"Where did the Russian land come from?" The first "cursed" question of Russian history

V. P. Vereshchagin. Sineus, Truvor, and Rurik

The question posed in the article's title remains highly contentious and debated to this day—literally to the point of foaming at the mouth. The main debates revolve around the origins of Rurik, "summoned" by the Slovenes, Krivichs, Chuds, and Vesya in 862, and the nationality of the Varangians who came with him.

Rurik in an engraving by an unknown artist

The summoning of the Varangians in the miniatures of the Radziwill Chronicle, late 15th century.

And, paradoxically, the study itself stories Ancient Rus' begins with a fact that is questioned by our anti-Normanist "patriots." The chronicle explicitly states that the Varangians were called Rus'. "as others are called Swedes, others Normans, Angles, others Goths, these are the same"And for some reason, many in our country are categorically unhappy with this. The question of Rurik's origins has become a curse of Russian history. Yet everyone silently agreed that Rurik's successor, Oleg the Prophet, was Scandinavian.

B. Chorikov, "The Death of Oleg the Prophet." The protagonist of the Icelandic "Orvard Odda's Saga" ("Odda with the Arrows") dies in exactly the same way.

And subsequently, no ruler was ever criticized for his foreign origins. The Lithuanian Dovmont became the Prince of Pskov, was incredibly popular, and after his death was declared the city's patron saint. This doesn't bother anyone, and no one goes into hysterics about it.

"Holy Blessed Prince Dovmont-Timofey of Pskov," a 17th-century fresco in the Church of St. Nicholas the Wet, Yaroslavl

Having no claim whatsoever to the Russian throne, the German Catherine II usurped it twice: after the assassination of her husband, the legitimate Emperor Peter III, and after her son Paul came of age. Furthermore, following instructions she had drawn up, her jailers killed another legitimate emperor, Ivan Antonovich. No one has yet even considered declaring Catherine II a Slav or even searching for Slavic ancestors among her.

Incidentally, it should be noted that, from a formal point of view, before the death of Ivan Antonovich, the usurpers of the throne were Elizabeth Petrovna and Peter III, and Catherine II, it turns out, was three times illegitimate.

Moreover, foreign origins were often considered honorable. The Gediminids and Genghisids disputed nobility and lineage with the Rurikids, and for centuries it was the latter that "won," since descent from Rurik and Gediminas was considered princely, while descent from Genghis Khan was considered royal. Ivan the Terrible, according to the testimony of Hermann Pispink, a Münster native who visited Moscow in 1566, told him that his family descended from "Bavarian rulers"The Englishman Giles Fletcher wrote about the same thing in his work "On the Russian State," published in 1591. According to him, Ivan IV declared in a conversation with a foreign jeweler:

I am not Russian, my ancestors are Germans.

In one of his letters to the Swedish king Johan III (c. 1571–1572), this king directly calls the Varangians Germans.

The Romanovs claimed that their ancestor was the Prussian prince Andrei Kobyla, who had resettled in Novgorod and who, in turn, was descended from Octavian Augustus. Yet, for some reason, it was Rurik who became the subject of heated debate, striking in its irrationality, which cannot but cause a feeling of bewilderment. The fact is that these debates could be understood and explained if the calling of a prince had been a unique, exceptional, and unparalleled event in the history of Veliky Novgorod. However, the calling of princes (as well as their expulsion) was more than commonplace for Novgorodians. Moreover, the visiting prince had few rights and responsibilities in Novgorod. Firstly, he acted as an impartial arbiter, since it was assumed that an unconnected outsider would, at least initially, judge fairly.

The second "position" of the Novgorod prince was "minister of defense," who was to lead his retinue and the city's warriors wherever the city's true rulers commanded him. This was a council of the most influential merchants and boyars, headed by the local archbishop, whom foreigners called the "Senior" of Novgorod. This is why Oleg the Prophet later moved the capital to Kyiv—here, he and his successors were no longer mercenaries, but sovereign rulers, enjoying the privilege of first-priority nominations for their sons as princes in strategically important Novgorod. However, even in 1102, the Novgorodians could afford to send the Kyiv prince Svyatopolk Yaroslavich "to the well-known address," declaring to him:

If your son has two heads, then send him to us.

After which they took away and carried away with them their beloved Mstislav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh.

Yet, not a single "Normanist" claims that nothing worthy of note occurred in Slavic history before 852 AD (the year the "Tale of Bygone Years" begins). That is, both sides agree on the main point and argue over a secondary circumstance, which makes these disputes even more astonishing and irrational.

The Tale of Bygone Years

Let's say a few words about the source whose information has sparked so much controversy. Some anti-Normanists would likely be eager to burn it at the stake, but they cannot, since, for lack of a better alternative, the "Tale of Bygone Years" is currently the most comprehensive source on the early history of the Russian state. It has currently been suggested that the "Tale..." was completed around 1113 and is a pan-Russian chronicle compilation, compiled from at least four lost chronicles from 1037–1093 (three from Kyiv and one from Novgorod). Before the "weather" (from the word "year") entries is a historical and geographical summary, likely written by the author himself, but partially revised by later editors of the chronicle.

There is reason to believe that, in addition to Russian chronicles, the author of The Tale of Bygone Years used two Byzantine sources: the chronicle of G. Amartala from the 9th century (with a continuation until the mid-10th century) and the "Soon Chronicler" of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus (9th century with a continuation until the mid-10th century). K. P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin even called The Tale of Bygone Years "an archive in which traces of works of our original literature that have perished for us are preserved".

Unfortunately, most of the datings in the "Tale..." are arbitrary. The most striking and glaring example is the seemingly incredible age difference between Rurik's son Igor and his wife Olga. Even Olga's age is far from clear: Tatishchev claims she was baptized at 68, while B. A. Rybakov insists she was between 28 and 32 at the time.

It is currently believed that before the mid-10th century, the Tale of Bygone Years contains only two dates that can be considered absolutely reliable: the autumn of 911, when Oleg signed a treaty with Byzantium (though the Byzantines themselves were unaware of this treaty), and 944, when Igor signed a treaty with the Empire. The significant discrepancies in the dates are most likely explained by the fact that the 12th-century author himself did not know the exact dates: absolute chronology appeared in Russian chronicles no earlier than the second half of the 11th century, and before that, a new count of years began with each new reign. The recalculations made by later chroniclers are not always accurate. It is for this reason that the author of the Tale of Bygone Years constantly cites Greek sources, for example, here is what the entry for 852 says:

Michael began his reign (in Byzantium), and the Russian land began to be called Russian. We know this because under this Tsar, Rus' came to Constantinople, as recorded in Greek chronicles.

Minor inaccuracies may be due to the fact that dates in Byzantine sources are given according to the September calendar, not the Old Russian March calendar. Therefore, for example, the chronology of the reigns of the Kievan princes from Oleg to Yaroslav states that Igor Rurikovich began his reign in 912, while a subsequent chronicle states it began in 913 (this date is currently considered more reliable). According to Polycarp's testimony from the Kievo-Pechersk Patericon (first half of the 1th century), the author of the "Tale of Bygone Years" is a certain chronicler named Nestor, known to specialists from two hagiographic works—"The Reading on the Life and Death of Boris and Gleb" and "The Life of Theodosius of the Caves."

This is how V. M. Vasnetsov “saw” the chronicler Nestor

However, there are a number of contradictions between the texts of the Tale of Bygone Years and the aforementioned sources. For example, identical stories about the Caves monk Damian and the death of Theodosius are presented differently in both, casting doubt on the possibility that these works were written by the same person. The question remains unresolved to this day.

The author of The Tale of Bygone Years dates the emergence of the first Slavs to Old Testament times, specifically to the events that occurred after the Tower of Babel:

From these same seventy-two languages ​​came the Slavic people, from the tribe of Japheth.

(This refers to the son of Noah, the mythological ancestor of the European tribes).

Such a bold interpretation of this issue, of course, cannot satisfy modern researchers. It is currently assumed that the Slavs emerged as a distinct ethnic group around the middle of the first millennium BC. According to the most widespread hypothesis, the Slavs (Venedi) arrived in the Dnieper region at the turn of the new era. There, they interbred with the local Iranian-speaking population, forming a new community known as the "Antes." It is believed that this word is of Iranian origin and means "edge" or "end," meaning the Antes are "outskirts dwellers."

It is curious that the information in the Tale of Bygone Years about the disunity of the northern and eastern Slavic tribes and their wealth ("Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it.") are confirmed by the Spanish merchant of Jewish origin Ibrahim ibn Ya'qub al-Isra'ili at-Turtushi, who visited the Czech Republic, Hungary, and possibly Poland in the 960s–980s. Based on accounts from Czechs and Hungarians, he reports:

In general, the Slavs are a courageous and resolute people, and if they weren't disunited by the numerous branches of their tribes and the dispersal of their tribes, no nation in the world would be able to match their strength. Their country boasts the richest dwellings and provisions. They are diligent in agriculture and in obtaining their own food, surpassing all the northern peoples in this regard... And their goods reach the Rus' and Constantinople by sea and land. The most important northern tribes speak Slavic, having interbred with them.

Please note: this author also distinguishes between the Rus and the Slavs.

Foreign sources

But information on the early history of Ancient Rus' can also be found in the sources of other peoples. For example, a legend recorded in Armenia claims that Kyiv was founded in the 7th century by three tribal leaders, three brothers, the eldest of whom was Prince Kiy. But the first serious written evidence about the Slavs comes from the works of Greek historians. For example, Herodotus, in the 5th century BC, reports that amber was brought from the Eridanus River by the Enets (Wends). In the 4th century BC, Scylachus mentions the Wends in his works. Much more detailed information about the Slavs is contained in the works of Roman authors, who distinguished between Germania and Sarmatia in the "barbarian world." The Germans lived west of the Vistula, the Sarmatians lived east of this river, and somewhere between the Germans and Sarmatians lay the lands of the Slavs. The first Roman to write about them was Gaius Pliny the Elder (1st century AD):

The Wends live near the Vistula, next to the Sarmatians and Scythians.

The Peutingerian Tablets, a road map compiled at the very beginning of the new era under Emperor Augustus, twice mention the Wends, a tribe neighboring the Bastarnae, who inhabited the Carpathians, as well as the Ites and Dacians. The renowned historian Tacitus, describing the borderlands of Suevi (Germany), found it difficult to say whether the Wends were closer to the Germanic or the Sarmatian tribes:

The Wends have adopted much from the Sarmatians... However, they are more likely to be classified as Germans, because they build houses, carry shields, and travel on foot, and with great speed; all this distinguishes them from the Sarmatians, who spend their entire lives in a cart and on horseback.

("Germany").

However, Tatishchev and Lomonosov considered the word "Rus" to be Sarmatian. Why nomads who vanished without a trace into the mists of time seemed to these respected scholars the most suitable candidates for the ancestors of the Eastern Slavs is completely unclear. It's worth noting that at the beginning of the 20th century, the renowned poet Alexander Blok went even further (from the 3rd to the 4th–8th centuries BC), declaring the Russians "Scythians with slanted and greedy eyes"Neither he himself, nor his friends and acquaintances, nor the vast majority of readers had "slanted eyes," but such a "trifle" did not bother anyone; everyone unanimously agreed to consider themselves Scythians.

Rus' and Slavs of Eastern sources

Information about the Slavs and Prussians can also be found in the works of Arab, Persian, and Khazar authors. It turns out, for example, that the word "Varangians" was known to Abu al-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni (973–1048), who wrote:

In the north of the Slavic lands, a large bay extends from the Ocean near the land of the Muslim Bulgars. This bay is known as the Varangian Sea; the Varangians are the people who live on its shores.

The author of the Persian-language geographical treatise "Hudud al-Alem" ("The Limits of the World," 982–983), for example, asserts that the Rus' and Slavs are distinct peoples. He also reports that some residents of the first city in the eastern part of the Slavic land resemble Rus'.

The 10th-century Persian scholar Abu Ali Ahmad ibn Omar ibn Rusta also wrote about the differences between the Rus and the Slavs:

The city of Cuiaba (Kyiv) is located on the border of the Slavic lands... The route to their land runs through trackless lands, through streams and dense forests. The Slavic land is flat and wooded, and they live in the forests... The Rus' live on an island among the lakes. This island... occupies a space of three days' journey. It is covered with forests and swamps... They raid the Slavs: they approach them in boats, land and take them captive, take them to Bulgaria and Khazaria and sell them there. They have no arable land, and they subsist on what they bring from the Slavic lands... Their only trade is the fur trade. They dress slovenly, their men wear gold bracelets. They treat their slaves well. They have many cities and live in open spaces. They are a tall, handsome, and courageous people, but they do not display this courage on horseback—all their raids and campaigns are carried out by ship.

Al-Marwazi also writes that the Rus' prefer to travel and fight on ships:

If they had horses and were riders, they would have been a terrible scourge of humanity.

