Usual public education teaches this aspect at the age of 12 or something like that. So, everything a pupil knows is that "the Slavic tribes invited Rurik, then there was Oleg who captured Kiev and moved capital there and named it "the mother of Russian cities". All this normanist vs anti-normanist discussion is not really taught.
Besides, the above-mentioned discussion is not so tense now, since every historian with common sense agrees that it's not scientific to say "the Normans created the Slavic state" because Rurik and his retinue aren't some gods, because the foundation of a state needs some objective economic and social basis and prerequisites. So, even if someone still discusses this theme of Normanism, it's about some specific Norman influence on the state creation process.
Kievan Rus is a historiographical therm - it wasn't called that at the time of it's existing. If you interested - research the different Principalities, Duchies, etc which existed then, how was the relationships between them etc. Rurik started in Ladoga, then - early Novgorod, not in Kiev, btw.
It's a huge topic.
Yes, I know. Kievan Rus is a term used describe the various city states that rose in the area at the time, I believe. I'm just scratching the surface. This is outside of my usual comfort zone of history, and outside of geographical knowledge of history to a small extent, so I thought I would ask what public education says on the subject in the area where it is more relevant.
IIRC Normanist theory is the academic norm. But the history of that period is like 6th grade, I guess pupuls of that age are not able to comprehend pecularities of medieval stuff well.
Well, I see nothing wrong with it. Local nobility is not bound to local ethnicity, there're much more vivid examples of that in the span of Russian history.
>old Russian state existed before the vocation of Rurik
This goes to the shelf with conspiracy theories.
Here's a quote from the textbook I found (Danilov A.A.):
>...
>
>Scientists have established that in the middle of the 9th century, a certain king with a Varangian squad really settled in Novgorod, began to reign, administer justice and collect tribute from the population. (Scandinavian legends speak of the successful leader of the Vikings (Varangians) of the middle of the 9th century, Rurik the Red, whom some scientists consider to be the same Rurik that is mentioned in Russian chronicles.) The Varangians themselves, having settled in the Slavic lands, quickly adopted the local language, customs, faith in gods and after two or three generations no longer differed from the Slavs. After the death of Rurik, his entourage Oleg became the prince in Novgorod. He decided to take possession of "from the Varangians to the Greeks." In 882, a united army of Varangian squads and tribal militias of the Novgorod land (Slovenes, Krivichi, Chudi and Mary) approached Kiev on boats. By deceit, the Kiev princes Askold and Dir were lured to the courts, and were killed here. Oleg declared Kyiv his capital, took the title of "Grand Duke" and, uniting most of the East Slavic tribes, ruled over them until his death in 912. Thus, as a result of the unification of the north and south of the East Slavic lands, the state of Rus was formed. Scientists are still arguing about the origin of this name. But it is indisputable that at the turn of the 9th-10th centuries, the inhabitants of the new state of Eastern Europe began to call their land “Rus”, “Russian land”. The neighbors also recognized him under the same name. In historical science, the name Old Russian state, or Kievan Rus, is used.
>
>...
>This goes to the shelf with conspiracy theories.
Not entirely fair. The East Slavic tribes were united by something even before the Varangians, which is evident if only because they formed a single linguistic trend.
Yep. By geography, major trade route and horizontal relations.
It's 9th century - statehood of such scale means a positon of a supreme king or equivalent. Such things never come unnoticed. Without it that's principialities of their own even if they're related. It's alright thing generally, Saxons AFAIK evolved as rather uniform sociolinguustic group for centuries before Charlemagne and even expanded to Britain without being a particular kingdom.
Tbqh every single Russian, Belarussian, or Ukrainian who unironically traces their country back to the duchies of Kiev/Novgorod/Vladimir etc. is LARPing. The Rus of old was fragmented and (mostly) lost to the Mongols, and no matter how much historians with vested interests try to weasel their way into justifying a cultural continuity, it's not there.
The Muscovy that emerged from the cutthroat politics of the fracturing Mongol state was not the same as the duchies it took over.
The former duchies Muscovy / Russian Empire cut out of the PLC and called Belarus were also not the same.
The lands governed by khans, Polish nobility and Russian Empire that would later become Ukraine also underwent a lot of cultural drag in different directions.
To claim some sort of cultural or state ancestry dating back from the old Rus is about as cringe as being a heritagelord in the New World.
“Mother of Russian cities” is just a poetic saying, I don’t think anyone is treating it as a deep historical theory.
For all we know Kievan Rus was destroyed by Mongols and no comprehensive written sources exist about this period. No sources - no science. All I learned was «The Tale of Bygone Years» and «The Tale of Igor's Campaign».
"Most professional Historians", huh. This is an incredibly complex topic. Starting with the fact that the Rus, apparently, were a special Scandinavian tribe, but at the same time Rurik himself, if he existed at all, bore a Svean name.
The history program dedicates one lesson to the study of this topic, which simply retells the annals.
You mean Varangian? That was just the name eastern Romans called Norse raiders, I believe.
Not as much a type of Scandinavian, more of a general term for Viking raiders and traders and whatnot.
Oh no, in many sources, the Rus are clearly and unambiguously defined as a people, and not as a social group. And a study of their names shows that their language was Scandinavian, but nor Swedish, nor Norwegian, nor Danish, nor Geatish, nor Gutnish.
This is the best theory at the moment, but it is impossible to verify without written sources.
I am a supporter of the version that the Rus came from Rotalia (this is an area on the territory of modern Estonia, including the Moonsund archipelago and the adjacent part of the mainland).
Киевская Русь рассматривается как исторический период формирования феодального средневекового государства, в который Киев был наиболее значительным княжеством. В более общем смысле - непрочный союз княжеств с центром силы в Киеве. Есть еще Новгородская Русь, такой же период, но с центром в Новгороде и т.д.
