[Preview] The Kievan Rus'

[Heathen Storm]

Found in Old Russian translation of "The Jewish War" by Flavius Josephus from XII c. word бронистьци - (bronist'tsi).

Quote in Old Russian:
"И абие Еуспасианъ погна от Птоломаиды и на Галилѣю, и повелѣ воемъ ходити яко обычай есть римляномъ: стрѣлцемъ и легкооружником напереде, да блюдуть внезапнаго приезда противныхъ и испытають, егда когда будуть съкрыти вои по лѣсомъ; и по них ити бронистьцемь, едина чясть конникъ, а другаа пешець; и по нихъ путедѣлци, идеже тѣсно и люто, сѣкуще и равнающе, да не трудятся лютымъ путемъ; и по нихъ игемонъ товаръ и воеводстий и конници на съблюдение его; и потомъ съ избранными сам конникы и пешци..."

Quote in Russian:
"Веспасиан же сразу двинулся от Птолемаиды на Галилею и приказал воинам выступать, как это заведено у римлян: впереди стрелки и легковооруженные, которые должны вести наблюдение на случай внезапного приближения противника и разведывать, не спрятаны ли отряды по лесам; за ними следуют латники, частью — всадники, частью — пехотинцы; и вслед за ними — путепроходчики, которые рубят лес и разравнивают дорогу в тесных и труднопроходимых местах, чтобы <воины> не уставали от тяжелого пути; за ними — обоз полководца и военачальников и всадники для его охраны; потом сам <полководец> с отборными <частями> конницы и пехоты..."

Old Russian's бронистьци (bronist'tsi) = латники (latniki) in Russian.

Hmmm, interesting... Works for me! This is a good source. +Rep to you sir

[NikeBG]

So what would "spearmen" be in Old Russian?

In the BG preview I think we still use my modern-Bulgarian suggestion - "kopienostsi", which literally means "spear-bearers". However, in the old-Bulgarian/OCS dictionaries I have, it's "kopiiniki" which is "spearmen" (similarly, "swordsmen" are "mechniki", instead of "mechonostsi/sword-bearers").
Edit: While browsing through the Russian dictionary, it reminded me of another form, which is certainly attested atleast in Bulgaria - the "bearer" form is used, but instead of "-nosets/-nostsi", it's "-nosha/-noshi". Thus "spear-bearers" would be "kopienoshi", while "sword-bearers" would be "mechonoshi" (there's a 10th century Bulgarian golden seal-ring with the inscription "mechonosha Tagchi", so "-nosha" is probably older than the "-nosets" which we use today, although there's a Wallachian charter from 1431 which also mentions a certain "Negril mechonosha").

Speaking of OB/OCS dictionaries, there are two that I use, which are best - this is the first one I found (djvu file, OB to Czech/Russian/German/Latin/Greek, click on Свали файла to donwload) and the other one is an old Ukrainian one, which seems nice as well.

Edit2: About the "Latniki" - the Ukrainian dictionary says that Lati (Латьi) is "armour from metal plates" (металлической чешуи). Now, the word used for plate is чешуя (scale), so it doesn't necessarily mean actual plate armour. In Bulgarian archaeological/military-historical literature (and I presume in Russian), plate armours also include lamellar and scale armours, not only the "plate armour" that we usually think of, because the lamellae and scales are effectively plates as well (thus, the Roman lorica segmentata also falls under our "plate armour" category, since it's also made of plates).

[Alejandro Sanchez]

Ukrainian one[/URL], which seems nice as well.

It's not Old Ukrainian , it's церковно-славянский язык (http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Църковнославянски_език, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language) with some words from Old Russian.

P.S. Archers in Old Russian - стрѣлци - streltsi (-tzi)

[Alejandro Sanchez]

Sounds good, if you can find something else let me know

There exists the Old Russian's word копеиници (kopeinitsi) - spearmen, but it usage in chronicle of XV c. about event in 1180. Don't know if it word could be used earlier.

[Heathen Storm]

There exists the Old Russian's word копеиници (kopeinitsi) - spearmen, but it usage in chronicle of XV c. about event in 1180. Don't know if it word could be used earlier.

Alright, I will keep Bronist'tsi then Thanks mate!

[NikeBG]

It's not Old Ukrainian , it's церковно-славянский язык (http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Църковнославянски_език, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language) with some words from Old Russian.

