Historical era in the fate of Russian literature of the Golden Age. Historical eras in order: chronology What political event marked the beginning of the historical era

The historical era in which the creators of the early Russian classics happened to live and which largely shaped them was revolutionary, explosive, and heroic. Its meaning was the triumph of enterprise over nobility, individualism over class ethics, novelty over traditionality. But, having brought hope for the renewal of society, the state and the individual, this era ended in a deep crisis, general disappointment in the idea of progress.

As we have already said, it was preceded by the philosophical searches of the encyclopedists. And the immediate beginning was the French Revolution of 1789-1793. Now, from our historical distance, it is difficult to understand how global were the changes that she brought with her. If you compare it with something, it’s not even with an earthquake, but with a grandiose volcanic eruption, after which everything starts to move, everything changes. Where there used to be fertile lands, a scorched desert remains, and where there was a wasteland, springs begin to flow and greenery appears; old peaks disappear and new mountains are born. And if we switch to the dry, but more precise language of abstract concepts, then the revolution led to a sharp change in historical structures.

So what happened? You know the details from the new history course. And we will only briefly recall the events that had a decisive influence on the development of Russian literature in the first half of the 19th century (we will find references to them in almost all the works that we will read together).

By the early 1790s, the French feudal-aristocratic state had exhausted its capabilities. It literally went bankrupt. King Louis XVI was forced to convene the Estates General, which until then had played no real role. The Estates General declared themselves first the National Assembly, and then the Constituent Assembly, which was intended to found a new state structure for bourgeois France and bring the third estate to power. In response to the king’s attempt to dismiss the deputies to their homes, on July 14, 1789, the elements spilled onto the streets: an uprising began, culminating in the capture of the Bastille prison-fortress and marking the beginning of a new, revolutionary era in the history of France, and indeed all of Europe.

And on August 26 of the same year, the “Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights” was adopted, proposing simple, clear and publicly accessible formulas for a new life order. “People are born and remain free and equal in rights,” property rights are inviolable and sacred, the personal freedom of a citizen is limited only by the rights of another person. Freedom of opinion, including political and religious, was proclaimed, and the supremacy of law over class privileges was declared. These formulas took into account the postulates of the “Declaration of Independence” of the North American United States - a new state that was formed in 1776 on the site of former European colonies and for the first time challenged all generally accepted state traditions. Both Goethe and Pushkin followed what was happening in the North American States with intense attention at different times.

After the king and his wife Marie Antoinette were executed in January 1793, the revolution finally threw off its liberal mask. The Jacobins - the name of the political club whose members came to power in the Convention, the body of revolutionary self-government - began to destroy their political opponents. Very soon, the dictatorship of the Jacobin leader Robespierre, who eventually himself fell under the guillotine, led the country to a bloody dead end. She was unexpectedly brought out of this impasse by the young Corsican general Napoleon Bonaparte, who took full power into his own hands and, step by step, made his way from revolutionary dictator (1799) to consul for life (1802), and then crown emperor (1804).

The revolution returned to the point from which it came; The republic again gave way to the empire. But it was already a different empire, a different monarchy. Napoleon seemed to be redirecting revolutionary energy in a new direction. He began the redistribution and conquest of the world; The Napoleonic wars, which redrew the political map of Europe, captured the imagination of contemporaries. It seemed to them that one person could not do this, that Napoleon had some kind of mystical, supernatural power; many directly called him the Antichrist. One way or another, in 1811 most of Europe became part of France.

The events listed above took place in the very center of Western Europe. And what was happening in Russia at the same time?

At the end of the 18th century, she tried to isolate herself from the revolutionary storms. The last years of the reign of Catherine II the Great (after the suppression of the Pugachev uprising in 1774) were a time of golden, blissful stagnation; Never before and never since has the Russian nobility felt so calm and confident. At the same time, the empress herself understood perfectly well that serious changes in state and public life could no longer be avoided. Calming the nobility, giving them more and more privileges, she secretly pondered legislative reforms that would have to overtake the brewing revolution and bring it “from above.”

Catherine II pinned special hopes on her grandson, the future Emperor Alexander I Pavlovich; her plans, however, were destroyed by sudden death in 1796. Paul I, who reigned after her, was never able to find a common language with the nobility and ultimately fell victim to a conspiracy in 1801. Having become an involuntary participant in parricide, Alexander I at the beginning of his reign tried to clear historical rubble and prepare the ground for serious reforms, but stopped halfway.