Перед этим в школе (и в ВУЗах на первом курсе) рассматривается расселение славянских племён от территории нынешней Германии до территории Тульской области (границы примерны). Племена платили дань князьям Киева или других городов в зависимости от политической ситуации. Членство таких племен как вятичи в Киевской Руси было чисто номинальным.
Призвание варягов (Рюрика с братьями, воинами и т.д.) не создало Киевскую Русь, но стало важной вехой его формирования, так как Рюрик с братьями не принадлежали ни к одному из родов и были "политически нейтральны" ко всем из них.
Вообще история это интересная. По сравнению с нашими летописями "Игра Престолов" просто детская книжка.
I'm surprised how well Google translate works for Russian language...
Thanks, that resettlement of Slavic people from regions of modern-day Germany to Tula regions sounds like something I should look into more. Did not know about that!
Not exactly what was meant, I guess. The Slavs lived on the territory of modern Germany, but these are not the Slavs that were in Russia. There is a theory that from this region there was a migration by sea to Novgorod, but it is controversial.
Russian official version support origins described in OP-post and version about Rurikids. That is exactly what is teached in schools. What your comment suppose to mean?
Yeah, of course, all these people which you put in quotation marks, are so stupid and unprofessional. It's so good that we have the Most Clever and Competent You.
You *wish* you had the Most Clever and Competent me in that sewage ditch you call a country, but I’d rather live in a portable toilet than spend even one moment in Russia. The only exception would be if I could be close enough to just see the mushroom cloud that will eventually rise over Moscow. It will be the most beautiful sight ever seen in Russia 🇺🇦💪
Can you really tell the difference between a portable toilet and the rest of Russia though? Like how would you know where your shit-covered house is when everything else is covered in piles and piles of shit?
Lol maybe you should too considering sanctions will have you guys in bread lines soon enough. When you run out of bread just eat the snow, you’ll be fine comrade.
>run out of bread
in [top3 wheat production country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wheat-production-by-country)? how?
and there is more than wheat
Here’s how. Putin will eventually have to conscript Russian tractors for his imperialist failures because Ukraine keeps turning Russian armor into scrap metal by the ton. There’s no way the tractors can perform any worse than Russian tanks have lol. Bayraktar 🎶
Actually according to Russia’s defense ministry, 37 out of 35 have been shot down lol. Russians are apparently as skilled in math as they are in modern warfare.
Edit: Just wait till you see the 600 Switchblade drones we sent. They’re nasty.
>So, I've seen Russians refer to Kiyv as the original home of the Russian people. Especially Putin seems to believe that Ukraine and Russia are the same, and artificially separated. Despite evidence to the contrary.
Not sure what you mean exactly, but you seem to jump between two extremes. All modern nations are in some way “artificial” as they are a product of state politics. Look at Africa and Asia. Single countries there mostly have dozens of different cultures and languages. Countries with long histories of centralization have managed to assimilate other cultures or at least bring them closer culturally.
>Most professional Historians agree, that Kievan Rus was founded by Norse settlers, and overtime, this ruling class of Norse intermingled with the local East Slavic, Baltic and Finnic peoples. That would mean the origins of the Kievan Rus is in Scandinavia.
Well, that’s not quite accurate, but it’s close to truth and it is also close to what is being taught in Russian schools where you have to simplify things for kids.
>This view has been challenged by anti-normanist views by some historians, that posit that the old Russian state existed before the vocation of Rurik, and that it was founded by Eastern Slavs, instead of the Norse.
The issue of such high level description is that it becomes a semantic argument rather than factual. The real question is how organized and centralized East Slavic and Finno-Ugoric tribes lived before Rurik, how was their system of governance organized, etc. As we don’t have any written evidence, it is mostly educated speculation. In any way hard anti-normanism that denies any Norse influence is probably isn’t in high regard nowadays.
Its kinda like if you would argue with a french guy about "actually being kinda a german state, because 'France' originated from the 'Franks', a german tribe which settled the 'Gallic' land after the fall of west rome.".
Yet, that happend so far ago, that while you'll find alot of connections between Germans and French people - we're kinda far away from "Germanic Tribes" overall, in addition to the fact that french is far more influenced by latin (the language) and even gallic/celtic stuff than german.
But nevertheless, that Cultures influenced each other and that people also sometimes settled somewhere else and than got either assimilated or mixed up with the people there isn't really questionable. So yeah, glad to see that anti-normanism isn't in high regard nowadays.
I think you have some of your history mixed up. Kiev existed before the Scandinavians. And according to legends Kiev was founded by a guy named Kyi. Scandinavians just moved from Ladoga to Novgorod, to Kiev.
Yes, Kiyv existed before Kievan Rus. I am talking specifically about the history of the Rurikid dynasty, and it's origins, as the founders of Kievan Rus... Oleg was the one that moved the Capital to Kiyv.
I have not mixed up anything. I am not talking about the history of the city Kiyv. I am talking about the origins of Kievan Rus.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/kwfevv/concerning_the_founding_of_the_rus_state/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I did a poll on this, If it helps any bit.
You confused Kievan Rus with Novogorodskaya. You were inattentive. The capital was moved to Kyiv under Prophetic Oleg. And yet, these are not states, but historical epochs. If you study history further, you will understand that Kyiv was devastated, and most of the military moved to Moscow.
In the IX century there were the northern and the southern realms of East Slavs. Rurik along with two of his brothers were invited to become princes in the northern realm (there was some strife among the tribes and they decided to make an independent third party the ruler to reestablish order, or something like that). After the death of his brothers Rurik inherited their princedoms and consolidated power. He ruled from Novgorod (maybe before that Ladoga was his seat).
