The inevitability of the Empire and the problems of reconstruction

The principle of continuous succession of human culture formulated by N.A. Morozov (see Morozov, 1924–1932) was developed by G.M. management system, which allowed to master all habitable places of the planet (see Gerasimov, 2001).
From this point of view, the transition from homeostasis to a system with a single controlling center seems quite natural and even inevitable.

In this case, a legitimate question arises: is such a reconstruction not too speculative? Indeed, from traditional history we know nothing about the existence in the past of humanity of an unprecedented geopolitical formation that covered the whole Ocumene – on the contrary, all the empires described in the sources had a very limited area of ​​distribution and decayed long before reaching the limits of widespread expansion.

However, as a result of the research of the same N.A. Morozov, and after him A.T. Fomenko in the field of historical chronology, it turns out that the traditional chronology of antiquity and medievalism accepted at present in science and society has no real scientific basis. , and is the fruit of speculative creativity of medieval scholastics of the XVI – XVII centuries (see Morozov, 1924–1932; Fomenko, 1999).

If we approach the study of historical sources, refusing to link them to the conventional chronological scale, it is very quickly discovered that almost all ancient and early medieval empires are only phantom reflections of the Great Horde empire of the XIV – XVI centuries, which had their place in history due to the aforementioned scholastic activity of medieval chronologists .

The first serious attempt to reconstruct the control system of the Great Empire was undertaken by GVNosovsky and ATFomenko (see Nosovsky, Fomenko, 1996, 1998, 1999). At the same time, they encountered in their work a number of almost insurmountable difficulties, among the main of which are:
a) the almost complete absence of reliably dated sources before the seventeenth century;
b) the deliberate distortion of information about the immediate past by historians of the 17th – 18th centuries in all countries. (More on this: Nosovsky, Fomenko, 1996, pp. 368–373; Nosovsky, Fomenko, 1998, t.I, p. 665–672; Nosovsky, Fomenko, 1999a, pp. 491–504.)
However, the situation is not so hopeless.

First, the basic principles of public administration are well known from later history, as well as from modern political practice and its scientific synthesis. It is only necessary to extrapolate these principles to a public education that sought to exercise control over the entire inhabited world, the Ocumene, and, naturally, carefully take into account all the differences arising from such a striving.

Secondly, information about the past is preserved in later, and even in biased, edited sources. The method of identifying such information is well known in the source. For example, if the source’s bias is established, the commitment of its author-editor-compiler to a certain political line, then the information that contradicts this line is more likely to be closer to the facts of real events than the information, the “general line” is relevant (see, for example, Lappo -Danilevsky, 1913, issue 2, p. 642; Lurie, 1997, p. 27).
In the present work, an attempt is made to identify and substantiate the basic mechanisms in accordance with which the Empire was governed, and also to give the most general outlines of organizational and communication-class imperial structures.

The study was conducted in two stages. Initially, the theoretical prerequisites were formulated for the very possibility of effective management of the geopolitical structure, one of the main goals of which is unlimited expansion. At the second stage, information was searched for sources, which could confirm or refute the existence of such control mechanisms in real history.

Conceptual apparatus

Before formulating the theoretical prerequisites for managing the Empire, it is useful to understand the meanings of the main terms used. This, firstly, will allow to avoid ambiguity in the interpretation of certain concepts in different documents and in different eras, and secondly, it can provide the key to understanding the essence of the phenomena behind these concepts.

As guides to terminological labyrinths, we will use three fundamental works: M. Vasmer. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language (Vasmer, 1996); Benveniste E. Dictionary of Indo-European social terms (Benveniste, 1995); Kesler Ya.A. Alphabet and Russian-European Dictionary (Kesler, 2001). The first of these dictionaries is good primarily for its encyclopedic, and the other two are for a fundamentally new, qualitative approach to etymology: the meaning of a word is determined by its original functional meaning, and all its further evolution can be traced to this fundamental circumstance.

Empire
We begin with the concept already used several times in this article to denote the phenomenon under investigation.
This word stuck in Russian rather late, under Peter I. M.Fasmer notes (Vasmer, 1996, Vol.2, p.129), the appearance of the word in Shafirov (see Shafirov, 1717.), As derived from the empire word Emperor – in Feofan Prokopovich, i.e. at the beginning of the XVIII century.

In earlier documents, the term empire is also found, but in all such cases it is meant something foreign, existing outside Russia, – either this is the Holy Roman Empire, or this is the Byzantine Empire (as the commentators of these documents believe). documents themselves such localization, as a rule, do not follow).

As for the meaning of the term itself, it is quite simple: translated from the Latin imperator, it means simply the manager, and imperia – management .
In this paper, we will use this word to designate a socially-imperious (state) entity that was, as opposed to a national state, an unlimited expansion and control over the entire inhabited world (Ocucumene). From the point of view of successful achievement of such a global goal, the problem of management really becomes paramount.

