The Slavs had their own “berserkers” - wolf-knights. And not a single berserker could compare with the Slavic knight, because "The Slavs are superior to the Germans both in body and spirit, fighting with bestial ferocity..."(Jordan, ancient historian, 6th century).

Berserk is an effective and deliberately caused combat frenzy, as an extraordinary phenomenon of human fortitude, in ancient Germanic and ancient Scandinavian society a warrior who dedicated himself to the god Odin.

Among the Germanic peoples it turned into a kind of cult of the warrior-beast. Animal-like “transformations,” which are the highest form of development of combat rage, are known among all Germans. Late ancient historians report on the “Frankish fury”, on the “wolf warriors” of the Lombard people... At the same time, such unstoppable forces were released that even a closed, disciplined formation and the art of “correct combat” could not always resist them.

Even the Vikings themselves treated berserkers in their pure form with a feeling halfway between admiration, fearful respect and contempt. These are the true “dogs of war”; if they were able to be used, it was mainly in the position of “tamed animals”.

Berserkers were protected from throwing (and also from striking) weapons by a kind of “wisdom of madness.” Disinhibited consciousness enabled extreme responsiveness, sharpened peripheral vision, and likely enabled some extrasensory skills. The berserker saw (or even predicted) any blow and managed to parry it or bounce away.

Traditionally, berserkers formed the vanguard of the battle. They could not fight for long (the combat trance cannot last long), having broken the ranks of the enemies and laid the foundation for a common victory, they left the battlefield to ordinary warriors who completed the defeat of the enemy.
Not every berserker knew how to competently use internal energy. Sometimes they spent it too extensively - and then after the battle the warrior fell into a state of “berserker impotence” for a long time, which could not be explained only by physical fatigue.
The attacks of this powerlessness were so severe that the beast warrior could sometimes die after the battle, without even being wounded.
The Slavs had their own “berserkers” - wolf-knights. And not a single berserker could compare with the Slavic knight, because “The Slavs surpass the Germans both in body and spirit, fighting with bestial ferocity...” (Jordan, ancient historian, 6th century).

The knight is the living embodiment of Slavic anger. Already in the name you can hear a furious animal roar, and the word itself literally means “growl warrior.” In Rus', knights were special warriors who were able to successfully fight against an enemy many times superior in numbers, under any conditions, with all types of weapons, simultaneously with both hands. The knight outwardly looks like a complete madman, but internally he remains icy calm. The purpose of his life is to serve his family. Historical sources say that one knight was able to disperse 10-20 warriors, and two knights put a hundred armed people to flight.

Three hundred knights of the city of Arkona - guards of the temple of Svetovit, terrified the entire non-Slavic coast of the Baltic. The temple of Radogost in the city of Retra was famous for the same warriors. There was even a whole Slavic tribe of knights - Lutichi(from the word “fierce”), all of whose warriors fought in wolf skins.

A warrior who wanted to find a patron spirit, usually a wolf or a bear, had to fight them alone and naked. This is the reason why the enemies were so afraid of the knight, and the one who went through this test himself became more dangerous than the beast he defeated.

The knights fought naked or wearing only animal skins, without chain mail and shields (they simply got in their way!). They were always the first to rush into battle, with a battle cry “ Yar!» rushing forward. Roaring like those possessed, the knights destroyed their opponents, cutting a footman in half in a jump, and a horseman to the saddle. Having lost his weapon, having fallen under enemy arrows, the knight continued to tear apart enemies with his bare hands, without fear of death, without feeling either pain or fear, possessing an unbending will. And neither steel nor fire could do anything with them.

The Slavic princes recruited close warriors and comrades-in-arms from the knights, and often they themselves were knights-wolfhounds.
The rulers of Byzantium, China, the Caliphate - all had heard about the great Slavic warriors, and had in their troops elite guards units assembled exclusively from Slavs.
“Olbeg Ratiborich, take your bow, and lay a shot, and strike Itlar in the heart, and beat up his entire squad... “(Radziwill Chronicle: L.: Nauka, 1989, p. 91.) Eloquently.

The Nikon Chronicle speaks no less eloquently about Ragdai: “And this man went against three hundred soldiers” (!).

“Ragdai died as a daring warrior, as he ran into three hundred warriors” (Ragdai died as a daring warrior, who fought alone against 300 warriors).
What is this, hero worship? Where there! The chronicler is disgusted by the “ungodliness” of the bloody showdowns. Barbarian beauty is not his path at all. This is the real point.It is known from legends that Raghdai was like a wolf, and tales about the treasure sword originate from this character. Which he waved as if it had no weight.

“The filthy ones had nine hundred mines, and Rus' had ninety copies. Those who rise to the strength, the abominations of the pond, and ours are against them... And the wallpaper was dreamed of, and evil was coming... and the Polovtsians fled, and ours chased after them, they slashed..." (Radziwill Chronicle, p. 134. 26)..

Unfortunately, much of what our forefathers could and did is now lost, forgotten, shrouded in secrecy and dark rumors, and requires new discovery. Fortunately, the roots are not completely lost...
Few researchers draw parallels with Russian fairy tales about Ivan Tsarevich and the Gray Wolf; about Sivka the Burka, through whose ear the good fellow, having made his way, received new strength; about Van turning into a Bear, etc.

The legends of the skalds speak of berserkers as great creators of victories. In ancient Russian fairy tales - as about werewolves for the sake of victories on a larger scale. Everything worked out for the sorcerer warriors because they had the highest, inhuman capabilities. For they were the favorites of the Gods! Masters of extraordinary powers!
By awakening within oneself the accumulated reserves of evolution and animal nature and combining THIS with the trance capabilities of human consciousness, one can actually be a super-activated person - for the sake of success and victories in life.

Mastery of trance skills, hypnoid qualities, a special state into which the Berserker falls to induce a “gloomy” stupor on the enemy. The victorious maneuvers of the Berserker are so fast and high-quality that the enemy does not even have time to understand that he no longer exists...
It is impossible to defend against the powerful energy of Berserkers, nothing can stop them, because in an instant of the enemy’s reaction, the Berserker manages to get ahead of the enemy by several moves and deliver 3-4 victorious blows.

Berserk is not just a warrior’s teaching, but, unfortunately, it became such in official history; the Judeo-Christian Church stood in the way of this closed brotherhood, outlawing berserkers, after which these people were exterminated for a reward. Since that time, it has been generally accepted that these were ill-mannered people, full of anger and rage, who were impossible to control.

SECRET WEAPONS OF THE ANCIENT WORLD: WEREWOLVES AGAINST ARMIES

“Having arranged an interrogation, Alexander began to find out where the captives were from. But the barbarians, having fallen into a dying frenzy, seemed to rejoice in the torment, as if someone else’s body was suffering from scourges.” Byzantine Chronicles Tales of bestial warriors are very typical of early sources describing the battles of antiquity.