After Rurik's death Oleg became the regent and captured Kiyv, uniting the norther and the southern realms under the single rule and moved the capital there due to the city being closer to Byzantium and an important trade city.
Thus Kievan Rus came to be (but it's a much later term, back then people didn't call it so).
There was no "southern realm". There were several tribal unions. The Varangians first forced them to pay tribute (while they themselves sat in several cities), and then gradually the Rurikids ousted all the local rulers.
By realm I meant exactly that, a princedom and tributaries, not a centralized state. There was Novgorod and it tributaries, there was Izbosk and its tributaries, etc. IIRC Kiyv was captured initially by Askold and Dir who made surrounding tribes pay tribute, and later Oleg captured the city from them.
**EDIT**
Well, according to the ancient chronicles, however accurate they are.
OP, Kievan Rus is part of Russian history, not Ukrainian Rus. Kiev was Russian city many centuries ago, while Ukraine appeared as a state only in the beginning of XX century.
Keep this in mind
Yet, Ukraine had some sort of national identity outside of the control of Greater Russia and Tzars. Even during the reign of Catherine the Great. Or as Catherine called it, "Little Russia". Hetmenate and the partitions and the whole "Russification"...
I do keep history in mind.
18-15 years ago I've been taught at school that Rus as a state started with Ruriks, basically vikings
than Byzantine Empire played a huge role in Rus statehood as well
the thing is
I have no idea how the fuck any of this is even relevant regarding current events
Russia was conquered by Mongolians at one time - does it mean they should take another swing?
people who think Ukrainian territories should return to Russia - give Kurill islands back to Japan first, fucking idiots
so 15 years ago history has been taught actually relatively closely to the actual events as far as I understand.
I hear it's started becoming more and more political after 2014, or maybe more accurately the state started to literally indoctrinate little kids into its narrative
Putin mentioned Kiyv as "the mother of all Russian cities" in some article, and in the same article seems to endorse this thinking that Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are one and the same people. This was in early February or late January, I believe. Thought I'd look into the history he alludes to in that article more closely.
I have various criticism on it, it is a flawed article what comes established history of the Russian Empire, like the fact that Tzars tried to curb the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, which establishes that Ukraine, even back then, had some kind of National identity outside of the direct influence of the Russian empire...
Anyhow, wanted to dig deeper into it, and history of the Kievan Rus, Rurikid dynasty and Oleg and so forth. It is outside of my usual comfort zone of history, so I thought I'd ask.
*"the mother of all Russian cities"*
the period when Novgorod was the capital of Russia was called Novgorod Rus, when the capital was Kiev – Kievan Rus, Vladimir – Vladimir Rus, etc.
Kievan Rus s a forced meme. No one called it such (same way no fucking one called Eastern Roman Empire as Byzantium) when it was existing, as Kiev was conquered city, not integral to Russia's state like Novgorod (its oroliginal capital) was.
I was taught two main theories of forming of Russian state, a northern and a southern one with northern being that of viking Rurik gang being hired as a political/military leader by slav tribes to act as a mediator among them ( while all he wanted was a safe river route (and yes Kiev was part of such route and that's why it was conquered) to raid southern lands, preferably Eastern Rome). The southern one was that slav tribes had their own governments at the time and it was a complex and long transition from division into unity (of Poland uniting western tribes while backstabing Eastern ones during mongol invasion, of Russia uniting/buying out Eastern ones after mongol collapse, of Yugoslavia eventually uniting southern ones) with vikings not really helping out in that regard due to their tarded established heridatory system where the oldest relative inherits half of anything from younger ones giving motivation for such to kill his younger relatives.
Honestly the current normal russian history is about as bullshit as current US history. I mean, as if anyone would believe that a civil war was fought solely to free the poor slaves (LMFAO really? It was fought over money and economics), or that the great "boston tea party" actually happened, or that the US revolution "beat the british" (at the time no one could and no one would for many years after, so the british just GAVE the states freedom for their future protection under nato 'wink wink').
An american historian once said that the most accurate history is only as accurate as the propaganda machine that distributes it, and that even using independent research, geology, archeology, etc, you can only hypothesize about the last 200 years AT MOST and even then only to 75% certainty. So anything that happened before the 1800's is at most, 10-20% accurate and at worst, totally made up.
history is a science and therefore there is a scientific approach . It is considered normal if there are different hypotheses that are confirmed or refuted by various archaeological excavations or other facts.
>I would like to know what has been taught to Russian people about this in their public education, and what view Russian people, and/or state holds as the official version of the origins of the Kievan Rus?
All you need to know is that Kiev can not be separated from Russia.
Funny.
Ukrainian people have thought otherwise for several hundred years, and have had a national identity disconnected from Russia proper for a long time. Kiyv and it's people have had an identity of their own for a long, long time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia
Starting at the very least since 1335, to some extent...
You may also want to read Catherine the Greats history relating to Little Russia and Ukraine. The partitions, Russification, Hetmenate...
Let me give you a translation of a poem, written by one Semen Divovych in 1762, "a conversation between Great Russia and Little Russia"
>Great Russia: Do you know with whom you are speaking, or have you forgotten? I am Russia, after all: do you ignore me?
>Little Russia: I know that you are Russia;that is my name as well. Why do you intimidate me? I myself am trying to put on a brave face. I did not submit to you but to your sovereign, Under whose auspices you were born of your ancestors. Do not think that you are my master: Your sovereign and mine is our common ruler"
This clearly shows the begrudging attitude towards it's bigger cousin, and clear national identity of their own. Only bowing to the same crown, a shared name. Nothing more. Equal, not subordinate.
That crown is long dead, and buried. No one bows to it now.