There are many reasons for this. One of them is that Alexander’s Russia from the very beginning entered into a confrontation with Napoleonic France and was forced to waste precious energy on a series of military conflicts in 1805-1807. They ended with the Tilsit Peace Treaty, which was humiliating for Russia. But by 1812, when Napoleon declared a new war on it, Russia had managed to accumulate the moral and military forces for victory; The Patriotic War became one of the main events of Russian history. The dates and names of the main battles of 1812 have forever entered into Russian cultural usage: August 4-5 - battles for Smolensk, August 26 - Battle of Borodino, September 1 - council in Fili, September 4-6 - fire in Moscow, November 14-16 - Battle of the Berezina River, December 14 - the final expulsion of the “great army” from Russia and the beginning of the war for the liberation of Europe.

The young officers, returning from the European campaign and inspired by the victory, hoped that Alexander I would finally realize Catherine’s dream and start the revolution “from above.” But the time allotted by history for calm reforms was wasted by the Russian authorities; a series of national liberation uprisings in Europe and Asia Minor in the early 1820s forced Alexander to “freeze” reforms until better times, which, alas, never came.

Young Russian nobles, not waiting for the monarchy to renew the country, began to unite in secret anti-government societies, the ultimate goal of which was the adoption of a constitution and the limitation of autocracy. (Some relied on a republican form of government, others on a constitutional monarchy.) Early organizations - the “Union of Salvation” (1816-1817) and the “Union of Welfare” (1818-1821) transformed into the Northern and Southern societies, which on December 14, 1825 organized an armed performance on Senate Square in St. Petersburg. Blood was spilled; The uprising was suppressed by troops who remained loyal to the new Tsar Nicholas I.

The reign of Nicholas I, which began tragically with the suppression of the uprising and the execution of five Decembrists, became one of the most controversial eras of modern Russian history. Possessing a sound mind and strong character, Nicholas did everything to correct the mistakes of the previous reign. In the second half of the 1820s, he waged successful wars in the east of the empire; energetically ruled the country, firmly defended its interests (as he understood them). But already in 1830-1831 a series of military-political upheavals occurred, from which Russia emerged internally weakened and bitter.

In November 1830, an uprising for Polish independence broke out in Warsaw, which by the summer of 1831 was brutally suppressed by the Russian army. At the same time, peasant riots took place in military settlements; Relations with Europe, especially with France, sharply deteriorated. Having inherited a number of insoluble problems from his older brother Alexander I, Nicholas I hastened to change Russia’s internal policy, cracking down on nascent public opinion, tightening censorship, and strengthening the power of the state bureaucracy.

The emperor did not delve into the problems facing the thinking part of the non-governmental intelligentsia and pushed social ills inside. The policy of isolation from the “dangerous” West, infected with revolutionary ideas, ultimately led Russia to a dead end. But the main problem of a country with a population of millions - serfdom - was never solved. The sad result of Nicholas's reign was the Crimean War (1853-1856), shameful for the Russian Empire.

The social atmosphere that shaped the next generation of Russian classics, from Ivan Goncharov to Anton Chekhov, was completely different from the atmosphere of the era that befell Karamzin, Pushkin, and Gogol. In the 1840s, Russian society (at least the educated part of it) was overcome by feelings of disappointment and social apathy; many topical problems could not be discussed out loud - and writers developed an Aesopian language, learned to talk about painful issues with the help of hints, allegorically. Something similar happened in the West.

A series of social upheavals in France (1830, 1848) eventually led to the restoration of the monarchy: the grandson of Napoleon I Bonaparte, the more than conservative Napoleon III, came to power. With the accession of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), Great Britain began the long and magnificent Victorian era - a time of triumph of traditional values that proved their resistance to the onslaught of social movements. The Poles' dream of national independence did not come true; the Germans' hopes of creating a single state from disparate principalities were in vain. (Only Prince Bismarck, who would become Chancellor of Germany in 1871, will be able to solve this problem.) The Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples - Serbs, Czechs, Bulgarians, Magyars, Finns - under the influence of romantic ideas and military-political upheavals of the 19th century realized themselves as full-fledged nations . That is, historical communities of people who are united not only by historical roots, but also by state borders, literary language, and cultural traditions. However, they were never able to free themselves from foreign rule and did not gain the long-awaited state independence from powerful empires: the Ottoman ports (present-day Turkey), Austria-Hungary, and Russia.

