The Story of the Russian Land: Volume I: From Antiquity to the Death of Yaroslav the Wise (1054)

M A P S

Kievan Rus’ from 880 to 1054,

sourced from The Map Archive, with permission.

The Viking river road to Constantinople, also referred to in this edition as the trade route from Scandinavia to the Byzantine Empire and as the Varangian trade route, sourced from The Map Archive, with permission.

The Rus’ States at the death of Yaroslav the Wise in 1054,

sourced from The Map Archive, with permission.

Kievan Rus’ from the tenth to the twelfth centuries,

sourced from Russian Primary Chronicle, x.

The East Slavic tribes and their neighbors in the ninth through

the eleventh centuries, sourced from Russian Primary Chronicle, xi.

T R A N S L A T O R ’ S  F O R E W O R D

The Story of the Russian Land is a unique and interesting work for a number of reasons. It is not exactly presented by the author as a work of history, despite being a work of history, but instead it is called a story. Perhaps there is a reason for this, insofar as the content of the work lacks the academic depth that would stand the test of a contemporary university critic. Nevertheless, it behooves us to forgive the author for his approach to writing history. By the time of its writing, history would have come to be viewed as more of an academic pursuit than anything, and less as a living expression of organic cultural memory and tradition. For Alexander Dmitrievich Nechvolodov, the author of The Story of the Russian Land, the organic view of history is certainly a more accurate characterization of his pursuit.

Published at the cusp of the First World War and the Russian Revolution, before Russia had been fully given over to regicide as well as postmodern social systems and critique, The Story presents us with a fascinating diorama of elite Russian cultural attitudes toward politics and history prior to the Soviet regime. If it is not valuable as a work of history in the strict academic sense, it is an immeasurably valuable work of historiography and a gem of Russian reactionary nonfiction. If nothing else, Nechvolodov allows us to understand how the history of the world was remembered in Russian high society. While predating Lenin’s seizure of power, The Story also postdates the nineteenth-century golden age of Russian literature of Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy etc., as well as the problems following the wake of Tsar Alexander II’s 1861 emancipation of the serfs. The grim thematic elements of parricide, inter-generational strife, and the advent of the hated and socially destructive new ideas prevalent in Dostoevsky’s Devils and Brothers Karamazov as well as Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons—all acclaimed novels which were widely read and discussed in their time—would have become more immediate and real problems in Russian society by Nechvolodov’s time, and would have reinforced the convictions of reactionary circles and strengthened Russia’s internal divisions.

For this reason, it is no surprise that Nechvolodov’s historical account of Russia should be deeply political in nature. He makes no pretense to the contrary and admits as much in his preface. This is not a work of academic history, but it is rather an act of the immune system of the Russian cultural organism seeking to survive the rising tide of mass society and the chaos of the modern world. Nechvoldov is not disinterested, nor even disconnected from the subject matter; he often uses language such as "our history and our ancestors" throughout the work, whether referring to ancient Aryan, Scythian, or Kievan Rus people. It is rare to find such language in Western history books, even in Nechvolodov’s time.

Rare also is the reference to Homer and the Bible as historical sources, of which Nechvoldov partakes. Western historical criticism had long abandoned this practice and delegated these sources (mostly) to the realm of myth and religion. Yet Nechvolodov is unafraid to claim that Achilles was not only a real person, but also a Scythian, and thus an ancestor of the Russians. He also doesn’t hesitate to state with no awareness of possible controversy that Europeans descend from Noah’s son Japheth. He has no fear of repercussion or criticism for freely using the term Aryan when talking about the ancient Steppe ancestors of Europe, nor of speaking ill of Jewish Khazars when discussing Russia’s historic enemies. Nechvolodov’s conflates Thracians with Scythians when citing Herodotus, lists Huns as direct linear ancestors of the Slavs (something no modern historian would claim), and despite providing a bibliography, often employs no in-text citations when directly quoting other sources. We can speculate that this is because there should be no need to provide citations when you are a member of the aristocratic class in a society that still has this social estate intact. Even into the early twentieth century, Russian society was still viewed as being essentially medieval by their Western contemporaries because the Tsar maintained autocratic rule of the Russian state, and power and wealth was still concentrated in the hands of the aristocracy. That Nechvolodov is a nobleman writing for other noblemen is sufficient authority for his target audience to trust his word. He also was writing for an audience that, while literate and having received a cursory exposure to the literature and history of classical antiquity and its bridge into the medieval through private gentry education, and while interested in learning more about it, may not all have had easy access to libraries or encyclopedias to research these things more deeply. A Russian perspective on classical tradition would have been more desired by a significant portion of Nechvoldov’s Russian audience as well (which included Tsar Nicholas II), than a non-Russian one. After all, the Russian aristocracy believed itself to be the true inheritors of classical Rome and Greece, so it’s only natural that Nechvoldov should add a Russian flair to his account of antiquity.