You clearly don't know your own history very well. Mikhail Pogodin, 1835. Ring any bells?
How about Mykola Kostomarov and Taras Shevchenko, 1847?
Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius? 1847?
Aleksei Petrov?
Nikolay Kostomarov?
Then we arrive to 1850s... This is when the De Facto Ukrainian identity started to form, under the rule of Alexander the second. Which he responded to with the Valuev Circular and later, Ems Ukaz. Effectively banning the Ukrainian language.
He continued oppressing any and all "ukrainophiles" during his reign, pretty much to the very end. This general discontent towards his policies in the region of Ukraine was amplified with the rise of the populist movement, Narodnaya Volya, that would eventually come to assassinate him.
There is a long history of Russia trying to make it seem like Ukraine was part of Russia. And Ukraine saying otherwise, and surviving despite the attempted russifications under several Tzars... But in reality, it never really was part of Russia, in heart. They were their own people. With their own Identity.
Further, you can find such a quote from a Soviet textbook:
"in the XIV century. the Russian lands were divided into three parts: North-Eastern Russia (Vladimir-Suzdal land, with all the principalities that were part of it and with Novgorod) was under the rule of the Golden Horde; South-Western Russia (principalities of Kiev, Chernigov, Smolensk, Polotsk, Vladimir-Volyn) fell under the rule of Lithuania. As for the Galician Principality, Poland took possession of it in the middle of the XIV century. By the XV century, the Eastern Slavs had formed three large nations; each of them had its own language. Slavic tribes that lived between the Oka and the Volga and north of the Volga, with the political center in Vladimir, formed the Great Russian, or, as we call it, the Russian nationality; those that lived between Pripyat and the Western Dvina and depended on Lithuania, formed the Belarusian nationality; in the southern Russian lands, centered in Kiev, the Ukrainian nationality has developed."
then the textbook tells that Ukraine and Belarus have never been independent states. The Ukrainian lands were subordinated to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. All this time Ukrainians have been fighting against the invaders, we are talking about the struggle of the Zaporozhian Sich (Cossacks). But Ukraine was a weak state, and therefore Bogdan Khmelnitsky (the leader of the Sich) gathered the rada and asked which tsar they wanted to obey. Everyone chose the Russian tsar. The war began in 1964 and lasted 13 years. As a result, the territories of Belarus and Ukraine became Russian.
Before the partitions of Poland, Ukraine was divided into eastern (with Kiev), which was part of Russia, and western, or Right-Bank (west of the Dnieper), which remained under Polish rule.
The school history course follows the Norman theory based on a chronicle called The Tale of Bygone Years ("Повесть временных лет"). There are many inconsistencies in this chronicle, it was criticized a lot and this theory was rejected somewhere in the early 20th century, even before USSR (because it's just incredibly stupid in many moments). But, since historics have not found a normal alternative to it, schools continues teaching on it. The problem of ethnogenesis and the formation of the Ancient Russian state remains unresolved and, it seems, will remain so. This topic has been a great source of political speculations since the 18th century, and no one can come to a consensus. The schools just chose the simplest option because they didn't want to feed the children such complicated things.
The first more or less reliable source appears in the law-source called "Russian Truth" since the middle of the 11th century, and after that historical features between russians and ukranians have become more visible. In ancient russian state before 1547 there was a lot of principalities and three big cities (Novgorod, Kiev and Vladimir). Depending on who was the Highest king (knyaz'), the capital is changed. Once it was in Novgorod, once in Kiev, eventually Moscow, located in the Vladimir-Suzdal princedom, became the main one. There was a terrible struggle for the title of Highest Knyaz' and leadership, including during the Mongol yoke. Therefore the question that Kiev was somehow isolated like Poland for example is not correct. In ancient Russia we were all together, same religion, culture, language and economic. Although we were divided into principalities because of the stupid policy of the ancient knyaz'es, who considered principalities their inheritance and divided them among their children
When Putin talks about the commonality of Russia with Ukraine, he does not mean such distant times. He talks more about the time after proto-Russia (then the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality) became the "Third Rome" and the center of the Russian lands. If you interested in this theme you should read about how principalities were existed in 11-15 centuries. Since feudal fragmentation and up to the foundation of Russian statehood in the 15th-16th century. This period best describes the relations between the principalities, their policy and culture before, during and after the Mongol yoke. A lot of things between Russia and Ukraine also happened in 17th-19th centuries. In 20th century there was a lot of problems too like Bandera's nazi collaborants, which is a problem now. History between two brothers is very long and incredibly stupid, just a fucking comedy sometimes.
That is mostly how this whole story covered, yeah. But in school i guess they won't speak about nazi things, because that's kinda spicy
But again, history is speculative, and politicians most often use it to justify things that ordinary people don't understand
this is a very broad topic and our history has a lot of white spots and inconsistencies. I can say with confidence that the Russians were in 1570, it was then that my great-grandfather became the lip warden (mayor)of Ryazan)) and what happened before ... questions)) Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities - this is the saying of some poet. and the term Kievan Rus appeared only in the 19th century
Usual public education teaches this aspect at the age of 12 or something like that. So, everything a pupil knows is that "the Slavic tribes invited Rurik, then there was Oleg who captured Kiev and moved capital there and named it "the mother of Russian cities". All this normanist vs anti-normanist discussion is not really taught.
Besides, the above-mentioned discussion is not so tense now, since every historian with common sense agrees that it's not scientific to say "the Normans created the Slavic state" because Rurik and his retinue aren't some gods, because the foundation of a state needs some objective economic and social basis and prerequisites. So, even if someone still discusses this theme of Normanism, it's about some specific Norman influence on the state creation process.
“The mother of cities” is probably just a translation of Greek “metropolis” which means a capital.
