Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 262

Thread: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

  1. #201
    Alejandro Sanchez's Avatar Princeps
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Posts
    1,233
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    In general, if we are talking about how the state has officially called, in the annals it called simply Руская земля (Ruskaya Zemlya) and sometimes simply Русь (Rus'):

    "В лѣто 6360, индикта 15, наченшю Михаилу цесарьствовати, нача ся прозывати Руская земля (1). О семъ бо увѣдахом, яко при сем цесари приходиша Русь (2) на Цесарьград..."

    (1) - use for land, state
    (2) - use for people

    The word русь (Rus') most often used as name of people (like Scots, for example). Киевская Русь (Kievan Rus') - is modern and only scientific term.

    Rulers could take all sorts of titles currently in order to raise his prestige among their peoples and neighboring peoples. IMHO, Руская земля (Ruskaya Zemlya) is native and most correct name for faction
    Last edited by Alejandro Sanchez; April 22, 2012 at 12:54 AM.
    Data for assistance to residents of Donbass, who suffer from genocide from colonial Ukrainian administration of US imperialistic government


    4276 5500 3068 4065 - card, the funds directly to Donbass' militia of I.I. Strelkov
    7522 - short number (for Russia) for assistance to refugees from Ukraine (you need to send an SMS with the text "SOS X", where X - sum of donation in rubles)





  2. #202
    Shashu
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    203
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Quote Originally Posted by NikeBG View Post
    P.S. Scolot, since I see you're a knowledgeable guy, a bit off-topic question - do you know of the so-called "Jagfar Tarihi" and what do you think of it (modern fake or needs further research)?
    To tell the truth I'm not familiar with this document. But at the historic forum (Russian language), where I also actively debate, that issue was discussed some weeks ago. As I understand you’re from Bulgaria and maybe you can read russian
    Here is a link: http://www.twow.ru/forum/index.php?s...c=6121&st=7260
    Those guys who read this document questioned the authenticity of the document.
    BTW, here is the link to that document: http://baltavar.narod.ru/Tom3.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Storm View Post
    @Scolot sorry that this is not detailed, especially as detailed as your post was, but; whatever sources you have disproving or falsifying anything I (and team) have researched and posted, then please post them.
    Mmm. Actually it is quite difficult to prove the absence of what is not and/or was not. But let me try.
    First of all.
    However, in their search for glory and gold, the Norsemen would create one of the largest and most powerful kingdoms in all of Europe.
    This is the theory of the 18th century when russian historian (of German origin ) Muller said glorious Scandinavians conquered all the Russian lands with their victorious arms. And those who think that it were the Normans who created a state in Eastern Europe are discussing by the categories of the 18th century.
    Please, understand one simple thing. Ability to create and build a state is not like the plague or smallpox that brave Vikings have brought and everybody around in East Europe acquired this ability and suddenly create ‘one of the largest and most powerful kingdoms in all of Europe’. It’s impossible. The state can’t be created overnight by a group of people who are ‘infected’ with the ability to create a state. And it is more accurately used to speak not about the ability to create a State, but about the prerequisites for the state emergence in Eastern Europe. And that prerequisites (the economic, social, technical, etc.) have evolved over several centuries in Eastern Europe (in the south in the Kiev area more quickly) and due to the level of local population development (economic, technological, social etc), which, in fact, creates a state, not that Norsemen.
    If you still disagree, and think that it were the Scandinavians who have created a state, then answer two simple questions (if you claim a certain state creation ability of the Vikings):
    1) Why did the states of the Balts and Finns come much later than the Kievan Rus, After all, the Vikings were in contact with them at least two centuries earlier than with the eastern Slavs.
    2) Why did the states in Norway and Sweden come later than the Kievan Rus

    Main Deities:
    Odin:
    Thor:
    Perun:
    Svarog :
    The first and significant mention of the deities worshiped by the Rus refers to Rus'–Byzantine Treaty – 907 (According to the Primary Chronicle - PVL). Unfortunately, I can’t find the full English version of PVL. But I have this book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-Slav...5090214&sr=8-1), so some quotes about Rus'–Byzantine Treaties from there:
    The treaty (somewhat less advantageous for the Rus than Oleg’s of 911) was ratified by the Byzantines in the Hagia Sophia cathedral in Constantinople and Igor swore an oath by the idol of Perun on a hill outside Kiev, - p.243
    After initial successes in 971 he (knyaz Sviatoslav) had to agree to a treaty with Byzantium, swearing that ‘he who broke the oath would be coursed by Perun and Volos the god of flocks, and he should become as yellow as the god of his ornaments and destroyed by his own weapons’, - p.245
    And we have no evidences about Thor and Odin worshiped by Rus'.

    Actually in Novgorod (the original capital of the Rus' kingdom) documents have been found in Old Norse that dated all the way to the 12th and 13th century
    Please, tell what documents you meant (name, date etc.). Thank you in advance

    On the other issues I will say later. So ‘to be continued’

    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaDelta View Post
    Yes and no. It all depends upon whether the Rus invaded and controlled from afar or simply settled and intermingled with the local population.
    Golden words my friend! I can’t disagree with that. And many researchers (esp. western researchers) do not consider this point seriously and rush to assign credit for the Vikings of the state foundation in Eastern Europe.

    The Norsemen that settled in Northern France, married Frankish women and had children that spoke French. The Norse military terms weren't handed down, and it's obvious the same happened in Russia with Viking men marrying Slavic women and having children that predominantly speak Slavic due to it being their mother tongue and the surrounding language.
    The Norman's are an interesting case study as while they themselves didn't learn much Norse from their fathers they did spread a lot of French into England, and that's probably because they didn't breed with the local population quite so much. They maintained their social structure and they dominated the military. The plantagenet's therefore spoke French for generations and their military words became a part of the modern English language.
    “Yes and no” too

    Firstly.
    If it was as you described – with Viking men marrying Slavic women… and …mother tongue and the surrounding language - there is nothing surprising in the fact that second generation of Viking men (their sons) could ‘forget’ native language. But note, that the most important thing what you said and we should pay attention is ‘”surrounding language”. I would also add ‘surrounders’. Due to Old Russian lexicon (which I mentioned earlier) the “surrounding language ” (in the military and governing areas) among Rus' was Slavic. What is somewhat contrary to the assertions that Vikings came to Russian Plain, create a state and were the dominating force in creating of Rus’ warfare. If the surrounding language was Slavic it is obvious to conclude that the surrounders were Slavic nobility. Otherwise, it's hard to imagine (and I guess you agree with me) a situation where only Slavic women teach the Viking’s sons to govern and fight when their ‘heavy armed’ fathers – Vikings - are always close to them. So if it is claimed that Vikings were the founders of the state and the dominant force in the development of Rus’ warfare, then the ‘surrounding language’ for several generations of Viking’s sons should be Scandinavian. But the facts tell a different story.