Meanwhile, under the cover of political reaction, important and very dangerous processes for the fate of mankind took place both in the West and in Russia. Just as in the second half of the 18th century the third estate, the bourgeois, entered the historical stage, so in the second half of the 19th century the proletariat, the poorest and least qualified part of the working class, declared its claims to a special role in history. The smart and firm leaders of the revolutionary movement took advantage of this. First of all, the outstanding German political economist and philosopher, author of the monumental work “Capital”, Karl Marx. The idea of social justice took hold of minds, and under the slogan of protecting the professional rights of workers, the “Communist League” (1847) was created, for which Marx, together with the publicist Friedrich Engels, wrote the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848).

In this Manifesto, for the first time, the task of the revolutionary destruction of the old world order was clearly and clearly stated and a supra-historical goal was proclaimed: the creation of a new civilization, a utopian kingdom of proletarian happiness. For this dream, humanity will pay in the 20th century with tens of millions of innocent lives and bloody upheavals, but already in the 19th century, under the influence of revolutionary ideas, a new phenomenon arose, destructive and not recognizing national borders - terrorism.

Secret terrorist organizations were also formed in Russia. One of them, “Narodnaya Volya,” sentenced Emperor Alexander II (he ruled the country from 1855 to 1881). Meanwhile, the tsar sought to renew the country, to rid it of long-standing and even centuries-old, chronic diseases. He not only carried out the great Peasant Reform of 1861, abolishing serfdom, but also introduced a system of local self-government (it was called zemstvo), reformed the court and army. After the suppression of the second Polish uprising (1863-1864), Alexander II somewhat slowed down the progress of reforms, fearing the growth of radical sentiments. And all the same: it was he who prepared Russia for the new realities of political, economic, and intellectual life that it had to face at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

But the revolutionary terrorists cared little about the future of the country; they demanded to change the present - and immediately; The gradual improvement of the Russian order did not suit them; they were steadily pushing Russia towards chaos. Therefore, a number of attempts were made on the life of Alexander II (1866, 1867); Since 1879, the secret terrorist organization “People's Will” began hunting him - and on March 1, 1881, the emperor died at the hands of terrorists. Moreover, according to legend, the tsar was mortally wounded on the very day when he decided to launch a constitutional project that was supposed to introduce constitutional-monarchical rule in autocratic Russia, that is, change it radically.

Thus, Russian revolutionaries stopped the peaceful process of state evolution. The next ruler of the country, Alexander III (reign: 1881-1894), recoiled in horror from political reforms, which in his mind were firmly associated with the growth of revolutionary unrest. He managed to “freeze” the revolutionary ferment in Russian society for some time and redirected his state energy from the political to the economic plane. However, having chosen a policy of counter-reforms, strengthening the role of the police, local and central bureaucracy, the tsar unwittingly repeated the mistake of the late Nicholas I: he did not heal the state, but drove the disease inside.

Being a talented and ambitious leader of the country, he hoped that the rapid growth of industry (the successes of Alexander III and his administration in this area were very impressive) would by itself, without political reforms, pull Russia up and eliminate the social basis for anti-government sentiments. The Tsar wanted to raise the patriotic spirit of the population by relying on officers, merchants, wealthy peasants, and merchants...

But as a result, Russian revolutionaries only lay low, learned the art of conspiracy and began preparing for the coming upheavals. The revolutionary movement has long been an international phenomenon: in the late 1860s, the world organization International arose, which coordinated the activities of labor movements in different countries. Hopes that internal Russian measures would be able to extinguish the global fire forever were naive. As for patriotic ideas, during the reign of Alexander III the fine line between healthy national feeling and pathogenic nationalism was often violated; Jewish pogroms broke out more than once in the south.

Important events also took place outside the European continent; one of the main ones is the Civil War in the USA (1861-1865) between the North and the South. Southerners were in favor of preserving the principles of slavery, northerners were against; The meaning of the Civil War was the struggle for the path that America would take in the 20th century, the path of personal rights and civil liberties or the path of slavery and racism...

Such was the historical background of the literary achievements that we have to study.