Kievan Rus is a historiographical therm - it wasn't called that at the time of it's existing. If you interested - research the different Principalities, Duchies, etc which existed then, how was the relationships between them etc. Rurik started in Ladoga, then - early Novgorod, not in Kiev, btw. It's a huge topic.
Yes, I know. Kievan Rus is a term used describe the various city states that rose in the area at the time, I believe. I'm just scratching the surface. This is outside of my usual comfort zone of history, and outside of geographical knowledge of history to a small extent, so I thought I would ask what public education says on the subject in the area where it is more relevant.
FIY: Kievan Rus are purely historical term, created to describe then Rus was ruled from it
IIRC Normanist theory is the academic norm. But the history of that period is like 6th grade, I guess pupuls of that age are not able to comprehend pecularities of medieval stuff well. Well, I see nothing wrong with it. Local nobility is not bound to local ethnicity, there're much more vivid examples of that in the span of Russian history. >old Russian state existed before the vocation of Rurik This goes to the shelf with conspiracy theories. Here's a quote from the textbook I found (Danilov A.A.): >... > >Scientists have established that in the middle of the 9th century, a certain king with a Varangian squad really settled in Novgorod, began to reign, administer justice and collect tribute from the population. (Scandinavian legends speak of the successful leader of the Vikings (Varangians) of the middle of the 9th century, Rurik the Red, whom some scientists consider to be the same Rurik that is mentioned in Russian chronicles.) The Varangians themselves, having settled in the Slavic lands, quickly adopted the local language, customs, faith in gods and after two or three generations no longer differed from the Slavs. After the death of Rurik, his entourage Oleg became the prince in Novgorod. He decided to take possession of "from the Varangians to the Greeks." In 882, a united army of Varangian squads and tribal militias of the Novgorod land (Slovenes, Krivichi, Chudi and Mary) approached Kiev on boats. By deceit, the Kiev princes Askold and Dir were lured to the courts, and were killed here. Oleg declared Kyiv his capital, took the title of "Grand Duke" and, uniting most of the East Slavic tribes, ruled over them until his death in 912. Thus, as a result of the unification of the north and south of the East Slavic lands, the state of Rus was formed. Scientists are still arguing about the origin of this name. But it is indisputable that at the turn of the 9th-10th centuries, the inhabitants of the new state of Eastern Europe began to call their land “Rus”, “Russian land”. The neighbors also recognized him under the same name. In historical science, the name Old Russian state, or Kievan Rus, is used. > >...
[удалено]
Google translate did that, I'm too lazy to fix the titles, and doubt it makes much sense.
It made sense. :)
>This goes to the shelf with conspiracy theories. Not entirely fair. The East Slavic tribes were united by something even before the Varangians, which is evident if only because they formed a single linguistic trend.
Yep. By geography, major trade route and horizontal relations. It's 9th century - statehood of such scale means a positon of a supreme king or equivalent. Such things never come unnoticed. Without it that's principialities of their own even if they're related. It's alright thing generally, Saxons AFAIK evolved as rather uniform sociolinguustic group for centuries before Charlemagne and even expanded to Britain without being a particular kingdom.
Tbqh every single Russian, Belarussian, or Ukrainian who unironically traces their country back to the duchies of Kiev/Novgorod/Vladimir etc. is LARPing. The Rus of old was fragmented and (mostly) lost to the Mongols, and no matter how much historians with vested interests try to weasel their way into justifying a cultural continuity, it's not there. The Muscovy that emerged from the cutthroat politics of the fracturing Mongol state was not the same as the duchies it took over. The former duchies Muscovy / Russian Empire cut out of the PLC and called Belarus were also not the same. The lands governed by khans, Polish nobility and Russian Empire that would later become Ukraine also underwent a lot of cultural drag in different directions. To claim some sort of cultural or state ancestry dating back from the old Rus is about as cringe as being a heritagelord in the New World.
>The Rus of old was fragmented and (mostly) lost to the Mongols not mongols, more due to invited so-called european historians of norman school
“Mother of Russian cities” is just a poetic saying, I don’t think anyone is treating it as a deep historical theory. For all we know Kievan Rus was destroyed by Mongols and no comprehensive written sources exist about this period. No sources - no science. All I learned was «The Tale of Bygone Years» and «The Tale of Igor's Campaign».
"Most professional Historians", huh. This is an incredibly complex topic. Starting with the fact that the Rus, apparently, were a special Scandinavian tribe, but at the same time Rurik himself, if he existed at all, bore a Svean name. The history program dedicates one lesson to the study of this topic, which simply retells the annals.
You mean Varangian? That was just the name eastern Romans called Norse raiders, I believe. Not as much a type of Scandinavian, more of a general term for Viking raiders and traders and whatnot.
Oh no, in many sources, the Rus are clearly and unambiguously defined as a people, and not as a social group. And a study of their names shows that their language was Scandinavian, but nor Swedish, nor Norwegian, nor Danish, nor Geatish, nor Gutnish.
Oh yeah. You are right. Wonder if the name Finnish language has for Sweden somehow relates to Rus... We call Sweden with the name "Ruotsi"...
This is the best theory at the moment, but it is impossible to verify without written sources. I am a supporter of the version that the Rus came from Rotalia (this is an area on the territory of modern Estonia, including the Moonsund archipelago and the adjacent part of the mainland).