    Secondly.
    Thank you for the case with the Normandy and Normans. I suggest this case is an additional argument in favor of what I said earlier. Because:
    1) Despite the fact that the Normans “themselves didn't learn much Norse from their fathers they did spread a lot of French into England” the Norman dialect is alive. And we can see many traces of old Norse words. http://www.viking.no/e/france/norman_on_words.htm. And we see nothing like that (some dialect with a noticeable trace of Norse) in Rus’ lands. Only few words in Old Russian lexicon.
    2)
    They maintained their social structure and they dominated the military. The plantagenet's therefore spoke French for generations and their military words became a part of the modern English language
    Once again ‘golden words’, my friend. Excellent example of that when being dominating among Rus’ for several generations the Scandinavians had to leave more than only few military words. Because “they maintained their social structure and they dominated the military” as some researchers claim, including preview on the first page of this thread
    Summing up and returning to what was said in the beginning of your post we can conclude that Scandinavians (Viking men) “simply settled and intermingled with the local population”. In addition, archaeological evidence suggests that many immigrants from Scandinavia came to the north of Russia with his family and wives. So I wouldn’t categorically say that Scandinavians came to Russia only as the Vikings and married Slavic women .


    There's also the question of contact. If the Rus vikings were out of contact with their homeland's, then over the following generations they would have lost their native language much more rapidly than the Normans who still had a firm grip on Northern France
    The fact that, in accordance with the Normanist theory, we have evidence of ‘clear’ Scandinavian presence in East Europe for several generations:
    - ‘Sueonom’ of Annals of St. Bertin – 838,
    - Rus’ diplomat names in Rus'–Byzantine Treaty - 907
    - The names of the Dnieper rapids, which Norse etymology recognize many researchers. From “De Administrando Imperio” of Constantinus VII (948-952)
    And what about the North of Russian Plain the Scandinavian presence is earlier than in the South (753 – foundation of Ladoga). Therefore, contacts with the homeland and the arrival of new Scandinavians had always been for several generations.
    Last edited by Scolot; April 22, 2012 at 01:16 PM.

  3. #203
    Shashu
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    203
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Let me continue.

    It is said that the first true Rus' were Swedish of origin
    To be historically correct and in accordance with Normanist theory first true Rus’ were of Norse origin (they could be from Denmark, Norway, Gothland, Sweden – all the regions where the Norsemen lived)
    . Probably from the island of Gotland and / or from the area of ​​the middle of Sweden (near Birka).

    From here, the Norse settlers traded with and ruled over the surrounding tribes of Finns, Balts and Slavs.


    Due to archeological evidence and dendrochronology Ladoga was established by Scandinavian colonists in 753. In the 760 years it was destroyed by Slavs (probably, Slovenians) and the new houses were built on carcass construction. Noted the lack of continuity between the first inhabitants of Ladoga (Scandinavians) and the subsequent population who had different cultural traditions. During this period, the settlement had already traded with local tribes. Slovenian settlement lasted until 830 s and was captured by the Vikings.
    Next, Ladoga was the settlement of trade and craft, which once again destroyed in 860-s as a result of internecine wars (most likely these were the events as you wrote ‘until the tribes unexpectedly rose up against them and kicked them out of their land’). Approximately 870-s. in Ladoga was built the first fortress, similar in design to the next Lyubsha fortress, desolate in the same years.


    So, as we can see:

    1) Scandinavians (primarily artisans and merchants) really were and most likely they established Ladoga settlement.
    2) These Scandinavians came into conflict with local groups and Ladoga for a hundred years passed from hand to hand several times: Scandinavians (750-760), Slavic (750-830), Scandinavians (830-860), Slavic (860-862, when ‘kicking Varyangians out of their land’)
    In a constant state of conflict with the local population that Scandinavians could not rule over the surrounding tribes (as you wrote). We can say that Scandinavians persistently sought to gain control of trade routes. Once they had it turned out, once they have met the rebuff.

    Confirmation of my writings above can be found here:

    1) Kuzmin S.L. Ladoga in the early Middle Ages (mid 8th – beginning of 12th.) / / Studies of archeological monuments of the Middle Ages. St. Petersburg., 2008. p. 69-94. (http://nwae.pu.ru/pdf/kuzmin_lad.pdf)
    2) Lebedev G.S. The Viking Age in Northern Europe and Russia, two editions:
    Leningrad, 1985 (http://ulfdalir.ru/literature/200)
    St. Petersburg., 2005 (http://www.twirpx.com/file/642026/)
    P.S. Kuzmin S.L. and Lebedev G.S. are proponents of Normanist theory as you are
    P.S.S. And sorry for russian links. I did not find English-language resources.

    Although the Primary Chronicle states he is a Varangian, there are many theories of Rorik's origins. His name is written in a number of different languages, such as Old Norse Hrœrekr or Hrørikr, the Slavic Riurik, or the Germanic Hrodric. One such opposing theory to the Chronicles is that Rorik was actually of Wendish descent - a Slav from the area around Pomerania. Another states that Rorik is actually the same man of Hrörek, a Viking King of Frisia.
    All honestly and truthfully. Not even to cavil.


    he ruled over the forts Lyubsha, Áluborg, Duboviki, Sarskoe, Timerevo, and the great city Holmgarğr (modern Novgorod)
    .

    Mmm. Not Absolutely so.
    Lyubsha, Áluborg, Duboviki, Sarskoe, Timerevo are the modern name of archaeological sites and settlements. Rurik is a legendary person, which appears in the texts of the chronicles. So the names of the forts he ruled over should be taken from that chronicles:Novgorod, Beloozero and Izborsk. It is unknown whether the Rurik ruled the settlements you’ve pointed.

    the forts Lyubsha

    ! And now attention. Drum roll.
    I ask TGC-team not to take personally, because the next will be something like a small exposure of Wikipedia. Its opponents will be able to once again make sure that Wiki is not a resource ерфе should be fully trusted.

    Ok. Let’s start. From here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyubsha
    [qoute] Lyubsha (Russian: Любша) is an archaeological site situated on the right bank of the Volkhov, about 1,500 metres downstream from Staraya Ladoga. As was established by the 1993 excavations, Lyubsha is the site of the earliest Varangian fort in Russia[citation needed], established in the first half of the 8th century, thus predating Ladoga. Its layout and dimensions closely resemble the contemporaneous hill forts of Great Moravia.[/qoute]
    (Note that ‘citation needed’..)