P.S. Archers in Old Russian - стрѣлци - streltsi (-tzi)

From what I see, that dictionary is OCS/CS-Ukrainian, i.e. it's a Ukrainian dictionary for OCS/CS words. Or at least I presume it's Ukrainian, considering it certainly doesn't look like modern Russian (what with the letter "i", different words etc).

[Pavlik the Rus]

Well, after reaing the whole thread i want to post my thoughts.

First of all, i want to praise a great work done by this team. This mod will be the single reason why i'll play M2TW again.
Also, i want to add my suggestions about this discussion and little conflict.

The name of the state as khaganate realy sounds very very wierd to the any russian, ukrainean or belarusian ear.
I think that discussion is hopeless, all side will post links to the mentions of Khagan, Knyaz, or Duke, or Konung and so on. Later it will be knyaz' or velikyi knyaz kievskyi (great prince of Kiev), but in this time period...
This situation origins from our history - we are the mix of different cultures, so each culture can give it's own name to the state, each foreighn embassador can name the rulleron his own manner.
So, i advise to the team to make one simple move - rename faction as Kievan Rus' and that's it. I asure you that everyone will be glad.

As i understand you created faction according to the nordic theory about rus's origin. Noone deny nordic influence, but nordic theory place norse people as main driving forse, the bulk of armyes and rulling mechanisms. I can not agree with this only because i can not belive that scandinavia was so populated to "send" so many persons in huge lands of Russia and other aspects. But i will not opose this. It's your right to choose the exact theory.

[AnthoniusII]

Well, after reaing the whole thread i want to post my thoughts.

First of all, i want to praise a great work done by this team. This mod will be the single reason why i'll play M2TW again.
Also, i want to add my suggestions about this discussion and little conflict.

The name of the state as khaganate realy sounds very very wierd to the any russian, ukrainean or belarusian ear.
I think that discussion is hopeless, all side will post links to the mentions of Khagan, Knyaz, or Duke, or Konung and so on. Later it will be knyaz' or velikyi knyaz kievskyi (great prince of Kiev), but in this time period...
This situation origins from our history - we are the mix of different cultures, so each culture can give it's own name to the state, each foreighn embassador can name the rulleron his own manner.
So, i advise to the team to make one simple move - rename faction as Kievan Rus' and that's it. I asure you that everyone will be glad.

As i understand you created faction according to the nordic theory about rus's origin. Noone deny nordic influence, but nordic theory place norse people as main driving forse, the bulk of armyes and rulling mechanisms. I can not agree with this only because i can not belive that scandinavia was so populated to "send" so many persons in huge lands of Russia and other aspects. But i will not opose this. It's your right to choose the exact theory.

Thank you my friend for your kind words and sugestions.
In game the faction's name IS Kievan Rus so everybody will be happy.
I hope that one day in "hotseat" campaigns we all enjoy epic battles!

[Bagatyr]

Well, after reaing the whole thread i want to post my thoughts.

First of all, i want to praise a great work done by this team. This mod will be the single reason why i'll play M2TW again.
Also, i want to add my suggestions about this discussion and little conflict.

The name of the state as khaganate realy sounds very very wierd to the any russian, ukrainean or belarusian ear.
I think that discussion is hopeless, all side will post links to the mentions of Khagan, Knyaz, or Duke, or Konung and so on. Later it will be knyaz' or velikyi knyaz kievskyi (great prince of Kiev), but in this time period...
This situation origins from our history - we are the mix of different cultures, so each culture can give it's own name to the state, each foreighn embassador can name the rulleron his own manner.
So, i advise to the team to make one simple move - rename faction as Kievan Rus' and that's it. I asure you that everyone will be glad.

As i understand you created faction according to the nordic theory about rus's origin. Noone deny nordic influence, but nordic theory place norse people as main driving forse, the bulk of armyes and rulling mechanisms. I can not agree with this only because i can not belive that scandinavia was so populated to "send" so many persons in huge lands of Russia and other aspects. But i will not opose this. It's your right to choose the exact theory.

This is real objective ancer ! Rep +

[Heathen Storm]

Well, after reaing the whole thread i want to post my thoughts.

First of all, i want to praise a great work done by this team. This mod will be the single reason why i'll play M2TW again.
Also, i want to add my suggestions about this discussion and little conflict.

