Ages - paid regular tribute to their neighbors in order to protect their borders from their raids. Let us remember that back in the 6th century. Byzantine Emperor Justinian I paid the Slavs large sums of money for peace on their northern borders.

But not only peace was bought in this way, but also allied aid. And in this case, there is reason to think that the Varangians from then on became permanent allies of Rus' in its military enterprises. They went to Constantinople with Oleg and Igor. They were constantly called upon by Russian princes in moments of danger.

By setting themselves large-scale state tasks, fighting for the unification of Russian lands, preparing for the continuation and development of international activities, Russian rulers provided themselves with a calm rear, which was also a certain diplomatic measure.

Forced contract. At the end of the 9th century. Prince Oleg concluded another diplomatic treaty.

In 898, nomadic hordes of Hungarians, or Ugrians, as the Russian chronicle calls them, appeared near Kiev. The Hungarians approached the Dnieper and became “vezhas,” that is, they set up their fortified camp here. The chronicler does not provide any other information about the events near Kiev: he either does not know them or does not want to report them. But in the surviving Hungarian sources this mysterious veil is lifted and the reason for the silence of the Russian chronicle, which, as a rule, reflected the version of events from its own point of view, becomes clear.

Unknown Hungarian author of the 11th century. tells how, moving west, the nomadic Hungarians reached the Kyiv lands and “wanted to subjugate the kingdom of the Rus.” The Russian prince (and Oleg was reigning in Kyiv at that time) decided to give them battle, set out to meet the enemy, but was defeated by the troops of the Hungarian leader Almos. Almosh's warriors pursued the Russians all the way to the walls of Kyiv, where Oleg locked himself in. We can trust this information, because the Russian chronicle also speaks of the appearance of an enemy under the walls of Kyiv. It is difficult to imagine that the Hungarians would be allowed so close without engaging in battle with them. Further, the chronicler reports that the Hungarians “subjugated the land of the Rus,” although from the text itself it is only clear that we are talking about the typical actions of conquerors in a foreign country, and not about long-term possession of the region: the Hungarians plundered the nearby lands, took a lot of booty, and then went to the attack of the Kyiv walls. The Russians asked for peace, and their embassy came to the Almos camp.

The Hungarians demanded hostages, payment of an annual tribute of 10 thousand marks, and provision of food, clothing and other necessary things. The Russians set their own condition: the Hungarians must leave Russian lands. The parties agreed on this. The Hungarians went west, and Rus', apparently, continued to pay them tribute. This assumption is based on the fact that in subsequent decades Rus' and Hungary invariably turned out to be allies and together attacked the Byzantine Empire.

Having secured his borders in the north-west, pacifying the nomadic Hungarians, agreeing on a military alliance with both the Varangians and the Hungarians, uniting the Russian lands, Oleg began to realize the longed-for goal of the Russian princes of recent decades - establishing the international authority of the Russian state, increasing its international prestige , defending the interests of the emerging class of feudal lords and wealthy merchants in the country's foreign policy.

And again the eyes of the Russian prince turn to Constantinople. In 907, The Tale of Bygone Years reports that Oleg undertook a new grandiose campaign against the Byzantine capital. He led with him the Varangians, Slovenes, Krivichi, Drevlyans, Radimichi, Polyans, Northerners, Croats, Dulebs, Tiverts, Vyatichi, as well as foreign-language peoples - Chud and Meryu. The army marched “on horseback and on ships,” that is, both by sea and by land. As for the sea, everything is clear here: Oleg’s ships sailed down the Dnieper, then went out into the Black Sea and moved along its western coast towards the Bosphorus. This was the usual route for Russian armies and merchant caravans. As for the cavalry, it could only reach the walls of the Byzantine capital through the territory of Bulgaria, where a powerful ruler, Tsar Simeon the Great, ruled during these years. How could it happen that the Russians violated the sovereignty of Bulgaria? It seems that everything here was much more complicated: Oleg went to Byzantium, having already secured the support of Bulgaria, having agreed with Simeon on the unhindered passage of the Russian army.

At that time, Bulgaria waged a long and exhausting struggle with Byzantium. As soon as he ascended the throne in 893, Simeon began military operations against the empire, seeking to increase his territories at the expense of Byzantine lands in the Balkans, trying to establish the privileged position of the Bulgarian merchants in the Byzantine markets. In 904, both sides made peace, which was not durable. Bulgaria was preparing to continue the struggle, and Byzantium had difficulty fighting off the Arabs pressing on all sides. In 907, the year of the Russian attack, the main troops of the empire went to fight the Arabs. The capital was practically defenseless. A conspiracy against the existing government was brewing within it. It was this favorable moment that Oleg chose to attack. Scientists believe that Bulgaria secretly helped Rus', allowed its troops to pass through its territory, and provided the Russians with the necessary information. This means that a secret alliance agreement was concluded between Bulgaria and Russia at that time.

What were the reasons for the Russian attack on Constantinople? What did they achieve with their campaign? This will be best seen from the subsequent Russian-Byzantine treaty of 907, but even now we can say that the triumph of 860 began to be forgotten. Other persons appeared on the Russian throne; those who concluded a peace unfavorable for the empire with Russia, according to which the Russians turned out to be essentially winners, also left the political arena of Byzantium. It is possible that the Byzantines began to violate its terms, especially in terms of privileges for Russian merchants. It is possible that with a new victorious campaign Oleg wanted to increase his power and the international prestige of the Russian state. Production also occupied not the least place in these calculations.

The trip was successful. Weakened by the lack of troops, Constantinople failed to provide adequate resistance to the Russians. The Greeks only managed to close the harbor with a chain and block the Russian boats from approaching the very walls of the city. First, the Russian army devastated the suburbs of the capital, took away enormous wealth and prisoners, and then, according to the chronicle, the boats were put on wheels and directed towards the city, that is, the ships moved on rollers and could protect the advancing Russian soldiers from arrows. The Greeks could not withstand the onslaught of the Russians and asked for peace.