Abu Ali Bal'amii (a 10th-century scholar and statesman of the Samanid state) reports that the ruler of Derbent, Shahriyar, stated during negotiations with the Arabs:

I find myself between two enemies: one is the Khazars, the other is the Rus, who are enemies of the whole world, especially the Arabs, and no one knows how to fight them except the people here.

There is evidence that in 737, Arab forces led by Caliph Marwan ibn Muhammad defeated the Khazars, after which the Khagan fled across the Slavic River (Don). The Arabs pursuing him then captured 20 Slavic families.

Khazar king Joseph in the middle of the tenth century. He wrote to his Spanish correspondent Hasdai ibn Shafrut:

I live at the entrance to the river and do not allow the Rus' arriving by ship to penetrate them (the Ishmaelites)... I wage a stubborn war against them. If I left them alone, they would destroy the entire Ishmaelite country up to Baghdad.

Arab authors also mention both the Rus' and the Slavs (Saqaliba), as well as the city of Cuiabá, and report on the differences between these peoples. The 10th-century historian, poet, and philosopher Ibn Miskawayh writes of the Rus':

These people are powerful, their physiques are large, their courage is great, and they know no flight. Until then, they could not be killed until they had killed several times their number of opponents.

In the 2th century, Ibrahim al-Istakhri wrote a major work on geography, which asserted that the land of the Rus' contained large cities: Kuiaba (which was larger than Bulgar), Slavia, and Arta, which was closed to all foreigners. This author reported that it took about two months to travel through Slavic land, and the Rus' were called a people living "on the side of the Bulgars, between them and the Slavs".

Around 951, the merchant Abu al-Qasim ibn Hawqal al-Nisibi met with al-Istakhri, who asked him to read his work and correct its errors. As a result, al-Nisibi himself wrote the Book of Ways and Countries (Kitab Surat al-ard), in which he reports:

The Byzantine Empire includes the territory of the Slavs and neighboring peoples from among the Rus, the kingdom of Sarir, the Alans, the Armenians and others who profess Christianity... The Rus are a barbarian people living in the region of the Bulgars, between them and the Slavs along the Itil River.

Here is what Abu al-Hasan al-Mas'udi, a 10th-century author who is called the "Arab Herodotus," writes:

As for those who live in the land of the Khazars from among the idolaters, their species are Slavs and Rus.

In 922, Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, an envoy of the Caliph of Baghdad, visited Volga Bulgaria. Along the way, he encountered the Rus' on the Volga and left a fairly detailed description of them.

G. Semiradsky's painting "The Funeral of a Noble Rus'," based on Ibn Fadlan's notes, was confirmed by the discovery of a burial site containing the charred remains of a boat, a complete set, on the territory of the Timarevsky archaeological complex. weapons Norman type, with women's jewelry, the remains of two horses in full harness and two bulls

Professor of Kazan University, founder of the Asian Museum of the Russian Academy of Sciences, honorary member of 20 academies Christian Danilovich Frenn (1782–1851) wrote:

In all the descriptions of the Rus on the Volga, which Ibn Fadlan gives us... we meet the Normans as they are depicted by the French and English of the same time... the Arabs from the East seem to be giving a hand to these writers.

Incidentally, the popular science film "Ibn Fadlan," based on the traveler's "Travel Notes," premiered on March 2, 2023. It went virtually unnoticed by the Russian public.

Here is what the anonymous author of the “Collection of Stories” (Mujmal at-Tawarikh) writes about the relationship between the Slavs and the Rus:

A Slav came to Rus to settle there. Rus replied that the place was cramped.

This means that the Slavs and Rus lived on the same territory and argued over it.

G. V. Vernadsky put forward the thesis about "beneficial" the influence of the Khazars and other nomads on the Eastern Slavs and "pernicious" Western influence, and he considered the word "Rus" to be Alanic (ruxs). Since the Southern Slavs were dependent on the Khazar Khaganate, and the Khazar ruling elite professed Judaism, some researchers began to derive the word "Rus" from the biblical "rosh," meaning "head," and declared the mythical Khazar commander Kiya to be the founder of Kiev. Some "Eurasianists" also decided that the name Kyiv came from the Iranian root "Kav," meaning "sacred," and saw the three founding brothers as representing the three estates of Indo-Aryan society: priests, warriors, and shepherds. We will examine other versions of the meaning of the word "Rus" a little later, but for now, let's return to early sources and attempt to determine the "age" of the name "Slovenes."

"Slovenes" and "Sklavins"

The first to mention the Slovenes was the Alexandrian astronomer, mathematician, and geographer Ptolemy, who lived from 100 to 175 AD. However, the name then disappeared from historical writings for nearly 400 years, until Procopius of Caesarea, in his sixth-century work "The War with the Goths," used the similar term "Sclaveni." This author reports that in 548–549, the Antes and Sclaveni crossed the Danube and invaded the Byzantine Empire just as it was waging a brutal war against the army of the Gothic general Totila:

Many suspected that Totila, having bribed these barbarians with large sums, directed them against the Romans.

In 550–551, according to the same author, the Slavs approached Constantinople, and at the end of the 6th century they even made several attempts to capture the capital of the Empire.

The Ostrogothic scholar Jordanes (mid-6th century AD) reports in his work Getica that the Wends:

Nowadays they are known by three names: Wends, Antes and Slavs... the Slavs live from the city of Novietun (Neviodun on the banks of the Sava) and the lake called Mursian (Balaton) to Danastr (Dniester), and to the north - to the Vistula (Vistula)... The Antes are spread from Danastr to Danapr (Dnieper).

He also describes the war between the Wends and the Goths, which resulted in the Wends of the northern Black Sea region being subjugated by the Ostrogothic king Hermanaric. However, subsequently, taking advantage of the defeat of the Gothic empire by the Huns, the Antes established their own military and political entity. In the late 4th and early 5th centuries, the Goth king Amal Vinitharius led an army against the Antes. The Goths were defeated in the first battle, but subsequently managed to achieve a series of victories. At the end of the war, Vinitharius executed the Antean king Boz, his sons, and 70 nobles.

Later, the Antes clashed with the Avars, who from 588 to 627 were constantly victorious and, according to Russian chronicles, "tormented the Dulebs".

The Avars were far from the first nomads to settle the Northern Black Sea region. From the 8th to 3rd centuries BC, the Scythians dominated the Black Sea steppes, but were destroyed by the Sarmatians. From the 3rd century BC to the 4th century AD, or more precisely until 370, the Sarmatians controlled the steppes east of the Don, while the Goths controlled the right bank of the Dnieper. In 371, the Huns crossed the Don and in 376 drove some of the Goths beyond the Danube, and around 420 occupied Pannonia (which both Russian chronicles and the Greater Poland Chronicle call the ancestral home of the Slavs).

In 454, the Huns were defeated by the Gepids, in 463 by the Bulgars, and in 469 by the Byzantines, after which dominion over the Black Sea steppes passed to the nomadic Bulgars (the modern Bulgarian nation arose from the synthesis of seven different Slavic tribes with the Turkic Bulgars who settled among them). The eastern Bulgars (the Uturgurs, who roamed the Kuban basin) and the western Bulgars (the Kuturgurs, who lived between the Don and Danube) feuded with each other. As a result, the Kuturgurs were subjugated by the Avars, and the Uturgurs were subjugated by the Turkuts.

In the next article, we'll continue our story. We'll discuss the final stage of the Great Migration of Peoples (the "dispersal of the Slavs"), the first Slavic state of Samo, the Rus' of Byzantine and European chronicles, modern versions of the origin of the word "Rus'," and a modern perspective on the Norman question.

Comments

[Revolver]

the true rulers of the city. This was a council of the most influential merchants and boyars, headed by the local archbishop, whom foreigners called the "Senior" of Novgorod.

From Rurik to baptism of Rus' There was only nothing left, just 3 generations of princes (Igor, Svyatoslav, Vladimir).

[Civil]

The author actually gave the example of Ibn Fedlan. Author +

[Rodez]

Quote: Civil

cited the example of Ibn Fedlan. Author +

I agree !
Ibn Fadlan's memoirs are practically the only surviving written testimony of an eyewitness (and not a presentation of something heard and/or read "somewhere") from those times (the beginning of the 10th century) and from those places

[Marrr]

Ibn Fadlan's memoirs are practically the only surviving written eyewitness account

An eyewitness to what exactly?
Rurik's call to reign?

[Rodez]

Quote: Marrr

An eyewitness to what exactly?

the most real "simple living Rus" of the early 10th century, and not just anywhere, but in the "Rus land," and with their own eyes
P.S. The value of his testimony is that for everyone else they (the Russians) were like "a gopher - have you seen it?.. no... but it's there" :)

[Marrr]

In what other Russian land, what are you talking about?
He was in Bulgaria and saw some Rus who arrived there for trade, and he described them.
Moreover, his description was not in the original, but in a list.

[Rodez]

Quote: Marrr

In what other Russian land, what are you talking about?
He was in Bulgaria

Okay, let's put it this way - which Bulgaria do you mean?..

[Marrr]

I have the one that is Volzhskaya

[Machito]

Quote: Marrr

Ibn Fadlan's memoirs are practically the only surviving written eyewitness account

An eyewitness to what exactly?
Rurik's call to reign?

The origin and nationality of Rurik is not important.
It is important that Novgorodians from Veliky Novgorod (not far from St. Petersburg) sailed to Kyiv and subjugated the Kyivans.

[know]

And he was subjugated more than once! Vladimir Svyatoslavich later. Yaroslav the Wise.

[Marrr]

Novgorodians from Veliky Novgorod (not far from St. Petersburg) sailed to Kyiv and subjugated the Kyivans.

There is every reason to believe that this did not happen.
Read D.I. Ilovaisky's collection History of Rus'

[Konnick]

Quote: Marrr

Read D.I. Ilovaisky's collection History of Rus'

So he, Ilovaisky, considered the Scythians to be Slavs... quite an authority

[Marrr]

Before drawing conclusions about a historian's competence, it would be a good idea to first familiarize yourself with his works.
Well, and to have competence in the historical issue being covered

[Roman Efremov]

They didn't subjugate the Kyivans, who didn't even think of resisting. Although they buried their Askold and Dir with great respect, they understood that the true master had arrived, to whom Kyiv rightfully belonged. For Rurik was no "Norman" at all, but one of their own, a Slav from the Baltic shores, related to the dynasty that ruled Kyiv.

[Proxima]

I don’t understand at all why this topic is so painful for our history? We need to answer one question first. Why did all the unions of Slavic tribes that existed before Rurik inevitably disintegrate? The answer is clear: the head of the union represented the interests (consciously or unconsciously) of his tribe, not all Slavs. An "effective manager" was needed from the outside, one who wouldn't hog the throne for just one tribe. So much for Rurik—"come and rule us." The English, for example, aren't at all concerned with the origins of their statehood and nation. Well, "the Vikings conquered them" (Battle of Hastings). Incidentally, the "visiting Viking," William the Conqueror, had a better claim to the English throne than the king he defeated. In a word, it's much more complicated, but at the same time, it's much simpler. After all, in the early Middle Ages, the concepts of "nation" and "national state" practically didn't exist.

[Civil]

Quote: Proxima

For example, the English are not at all concerned with the origins of their statehood and nation.

Because there were no "nationalities" back then. There were gentlemen with their armed formations, and peasants who didn't care who paid their taxes to, and whose nationality was of no concern to anyone.
Nobody still asks the serfs about their nationality.

[Dead Frost]

That's right, they don't ask, they just give you Russian citizenship and all the rights...

[3x3zsave]

By the way, the "visiting Viking" William the Conqueror had more rights to the English throne than the king he defeated.
Just because, unlike Godvinsson, he managed to secure the support of the church?

[Proxima]

Quote: 3x3zsave

By the way, the "visiting Viking" William the Conqueror had more rights to the English throne than the king he defeated.
Just because, unlike Godvinsson, he managed to secure the support of the church?

I won't argue with you about who is more legitimate, Godwinsson or William. I do know that the former king left no heirs, and Godwinsson was chosen, practically as an ataman, by the Cossack circle. This upset the dynastic foundations of Europe at the time. The Pope, naturally, wasn't thrilled. And William, after all, was the deceased king's second cousin. So he took action. And so, out of dynastic strife, the English nation was formed. It's certainly interesting...

[3x3zsave]

And William, after all, was the deceased king’s second cousin.
Cousins.

[Konnick]

Quote: 3x3zsave

By the way, the "visiting Viking" William the Conqueror had more rights to the English throne than the king he defeated.
Just because, unlike Godvinsson, he managed to secure the support of the church?

Everything is mixed up in the Oblonskys' house ...
That King Harold II was married to the daughter of a Viking, the previous one was also practically a Danish prince, and before that, there were Vikings who grazed and dined with Yaroslav the Wise after fleeing England. And Harold II's daughter and granddaughter of a Danish Viking married Yaroslav the Wise's grandson, Prince Vladimir Monomakh, and gave birth to the future Prince of Moscow, Yuri Dolgoruky. William was perhaps inspired to campaign in England by Anna Yaroslavna, the wife of the French king, out of revenge for his sister Agafya, the wife of the deposed Edward the Exile, whom Yaroslav had once sheltered along with another claimant to the throne. This claimant, the Viking Harold, who became King of Norway, was "incited" by his beloved wife, Elizabeth Yaroslavna, and a month before the Norman William, attempted to seize the English throne from Harold. One can't help but wonder about the role Yaroslav the Wise played through his daughters in the formation of the English state. Legend has it that in her old age, Anna Yaroslavna longed to return to her homeland, and William built her a ship...

