French historiography of the Italian campaign of A. V. Suvorov in the late 18th — 19th centuries was actively developed in several directions. Already in 1799 and during the first decade after the campaign, a number of works appeared, in which the events that unfolded in Italy were covered through the biographies of their individual participants. This trend simultaneously manifested itself in France, Russia, and other European countries. Among the participants in the campaign, Suvorov attracted the greatest attention, and his image quickly began to “grow” with many historical anecdotes, which to this day are an integral part of it and in which the commander appears, on the one hand, as a military genius, and on the other, as an unpredictable eccentric. He also became part of the stereotypical image of Russians in general and the Russian army in particular, which became a propaganda tool during the Napoleonic Empire. Subsequently, the image of Suvorov lost its former popularity in France, and after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, studies began to appear regularly examining in detail the Italian campaign in the context of France’s confrontation with the First and Second anti-French coalitions. This period is characterized by the active publication of historical sources in France, Russia, Austria, Italy and England, especially memoirs, as well as the active acquaintance of researchers from different countries with the works of foreign colleagues. Famous historians of the French Revolution made their contribution to understanding the political context of the Italian campaign of 1799, considering it not only as part of the foreign policy of the French Republic, but also of the internal political struggle that was going on in it.

The article looks at typological features of different versions of the Trojan myth and its cohesion with commemorative practices widely spread in Medieval Europe. The emphasis is placed on two variants of the myth — Frankish and British (Welsh) — both showing two distinct practices in the legend’s development. The author considers that the Frankish myth and its modifications demonstrate cardinal features common for traditional migratory legends. Keeping up these trends, the Welsh myth makes up emphasis on idea of global biblical colonization of the Japhetites, denoting that the foundation of New Troy corresponds with a subsequent moment of the imperial project. This very moment makes the foundation of Rome and the Trojan settlement on the British Isles inseparably connected.

The paper is dedicated to the evolution of law of the Russian Empire concerning the Moscow Emperor’s Orphanage from 1763 to 1873. In 1763, the Moscow Orphanage was founded. Between 1873 and the Revolution of 1917, the law concerning the Moscow Orphanage did not change significantly. The subject is of interest to both, historians and scholars of law, as well as to those studying genealogies of particular families whose ancestors were orphans. The study of legislation creates a framework within which a future study of practices of the charity of orphans in the Russian Empire should be undertaken, primarily on the base of archival documents.

This article analyzes the activities of the Preparatory Committee for the 1964 UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) from 22 January 1963 to 15 February 1964. Spesial emphasis is placed on the participation of the USSR delegation in the committee's work and the role of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) in coordinating the positions of socialist countries on key points of the upcoming conference agenda, including the establishment of an international trade organization (ITO). These issues are considered in close connection with the global changes that occurred in international relations in the second half of the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s and were caused by a combination of factors, including the gathering momentum of decolonization and the formation of the world socialist system. The shift of the severity of the Cold War to the sphere of economic confrontation predetermined the regional economic blocs development into stable integration associations and also contributed to the increasing role of economic diplomacy in the struggle to expand the influence of socialism in the countries of the Global South.

The article deals with Russian-Swedish relations in 1722—1725, when official diplomatic communication was resumed after the Great Northern War and negotiations on the recognition of Peter the Great’s imperial title in Sweden (1723) and the conclusion of the Stockholm Treaty of Alliance (1724) were underway. These subjects have been sufficiently covered in the literature within the framework of the traditional state-centred history of foreign policy. However, their consideration within the concept of new diplomatic history has considerable potential and allows us to see how diplomacy functioned. The focus of the article is on the interaction of traditional diplomatic actors, the system of social ties and patron-client relations built by them, the correlation of formal and informal practices in diplomacy.

The year 2025 has been officially declared by the African Union as the “Year of Reparations”, a year of justice for Africans and people of African descent. The choice of the topic indicates the urgency of the problem of overcoming asymmetries caused by colonialism and the slave trade. The article attempts to raise the issue of decolonization of the cultural heritage of African countries and peoples. The key actors and directions of the process are considered. Analyzing the nature and dynamics of African intellectuals’ views on the liberation of material and spiritual cultural objects from colonial influences, the author identifies two components of the process: revalorization and restitution. The author focuses on the context on comprehension and representation of African cultural heritage. The conclusion presents the intersectionality and interconnectedness of the processes of revalorization and restitution.