Scandinavian berserkers and Slavic wolfhounds haunt serious historians and young fantasy lovers. They are credited with certain qualities, which can most easily be explained by battle magic and the magic of forest sorcerers. It’s easiest when there is no desire to look for answers to questions. But we, contrary to generally accepted patterns, will try to find a rational grain in one of the main secrets of ancient Europe. The main distinguishing feature of an elite lone warrior is his seemingly supernatural strength, which allows him to fight many armed opponents. Inhuman speed and insensitivity to pain make the “werewolf” truly a weapon of mass destruction. But there is another important point that characterizes the beast warrior. As a rule, he moved ahead of the main detachment, which means he was the first to engage in battle with (!) the ranks of the enemy army that had not yet been broken.

From the point of view of common sense, this is not only stupid, but also impossible in principle. Unless they hid a barrel of gunpowder under the wolf's skin. But there was no gunpowder then, and the poor guy had to tear the enemy apart with his hands. To explain this phenomenon, they resort to both fly agarics and combat trance. Having read this crap, young romantics comb the forests in search of magic mushrooms and jump with tambourines, trying to find true power. Strength does not increase, and neither does intelligence.

Belov Alexander Konstantinovich (Selidor) reasonably suggests that berserkers, apparently, possessed certain mental properties, possibly having a genetic basis. This is quite plausible, given the fact that any trait, including those from the field of behavioral psychology, is, to one degree or another, based on genetics.
But then the question arises: “If there is a certain “berserker gene,” then why does it not manifest itself in the modern world?”
After all, if back in the 12th century a special decree was issued in Iceland prohibiting animal madness, then, apparently, we are dealing with a once quite widespread phenomenon. In general, genetics itself is only half the battle. The environment must be conducive to the development of the desired properties, otherwise the gene will lie dormant. That is, genes are turned on by the environment.
With the transition to a civilized society, circumstances could well have arisen in which the “fury genes” were out of work. Beast warriors could well be difficult to control, and therefore made life quite difficult for themselves and those around them. In the era of large military formations, smooth formations and coordinated interaction of many units, “werewolves” could find themselves without work.

And yet, what could be the material nature of this interesting phenomenon, if, of course, it really existed? Slavic wolfhounds and Scandinavian berserkers have always inspired terror in their opponents. Isn't this their true superiority? As Napoleon used to say: “Ten thousand vanquished men retreat before ten thousand victors simply because they have lost heart...” A demoralized enemy is unable to fight. Moreover, the key to defeat is to open the ranks of the enemy detachment. Isn’t that why they sent terrifying warriors ahead of their own, so that the strangers would falter and break the ranks?
Many years of experience in abattoir combat shows that a lone individual has a chance of victory only in the case of deep mental superiority over the opposing enemy group. That is, the hunter must not only believe in his victory, but also passionately desire to fight the enemy, feeling his own strength. Only by feeling like a shark in a pool of swimmers can he be truly effective. And not only because in such a state he does not know fear, the consequence of which is muscle stiffness. The point is also that the attacking unit reacts sharply to the movements of the central fighter. The hunter's confident, powerful movements mentally suppress the attackers, and they simply do not risk exchanging blows.

More than once I have had the opportunity to observe how a hunter on a competition site chases a fighting troika, as if for a moment turning into an invulnerable werewolf. And I’ll note again: it’s all about the psychological processing of the fighter. One pleasant spring evening, a group of athletes encountered a numerically superior herd of Gopniks. The resulting fight ended in victory for the former. However, the “city street hyenas” were thirsty for revenge and tracked down the offenders, waiting until the enemy group was reduced to three people. By this time, the gopas themselves had received more reinforcements and launched an open attack right next to the city hall building. Stones and bottles were thrown at the athletes, and the herd rushed into battle. Suddenly they saw someone running towards them, dodging the cobblestones, who, according to all the laws of logic, should have sought shelter. The fittings glittered unkindly in his hands.

And then everything developed according to a completely illogical scenario. The first ranks of the attackers wavered and turned back, colliding with those who were pressing from behind. For a second, a pile of malas appeared, and then, obeying the herd instinct, the “posons” fled from the battlefield, holding up their pants. The battle was won without a single blow. Why? The one who came to meet them went to kill, stepping over his death. And such an intention is easily and quickly read by both animals and humans. Any dog ​​breeder knows that animals perfectly sense a person’s fear or confidence. This mechanism is associated with the body’s hormonal response to the current situation. Thus, fear is caused by the action of adrenaline, and it is its smell that the predator senses, immediately recognizing the prey behind it. Rage is a product of norepinephrine, and feels just as good. People, oddly enough, react to all these aromas that enter the air along with sweat, no less acutely than four-legged pets.

However, this mechanism is not able to explain the combat effect of an overclocked psyche. Academician Bekhterev, who at the beginning of the last century studied crowd behavior at the request of the Soviet government, will come to our aid. If I'm not mistaken, it was he who introduced the concept of “dominant”. The fact is that human behavior is based on foci of excitation in the brain. The dominant focus in its strength is called the dominant. Each neuron, receiving a signal from the outside, independently, based on many factors, decides whether to be excited or not. If the excited neurons gain a certain critical mass, a dominant appears. And human behavior obeys its program.

It is interesting that the spread of excitement in the crowd follows this same pattern. Each individual, based on a set of external stimuli, makes a decision whether to respond or not. The more people who fall under the power of the exciting force, the greater the percentage of probability that each new member of the crowd will fall under its influence. This is how the speaker’s dominance is transmitted to the protesters. Only, if in the case of brain neurons the communicative function was performed by neurotransmitters (say, dopamine), then in a situation with a group of people it will be verbal and non-verbal signals. Up to 70% of information during human contact is transmitted by the sphere of the unconscious. At this level, we easily and naturally unconsciously encode each other. We encode the psyche of the interlocutor for the appropriate reaction.
This reaction, for example, may be the activity of the amygdala and, as a result, fear. Posture, facial expressions, gestures, voice timbre, motor specificity itself - everything is subordinate to the emerging dominant. And this huge flow of information, absolutely not subject to falsification, falls on the subconscious of the people around, and they, of course, react.

Neurophysiologists operate with the concept of a “strong nervous system.” By this term they understand the ability of the nervous system to quickly and powerfully move into an excited state and maintain it for some time. True... after this there may be a period of nervous exhaustion. Doesn't this remind you of anything?..
The secret of the wolfhounds did not disappear into eternity with them. True, today there is no need to put on wolf skins. Mental suppression of the enemy, coupled with the advanced capabilities of the human body, continues to be studied in military laboratories. But in civil society the law of 1123 is still in effect, depriving the berserker of the right to life and freedom...