Sovereign state
Dictionary Vasmer displays the word of the sovereign Russian word ruler , and the word ruler– of the word Lord (Vasmer, 1996, v.1, s.446, 448). The meaning is transparent. I mean the state as dominion. Thus, in the Russian language until the most recent times (XIX century) nothing in common with the modern understanding of the term state was observed. Those. the concept of the state did not include such major components for modern political science and legal disciplines as territory and sovereignty. Just the dominion of something over something. This must be borne in mind when meeting the words sovereign and state in ancient documents.

At the same time, the etymology of the word Lord himself remains unclear. Vasmer’s dictionary keeps a mysterious silence on this subject, insisting only on its original Slavic origin without any evidence (Vasmer, 1996, Vol.1, p.448). I will note here a very interesting version of J.A. Kesler, who paid attention to the fact that the Danes “pronounce the name of God the Father of Savaof ( Sabbaoh ), or rather the God of the Sabbath – Go ‘Sabbath, almost exactly like the Russian ” Lord “ , which is also very close to spanish huesped“master”. And if we keep in mind that the word “god” among the Slavs meant happiness (cf. rich), then we have the identity of the Lord-God ”, which is formed just like“ the king-father ”(Kesler, 2001, p.31 ).

Horde
The meaning of the term horde is interesting . Here, the same Vasmer dictionary allows you to make amazing observations (Vasmer, 1996, v.3, p.150). The horde in Russian is borrowed from Turkic. And borrowed quite a strange way. In Turkic languages, this word means either a military camp or a palace, the tent of the Sultan, Khan . And the Russian included in the values ​​of a roaming tribe and a crowd, horde , crowd, a crowd of people(Dahl, 1994, Vol. 2, Art. 1788) – in other words, something random, chaotic, but very large and rapidly moving somewhere.

However, the word horde literally coincides with the Latin word ordo , from where the root of ord- moved to Western European languages ​​(English, German, French). And in all these languages ​​this word means the exact opposite – a series, an order .
And if we recall the meaning of the word horde in the sense of an army, then an army that is effectively at war is definitely an extremely orderly army.

It turns out that, in both Turkic and Western European languages, the term in question denotes concepts that are similar in meaning. And only the Russian language got the word with the opposite meaning.
This is a typical example of a traditionally historical newspeak. Traditional history is very rich in such distortions of terms, when the same word for clearly readable political purposes begins to denote opposite concepts.

According to Ya.A.Kesler, the Russian Horde , it’s also Rada , comes from the original root ryd meaning the given word, the oath. “Therefore, the“ Horde ”is a jury warrior, they are Cossacks, they are legionaries, they are also knights” (Kesler, 2001, p.22, see also p.214).

In this paper, the term horde when used in capital letters is used as one of the synonyms of the term Empire , and from the lower case – as the name of one of the main imperial structures – the army, the army providing the imperial idea through its distribution in Oikumen.

Khan, Caesar, Caesar, King
All these concepts are synonymous. Perhaps, only historiographers of the XIX – XX centuries began to find differences in their use. The ancient documents do not capture such differences.Khan is a Turkic word, Caesar is Greek, Caesar is a late medieval Latinized variant of the Greek word, and Tsar is a Russian abbreviation for Caesar (Fasmer, 1996, vol.4, p.221, 290-291). And all these terms mean one thing: the supreme ruler . Accordingly, this supreme ruler is called Khan in Turkic sources, Caesar in Greek, Caesar in Latin, and in Russian chronicles is called exclusively the king.

For example, the well-known Devlet-Girey, the Crimean Khan (as it is commonly called in later historiography), which is still to be discussed, is called exclusively the Crimean king in all Russian chronicles of the 17th – 18th centuries.

King. Rex.

Among the few Russian documents of the 16th century that have survived to the present day, there are letters and acts of ratification mentioning various European kings and queens. Without considering now the question of the possible apocryphism of these sources, let us try to reflect on the term king itself in more detail: what meaning could it have at that time?

When trying to figure out the origin of this interesting word, we are faced with the most genuine etymological mystery, on the verge of sensation.
Looking into the same Vasmer dictionary, it is easy to find that a word with such a root is present only in Slavic languages ​​- Russian, Ukrainian ( king ), Bulgariankralat ), Serbo-Croatian ( ), Polish ( ), Czech ( kr l ), Slovak ( kr l ‘), Slovene ( kr lj ), etc. (Fasmer, 1996, v.2, p.333). The sensation is that the etymology of the word Vasmer derives from … the name of Charlemagne (and in support of his opinion cites the works of another 13 specialists who consider it the same way). The fact is completely phenomenal in its exclusivity. After all, this word fell only in the Slavic languages. In fact, in Latin – rex , in English –king , in German – k nig , in French (and in traditional history France is the metropolis of Charlemagne’s empire!) – roi . A legitimate question arises: why is this Karl so famous in the Slavic lands, what is so great and terrible for the Slavic peoples, if they even inserted his name in their languages ​​as a universal term for the ruler of the state? Especially for the Western Slavs, who called this word not only foreign, but also their rulers.