Depending on the point of view on the object of study and the processes taking place, historical eras in order may not be located at all in the sequence to which ordinary people are accustomed. Moreover, even the zero reference point can be placed in a completely unusual place.
Start of countdown

What is "History"? History is what is written down. If an event is not written down, but is transmitted orally, then it is a tradition. Accordingly, it would be reasonable to assume that historical eras relate only to the period of human civilization when writing was already invented. This is one of the important factors that separates historical eras from geological ones.
Following these arguments, the beginning of the countdown of historical eras will start from the moment of the invention of writing. But at the same time, the tradition of writing should not be interrupted.
In particular, there are samples of writing that date back 8 and 7.5 thousand years. But they were not continued, but were just local manifestations of the power of human intellect. And these letters have not yet been deciphered.
The first records deciphered to date appeared in Egypt, approximately 5.5 thousand years ago. These are clay tablets that were in burials. The names of the deceased were written on them.
This writing was no longer interrupted in time.
From this moment, the order of counting historical eras begins.
Historical eras in chronological order
In each isolated region of the Earth, writing appeared in its own historical period. We will analyze the culture closest to us - European. And its origins, through the Cretan civilization, go back to Ancient Egypt.
Please note that when considering Ancient Egypt as the ancestral home of European culture, we are separating ourselves from geographical references. According to the “Theory of Civilizations” prof. A.D. Toynbee, these structures have the ability to develop, give life to other civilizations, and in some cases fade away or degenerate into other cultures.
This means that the beginning of the chronology of historical eras will be the middle of the Chalcolithic.
1. Ancient world, with a total duration of approximately 3000 years, including:
· The Copper Age, which ended approximately 3,700 years ago.
· Bronze Age. Ended 3100 years ago.
· Iron Age. Lasted until 340 BC.
· Antiquity. With the fall of Rome in 476, the era of the Ancient World ended.
2. Middle Ages. Lasted until approximately 1500 (duration ≈1000 years). The beginning of the end of the Middle Ages was marked by:
· Massive resettlement of the educated part of the population from Byzantium to Europe.
· Fall of Constantinople in 1453.
· The emergence of the Renaissance. Perhaps it was this factor that was the foundation on which modern capitalist civilization, with its vices, was formed.
3. New time. This era lasted about 400 years, and ended at the end of 1917 with the October Socialist Revolution. During this time, the cultural and moral state of society has undergone incredible metamorphoses.
If at the beginning of modern times, the center of the worldview of an ordinary person was God, who created man, the whole world, and in general, was the measure of all things. Then after passing the era
· Renaissance, through the works of Thomas Aquinas, theology began to be perceived as an ordinary scientific discipline, not tied to God. Then, the champion of Rationalism, Descartes, proclaimed the postulate: “I think, therefore I exist.” And in the finale, G. Cherbury concluded that Christianity is an ordinary philosophical teaching. This marked the beginning of Deism. Then followed
Voltaire added a drop of fuel to the fire of reformatting consciousness, who argued that it was not God who created man, but man invented God. This marked the beginning of a schizoid split in the minds of an entire civilization. After all, on Sundays everyone went to church, and there they admitted that they were sinners and unworthy. But on other days, they were equal to God.
And although now people began to be considered the measure of all things, people began to feel the lack of a spiritual and mystical component in their lives. And appeared on the threshold
· The Age of Romanticism. Reason was pushed to the sidelines, and feelings and emotions began to dominate, replacing spirituality. Hence the uncontrollability, the desire for risk. Dueling was almost legalized. The image of the “noble savage” was formed.
Feuerbach graduated from this period with the postulate: “Feelings are nothing, the main thing is to eat tasty and satisfying food.” And then it was the turn of women’s emancipation. Meanwhile, they are ontologically the guardians of traditional values.
4. Modern times. This period continues to this day, almost a hundred years.
Curious patterns

According to the calculations of prominent scientists, during each of the eras described above, approximately 10 billion people managed to live on the planet. But the phenomenon of compression of historical time, with each era, reduced its duration by 2.5-3 times.
There are suggestions that for humanity to transition to a new formation, a certain amount of knowledge and technological innovation must accumulate, which in turn lead to a qualitative leap.
Prof. S. Kapitsa, derived the formula for population growth for the entire planet: N(t)=200 billion /(2025-t). Where N is the number of population at a given time, and t is a given time. Two constants: 2025 and 200 billion people, were obtained by several scientists independently of each other.
This formula allows you to construct the following graph of population growth on Earth:
And it coincides with information about the population that historians provide with varying accuracy.
According to this concept, S. Kapitsa argued that approximately in 2025, a certain phase transition should occur in the development of human civilization, which will be accompanied by global changes in all spheres of life.