HOW THE SLAVS FIGHTED! Nowadays, when the whole world is trying to imitate the Americans, from uniforms to tactics and daily dry rations, our soldiers need to more often look into the rich treasury of Russian military traditions and use the centuries-old experience of Russian soldiers. No, I don’t call for putting on bast shoes, growing beards and picking up swords and bows. The main thing is to skillfully highlight and generalize those principles with the help of which they defeated a stronger and numerically superior enemy. The foundations and philosophy of the Russian military school are set out in “The Science of Victory” by A. V. Suvorov. Unfortunately, not many modern commanders, as they say, get around to reading this book. But in order to see and understand the essence of the principles set forth by Suvorov in his immortal work, it is worth taking an excursion into the depths of centuries and see how the ancient Russians fought. The land on which our distant Ancestors lived was rich and fertile and constantly attracted nomads from the east, Germanic tribes from the west, and our ancestors also tried to develop new lands. Sometimes this colonization took place peacefully, but... often accompanied by hostilities. Soviet military historian E.A. Razin in his book “History of Military Art” talks about the organization of the Slavic army during the 5th-6th centuries: Among the Slavs, all adult men were warriors. The Slavic tribes had squads that were staffed according to age with young, physically strong and dexterous warriors. The organization of the army was based on the division into clans and tribes. The warriors of the clan were headed by an elder (elder), at the head of the tribe was a leader or prince. Further in his book, the author cites statements of ancient authors who note the strength, endurance, cunning and courage of the warriors of the Slavic tribes, who , besides. mastered the art of camouflage. Procopius from Caesarea in his book “The War with the Goths” writes that the warriors of the Slavic tribe “were accustomed to hiding even behind small stones or behind the first bush they encountered and catching enemies. They did this more than once near the Istr River.” Thus, the ancient author in the above-mentioned book describes one interesting case of how a Slavic warrior, skillfully using improvised means of camouflage, took a “tongue”. And this Slav, early in the morning, got very close to the walls, covered himself with brushwood and curled up into a ball, hid in the grass. When the Goth approached this place, the Slav suddenly grabbed him and brought him alive to the camp. Another ancient author, Mauritius, in his book “Strategikan” draws attention to the art of the Slavs to hide in water. They courageously endure their stay in the water, so that often some of those remaining at home, being caught by a sudden attack, plunge into the abyss of the waters. At the same time, they hold specially made large reeds in their mouths, hollowed out inside, reaching the surface of the water, and themselves, lying supine at the bottom of the river, breathe with the help of them; and they can do this for many hours. So it is absolutely impossible to guess their presence. The terrain on which the Slavs usually fought was always their ally. From dark forests, river backwaters, and deep ravines, the Slavs suddenly attacked their opponents. Here is what the previously mentioned Mauritius writes about this: The Slavs like to fight their enemies in places covered with dense forest, in gorges. on the cliffs, they take advantage of ambushes, surprise attacks, tricks, and day and night, inventing many different methods... Having a lot of help in the forests, they head towards them, since they know how to fight well among gorges. Often they abandon the prey they are carrying, as if under the influence of confusion, and run into the forests, and then, when the attackers rush at the prey, they easily get up and harm the enemy. They are masters of doing all this in a variety of ways they come up with in order to lure the enemy. Thus, we see that the ancient warriors prevailed over the enemy primarily through the absence of a template, cunning, and skillful use of the surrounding terrain. In engineering training, our Ancestors were also recognized specialists. Ancient authors write that the Slavs were superior to “all people” in the art of crossing rivers. While serving in the army of the Eastern Roman Empire, Slavic troops skillfully ensured the crossing of rivers. They quickly made boats and used them to transport large military detachments to the other side. The Slavs usually set up a camp at a height to which there were no hidden approaches. If necessary, to fight in an open field, they built fortifications from carts. Feofinat Siompatt reports on the campaign of one Slavic detachment, which fought with the Romans: Since this clash for the barbarians (Slavs) was inevitable (and did not foretell success), they, having made up carts, built them into a kind of fortification of the camp and in the middle of this Women and children were placed in the camps. The Slavs tied the carts, and it turned out to be a closed fortification, from which they threw spears at the enemy. The fortification of carts was a reliable defense against cavalry. For a defensive battle, the Slavs chose a position that was difficult for the enemy to reach, or they built a rampart and created embankments. When storming enemy fortifications, they used assault ladders and siege engines. In deep formation, with their shields on their backs, the Slavs launched an assault. From the above examples, we see that the use of terrain in combination with improvised objects deprived the opponents of our ancestors of the advantages that they originally possessed. Many Western sources claim that the Slavs did not have a formation, but this does not mean that they did not have a battle order. The same Mauritius recommended building a not very deep formation against them and attacking not only from the front, but from the flanks and from the rear. From this we can conclude that for the battle the Slavs were located in a certain order. Mauritius writes: ... sometimes they occupy a very strong position and, guarding their rear, do not allow them to engage in hand-to-hand combat, or to surround themselves or attack from the flank, or go to their rear. The above example makes it clear that the ancient Slavs had a certain battle order, that they fought not in crowds, but in an organized manner, lined up by clans and tribes. The clan and tribal leaders were the commanders and maintained the necessary discipline in the army. The organization of the Slavic army was based on a social structure - division into clan and tribal units. Clan and tribal ties provided the necessary cohesion of warriors in battle. Thus, the use of battle formation by Slavic warriors, which gives undeniable advantages in battle with a strong enemy, suggests that the Slavs only carried out combat training with their squads. After all, in order to quickly act in combat formation, it was necessary to practice this until it became automatic. Also, it was necessary to know the enemy with whom you would have to fight. The Slavs could not only skillfully fight in the forest and field. To capture fortresses they used simple and effective tactics. In 551, a detachment of Slavs numbering more than 3,000 people, without encountering any opposition, crossed the Ister River. An army with large forces was sent to meet the Slavs. After crossing the Maritsa River, the Slavs were divided into two detachments. The Roman commander decided to defeat their forces one by one in the open field. Having well-organized tactical reconnaissance and being aware of the enemy’s movements. The Slavs forestalled the Romans and, suddenly attacking them from two directions, destroyed their enemy. Following this, Emperor Justinian sent a detachment of regular cavalry against the Slavs. The detachment was stationed in the Thracian fortress Tzurule. However, this detachment was defeated by the Slavs, who had cavalry in their ranks that was not inferior to the Roman one. Having defeated the regular field troops, our ancestors began the siege of fortresses in Thrace and Illyria. Of great interest is the capture by the Slavs of the seaside fortress of Toyer, which was located 12 days’ journey from Byzantium. The fortress's garrison of 15 thousand people was a formidable force. The Slavs decided first of all to lure the garrison out of the fortress and destroy it. To do this, most of the soldiers lay in ambush near the city, and a small detachment approached the eastern gate and began to fire at the Roman soldiers. The Romans, seeing that there were not many enemies, decided to go outside the fortress and defeat the Slavs in the field. The besiegers began to retreat, pretending to the attackers that, frightened by them, they fled. The Romans, carried away by the pursuit, found themselves far ahead of the fortifications. Then those in ambush rose up and, finding themselves in the rear of the pursuers, cut off their possible routes of retreat. And those who pretended to retreat, turning their faces to the Romans, attacked them. Having exterminated their pursuers, the Slavs again rushed to the walls of the city. Theuer's garrison was destroyed. From what has been said, we can conclude that the Slavic army had good cooperation between several units, reconnaissance, and camouflage on the ground. From all the examples given, it is clear that in the 6th century our ancestors had perfect tactics for those times; they could fight and inflict serious damage on the enemy, who was much stronger than them, and often had numerical superiority. Not only the tactics were perfect, but also the military equipment. So, during the siege of fortresses, the Slavs used iron rams and installed siege engines. The Slavs, under the cover of throwing machines and archers, moved the rams close to the fortress wall, began to shake it and make gaps. In addition to the land army, the Slavs had a fleet. There is much written evidence of their use of the fleet during military operations against Byzantium. The ships were mainly used for transporting troops and landing troops. Over many years, the Slavic tribes, in the fight against numerous aggressors from Asia, the powerful Roman Empire, the Khazar Khaganate and the Franks, defended their independence and united into tribal alliances. In this centuries-old struggle, the military organization of the Slavs took shape, and the military art of neighboring peoples and states arose. It was not the weakness of their opponents, but the strength and military art of the Slavs that ensured their victories. The offensive actions of the Slavs forced the Roman Empire to switch to strategic defense and create several defensive lines, the presence of which did not ensure the security of the empire’s borders. The campaigns of the Byzantine army beyond the Danube, deep into the Slavic territories, did not achieve their goals. These campaigns usually ended in the defeat of the Byzantines. When the Slavs, even during their offensive actions, met superior enemy forces, they usually avoided battle, achieved a change in the situation in their favor, and only then went on the offensive again. For long campaigns, crossing rivers and capturing coastal fortresses, the Slavs used a boat fleet, which they built very quickly. Large campaigns and deep invasions were usually preceded by reconnaissance in force by large detachments that tested the enemy’s ability to resist. The tactics of the Russians did not consist in inventing forms of constructing battle formations, to which the Romans attached exceptional importance, but in a variety of methods of attacking the enemy, both during the offensive and during the defense. To apply this tactic, a good organization of military reconnaissance was necessary, to which the Slavs paid serious attention. Knowledge of the enemy made it possible to carry out surprise attacks. The tactical interaction of units was skillfully carried out both in field battles and during the assault on fortresses. For the siege of fortresses, the ancient Slavs were able to quickly create all the modern siege equipment. Among other things, Slavic warriors skillfully used psychological influence on the enemy. Thus, in the early morning of June 18, 860, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople, came under an unexpected attack by the Russian army. The Russians came by sea, landed at the very walls of the city and besieged it. The warriors raised their comrades on outstretched arms and they, shaking their swords sparkling in the sun, plunged the Constantinople citizens standing on the high walls into confusion. This “attack” had enormous meaning for Rus' - for the first time the young state entered into confrontation with the great empire, for the first time, as events would show, it presented its military, economic and territorial claims to it. And most importantly, thanks to this demonstrative, psychologically precisely calculated attack and the subsequent peace treaty of “friendship and love,” Rus' was recognized as an equal partner of Byzantium. The Russian chronicler later wrote that from that moment “the nickname Ruska land began.” All the principles of warfare listed here have not lost their significance today. Have camouflage and military cunning lost their relevance in the age of nuclear technology and the information boom? As recent military conflicts have shown, even with reconnaissance satellites, spy planes, advanced equipment, computer networks and weapons of enormous destructive power, you can bomb rubber and wooden dummies for a long time and at the same time loudly broadcast to the whole world about enormous military successes. Have secrecy and surprise lost their meaning? Let us remember how surprised European and NATO strategists were when, quite unexpectedly, Russian paratroopers suddenly turned up at the Pristina airfield in Kosovo, and our “allies” were powerless to do anything.