[Proxima]

Quote: Konnick

Here one can't help but think about the role of Yaroslav the Wise through his daughters in the formation of the English state.

Wow!! What a post! What a wilderness! I would never have gotten around to this series called "Dynastic Foundations and Intrigues of the Middle Ages" on my own. Thank you very much.

[Marrr]

Why did all the unions of Slavic tribes that existed before Rurik inevitably disintegrate?

And why did you make such a global historical conclusion?
Did you use the stars to tell fortunes?

[Proxima]

Quote: Marrr

Why did all the unions of Slavic tribes that existed before Rurik inevitably disintegrate?

And why did you make such a global historical conclusion?
Did you use the stars to tell fortunes?

It's immediately obvious you're hearing about this topic for the first time. This is a problem with your ignorance. But you've chosen the tactics of a cheap troll, resorting to subtle insults. I'll answer you this way: there were many tribal unions before Rurik, as well as many sources on this topic. Start with Klyuchevsky. And this is not my conclusion (based on the stars), but his. I simply agree.

[Marrr]

Start with Klyuchevsky.

Why didn't you recommend Solovyov?
About 20 years ago, I was fascinated by the question of Russian history and read several works by historians studying this subject.
Among them, I consider D.I. Ilovaisky to be the most worthy, and I adhere to his position.
Regarding your conclusion:

all the unions of Slavic tribes that existed before Rurik inevitably disintegrated

naive because history has preserved extremely scant information about the tribal unions of the "pre-Yurik" era, the truth of which cannot even be assessed, let alone verified.
Therefore, making such categorical conclusions is simply absurd - it’s fantasy.

[Proxima]

Quote: Marrr

Therefore, making such categorical conclusions is simply absurd - it’s fantasy.

This isn't fantasy. It's just common human logic. Then let's start from the opposite. If Rurik wasn't summoned, that means a handful of Vikings conquered vast territories from Novgorod to Kyiv! This is highly problematic by 21st-century standards, and in the 9th century... Now, forgive me, this is pure nonsense! If you've looked into tribal unions before Rurik, you'll notice that they formed very quickly in the face of external threats. An alliance of just a few tribes, and nothing would have remained of the Varangians.

[Marrr]

If Rurik was not called upon, this means that a handful of Vikings conquered vast territories from Novgorod to Kyiv!

Why the hell do you think that? Were you an eyewitness to these events?
And it seems you are confusing the Vikings with the Varangians - it happens

This, forgive me, is real nonsense!

It is absurd when a person begins to discuss the events of the 9th century without having precise historical information about how these events unfolded.

If you were interested in the topic of tribal unions before Rurik, you would have noticed,

I was interested and noticed the complete lack of accurate historical information about these unions.
For it is ridiculous to seek precise information about the history of tribes that did not have a written language.

But from the fact that these tribes did not disappear into the mists of history and in the territory of their residence large settlements arose, which later developed into cities, I can hypothesize that many tribes formed successful alliances for the purpose of joint activities and communal living. This ultimately led to the emergence of large settlements.
This is how my logic works.
And this phenomenon occurred not only in the territory of Rus', but throughout Europe.

[Korsar4]

To want to argue, you need to touch a sore spot.

Kostomarov and Pogodin had something to argue about.

And now.
Failure to make a definitive diagnosis.

The majority has made up their minds about their point of view, those who care.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Valery (the author), unlike his earlier works on this topic, showed greater restraint and care in placing emphasis. Sincerely thank you!
A few (not even comments, but clarifications.
From the work of the Author.

However, the calling of princes (as well as their expulsion) was more than a common thing for the Novgorodians.

At the time of Rurik's summoning, Novgorod as such didn't exist. What "summoned" him was more likely a diverse alliance of tribes. Moreover, the Slavs were the first to join it (according to the Tale). The notorious Chud, in its various variations, including the Zavolochnaya (translated as "the 'Zavolochnaya'"), are the first to arrive.
And this is only one question of our history.
Have a nice day, everyone!!!

[Korsar4]

So we don't put dates, but simply put our ear to the ground, as if it were not the first generation:

Chud nachudila, but Merya intended
Causeways, roads and milestones...

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

At the time of Rurik's summoning, Novgorod as such did not exist. What "summoned" him was more likely a heterogeneous alliance of tribes.

So who built the bridge across the Volkhov around that time? The river is still quite large today, but back then it was wider and deeper. The foundations of the bridge's supports have been found, and dating has been done in reputable laboratories. You'd be hard-pressed to miss this fact.

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

Moreover, the Slavs were the first to do so (if you believe the Tale...).

If we believe The Tale of Igor's Campaign, it's exactly the opposite. Kyiv is a Russian city, and Igor only has a regiment, not the entire Russian army (host, army, etc.).
One can also analyze the geography of the cities of Chernigov and Kyiv, which leads to strange conclusions. These conclusions suggest that Chernigov (located on the northern bank of the Desna) was built as a fortress to protect Russian lands from raids from the south, and not vice versa. If the Slavs were the first and arrived from the south, southeast, or southwest, the city would have been located on the southern bank of the Desna. Now about Kyiv, whose location also cannot be explained by Slavic origins, only by Russian, or Rus'. Kyiv is located south of the mouth of the Desna, with its outskirts literally adjoining it today. This is most likely no coincidence. The Kyiv boys studiously ignore this historically strange fact, in their view. It would seem that there was no point in founding a city so close to the mouth of the Desna and Pripyat, if the wild Rus', or today Belarusians, could descend on the Pripyat, Dnieper, or Desna in their barbarian boats and burn the city down at any moment. Nevertheless, the city stands completely undefended from the north. This means that Kyiv and its residents did not fear raids from the north, and most likely today's Kyiv arose on a secondary site or was relocated from the northwestern bank of the Desna River mouth and the eastern bank of the Dnieper. Somewhere there, a fortification was likely founded and existed to protect the mouths of the Desna and Pripyat Rivers, as well as the upper Dnieper, from raids from the south. The defensive location is ideal, but for transporting goods arriving by land caravans, the double transshipment of goods—from the fortress to a ship, ferry, and then to the southern bank of the Desna or Dnieper, or the western bank of the Dnieper for further transport to the east, south, or west—was quite expensive. Accordingly, a convenient transshipment point arose on the site of modern Kyiv, on the eastern and western banks of the Dnieper, not far from the fortification at the mouth of the Desna. Thus, in case of raids from the south, they could take refuge in a fortification or fortress protected by the Desna and Dnieper rivers. It's difficult to find other reasonable explanations for Kyiv's location. Naturally, when the Kiev settlement grew, became strong, and became a city, the fortification at the mouth of the Desna was conveniently forgotten, and the Kievan boys wouldn't have been inclined to mention it anyway. It turns out that it arose as a city of the Novgorod Principality, somewhat later than Novgorod. Due to its location, Kyiv is still unprotected from the north, from Chernigov. If Russian troops were to advance from the north, through the Chernigov region to the south, they would reach practically the outskirts of Kyiv, remaining behind water barriers. The Kievan Principality never built fortresses to protect it from the north.

[Kuziming]

The story of Rurik is a typical example of an unscientific approach to the problem:
1. The original sources of the legend appeared during the time of Catherine, Musin-Pushkin, and are most likely a falsification.
Especially the list of all the Kyiv princes found by Karamzin.
2. The legend of Rurik's calling doesn't make sense even when analyzed. Some tribes supposedly "agreed." How so? Did they already have mechanisms for electoral voting? Or did they already have leaders? Did they "call" him based on a collective decision? How was this collective decision formalized?
"Our land is vast." Whose "our" is that? So, was there already a unified state, or a unified people? Then the time of the state's creation is moved back to "Rurik"?
The "far-fetched" Bible "explains everything." The pre-Rurik era is legendary for another tale, popular in the 18th century, about the origin of peoples from Adam.
One unscientific fairy tale is based on another.

The name Rurik wasn't popular at all, not even close. It's an 18th-century remake.
3. The dogma that “the Slavs have no ancient ancestors.”
Or modern tales about ancient Aryans

Summarizing:
An attempt to invent European history in the 18th century, a modern remake from the time of Catherine.

[paul3390]

According to Tatishchev, although the source is disputed, everything was much more logical. After the death of the Novgorod prince Gostomysl, there were no male heirs left. The people gathered and began to decide where to choose a prince. They didn't want to choose one of their own for obvious reasons—lest he drag the blanket over his relatives. Rurik, after all, was the son of Gostomysl's middle daughter, who had been given in marriage to an Obodrite prince. This made him suitable: he had the right to reign, and he was a Slav, meaning he knew the language and customs. On the other hand, he had his own faction in Novgorod and no family, meaning he would judge without bias. Again, he would come with a retinue sufficient to repel enemies, but clearly not enough to force the locals to submit to him. An ideal option! Note that the eldest and youngest daughters were not suitable, apparently either having no sons or not married to Slavs.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

After the death of the Novgorod prince Gostomysl

Hi Pavel, it's probably not a prince, but rather an elder. The head of a clan (tribe). And it's doubtful it was Novgorodian. It's probably more likely the Ilmen Slavs, who weren't exactly the Volkhov's saviors.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

Hi Pavel, it's probably not a prince, but a chieftain. The head of a clan (tribe).

Who knows? After all, the leader of the Drevlyans, a man named Mal, who tried to woo Olga after Igor's death, was eventually named prince, not elder. And he lived in his own Iskorosten, which must have been well fortified, since Olga used some unusual method to capture this settlement. Although the Varangians, like the Normans, were quite adept at traditional methods of taking cities.

[Illanatol]

Why not? The Slavic tribes may well have had their own rulers. According to the official version, Novgorod, which already existed, was indeed temporarily captured by the Scandinavians. Novgorod, originally an agrarian settlement, began to transform into a transport hub, receiving foreign goods from Kyiv. And Kiev received goods from Central Asia via Khazaria. Essentially, Kyiv was a branch of the Great Silk Road. Kyiv, like Khazaria, was a transit state. Wanting to maximize profits, the Kiev elite decided to sell some of these exotic goods through Novgorod to Northern European countries. The local Slavic tribes would have had their share of the profits. But the new business attracted Norse raiders, which is why they attacked Novgorod. The Scandinavians were eventually driven out, but the Slavic elders decided to invite "Rurik" and his retinue to protect Novgorod's businesses. Of course, a contract was drawn up with him, that very "order," most likely in writing. This contract quite clearly outlined the limits of Rurik's authority. He was likely even forbidden from permanently residing in Novgorod. It's unlikely that any Scandinavian earl would have agreed to such strict restrictions. However, Rurik wasn't very happy about this either, so after a few years he left for Kyiv. Moreover, his main business was in Kyiv, with Novgorod merely a subsidiary.
The conditions of the "order" would be fulfilled by princes for several generations to come. It was Prince Vsevolod, Alexander Nevsky's grandfather, who finally put an end to the "order." However, only in part of Rus', in Vladimir and Suzdal. It was there that a new type of government, albeit still in its infancy, would emerge, later called autocracy.
Rurik brought nothing new; he played by local rules. And yes, Rurik is most likely not a name, but a designation of his place of origin (like Muscovite or Ryazanets). Rurik (Rerik) was born in the city of Rerik, which is why he was called by that name. His real name is unknown.

And even the idea that all the princes descended from Rurik is unprovable. After Rurik, Oleg, the prophetic one, became prince. But the exact family ties between Rurik and Oleg are unknown; perhaps there were none at all.

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: Illanatol

According to the official version, Novgorod, which already existed, was indeed temporarily captured by the Scandinavians.

The novel "Tales of Ancient Years" by Valentin Ivanov

[Illanatol]

"In the year 6367 (859). The Varangians from overseas collected tribute from the Chud and the Slavs, and the Meria, and all the Krivichi, and the Khazars took a silver coin and a squirrel from the smoke. In the year 6368 (860). In the year 6369 (861). In the year 6370 (862). They drove the Varangians overseas and did not give them tribute, and began to rule over themselves. And there was no justice among them, and clan rose against clan, and they had strife and began to fight among themselves. And they said to themselves: "Let us seek a prince who would rule over us and judge us by law." And they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus.

https://expositions.nlr.ru/LaurentianCodex/_Project/page_Show.php?list=19&n=13

Actually, this is the so-called Laurentian Chronicle, 1377. Valentin Ivanov didn't pull this information out of thin air.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

The Slavic tribes could well have had their own rulers.

For example, the Byzantines called Igor and Oleg archons, and Olga archontess.
Vladimir is referred to as Kagan in a number of sources. This is a rather controversial topic.