The rebellion of 1173—1174 against Henry II Plantagenet is interpreted almost exclusively as a linear and easily readable political conflict — an intra-family feud that pursued a single goal: to restore justice by transferring power to the legitimate heir to the throne of the Plantagenet Empire. While this interpretation is generally accurate, it fails to account for certain aspects of English domestic and foreign policy. A closer examination of all the sources, and above all the testimonies of chroniclers who were Henry II’s supporters, opponents, or neutral observers, reveals that the events of the 1170s were driven by deeper and more complex reasons. Essentially, the rebellion of 1173—1174 was the culmination of processes and “tectonic shifts” that had been unfolding in the English state and society for some time.

Based on the secret correspondence of the British ambassadors who were at the court of the reigning Russian Empresses Anna Ioannovna, Elizabeth Petrovna, Catherine II, as well as using new research methods (prosopographic method, “new” diplomatic history, imagology), the author presented a collective portrait of diplomats and highlighted their activities in Russia. The correspondence of the ambassadors with the British Secretary of State, which had previously been used only in fragments by domestic and foreign historians, made it possible to clarify or refute certain controversial facts in the history of the Russian state (was Empress Elizabeth Petrovna really actively involved in government, was Grand Duchess Ekaterina Alekseevna bribed by the British, who was preparing a plan for a palace coup with the assistance of one of the diplomats, etc.). The diplomats’ dispatches provided an opportunity to get an idea of the peculiar “cuisine” of preparation and negotiation by the British side, as well as the position of the Russian empresses and their ministers in decision-making. Based on the research done, the author comes to the conclusion that Great Britain in the period under review pursued a far from friendly policy towards the Russian Empire. Starting with the resumption of diplomatic relations, the conclusion of trade (1734) and defensive (1741) treaties, the British tried to draw Russia into a war for other people's interests (the War of the Austrian Succession of 1740—1748), and then completely betrayed it, siding with a common enemy — Prussia. A major role in the anti-Russian course of British foreign policy was played by the British ambassadors, who used such “soft power” methods as bribery, blackmail and espionage against their “natural ally” Russia. Although the Russian side was often inferior to the British in the negotiation process, it gradually acquired the skills of conducting diplomatic duels. The next generation of Russian diplomats will adopt the achievements of their predecessors.

The article focuses on the discussion concerning the observance of the liturgical rule in Byzantium during the second half of the 14th century and on Mount Athos in the mid-18th century. Kallistos Angelikoudes, a hesychast monk who headed a small monastic community in Macedonia during the 1360s and 1370s, addresses this issue in his texts from the collection known as “Hesychast Consolation”. These works reflect the Byzantine monastic interest in liturgical practice. A similar discussion is in evidence, as to the 18th-century Athonite context, in the “Polemic with Athanasius the Moldavian”, Paisius Velichkovsky’s earliest composition written ca. 1757 during his stay on Mount Athos. Both authors highlight the fundamental distinction between the “prayer rule” observed in coenobitic monasteries and that followed by hermit monks devoted to “hesychia”. Both Kallistos and Paisius had to deal with attempts by contemporaries to impose coenobitic practices on small ascetic communities, as well as with suspicions or even hostility toward the reading of Scripture and patristic literature. Their works articulate a clear defense of the hermit rule’s distinctiveness from the general church rule and offer a robust apology for reading as an essential monastic practice. The similarity in their approaches to these issues, polemical strategies, and reliance on shared authoritative sources underscores the enduring unity of the cultural space within the “Byzantine Commonwealth” even in the post-Byzantine era.

The article is dedicated to the transformation of the British ruling elite and the official opposition in 2015—2022. During this period, the political system of the United Kingdom faced many different challenges, including the referendum on the membership in the EU, the subsequent difficult process of the country's withdrawal from the organization, and various internal splits in the political parties on key issues of British political life. The impact of these events on the structure and dynamics of power relations, as well as on the strategic priorities and ideological attitudes of both the ruling elite of Great Britain and its opposition is analyzed in this article. In addition, it examines the changes in such key characteristics of the British elite as gender and age composition, ethnic origin, and the level of education of politicians, as well as underlines new trends in their political views and behavior. Attention is also paid to the consequences of elite transformation for the British political system.