4. Main events of political history

The political history of the Seleucids was determined by the main factors discussed above. Already Antiochus I had to conduct military operations both in Asia Minor and in southern Syria. In Asia Minor, he defeated the Galatians (278–277 BC), for which he received the title of “Savior” (Soter). War elephants played a vital role in this victory. Less successful was his war with the Ptolemies (First Syrian War -274–271 BC). Although Antiochus's ally, the Macedonian king Antigonus Gonatas, managed to neutralize the actions of the powerful Egyptian fleet, Antiochus, who waged a land war, failed to achieve any serious successes. Ptolemy II retained all his possessions in southern Syria and even expanded his zone of influence in Asia Minor. By the end of the reign of Antiochus I, Pergamon became completely independent.

During the reign of Antiochus II, the successor of Antiochus I, the Second Syrian War broke out. Information about her in the sources is extremely fragmentary. Antiochus II managed to somewhat expand the borders of his possessions in Asia Minor and Southern Syria. At this time, the situation in the East changed dramatically. Around 250 BC e. Bactria and Parthia fall away from the central government. The reasons for this lie in the change in the general line of Seleucid policy. Seleucus I and Antiochus I paid great attention to these areas. New cities were actively built here, borders were strengthened, for example, a wall was built that surrounded the entire Merv oasis. However, later the center of gravity of Seleucid policy moved to the West and the eastern satrapies began to be considered by the government only as an object of exploitation, to obtain funds for conducting an active policy in the West. The Greek and Macedonian population of these satrapies could not come to terms with this, since the situation here was quite complex (the threat of nomad invasions, growing discontent of the local population), and further continuation of the short-sighted, from their point of view, policy of pumping out financial and human resources could lead to disaster - the fall of the power of the Greek-Macedonians in these satrapies. The fate of the fallen satrapies is different. An independent kingdom is created on the territory of Bactria, which is usually called Greco-Bactria. In Parthia, the development of the political situation was sharply complicated by the intervention of the nomads of the Parni confederation. The Parni, led by Arshak, invaded Parthia. In the ensuing struggle, satrap Andragor died, and the satrapy came under the rule of Arshak. Thus, two independent states emerged in the eastern territories that previously belonged to the Seleucids.

The Seleucid state experienced very severe shocks at the very end of the reign of Antiochus II. When the king concluded a peace treaty with Egypt at the end of the Second Syrian War, a marriage was concluded between Antiochus and Ptolemy's daughter Berenice as a guarantee of friendship between the two states. In order to marry the Egyptian princess, Antiochus had to divorce his first wife Laodice, with whom he already had two sons. After the death of Antiochus II, a fierce dynastic struggle begins between the supporters of Laodice and Berenice. Berenice and her newly born son were killed, and Laodice's son Seleucus II no longer had rivals. However, Ptolemy intervenes in this struggle and the so-called Third Syrian War, or “War of Laodicea,” begins. Taking advantage of the dynastic strife that reigned in the Seleucid state, Ptolemy captured all the most important cities in Syria, including the capital of the state, Antioch on the Orontes. Seleucus II (246–225 BC) managed to restore his power with great difficulty. Relying on an alliance with the rulers of Pontus and Cappadocia, he recaptured most of the cities captured by Egypt. However, he failed to return Seleucia to Pieria - the main base of the Seleucid fleet - and the port of Antioch on the Orontes. The further reign of Seleucus II was filled with the struggle with his younger brother Antiochus Hierax (“the kite”), who claimed power in the state. In the end, Hierax was killed by his own mercenaries, and Seleucus II died soon after.

After the short reign of Seleucus III, the throne passed to the youngest son of Seleucus II, Antiochus III (223–187 BC). The time of his reign is the time of the highest rise of the Seleucid state, but at the same time the beginning of its fall. The political situation in the first years of the reign of Antiochus III was very difficult. In Asia Minor, power belonged to Achaeus, a relative of Antiochus, who apparently had some reason to claim the royal title. He, however, gave up the throne to Antiochus without a fight, receiving in return power over Asia Minor, which he ruled as an independent ruler. In the East, the satrap of Media Molon and his brother Alexander, the satrap of Persia, rebel against the central government.

Having suppressed Molon's rebellion, Antiochus III was able to act in the south, and the Fourth Syrian War began (219–217 BC). The Seleucid army returned Seleucia to Pieria, and military operations were successfully launched in Phenicia and Palestine. However, in the decisive battle of Rafia (217 BC), the Seleucid army was completely defeated. As a result, Antiochus III lost all acquisitions in Syria, with the exception of Seleucia in Pieria.