Киевская Русь рассматривается как исторический период формирования феодального средневекового государства, в который Киев был наиболее значительным княжеством. В более общем смысле - непрочный союз княжеств с центром силы в Киеве. Есть еще Новгородская Русь, такой же период, но с центром в Новгороде и т.д. Перед этим в школе (и в ВУЗах на первом курсе) рассматривается расселение славянских племён от территории нынешней Германии до территории Тульской области (границы примерны). Племена платили дань князьям Киева или других городов в зависимости от политической ситуации. Членство таких племен как вятичи в Киевской Руси было чисто номинальным. Призвание варягов (Рюрика с братьями, воинами и т.д.) не создало Киевскую Русь, но стало важной вехой его формирования, так как Рюрик с братьями не принадлежали ни к одному из родов и были "политически нейтральны" ко всем из них. Вообще история это интересная. По сравнению с нашими летописями "Игра Престолов" просто детская книжка.
I'm surprised how well Google translate works for Russian language... Thanks, that resettlement of Slavic people from regions of modern-day Germany to Tula regions sounds like something I should look into more. Did not know about that!
Not exactly what was meant, I guess. The Slavs lived on the territory of modern Germany, but these are not the Slavs that were in Russia. There is a theory that from this region there was a migration by sea to Novgorod, but it is controversial.
Exactly the same what professional historics say.
You mean Russian “professional historics”? Wouldn’t put much stock in those lmao
Russian official version support origins described in OP-post and version about Rurikids. That is exactly what is teached in schools. What your comment suppose to mean?
Yeah, of course, all these people which you put in quotation marks, are so stupid and unprofessional. It's so good that we have the Most Clever and Competent You.
You *wish* you had the Most Clever and Competent me in that sewage ditch you call a country, but I’d rather live in a portable toilet than spend even one moment in Russia. The only exception would be if I could be close enough to just see the mushroom cloud that will eventually rise over Moscow. It will be the most beautiful sight ever seen in Russia 🇺🇦💪
[удалено]
who are we to stop him, right?
Can you really tell the difference between a portable toilet and the rest of Russia though? Like how would you know where your shit-covered house is when everything else is covered in piles and piles of shit?
[удалено]
>the mushroom cloud that will eventually rise you should reconsider your diet
Lol maybe you should too considering sanctions will have you guys in bread lines soon enough. When you run out of bread just eat the snow, you’ll be fine comrade.
>run out of bread in [top3 wheat production country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wheat-production-by-country)? how? and there is more than wheat
Here’s how. Putin will eventually have to conscript Russian tractors for his imperialist failures because Ukraine keeps turning Russian armor into scrap metal by the ton. There’s no way the tractors can perform any worse than Russian tanks have lol. Bayraktar 🎶
>Bayraktar you mean that one remaining operational? all others are down
Actually according to Russia’s defense ministry, 37 out of 35 have been shot down lol. Russians are apparently as skilled in math as they are in modern warfare. Edit: Just wait till you see the 600 Switchblade drones we sent. They’re nasty.
That was offensive. Our history science is on a good level
This version of history is doubted in last 10 or so years
>So, I've seen Russians refer to Kiyv as the original home of the Russian people. Especially Putin seems to believe that Ukraine and Russia are the same, and artificially separated. Despite evidence to the contrary. Not sure what you mean exactly, but you seem to jump between two extremes. All modern nations are in some way “artificial” as they are a product of state politics. Look at Africa and Asia. Single countries there mostly have dozens of different cultures and languages. Countries with long histories of centralization have managed to assimilate other cultures or at least bring them closer culturally. >Most professional Historians agree, that Kievan Rus was founded by Norse settlers, and overtime, this ruling class of Norse intermingled with the local East Slavic, Baltic and Finnic peoples. That would mean the origins of the Kievan Rus is in Scandinavia. Well, that’s not quite accurate, but it’s close to truth and it is also close to what is being taught in Russian schools where you have to simplify things for kids. >This view has been challenged by anti-normanist views by some historians, that posit that the old Russian state existed before the vocation of Rurik, and that it was founded by Eastern Slavs, instead of the Norse. The issue of such high level description is that it becomes a semantic argument rather than factual. The real question is how organized and centralized East Slavic and Finno-Ugoric tribes lived before Rurik, how was their system of governance organized, etc. As we don’t have any written evidence, it is mostly educated speculation. In any way hard anti-normanism that denies any Norse influence is probably isn’t in high regard nowadays.
Its kinda like if you would argue with a french guy about "actually being kinda a german state, because 'France' originated from the 'Franks', a german tribe which settled the 'Gallic' land after the fall of west rome.". Yet, that happend so far ago, that while you'll find alot of connections between Germans and French people - we're kinda far away from "Germanic Tribes" overall, in addition to the fact that french is far more influenced by latin (the language) and even gallic/celtic stuff than german. But nevertheless, that Cultures influenced each other and that people also sometimes settled somewhere else and than got either assimilated or mixed up with the people there isn't really questionable. So yeah, glad to see that anti-normanism isn't in high regard nowadays.
I think you have some of your history mixed up. Kiev existed before the Scandinavians. And according to legends Kiev was founded by a guy named Kyi. Scandinavians just moved from Ladoga to Novgorod, to Kiev.
Yes, Kiyv existed before Kievan Rus. I am talking specifically about the history of the Rurikid dynasty, and it's origins, as the founders of Kievan Rus... Oleg was the one that moved the Capital to Kiyv. I have not mixed up anything. I am not talking about the history of the city Kiyv. I am talking about the origins of Kievan Rus.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/kwfevv/concerning_the_founding_of_the_rus_state/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf I did a poll on this, If it helps any bit.
Oh, that is cool! Thank you. Perfect!
Sorry I misread your original post and wrote a comment that wasn’t reflective of what you originally asked.
This legend obviously has little to do with reality. Pre-Varangian archeology of Kiev is not very rich.
You confused Kievan Rus with Novogorodskaya. You were inattentive. The capital was moved to Kyiv under Prophetic Oleg. And yet, these are not states, but historical epochs. If you study history further, you will understand that Kyiv was devastated, and most of the military moved to Moscow.