[Illanatol]

They also called his father Svyatoslav Khagan (Khan). So what? They simply designated the ruler, as was customary.
Characters in the Iliad were sometimes called "kings." What kind of kings could there have been in Hellas at that time? The Greeks didn't even know such a word. Basically, it's a matter of translation and nothing more.

Tribes began to have their own rulers as early as the Neolithic, perhaps even the Mesolithic. Primitive tribes in the Amazon rainforest, for example, also had and still have their own "authorities"...
Even if some animals have alpha males, where would we, bald two-legged monkeys, be without them?

[Marrr]

An attempt to invent European history in the 18th century, a modern remake from the time of Catherine.

More precisely, an attempt to invent Russian history with the Ruriks and other fairy-tale characters

[Vol Dimir]

Exactly. The same thing is happening in Ukraine now: a Ukraine-centric history is being created from myths and fabricated facts. And not just in Ukraine, but in the other former Soviet republics as well. Things are more difficult for them than they were in the days of Ivan the Terrible, but that doesn't stop them.

ps
In fact, all of world history is Eurocentric. Europe won by colonizing the entire world and imposed its version of history on the entire world, just as it now imposes "European values."

[Marine engineer]

"as others are called Swedes, others Normans, Angles, others Goths, these are the same"
So the Varangians are not the Swedes, the Normans and so on down the list?

[paul3390]

Here is an interesting passage from the chronicles: “The Rus said to Vladimir: "Let us stand here on the field"; and the Varangians said: "Let us go to the city." And Vladimir the Varangian listened."...

So, Rus’ is not the Varangians, as is claimed?

[Illanatol]

The Russian soldiers said one thing, and the mercenaries another. Varangian isn't a nationality, but a class, a social group. Like pirates, Cossacks, and the like. They were hired for money, but the contract could be revoked.
Well, the princes loved to use Varangian mercenaries and sometimes indulged them. Mercenaries might get offended and leave their service, but what about their own? Their own have nowhere to go; they'll go wherever the prince tells them to.

[paul3390]

That's what I think too. Varangian is an occupation, not a people. Just like Viking.

Although, the West Slavic people of the Vagrs are well known. They are also known as Vagirs, Varns, Varangs, and so on. Perhaps, because they were renowned for their ferocity and penchant for banditry and robbery, which distinguished them even in that lawless era, their name also applied to their occupation. Of course, these were characters who made it their business to plunder Scandinavians... who, in turn, struck terror throughout Europe.

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: paul3390

That's what I think too. Varangian is an occupation, not a people. Just like Viking.

Although, the West Slavic people of the Vagrs are well known. They are also known as Vagirs, Varns, Varangs, and so on. Perhaps, because they were renowned for their ferocity and penchant for banditry and robbery, which distinguished them even in that lawless era, their name also applied to their occupation. Of course, these were characters who made it their business to plunder Scandinavians... who, in turn, struck terror throughout Europe.

Join Perhaps this explains the Vikings' expansion to the West, establishing their own kingdoms, all the way to Sicily, and the lack of anything similar in the East. Again, the existence of Arkona is not in doubt; it was destroyed as late as 1168. By this time, the first Crusaders had long since captured Jerusalem.

[paul3390]

In some lists the phrase is given as: "придоша Русь Чюдь Словне Кривичи к Вараньом расше жизнь наш пейзаж в була и обилна»

Since no punctuation marks were used at that time, the text is interpreted in two ways.
«The Rus, Chud, Slovenes, and Krivichi came to the Varangians and decided: our land is great and abundant"That is, there is a listing of tribes, including Rus.

«The Rus' arrived: Chud, Slovenes, Krivichi to the Varangians, decided: our land is great and abundant"Do you feel the difference? Then the chronicler simply lists all the tribes included in the concept of Rus'—the Chud, the Slovenes, the Krivichi... They are all Rus'.

But in any case, it turns out that the Rus are definitely not the Varangians in either version.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Marine engineer

"as others are called Swedes, others Normans, Angles, others Goths, these are the same"
So the Varangians are not the Swedes, the Normans and so on down the list?

According to Shakhmatov, this is a rather late insertion by a scribe. Unfortunately, we don't know what he meant.

[Illanatol]

Have we received the original text from Nestor himself? No, it hasn't. Linguistic analysis has shown that the PVL has at least three authors, or is simply a compilation of several earlier sources. Nestor's objectivity is also hard to believe; he could well have been biased, perhaps even against his will. He was, after all, a monk, and not exactly at the very top of the church hierarchy.

[paul3390]

Our land is large and abundant, but there is no order in it.

When discussing such topics, it would be good to cite the original source of the text. Our land is great and abundant, and outfit there is none in itIs there a difference? Even in modern parlance, there's such a concept as a work order, for example. Some lists even say there's no orderly person. So, the meaning is obvious: there's no one to give orders, to lead. A supreme authority is needed. But you have to admit, that's not quite the same as saying there's no order in the country and it's total chaos?

[Edward Vashchenko]

Good afternoon,
There's not much to guess about here. I.I. Sreznevsky's Dictionary of the Old Russian Language has been around for 120 years. "Order—order, arrangement, routine, instruction." Page 21. Vol. 2.
Common Slavic "narediti" - to put in order. Modern etymological dictionary. Proto-Slavic lexical fund. 1995. Issue 21.

[paul3390]

Well, yes - 120 years ago, of course, they knew very well the peculiarities of the Russian language of the 11th century... Well, well... Back then, even the Novgorod birch bark letters hadn't been discovered yet...

We don't know how this word was used in the chronicle. But judging by the version where it says "there is no orderly," it seems obvious to me. The state exists, everything is in order, no chaos, but there is no prince. There is no supreme arbiter over everyone, and that's not good. It won't be long before we slide into that very same chaos. We need to keep looking.

[Edward Vashchenko]

We do not know in what sense this word was used in the chronicle.

You don’t know this, speak for yourself, because you don’t know the grammar of the Old Russian language, you don’t know how to read and translate.
That's why you make it up out of your head.
It’s the same as if you studied mathematics in school, you would claim that 2+2=22, and 4+4=44.
This is approximately how you reason.
And birch bark letters, in this particular case, do not provide us with any corrections in grammar.
Incidentally, it was 120-140 years ago that the chronicles we use to this day were read and translated. You use the term "PVL," but where did it come from? It was formulated at that time by Academician A.A. Shakhmatov. All our basic knowledge (in scholarship) in the field of Russian chronicling either supports this concept or criticizes parts of it, but not as a whole. But the PVL and NPL emerged in scholarship thanks to Shakhmatov's reconstruction, precisely in the late 19th - early 20th centuries.

[paul3390]

Oh, and do you speak it? By the way, I'm not making anything up off the top of my head; I'm citing interpretations from various works. I'm not making this up myself, precisely because I don't speak Old Russian.

Birch bark letters didn't teach us anything about grammar??? You, sir, sometimes even manage to outshine Trump with your revelations...

Once again. Why do you think translators 120 years ago had a better command of Old Russian than today's researchers? What's the basis for this belief, if it's not a secret?

[Edward Vashchenko]

Paul,
You are incompetent in this matter, but excessive pride does not allow you to admit it.
I understand that many people in our chats have this problem.
Therefore, I consider it unnecessary to give any answers.
Drink some water, cool down.
All is well.

[paul3390]

Why do you consider yourself competent? And only yourself? Are you undercharging? Don't you want to justify it?

Once again. Currently, we have three more or less significant sources of Old Russian from the 10th and 11th centuries. These are the Ostromir Gospels, the Novgorod Codex, and the birch bark manuscripts. Everything else is either a later copy or a brief summary.

So, their grammar and vocabulary are all quite different. And since we don't have a list of the PVL from those times, we DON'T KNOW what the original text looked like or what its original meaning was. And since the narrative of Novgorod's early history most likely used some Novgorod texts, or was based on a Novgorodian, your assertion that the grammar of Novgorod's letters is insignificant is simply laughable.

And don't push your point of view as the only true one just because you happened to read a scientific book on the subject. The evidence is so scant that other interpretations have just as much right to exist as yours.

I assure you, if we start comparing penises here, meaning who's credited how many scientific works and sources, it's not at all clear that you'll emerge victorious. Accept this as a given, and don't try to pretend to be the sole bearer of sacred knowledge. And it's unclear on what grounds.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Paul,
Oh, come on, really!
If you prefer, we'll assume you've read more and are the bearer of all sacred knowledge. - I don't.
The main thing is that everything is fine.
I didn't think that a quote from the fundamental principles for everyone who translates from Old Russian would provoke such resistance.

[Korsar4]

That's right. We're relying on it. It's good if we can refine it a little with new data. Like a bird perched on a wise man's head.

And what they call the spirit of the times,
There is a spirit of professors and their concepts,
Which these gentlemen are inappropriately
They give out for true antiquity.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Good afternoon,
If there were any new "translations" at the moment, I would naturally include them.

[Korsar4]

I'm quite happy with this translation. I don't see any need to change anything.

[Marrr]

You use the term "PVL," but where did it come from? It was formulated at that time by Academician A.A. Shakhmatov.

The term "Tale of Bygone Years" was used before Shakhmatov, in particular by D.I. Ilovaisky

[Edward Vashchenko]

This is the story of the times. Where did the Russian land go?

This is how the Laurentian Chronicle begins.
Of course, the PVL was known before A.A. Shakhmatov, but he was the first to identify it and scientifically substantiate it, which part of the late chronicles that have come down to us.
And further, regarding the details, the dispute among source scholars, and even historians, continues to this day.

[Marrr]

Of course, the PVL was known before A.A. Shakhmatov, but he was the first to identify it and scientifically substantiate it, which part of the late chronicles that have come down to us.

Well, certainly not the first - Ilovaisky did it before him.
Perhaps he wasn't the first either.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Well, definitely not the first.

Sorry, but let me explain.
Tatishchev, Shcherbatov, and everyone else knew PVL. And Ilovaisky, whom you met. But... Ilovaisky himself was neither a textologist nor a linguist, and he wrote during a period when scholarly criticism was in its infancy, which is why he produced so many inconsistencies due to mistranslation.
The first fully scientific analysis, in the form that we have and use today, was made by A.A. Shakhmatov.
I don’t understand, if you don’t know the material, why object?
Best regards,

[Marrr]

But... the same Ilovaisky was neither a textologist nor a linguist,

And who claimed that there was?

and he wrote during a period when scientific criticism was in its infancy

I wouldn't say so judging by the content of some of his polemical publications

I don’t understand, if you don’t know the material, why object?

but I don’t understand what specific signs allowed you to make this statement.
I have read almost all of Ilovaisky's important historical works and believe that this is sufficient to form a position on the question of the calling of Rurik and his comrades.

And I don't understand what textual critics and linguists have to do with this issue. Did they study Rurik's diary entries and draw conclusions about his ethnicity based on them?

[Edward Vashchenko]

And he wrote exclusively about one thing: how the general public knows about PVL today, and nothing else.

And I don’t understand what relation textual critics and linguists have to this issue.

What is your educational background?

[Marrr]

What is your educational background?

Why are you interested in?
OK, I'll answer: a railroad worker, a lawyer, an operative.

And what did it give you?

And I wrote exclusively about one thing: how the general public knows about PVL today

The "general public" learns about the PVL from school history textbooks, only to quickly forget about it later.

[Edward Vashchenko]

OK, I'll answer: a railroad worker, a lawyer, an operative.

Imagine if I were to read you the book "Entertaining Jurisprudence" and argue with you that you completely misunderstand the basics of operational matters.
and what you are doing is complete nonsense, within unspecified boundaries, and you should read Agatha Christie.
What would you write?

[Marrr]

You completely misunderstand the basics of operational matters.

I would write that in order to draw such a conclusion, you would have to at least be my colleague.

And again, I don’t understand how your example relates to what I wrote above.
Or is this just demagoguery?

[Edward Vashchenko]

I would write that in order to draw such a conclusion, you would have to at least be my colleague.

There you have it. That's right, i.e. the logical chain is finally being built.
Therefore, in order to argue with me on specific issues of chronicle writing and historiography, you need to graduate from one of the best historical facts in the country, defend a dissertation and have a confirmed professional level, like me.

have a nice day!

[Marrr]

Dear Sir, I am not going to argue with you, because I know from experience that those who once graduated from history departments are firmly convinced that only those who graduated from history departments understand the issues of history - mere mortals are not given this

I just noticed that your statement:

You use the term "PVL," but where did it come from? It was formulated at that time by Academician A.A. Shakhmatov.

not correct, because this phrase was used previously Shakhmatova historian D.I. Ilovaisky (who also analyzed the text of the PVL), and even earlier the compiler of the list of chronicles, who entitled his work

THE TALE OF BYGONE YEARS OF THE BLACK FEDOSYEV MONASTERY OF PECHERSKY,

And to make this remark regarding what you wrote, it is not at all necessary to graduate from the history department of Moscow State University.