The name of the state as khaganate realy sounds very very wierd to the any russian, ukrainean or belarusian ear.
I think that discussion is hopeless, all side will post links to the mentions of Khagan, Knyaz, or Duke, or Konung and so on. Later it will be knyaz' or velikyi knyaz kievskyi (great prince of Kiev), but in this time period...
This situation origins from our history - we are the mix of different cultures, so each culture can give it's own name to the state, each foreighn embassador can name the rulleron his own manner.
So, i advise to the team to make one simple move - rename faction as Kievan Rus' and that's it. I asure you that everyone will be glad.

As i understand you created faction according to the nordic theory about rus's origin. Noone deny nordic influence, but nordic theory place norse people as main driving forse, the bulk of armyes and rulling mechanisms. I can not agree with this only because i can not belive that scandinavia was so populated to "send" so many persons in huge lands of Russia and other aspects. But i will not opose this. It's your right to choose the exact theory.

Thank you for your praise and time, my friend
I don't wish to come off as showing the Norse were really the main part of the Rus' army, because I agree that Scandinavia could not have been THAT populated. However, I do believe many historians when they say that the Norse became the landed aristocracy in Russia. Also, there were a large amount of Scandinavians traveling through Russia to go to the lands of the Greeks or the East, especially after the Varangian Guard was created.

[Wareg]

I've found that population of Scandynavia circa 1000 AD was about 1 milion people. I don't know how many Vikings settled in Kievian Rus but I think that It was rather tens of thousands than more. It wasn't much comparing to total population of Kievian Rus-aproximately 3-6 milions.
What more, if we trust that for campaigns in Bulgaria or against Byzantium state could mobilize army of 60 000 warriors It is unlikely that all or even most of them were Scandinavian origin.
We can guess that bulk of druzhina were Slavs, although they were armed and fighting as their Viking companions so they were indistinguishable (as Slavs who served in Varangian Guard).
I also don't believe in purely Scandinavian nobility-presence of 'Velmozhe' unit is really good decision

If you have any estimates of Scandinavian settlement in Rus states please share your knowledge

[Heathen Storm]

I've found that population of Scandynavia circa 1000 AD was about 1 milion people. I don't know how many Vikings settled in Kievian Rus but I think that It was rather tens of thousands than more. It wasn't much comparing to total population of Kievian Rus-aproximately 3-6 milions.
What more, if we trust that for campaigns in Bulgaria or against Byzantium state could mobilize army of 60 000 warriors It is unlikely that all or even most of them were Scandinavian origin.
We can guess that bulk of druzhina were Slavs, although they were armed and fighting as their Viking companions so they were indistinguishable (as Slavs who served in Varangian Guard).
I also don't believe in purely Scandinavian nobility-presence of 'Velmozhe' unit is really good decision

If you have any estimates of Scandinavian settlement in Rus states please share your knowledge

Hmmm I would think that the Scandinavian element was a little higher than that... maybe 10-30% of the indigenous Slavic population. It was awhile before the Rus' began to incorporate Slavs into the ranks of their nobles and if it was only 10,000 (which is about 0.3% of the Slav population) I don't see how the Scandinavians could keep a rule over the population. But other than that, I believe you are very much correct sir

[Wareg]

I've written 'tens of thousands' so I mean from 20 000 and less than 100 000, 10 000 indeed seems to be too small number
Even 10% of lowest estimates is 300 000 and if we compare It with population of Scandinavia It seems very/too high.
Similar estimate (few houndreds of thousands) is for XII century Latin population in Holy Land-however crusaders came from all Europe, including much more populated countries than Scandinavian states.
If 20 000 Avar horsmen dominated Slavic population, I think that Vikings also could.
What more, Slavs/Ugrofinic people easly could dispose of Vikings if they wanted, and they did that but after some years they invited them again.

[Heathen Storm]

I've written 'tens of thousands' so I mean from 20 000 and less than 100 000, 10 000 indeed seems to be too small number
Even 10% of lowest estimates is 300 000 and if we compare It with population of Scandinavia It seems very/too high.
Similar estimate (few houndreds of thousands) is for XII century Latin population in Holy Land-however crusaders came from all Europe, including much more populated countries than Scandinavian states.
If 20 000 Avar horsmen dominated Slavic population, I think that Vikings also could.
What more, Slavs/Ugrofinic people easly could dispose of Vikings if they wanted, and they did that but after some years they invited them again.