By today’s standards, this is a wild, cavalier practice of historical writing, a long-dead system (or lack of system) of verifying information based mostly on mutual recognition that one belongs to a certain class of person. History isn’t then weighed down by an obligation to constantly reference its sources, and the spirit can flow freely without being confined to the letter. This is how the history of a culture was viewed from within the culture itself, before history was domesticated by modern academic criticism. Yet admittedly, there is something fascinating and intriguing about this old-school approach, despite its fallibility and susceptibility to inaccuracy. By doing history in this way, Nechvolodov compels us to view history not as a passive, dead record of mundane events outlined in dusty old tomes kept in stuffy libraries, presided over by sickly old scatterbrained men, but as an active, living, psychic organism that permeates the blood and animates the cultural organism to reach beyond the mortal sheath. Perhaps history then becomes a part of Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov’s common task of all humanity, to which Nechvolodov makes reference in the preface to this work, and which is nothing more than literal resurrection itself: the conquering of death by the vital force of life.

History is a function of culture. History belongs to the people of culture. A disinterested academic historian may have a more accurate picture of historical events than a cultured dilettante, but the dilettante is revitalized by history and can use history to approach the inmost nature of life. An academic studies history like a medical student studies a cadaver, and both can lose sight of the fact that the corpse they are examining was once a living thing and that living bodies still walk the earth. Once we know history completely, we cease to love it and be moved by it. Even to believe that it is possible to know it completely is to commit an act of hubris, for which we are punished by the misery that arises from the foolish pride of self-delusion. The soul goes into atrophy when it falsely believes that history is completely known, and recorded adequately, requiring no active engagement nor respect, and can simply be known by rudimentary research. We hope that readers of Nechvolodov can embrace this organic view of history and allow themselves to be continually inspired by the mystery of the past.

Dennis Sinclair

P R E F A C E

The Story of the Russian Land is approved and recommended for distribution by the August Commander-in-Chief of the Guard and the Petersburg Military district and by the Commanders-in-Chief of the troops of all other military districts to all regiments, companies, squadrons, centesimals, battalions, and library directors; by decree of the Holy Ethical Synod for acquisition by rudimentary discipleship libraries, spiritual educational institutions, and Church libraries of the Russian empire; by decree of the Educational Council of the Holy Synod for the libraries of ecclesiastical schools and second classes, as well as for the study-libraries of parish schools; by the Ministry of National Education for teachers in all lower educational institutions of various titles, for scholars doing extracurricular reading in all secondary educational institutions, and for libraries of other sorts; by the Departmental Institution of the Empress Maria, the Ministries of Industry, Communication, and Trade Routes (respectively); by the General Directorate of Land Management and Agriculture, as well as the General Directorate of Military Educational Institutions for other sorts of subordinate student libraries; by the Chief Naval Headquarters for ship and crewmen’s libraries; and by the Committee of Trustees of Moderation for libraries and readers of the nation.

We offer this book, written to give every Russian person the opportunity to learn about their ancestors’ lives and acts in past times. This type of study is not only instructive but also highly necessary to show the brave, wise, and noble people from whom we descend, what great trials they were put through in the foundation of our Motherland, and how well-steeped in their blood is the whole span of the Russian Land.