By the way, defending a candidate's dissertation does not at all indicate a person's competence in discussing various historical issues.
For example, during the Soviet era, hundreds of candidate theses were defended on the history of the Great Patriotic War, which are not even worth the price of the forest felled to make the paper used for this purpose.
And now it's just banal waste

[know]

railroad worker, lawyer, operative.

If you're not an expert, the sheer confidence of your comments is truly astonishing. And experts should be irritated. For example, I would firmly rebuke any lawyer who dared criticize a pulmonologist's recommendations for treating pneumonia or a cardiologist's conclusions about coronary heart disease in my presence. You should be more humble when speaking with knowledgeable people.

[paul3390]

On the differences between the Rus and the Slavs

If we recall what the Novgorodians called themselves—Slovenes—it's likely this distinction that foreign authors noted. There are northerners, Novgorodian-Slovenes, and then there are southerners, Rus', and the Polyane-Drevlians. And it was with these southerners that the Arabs and Byzantines dealt. Moreover, they hardly went into any detail, and they also knew about the Krivichi and Radimichs, who didn't consider themselves Slavs-Slovenes at all.

And all the recorded differences and disagreements are the confrontation between Novgorod and Kyiv, well-known to us from our chronicles. North and South. Novgorod always sought to be independent. And its recognition of Kyiv's authority was rather conditional. Incidentally, it was there that all contenders for the Kievan throne, beginning with Yaroslav, fled for help.

In general, it's highly unlikely that the Slavs of that time were so aware of their commonality that they had a separate name for it. Just like the Germans, for example—they certainly didn't call themselves that and didn't see themselves as such. There were all sorts of Bavarians, Alemanni, Franks, Danes, and so on and so forth. But if you told a Dane that they were supposedly one people with the Thuringians, you'd look at them like they were a complete moron. What other people? Although they clearly understood their shared language and culture.

The same goes for the Slavs. All of this is purely a Greco-Roman influence; they tended to lump similar peoples together under a single name. And often, not at all based on national or linguistic principles, as is clearly evident in Tacitus.

[paul3390]

drove part of the Goths beyond the Danube

More of Jordanes' tales about a supposed Great Gothia from Mozha to Mozha. But could anyone explain HOW these mere forest dwellers, the Goths, managed to conquer the Black Sea steppes? Is there even a single known example of such a conquest? The steppe is impossible to conquer without mounted archers, and where did the Goths get them? Incidentally, even Belisarius, fighting the Goths in Italy, noted that they couldn't shoot a bow; the best weapon against them was mounted archers. What kind of supposed recent rulers of the Black Sea steppes are these? If they can't shoot a bow from horseback?
"...The difference is that almost all the Romans and their allies, the Huns, are good archers on horseback, while none of the Goths are familiar with this business.»

Iodane wrote about the Getae, an ancient Thracian people known in those parts since Herodotus. And his work is called Getica, not Gothic. Then, because the title sounded so similar, he grafted the history of the Germanic Goths onto their story, for he was not writing a historical work, but a political pamphlet made to order.

[vitaliy20091959]

For some reason there is silence about archeology, but there are many Scandinavian burials and mixed Slavic-Scandinavian ones

[Korsar4]

And this is a very good argument. For example, in Staraya Ladoga.

[paul3390]

The question here is particularly relevant – the interpretation of burials... Let's say they excavated the grave of a warrior with Thor's hammer around his neck. Who is he? Well, most likely a Scandinavian, of course. But what if the character in the grave, for example, has a Scandinavian sword? Is that also Scandinavian, as is usually interpreted? Why would that be? Why couldn't a Slavic warrior buy or obtain foreign weapons in battle? Or, say, a woman's grave contains a Scandinavian ring or bracelet. And so on... Everything here needs to be carefully analyzed. Because if we judge solely by material finds of everyday significance, in a thousand years, archaeologists will excavate and conclude that the Chinese ruled the entire planet...

[Chack wessel]

So what? There's a Jewish cemetery in Vitebsk (or rather, it's already been demolished). What conclusion can we draw from this fact?

[Korsar4]

It is no coincidence that Marc Chagall is from there.

He is old and like his loneliness.
He doesn't want to talk about the weather.
He immediately asks:
“— Are you not from Vitebsk?..” —
The jacket is old-fashioned and the lapels are worn out...

[Illanatol]

And what kind of one should be made? As Jews themselves sometimes say: "Israel is a state where Jews of different races have gathered."

[north 2]

The author is completely mistaken in classifying Dovmont, Prince of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, as a non-Slavic "newcomer." The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the same old Russian principality on the original Russian lands, in this case the Principality of Lithuanian Rus', as were other old Russian principalities on the original Russian lands at that time - Suzdal Rus', Vladimir Rus', Kievan Rus', Muscovite Rus', Novgorod Rus' (Northern Rus') or Ryazan Rus' (Grand Duchy of Ryazan), etc. The bulk of the population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were Rasenians, i.e. the predecessors of today's Belarusians, which defines today's Belarus as the main successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, after Russia. Poland has very little to do with this legacy, and modern Lithuania has nothing at all.
Regarding Prince Dovmont, he is also depicted on the landmark monument "Millennium of Russia" in Veliky Novgorod, along with four Lithuanian princes of Lithuanian Rus'. The Lithuanian princes Gediminas, Vitovt, Olgerd, and Keistutis are also there. It's unlikely that Mikeshin and Schröder, Russia's greatest masters in monumental creation, would have agreed to depict anyone else in this monument—people who were incidental or insignificant in the construction and establishment of the Russian state. The same applies to Mikeshin and Opekushin's creation of the monument to Catherine the Great in St. Petersburg. It's hard to imagine a monument more truthful and befitting of Catherine the Great's importance in the fate and construction of the mighty Russian Empire. This is the truth about Rus-Russia, as a relay race from the times of the "Tale of Bygone Years" to the end of the nineteenth century.
Incidentally, until the Principality of Lithuanian Rus' fell under Polish rule under the Gediminids, as it did later under the Jagiellonian dynasty, the princes of Lithuanian Rus' deservedly participated in the construction of the Russian state. And then, as you already know, Poland, having swallowed up Rus', which had betrayed Lithuanian Rus', choked on itself, and its feast ended with three partitions of Poland. And no one would even remember the concept of Lithuania today if not for Lenin and the Bolshevik coup of 1917.

[know]

The author is completely mistaken in classifying the Prince of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Dovmont, as a non-Slavic "aliens"

Well, now some consider Dovmont a Slav. Although he is definitely Lithuanian and his ancestry is beyond doubt.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: north 2

It is unlikely that the greatest masters of Russia in the field of creating monuments - Mikeshin and Shreder, would agree to reflect in this monument anyone, people who were random or of little significance in the construction and creation of the Russian state.

Well, somehow we got by without Ivan the Terrible.

[north 2]

Comrade Senior Sailor. I wrote in my commentary that it's unlikely Mikeshin and Schroeder would have agreed to place random or insignificant figures in the construction and founding of the Russian state on this monument. Random or insignificant. Ivan the Terrible isn't among the Great. But that's only because the monument stands in Veliky Novgorod, and the city's residents have forever remembered that Ivan IV earned the title "Terrible" for his brutal suppression and subjugation of the Novgorodians, albeit in the name of creating a unified and unified Russian state. The same result would have occurred if Mikeshin and Schroeder had created such a monument in Kazan. I repeat, there are no random or insignificant figures on that monument. Who isn't there, and why, of those who deserved to be there, is another matter entirely.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: north 2

In my commentary, I wrote that it is unlikely that Mikeshin and Schroeder would have agreed to place on this monument people who were accidental or little noticeable in the construction and creation of the Russian state.

And I'm inclined to think that no one really asked them))
Because it was the customer who decided who to portray.

Quote: north 2

But this is only because the monument stands in Veliky Novgorod and the townspeople have remembered for centuries that Ivan the Fourth acquired the title of Terrible for the most brutal pacification and subjugation of the Novgorodians.

Forgive me, but this is nonsense. Mikeshen hailed from the Smolensk province, and Schröder's ancestors came from Königsberg. It's unlikely they cared about the real or imagined wealth of the Novgorodians. That's the first point. The second point is that when our tsars erected monuments, they couldn't care less about the opinions of others. Take, for example, the monument to Paskevich in Warsaw.

Quote: north 2

I repeat once again that there are no random or ill-deserved people in that monument for Russia.

The question is not who is there and who is not there

[Rodez]

It is believed that until the middle of the 10th century, the Tale of Bygone Years contains only two dates that can be considered absolutely reliable: the autumn of 911, when Oleg signed a treaty with Byzantium (but the Byzantines themselves do not know about this treaty), and 944.

They correspond to the Russian-Byzantine treaties that have come down to us (i.e. the Byzantines knew about this)... there is another one - from the year 971

It is currently suggested that the "Tale..." was completed around 1113 and is a pan-Russian chronicle collection, compiled on the basis of at least four chronicles from 1037–1093 that have not reached us (three Kyiv and one Novgorod).

In fact, this is a system of hypotheses by the philologist Shakhmatov from the late 19th - early 20th century... they were not subsequently confirmed

[know]

There's some madness with these Varangians, really. The Hungarians don't seem bothered by the fact that their ancestors weren't "enlightened Europeans," but some kind of Finno-Ugrics.

[AdAstra]

And the Turks too. Although, if you think about it, they also have some hesitations in this regard - we are still mostly Hunu, and we are still mostly Magyars.

[know]

And some are even Polovtsians! Descendants of those who fled from Batu.

[kalibr]

Congratulations, Valery! Very good material.

[sdivt]

the "cursed" question of Russian history

I don't understand this suffering.
Why, for what purpose?
We are here, we are here, we live, we work, we raise children
Our history is what it is, and it will never be different.
Do you want more self-respect?
Well, achieve this through your actions, and not through stories from a thousand years ago!
Come to think of it, Americans are generally just "newcomers", but they live here and don't worry about it...

ps
This is purely my own, completely subjective opinion, and I'm not forcing it on anyone.

[Russian_Ninja]

No, that's not interesting.

It turns out that we need to work here and now.
And here you go, telling everyone that 60 years ago, the Hyperboreans defeated the gray men at the Star Temple and gave birth to the world. And that's it—the entire world owes an unpayable debt to the descendants of these Hyperboreans.
Well, it's beautiful

[Nikolay A. Shadov]

Alexey, you couldn't have said it better!)
But you underestimate the scale of beauty. Because the true believers in "alternative politics" know that in any sticky situation, the question "Where's the evidence, Zin?" can be answered with an ironclad answer, like the rear of a T-34: "The Jews (through Volodka the Khazar and Petka the changeling) stole it!"

[Russian_Ninja]

Exactly.
All the originals were burned in the Alexandrian Library, and the Vatican took the copies for itself.

So all that's left for us to do is look for burial mounds on our own territory and dig up cities with metro systems (passing them off as our own buildings - that's how St. Petersburg and the Moscow metro were "dug up").

In general, in the spring, of course, so many articles and comments from alternative sources appear, it’s just awful

[Chack wessel]

Quote: "The main debate is about the origin of Rurik, "called" by the Slovenes, Krivichi, Chud and Ves in 862, and about the nationality of the Varangians who came with him."
...These disputes have overlooked the most important thing: the assertion that Rurik (whoever he was) founded the Russian state. This is not true...
...Here's the thing: I can't invite a manager to my company. For the simple reason that I don't own the company. It's also impossible to invite a prince to rule a social entity—a state—without having one. So, some kind of state existed before Rurik. Yes, that "entity" probably didn't have a flag, an anthem, or even a constitution, and it didn't even have Putin (probably :) ), but there was something there already in Novgorod.
...Be that as it may, the decision regarding the "calling" was made not by Rurik, the Swedes, the Germans, etc., but by the natives of Novgorod, guided by their own desires and convictions. So the whole "Normanism" thing is sheer nonsense.
P.S. Novgorod, where Rurik was summoned, became part of the Russian Empire under Ivan III in 147... something (too lazy to Google it). Novgorod was finally incorporated into the Russian Empire by Ivan IV in 157... something (again, too lazy to Google it). Calculate for yourself how many years have passed since Rurik's summoning... And the question arises: were Ivan III and Ivan IV Swedes? :)

[Marrr]

What interests me most is the nationality of Nightingale the Robber and the maximum flight speed of the Serpent Gorynych.
I don't understand why historians pay so little attention to these most important historical mysteries.

[know]

I read that Nightingale the Robber was some Finno-Ugric tribal leader who dominated a trade route and imposed tribute on the merchants—the equivalent of a European robber baron. He became so outrageous that the authorities were forced to dispatch a "bogatyr" (the commander of a princely detachment) to "take him down."
And the speed of the Serpent Gorynych is the speed of a Polovtsian raiding party. In the chronicles, it is the Polovtsians who are compared to snakes, and Vladimir Monomakh is said to have "crushed the heads of the snakes" in the context of his victories over the Polovtsians.

[Marrr]

I read that Nightingale the Robber is some kind of Finno-Ugric tribal leader.

What nationality is Kolobok-balabok? What do historians write about it?

And the speed of the Serpent Gorynych is the speed of a Polovtsian raiding party.