All good points sir. I have no arguments.
+rep

[Pope Gregorius I]

Corect there are NO Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic dogmas in that time yet.
Those dogmas will actually start after 1054.
Christianity simply used to mark zones of influence in Europe!

slight correction. the DIFFERENTIATING doctrines on the role of the patriarchs and the papacy were not fully defined by either "side" until after 1054 but as far as the traditional Christian doctrines of the liturgy, holy orders, bishops, Mary, confessions, Trinitarian and Christological doctrines these were all agreed upon by the two sides in the early councils, and were not general debated. Christianity before 1054 would be quite recognizable to modern day Catholics and Eastern Orthodox(except perhaps the Mass for Catholics(Latin, old chant, etc, but EOs would be right at home).

So then how will Kiev become Christian? will an event trigger a cultural change?

[absinthia]

Scandinavia and Norway in particular were in great turmoil at this point.
872 is considered the official date for unification of Norway from petty kingdoms into a somewhat centralized authority, by Harald Luva at the battle of Hafrsfjord. the exact date is debated, but the effect is not. Haralds bid for power saw many disgruntled and disenfranchised people leave the country.
though this were not an organized exodus, but rather a gradual drift as Harald gained momentum. people would leave by the boatload, bringing family, livestock and other goods with them. they would leave in numbers of tens or hundreds and spread over a wide area from Iceland, British isles, Normandy and the Baltic.
the Norse people were as the Germans and Slavs a mainly rural society, most people would be free landowning farmers and part time fighters. the Norse practised primogeniture, which left a mass of landless youths even within a generally low population number. for such young men there would be the options of enlisting in other mans service (huskarl), open new land and settle, or trade. this mass of men would account for the so called Viking age of plunder, pillage and trade.
even though the Vikings became infamous, most of the Scandinavian population would still be rather peaceful farmers. arriving in new areas they would most likely intend to settle down and get on with their lives, not being bent on conquest and destruction. quite the contrary, where the Norse settled they had a tendency to adapt to local customs and society. this is most apparent in the Gaelic parts of British isles, Normandy and Russia.
as for aristocracy there were little to speak of in terms of titles and claims, apart from the ancestral farm.
even though a substantial percent of population might have left Norway and added Scandinavia, there were hardly a coherent force. certainly the existing societies where they settled were not uprooted, but often blossomed due to influx of trade and commerce. i believe the main Norse contribution to the Rus state were the construction or revitalisation of settlements around their places of trade, the beginnings of a centralised government and a militarised state. and that any influence or power held by Norsemen in general would mainly be due to ownership of land and wealth due to trade, rather than force of arms over the Slavic part of population.
while the Rurikid dynasty might be of Norse origin, i do not believe there were any general class divide between Norse and Slav in the Rus state. i suppose that any nobility would be either related to the dynasty or hold enough estate and armed retinue to be a force to be reckoned with, be it Norseman or Slav.

[risdalon]

hi

[Wareg]

There is also theory that Scandynavia was overpopulated and that was one of main factors caused Norsmen migration.
What do you think about that? Warmer clime could induce raise of population but highier population isn't equal to overpopulation. Population increased also in another European countries but there were no/little such significant migration comparing to population of country of origin (in migrations from for ex. France to Holy Land or from HRE to Polish cities took a part tens of thousand but It was still small percent of overall population of countries of origin).
Primogeniture could be a reason but wasn't It a right valid also in most of another European countrie?

[absinthia]

There is also theory that Scandynavia was overpopulated and that was one of main factors caused Norsmen migration.

Primogeniture could be a reason but wasn't It a right valid also in most of another European countrie?

one prominent feature of northern Scandinavia is the big pile of rock surrounded and partially overgrown by forests. so overpopulation in such an area does not imply it is overcrowded, it is simply the lack of arable land. it was probably much the same condition that saw over 500 000 leave Norway for America between 1836-1900.
primogeniture would not in it self be cause for migration, but it help explain the willing manpower behind the Viking raids.
there existed a general armament of the population, due to the development of a defensive levy fleet, the Leidang. though the Leidang institution were not described in writing until the 11th-12th centuries, its origin among Germanic cultures obviously goes back much further. initially this were probably a matter handled at the various Ting for defence of the area, though in medieval era it was being formalized as a tax of goods for benefit of the king.
in Viking era the existence of these fleets and the seamanship that came with it, combined with armed men, caused the oprtunity for raids and long distance trade. which in turn would have caused knowledge of new lands where to settle, peacefully or not.

[Constantius]

Here is a link to an article that might be of interest to anyone viewing this thread
http://shmm.academia.edu/CharlotteHe...Birka_Warriors