Shortly before the Nativity of Christ, dominion over the entire ancient world passed to the Romans. Among the most powerful enemies of the Roman Empire was the king of Asia Minor, Mithridates the Great. Having inflicted a heavy defeat on the Scythians, Mithridates concluded peace and alliance with them. In this world, the Scythian troops were supposed to march together with Mithridates against Rome, which they did successfully, terrifying the Roman legionnaires.

Mithridates was prouder of his victory over the Scythians than his other victories:
“Of mortals, I alone conquered Scythia, that Scythia which before no one could pass safely or approach. Two kings, Darius of Persia and Philip of Macedon, dared not to conquer, but only to enter Scythia and fled in disgrace from where a great army has now been sent to us against the Romans.”

After the defeat of the Scythians, the glory of the invincible warriors passed to their half-blooded Slavic tribe, the Sarmatians. The name “Sarmatians” became so famous that for many centuries the Russian land was called Sarmatia.

The war with the Romans ended unsuccessfully for Mithridates the Great. He was defeated and committed suicide. His empire collapsed and was absorbed by Rome. The Slavic tribes, who, thanks to Mithridates, learned about the wealth of the Roman lands and learned all the approaches to them, often began to disturb the Roman borders. In the first century after the Nativity of Christ, our ancestors already took the Greek city of Olbia on their shield.

The Romans found themselves in a difficult situation. They could not tame the Slavs - they easily hid in their forests and steppes. They did not have states or large cities; each tribe acted at its own peril and risk and often, seeing the right moment, attacked Roman lands, ruining them.

Under Emperor Marcus Aurelius, a formidable Slavic invasion of the Roman Empire occurred, which lasted for fourteen years (166–180). In addition to the united Slavic tribes, the Germans also fought with Rome, and only with great difficulty did Marcus Aurelius manage to defeat the Germans. The Slavic tribes fought with Rome for a long time. The Roxalan Iazyg tribes were especially famous for their courage. This war, called Sarmatian by the Romans, was remembered by all coastal peoples for many centuries.

We can judge its size only by the fact that the Iazyges alone, after the end of the war with Rome, returned one hundred thousand prisoners to him.