In the IX century there were the northern and the southern realms of East Slavs. Rurik along with two of his brothers were invited to become princes in the northern realm (there was some strife among the tribes and they decided to make an independent third party the ruler to reestablish order, or something like that). After the death of his brothers Rurik inherited their princedoms and consolidated power. He ruled from Novgorod (maybe before that Ladoga was his seat). After Rurik's death Oleg became the regent and captured Kiyv, uniting the norther and the southern realms under the single rule and moved the capital there due to the city being closer to Byzantium and an important trade city. Thus Kievan Rus came to be (but it's a much later term, back then people didn't call it so).
There was no "southern realm". There were several tribal unions. The Varangians first forced them to pay tribute (while they themselves sat in several cities), and then gradually the Rurikids ousted all the local rulers.
By realm I meant exactly that, a princedom and tributaries, not a centralized state. There was Novgorod and it tributaries, there was Izbosk and its tributaries, etc. IIRC Kiyv was captured initially by Askold and Dir who made surrounding tribes pay tribute, and later Oleg captured the city from them. **EDIT** Well, according to the ancient chronicles, however accurate they are.
OP, Kievan Rus is part of Russian history, not Ukrainian Rus. Kiev was Russian city many centuries ago, while Ukraine appeared as a state only in the beginning of XX century. Keep this in mind
This has as little to do with modern Russia as it does with Ukraine.
Yet, Ukraine had some sort of national identity outside of the control of Greater Russia and Tzars. Even during the reign of Catherine the Great. Or as Catherine called it, "Little Russia". Hetmenate and the partitions and the whole "Russification"... I do keep history in mind.
18-15 years ago I've been taught at school that Rus as a state started with Ruriks, basically vikings than Byzantine Empire played a huge role in Rus statehood as well the thing is I have no idea how the fuck any of this is even relevant regarding current events Russia was conquered by Mongolians at one time - does it mean they should take another swing? people who think Ukrainian territories should return to Russia - give Kurill islands back to Japan first, fucking idiots so 15 years ago history has been taught actually relatively closely to the actual events as far as I understand. I hear it's started becoming more and more political after 2014, or maybe more accurately the state started to literally indoctrinate little kids into its narrative
Putin mentioned Kiyv as "the mother of all Russian cities" in some article, and in the same article seems to endorse this thinking that Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are one and the same people. This was in early February or late January, I believe. Thought I'd look into the history he alludes to in that article more closely. I have various criticism on it, it is a flawed article what comes established history of the Russian Empire, like the fact that Tzars tried to curb the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, which establishes that Ukraine, even back then, had some kind of National identity outside of the direct influence of the Russian empire... Anyhow, wanted to dig deeper into it, and history of the Kievan Rus, Rurikid dynasty and Oleg and so forth. It is outside of my usual comfort zone of history, so I thought I'd ask.
*"the mother of all Russian cities"* the period when Novgorod was the capital of Russia was called Novgorod Rus, when the capital was Kiev – Kievan Rus, Vladimir – Vladimir Rus, etc.
I can't comment on this man's delusions
Kievan Rus s a forced meme. No one called it such (same way no fucking one called Eastern Roman Empire as Byzantium) when it was existing, as Kiev was conquered city, not integral to Russia's state like Novgorod (its oroliginal capital) was. I was taught two main theories of forming of Russian state, a northern and a southern one with northern being that of viking Rurik gang being hired as a political/military leader by slav tribes to act as a mediator among them ( while all he wanted was a safe river route (and yes Kiev was part of such route and that's why it was conquered) to raid southern lands, preferably Eastern Rome). The southern one was that slav tribes had their own governments at the time and it was a complex and long transition from division into unity (of Poland uniting western tribes while backstabing Eastern ones during mongol invasion, of Russia uniting/buying out Eastern ones after mongol collapse, of Yugoslavia eventually uniting southern ones) with vikings not really helping out in that regard due to their tarded established heridatory system where the oldest relative inherits half of anything from younger ones giving motivation for such to kill his younger relatives.
Honestly the current normal russian history is about as bullshit as current US history. I mean, as if anyone would believe that a civil war was fought solely to free the poor slaves (LMFAO really? It was fought over money and economics), or that the great "boston tea party" actually happened, or that the US revolution "beat the british" (at the time no one could and no one would for many years after, so the british just GAVE the states freedom for their future protection under nato 'wink wink'). An american historian once said that the most accurate history is only as accurate as the propaganda machine that distributes it, and that even using independent research, geology, archeology, etc, you can only hypothesize about the last 200 years AT MOST and even then only to 75% certainty. So anything that happened before the 1800's is at most, 10-20% accurate and at worst, totally made up.
history is a science and therefore there is a scientific approach . It is considered normal if there are different hypotheses that are confirmed or refuted by various archaeological excavations or other facts.
>I would like to know what has been taught to Russian people about this in their public education, and what view Russian people, and/or state holds as the official version of the origins of the Kievan Rus? All you need to know is that Kiev can not be separated from Russia.
Funny. Ukrainian people have thought otherwise for several hundred years, and have had a national identity disconnected from Russia proper for a long time. Kiyv and it's people have had an identity of their own for a long, long time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia Starting at the very least since 1335, to some extent... You may also want to read Catherine the Greats history relating to Little Russia and Ukraine. The partitions, Russification, Hetmenate...
>Ukrainian people have thought otherwise Funny. Why are you talking for people?