    From here: http://ulfdalir.ru/literature/200
    Russian text:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Городище Любша, известное по сводкам З.Ходаковского и Д.Я. Самоквасовоа, разведочными раскопками было затронуто в конце 1960-х – начале 1970-х гг. (С.Н Орлов, Г.С. Лебедев, В.П. Петренко); именно тогда было установлено наличие культурного слоя, в том числе, горизонта с лепной керамикой и печками-каменками, и каменной конструкции вала городища (Петренко, Шитова 1985:181-191). Однако спустя четверть века новые раскопки Е.А. Рябинина (с 1996 г.) в полном объеме раскрывают сенсационную значимость этого памятника (Рябинин, Дубашинский 2002: 196-203).
    Мысовое городище площадью менее 2 тыс. кв.м. (45х45 м, с оплывшим дугообразным валом протяженностью 70 м и шириной основания до 18 м) было укреплено древнейшей на Северо-Западе Руси фортификацией с использованием каменной «панцирной кладки» из плитняка, сохранившейся на высоту до 2,2 м., с каменными субструкциями дополнительных подпорных стен и деревянной конструкцией укреплений по верху вала. Более ранний земляной вал с деревянным тыном, по радиоуглеродным датам, относиться к
    VII-первой половине VIII в.
    Культурный слой нижнего горизонта, с очажками, большим количеством рыбьих костей, лепной керамикой, костяными орудиями, типичен для ладожских поселений раннего железного века. Горизонт «периода существования каменно-земляной крепости» («жилой», по определению авторов раскопок) характеризируется широким использованием плитняка (в том числе для печных конструкций), лепной керамикой «ладожского облика» (типичной для нижних слоев Староладожского Земляного городища) и большим количеством индивидуальных находок (свыше 1000 предметов). Среди них – литейные формы и украшения из цветных металлов, тигли, льячки, серебряные, бронзовые и свинцово-оловянистые слитки, полуфабрикаты и отходы, шлаки; десятки железных изделий, крицы и шлаки характеризуют развитое кузнечное ремесло (в частности, овладение техникой «трехслойного пакета», представленной в самом раннем горизонте Ладоги). Височные кольца, в том числе спиралеконечные, характерные для раннеславянской культуры во всей «северославянской этнокультурной зоне», лунничное кольцо типа известных в Подунавье, пластинчатые височные кольца, типичные для верхнего Поднепровья, убедительно обосновывают безусловно славянскую принадлежность укрепленного поселения. В то же время ладейные заклепки и некоторые другие детали указывают на взаимодействие обитателей городища со скандинавскими мореходами. На Любше найдено также свыше 20 голубых кубовидных стеклянных бус (в Ладоге известных лишь в 4 экз.), которые указывают на ранние связи по Великому Шелковому пути (при полном отсутствии в слое «рубленого бисера», типичного для Ладоги).
    Датировка славянского городища Любша наиболее вероятна в пределах начала
    VIII-середины IX в.: во второй половине IX разрушенный памятник был на некоторое время заброшен, что, очевидно, связано с масштабными преобразованиями в Ладоге «времен Рюрика». Таким образом, Любша – первый по времени памятник славян в ладожской округе, предшествующей появлению застройки середины VIIIв. на Староладожском Земляном городище (Староладожском поселении VIII-X вв.). Среднеевропейское происхождение славянского населения Любши, тесная связь с западными славянами Балтийского Поморья (впрочем, совмещающая и связи со славянами и «кривичами Верхнего Поднепровья, и с более отдаленными славянскими землями Подунавья) существенно уточняют и подкрепляют предположение о самостоятельном, по сравнению с регионами Среднего и Верхнего Поднепровья, процессе формирования славяно-русского населения Новгородской земли; близкие Любше памятники VIIIв сейчас исследуются и в Ильменском Поозерье (Носов 1990: 5-37; Носов, Плохов 2002: 157-180).


    About Lebedev G.S (my translation):
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Gleb Lebedev (December 24, 1943 - July 15, 2003, Staraya Ladoga) - Soviet and Russian archaeologist, a leading expert on Varangian antiquities.
    The professor of Leningrad / St Petersburg University (1990), Doctor of Historical Sciences (1987). In 1993-2003 - head of the St. Petersburg branch RNII cultural and natural heritage of the Ministry of Culture and Sciences (1998 - Center for Regional Research and Technology Museum "Petroskandika" NIIKSI State University). It is considered the creator of several new research directions in archeology, regional studies, cultural studies, semiotics, historical sociology. Deputy of the Leningrad City Soviet (Petrograd) in 1990-1993, a member of the Presidium of 1990-1991. (from here
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%...B2%D0%B8%D1%87)


    In english (my translation, sorry):
    The Lyubsha settlement known for bulletins Z.Hodakovsky and D.Y.Samokvasovoa, was opened by exploratory excavations in the late 1960s - early 1970s. (S.N. Orlov, G.S. Lebedev, V.P.Petrenko) Since then it was established the presence of the cultural layer, including the horizon with a molded ceramic heaters and stoves, and the stone construction of the shaft settlement (Petrenko, 1985 Shitova :181-191). However, after a quarter century, new digs of E.A. Ryabinin (since 1996) fully disclose the sensational significance of this monument (Ryabinin, Dubashinsky 2002: 196-203).
    It is a cape settlement of less than two thousand square meters (45x45 m, with an arched bloated shaft length of 70 m and a width of the base to 18 m) was reinforced by the oldest in North-West of Russia with a stone fortification "tubular clutch" of limestone, preserved to a height of 2.2 m, with stone substructions additional retaining walls and the wooden construction of fortifications along the top of the shaft. An earlier earthen rampart with a wooden fence, according to radiocarbon dates, refer to the VII-VIII in the first half.
    The cultural layer of the lower horizon, with the foci, a large number of fish bones, molded pottery, bone implements, typical of the Ladoga of the Early Iron Age settlements. The horizon of "period of the existence of stone-ground of the fortress" ("living" according to the authors of the excavations) is characterized by extensive use of limestone (including furnace design), molded ceramics of "Ladoga type" (typical of the lower layers of Staraya Ladoga Earthen settlement) and a large number of individual finds (of over 1,000 items). Among them: - molds and ornaments made of nonferrous metals, crucibles, lyachki, silver, bronze and lead-tin ingots, semi-finished products and waste, slag, dozens of rail products and wastes, - characterize the development of blacksmithing (in particular, mastery of technique, "a three-layer package "presented at the earliest horizon of Ladoga). Temple rings, including spiralekonechnye characteristic of early Slavic culture in the whole "Northern-Slavic ethnic and cultural zone," ‘lunnitsa’ ring type known in the Danube, plate temporal rings, typical for the upper Dnieper, convincingly explain the Slavic origin of this fortified settlement. At the same time, rook rivets and other details of the interaction point to the inhabitants of the settlement with the Scandinavian seafarers. At Lyubsha also found more than 20 cube-shaped blue glass beads (in Ladoga known only in four copies.), Which indicate the early communication on the Great Silk Road (in the absence of a layer of "chopped beads", typical of Lake Ladoga).
    The dating of the Slavic settlement Lyubsha most likely to start within the beginning of 8th, ending in the middle of 9th. In the second half of 9th destroyed settlement was abandoned for some time, which is obviously due to the large-scale conversions in Ladoga during "times of Rurik." Thus, Lyubsha is the first Slavic site in the Ladoga Region, prior to the emergence of building of 8th in Ladoga settlement of 8th-10th.
    Central European origin of the Slavic population of Lyubsha settlement, a close relationship with Western Pomerania Baltic Slavs (however, combines and links with the Slavs and "Kriviches Upper Dnieper, and from more distant Slavic lands of the Danube) substantially clarify and reinforce the assumption of independent, compared with the regions of Middle and Upper Dnieper, the formation of the Slavic-Russian people of Novgorod Land; as of now near to the Lyubsha sites of 8th are investigated in the Ilmen Lake District (Nosov, 1990: 5-37; Nosov, Plokhov 2002: 157-180).
    Very interesting, isn’t it?
    Does anyone know why the authors of that wiki’s article wrote that Lyubsha was a Varangian settlement? Probably, some people want to see the brave and invincible Vikings anywhere and everywhere, despite the facts that say otherwise.
    BTW, link to 3d-reconstruction of Lyubsha settlement: http://3darchaeology.ru/index.php/20...12-02-17-22-17