Along with this, it shows us how we must go to perform our sacred duty to the Russian Land that lies before this generation—to keep intact in its entirety the sanctity of our divine ancestral legacy.

The words above are an introduction to the first part of the work here, dedicated to the memory of Ivan Zabelin and published in 1909 by the Brotherhood of the Church of Saint Nicholas of the Prague 58th Infantry Division.

That same year, the book I wrote was rewarded with the most gracious attention by His Imperial Majesty, the Tsar, who was pleased to express his wish that I continue the work I had begun.

On May 24th, 1911, I received the most gracious honor in Tsarskoye Selo, presenting to the Tsar the second volume of The Story of the Russian Land, whereupon my work was again delivered to what was, for me, some of the most unforgettable gestures of monarchical consideration.

On December 1st, 1911, in Livadia, the Holy Emperor was so incredibly pleased with my words that he was reading my book aloud to Her Majesty the Tsarina. After this, he expressed his wish that the book’s next edition would have a more embellished layout and features such as reproductions of historical paintings by Russian artists of the time and snapshots of ancient icons, manuscripts, temple murals, old buildings, weapons, and other sorts of tools.

Given this, the current 1913 edition is published with many pictures—four parts of my labor, brought out to the election and coronation of the Tsardom of Michael Feodorovich Romanov.

During my work, I was guided by all primary sources available to me and the works of our famous historians and scholars: N. M. Karamzin, S. M. Solvev, Ivan Zabelin, V. Klyuchevsky, S. F. Platonov, A. A. Shakhmatov, N. P. Kondakov, A. I. Sobolevski, N. P. Likhachyov, and others. A detailed bibliography of the printed works and pictures I consulted, and from which I garnered more or less all my quotations, can be seen at the end of this work.

Along with this, I have endeavored to the best of my ability to keep the covenant of Ivan Zabelin, expressed by him in the following words:

It is known to all, that the ancients, especially the Greeks and Romans, were able to breed heroes. . . . This ability was made possible only by the fact that in their histories, they could portray not only the historic, but also the poetic truth of their leading figures. They were able to appreciate the merits of heroes and could discern the golden truth and divinity of these qualities from the lies and impurities of ordinary life in which each person is destined to live and by which they more or less always find themselves sullied. They were able to distinguish in these qualities not only their real and good essence, so to speak, but also their ideal essence, that is to say the historical idea exemplified in feats and deeds, which is necessary and which the character of the hero elevates to the point of ideal. Our Russian cultural history comes from ancients completely different from them, on the opposite side. As is well known, we only quite diligently deny and denounce our History, and we dare not to consider any such character-ideals. Of the ideal in our History, we dare not admit. All the more, the ideals we had were such heroes that our entire History is a dark kingdom of neglect, barbarism, gossip, slavery, and other such things. There is no other way to put it: thus do the great majority of educated Russians think. Of course, such a History would be unable to give rise to heroes, and it should view the notion of ideals as juvenile and childish and as something to be suppressed. The best role that this juvenility can play in such a History is that it would not be known to exist at all. This is how most people act toward historical ideals . . . but were this not the view that the majority of educated Russians should bear, then perhaps a most just reproach, that such a view holds no ground, could be made, and Russia would not feel this negative national historical consciousness within itself, and it should find itself both mentally and morally blown by favorable winds in all directions.

Indeed, a national history serves as a firm support and unshakable ground for the national consciousness and self-knowledge.

God is not offensive to Russian History in this respect. In it, there are, or could be found common human ideas and ideals, enlightened and great-natured heroes, and creators of life. We only need to remember the truthful sayings of the writers of antiquity properly, that ‘the glory of one or another nation or person in History shall not completely consist of glorious or inglorious dealings, nor of the existence of historical feats, but is derived fully from the art and skill or even simply the intention of writers to either portray gloriously or despise the affairs of the people and the deeds of historic individuals.