It seems that despite the legality the question turned out to be rhetorical. And in this case, does it make sense to look for another etymology?
We must pay tribute to the scientific honesty of M. Fasmer – in controversial cases like this, he cites opinions with which he disagrees. And one of these opinions (Polish linguist Rudnitsky) is very curious: he produces the word king from the original Slavic punishment . And if we assume that Rudnitsky is right, then we will come to a curious conclusion: imperial governors in Europe were called kings, one of whose main functions was precisely punitive.

The word rex, witnessed only in Italic, Celtic and Indian, that is, on the western and eastern outskirts of the Indo-European range, belongs, according to E. Benveniste, to a very ancient group of religious and legal terms. Comparison lat. rego with gr.  “stretching, stretching” and studying the original meaning of reg- in Latin lead the linguist to the conclusion that rex is more a priest than a king in the modern sense, i.e. a person who has the power to outline the location of the future city or to define the features of the rule of law (Benveniste, 1995, pp.249-252).

As for the Greek term, usually identified with the king, then E. Benvenist believes that the person called so carried out magiko-religious functions, probably originally defined by the three-party structure of society (as described below). The scepter – a symbol of his power – was originally just a stick, a traveling staff of the messenger who transmitted the commanding speeches (Benvenist, 1995, p.258). Thus, Basileus also turns out to be a variety of the imperial governor.

General approaches to the organization of management

Formulating the task of unlimited global expansion, the Supreme Government of the Empire inevitably had to set itself the question of ensuring the manageability of the geopolitical entity being created. And not just to put, but to find mechanisms for solving these issues.
Let us try to put ourselves in the place of the Supreme Imperial Government and, to begin with, formulate those questions without which the task of spreading imperial power worldwide cannot be accomplished in principle.

First, you need an adequate power resource.. Any imperious decision taken in the center (in the capital of the Empire – the khan rate) must be strictly enforced at any point of the controlled territory – otherwise it is simply meaningless to talk about the presence of central imperial power. Consequently, a coercion mechanism is needed for those who disagree with the decision.
As a power resource of the Empire we will consider military force – a regular army, a horde.

The second, no less, and in a certain sense, more important: ideology. Power holding on to naked compulsion cannot be sustained. It is much easier to manage when the one who governs and the one who is governed is like-minded in achieving a common goal.
The ideology of the Empire was a single monotheistic Christian religion. You can call this religion and Orthodoxy. And you can right faith. Only then you need to clearly understand that this is not at all the orthodoxy and not at all the orthodoxy (Islam) that they are now. Modern Orthodoxy is a product of the 17th century, a post-split religion. And Islam adopted modern forms also only in the 17th century. The Christian religion before the split (that is, just at the time of the existence of the Empire) was, apparently, significantly different.

The third problem to be solved is communication.. An order issued in the center must be able to reach the executor, no matter how far from the center he is, even on the opposite side of the globe. In such circumstances, the issue of communication acquires the most important, fundamental importance.
It turns out that the mechanism for the implementation of communication measures, naturally, with the amendment to the technical means available in the XIV – XVI centuries, exists. And this mechanism consists in a certain system of organization of communications in the Empire (see details: Nosovsky, Fomenko, 1999a, pp. 127–128). Also interesting (in terms of the reconstruction of the communication structure of the Empire) is the geography of the location of the main Eurasian capitals. (See the detailed consideration of this issue: Nosovsky, Fomenko, 1998, Vol.2, pp. 244–254, as well as in V. Zharkov’s material “Some features of the distribution of points on the earth’s surface” published on the Internet.)

Another means by which the Empire solved both the problem of communications and the problem of ideological unity is the presence of a single language of communication throughout the Empire. It is clear that the presence of such a language in the most favorable way affects both the communication possibilities and the mutual understanding of the subjects. Ya.A. Kesler established that such a single language in the Great Horde was the Old Russian, or Old Slavonic, language, the direct heir of which is modern Russian (see Kesler, 2001, 2002).

And the fourth , without which it can not do, is the economy. To effectively manage the Empire, it is necessary to have effective commodity-money relations throughout its territory.
There is ample evidence that effective commodity-money relations existed in the Horde. A more detailed consideration of this issue is beyond the scope of this article. The only thing I would like to note here is that a hyper-centralized economy cannot be effective. We know this well by the example of our very recent history, when, after a tremendous surge of all resources, the Soviet Union collapsed, and the main cause of the collapse of the Soviet empire, its economic inefficiency, was the main cause of the defeat of the communist idea.

Part 2 will follow shortly….