In principle, it can be calculated using modern scientific methods by making a scale model of the kite and then blowing it through a wind tunnel.

I noticed that publications on alternative history are extremely popular on VO.

[know]

These are simply attempts to find a rational grain in the epics, some traces of folk memory distorted by numerous retellings, when each storyteller tried to bring something of his own to the text and surprise listeners with previously unknown “details”.
By the way, remember how Tugarin Zmeevich is described! What Zmeevich (son of the Serpent)? A foreign hero with a winged horse.
And Zmey Gorynych is a Christian: he exchanged crosses with Dobrynya Nikitich at their first meeting. Somehow, he doesn't look like a reptile.

[Marrr]

These are just attempts to find a rational grain in the epics.

Yeah, a fairy tale is a lie, but there's a hint in it - a lesson for good fellows

[Gardamir]

Nightingale the Robber is some kind of Pecheneg, in short, from the steppe people.

The exact speed of the Serpent Gorynych's flight is not specified, but it is described as lightning-fast and monstrous. He is described as a creature capable of instantly blocking the sky and appearing ahead of the heroes, implying extremely high flight speed.

[Marrr]

The exact speed of the Serpent Gorynych's flight is not specified, but it is described as lightning-fast and monstrous

Well, that means the speed was supersonic.
Thank you for the valuable historical information, I will tell all my friends

Nightingale the Robber is some kind of Pecheneg, in short, from the steppe people.

And what do you think, if Nightingale had engaged Rurik in hand-to-hand combat, who would have won?
Any good ideas?

[Gardamir]

Most likely, the Nightingale, for he possessed colossal, supernatural strength, the main source of which was his deadly whistle. He could blow away anyone, bend trees, and kill a man, making him a dangerous opponent even for Ilya Muromets. Furthermore, it's possible that the Nightingale only resembled a man.

[Marrr]

Who do you think was stronger, Nightingale the Robber or Alyosha Popovich?
Any good guesses?

[Grossvater]

All these arguments remind me of the old saying: "The old woman remembered how she was a girl."
The hiring of foreigners was (and remains) a traditional practice. The Russian, Slavic ethnic group assimilated and Russified these mercenaries within a single generation.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Proxima

What was needed was an "effective manager" from the outside, someone who wouldn't hog the throne for one tribe or another. So much for Rurik—"come and rule us." The English, for example, aren't at all concerned with the origins of their statehood and nation.

+Million.
Among the English, only the Tudors can be considered indigenous, and even then it's a bit of a stretch. The Danes, the French, the Scots, and two German dynasties, first the Welfs and now the Saxe-Coburgs, are also considered.
Well, the funniest option is Sweden with Karl XIV Johan. The guy isn't even of royal blood, let alone noble. A stinging nettle, the son of a provincial lawyer.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Marrr

What interests me most is the nationality of Nightingale the Robber and the maximum flight speed of the Serpent Gorynych.
I don't understand why historians pay so little attention to these most important historical mysteries.

[Idle_piston]

«Where did the Russian land come from? The first "cursed" question of Russian history.

This isn't really a "cursed" question, but rather a speculative one. My opinion is that it's high time we looked at the origins of the Rus' as a symbiosis of diverse ethnic groups united by a common goal. But the idea that the Rus' descended from the Finnish "Ruotsi" is, of course, outrageous.

[Danail]

Rus in Bulgarian still means blond, fair-haired and fair-haired person.

[stankow]

The fairest haired people to this day are the Scandinavians

[Olgovich]

.

The main disputes are about the origin of Rurik, “called” by the Slovenes, Krivichi, Chud and Ves in 862, and about the nationality of the Varangians who came with him.

who cares?
Everyone became our people.

Catherine II, a German, usurped the throne twice: after the assassination of her husband, the legitimate Emperor Peter III, and after her son Paul came of age. Furthermore, following instructions she had drawn up, her jailers killed another legitimate emperor, Ivan Antonovich. It has never even occurred to anyone to declare Catherine II a Slav or even to search for Slavs among her ancestors.

By the way, it should be noted that from a formal point of view, before the death of Ivan Antonovich, the usurpers of the throne were Elizabeth Petrovna and Peter III, and Catherine II, it turns out, was three times illegitimate.

the alternative has begun...

1. Anna Ioannovna basely violated the conditions of her accession to the throne, i.e. she is illegitimate.

2. Being childless, she had no right to appoint as emperor the son of her... niece.

3. Elizabeth, as a direct descendant of the last Emperor Peter I, was illegally rejected in favor of Anna Ioannovna.

4. Elizabeth by blood, as the direct heir-daughter of the emperor, was much more legitimate than the tenth water on jelly... the great-grandson of Ivan 5

5. Peter III himself abdicated and died of hemorrhoids. He was not crowned.

[know]

Anna Ioannovna is utterly legitimate, the daughter of the SENIOR Tsar and the last Russian monarch on the Russian throne. Elizabeth is a half-breed, born of a mother of more than dubious descent, who was born to Catherine at a time when that woman was incomprehensible, and Elizabeth's father is unclear, as Menshikov was also actively "sleeping" with Catherine at the time. Elizabeth was "crowned" at her mother's coronation—a strange, dubious, and never-repeated rite. According to Peter I's law of succession, Anna had every right to appoint the heir to the throne. Repeating tales of Peter III's "hemorrhoidal colic" is simply not comme il faut. Now you might as well mention Paul I's apoplexy.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: vet

Elizabeth was "crowned" at her mother's coronation - a strange, dubious and never-repeated ceremony.

If you don't know something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist))
To marry, to marry children (born before marriage), to accept, acknowledge as one's own, and adopt. Married children. In the old days, they say, they were led around the table with their mother. -sya, suffer. Marriage, pra-marriage, active verb. The married son of the same father-mother.
Explanatory Dictionary of V.I. Dahl
The ritual is indeed not common, but it is not unique either.

Quote: vet

It is unclear who Elizabeth was born to, since Menshikov was also actively "sleeping" with Catherine at that time.

Did you hold a candle with Ryzhov?))

Quote: vet

Anna had every right to appoint the heir to the throne.

If you have the right to rule, then we have the right to stumble, and we can sometimes stumble, what can we do, your majesty, break your head on a stone. D. Davydov. Head and Legs.
Anna was stupid enough to appoint a completely wrong heir and thereby ruined herself.
Not to mention that,

Quote: vet

According to the law of succession to the throne of Peter I

Anna should never have received the throne, although she certainly had the right.
However, we have already discussed all this more than once)))

[know]

Anna should never have received the throne, although she certainly had the right.

Why shouldn't Anna have received the throne, if she was the most legitimate representative of the House of Romanov at that time? Moreover, she was the last purebred representative of the House of Romanov. Who else could have been proposed for the throne? The overly cheerful half-breed Elizabeth, who, even much later, cared nothing more than the style of her new dress? She seized power only because the corrupt Preobrazhenskyites didn't want to go to war with the Swedes.
Elizabeth appointed Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp as her heir, with roughly the same claim to the Russian throne as Anna had appointed Ivan Antonovich. Both were officially representatives of foreign houses, and both were illegally deposed by individuals with even less claim to the throne, or none at all. Catherine II, for her part, didn't bother with questions of her right to the throne at all, becoming the last impostor on the Russian throne.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: vet

Why shouldn't Anna have received the throne?

Well, according to the same Peter the Great's law on succession to the throne, which you constantly refer to))

Quote: vet

corrupted Preobrazhensky

No matter how much you say halva, it won't make your mouth any sweeter.

Quote: vet

Elizabeth appointed Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp as her heir.

No, my dear fellow. Catherine the Great appointed him heir. According to that very law you constantly cite, the first in line to the throne would be the son of the executed Tsarevich Alexei—the future Peter II. In the event of his childless death, the throne would pass to Anna... but not Ioannovna, but Petrovna! That is, their daughter with Peter. Then came Elizabeth and Natalia Alexeyevna, who was still alive at the time.
In this sense, Elizabeth merely fulfilled her mother's last will.
But for some reason that is not entirely clear to me, you and Ryzhov in one case stand up for the law, but in the other you don’t see it at all.

Quote: vet

Both were officially representatives of foreign houses, and both were illegally overthrown.

In principle, yes. But if after the overthrow of Peter III a popular uprising broke out in St. Petersburg, which was quelled with great difficulty, then after the overthrow of the Brunswickers no one even uttered a word. Because

Quote: Senior Sailor

While Peter's daughter was alive, his subjects did not appreciate this trick.

[know]

Peter I, having issued a law granting the right to appoint a successor, did not exercise it himself. Therefore, the throne was firmly in the hands of the only male heir in the direct line—Peter I's grandson, Peter II. Catherine, a Finn, was placed on the throne by guards brought in by Menshikov—effectively the first coup d'état. Catherine I has zero legitimacy, just like Catherine II. And all her decrees, written by Menshikov, are legally null and void.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: vet

And therefore the throne was firmly transferred to the only male heir in the direct line - the grandson of Peter I.

And where is Anna Leopoldovna with her Brunswick offspring?

[know]

Anna was legally elected to the Russian throne as the most legitimate representative of the House of Romanov—the legitimate daughter of the eldest Tsar, Ivan Alexeevich, and also a pure-blooded Russian. And she, unlike Peter I, exercised the right to appoint an heir. Elizabeth also exercised this right. The legitimacy of Ivan Antonovich and Peter III was absolutely identical. And both were illegally removed from power.

[know]

Elizabeth hated her father's brother's relatives, the Ivanovichs. She illegally removed the great-grandson of the eldest Tsar, Ivan Alexeevich. History took its cruel revenge: her nephew, the son of her beloved sister, was overthrown and murdered by a German impostor with no claim whatsoever to the Russian throne.

[Senior seaman]

My God, what a mess you have in your head)))

Quote: vet

The degree of legitimacy of Ivan Antonovich and Peter III was absolutely identical.

There cannot be two equally legitimate claimants to the same throne living at the same time. That's an oxymoron!

And she, unlike Peter I, took advantage of the right to appoint an heir.

Well, yes, well, yes, a pure-blooded Russian appointed a pure-blooded German, who is very distantly related to the ruling family.
We have bad people, I didn't appreciate it

Quote: vet

History has taken cruel revenge

Leave the story alone. Otherwise, we'll have to explain why she took revenge on Anna Leopoldovna, whose fate was far more tragic.

[know]

A purebred Russian appointed a purebred German

What pure-blooded German? Certainly less pure-blooded than Alexander III or Nicholas II.

We have bad people, I didn't appreciate it

Did Menshikov ask the people much when he put a lowly Chukhonka on the throne, bypassing Peter the Great's grandson? And did Elizabeth's drunken guards ask the people anything? And did Catherine the Great's drunken guards ask much? They put a German impostor on the Russian throne.

I'll have to explain why she took revenge on Anna Leopoldovna.

She was too kind and considered Elizabeth, whom she treated very well, to be a decent woman.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: vet

What purebred German?

Well, sort of. On my father's side, it's Welf, on my mother's, Niklotich. The Romanovs are a sham. And there's Pyotr Fyodorovich, whose mother is at least a Romanov.

Quote: vet

And how many questions did Catherine II's drunken guards ask? Who placed the German impostor on the Russian throne.

When Peter Feodorovich was overthrown, a revolt broke out in the capital. But when the young Ivan was overthrown, no one uttered a word. This seems to hint...

Quote: vet

She was too kind and Elizabeth

Is this how you disguised the word "fool"?

[know]

While Peter's daughter was alive, his subjects did not appreciate this trick.

The rights of Elizabeth's bastard daughter were so dubious that even her own mother, Catherine I, did not dare to appoint her as heir, bypassing the future Peter II. This time, even Menshikov would not have been able to cope with the general indignation.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: vet

Even her own mother, Catherine I, did not dare to appoint her as heir, bypassing the future Peter II.

What the hell are you talking about?
How could she appoint Elizabeth if Peter and her older sister Anna were alive?

[know]

How could Menshikov, a Finn with little social responsibility, place her on the throne? If the throne absolutely belonged to the future Peter II?

[Senior seaman]

Did you think about it for a long time or is it an exacerbation?)))

Quote: vet

And how could Menshikov put her, a Chukhonka with low social responsibility, on the throne?

Apparently, the Chukhonka, unlike the Tsar's daughter Anna Ioannovna, understood that the throne could not be bequeathed to just anyone. Her subjects might not appreciate it.

[Gardamir]

Anna Ioannovna, daughter of the Russian Tsar Ivan Alekseevich. And she, like no one else, is more legitimate. And the conditions were invented by the nobles so they could rule. And Anna was responsible.
Ivan was the father of Empress Anna Ioannovna and the grandfather of Anna Leopoldovna, the ruler of her son Ivan VI Antonovich.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Gardamir

Ivan was the father of Empress Anna Ioannovna and the grandfather of Anna Leopoldovna, the ruler of her son Ivan VI Antonovich.

Everything is so, but Anna Leopoldovna was not a Romanova by birth, but a Niklotich (Mecklenburg), and Ivan Antonovich was a Welf (Brunswick)
While Peter's daughter was still alive, his subjects did not appreciate this trick.