The preceding words of Ivan Zabelin aside, I have found for myself, in my examination of Russian history, the utmost support, confirmation, and explanation in the works of one of the most incredible and most loved contemporary Russian people—Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov. In life, he was known to many as the incredibly conscientious, hard-working, and humble servant of the Rumyantsev Museum in Moscow, who had a broad and diverse range of knowledge in multiple fields and knew the contents of all the books in that enormous library resolutely. Every visitor to the library would recognize him as a dedicated employee with love for his work who could immediately refer them to the exact books they needed merely from hearing their research requirements. Naturally, then, Nikolai Fyodorov would try to be as helpful as he could, fixing himself to their research with all his heart and going above and beyond their needs, even referring the astonished visitor to two or three different books that they didn’t need at all and of whose very existence they would never have even been aware and, between the contents of these unexpected books and the initial recommendations, would completely fulfill all requirements posed to him. Whenever it happened that a visitor, having gotten the attention of Nikolai Fyodorov, required certain books that were not in the Rumyantsev Museum, he would buy them with his meager funds. The people with whom he came into contact referred to him as a sage and a saint, and those closer to him said that he was one of the only few righteous men left in the world and considered him to be a true Christian soul—a great man even among great men. After having had contact with Fyodorov, Leo Tolstoy, astonished by his personality, wrote: Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov is a saint. A closet desires no salary, for if there is no linen, there is no bed.

After the death of this remarkable Russian, in the following year, 1903, V. A. Kozhevnikov and N. P. Peterson published his extensive creative output under the title Philosophy of the Common Task. Still, the first release was unfortunately not put out for sale until the current time. Still, it was freely distributed to a few national libraries since the deceased stood against the sale of works that had to do with intellectual matters and considered this sacrilege.

By the most profound conviction, Fyodorov considered resurrection from the dead to be the common task of all humanity, which would follow when in all the land there comes to be a general fraternity, which in his eyes the Russian Sovereign would build. Russia shall become for all: Dear, sweet, and cherished.

Only a few people were familiar with his views throughout his life, but such outstanding men shared these views as F. M. Dostoevsky and V. S. Solovyov; the former called his teachings the first movement forward along the path of Christ since the appearance of Christianity.

Examining Russia’s past as well as her significance among the remaining states, giving rise with his questions to a series of unique ideas and voicing predictions which have come true in his works, Nikolai Fyodorov entirely agrees with the opinion about the future of the Russian Land put forward at the start of the sixteenth century by the elder Elizerov of the Philotheou Monastery.

Since these views are also entirely accepted by me, then at the heading of every part of the present work, a few words from the elder Philotheouan shall be given about the Russian State from his messages to the clerk Misura Mukhin.

Throughout my work, I was subject to the most gracious and flattering attention from each individual from whom I sought help. Therefore, I must extend my deepest gratitude and beseech their acceptance toward His Imperial Highness, the Grand Duke Peter Nikolaevich, for his valuable insight concerning classical Russian Church architecture and two drawings of His Highness’ work, sent at my request for inclusion in the publication.