The Slavs invaded the Roman Empire by both land and water. Gathering on their nimble boats at the mouths of the Dnieper and Don, they boldly set out to sea and reached not only Byzantium, but sometimes reached Athens itself and even Rome.

The Roman Emperor Diocletian, also known for his fierce persecution of Christians, decided to quarrel the Slavs with the Germanic tribes who bore the common name Goths. The Romans called this method of action “divide and conquer.” In this case, it was completely successful, and the Slavs and Goths, inflamed with hatred, began to fiercely exterminate each other, leaving the Roman Empire alone for many years.

The conqueror Germanrich, who united all the Germanic tribes under his rule, greatly pressed the Slavs, seizing their lands and imposing heavy tribute on all Slavic settlements. The first to rise up against the Goths were the warlike inhabitants of the lower reaches of the Don and Dnieper - the Huns. The Huns were a tribal formation consisting of the Turkic-speaking Xiongnu, who were joined by the Ugrians and Sarmatians. The Slavic tribes, conquered by Germanrich, rebelled against him, going over to the side of the Huns. Defeated by the Huns, Germanrich threw himself on his sword in despair.

The next Gothic king, Vinitar, fought desperately with the Huns, but was killed by Valamir, the Hun ruler, a Slav, as one can judge by his name. Having married Vinithar's niece, Valamir conquered all the Gothic peoples almost without resistance.

The Hunnic rule strengthened even more under the rule of one of their next rulers - Attila. After the death of Attila, under his youngest son, part of the Slavic tribes, significantly mixed by the great migration of peoples, settled on the Danube and formed the Bulgarian people, while the other part went beyond the Dnieper and Dniester - to the Russian land and settled all the way to the Caucasus Mountains.

Shortly before the invasion of the Huns, in 395, the Great Roman Empire was divided in two. This happened under Theodosius the Great, one of the successors of Constantine Equal to the Apostles, called Equal to the Apostles because he was the first of the Roman emperors to receive holy baptism.

In his will, Theodosius handed over the Roman Empire to his two sons, dividing it into eastern and western. Since then, Western emperors lived in Rome, while the Eastern ones chose Constantinople as their capital.

Even then, the first seed of discord was sown, which later led to the fragmentation of churches and the separation from the Church of the true Latin Orthodox Church, whose cardinals, having made a number of changes in the liturgical rite and unreasonably recognizing that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son, became choose a separate head - the Pope.

The collapsed empire now became more vulnerable and continued to be attacked by our Slavic ancestors. Slavic boats went to Constantinople almost every year, ravaging its surroundings and then quickly sailing to Rus', although it often happened that they were overtaken by warships and burned with pots of oil, which were also called Greek fire.

In 558, a countless army of Slavic peoples crossed the Danube. Some of them went to fight Greece, while others approached Constantinople and besieged it. The Slavic army was so large that the city could easily be taken. Our ancestors had already poured earthen ramparts under its walls so that they could easily be used to climb the fortifications.

With great difficulty, the Greeks managed to convince the leader of the Slavs, Zavergan, not to take the city for his shield. Having received a huge ransom for the return of prisoners, the Slavs lifted the siege and retreated to the Danube.

From that time on, the Greeks hated the Slavs for a long time and began to take all measures to quarrel between them. By sending rich gifts to the elders of the Slavic tribes, the Greeks skillfully pitted individual tribes and clans of our ancestors against each other. The Slavic custom of blood feud, when a clan took revenge on another clan for anyone killed, made the internecine war between Slavic tribes endless. So, despite their undeniable courage, belligerence and contempt for death, the Slavs were almost destroyed by these qualities, directed, alas, against their own half-brothers. The chronicler writes: “The Slavs do not tolerate any power and hate each other.” The best men died in battles with their own brothers, and their enemies successfully took advantage of this.

Having waited until the Slavs had bled each other dry, the Greeks called from distant Asia a tribe of Avars, or Obras, and persuaded them to go against the Slavs. “The Slavs are rich. You will take many treasures from them!” - the Greeks said to him. The Obras crossed the Volga and Don and, after a bloody struggle, conquered the Slavic tribes, weakened by infighting.
When the Avars finally gained a foothold on the Black Sea coast, they began to take tribute not only from the Slavs themselves, but also to receive rich gifts from the Greeks, against whom they went to war together with the Slavs they had conquered.

Soon, power among the Avars gradually passed to the Jewish merchant elite, which won over all the Avar nobility and their kagan himself to their faith. Since then, the Obras, who adopted Jewish customs, began to be called the Khazars, who for almost two hundred years turned into the worst enemies of our Slavic ancestors. The capital of the Khazar Khaganate was in the city of Itil, at the mouth of the Volga.

There, along with tribute, the Khazars brought Slavic boys and girls for sale, who were often captured during their raids, and prudent Jewish merchants, who knew how to charge a price for everything, sold them as slaves to Greece, as well as to the Mohammedans.

According to a number of sources - Arab, Persian, Byzantine - the warriors of the Rus and Slavs were a threat to vast regions in the pre-Christian period of Rus-Russia: from the westernmost parts of Europe to the southern countries lying beyond the Mediterranean and Black (then called Russian) seas. So, in 844, “the pagans who are called Ar-Rus” broke into and sacked Seville, in Arab Spain. In 912, a Russian fleet of 500 boats swept along the shores of the Caspian Sea like a tornado of fire.

What is known about the military techniques of the Rus at that time?

1. The Rus and Slavs were excellent sailors, their flotillas and fleets felt great both on the rivers and at sea. They were masters of the Caspian, Black, Varangian (Baltic), and North seas, and made trips to the Mediterranean Sea. Their ships - longships (ladyas) could accommodate from 40 to 100 fully armed soldiers and several horses, if necessary. Therefore, it is completely unclear why, the history of the Russian fleet dates back to Peter I. The Russian fleet is at least one and a half thousand years old. Moreover, the tradition was not interrupted - Russian ushkuiniki and Cossacks completely repeated the routes of their ancestors. The use of boats gave our ancestors greater mobility, allowing them to deliver unexpected attacks directly into the heart of enemy possessions and transport large groups of troops if necessary. The flotillas were supplemented by ground forces that moved overland.

2. According to the Roman author Mauritius the Strategist, the Slavic warriors were armed with: a bow and arrows (and the bows were complex, not simple, they had a long range - the average "shoot" was 225 meters, and penetrating power - an arrow pierced at the same distance a 5-centimeter oak board; for comparison: modern athletes aim at 90 m; the record of medieval Western Europe was set by Henry VIII - about 220 meters; the average shot of an Asian shooter was 150 meters), and the skill of archery was taught almost from the cradle . Already at the age of 8-9, or even earlier, the boy walked and went hunting with his father and older brothers. We can conclude that the Rus were the best “streltsy” (“archers” were the craftsmen who made bows) in Eurasia at that time. In addition, the weapons included two spears - a throwing spear (like a dart) and a heavy one for fighting in the “wall”; a “hard-to-carry” shield that covered the fighter’s entire body from his legs; leather armor in the early period, then chain mail appeared; conical and semicircular helmets. Everyone had knives - “shoemakers” and long combat knives of the “akinaks” type. Some warriors could fight with axes and maces; in the early period only the nobility and distinguished knights had swords.