[Gardamir]

Well, it's complicated. On the one hand, Ivan VI was a Brunswick family. But Liza on her mother's side, whoever she was, was also unknown. There were a lot of Germans at the time, so I don't think everyone was really against the family. It's just that Anya was careless, and Liza wanted to reign.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Gardamir

But Lisa's mother's side is also unknown.

Whatever. The king's wife is a queen in any case.

[know]

Just like the crowned Marina Mniszech. Which didn't stop anyone from killing her in captivity and executing an innocent child—her son.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: vet

As well as the crowned Marina Mniszech.

Don't confuse a wedding ceremony with a royal coronation. They are different ceremonies.
This is the first.
The second thing is that even your idol Ryzhov considers False Dmitry to be Grishka Otrepiev.
Third. A Polish aristocrat, having witnessed with her own eyes the murder of her husband, did not hesitate to recognize this same husband in the first scoundrel she encountered, and then even gave birth to the dead man's child!
Therefore, she is primarily to blame for the death of her son.
And yes, I never tire of repeating it.
The public execution of a child is horrific. But try to put yourself in our ancestors' shoes. The Time of Troubles brought countless suffering to our people. The entire country was devastated. Their forces were exhausted, and they simply wouldn't have been able to fight the usurpers again. They had no opportunity to demonstrate humaneness. This "innocent" child, as you say, could and would have become a banner for the next invaders. Therefore, they had to get rid of him, and as publicly as possible, to prevent any misinformation. And that's what they did.
And no modern prudes dare to reproach them for this!

[know]

Marina Mnishek became the first woman in Russia to be crowned Tsarina! Whoever False Dmitry was, she was the rightful Tsarina of Moscow.

[Senior seaman]

Do you really think that using caps lock adds weight to obvious stupidity?

[know]

Oh, come on – they didn't appreciate it! If Anna Leopoldovna hadn't decided to send the Obrazhensky Guardsmen to war with the Swedes, they wouldn't have carried Elizabeth on their shoulders to overthrow the legitimate emperor. About a hundred corrupt guardsmen decided the fate of the empire – and that's not all of its subjects.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: vet

Oh, come on, you didn't appreciate it!

That's exactly how it all happened.

Quote: vet

If Anna Leopoldovna had not decided to send the Preobrazhensky Regiment to war with the Swedes, they would not have carried Elizabeth on their shoulders to overthrow the legitimate emperor.

You trust Ryzhov's opinion too much and are unable to perceive it critically.
But the point is that his assertion that the Russian Guards did not participate in battles from 1725 to 1806 doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For the exact opposite was true. And I've already listed the campaigns they waged.

Quote: vet

About a hundred corrupted guardsmen

And where, may I ask, did 300 ordinary grenadiers and 64 "company officers" of the future Life Guards, not a single nobleman among them at the time, manage to become so "corrupt"? Whether you like Ryzhov or not, Elizabeth was elevated to the throne not by overfed aristocrats, but by common men in military uniform, who had begun their service under Peter the Great.
Yes, they did indeed disband later, but that happened after the coup.

[know]

It was not the overfed aristocrats who raised the throne, but ordinary men dressed in military uniforms

And by a strange coincidence, this happened immediately after the order to go to war. Until then, they had been drinking to Elizabeth's health, but they hadn't had the slightest desire to defy legitimate authority.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: vet

And by a strange coincidence this happened immediately after the order to go to war.

If one event happened after another, this does not mean at all that it happened as a consequence.
As I already wrote, the guard took part in all wars and was not afraid of them at all.
I would understand if the thesis that Peter the Great's grenadiers were afraid to fight the Swedes, whom they had repeatedly defeated, had been put forward by one of the liberals, like Novodvorskaya and her ilk...
But you seem to be trying to portray yourself as a Russian patriot.

[Alekc]

I like the version I read in my youth in "The Question Mark" - "The Miners of Rus", where Rus comes from the word ore.

[know]

Well, cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin wasn't a prince, but rather a serf of Prince Gagarin (this was a tradition when people acquired surnames in the 19th century—many were registered under their lords). The host of "The Clever Ones and the Smart Ones," Vyazemsky, was also a peasant (he admitted it himself). And practically all modern Russian citizens have "princely surnames."

[Korebus]

Yes. And not only the Ilmeni. Anders Stringholm, in "Viking Campaigns," describes in considerable detail the Swedish Vikings' routes across Europe and their settlement tactics. They even reached Bjarmia.
Archaeologists excavating fortified settlements on river banks note that settlements of Slavic-speaking and Germanic-speaking tribes could be located within a few days' sail of each other. This means they lived side by side, traded, and fought with each other for centuries.
In many areas, the population density was low, and no one drew global borders - only around their own settlement.

[MikMichel]

The topic of this post is unoriginal and so well-worn that I feel a bit ashamed for the author. After all, the issue has already been resolved, and definitively so—just recall the excavations at Gnezdovo. Everything else is the interpretation of interpreters, meaning there's a scientific point of view, and then there's the point of view of everyone else, who, like Baba Yaga, always disagree with something or someone or has their own unique perspective on the matter.
With that said, I'll just jot down a few comments, maybe they'll be useful to someone...

It hasn't even occurred to anyone yet to declare Catherine II a Slav or at least to look for Slavs among her ancestors.

The author is mistaken. Catherine was born in Stettin/Szczecin in Pomerania, formerly Slavic Pomerania. But this is because her father served there. And he himself came from the Principality of Anhalt-Zerbst. Zerbst is the Sorbian-Lusatian city of Sierps. So, can we now look for Slavs among her ancestors? And they do look. And even find them!

It is currently believed that the Slavs as a distinct ethnic group emerged around the middle of the first millennium BC. According to the most widespread hypothesis, the Slavs (Wends) arrived in the Dnieper region at the turn of the new era.

According to recent research, including genetic studies, the Slavs originated in Polesia. This territory is located in the south of modern-day Belarus and northern Ukraine. This means the Slavs didn't migrate to the Dnieper region; they had always lived there. The Kyiv archaeological culture (3rd to early 5th centuries) also existed there, which even in Soviet times was associated with the preceding Zarubintsy culture (late 3rd century BC to mid-1st century AD), and both together, with the ancestors of the Slavs.

However, Tatishchev and Lomonosov considered the word "Rus" to be Sarmatian. Why these respected scholars considered nomads, who vanished without a trace into the mists of time, to be the most likely candidates for the ancestors of the Eastern Slavs is completely unclear.

The author is wrong again about the Sarmatians "lost in the mists of time." The Sarmatians were quite well known in Europe, especially during the Renaissance, and were in demand, to the point that in Poland, i.e., the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, from the 16th to the 19th centuries, a cultural and ideological phenomenon known as "Sarmatism" was prevalent. The ancestors of the Polish gentry were traced back to the Sarmatians, those brave, noble, and courageous horsemen, as opposed to any "low-born Slavic-Lithuanian rabble." Even today, one can find the view that the Sarmatians are the progenitors of European chivalry. It's therefore not surprising that Tatishchev, Lomonosov, and, incidentally, G.V. Vernadsky, too, believed precisely this. Moreover, there is a phonetically similar word of Iranian origin with a very pleasant meaning: "roks (rukhsh)," which literally means "bright, sparkling." Hence the great temptation, for example, to declare the Sarmatian Roxolani tribe, if not some kind of Proto-Slavic tribe, then at least the forerunners of those who would later be called Rus'. This theory of the Sarmatian origin of the word "Rus'" persists to this day among the most stubborn anti-Normanists.

It's worth noting that at the beginning of the 20th century, the renowned poet Alexander Blok went even further (from the 3rd to the 4th–8th centuries BC), declaring Russians "Scythians with slanted and greedy eyes." Neither he himself, nor his friends and acquaintances, nor the vast majority of his readers had "slanted eyes," but such a "trifle" didn't bother anyone; everyone unanimously agreed to consider themselves Scythians.

I'm afraid the author has taken the rich poetic imagery too literally. Blok's Scythians are practically the same as those of ancient Greek authors, a synonym for "barbarians." This contrasts the "old world," the world of capitalist Europe, with the new, "barbarian" world of Soviet Russia, as this poem was written in late 1918.
For the last time, come to your senses, old world!
On the fraternal feast of work and peace,
For the last time - on a bright fraternal feast
Calls barbaric lyre!
And the slanted eyes of the Scythians were then perceived not as shocking, but as a given, since the Scythians, according to the stereotypes of that time, were considered Mongoloids.

"Slovenes" and "Sklavins"

According to linguists, the Greek authors added the letter "k" to the word "sklaviny" due to the difficulties of pronunciation of the foreign word, since the Greeks do not have such a sound combination "sl".

From the 8th to the 3rd century BC, the Scythians dominated the Black Sea steppes, but were destroyed by the Sarmatians.

According to the latest research, the Sarmatians did not completely destroy the Scythians in the Black Sea steppes, they came to already The steppes were greatly depopulated. Archaeology shows that Scythian burials from the 3rd-2nd centuries BC are very few, literally a few, which can only indicate a sharp population decline. Scythia at this time was in severe decline, its population concentrated primarily in the so-called Lesser Scythia in Crimea and the lower reaches of rivers such as the Dnieper and Danube, in the areas of Greek cities and colonies, transitioning from a nomadic lifestyle to a semi-nomadic or even sedentary one, undergoing Hellenization in the process. In other words, the Sarmatians simply replaced the Scythians in the 2nd-1st centuries BC in the Northern Black Sea region, naturally assimilating those they found and subjugating or destroying those who resisted.

From the 3rd century BC to the 4th century AD, or more precisely until 370, the Sarmatians were the masters of the steppes east of the Don, while the Goths controlled the right bank of the Dnieper.

In fact, the Sarmatians advanced much further west, into Central Europe. By the 1st century, the Sarmatian Iazyges tribes had already occupied the steppes bordering Pannonia between the Tisza and Danube rivers, i.e., the Middle Danubian Plain, the westernmost section of the Great Steppe. The Lower Danubian steppes were occupied by the Roxolani. Both Sarmatian tribal unions participated in the Dacian Wars, then the Marcomannic Wars, and so on. The remnants of these Danubian Sarmatians, according to Jordanes, were defeated by Theodoric the Amal around 472, after which the survivors were apparently assimilated by the Ostrogoths.

In 454 the Huns were defeated by the Gepids, in 463 by the Bulgarians, in 469 by the Byzantines,

After Attila's death in 453, power in the Hunnic Empire passed to his sons, who were unable to maintain it. Ultimately, the Huns themselves were defeated by a coalition of former subject tribes at the Battle of the River Nedao. Again, according to Jordanes, the forces included Goths, Gepids, Suevi, Rugii, Scirii, Heruli, and Alans. These forces were commanded by the Gepid rex Ardaric, a companion of Attila and a participant in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains in 451. Ultimately, Attila's eldest son, Ellac, was killed, and his other sons, Dengizikh and Ernak, were forced to leave Pannonia. The former, who had been hanging out with his horde on the Lower Danube, attempted to attack Byzantine possessions in Thrace in 468 or 469, but was killed. The second one went further, to the Azov region, and apparently, from his horde, the Proto-Bulgar tribes of Kutrigurs and Utigurs emerged...

[Senior seaman]

At the same time, everyone silently agreed that Rurik’s successor, Prophetic Oleg, was a Scandinavian.

Not all
Anyone who has read "Kuksha from the Domovichs" knows that Prophetic Oleg is the only Slav in this gang)))

It hasn't even occurred to anyone yet to declare Catherine II a Slav or at least to look for Slavs among her ancestors.

You underestimate cryptohistorians)))
The Askanis have long been declared Germanized Slavs
Take this for example
https://liveangarsk.ru/blog/patriot/20151206/ot-ryurika-do-ek
If I remember correctly, Petukhov (may he never be mentioned) also wrote something like that.
Actually a good article. +

[3x3zsave]

To anyone who has read "Kuksha from Domovichi"
Ivan, do you seriously think there are even a dozen people in the "history" section who have read this boring story that became the basis for a legendary film?

[Senior seaman]

Quote: 3x3zsave

Ivan, do you seriously think there are even a dozen people in the "history" section who have read this boring story that became the basis for a legendary film?

Well, not so boring, and not a short story, a whole trilogy
It's a shame it wasn't fully adapted for the screen during the Soviet era. If Sarik (may he never be remembered) gets his hands on it now, it's all over!

[Pavel57]

Quote: Illanatol

And what kind of one should be made? As Jews themselves sometimes say: "Israel is a state where Jews of different races have gathered."

To the question: what makes a Jew a Jew?