In subsequent years, Antiochus III waged military operations in Asia Minor, where he ultimately managed to crush the power of Achaea. Achaeus himself was captured during the siege of Sardis and given a painful execution. Having thus strengthened his power, Antiochus III began the famous eastern campaign (212–205 BC), the purpose of which was to restore Seleucid power over the lost eastern provinces. Media served as the base for this campaign. To obtain funds, on the orders of Antiochus, the temple of Anahita in Ecbatana was robbed, which yielded a huge sum of 4,000 talents. The result of the campaign was the conquest of Parthia and Greco-Bactria, which, however, retained their statehood as vassal kingdoms in relation to the Seleucids. Antiochus' army then crossed the Hindu Kush and invaded India; An agreement was concluded with the local king Sofagasen, according to which Antiochus received Indian war elephants. The Seleucid army made its return journey through the territory of Southern Iran. Antiochus strengthened the position of his state in the Persian Gulf, and from Persia he carried out an expedition to Arabia. Antiochus himself attached so much importance to this campaign that after its completion he accepted the title of “Great”.

After the end of this campaign, Antiochus III again returned to the problem of relations with the Ptolemies. Relying on an alliance with Macedonia, Antiochus was able to capture southern Syria, Phenicia and Palestine, and somewhat later a number of cities belonging to the Ptolemies in Asia Minor.

It was at this time that Antiochus III clashed with Rome. Before this, he had already captured Thrace and supported in Greece all those who were dissatisfied with Roman power. The Romans, in turn, began to prepare for a clash with Antiochus. The period of diplomatic and propaganda confrontation lasted for some time. Roman diplomacy turned out to be more successful: Pergamon, Rhodes and, most importantly, Macedonia, which had recently been defeated by the Romans, on whose support Antiochus especially counted, became Rome's allies. In 192 BC. e. direct military clashes began. They took place on the territory of Greece, where the Seleucid army landed. However, the miscalculations of Antiochus III's policies led to the fact that only the Aetolians became his allies. The army of Antiochus III was defeated at Thermopylae. The war was transferred to Asia Minor. Here Antiochus was finally defeated at the Battle of Magnesia on the Maeander (190 BC). Unable to resist further, he accepted the conditions dictated by the Romans: he renounced almost all Seleucid possessions in Asia Minor, all warships (except 10) and war elephants were given to Rome. In addition, within 12 years it was necessary to pay Rome a huge indemnity of 15 thousand talents.

Experiencing extreme financial difficulties, Antiochus III decided to improve matters in an already proven way: to rob local temples in Elimanda, which caused an uprising of the local population, during which Antiochus himself died. The collapse of the power recreated by Antiochus III immediately began. Greco-Bactria and Parthia again separated from the Seleucid state, Persis fell away, and unrest began in many areas.

From the book Jews in Mstislavl. Materials for the history of the city. author Tsypin Vladimir

Part 14. Main events in the history of Mstislavl and its Jewish community Years Events1135 - Mention of Mstislavl in the charter of the Smolensk prince.1156 - First chronicle mention of the city.1180 - Formation of the Mstislavl appanage principality.1359 - Entry of Mstislavl

From the book Ancient Sumer. Essays on culture author Emelyanov Vladimir Vladimirovich

From the book History of Ancient Greece author Andreev Yuri Viktorovich

1. Basic facts of political history The boundary that marked the end of the period of struggle of the Diadochi for Greece and Macedonia and the establishment of a certain stability was the invasion of the Celts (Galates), which swept the Balkan Peninsula in 280–277. BC e. Celts

From the book History of Portugal author Saraiva to Jose Erman

Main events This situation gave rise to conflicts and clashes, the analysis of which usually remains outside the course of a brief history. However, it is necessary to indicate the main events of the revolutionary period: the government of Palma Carlos, “gonsalvism”, the resignation of Spinola, March 11, elections

From the book Failed Capitals of Rus': Novgorod. Tver. Smolensk Moscow author Klenov Nikolay Viktorovich

Chapter 3 The greatness and fall of Smolensk. An essay on the history of ethnic self-awareness of the Smolensk land in the context of its political history. The battle is taking place near our walls. Will shameful captivity await us? Better to give the blood from our veins to the people. Robert Burns. Bruce - to the Scots Alas and ah, but for

author

Main events of life 1728 - I. I. Polzunov was born in the Urals. 1748 - I. I. Polzunov arrived together with a group of Ural mining specialists to Kolyvano - Voskresensky factories of Altai. 1754 - I. I. Polzunov creates in Zmeinogorsk, the first hydraulic power plant in Russia