    Why do I have focused attention on Lyubsha? Because Lyubsha (in accordance with investigations of recent years) is a an important stronghold on the trade route between the Baltic see and the East, which was established and inhabited by Slavs. And Lyubsha is a real and living proof that Scandinavians do not dominate in trading and warfare in the North of Russia. And in order to gain a foothold in the North the Scandinavians were to enter into peaceful coexistence with the local population. On the basis of which (in accordance with Normanist theory of course) the Rus’ appeared.

    Oleg proved himself to be a great ruler, expanding his predecessor's territory even more. In the year 882, Oleg attacked and conquered a city ruled by two Norse warlords named Askold and Dir. After gaining the great city of Kiev (called Kœnugarğr in Old Norse), Oleg moved his capitol from Novgorod to there. Kiev soon grew to a rich and prosperous city under Oleg, and continued to expand his rule. In the year 907, he launched a raid from Kiev on the mighty city of Constantinople. When he found the entrance to the Bosporus blocked and the gates to Constantinople barred, he fixed wheels to each of his ships and rolled them to the walls. Oleg nailed his shield above the gates, showing the Romans that the Rus' were dangerous.
    Norse, Norse and Norse. Again, again and again.
    Does anybody know about Turkish etymology of Oleg? Let me guess that nobody. But everybody agree that Slavs were much influenced by nomadic culture (Iranians, Turks). Some examples:
    1) "In the year 6412 since the creation of the world, indict 7 (904). Border between Byzantines and Bulgarians. In the time of Simeon, by the grace of God Prince of the Bulgarians, under Olgu Tarkan Theodore and under Komit Drista." Border marking inscription from Narǎš (modern Greece). Uspenskij, F.I. (1898). "Pograničnyj stolb meždu Vizantiej i Bolgariej pri Simeone" (in Russian). Izvestija russkogo arheologičeskogo instituta v Konstantinopole: 184–194.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_I_of_Bulgaria
    http://lib.rus.ec/i/39/184439/_0029.png

    And:
    2) Hulagu Khan, also known as Hülegü, Hulegu (Mongolian: Hülegü Khaan, "Warrior"; Mongolian Cyrillic: Хүлэг хаан; Turkish: Hülâgü Han; Chagatai/Urdu: ہلاکو Hulaku; Persian/Arabic: هولاكوخان‎; Chinese: 旭烈兀; c. 1217 – 8 February 1265)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu

    So. If Oleg has Turkish (or iranic) etymology too and Slavs were much influenced by nomads, why Norse again?... rhetorical question
    Last edited by Scolot; April 23, 2012 at 08:38 AM.

  4. #204
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Dομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    18,696
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    All theories have their strong and weak points.
    But Arab chronicles and Roman/Khazar diplomatic reports mentioned that the "newcomers" were something unique and new to the regions.
    Romans and Khazars could easily distinguish the diferences between Slavic people and norse.They knew slavic people for centuries don't you think?
    Infact Romans and Khazars lived among or side by side with a several number of slavic tribes.
    Lets see...When "steppe" people arrive in the central steppes and later in central europe Romans name those people "scythae" (ussing a greek term for steppe people) or Turks (because turkic people were the most common steppe warriors that Romans knew plus under the fact that most of them were more or less relative turkic origin tribes).
    So Romans can distinguish the "turks" from slavs. Why they would not be able to distinguish slavs from slavs if the "slavic" theory of Rus origin would be correct?
    Why Romans didn't simply named Rus "slavs" from the begining?
    Why Khazars did not name them as slavs also?
    What was the strong point of Roman inteligent and diplomacy was the fact that they knew how to distinguish the tribes in to main categories inorder to know the most eficient way to deal with them.
    If Roman "spies" named the Rus "norse" or people of the blond race (for slavs they had diferent terms) who am i to deny their findings?

    After all soon enough Danes ,more Sweedish and Norse vikings came to Varangian Guard joining to a unit of "brothers"..
    Did ever Danes called any slavic tribe "brothers"?

    In the whole history recording the last two centuries historians argue for hundreds of similar issues for all nations and tribes.
    Strangely they "forget" to read what the scholars wrote about these issues in their times. Its not only the Rus issue ,its the entire human history.
    Often we the modern people are trying to make ancient people to look fools just to hide our lack of knowlege.

  5. #205
    NikeBG's Avatar Sampsis
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Posts
    3,282
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Scolot View Post
    To tell the truth I'm not familiar with this document. But at the historic forum (Russian language), where I also actively debate, that issue was discussed some weeks ago. As I understand you’re from Bulgaria and maybe you can read russian
    Here is a link: http://www.twow.ru/forum/index.php?s...c=6121&st=7260
    Those guys who read this document questioned the authenticity of the document.
    BTW, here is the link to that document: http://baltavar.narod.ru/Tom3.htm
    Interesting, thanks! I've read discussions (and a book) about the Jagfar Tarihi on our historical forums before as well, though the results were not satisfying enough (most people just directly dismiss it, while others try to analyze it, but eventually give up), so I was wondering what are the results from the Russian community, which logically has more info on the document (and its author). In any case, even if it's a fake, it's still quite interesting, at least in terms of modern history.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Romans and Khazars could easily distinguish the diferences between Slavic people and norse.They knew slavic people for centuries don't you think?
    Considering all the confusion of the meaning "Saqaliba", I'd say distinguishing people in that area isn't so clean-cut.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Lets see...When "steppe" people arrive in the central steppes and later in central europe Romans name those people "scythae" (ussing a greek term for steppe people) or Turks (because turkic people were the most common steppe warriors that Romans knew plus under the fact that most of them were more or less relative turkic origin tribes).
    Scythians - yes, that was even used for the Russians themselves (Tauroscythians) even centuries later. Turks - I'm not sure how often the Byzantines called the steppe people "Turks", besides the actual Turks and the Magyars. I think that, after Scythians, Huns was a bit more popular than Turks and the two (Huns and Turks) were never (to my knowledge) used interchangeably. Anyway, that's a bit off-topic...
    Last edited by NikeBG; April 23, 2012 at 09:17 AM.

    NikeBG's YouTube profile
    "If one's arguments are weak, his position hardens." - Stanisław Jerzy Lec
    "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid." - S. Kierkegaard

  6. #206
    Tureuki's Avatar Equites Alares
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5,100
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Tauroscythians ? I remember that term from somewhere If I recall correctly it was about a campaign of Manuel Komnenos(probably againts Seljuks), it says he called Tauroscythians from Tauros mountains to join his army, I though that term used for the Turcoman tribes in Tauros mountains(middle-eastern mediterranean region of Anatolia)

    I guess a translation fail, Tauro- Skythai
    Last edited by Tureuki; April 23, 2012 at 10:05 AM.