I would also ask the following individuals for the acceptance of my most sincere and utmost thankfulness for their rendering assistance to my work in a broad and general way: the Eminent Vladimir, Metropolitan of Saint Petersburg and Ladozhk; Bishop George, director of the Saint Petersburg Spiritual Academy; Bishop Fyodor, director of the Moscow Spiritual Academy; the Cathedral and Viceroy of the Trinity Lavra of Saint Sergius and Her Archimandrite Toviyu; Viceroy of the Kiev Monastery of the Caves Archimandirate Ambrose; Hegumen Joseph Volokolamsky of the monastery Archmandirate Nifonta and the Hieromonk of that same cloister, Father Pafnutiya; Father Superior Feodorit, hegumen of the Kirill-Belozersky Monastery; Minister of the Imperial Court and general aide to the Count V. B. Frederisk, Chairman of Imperial Russian Society of Military History, Cavalry General D. A. Skalon; Chief of the Military Field Office of the Retinue of His Imperial Majesty, His Majesty Major General Prince V. N. Orlov; of the Retinue of His Majesty, General Major N. A. Princehevicha; Member of the State Council Senator A. A. Naryshkin; of the Academies of A. A. Shakhmatov and A. I. Sobolevsky; and the manager of the library of the Imperial Academy of Sciences V. I. Sreznevski; doctor of history and assistant director of the Imperial Public Library N. P. Likhachyov; as well as its department managers: A. I. Bychkova, V. I. Saitov, and N. D. Chechulin; director of the Saint Petersburg Archaeological Institute N. V. Pokrovsky; and also the department managers of: the Imperial Academy of Arts: Messrs. F. G. Berenshtamm, E. O. Visel, and E. A. Shultz; the State Hermitage Museum: Messrs. Y. I. Smirnov, E. M. Pridik, Baron P. F. Meyendorf, A. K. Markov, and O. F. Valdgauger; the professors of Saint Petersburg University: Baron M. A. Taube, A. I. Ivanov, and V. N. Beheshevich; member of the Imperial Archeological Commission B. V. Farmakovsky; library manager of the Saint Petersburg Spiritual Academy A. P. Krotkov; former secretary of the Russian Museum named after Emperor Alexander III in Saint Petersburg G. V. Kakhovsky and the custodian of that museum A. A. Miller; Associate to the Chairman of the Historical Museum named after Emperor Alexander III in Moscow Prince N. B. Shcherbatov and department managers of the Museums: A. V. Oreshnikov, A. I. Stankevich, V. N. Shchepkin, and I. M. Tarablin; Attorney of the Moscow Synodical Office M. P. Stepanov and the manager of the Patriarchal Library N. I. Popov; the Senior Clerk of the Moscow Chief Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs S. A. Belokurov; Manager of the Moscow Synodical Printing House A. S. Orlov and Manager of the archaic printing chambers therein A. A. Pokrovsky; Managers of the Moscow Armory Messrs. S. P. Bartenev and U. V. Arsenev; managers of the library of the Imperial Rumyantzev Museum in Moscow U. V. Gote and Y. G. Kvaskov; curator of the archeological department of the Kiev City Museum of Emperor Nicholas II, V. V. Khvoyka; A. I. Kireevu, O. N. Gaken, O. A. Fribess, N. A. Butmi, E. O. Yagelsky, V. A. Kozhevnikov, S. A. Panchukizdev, G. A. Shechkov, R. R. von-Shulman, V. K. Solonin, N. V. Kirillov, D. D. Lamoniv, M. P. Tikhonov, N. C. Smirnov, and M. M. Shteinsberg; Chairman of the Novgorodian Society of Antiquarians M. V. Muravev and the curator of the Novgorodian Museum of Antiquities N. P. Volodin; member of the Yaroslavian Architectural Commission V. M. Bushuev; the venerable Polish historian F. A. Korzon; President of the Krakov Academy of Science, Mr. Ulyanovsky; Messrs. Prezhetzlavsky, Ivanovsky, Baranovsky, Semiensky, Kacheevsky, and Gembarzhevsky.

With this, I consider it my duty to mention with deep gratitude the memories of the now-deceased P. Y. Dashkov and P. I. Shschukin, who always wished me well in my work.

I ask the following people to accept my sincerest appreciation for their kind donation of pictures: Baroness O. P. Pritvitz and E. F. Rimus for the images of the Livonian castle ruins; Baroness T. I. Medem for the icon snapshots and various other items stored in the sacristy of Pskov-Pechersky Monastery; M. P. Kaptzov for the images of Joseph Volokolamski Monastery; and K. N. Rossolimo for the pictures of the Kiev Monastery of the Caves; Envoy of the Russian Emperor in Copenhagen, Baron K. K. Bugsgevden, for supplying photographs of portraits in the Royal castle in Fredensborg, Denmark; ranks of the Imperial Russian Missions: in Madrid for snapshots of the Greek manuscript John Skylitzes, and in Stockholm for photographs of the portraits kept in the Swedish Royal Castle; the curators of the British Museum and the London National Gallery: Messrs. Campbell-Dogdson, Gomef, D. C. Makkol, and Messrs. Boswell and Collins-Baker; the Administrative Staff of the City Museum of Braslaw, the Community Council of the Rogozhsky Old Believer Cemetery for the contribution of pictures of the ancient icons of the Trinity-Sergievsky Lavra, and P. N. Puryshev for the photographs taken at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery.