[Illanatol]

One doesn't have to be born a Jew; one can become one. The word "Jew" itself, translated from Greek, means "one who knows God." What makes a Jew a Jew is essentially their membership in a specific religious and cultural group.
Perhaps the Jews weren't a people at first, certainly not an ethnic group, but a priestly caste who conceived of monotheism. I can speculate, though I admit it's unprovable, that the Jews descended from Egyptian priests who adhered to the cult of the Sun-Aton during the time of the apostate pharaoh. After the pharaoh's death, this cult was banned in Egypt itself, and its adherents were eventually expelled from the country... and thus the Jews emerged. Over time, the Sun-Aton evolved into a more anthropomorphic god. First, Yahweh-Sabaoth, and later, the son Christ joined the fold. Solar traces remain, however; some significant holidays in Judaism and Christianity are tied to astronomical phenomena associated with the Sun (equinoxes, solstices).

[Pavel57]

Some significant holidays in Judaism and Christianity are tied to astronomical phenomena associated with the Sun (equinox, solstice).

In Judaism, they seem to be tied to the cycles of the moon.

[Illanatol]

The calendar is solar-lunar. In fact, many people initially considered the sun a god, which is quite natural.

https://toldot.com/calendar.html

[Pavel57]

The calendar is solar-lunar.

It seems that the Egyptian god Yah is the god of the Moon.

[cat Rusich]

My opinion...
Taking the "invitation of Rurik to reign" as a real fact, we need to continue and develop this idea in this way: The residents of Novgorod knew who Rurik was, and not just by hearsay that such a man Rurik existed, but they knew him very well and probably even had common business with him (for example, guarding trade caravans). Those who called "to reign" did not give "an advertisement in the newspaper" ... "Novgorod is looking for a prince - height ... weight ... hair color ... etc. etc."
Those who called for him to "reign" would not have invited an outright robber and villain, since he was supposed to be in a responsible position with financial liability to his employers.
In the articles about Rurik they never mentioned on what language Rurik communicated with the Novgorodians about the "prince" - by default in the "language of the Novgorodians" - which means Rurik already knew Slavic language or spoke it by birth.
Also, no one focuses on creed Rurik - they say they called him and they called him, what gods he worshipped - what difference does it make... I believe that the question of religion was not raised because Rurik believed in the same gods as the inhabitants of Novgorod.
It turns out - Rurik knew the language and was co-religionist residents of Novgorod and could not be foreigner, and was from a Slavic tribe, but not from the princely family of that tribe.

[Tulus12]

Quote: cat Rusich

In the articles about Rurik, they never mentioned what language Rurik used to communicate with the Novgorodians about his "reign" - by default, it was "the language of the Novgorodians" - which means Rurik already knew the Slavic language or was fluent in it by birth.

Or he had a translator

Quote: cat Rusich

I believe that the question of religion was not raised because Rurik believed in the same gods as the inhabitants of Novgorod.

And why should the Novgorodians care what gods the prince believed in, as long as he didn't interfere with the locals? Considering the paganism of the time, that is.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Tulus12

Or he had a translator

This wouldn't have gone unnoticed. A counterexample is William the Norman's conquest of Britain. Even his descendants, even several generations later (for example, Richard the Lionheart), spoke so-called "Old French," which the local English didn't understand at all, as reflected in available sources. There's simply no evidence that the summoned Rurik spoke a language other than the locals.

[Konnick]

Quote: Illanatol

There is simply no evidence that the summoned Rurik spoke a language other than the local ones.

Or we could start from the opposite angle. Old Norse languages ​​descend from Slavic. After all, the ancestors of the Vikings came to Scandinavia from the Eastern European Plain. They shared the Proto-Indo-European language, and Scandinavian languages ​​are closer to Slavic than other Indo-European languages.
Examples from Swedish
Jag (ya) - I
Torg (tori) - marketplace, trading place (note: the main square of Stockholm is Sergels Torg, where the local GUM, Tsum, Detsky Mir and street stalls are located)
Då bra (до бро) - good, well, okay, ok
Gärna (yarn) - good, nice, with pleasure
På (by) - a preposition analogous to the Russian preposition by (på torg = by trade, by area)
Stan (stan) - a station, a parking lot, a city center (Gamla Stan is the old town of Stockholm, Teply Stan is a district of Moscow)
Påtår (potor) - a repeat, such as a free refill of coffee (a second cup)
Han (khan) - he (<chingiz> khan?)
Är det .. (e de) - this ..?
Många (Mongo) - a lot (Mongo = Mongo_lia)
Veta (veta) - to know, to be aware
Jobba (yoba) - to work (in Russian, "to fuck" often means to work tediously)
Jobbigt (yobit) - a difficult <day>, a difficult <person> (fucking in Russian)
Är (э) - э<то>

[Alex priest]

Exactly. The Novgorodians, or Ilmen Slavs, had been intermingling with the Scandinavians in the Ladoga and Baltic regions for a hundred years by then, and the Varangians were already part of the group; they spoke the Novgorodian language, they were part of the group, and they were understood.

[Alex priest]

Absolutely right. The Novgorodians, or Ilmen Slavs, had been intermingling with the Scandinavians in the Ladoga and Baltic regions for a hundred years by then, and the Varangians were already part of the group; they spoke the Novgorodian language, they were part of the group, and they were understood.

[faterdom]

The article is interesting, I can’t even remember so much on the topic in two pages.
As for the question, rulers have their own games—to justify their rights and talents (?) by tracing their lineage back to distant epic heroes, or even gods... There was one such, a descendant of Heracles, and through him, Zeus, but unlike them, he truly shook up the Oecumene. Although who knows, perhaps both Heracles and Zeus had some prototypes, and perhaps they made their own contribution to human history?
What about the masses of people who "descended from Rurik" and are therefore interested in whether he was a Slav, a Scandinavian, or a Varangian (profession, nationality, community leading an aquatic nomadic lifestyle)?
Despite the fact that the main masses of people lived in these places 2 and 5 thousand years ago, regardless of who was the ruler, king or governor of any state.
According to Klesov, genetic analysis shows that haplogroup r1a, to which we belong, appeared around 5000 BC, which is very offensive to the "Chosen People," whose generations can be traced back to 4000 BC.
And how we lived before Rurik for the previous 6000 years - for some reason, it doesn’t bother us, it’s a priori assumed that we were wild and “there just wasn’t any order.”
At the same time, almost all of us are not descendants of Rurik, so even getting an answer to who he was doesn’t give us anything, neither hot nor cold.

[Illanatol]

Quote: vet

And the speed of the Serpent Gorynych is the speed of a Polovtsian raiding party. In the chronicles, it is the Polovtsians who are compared to snakes, and Vladimir Monomakh is said to have "crushed the heads of the snakes" in the context of his victories over the Polovtsians.

There are various theories about the "Snake-Gorynych." Speaking of the Polovtsians... perhaps they simply borrowed something from the Sarmatians. The latter had something like banners. Well, metal tubes with dragon heads, mounted on spear shafts. Woven bags with holes were added to the back of these tubes. When mounted warriors with such devices rode, these tubes emitted an oppressive roar to intimidate the enemy.

But I most favor the theory that the battle with the Dragon Gorynych was inspired by a real historical episode—a clash between the Russian fleet and Byzantine ships equipped with flamethrowers that spewed Greek fire. The flamethrowers, again, resembled dragon heads. Some claim that the number of such flamethrowers on the ships was a multiple of three. That's why the Dragon Gorynych had three heads...

In bylinas, the battle between the heroes and this dragon often took place on the Kalinov Bridge over the Smorodina River. Smorodina comes from the word "stench" (Greek fire and its combustion products had a strong stench). And "Kalinov Bridge" refers to a bridge of red-hot metal, the entrance to the Slavic underworld. In that battle, for the Russians, who found themselves on the brink of certain death, even survival was a true victory. From the stories of the few survivors of the lost battle who returned to Kyiv, tales of the battle with the three-headed monster began to spread.

[Illanatol]

Quote: cat Rusich

Also, no one focuses on Rurik's religion - they say they called him and called him, what gods he worshiped - what difference does it make... I believe that the question of religion was not raised because Rurik believed in the same gods as the inhabitants of Novgorod.

Most likely. And this is a good dig at the inveterate Normanists, who claim that our Rurik is Rurik of Jutland, a very Scandinavian figure. But this Rurik was a Christian, and Christianity was already making inroads into the Scandinavian lands. Jutland's warriors, one would assume, were also Christians. It would be improper for a Christian leader to have pagan warriors under his command. But there is simply no evidence that the summoned Rurik and his warriors were Christians. The monk Nestor would certainly have mentioned such a fact. Surely the new ruler couldn't have been ashamed of his faith in front of the local pagan barbarians? And Rurik's heirs were also pagans and worshiped Slavic gods; for some reason, Odin and Thor weren't even mentioned at the time. Even Prince Vladimir, who later baptized Rus', initially worshiped Perun and Veles...

[know]

It is not fitting for a Christian leader to have pagan warriors under his command.

I think the religion of his warriors, or even more so, his mercenaries, was the last thing on the Christian leader's mind. He was interested in their professional qualities.

[Illanatol]

You're mistaken. Especially since the Scandinavian earls weren't served by foreign mercenaries, but by their own tribesmen.
When a warrior swore an oath of allegiance to his overlord, he swore in the name of God. For a Christian leader, an oath in the name of a pagan god would have no value, and he could not trust such a vassal. Whatever the leader's faith, so should his subordinates. Mercenaries—yes, but they were treated accordingly, as expendable. However, even mercenaries often changed their religion if it was advantageous for their service.

When Prince Vladimir began to baptize Rus, who did he start with first, in your opinion?

[Igor Belobrov]

If anyone started the story that Rurik was a Jew and a Judaist by faith, someone would have a heart attack.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Igor Belobrov

Who would have started the story that Rurik was a Jew?

I don't know about Rurik, but Nikitin mentioned Russian descendants of Scythians mixed with Jews. See the Hyperborea cycle.

[Alex priest]

The Jews are too southern, dark-skinned, and the homeland of these goatherds is the desert, like that of all Arabs. These Gypsies have nothing in common with Russians or Germans, and cannot have anything in common.

[geologist]

The two-volume "History of the Kuban Cossack Host" explicitly states that the Cossacks are descended directly from Prometheus, whose liver was pecked by an eagle. This can only be due to overeating and a fondness for vodka.

[torbas41]

90% of our population doesn't know who their great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers were, let alone remember who ruled Rus' two thousand years ago. Our communist comrades have tried to burn out all the legends with a hot iron.

[Inj Meh]

https://youtu.be/VTo-RWoxeW0?si=0dUArWWMDU0Hjg74

[Inj Meh]

Interestingly, the Tale of Bygone Years's account of the disunity of the northern and eastern Slavic tribes and their wealth ("our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it") is confirmed by the Spanish merchant of Jewish descent, Ibrahim ibn Ya'qub al-Isra'ili at-Turtushi, who visited the Czech Republic, Hungary, and possibly Poland in the 960s–980s. Based on accounts from Czechs and Hungarians, he reports:

In general, the Slavs are a courageous and resolute people, and if they weren't disunited by the numerous branches of their tribes and the dispersal of their tribes, no nation in the world would be able to match their strength. Their country boasts the richest dwellings and provisions. They are diligent in agriculture and in obtaining their own food, surpassing all the northern peoples in this regard... And their goods reach the Rus' and Constantinople by sea and land. The most important northern tribes speak Slavic, having interbred with them.

Please note: this author also distinguishes between the Rus and the Slavs.

It may be that the Russians are a northern/northeastern mixture of Slavs with a dream population in the risky farming zone, who were equally good at
and in agriculture
And in cattle breeding
And into collecting
And into the hunt
And to preserve all of this for the winter
And in crafts in winter

In general, the Russian of today is a mixture of Slavs and locals, devoid (with rare, unpleasant exceptions) of Nazism as a driving cult, and with a "genetic" craving for collectivism, without which you cannot make a clearing in the forest for farming and mowing alone.

This is the true difference between the European Slavs (who are the same mixture of Slavs with Anglo-Saxons and Romans and Greeks and Franks, and some of them are forcedly designated, etc., artificially localized) and Russians.

As it seems to me.

[Inj Meh]

The only large island, including one partially surrounded by swamps, that could be in those parts is the Snerusskaya Upland, approximately 200-300 m above current sea level, provided that this level was 60-120 m higher.

[Eugene Zaboy]

In the next article, we'll continue our story. We'll discuss the final stage of the Great Migration of Peoples (the "dispersal of the Slavs"), the first Slavic state of Samo, the Rus' of Byzantine and European chronicles, modern versions of the origin of the word "Rus'," and a modern perspective on the Norman question.

If you read the article and then look at the map, you'll see that the state borders remain the same, unchanged for millennia. Russia, the USSR, and the Russian Empire are essentially located in territories where ancient authors identified Slavs and Russians. Genetics also confirms these conclusions. The fact that various authors, representing different cultures and countries, call us by different names and divide us into parts doesn't mean we're of different origins, but rather that they have no idea who they're writing about. Or they were deliberately trying to divide a single people. Propaganda wasn't invented yesterday. Scandinavians push one thing, Arabs another, Jews—well, where would we be without them—a third, and so on. In fact, you have to read between the lines, otherwise you'll become a Pole, a Jew, or a Scandinavian, and to them, you'll die a Russian.