  7. #207
    Hrobatos's Avatar Auxiliarius
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    6,255
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Serbs were called Tribals ( ancient Ilyro-Thracian tribe that existed in later Serbia ), Croats were called Goths in certain sources, but this is hardly a proof that Croats or Serbs arent Slavs... so that by itself doesnt mean anything

    even if Norsemen were present in Rus' society they in my opinion if they would have been core group would atleast leave titles behind and all russian titles are typicaly Slavic
    not to mention that it is illogical that Norsemen could "bring civilization and form state" among eastern Slavs before actualy forming either states or "civilization" of their own.

  8. #208
    Heathen Storm's Avatar Where's my axe?
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    2,928
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Scolot View Post
    Let me continue.

    First of all, I would like to say great post. Very detailed and you provide compelling arguments. +Rep

    To be historically correct and in accordance with Normanist theory first true Rus’ were of Norse origin (they could be from Denmark, Norway, Gothland, Sweden – all the regions where the Norsemen lived)
    . Probably from the island of Gotland and / or from the area of ​​the middle of Sweden (near Birka).


    That's being slightly picky, don't you agree? It is true that they could have been from any of those areas, however it is also true that they were very likely to be from Sweden or Gotland. The Norwegians and Danes rarely went east, most of their time was spent in the West. The Danes spent a bit more time in the Baltic area than the Norwegians but compared to the amount of the Swedes, it was not much.


    Due to archeological evidence and dendrochronology Ladoga was established by Scandinavian colonists in 753. In the 760 years it was destroyed by Slavs (probably, Slovenians) and the new houses were built on carcass construction. Noted the lack of continuity between the first inhabitants of Ladoga (Scandinavians) and the subsequent population who had different cultural traditions. During this period, the settlement had already traded with local tribes. Slovenian settlement lasted until 830 s and was captured by the Vikings.
    Next, Ladoga was the settlement of trade and craft, which once again destroyed in 860-s as a result of internecine wars (most likely these were the events as you wrote ‘until the tribes unexpectedly rose up against them and kicked them out of their land’). Approximately 870-s. in Ladoga was built the first fortress, similar in design to the next Lyubsha fortress, desolate in the same years.


    So, as we can see:

    1) Scandinavians (primarily artisans and merchants) really were and most likely they established Ladoga settlement.
    2) These Scandinavians came into conflict with local groups and Ladoga for a hundred years passed from hand to hand several times: Scandinavians (750-760), Slavic (750-830), Scandinavians (830-860), Slavic (860-862, when ‘kicking Varyangians out of their land’)
    In a constant state of conflict with the local population that Scandinavians could not rule over the surrounding tribes (as you wrote). We can say that Scandinavians persistently sought to gain control of trade routes. Once they had it turned out, once they have met the rebuff.


    I have no contest to this.

    Confirmation of my writings above can be found here:

    1) Kuzmin S.L. Ladoga in the early Middle Ages (mid 8th – beginning of 12th.) / / Studies of archeological monuments of the Middle Ages. St. Petersburg., 2008. p. 69-94. (http://nwae.pu.ru/pdf/kuzmin_lad.pdf)
    2) Lebedev G.S. The Viking Age in Northern Europe and Russia, two editions:
    Leningrad, 1985 (http://ulfdalir.ru/literature/200)
    St. Petersburg., 2005 (http://www.twirpx.com/file/642026/)
    P.S. Kuzmin S.L. and Lebedev G.S. are proponents of Normanist theory as you are
    P.S.S. And sorry for russian links. I did not find English-language resources.
    Too bad I can't read Russian.

    Mmm. Not Absolutely so.
    ...
    Does anyone know why the authors of that wiki’s article wrote that Lyubsha was a Varangian settlement? Probably, some people want to see the brave and invincible Vikings anywhere and everywhere, despite the facts that say otherwise.
    BTW, link to 3d-reconstruction of Lyubsha settlement: http://3darchaeology.ru/index.php/20...12-02-17-22-17

    Why do I have focused attention on Lyubsha? Because Lyubsha (in accordance with investigations of recent years) is a an important stronghold on the trade route between the Baltic see and the East, which was established and inhabited by Slavs. And Lyubsha is a real and living proof that Scandinavians do not dominate in trading and warfare in the North of Russia. And in order to gain a foothold in the North the Scandinavians were to enter into peaceful coexistence with the local population. On the basis of which (in accordance with Normanist theory of course) the Rus’ appeared.


    Fair points; but to be honest, this is the first of this Wikipedia article I've seen, nor have I seen much in the way of history for this settlement. Most of my research started with the Osprey books (Armies of Medieval Russia and Medieval Russian Fortresses). Although they obviously cannot be 100% accurate, I do know they are at least more accurate than Wikipedia is. Also, I unfortunately do not have access to many Russian sources, seeing I cannot speak or read the language...

    Norse, Norse and Norse. Again, again and again.
    Does anybody know about Turkish etymology of Oleg? Let me guess that nobody. But everybody agree that Slavs were much influenced by nomadic culture (Iranians, Turks). Some examples:
    1) "In the year 6412 since the creation of the world, indict 7 (904). Border between Byzantines and Bulgarians. In the time of Simeon, by the grace of God Prince of the Bulgarians, under Olgu Tarkan Theodore and under Komit Drista." Border marking inscription from Narǎš (modern Greece). Uspenskij, F.I. (1898). "Pograničnyj stolb meždu Vizantiej i Bolgariej pri Simeone" (in Russian). Izvestija russkogo arheologičeskogo instituta v Konstantinopole: 184–194.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_I_of_Bulgaria
    http://lib.rus.ec/i/39/184439/_0029.png

    And:
    2) Hulagu Khan, also known as Hülegü, Hulegu (Mongolian: Hülegü Khaan, "Warrior"; Mongolian Cyrillic: Хүлэг хаан; Turkish: Hülâgü Han; Chagatai/Urdu: ہلاکو Hulaku; Persian/Arabic: هولاكوخان‎; Chinese: 旭烈兀; c. 1217 – 8 February 1265)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu

    So. If Oleg has Turkish (or iranic) etymology too and Slavs were much influenced by nomads, why Norse again?... rhetorical question
    Aye, you make a fair point. But do you know of any Slavic names that have Turkic origins?

    The reason I refer back and forth between Norse and Slavic is because the amount of sources acknowledging a large connection between the two. Vladimir, Oleg, Igor, and Rurik are ALL names that have Norse etymology. The first ruler of the Rus' that we can be almost 100% sure of the Slavic origin of his name is Sviatoslav.