I am also sincerely grateful to the masters of the Hesvizhsky castle for kindly permitting me to use their libraries and galleries; Prince M. V. Radzivill, E. G. Shvartitza, to the director of the Stallmaster Yard; His Majesty P. A. Demidov, Master of Vishnevetz Castle; Master of Vilyanov Castle Count K. Branitzek; Counts M. O. Zamoysky and S. S. Krasinsky; Master of Krasichin Castle in Galicia, Prince V. Sapeg; owner of the rarest collection of icons of ancient letters in Moscow, Igor Igorovich Igorov; Master of Antiquaries in Warsaw, Mr. I. Vilder; and L. F. Vsevolozhsky, publisher of the journal Niva for kindly providing permission for the photographs of old drawings, constituting the exclusive property of this journal.

Valuable guidance was given to me by the artists G. P. Kondratenko and N. K. Rerikha of the journal Old Years as well as members of the Imperial Academy of Arts P. P. Veynera and L. K. Sabopulo and also the director of the Imperial Stroganovsky School in Moscow N. V. Globa, who provided the covers, calligraphy, and a few other illustrations by the talented teacher of that school, S. I. Yaguzhinsky—all helped this edition of my work a great deal.

Finally, I consider it my duty to provide my most sincere appreciation to the Head of the State Printing House through which the book was printed, General Major P. A. Shevelevu and his assistant, to the Stablemaster of His Majesty’s Court, a true state councilor, G. G. Khodunov and his assistants G. L. Grentz and N. N. Shurtz; to print master M. I. Bely, typesetter P. I. Egorov and his assistant I. P. Korolev, and also to the superb lithographer of the Warsaw Military District Headquarters; N. V. Nikitin for the rendition of all plans and charts for the current edition; and B. L. Verzhbitzky, proprietor of printing establishments in Warsaw, together with his assistant artist A. Poltavsky and master zincographer Y. Endrzheevsky, under whose direct supervision all illustrations were prepared for printing.

Alexander Dmitrievich Nechvolodov

C H A P T E R O N E

Our Lineage Is from Japheth’s Line

Holy Scripture tells us that after the Flood, all races of people that live on Earth today came from Noah’s three sons: Sham, Ham, and Japheth.

One line of Japheth’s descendants settled in the upper reaches of the rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya, which were within the borders of the Russian Empire in the province of Turkestan. This line is the origin of many tribes of Asia Minor, Persia, and India, as well as glorious and well-known races that live in Europe: Greeks, Romans, Spaniards, French, English, Germans, Swedes, Lithuanians, and others, as well as Slavic tribes: Russians, Poles, Bulgars, Serbs, and others.

The Life of Ancient Aryans

Initially, all of our ancestors that lived in the upper reaches of Amu Darya and Syr Darya bore the name Aryan. In their ancient language, Aryan meant venerated or superior. Indeed, Aryans stood out from other inhabitants of Earth of that time for their strength, height, finesse, and beauty, but especially for the nobility of their spirituality.

Although very violent customs were widespread among Aryans in those times, many thousands of years before the birth of our Savior, who preached love of your neighbor, the qualities of courage and honor, which even today are present in any man with a noble soul, were highly valued.

Our ancient ancestors came together to live in settlements and villages. They could build houses with doors and ovens made out of stone. But, like modern farmers, their primary property and wealth were domesticated animals: cows, bulls, aurochs, oxen, horses, sheep, pigs, piglets, goats, and even birds such as geese. Dogs were common by the herd and in houses, but cats were yet to be domesticated.

The Aryans’ main method of obtaining food was through agriculture, but, where possible, they also bred animals and, of course, had brave hunters among them who would hunt various wild beasts.

Aryans tilled the earth with different plows; they planted barley, oats, and spelt. Rye and wheat, however, were still not known to them. Nevertheless, they could grind seeds, bake bread, eat cooked meat, and drink milk. They consumed honey as food and also as an alcoholic beverage.

Aside from bread-making and animal husbandry, Aryans knew other trades, such as weaving, wickerwork, and sewing; they also knew of polishing gold, silver, and copper and had oar-driven boats.

Our ancestors could count in tens, but when it came to more than a hundred, as in tens of tens, they could not.

The Aryans practiced marriage but came to value monogamy only later; they were not ashamed to have multiple wives for centuries.

Every family was part of a well-known clan, which always strongly supported each other. Everyone was to obey all customs determined by their lineage. In cases of harm or external aggression toward any one member of the clan, the victim would have had the fighting support of everyone in the clan. This custom was considered sacred and was referred to as the tradition of blood vengeance or family vengeance, which remained among Aryans for a long time. For this reason, there was constant killing and conflict.

Some clans who shared common lineages united into larger tribes and were led by elders and chieftains,¹ judges, executioners, and commanders. Aryans fought each other frequently, and military courage was strongly valued and diligently cultivated among our noble and brave ancestors. They fought on foot and horses, depending on the terrain; they skillfully threw spears and shot arrows from bows at their enemies, whom they would bravely strike with swords and axes when meeting them up close. They went to death without hesitation since they believed in an afterlife where brave men who died honorable deaths in battle were rewarded.

Our ancestors also believed in God Almighty, who was called by the very same word God, and they worshipped the heavens—divinity, sun, dawn, fire, wind, and Mother Earth.

Their Dispersal

That’s how the glorious Aryans lived in their primordial motherland in the upper reaches of Amu Darya and Syr Darya. As their population grew, so did the number of сlans and tribes, so they expanded their territory into other lands. Since they were agricultural peoples, Aryan expansion moved slowly; upon arrival in a new area, they would sow seeds in the fields, and only when they harvested would they move to a new place, remaining there until the next harvest.

Any time they encountered the original inhabitants of these new lands, if the natives didn’t surrender voluntarily, the Aryans would wage brutal warfare against them and either exterminate them entirely or turn them into slaves and tribute-payers; that being said, they would eventually mix with the conquered natives through marriage.

In such a manner, they slowly but surely spread from their motherland as their population grew. Some Aryan tribes from the upper reaches of Amu Darya and Syr Darya continued their path to the Hindu basin and other rivers that irrigated India and founded the tribes that now populate this great country. Others went to the southwest and populated the boundaries of the later-to-be-famous kingdom of Persia. Finally, many of the Aryans drove to the west, eventually settling in Europe with their tribes.

Since written language wasn’t known to ancient Aryans, they couldn’t leave written accounts of their migrations, so it is impossible to determine when any specific Aryan nation came to Europe. However, the first tribes that settled in Europe came to Italy and Spain; that being said, one of such tribes had founded a solid state before the others—Rome—where everyone already lived not by the tribal customs they followed in their Aryan motherland, but by the ordinary laws of the Roman state. It was thanks to these laws that the Romans didn’t have tribal and family disputes; au contraire, they were all strongly united in conflicts with other tribes and won them easily. Thus, Rome, slowly but surely, became a more vital state, which by the time of the birth of Christ in the days of Caesar Augustus’ rule controlled many other nations, including Judaea, the motherland of our Savior.

After the tribes had settled in Spain and Italy, other tribes who had arrived in Europe settled in Greece, which was especially attractive to newcomers due to its mild climate, an abundance of islands with fertile lands for mooring ships, and also the words of praise for all regions of Greece, which had spread all over the beautiful sea that surrounds it. The tribes who arrived in Greece soon changed their way of life from a tribal system to an organized government, but in contrast to Rome, they didn’t unite into one centralized state, instead forming a plurality of small states based in marvelous and impressive cities; these states often engaged in bitter quarrels with one another and were thus mutually weakened, which is why they were all conquered by Rome in the end.

Our Dispersal

After the Greeks came, the ancestors of the contemporary inhabitants of France arrived in Europe with the Germanic tribes behind them, from which the later Germans, as well as Anglos, Hollanders, Dutch, and Swedes, formed. The Lithuanians broke off from Germania, and in the end, Lithuania stretched out to the