3.Unlike the Scandinavians, the Rus, the Slavs knew and used horse combat. The heavily armed cavalry squads of the princes were a powerful striking force that could make a difference in the battle, as in the Battle of Kulikovo. Their power was strengthened by the allied lightly armed detachments of nomadic tribes - Pechenegs, Torks, Berendeys, they were also called “black hoods” (after their headdress). One should not think that Rus' only fought with the tribes of the steppe; wise princes, such as Svyatoslav, successfully used them in the fight against enemies. Open hostility began only after the baptism of Rus' - right up to the “crusades” of Vladimir Monomakh in the steppe.

4. The Russians used the “wall” in battle, which they had been taught since childhood. Wall-to-wall fights are an echo of that practice. To understand what a “wall” is, one must recall the images of the Spartan or Macedonian phalanx. All the men of Rus' were trained in this battle: the “wall,” covered with “hard-to-carry” shields, bristling with spears, took the main blow of the enemy, and archers showered the enemy with arrows from the back rows. The flanks and rear were covered by the heavy cavalry of the princely squad and detachments of the allied steppe inhabitants. The “Wall” withstood the blow, and then began to push back the enemy step by step, the cavalry struck from the flanks, completing the rout of the enemy.

5.Rus and Slavs were considered specialists in the so-called. “guerrilla warfare” - ambush attacks, various sabotages. Thus, Byzantine sources describe a case when a Slavic intelligence officer from the army of Belisarius (commander of Emperor Justinian) penetrated the enemy camp and kidnapped one of the Gothic leaders, delivering him to Belisarius. In fact, this is the first mention of the so-called. “Plastuns”, military intelligence of Rus'-Russia at that time.

6. Apparently, our ancestors also knew the basics of the so-called. “combat trance”, combat psychotechnics. Cases are described when they entered into battle in “divine nakedness”, or only in trousers. In the North of Europe, such warriors were called “berserkers” (in a “bear shirt”), and the myths about werewolves were not born out of nowhere. We are talking about a combat trance, when a warrior “transforms” into a wolf, a bear and, without feeling fear or pain, sharply increases the limits of the human body. The enemy, faced with such warriors, feels mystical horror, panic, and loses his fighting spirit. The Zaporozhye Cossacks called such warriors “characterniks.” There was also collective psychotechnics: the warriors of the Rus and Slavs were direct descendants of the “gods”, therefore they had no equal in battle. We can say that this military tradition is very tenacious: Suvorov turned his soldiers into “miracle heroes” who could do almost anything. You can also mention the principle of the Airborne Forces - “Nobody but us.”

7. The Rus, the Slavs were the best masters of hand-to-hand combat, unfortunately, Christianization, the prohibitions of the kings and emperors almost interrupted the traditions of the mass martial culture of the Rus. But currently there is an intensive search and gradual reconstruction of many types of Russian hand-to-hand combat.

1) wooden bow base:

a - ends with a cutout for the bowstring

b – tendons

c - birch plank

g - juniper plank

and - the knot or junction of ends, laths and tendons

k - a node or junction of the tendons and bone linings of the bow handle

2) view of the wooden base of the bow from the inside and the layout of the bone plates:

d - end plates with a cutout for the bowstring

e - side handle linings

g - lower grip pads on the inside of the bow

3) layout of the bone plates on the bow (side view):

d - end plates

e – lateral

g – lower

and - the junction at the ends of the bow

k - connection point at the bow handle

4) securing the joints of the bow parts by wrapping tendon threads over glue and gluing the bow with birch bark

5)bow with string after pasting

6) onion in cross section:

a - birch bark lining

b – tendons

c - birch plank

g - juniper plank;

Sources:
Mandzyak A. S. Battle magic of the Slavs. M., 2007.
Sedov V.V. Slavs in ancient times. - M., 1994.
Selidor (Alexander Belov). Fist fighting in Great Rus'. 2003.
Serebryansky Yu. A. Battle magic of the Slavs. The path of the sorcerer. M., 2010.
http://silverarches.narod.ru/bow/bow.htm

The Slavs usually went to war on foot, wearing chain mail, a helmet covering their heads, a heavy shield at their left hip, and a bow and quiver of arrows soaked in poison behind their backs; in addition, they were armed with a double-edged sword, an ax, a spear and a reed. Over time, the Slavs introduced cavalry into military practice. All Slavs had the prince's personal squad on horseback.

The Slavs did not have a standing army. In case of military necessity, all men capable of carrying weapons went on a campaign, and they hid their children and wives with their belongings in the forests.

Slavic tribes in the 6th century led a sedentary lifestyle, which is confirmed by the nature of their occupations and the structure of settlements, which were usually located in forests and swamps. These were fortifications consisting of dugouts with many exits, so that in case of an attack one could escape through one of the emergency passages. The Slavs also settled on rivers and lakes, where they built special houses - pile buildings. Thus, the settlements of the Slavic tribes were reliably sheltered and difficult to access, and therefore there was no need to build such fortress-type defensive buildings as, for example, were built in Ancient Egypt, the Middle East, Greece and Rome.

The ancient Slavs knew how to make monoxyls - single-shaft boats, on which they went down the rivers to Pontus. Slavic warriors appeared on boats near Korsun in the Crimea, near Constantinople and even on Crete in the Mediterranean Sea.

According to the Byzantine historian Procopius, the Sclavins and Antes were distinguished by their very tall stature and enormous strength, and here is how he described the appearance of the ancient Slavs: “The color of their skin and hair is not very white or golden and not quite black, but still they are dark. red." Since ancient times, chroniclers noted the dexterity, endurance, hospitality and love of freedom among the Sklavins and Antes.

From the stories of Mauritius, as well as from other sources, we can conclude that the Slavs had a blood feud, which resulted in armed conflicts between tribes.

A feature of the development of the Slavic tribes was their lack of debt slavery; Only prisoners of war were slaves, and even they had the opportunity to be redeemed or become equal members of the community. It was patriarchal slavery, which among the Slavs did not turn into a slave system.

The Slavs had a tribal community that had land ownership. There was no private ownership of land even when the family began to receive a certain arable field, since arable land was periodically subject to redistribution. Pastures, forests, meadows, hunting and fishing grounds continued to remain communal property.