    For example;

    Slavic -------- Old Norse

    1) Rurik ----- Rørik (pronounced as Rooreek)

    2) Oleg ------Helgi/Helge

    3) Igor ------ Ingvar

    4) Vladimir --Valdemarr

    5) Sviatoslav -Sveinald

    So you see? The Old Norse and Slavic are all extremely close, except for the last. Of course, we don't have real sources of the Slavs before the Rus', which is unfortunate. So, we do not know whether the Old Norse truly came first or the Slavic. Do you see my point?

    Proud mod leader, modeller and public relations officer of Heiğinn Veğr: Total War


  9. #209
    NikeBG's Avatar Sampsis
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Posts
    3,282
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Storm View Post
    Vladimir, Oleg, Igor, and Rurik are ALL names that have Norse etymology.
    Vladimir is a Slavic name, from the roots "vlad" (rule, possess) and "mir" (world, peace), i.e. "ruler of the world" or "ruling peace". It may be related to the Germanic Waldemar, just as many other Slavic/Balto-Slavic words are related to Germanic ones (f.e. both knyaz and konung/koenig/king/etc derive from the same IE root - kuningaz), given both groups are part of the IE tree and due to their historical geographical proximity ((Proto-)Slavics and (Proto-)Germanics have had contacts for millenia), but that doesn't necessarily mean they are the same or that the Slavic is derived from the Germanic.
    Heck, the heir apparent of Bulgaria, at the start of the mod, will also bear the name Vladimir (Vladimir-Rasate) and I'm pretty sure he had no contacts with any kind of Vikings (though, if we assume that Vladimir is of Germanic origin, this could pose an interesting question of whether Vladimir-Rasate might be named so after Eastern Frankish influence (second half of the 9th century saw the most intensive Bulgarian-Frankish relations)).
    Last edited by NikeBG; April 26, 2012 at 08:55 AM.

    NikeBG's YouTube profile
    "If one's arguments are weak, his position hardens." - Stanisław Jerzy Lec
    "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid." - S. Kierkegaard

  10. #210
    Heathen Storm's Avatar Where's my axe?
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    2,928
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Quote Originally Posted by NikeBG View Post
    Vladimir is a Slavic name, from the roots "vlad" (rule, possess) and "mir" (world, peace), i.e. "ruler of the world" or "ruling peace". It may be related to the Germanic Waldemar, just as many other Slavic/Balto-Slavic words are related to Germanic ones (f.e. both knyaz and konung/koenig/king/etc derive from the same IE root - kuningaz), given both groups are part of the IE tree and due to their historical geographical proximity ((Proto-)Slavics and (Proto-)Germanics have had contacts for millenia), but that doesn't necessarily mean they are the same or that the Slavic is derived from the Germanic.
    Heck, the heir apparent of Bulgaria, at the start of the mod, will also bear the name Vladimir (Vladimir-Rasate) and I'm pretty sure he had no contacts with any kind of Vikings (though, if we assume that Vladimir is of Germanic origin, this could pose an interesting question of whether Vladimir-Rasate might be named so after Eastern Frankish influence (second half of the 9th century saw the most intensive Bulgarian-Frankish relations)).
    I'm sorry I was not more clear I did not mean these names were strictly Scandinavian in origin, but that there some relations between these names and names in Old Norse.
    Last edited by Heathen Storm; April 26, 2012 at 05:56 PM.

    Proud mod leader, modeller and public relations officer of Heiğinn Veğr: Total War


  11. #211
    atheniandp's Avatar Pili
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,856
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    I'd be surprised if I haven't posted here before, but I'd just like to say this is a gorgeous preview. +rep
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. CHESTERTON

  12. #212
    Shashu
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    203
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Sorry for delay.

    AnthoniusII
    All theories have their strong and weak points.
    Yes. But there are some undeniable moments in ‘Varangian problem’. For example, the absence of evidence that prove the unconditional dominance of the Scandinavians in the north of Russia in 8th-9th. Or that the Rus’ worshipped to Thor and Odin. And I try to do such a kind of comments only.
    I've been studying very actively ‘Varangian problem’ for five years. To tell the truth, I’m not a follower of Norse origin of Rus’. Although some points of this issue I share with Normanist theory proponents. . In any case, this theory I have to know very well (sorry for my shy ). And all my comments to the preview on this thread I’m trying to keep in the framework and in accordance with the Normanist version (Although maybe I went outside about the name Oleg sorry). As I understand TGC-team chose the Normanist theory as a basis for the creation of this faction, and I am ready to help your team to implement this version most correctly. That's all. I’m not going to persuade anybody to accept my version (in my opinion, I never even hinted about my version on this thread ).

    But Arab chronicles and Roman/Khazar diplomatic reports mentioned that the "newcomers" were something unique and new to the regions.
    Romans and Khazars could easily distinguish the diferences between Slavic people and norse.They knew slavic people for centuries don't you think?
    Infact Romans and Khazars lived among or side by side with a several number of slavic tribes.
    Lets see...When "steppe" people arrive in the central steppes and later in central europe Romans name those people "scythae" (ussing a greek term for steppe people) or Turks (because turkic people were the most common steppe warriors that Romans knew plus under the fact that most of them were more or less relative turkic origin tribes).
    So Romans can distinguish the "turks" from slavs. Why they would not be able to distinguish slavs from slavs if the "slavic" theory of Rus origin would be correct?
    Why Romans didn't simply named Rus "slavs" from the begining?
    Why Khazars did not name them as slavs also?
    What was the strong point of Roman inteligent and diplomacy was the fact that they knew how to distinguish the tribes in to main categories inorder to know the most eficient way to deal with them.
    If Roman "spies" named the Rus "norse" or people of the blond race (for slavs they had diferent terms) who am i to deny their findings?
    I understand you and your questions.
    First of all. Greeks knew Slavs very well, as you correctly noticed. However, despite this the Greeks were often called the Slavs as Huns, Scythians, Tauro-Scythians etc. (as noted above). So what did prevent the Greeks to call Slavs another name?
    Secondly, it is proved philologically that name Rus’ in Arabic, Byzantium and Western (Frankish and German) chronicles are derived from name Rus’ in Slavic vocalism, that is exactly the Slavs or Slavic-speaking, not Normans, transferred the name Rus’ to Byzantines, Arabs, Franks, and Germans. In other words, the Norsespeaking did not participate in the process, that is very strange. The Normanists responsible for this strange circumstance that by the 830 year the Rus-Normans had already been so much Slavicized that to outside observers (Byzantines, Arabs, Franks, and Germans) Slavic version of his name was transmitted, but not native – Norse version of Rus’ (*rods). The question then arises. How could foreign writers distinguish Normans and Slavs among Rus’, if any Norsespeaking Rus in 830 years was so much Slavicized that he not only could speak Slavic but even passed a non-native (Slavic) name of own people.
    And finally the most important thing. One of the basic postulates of Normanist version is the fact that Rus’ in 8-10th were social (or ethno-social) phenomenon of military and trade-craft orientation . But they were not ethnic group (ethnic phenomenon) so comparing them to other tribes / ethnic groups would be absolutely incorrect. Only since 11th-12th we could claim that name Rus’ began to refer to the population of Kievan Rus', and transformed into the concept of ethnicity. Even in ‘Russkaya Pravda’ (of 11th) Rus’ and Slavs are distinguished. Although this was time (11th) when the Normans had been already fully Slavicized a couple of centuries ago in Rus’ environment (as Normanists claim).
    For example, Vikings and Cossacks. For medieval authors they were the people (ethnic group) living in Scandinavia and East Europe respectively. But now we know that they have never been a single ethnic group, they were social group with Norse ethnical dominant (for Vikings) and with Slavic ethnical dominant (for Cossacks).
    Often we the modern people are trying to make ancient people to look fools just to hide our lack of knowlege.
    I do not think the ancient and medieval writers know exactly what was the ethnic phenomenon, and what was the social. They did not care about that. And any active group, united primarily on social grounds, was seen by these writers as a separate people (like Vikings and Cossacks). Therefore, the differences between the Slavs and the Rus’ must not be reduced to ethnic differentiation. And that's because the Slavs were ethnic group and Rus’ were social, so many inconsistencies and obscure points in the reports of the medieval authors. And all attempts of this comparison lead to incorrect results.

