Constantinople baptized Rus' and other pagan peoples for security and expansion of the zone of influence
First, let's deal with the facts - that is, indisputable evidence. Why were pagan peoples baptized at all, and who did it? This was standard practice for Christian Constantinople.
The motive for this is, first of all, political: this way they expanded their zone of influence and reduced the likelihood of military conflicts. United by a common faith, the peoples became friendly.
Let's say there is an unfriendly settlement on the border, and clashes occur. What is easier - to send an army there or to peacefully resolve the issue in a reasonable way?
In the 9th century, Constantinople missionaries visited Great Moravia and Bulgaria, where they tried to convert the population to their faith.
Constantinople sent missionaries to Rus' even before 988, but with almost no results.
The conflict with Kievan Rus forced Constantinople to pay attention to it. The first missionaries were able to sow the seeds of Christianity on our lands, but the number of converts was modest, but among them were princes and boyars.
In 957, Princess Olga converted to Christianity. She dreamed of establishing a church in Rus', but did not succeed in this. Even her son, Prince Svyatoslav, showed no interest in his mother’s beliefs.
The bloody baptism of Rus' is most likely not fiction; armed confrontations could have taken place in Novgorod
However, the forced baptism of Rus' is reflected in historical sources. This is a fact and we cannot close our eyes to it. The Baptism of Novgorod is an important event in the Christianization of Rus', and it did not pass bloodlessly.
In 991, Bishop Joachim Korsunyanin and governor Dobrynya went with the Kyiv squad to Novgorod.
However, the inhabitants of the great city did not at all want to accept the new religion. There were also political reasons for this, because to become Christians meant to depend on the Kyiv prince.
Veliky Novgorod is a city that, according to the Joachim Chronicle, was baptized with fire and sword.
Armed resistance began.
Often supporters of the version of the bloodless baptism of Rus' cite numbers as arguments. They reason like this: a maximum of 40 thousand people could be recruited into the squad. What are they against the rebellious people?
But Dobrynya did not need a numerical advantage. He simply began burning the houses of the Novgorodians until they surrendered and allowed the spread of Christianity on their territory.
However, not all researchers believe this story.
Historian Alekseev S.V. indicates that the only source of this story is the “Joachim Chronicle”. Not everyone considers this document to be authentic. There is a version that this is a late fake.
Rus' was not baptized immediately: Christianity was established over centuries
We know little about the progress of Christianization of other cities of Rus'. But obviously it was a long process.
In the 11th century, for example, the bishops had big problems in Rostov. Only the fourth in a row was able to slightly improve the situation.
4
only 4 bishops were able to correct the situation with Christianity in Rus'
Metropolitan Simon in 1481 reports on the veneration of idols on the Perm land. In the 16th century, Christianity was just spreading in the Volga region, and in the 18th century it reached Kamchatka.
And there are still separate ethnic groups that practice paganism. Although neo-pagan cults are more popular, they have little in common with the original ones.
The forced Christianization of Rus' should not cast a shadow on the teachings of Christ
It is impossible to say anything categorically about the baptism of Rus'. Yes, we see that there are political motives behind this event.
But this, in no case, cancels the value of Christianity for the human soul.
Today it has become firmly entrenched in Russian culture. Russian people predominantly grow up and are brought up in an Orthodox environment, so the origins of this fade into the background.
“The Baptism of Rus'” - a fragment of a fresco by V. M. Vasnetsov
Although in the first couple of years the authorities used rather radical methods, this was the reality of those years. It has as much in common with Christian teaching itself as the Crusades.
For an Orthodox person, it is important to share the interests of the state, history, nation and religion. Sometimes these concepts are confused, but they are independent.
Christianity has not become worse, bloodier or more aggressive from the way it came to our land.
Today we have been raised to believe in the One God, we have the opportunity to study the teachings of Christ in our own language and receive help from higher powers.
As for the realities of the past, we have to admit them. But we cannot blame them on Christianity.
We know little about how Rus' was baptized, and we cannot rely 100% on historical sources
The question of whether our ancestors voluntarily adopted Christianity is a very acute, complex one and requires a delicate approach. The whole truth about the baptism of Rus' will never emerge - this is a fact that will have to be accepted.
Why is that? History, as we know, is written by the winners. We know little about the 10th century of our Motherland. It is a popular opinion that writing was poorly developed here. Christianity had the legacy of Cyril and Methodius.
Although medieval princes could not compete in the scope of influence with their descendants - the Russian emperors, their resource was still more impressive than that of the common people.
A page from the Tale of Bygone Years - one of the few sources of information about the baptism of Rus'
What are these facts for? Moreover, it would not be difficult for Prince Vladimir to write everything down in his own way and destroy all objectionable records (if any existed).
Therefore, it is incorrect to refer today to written evidence that has survived to this day in relation to the side that believes in the bloody baptism of Rus'.
From their point of view, Prince Vladimir is a tyrant and a traitor to the faith. Why shouldn’t he erase all traces of paganism and declare his act a feat? Could this be so? It could.
Therefore, one must rely on historical documents carefully. Logic and circumstantial evidence in this regard are more reliable than the evidence of “official” chroniclers.
“Kyiv received the gift of Christ’s faith from the Patriarchate of Constantinople”
Tell us in more detail how historically Kyiv became a stronghold of the Christian faith for all Eastern Slavs and the Mother Church for the later created Lithuanian, Galician and Moscow metropolises?
At the time of baptism and in the next few centuries, Kievan Rus was a powerful power, which controlled the territories from the city of Przemysl in the west to the Oka River in the east and from the shores of the White Sea in the north to Crimea and Tmutarakan in the south. And such a supreme ruler as Vladimir the Great understood well that paganism is the ideology of the past, and Christianity is the future of the young state. In the then civilized world, the Eastern Slavs were often called barbarians, meanwhile Christianity in Europe became increasingly popular, covering the entire continent, with the exception of Lithuania. This decisive civilizational choice of Rus' is very well illustrated by the plot of “The Tale of Bygone Years” about the choice of faith by Prince Vladimir - between paganism, Islam, Judaism, Western Christianity (Latinism) and Byzantine Orthodoxy. It was Eastern Christianity in its Greco-Byzantine interpretation that contributed to fundamental changes in the worldview, became the basis for the formation of the Kyiv Christian tradition and gave rise to the fundamental foundations of the medieval culture of Rus', on the basis of which writing, education, literature and art developed.