According to Procopius, “these tribes, the Sklavins and the Antes, are not ruled by one person, but since ancient times they have lived in the rule of people, and therefore happiness and misfortune in life are considered a common matter among them.” The veche (meeting of a clan or tribe) was the highest authority. The eldest in the clan (elder, hospodar) was in charge of affairs.

Already at the end of the 5th century, more or less significant associations of Slavic tribes began to emerge to repel enemy attacks or organize campaigns within the Eastern Roman Empire. The wars contributed to the consolidation of the power of the military leader, who began to be called a prince and have his own squad.

The social structure of the Slavs in the 6th century was a military democracy, the bodies of which were the veche or assembly of tribes, the council of elders and the prince - the military leader. Some military leaders entered service in the army of the Eastern Roman Empire. But the Slavic tribes settled on the Balkan Peninsula not as mercenaries, but as conquerors.

Mauritius noted that the Slavs had inter-tribal strife. “Having no head over themselves,” he wrote, “they are at enmity with each other; since there is no unanimity between them, they do not get together, and even if they do get together, they do not come to a single decision, since no one wants to give in to the other.” To fight the Slavs, Mauritius recommended taking advantage of their intertribal strife, pitting some tribes against others and thereby weakening them.

Byzantine politicians were very afraid of large political associations of the Slavs.

When the Slavs were threatened by external danger, the tribes forgot all their feuds and united for a common struggle for independence. Speaking about the struggle between the Avars and the “Slavic people” at the end of the 6th century, Menander, a Byzantine, reported the answer of the Slavic elders to the leader of the Avars, who demanded that the Slavic tribes submit to him and pay tribute. “Was the man who would subjugate our power be born into the world,” asked the Sklavin elders, “and is he warmed by the rays of the sun?”

Eastern sources speak of the Slavs as a warlike people. Thus, the Arab writer Abu-Obeid-Al-Bekri noted in his writings that if the Slavs, this powerful and terrible people, had not been divided into many tribes and clans, no one in the world could have resisted them. Other eastern authors also wrote about this. Almost all Byzantine writers emphasized the belligerence of the Slavic tribes.

According to Mauritius, the Slavic tribes had squads that were staffed according to age - mainly with young, physically strong and dexterous warriors.

The number of those who fought was usually in the hundreds and thousands, much less often in the tens of thousands. The organization of the army was based on the division into clans and tribes. The warriors of the clan were led by an elder (elder); at the head of the tribe was a leader or prince.

Ancient sources noted the strength, endurance, cunning and courage of Slavic warriors, who also mastered the art of camouflage. Procopius wrote that the Slavic warriors “were accustomed to hiding even behind small stones or behind the first bush they encountered and catching enemies. They did this more than once near the Istr River.” During the siege of one of the Gothic cities, the Byzantine commander Belisarius summoned a Slavic warrior and ordered him to get the language. “And this Slav, early in the morning, made his way very close to the walls, covered himself with brushwood, and hid in the grass.” When the Goth approached this place, the Slav suddenly grabbed him and brought him alive to the camp.

Mauritius reported on the art of the Slavs to hide in water: “They courageously withstand being in the water, so that often some of those remaining at home, being caught by a sudden attack, plunge into the abyss of the waters. At the same time, they hold in their mouths specially made, large reeds hollowed out inside, reaching the surface of the water, and themselves, lying supine at the bottom (of the river), breathe with their help; and they can do this for many hours, so that it is absolutely impossible to guess about their (presence).”

Regarding the weapons of the Slavic warriors, Mauritius wrote: “Each is armed with two small spears, some also have shields, strong, but difficult to carry. They also use wooden bows and small arrows soaked in a special poison, which is highly effective unless the wounded person first takes an antidote or (uses) other auxiliary means known to experienced doctors, or immediately cuts around the wound site so that the poison does not spread throughout the rest of the area. body parts". In addition to the bow and darts for throwing, which Mauritius spoke about, the Slavic warrior had a spear for striking, an ax, a reed and a double-edged sword.

In addition to the large shield, the Slavs had chain mail, which reliably covered and at the same time did not restrict the warrior’s movements in battle. Chain mail was made by Slavic craftsmen. During this period, the Normans' armor was made of leather with metal strips attached to it; Byzantine warriors had forged armor, which greatly restricted movement. Thus, the armor of the Slavs compared favorably with the armor of their neighbors - the Normans and Byzantines.

The ancient Slavs had two types of troops - infantry and cavalry. In the Eastern Roman Empire, under the ruler Justinian (c. 670-711), Slavic cavalry units were in service; in particular, Belisarius had Slavs serving in the cavalry. The cavalry commander was Ant Dobrogost. Describing the campaign of 589, the ancient historian Theophylact Simokatt reported: “Having jumped off their horses, the Slavs decided to rest a little and also give their horses a rest.” Thus, these data confirm the presence of cavalry among the Slavs.

During battles, the Slavs widely used surprise attacks on the enemy. “They love to fight their enemies,” Mauritius wrote, “in places covered with dense forest, in gorges, on cliffs; They take advantage of (ambushes), surprise attacks, tricks, both day and night, inventing many (various) methods. Having great help in the forests, they head towards them, since among the gorges they know how to fight well. Often they abandon the prey they are carrying (as if) under the influence of confusion and flee into the forests, and then, when the attackers rush at the prey, they easily get up and harm the enemy. They are masters of doing all this in a variety of ways they come up with in order to lure the enemy.”

Mauritius said that the Slavs were superior to “all people” in the art of crossing rivers. While serving in the army of the Eastern Roman Empire, Slavic troops skillfully ensured the crossing of rivers. They quickly made boats and used them to transport large detachments of troops to the other side.

The Slavs usually set up a camp at a height to which there were no hidden approaches. If necessary, to fight in an open field, they built fortifications from carts. Theophylact Simokatt told about the campaign of one Slavic detachment, which fought with the Romans: “Since this clash was inevitable for the barbarians (Slavs) (and did not foretell success), they, having made up carts, built a fortification of the camp from them and into the middle of this camp they placed women and children." The Slavs tied the carts, and it turned out to be a closed fortification, from which they threw spears at the enemy. The fortification of carts was a very reliable defense against cavalry.

For a defensive battle, the Slavs chose a position that was difficult for the enemy to reach, or they built a rampart and set up abatis. When storming enemy fortifications, they used assault ladders, “turtles” and siege engines. In deep formation, with their shields on their backs, the Slavs launched an assault.

Although Mauritius said that the Slavs did not recognize the military order and during the offensive they moved forward all together, this, however, does not mean that they did not have a battle order. The same Mauritius recommended building a not very deep formation against the Slavs and attacking not only from the front, but on the flanks and from the rear. From this we can conclude that for the battle the Slavs were located in a certain order. “Sometimes,” wrote Mauritius, “they take a very strong position and, guarding their rear, do not give the opportunity to engage in hand-to-hand combat, or to surround themselves or attack from the flank, or go to their rear.”