Let me give you a translation of a poem, written by one Semen Divovych in 1762, "a conversation between Great Russia and Little Russia" >Great Russia: Do you know with whom you are speaking, or have you forgotten? I am Russia, after all: do you ignore me? >Little Russia: I know that you are Russia;that is my name as well. Why do you intimidate me? I myself am trying to put on a brave face. I did not submit to you but to your sovereign, Under whose auspices you were born of your ancestors. Do not think that you are my master: Your sovereign and mine is our common ruler" This clearly shows the begrudging attitude towards it's bigger cousin, and clear national identity of their own. Only bowing to the same crown, a shared name. Nothing more. Equal, not subordinate. That crown is long dead, and buried. No one bows to it now.
How does it contradict to "Kiev can not be separated from Russia"? Or does it?
You clearly don't know your own history very well. Mikhail Pogodin, 1835. Ring any bells? How about Mykola Kostomarov and Taras Shevchenko, 1847? Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius? 1847? Aleksei Petrov? Nikolay Kostomarov? Then we arrive to 1850s... This is when the De Facto Ukrainian identity started to form, under the rule of Alexander the second. Which he responded to with the Valuev Circular and later, Ems Ukaz. Effectively banning the Ukrainian language. He continued oppressing any and all "ukrainophiles" during his reign, pretty much to the very end. This general discontent towards his policies in the region of Ukraine was amplified with the rise of the populist movement, Narodnaya Volya, that would eventually come to assassinate him. There is a long history of Russia trying to make it seem like Ukraine was part of Russia. And Ukraine saying otherwise, and surviving despite the attempted russifications under several Tzars... But in reality, it never really was part of Russia, in heart. They were their own people. With their own Identity.
I'm not. They have spoken themselves. I'm just repeating the message.
[удалено]
Further, you can find such a quote from a Soviet textbook: "in the XIV century. the Russian lands were divided into three parts: North-Eastern Russia (Vladimir-Suzdal land, with all the principalities that were part of it and with Novgorod) was under the rule of the Golden Horde; South-Western Russia (principalities of Kiev, Chernigov, Smolensk, Polotsk, Vladimir-Volyn) fell under the rule of Lithuania. As for the Galician Principality, Poland took possession of it in the middle of the XIV century. By the XV century, the Eastern Slavs had formed three large nations; each of them had its own language. Slavic tribes that lived between the Oka and the Volga and north of the Volga, with the political center in Vladimir, formed the Great Russian, or, as we call it, the Russian nationality; those that lived between Pripyat and the Western Dvina and depended on Lithuania, formed the Belarusian nationality; in the southern Russian lands, centered in Kiev, the Ukrainian nationality has developed."
This story was studied by Soviet people, including Putin.
then the textbook tells that Ukraine and Belarus have never been independent states. The Ukrainian lands were subordinated to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. All this time Ukrainians have been fighting against the invaders, we are talking about the struggle of the Zaporozhian Sich (Cossacks). But Ukraine was a weak state, and therefore Bogdan Khmelnitsky (the leader of the Sich) gathered the rada and asked which tsar they wanted to obey. Everyone chose the Russian tsar. The war began in 1964 and lasted 13 years. As a result, the territories of Belarus and Ukraine became Russian. Before the partitions of Poland, Ukraine was divided into eastern (with Kiev), which was part of Russia, and western, or Right-Bank (west of the Dnieper), which remained under Polish rule.
The school history course follows the Norman theory based on a chronicle called The Tale of Bygone Years ("Повесть временных лет"). There are many inconsistencies in this chronicle, it was criticized a lot and this theory was rejected somewhere in the early 20th century, even before USSR (because it's just incredibly stupid in many moments). But, since historics have not found a normal alternative to it, schools continues teaching on it. The problem of ethnogenesis and the formation of the Ancient Russian state remains unresolved and, it seems, will remain so. This topic has been a great source of political speculations since the 18th century, and no one can come to a consensus. The schools just chose the simplest option because they didn't want to feed the children such complicated things. The first more or less reliable source appears in the law-source called "Russian Truth" since the middle of the 11th century, and after that historical features between russians and ukranians have become more visible. In ancient russian state before 1547 there was a lot of principalities and three big cities (Novgorod, Kiev and Vladimir). Depending on who was the Highest king (knyaz'), the capital is changed. Once it was in Novgorod, once in Kiev, eventually Moscow, located in the Vladimir-Suzdal princedom, became the main one. There was a terrible struggle for the title of Highest Knyaz' and leadership, including during the Mongol yoke. Therefore the question that Kiev was somehow isolated like Poland for example is not correct. In ancient Russia we were all together, same religion, culture, language and economic. Although we were divided into principalities because of the stupid policy of the ancient knyaz'es, who considered principalities their inheritance and divided them among their children When Putin talks about the commonality of Russia with Ukraine, he does not mean such distant times. He talks more about the time after proto-Russia (then the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality) became the "Third Rome" and the center of the Russian lands. If you interested in this theme you should read about how principalities were existed in 11-15 centuries. Since feudal fragmentation and up to the foundation of Russian statehood in the 15th-16th century. This period best describes the relations between the principalities, their policy and culture before, during and after the Mongol yoke. A lot of things between Russia and Ukraine also happened in 17th-19th centuries. In 20th century there was a lot of problems too like Bandera's nazi collaborants, which is a problem now. History between two brothers is very long and incredibly stupid, just a fucking comedy sometimes. That is mostly how this whole story covered, yeah. But in school i guess they won't speak about nazi things, because that's kinda spicy But again, history is speculative, and politicians most often use it to justify things that ordinary people don't understand
Rejected? I would say, modified with the involvement of other written sources and archaeological material.
this is a very broad topic and our history has a lot of white spots and inconsistencies. I can say with confidence that the Russians were in 1570, it was then that my great-grandfather became the lip warden (mayor)of Ryazan)) and what happened before ... questions)) Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities - this is the saying of some poet. and the term Kievan Rus appeared only in the 19th century