    After all soon enough Danes ,more Sweedish and Norse vikings came to Varangian Guard joining to a unit of "brothers"..
    Did ever Danes called any slavic tribe "brothers"?
    Firstly, in Byzantium chronicles we could see that Byzantines distinguished Normans and Rus, because there were two separate Guards in the service of the Byzantine emperor: Varangian and Rus’. And the first mention in the chronicles of the Byzantine Varangian refers to 1034 (John Skylitzes Chronicle). Before that was only Rus’ guard
    Secondly, “Danes ,more Sweedish and Norse vikings” called “brothers” that Varangians (in Varangian Guard), not Rus’.


    Heathen Storm
    First of all, I would like to say great post. Very detailed and you provide compelling argumens. +Rep
    Thank you.

    That's being slightly picky, don't you agree? It is true that they could have been from any of those areas, however it is also true that they were very likely to be from Sweden or Gotland. The Norwegians and Danes rarely went east, most of their time was spent in the West. The Danes spent a bit more time in the Baltic area than the Norwegians but compared to the amount of the Swedes, it was not much.
    Sometimes “The Devil is in the details”, my friend .
    In the debate on discussing issue at the Russian-speaking forums I participate for several years. From my own experience I can confidently say even the smallest detail means a lot.
    For example, most of researchers and everybody on this thread know that name Oleg could be derived from the Old Norse Helgi. But only few researchers (basically, that have philological education) and I guess nobody on this forum understand that transition from Old Norse Helgi to Old Russian Oleg is absolutely impossible. Let explain why.

    The form Oleg is a modern spelling. In Old Russian we have Ольгъ, that can be pronounced as Olego (where the vowels e and o are supershort, not as in modern russian e and o). Without going into details of philological conversion I just tell that if Oleg is borrowed into Old Russian the supershort e had to be derived from the vowel of borrowed name. In other words there had to be some vowel between l and g in Helgi. That’s why the linguists rightly claim that Old Russian Oleg (if it was really borrowed) would have been derived from a hypothetical adjective *heilig (that mean ‘holy’, ’sacred’) with the vowel between l and g. In other words, the adjective was borrowed, not the name And this fact weakens very much version of that name was taken from Old Norse. Because in history the samples with the name Helgi we know, but any sample of someone using the name as an adjective *heilig is unknown.

    And believe me, these small inaccuracies give rise to serious problems in the further study of the issue. Because many who didn't know that small detail about Oleg continue to believe unconditionally in "Oleg was Norseman", but those who know that small detail are already beginning to doubt.
    But what about the case with Sweden m
    ost likely you're right. And I was really slightly picky. Sorry.

    I have no contest to this.
    Too bad I can't read Russian.
    Fair points; but to be honest, this is the first of this Wikipedia article I've seen, nor have I seen much in the way of history for this settlement. Most of my research started with the Osprey books (Armies of Medieval Russia and Medieval Russian Fortresses). Although they obviously cannot be 100% accurate, I do know they are at least more accurate than Wikipedia is. Also, I unfortunately do not have access to many Russian sources, seeing I cannot speak or read the language...
    Yes, my friend. The problem for the researchers that can’t read Russian really is. But therefore I’m here
    I really tried to find English-language resources, where you can find the works of Russian and Ukrainian scientists of the last decade (since 2000 up to now). All I could find the most suitable is in “The Early Slavs” by P.M. Barford. In it’s edition the author refers to the works of Russian and Ukrainian researchers, but unfortunately still the Soviet period (ie before 1990). And for the past 20 years there much has been changed.
    Maybe some works of last ten years are presented in Internet. But all the search engines automatically send me to the Russian-speaking servers. This also hampered my searching.
    Here the list of researchers, which I can recommend as the most impartial:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Normanists:
    G.S. Lebedev (historian)
    E.A. Melnikova (historian)
    A.V. Nazarenko (Philologist. His recent research the etymology of the name Rus greatly undermine the position of Normanists, despite the fact that he is a Normanist himself)

    Anti-Normanists:
    O.N. Trubachev (He is highly respected Russian philologist. He was a normanist, but changed his mind, when he more deeply investigate the etymology of the name Rus’), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Trubachyov
    V.V. Sedov (archeologist and historian)
    K.A. Maximovich (Philologist)
    V.L. Yanin (Very interesting and useful his works in the dissemination of Arab dirhems in eastern Europe in the 9-10 centuries), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Yanin

    Archeologists:
    A.N. Kirpichnikov (the recognized professional in the matter of weapons and armaments of medieval Russia). “Kirpichnikov A.N. The Ancient Russian weapons”
    S.L. Kuzmin (archeologist of Northern Rus')
    E.A. Ryabinin (the last works about Lyubsha)

    And a little more researchers but it seems to me they are a little bit biased:
    B.A. Rybakov (Anti-Normanist. He is a recognized expert in Slavic and Old Rus paganism, but in the Varangian question, in my opinion, quite biased), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Rybakov
    V.Y. Petrukhin (Normanist. But he places Rus’ Khaganate near Birka. To my mind it is really extremely version )
    V.V. Fomin (anti-Normanist, a follower of Polabian Slavs origin of Rus
    V.I. Kulakov (very interesting version about Balt origin of Rus’)


    Maybe your attempts to find their latest work in English will be more successful.
    Aye, you make a fair point. But do you know of any Slavic names that have Turkic origins?
    If you take the common and known since 9th century - Boris (a few versions about iranic or Turkic origin). Maybe something else, but I have to deal with this issue more deeply
    Vladimir, Oleg, Igor, and Rurik are ALL names that have Norse etymology.
    Yes. Except Vladimir.
    So you see? The Old Norse and Slavic are all extremely close, except for the last. Of course, we don't have real sources of the Slavs before the Rus', which is unfortunate. So, we do not know whether the Old Norse truly came first or the Slavic. Do you see my point?
    Etymology is primarily the origin and not the closeness . Name Vladimir spelling in Old Russian (Володимѣръ) allows us to conclude that this name couldn't be derived from Old Norse, ie it couldn't have Old Norse etymology (despite the phonetic closeness). The rest names you’ve listed have Old Norse etymology. You are absolutely correct here.
    The first ruler of the Rus' that we can be almost 100% sure of the Slavic origin of his name is Sviatoslav.
    Yes. I would add:
    Rurik – We know Norse etymology only
    Igor – Norse, Finnic and Slavic etymology.
    Oleg and Olga – Norse, Nomad (Turkic or Iranic), and Slavic etymology
    Askold and Dyr – Norse and Slavic etymology
    Sviatoslav – Slavic etymology
    Last edited by Scolot; April 30, 2012 at 03:28 PM.