If the Slavs repelled all attacks, then, according to Mauritius, there was only one remedy - to deliberately retreat in order to cause a disorganized pursuit, which would disrupt the battle formation of the Slavs and allow them to win a surprise attack from an ambush.

Beginning in the 1st century, Slavic tribes fought the armies of the Roman Empire. Ancient sources mention East Slavic tribes who fought the Roman conquerors. There is a message from the Gothic historian Jordan about the struggle of the Goths with the Antes in the 4th century. A detachment of Goths attacked the Antes, but were initially defeated. As a result of further clashes, the Goths managed to capture the leader of the Antes, Boz, with his sons and 70 elders and execute them.

More detailed information about the wars of the Slavic tribes dates back to the 6th-8th centuries, when the Slavs fought the Eastern Roman Empire.

By the beginning of the 6th century, the onslaught of Slavic tribes from across the Danube had intensified so much that the ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire, Anastasius, in 512 was forced to build a line of fortifications stretching 85 kilometers from Selimvria on the Sea of ​​Marmara to Derkos on the Pontus. This line of fortifications was called the “Long Wall” and was located 60 kilometers from the capital. One of his contemporaries called it “a banner of impotence, a monument to cowardice.”

In the second quarter of the 6th century, Emperor Justinian, preparing to fight the Slavs, strengthened his army and built defensive structures. He appointed, according to Procopius, the head of the guard on the Ister River, Khilbudiya, who for three years in a row successfully defended the Danube line from attacks by Slavic tribes. To do this, Khilbudiy annually crossed to the left bank of the Danube, penetrated into the territory of the Slavs and caused devastation there. In 534, Khilbudiy crossed the river with a small detachment. The Slavs came out “all against him. The battle was fierce, many Romans fell, including their commander Khilbudiy.” After this victory, the Slavs freely crossed the Danube to invade the interior of the Balkan Peninsula.

In 551, a detachment of Slavs numbering more than 3 thousand people, without encountering any opposition, crossed the Ister River. Then, after crossing the Gevre (Maritsa) River, the detachment split into two detachments. The Byzantine military leader, who had large forces, decided to take advantage of this advantage and destroy the scattered troops in open battle. But the Slavs were ahead of the Romans and defeated them with a surprise attack from two directions. This fact shows the ability of Slavic military leaders to organize the interaction of their troops and carry out a sudden simultaneous attack on an enemy who has superior forces and is acting offensively.

Following this, regular cavalry was thrown against the Slavs under the command of Asbad, who served in the detachment of bodyguards of Emperor Justinian. The cavalry detachment was stationed in the Thracian fortress of Tzurule and consisted of excellent horsemen. One of the Slavic detachments attacked the Byzantine cavalry and put it to flight. Many Byzantine horsemen were killed, and Asbad himself was captured. From this example we can conclude that the Slavs had cavalry that successfully fought with the Roman regular cavalry.

Having defeated the regular field troops, the Slavic detachments began to besiege the fortresses in Thrace and Illyria. Procopius reported very detailed information about the capture by the Slavs of the strong coastal fortress of Toper, located on the Thracian coast 12 days' journey from Byzantium. This fortress had a strong garrison and up to 15 thousand combat-ready men - residents of the city.

The Slavs decided first of all to lure the garrison out of the fortress and destroy it. To do this, most of their forces lay in ambush and took refuge in difficult places, and a small detachment approached the eastern gate and began to fire at the Roman soldiers: “The Roman soldiers who were in the garrison, imagining that there were no more enemies than how many they saw, took hold of weapons, everyone immediately came out against them. The barbarians began to retreat, pretending to the attackers that, frightened by them, they fled; The Romans, carried away by the pursuit, found themselves far ahead of the fortifications. Then those in ambush rose up and, finding themselves in the rear of the pursuers, cut off their opportunity to return back to the city. And those who pretended to retreat, turning their faces to the Romans, placed them between two fires. The barbarians destroyed them all and then rushed to the walls.” Thus the Topera garrison was defeated. After this, the Slavs moved to storm the fortress, which was defended by the population of the city. The first attack, insufficiently prepared, was repulsed. The defenders threw stones at the attackers and poured boiling oil and tar on them. But the success of the townspeople was temporary. Slavic archers began to fire at the wall and forced the defenders to leave it. Following this, the attackers placed ladders against the walls, entered the city and took possession of it. At the same time, archers and assault troops interacted well. The Slavs were sharp archers and therefore were able to force the defenders to leave the wall.

Of interest is the campaign in 589 by Peter, the military leader of the Byzantine Emperor Mauritius, against a strong Slavic tribe led by Pyragast.

The Emperor demanded quick and decisive action from Peter. Peter's army left the fortified camp and, in four marches, reached the area in which the Slavs were located; he had to cross the river. A group of 20 soldiers was sent to scout the enemy, moving at night and resting during the day. Having made a difficult night march and crossed the river, the group settled down in the thickets to rest, but did not set up any guards. The warriors fell asleep and were discovered by a mounted detachment of Slavs. The Romans were captured. The captured scouts spoke about the plan of the Byzantine command.

Piragast, having learned about the enemy’s plan, moved with large forces to the place where the Romans crossed the river and there secretly settled down in the forest. The Byzantine army approached the crossing. Peter, not suggesting that there might be an enemy in this place, ordered separate detachments to cross the river. When the first thousand people crossed to the other side, the Slavs surrounded them and destroyed them. Having learned about this, Peter ordered the entire army to cross, without dividing into detachments. On the opposite bank, rows of Slavs were waiting for the Byzantines, who, however, scattered under a hail of arrows and spears thrown from ships. Taking advantage of this, the Romans landed their large forces. Piragast was mortally wounded, and the Slavic army retreated in disarray. Peter, due to the lack of cavalry, could not organize the pursuit.

The next day, the guides who led the army got lost. The Romans had no water for three days and quenched their thirst with wine. The army could have died if not for the prisoner, who pointed out that the Helicabia River was nearby. The next morning the Romans approached the river and rushed to the water. The Slavs, who were in ambush on the opposite high bank, began to hit the Romans with arrows. “And so the Romans,” reports the Byzantine chronicler, “having built ships, crossed the river to grapple with the enemies in open battle. When the army was on the opposite bank, the barbarians immediately attacked the Romans in their entirety and defeated them. The defeated Romans began to flee. Since Peter was completely defeated by the barbarians, Priscus was appointed commander-in-chief, and Peter, removed from command, returned to Byzantium.”