  13. #213
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Dομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    18,696
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    My friend normanist and slavic based theories are relative new ones (more or less 100 years old).
    I follow the view of "Byzantines" as basis of our rosters.
    I can not doupt the Roman diplomacy when they notticed that those know as Rus or Rousoi (from their blond beards) or Ros or Ruosi where norse men...
    If Byzantines would ever recognised them as Slavs they would have nothing to stop them to identify them as slavs or sklavenoi or with any other name they used for slavic people...
    Nottice that Byzantines NEVER called Bulgarians as slavs!
    Croats,Serbs,Moravians and so many others were slavs but not Bulgarians.
    Mistake? Modern "historians" tried to fit bulgarians in to the panslavic movement. But when Leo VI describes the enemies he has a unique description for Bulgarians.
    The same way when Byzantines met Rus they knew that they were not Slavs or Bulgarians or Turks or skythae or tauroskythae or anything else that already used as term for tribal fedarations they knew.
    Arabs also had a huge knowlege of slavic people but their scholars "forced" to create unique descriptions for Rus ,diferent from those they had for slavic people..Why? Did they make a mistake too?
    Then what about Khazars that had slavs as slaves or vassals for a long time? If Rus where another kind of slavic people then why they warn Byzantines for a total new kind of enemy?
    All those people of middle ages were mistaken? Did they were the ones that had to wait us modern people to teach them what was that that they saw?

  14. #214
    Silesian_Noble's Avatar Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,344
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    I can not doupt the Roman diplomacy when they notticed that those know as Rus or Rousoi (from their blond beards) or Ros or Ruosi where norse men...
    I'm a pure Slav and my beard is blond (to be precise blond-red)


  15. #215
    Shashu
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    203
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    All those people of middle ages were mistaken? Did they were the ones that had to wait us modern people to teach them what was that that they saw?
    No. They were not mistaken. But it seems to me I've already answered such kind of question in my previous post. Have you read this? Or do you suggest my examples about Vikings, Cossacks and 'Russkaya Pravda' are incorrect?

    If Rus where another kind of slavic people then why they warn Byzantines for a total new kind of enemy?
    Because Byzantines didn't new any Slavs from East Europe since the attacks of the Antes (which btw were not called as Slavs by Byzantines).

    If you do insist on the fact that Rus' were another people (unlike the Slavs), and a new kind of enemy, which was so distinguished with Slavs by medieval authors, then where are the archaeological culture in the south of East Europe (9 - 10th century), which does not correlate with the Slavs? If you so much trust medieval authors which described Rus' as very active trade and military people then one hundred percent they were to leave in the South Eastern European area an archaeological culture that is different to the Slavic one. Can you point that culture?

    I follow the view of "Byzantines" as basis of our rosters.
    Oh! Now it is сlear where the stumbling block. You prefer to consider only one source - the Byzantines, rather than to treat the complex sources. I guess in this case historical reconstruction is impossible.


    P.S.
    The same way when Byzantines met Rus they knew that they were not Slavs or Bulgarians or Turks or skythae or tauroskythae or anything else that already used as term for tribal fedarations they knew.
    The Rus' of Sviatoslav were often called Tauroskythae and Skythae by Byzantines. And it's very strange that you (as follower of "the view of "Byzantines" as basis") don't know that.
    Arabs also had a huge knowlege of slavic people but their scholars "forced" to create unique descriptions for Rus ,diferent from those they had for slavic people..Why? Did they make a mistake too?
    But at the same time some Arab writers directly or indirectly rank Rus' as Slavs. So you are a little disingenuous saying so categorically.
    Last edited by Scolot; April 30, 2012 at 12:57 PM.

  16. #216
    leif_erikson's Avatar Valhalla awaits thee
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,318
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    A good book on the subject is Viking Rus: Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe by Wladyslaw Duczko
    Skinner for Roma Surrectum, EB II, CBUR, Fall of Rome,
    proudly under Tone's patronage,
    patron of my Canadian bud Arnspac

    "We believed we'd catch the rainbow, ride the wind to the sun
    Sail away on ships of wonder, but life's not a wheel..." (RIP Ronnie)



  17. #217
    Silesian_Noble's Avatar Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,344
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Quote Originally Posted by leif_erikson View Post
    A good book on the subject is Viking Rus: Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe by Wladyslaw Duczko
    The author is Polish and I have that book (in original Polish version). Must say that it is terrible boring, I mean the book's language is very academical (scientific) and it doesn't suit my taste


  18. #218
    Shashu
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    203
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Silesian_Noble View Post
    The author is Polish and I have that book (in original Polish version). Must say that it is terrible boring, I mean the book's language is very academical (scientific) and it doesn't suit my taste
    Can you scan the pages where list of references is? I'd be very grateful.
    Thank you much in advance.

  19. #219
    Silesian_Noble's Avatar Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,344
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Scolot View Post
    Can you scan the pages where list of references is? I'd be very grateful.
    Thank you much in advance.
    The references occupies 24 pages... I don't have the scanner but I may take photos of that pages if you want.


  20. #220
    Shashu
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    203
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Preview] The Kievan Rus'

    Quote Originally Posted by Silesian_Noble View Post
    The references occupies 24 pages... I don't have the scanner but I may take photos of that pages if you want.
    In this book I'm intrested in this fragment (p.66):
    From the very beginning, around the middle of the eighth century, tha Scandinavians were in Ladoga, acting in cooperation with locals, the Finns but not with the Slavs. Some scholars[20] suggest that migrant Slavic groups from the south had reached the lower Volkhov area already in the second part of the eighth century, while according to others, now the majority there are no traces of Slavs in Ladoga before the tenth century. [21]

    I can admit that the auhor didn't know about recent excavations in Lyubsha, which proves the presence of the Slavs in lower Volkhov area half a century earlier than the Scandinavians. But I'm surprised very much about that majority that claim there are no traces of Slavs in Ladoga before the tenth century. AFAIK there were long debates in science as to who first appeared in Ladoga: the Slavs or the Scandinavians. And recently, most scientists really believe that the first were the Scandinavians. But what about presence of the Slavs there were never any disputes. And now it is a fact that the Slavs appeared in Ladoga in a few decades after the Scandinavians, that is still in the 8th century, not 10th as the author claim.

    So it'll be very good of you if you say what references under numbers 20 and 21.

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •