Military Review

Kievan Rus ... no longer Kievan

159
The article "Kievan Rus" disappeared in the Russian-language "Wikipedia". Instead, it is now - "Old Russian state." The cradle of the "three brotherly nations" put into storage stories.


Kievan Rus ... no longer Kievan

Russia and Ukraine are moving away from each other not only in politics, but also in interpretations of a common history. Back in 80, we were taught that Kievan Rus was the cradle of three fraternal peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. But the new “feudal fragmentation”, which followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, slowly migrated to the works of researchers and school textbooks.

In Ukraine, from the beginning of the 90-ies, the concept of the Chairman of the Central Rada, Mikhail Hrushevsky, who declared Russia to be exclusively an “ancient Ukrainian state”, became official. Russia remained silent for a long time and, finally, struck back a “blow”.

The familiar phrase “Kievan Rus” is now quietly disappearing from scientific works and school textbooks of the Russian Federation. It is replaced by the term “Old Russian State” devoid of geographic references to Kiev, which turned out to be abroad. Politics once again reshapes the story for the masses.

In fairness, we note that Kievan Rus as the official name of the early medieval state of the Eastern Slavs never existed. The chronicles, on the basis of which modern historians build their schemes, called this state simply Rus, or Russian land. It is under this name that she appears in The Tale of Bygone Years, written by a monk Nestor, a contemporary of Vladimir Monomakh, at the turn of the 11th — 12th centuries in Kiev.

But the same justice makes us recall that the term "Kievan Rus" was coined not in Kiev, but in ... Moscow, in the XIX century. Authorship of it some researchers attributed to Nikolai Karamzin, others - to Mikhail Pogodin. But thanks to Professor of the University of Moscow Sergey Solovyov (1820 — 1879), he widely used the term “Kievan Rus” along with “Rus Novgorod”, “Rus Vladimir” and “Rus Moskovskaya” in the famous “History of Russia since ancient times ". Soloviev adhered to the so-called concept of "changing capitals". The first capital of the old Slavic state, in his opinion, was Novgorod, the second was Kiev, the third was Vladimir-on-Klyazma, the fourth was Moscow, which did not prevent Russia from remaining one state.


The term "Kievan Rus" gained popularity thanks to the Moscow historian of the nineteenth century. Sergey Solovyov


After Solovyov, “Kievan Rus” from scholarly works penetrated into books for secondary schools. For example, in M. Ostrogorsky's repeatedly re-published “Russian History Textbook” (he endured 1915 editions for 27 for a year!) On page 25, you can read the main topic “The decline of Kievan Rus”. But in pre-revolutionary Russia, history remained an elite science. Half of the population remained illiterate. In gymnasiums, seminaries and real schools studied an insignificant percentage of the population. By and large, the phenomenon of mass historical consciousness did not exist yet - for men who had met 1917 for a year, everything that happened before their grandfathers happened “under the Tsar Peas”.

There was no need for the concept of the "cradle of the three fraternal peoples" and the tsarist government. Before the Great October Revolution, Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians were officially considered to be three Russian peoples. Consequently, they still, figuratively speaking, lay in the same Russian cradle. No one was going to outweigh it a thousand years ago - in the half-dwelling places of the chronicles of the field, the Drevlians and the Krivichi, who from their 10th century also didn’t give a damn how their descendants in the 20th century would be called “Old Russian” or “Old Ukrainian” tribes. Or ancient Belarusian, as an option.

All changed the revolution and ... Stalin. Promising the masses a wonderful communist future, the Bolsheviks with no less zeal began to redo the past. More precisely, rewrite his picture. He supervised the work of the personal leader and teacher, distinguished by enviable hard work and organizational skills. In the middle of 30, Soviet schoolchildren received a textbook "A Short Course in the History of the USSR", where without any doubts it was clearly and unambiguously written as cut down with an ax: "From the beginning of the 10th century, the Kiev principality of Slavs is called KIEV RUSSIA." This textbook was intended for third-graders. Thus, with the help of Stalinism and totalitarianism, the phrase “KIEV RUSSIA” was hammered FOR THE FIRST TIME MASSOVO into the heads of several generations. And who would dare to argue with Comrade Stalin and his Education Commissariat that this is exactly what she was called in the 10th century? Oh her to the demon, this story! There would survive during the great fractures!


For high school students. A map from the history textbook of M. Ostrogorsky 1915


DRIVER INSTRUCTIONS. Twenty pages were occupied by a section called “Kievan Rus” in the Stalinist textbook “History of the USSR” for the 8 class edited by Professor G. Pankratova. By the way, despite the fact that the official Soviet historical science, until the collapse of the Soviet Union, was at war with the Vikings, denying their contribution to the creation of Russia, Pankratova’s textbook was not free from the remnants of pre-revolutionary Normanism. At least, he did not deny the Scandinavian origin of the founder of the Rurik dynasty.

I quote this “History of the USSR” for the 8 class, while retaining all the peculiarities of the original spelling in Ukrainian - in the language in which students of Ukrainian schools in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic studied this ideologically important subject: “Through the lands, filled with their words, having passed through the waterway, scooling the Baltiisk sea from Chornim: “the way of the Varyag among the Greeks”, tobto from the land of the Varyagiv - Scandinavia - at Vyzantia… Tsim Shlyakh in the 9th century. walked, shukayuchi making money Іnoі ponds znishchuvali abo pіdkoryali sob mystsevy Slov'yanskih princes і were on their іх misse. After the re-entry, in the middle of IX Art. one of these shukach_v useful - Rurik - established in Novgorod, yakiy buv key from p_vnochі to dnіprovskogo way ".


Academician Grekov grabbed his head. This was one of the history conferences at the end of the 40s. All at the behest of Stalin!


Then came the story of Prince Oleg of Novgorod, who seized Kiev from people with clearly non-Slavic names Askold and Dir. But the schoolchildren could only guess what connection he had with his predecessor Rurik and why this clearly volitional invasive action of the Novgorod prince in relation to Kiev should be considered the “union” of small Slavic states - Novgorod and Kiev - under the authority of Prince Oleg.

He taught the Stalinist textbook and about Rurik. After all, he was established in Novgorod not “according to legend”, but according to the message of “The Tale of Bygone Years” by Nestor the Chronicler, who tells about Novgorod’s decision in this way: “In the year 6370 from the creation of the world (in 862 AD) the Varangian was expelled overseas, And they did not give them tribute, and they began to own themselves, and there was no truth among them, and the race was born, and they were quarrelsome, and they began to fight each other. And they said to themselves: “Let us look for a prince who would own us and judge according to the law”. And they went overseas to the Vikings, to Russia. Those Varyags were called Rus, as others are called Swedes, and other Varyags were Normans and Angles, and others were Gotland, and so were these. Chud, Sloven, Krivichi and the whole of Russia said: “Our land is great and rich, and there is no order in it. Come reign and own us. " And three brothers were elected with their clans, and they took the whole of Russia with them, and they came and sat down, the eldest, Rurik, in Novgorod ... And from those Varangians nicknamed the Russian land. "

Not a word about Kievan Rus, right? Only about the Russian land. And initially in the north - in the area of ​​Novgorod. Already this Russia was multinational. After all, apart from the Slavic tribes, Sloven and Krivichy, among those who called for the Vikings, Finnish people are Chud and all (the first lived in the Baltic States, the second - east of Nevsky Lake). These are the Finno-Ugrians, most hated by our nationalists (they are considered to be the ancestors of the “Muscovites”), who, according to the chronicles, became Rus before the Kiev glades! After all, Polyan of Rurikovich was yet to be subdued, so that they too would “Russify”. As stated by Nestor: "Glades, which are now called Rus".

Oh, this story! Well, she does not want to unconditionally surrender to politics! After all, if you believe Nestor, then it turns out that not only Kievan Rus, but even just Rus, Kiev was not captured by Novgorod prince Oleg, whose squads consisted of Scandinavian Varyags (“Russia”), northern Slavs (Slovenes and Krivichi) and Finns (chudi and vesi).

VARYAGA SILENT! Stalin was, above all, a politician, not a historian. He introduced through the school and universities in the mass consciousness the myth of Kievan Rus, in order to divert attention from the long period preceding it.

According to the chronicles, Prince Oleg of Novgorod seized Kiev in 882 year. By this time, the Vikings had been hosting in the north, in the area of ​​Ladoga and Novgorod, for almost a century. Sailing from across the Baltic Sea, they took tribute from the Slavic and Finnish tribes. Ladoga became the first stronghold of the Vikings. Novgorod, after Rurik established himself - the second. The names of the first Russian princes were of Scandinavian origin. Oleg (Helgi), Igor (Ingvar), Askold (Haskuld) speak for themselves. They really do not resemble the Slavic Vladimirov and Svyatoslavs.

All this caused numerous questions about the true history of the origin of Russia, which Stalin did not want to answer. So why not turn the conversation to another topic? Why delve into the history of the appearance of the Varyags in Novgorod and evaluate their role in the creation of the ancient Russian state? Let's just write that Oleg fell in Kiev from Novgorod, without going into details of its origin. And we will call Russia Kiev, so that the inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine remember that they, too, are just a little bit, but still Russians.


Academician Grekov fulfilled the instructions of Stalin on the introduction of Kievan Rus into the consciousness of the masses


Comrade Stalin proclaimed that Russia was founded not by the Swedes, but by the Slavs, and gave appropriate instructions on this matter. None of the historians could even conceive of disobeying him. The decisive battle was declared to the historic “sabotage” and intrigues of the Normanists! “Soviet historical science, following the instructions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, basing the comments of comrades Stalin, Kirov and Zhdanov on the“ Abstract of the history textbook of the USSR ”, developed a theory about the pre-feudal period ... there is no places for the Normans as creators of the state among the wild East Slavic tribes, ”wrote Dean of the Faculty of History of Leningrad University Vladimir M in 1949 in his paper“ Fighting Normanism in Russian Historical Science ” avrodin.

By this time, the unfortunate Normanists — both the dead, like the pre-revolutionary Karamzin and Solovyov, and the living, who were subdued under the pulpit, were finally “defeated” by academician Boris Grekov. This Lysenko from history, born in Mirgorod and taught before the revolution in the women's gymnasium, has already become famous for the exact execution of the Stalinist instructions in the monographs "Kievan Rus" and "Culture of Kievan Rus", published in 1939 and 1946. He had no particular choice. Boris Grekov hung on Stalin's hook: in 1930, he was arrested on the so-called “Academic cause”, recalling that in 1920, the future academician was in the Crimea at Wrangel. Colleagues historians were well aware that the Greeks invented "Kievan Rus", serving the order of the regime. But to object to him was to argue with Stalin.

All these details were forgotten with time. The current Ukrainian schoolchildren, who are taught this most Kievan Rus never existed, do not know anything about Grekov or about his true inspirer with a Caucasian mustache. They also do not ask too many questions to pass tests without any problems. But we all know that Russia was just Rus. And not ancient. And not Kiev. Neither can it be privatized, nor can it be handed over to the archive of history. I am sure that this country is still awaiting amazing transformations. Simply we are not able to present them yet.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.buzina.org/
159 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Igor39
    Igor39 23 October 2013 08: 57
    31
    History is still a lie science, especially in Russia the Germans wrote it. The Slavs are more ancient people than written in history.
    1. New Russia
      New Russia 23 October 2013 09: 44
      -22 qualifying.
      Russians are a cross between 3 peoples, Slavs, Finno-Finns and Balts, Moscow and Kaluga, for example, Baltic lands, most cities in central Russia have Finno-Finnish names, although toponyms are mostly Slavic, it is generally believed that the word Russian came from the Slavs of the island of Rügen, who fled from the war with the Germans in Kievan Rus, the Germans called them their Rus. One of the chronicles unrecognized by science says that the Slavs came from Iran to the territory of present Novgorod 3 thousand years before the writing of this annals, (2 - 3 thousand BC) and founded the city of Starigrad on the site of present Novgorod, went on campaigns on Egypt, and in present-day Ukraine, was entrenched with the help of allied Persian chariots, which their enemies did not have. At one time, all of Prussia, the entire east and north of Germany were Slavic lands, which is preserved in the Slavic names of German cities:
      Ratzeburg - Ratibor (army - “army”, pine forest - “pine forest”) has been mentioned since the first attempts of the Germans to conquer these lands
      Marienburg - Maribor, probably from (Mara - the name of one of the Slavic goddesses, pine forest - "pine forest")
      Brandenburg - Branibor (abuse - “battle”, forest - “pine forest”, or “marshy” (abuse) forest)
      Weissberg - Belobreg, ("white coast") There are no mountains in the area of ​​the city, but the Laba River flows, one of the banks of which has old, limestone cliffs.
      Krukov - Kryukov, probably from the word "hook", the root is common in Slavic names, compare with Kryukovo
      Furs - possibly from the word "fur"
      Belau - Belov, from the word "white"
      Lutau - Lyutov, from the word "fierce" - evil, brave, strong, compare with the name of one of the Slavic tribal unions of Germany: Lyutichi
      Labenz - Labinets, or Labenets - from Laba, the Slavic name for the Elba River
      Goltsov - from "char", a word rootful to the surname Golitsin
      Lyukhov - Lukov, from the "bow"
      Gudov - from the verb “buzz”, compare with “buzzer”, “buzzer” (musical instruments)
      Belits - from the word "white"
      Linau - Linov, or Linev, probably from "tench"
      Kollov - Kolov, from the word “count” (part of a wooden fence), or “count” (circle) compare “Kolovrat”, “about”
      Grabau, Grabov, probably from the tree "hornbeam", or the root of the "rake", "rob"
      Alt Möln - Old Mill (Mill), on the coat of arms of the city the mill is depicted, whereas, in German, the “mill” is “Mühle” and not “Mölln”, as indicated in the name of the village. Thus, “Möln” in the name of the city is a Germanic Slavic “mill”.
      Talcau - Talc
      Glazau - Glazov
      Luckau (Wendland) - even the name of the district to which the village belongs is referred to by the Slavs “Wendland” - the land of the Wends, the name contains the root “onion”
      Lyukhov (Wendland) - also applies to the Wendland region
      Schvinau - probably pigs
      Wendish Efern - the name contains a mention of the Wends
      Moritz - Moritz (from the name of the reservoir)
      Płockau - Pleskov [Source?], Compare: Ples and Pskov
      Lyubs - contains the root “lyub” - very popular in Slavic names, compare: Lyubertsy, Lyubim, Lublin, Lyubichi, Ljubljana, Lyubich, Lyubin, Lyubitsa, etc.
      Gorau - Horov, from the word "mountain"
      Grain - from the word "grain"
      Brezen - Brezan, compare with the surname of the writer Luzhitsky Jan Brezan
      Kozelits - Kozelets, from the word "", compare with Kozelsk
      Roslau - Roslov
      Dobritz - Dobrich, from the word "good"
      Domniz - from the word "house"
      Rostock - “rose current” indicates a place in which water flows in different directions
      Berlin - a swampy place (brl -in)
      Chemnitz (the origin of Chemnitz) - from a “stone” a rocky stream
      Dresden - the place where people live in the forest came from
      Leipzig - Lipsk (from linden) cf. Russian city of Lipetsk. (there are other options for etymology)
      1. duke
        duke 23 October 2013 10: 32
        21
        You just forgot to mention that Prussia is Porussie. This raises the question of how the "Varangians" invited to the reign and their squads easily communicated with the population who invited them in the same language and did not cause any rejection, like the Germans once in the same Czech Republic, Poland, Porusye (whose population was almost completely destroyed and "replaced" by the Germans)? And finally, the main question - why were they invited to reign? That our ancestors were so miserable to send to strangers? Why unnecessary complications? Is it because, as a result of civil strife, the ranks of local legitimate contenders were greatly thinned out (as, for example, during the war of the Scarlet and White Roses in England), and they - "alien Varangians" - remained the only legal heirs, tk. Rurik (Rerik the Falcon) was the grandson of Gostomysl, all four of whose sons were killed in battle. Rurik also had a ready-made, tested army, which had experience of fighting with the Germans, as well as the experience of piracy (which he had to do after the defeat from the Germans and the execution of his father Godslav), which included mercenaries - the Vikings, but he himself was the son of Godslav and Mila (Umila) -daughters of Gostomysl. Therefore, he was accepted by the local population without question and as they say with a bang ...
        1. New Russia
          New Russia 23 October 2013 14: 45
          +2
          "This raises the question of how the" Varangians "invited to the reign and their squads easily communicated with the people who invited them in the same language and did not cause any rejection" On ancient European maps, Scandinavia and part of the Russian lands are marked as one state, probably for a reason ... It is also indicative that the Scandinavian word "guard" comes from our "grad", and not from some kind of "town" and "burg".
        2. Jurkovs
          Jurkovs 23 October 2013 20: 44
          +1
          I don’t deny the history of the German annihilation of the Prussians, but lately I think that under the threat of German genocide the majority of the people emigrated to Pskov and Novgorod, otherwise the Novgorod "settlements" Rostov the Great, Yaroslavl and in general all Seversk (Vladimir) Russia came from.
        3. vjhbc
          vjhbc 24 October 2013 02: 30
          0
          I can answer here we take a big family the founder dies and begin to share the inheritance and become enemies so that they worse worse than the external ones then they scratch their turnips what to do next and decide better let the stranger manage than kill him alone and everything from the fact that there is no prophet in his own country is how to put a brother or a matchmaker there or a nephew in general over there? Well, I’ll say worse than this mud-ak with whom they walked under the same bush .. or a drunken tomfooler home .. dragged so be afraid it won’t be
          Quote: duke
          And, finally, the main question - why were they invited to reign? That our ancestors were so miserable to send to strangers? Why unnecessary complications? Is it because, as a result of civil strife, the ranks of local legitimate contenders were greatly thinned out (as, for example, during the war of the Scarlet and White Roses in England), and they - "alien Varangians" - remained the only legal heirs, tk. Rurik (Rerik the Falcon) was the grandson of Gostomysl, all four of whose sons were killed in battle.
      2. Max otto
        Max otto 23 October 2013 10: 37
        20
        Quote: New Russia
        Russian is a cross between 3 peoples, Slavs, Finno-Finns and Balts, Moscow and Kaluga, for example, the Baltic lands ...

        This is noble nonsense. Russians are Russians. Genetics, if not science at all?
        1. New Russia
          New Russia 23 October 2013 14: 41
          +1
          "This is noble nonsense. Russians are Russians. Genetics is not a science at all, right?" Are you a geneticist? Most of the European territory of Russia was inhabited by non-Slavs who were assimilated, that is, there was a mixing of nationalities. two-thirds of Russians have a gene that enhances the heavy influence of alcohol on the body, which is available only among the Ugric peoples. Czechs and Germans who drink a little less have several times less diseases associated with alcohol.
          1. Max otto
            Max otto 23 October 2013 16: 50
            +5
            Quote: New Russia
            Are you a geneticist? Most of the European territory of Russia was not settled by the Slavs, who were assimilated, that is, there was a mixture of nationalities. two-thirds of Russians have a gene that enhances the heavy influence of alcohol on the body found only in the Ugro-Finnish peoples. Czechs and Germans, drinking only slightly less, have many times less diseases related to alcohol.

            Ohhhh! Even more noble nonsense went. But what would you need to be a geneticist to read about genetics and heredity? It’s interesting, interesting, what gene does this affect the hangover? A drunken German is no different from a Russian. Yes, and sober too, in relation to alcohol. The only race that does not tolerate alcohol in Russian quantities is the Mongoloids.
            1. Max otto
              Max otto 23 October 2013 17: 11
              +2
              Quote: New Russia

              Here you will be interested in http://haplogroup.narod.ru/genetics_components.html
            2. New Russia
              New Russia 23 October 2013 18: 06
              -1
              "Even more noble delirium has gone. It's interesting, I wonder what gene is this that affects a hangover?" And then: "The only race that cannot tolerate alcohol in Russian quantities is the Mongoloids." They have refuted themselves, so the Mongoloids still have this gene?) "Intolerant of alcohol in Russian quantities" Dooo in Russian quantities) The life expectancy of Russian men who, as you say, endure it has already reached 50 years ??? Or not yet?
              1. Max otto
                Max otto 23 October 2013 19: 30
                +2
                Quote: New Russia
                They refuted themselves, so does the Mongoloid still have this gene?) ... The life expectancy of Russian men who, as you say, endure it, has already reached 50 years ??? Or not yet?

                Young lady, you disappoint me. I gave you the link, if only they looked. The genetic differences between the Russians and the Finno-Ugric peoples are striking, there can even be no talk of similarities. Alcohol intolerance is expressed in the fact that a Caucasoid will calmly take out 500 ml of alcohol with a concentration of ethanol of 40% and even go home on his own feet, and a Chinese or Ipponite will simply die. About alcoholism there is no need to fill in, this phenomenon is purely social and not genetic.
                And a very disappointing conclusion suggests itself for one small but very proud people: the Lithuanians are Slavs, the differences from the Russians, and especially the Belarusians are minimal, I would say they tend to zero.
                1. jjj
                  jjj 23 October 2013 21: 38
                  +1
                  In genetics, Lithuanians are Russians. And the Swedes too. And the Germans (northern). And the most striking thing is that there are fewer genetic differences between modern Russian and German than between Russian and Ukrainian
                2. duke
                  duke 23 October 2013 21: 49
                  0
                  I don’t know whether the Slavs are Lithuanians, but do not forget that in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the удьmud / жemait and other tribes had a minority, the majority were Belaya Rus, Volyn and other Slav tribes. They also actively mixed with the Russians (Baltic Slavs). Many princes had Russian wives, for example, from the Tver Principality, and then Polish, who are all the same Slavs. No wonder that in genetics they are so close to Belarusians. When I was a student, Indian students and I had the opportunity to go to the Sov. Lithuania, one Hindu knew ancient Sanskrit, he was shocked and said that the Lithuanian language has approximately 50% of the roots of Sanskrit words. This suggests that it is definitely the Aryan people, like the Russians.
          2. Ascetic
            Ascetic 23 October 2013 18: 02
            +5
            Quote: New Russia
            two-thirds of Russians have a gene that enhances the heavy influence of alcohol on the body found only in the Ugro-Finnish peoples. Czechs and Germans, drinking only slightly less, have many times less diseases related to alcohol.


            Aw, and I thought that genetics was just the opposite.
            For alcohol, see from 1; 20 on video

          3. kotvov
            kotvov 23 October 2013 18: 21
            0
            girl would you heal, your genes do not raise doubts at all, the heavy effect of alcohol on the body, what kind of nonsense are you writing. Or are genes affecting?
        2. moskov1
          moskov1 23 October 2013 17: 44
          -7
          Russians have pronounced cheekbones, a wide nose that is not observed among Ukrainians and Belarusians
          1. washi
            washi 23 October 2013 19: 08
            +1
            Quote: moskov1
            Russians have pronounced cheekbones, a wide nose that is not observed among Ukrainians and Belarusians

            Is it hard to see the fairy tales that were filmed at the temporary detention center? They tried to pick up images of Russians. Or the film "Alexander Nevsky".
            And how do you like the image of "lunalikaya", which was appreciated by the Turks?
          2. Ulan
            Ulan 24 October 2013 08: 44
            +1
            I remember some "researcher" from Kanadchina, one of the former Banderites who had not been killed, published a "work" on this topic, which proved the external differences between Russians and Ukrainians. The type of Russians are shorter, bow-legged, cross-eyed, and other nonsense. Have you read it?
            You unfortunate people gentlemen Svidomity.
        3. reserve
          reserve 24 October 2013 11: 47
          -1
          There is no nationality "Russian" in nature at all. Buzina writes to you that the Russians descended from the peoples who lived northwest of Moscow (the village of Moksha). And the Rus tribe is not on the list. Watch TSB, or read Karamzin.
      3. nickname 1 and 2
        nickname 1 and 2 23 October 2013 13: 35
        +2
        Quote: New Russia
        Russians are a cross between 3 peoples, Slavs, Finno-Ugric Finns and Balts, Moscow and Kaluga, for example, Baltic lands, most cities in central Russia have Finno-Finnish names, although the place names are mostly Slavic,


        Do not shawl! - folk art...
        from brown hares .....?
      4. rexby63
        rexby63 23 October 2013 14: 44
        +3
        Lady, you’re better than scolding Putin
      5. Horde
        Horde 23 October 2013 20: 57
        +3
        Quote: New Russia
        Russians are a cross between 3 peoples, Slavs, Finno-Ugric Finns and Balts, Moscow and Kaluga, for example, Baltic lands, most cities in central Russia have Finno-Finnish names, although toponyms are mostly Slavic,


        Jews forgot (forgot) in Moscow lives apparently invisible ...
      6. Horde
        Horde 23 October 2013 21: 08
        +1
        Quote: Horde
        Russian is a cross between 3 peoples, Slavs, Finno-Finns and Balts


        well, of course, who can know better about the Russian people? of course kenet chachran under the nickname "new rus"fool
    2. 3.7.964
      3.7.964 23 October 2013 10: 42
      17
      Quote: Igor39
      Slavs are more ancient people than written in history.

      The Slavs are more ancient than we can imagine. Our Slavic history was purposefully rewritten, erased, destroyed. An apologist for this, the words of Gundyaev that the Slavs were savages before the advent of Christianity. Look what kind of enlightenment and civilization they brought by pouring blood into White Russia. They destroyed the initial letter, the Old Slavic Initial letter had 49 initial letters. To translate the Bible into our language, Cyril and Methodius changed our ancient Slavic initial letter and gave the letters Greek names, and removed the letters they did not understand (those that were not in Greek). Yaroslav the Wise removed one more letter with his wisdom. The reformer Peter I removed five. Nicholas II three more. After the 1917 revolution, Lunacharsky removed three and added the letter `` e ''. Lunacharsky removed the images from the drop cap, leaving only the phonemes, i.e. language has become without figurative = ugly. This castration of language leads to degradation not only of the language, but also of the mind of the people who use this language.

      Until the roots have dried out, remind the tree of genera
      To everyone whose traces are cold, that they were born in Russia!
      With fury, give them the Gods the salt of the centuries-old road,
      To stepping feet in memory of past centuries.
      Well, and who does not understand, does not remember,
      The wind will remind you of that.
      And reflected in the Lake Essence - a reflection of the truth.
      Cry zealous: sworn, sworn! Let me out! ..
      In Iznov
      Still, the beam brightens.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 23 October 2013 17: 52
        +4
        Quote: 3.7.964
        The Slavs are more, more ancient than we can imagine.


        Recently read Veles book V. Lesnogo. Scientists say that this is a fake. But even so, the Old Testament can also be recognized as fairy tales and legends, and nevertheless, it has become the basis of almost all monotheistic religions. I just got the impression that this book is a kind of Bible of the Old Russian people and its history until Christian times.

        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 23 October 2013 17: 55
          +1
          Quote: Ascetic
          Recently I read Velesova book V.Lesnogo

          I liked the interpretation of Asov more. hi
        2. ism_ek
          ism_ek 25 October 2013 08: 56
          +1
          Do not forget that "Velis's Book" is written in Cyrillic.
          It's strange somehow .... The pagan Magi were the first to master the Cyrillic alphabet and instantly forgot their "runes" with which they "wrote for thousands of years"?
    3. smile
      smile 23 October 2013 18: 17
      +2
      Igor39
      And I am frankly amused when someone with a blue eye declares. that the Vikings created a state for us (yeah, forgetting to create for themselves), that they called us Gardarika - the country of cities (they themselves did not have this) And when they talk about Rurik and his brothers Sineus and Truvor ... actually brothers and not brothers at all, and four words - Sine Yus - "together with relatives", Tru Var - "faithful squad" .... :))))
      1. duke
        duke 24 October 2013 00: 14
        -1
        “Sinn hus” is not a “Scandinavian” expression, since the Scandinavian would be “sitt hus” (Dat., Nor., Swiss). “Tru” is a word of unknown origin, since “faith” will be “tro” (Dat., Nor., Sv.). How can one write the above linguistic inventions without even bothering to check the dictionary elementarily. If you agree with this idea, it turns out that Rurik settled in Novgorod, “his family” in Beloozero, and his “faithful squad” in Izborsk. Then it’s ridiculous the news of the Tale of the calling of the Varangians looks like: “After two years, Sineus will die and his brother Truvor; and Priya power Rurik ”, which should have meant:“ Two years later, “his family” and his brother “faithful squad” died. Thus, Rurik was left alone like a finger, literally losing at once all with whom he came to Russia - both “his own kind”, and his “faithful squad”, and it is unclear what kind of “husband” he then began to distribute “grad” .
        1. hrych
          hrych 24 October 2013 00: 33
          +4
          The prince is a sailor with the name Blue Us, of course the Norman theory is greatly ruined. It’s especially funny when they start calling the names of Helga in the Scandinavian manner, that there weren’t enough letters to name the letters? Although in the sources there is no doubt the Russian name Volga. Or Rurik’s name is Hreorek, obviously Bayer, Miller, Schletzer almost looked piggy, looked for similar names in Scandinavia and barely drove something. It is clear that according to linguistic analysis, Nestor was of either Romance or Slavic-Balkan origin and the Russian language was difficult for him, but in Scandinavia there are no names either Askold (according to the Nikon chronicles Oskold) or Deer (according to the Ipatiev chronicles Dird). And why, as they say, the Norman prince Svyatoslav is given a blatantly Slavic name, and he would Volodymyr, well, would have accepted Islam and called Ibrahim or in Greek, the later the princes were nicknamed, but here are blatantly Slavic.
        2. smile
          smile 25 October 2013 02: 27
          +1
          duke
          Thanks. for wanting to be clear. / I took this information from Medinsky's "Peculiarities of National PR", there are also links to philologists and the correct spelling of words - even if I wanted to, I could not call myself an expert in this field .... and even more so, I have no ear , not a snout in the Old Norse languages ​​... reproduced from memory, not having transcriptions in front of my eyes, but this is not my language. :))) .... although I can get into the electronic version of the book and pull out a quote .... nada? :)))
          By the way, I’ll bring it, and if you refute those specialists on whom Medinsky referred, I admit I’m wrong with a light soul, this is unprincipled for me .... :))) are you sure you can? :)))
    4. Gennady1973
      Gennady1973 23 October 2013 21: 39
      +1
      Igor39 agrees! because of such historians, even here on the site we get swearing between us Ukrainians, Belarusians,. This is exactly what they want, that they would break each other themselves, and "they", like 1944, will open the second "front" when you just need to finish off the survivors in a good fraternal fight
    5. zub46
      zub46 23 October 2013 23: 02
      0
      It is better not to formulate this idea.
  2. erased
    erased 23 October 2013 09: 35
    14
    That is, Stalin is to blame for the mistakes of history from the author? Another sin of the generalissimo!
    Who was who there in ancient times, now we can only guess. Not a single authentic document of the epochs before the 10th century AD exists. All later entries are either fakes or fiction. As for the times of 12-19 centuries - yes, there was one people. There was one Russia, divided territorially into Great, White and Small. Although at some point the names could change. As an example, the Soviet people are an alloy of hundreds of peoples and nationalities. The country is gone, the name of the people is gone.
    The Kabbalah-based chronology of Scaliger and Petavius ​​will put pressure on history for a long time to come. And the operations of the rulers of Russia, which, sitting on the throne, destroyed a few records or distorted them, are confusing.
    One can only guess who Rurik really was, whether there was such a person or is it a group of persons of the same tribe. However, an indisputable fact - the modern isolation of one part from one people and artificial separation - is the work of politicians playing their toys.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 23 October 2013 12: 05
      +2
      Quote: erased
      Who was who there in ancient times, now we can only guess. Not a single authentic document of the epochs before the 10th century AD exists. All later entries are either fakes or fiction.

      I completely agree. On the other hand, from a toponymic point of view, for example, in the territory of the Vladimir region there are a lot of Finno-Ugric names. It is stupid to deny that Finno-Ugric tribes lived in this territory for a long time, the names do not live for a long time, if the people who use them have not lived in this territory for a long time. However, according to Klyazma, a lot of parking lots were opened and 1 thousand years before NE, and 3 thousand years, and 6 thousand years. Who these people were, what tribes they belonged to is a mystery. Still, it seems to me that in the early centuries of the NE, the Slavs met from the west, the southwest from the Finno-Ugric peoples, who were then assimilated.
      1. erased
        erased 23 October 2013 12: 38
        0
        Everything can be. We probably can’t know yet.
        1. cumastra1
          cumastra1 23 October 2013 15: 11
          0
          Maybe they know, but they don’t speak. The past is unpredictable, the most unpleasant thing is that it shoots into the future ....
      2. washi
        washi 23 October 2013 19: 18
        -1
        Quote: Vladimirets
        Quote: erased
        Who was who there in ancient times, now we can only guess. Not a single authentic document of the epochs before the 10th century AD exists. All later entries are either fakes or fiction.

        I completely agree. On the other hand, from a toponymic point of view, for example, in the territory of the Vladimir region there are a lot of Finno-Ugric names. It is stupid to deny that Finno-Ugric tribes lived in this territory for a long time, the names do not live for a long time, if the people who use them have not lived in this territory for a long time. However, according to Klyazma, a lot of parking lots were opened and 1 thousand years before NE, and 3 thousand years, and 6 thousand years. Who these people were, what tribes they belonged to is a mystery. Still, it seems to me that in the early centuries of the NE, the Slavs met from the west, the southwest from the Finno-Ugric peoples, who were then assimilated.

        You still forgot that the Ugrians (Huns) are Hungarians, Finns, Ests, etc. scum of our civilization, which was expelled from our territory.
        Maybe some historians are right who claim that there are two centers of the origin of civilization. North and South.
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 23 October 2013 20: 14
          +1
          Quote: Vasya
          You still forgot that the Ugrians (Huns) are Hungarians, Finns, Ests, etc. scum of our civilization, which was expelled from our territory.

          Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Horses mixed up in a bunch, people. If it is not known who used to live on this earth, then how can we say that we drove them out of our territory? What are the ests in the territory of the current Vladimir region?
  3. Boris55
    Boris55 23 October 2013 09: 39
    10
    ... Thus, with the help of Stalinism and totalitarianism, the phrase “KIEV RUSSIA” was hammered into the heads of several generations for the FIRST TIME Mass ...

    Again, Stalin is to blame!



    ... Stalin was, above all, a politician, not a historian. He introduced the myth of Kievan Rus through schools and universities into the mass consciousness in order to divert attention from the long period preceding it ...

    He introduced ... Since the 17 year, the media, all print media, including textbooks, are still in the hands of those who seized power:


    The whole picture: http://klin.hutt.ru/viewtopic.php?id=878#p1627
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 23 October 2013 14: 49
      -4
      No one disputes that until the 9th century people lived on the site of Russia and there were states, but there was no written language. Writing brought the Kiev princes. This is an indisputable fact. No one is silent. There is simply no written language - no history.
      1. New Russia
        New Russia 23 October 2013 15: 03
        +3
        Before the slaughter, the Slovenes are still essentially trash, the name is written. BUT FEATURES AND CUTTING READERS. Runic writing existed among priests and magicians.
        1. Netrocker
          Netrocker 23 October 2013 15: 20
          0
          Birch bark letters or what?
          1. New Russia
            New Russia 23 October 2013 15: 28
            +3
            Birch-bark letters are Cyrillic, with runes written on tablets.
      2. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 23 October 2013 16: 40
        +1
        There are no indisputable facts in history, alas. In Japanese schools, many students are sure that Hiroshima from Nagasaki bombed the USSR. For us, an indisputable fact, bombs were dropped by US planes, and the Japanese textbook says - Allies for the anti-Hitler coalition ...
        As for the availability of writing long before the 9th century, there are people who argue and are very reasoned. Search.
        Try to find the written original of some document on which modern official history is based, older than at least 500 years old. Here's how you find it, you can talk about the facts.
        1. ism_ek
          ism_ek 25 October 2013 08: 08
          +1
          Quote: Firstvanguard
          Try to find the written original of some document on which modern official history is based, older than at least 500 years old.
          The Slavs - Birch bark letters of the 11th century, inscriptions on buildings icons.
          In the same Mesopotamia - clay tablets, which are three ... four thousand years old.
  4. VARCHUN
    VARCHUN 23 October 2013 10: 09
    10
    I completely agree with the fact that everything has been captured by Jews since 17, but tell me. What is the period of Kiev and Moscow, the difference is about 800 years, and the time there was a time in Kiev, the population reached 100 thousand when 30 000 ate spruce in London. A fight 3 the brothers of the princes, too, is not clear. Kiev Founded: VI-VII century; conditional date - 482 year, Moscow First mention: 1147 year, so what can we talk about.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. duke
      duke 23 October 2013 10: 54
      +5
      yes, what are you, zapadentsi already say that Kiev was founded earlier than Rome, by some "ancient ukrami" and spoke exclusively in Ukrainian, as proof there is even a globe of Ukraine fellow laughing
      And the "parasite" - the great Russian, Kiev, prince Yuri Dolgoruky - founded Moscow, after all, "an infection" (God bless his soul), otherwise she would not be damned ... crying
      And the Russian princes often ruled both in Novgorod and in Kiev and Vladimir and vice versa, and nothing, the country grew and it never occurred to anyone to call the Novgorodians, to call the people of Vladimir - sworn yami, and the people of Kiev ... the people were and are - one. Western "historians" and political strategists have worked well with Ridna Krayna.
      1. Algor73
        Algor73 23 October 2013 12: 38
        +4
        "... they say that Kiev was founded earlier than Rome, by some" ancient ukrami "..." Please give me a reference, I have never met such a thing. And to be honest, what difference does it make which came before, the egg or the chicken. The fact is that Russia, and Ukraine, and Belarus are now independent states, inhabited by East Slavic peoples. And to argue who and how "worked" with history is absurd, since this is history, in the West, in their libraries, there is a lot of old documents confirming this or that version. Basically, everything is based on guesswork, both then and now.
        1. Manager
          Manager 23 October 2013 13: 06
          +3
          Quote: Algor73
          The fact is that Russia, and Ukraine, and Belarus are now independent states, inhabited by East Slavic peoples. And to argue who and how "worked" with history is absurd, since this is history, in the West, in their libraries, there is a lot of old documents confirming this or that version.


          There is no point in arguing. But we all must know the true "History". Otherwise, 30 years later, our children will be generally told that Russia and Ukraine are generally alien countries to each other and that Stalin occupied Ukraine at the beginning of the 20th century.
          1. Algor73
            Algor73 23 October 2013 16: 34
            +2
            And who will write the true story? The history of the last 200 years has been rewritten well, very often, and often in completely opposite directions
          2. Firstvanguard
            Firstvanguard 23 October 2013 16: 55
            +2
            There is no point in arguing. But we are all obliged to know the true "History".

            Imagine a situation. Zhirinovsky and Zyuganov joined forces in the name of a common goal, organized a coup and overthrew Putin. But after that they couldn’t agree who is more important and invited some Swede to become president wassat Bullshit ... But it is precisely such a plan that bullshit is presented to us as our story. Try to include logic and history will appear in a completely different light. Try to introduce Afro Chukchi. Weak? So I can’t imagine Tataromongol hi
        2. duke
          duke 23 October 2013 18: 44
          +2
          The legend that Kiev was founded by the brothers Kiy, Schek and Khoriv with his sister Lybid is recorded in the Tale of Bygone Years and reflects a new social ideology - princes as the basis of society. What de does not happen on earth is not without princes. In fact, everything is much more prosaic. The hilly right bank of the Dnieper itself is attractive for settlement. And it has been here since time immemorial. Perhaps before Rome was founded. This is a settlement from the XNUMXth century BC. (the so-called Scythian period) is a large Khodosovsky settlement. Down the Dnieper Karatul fortification. Beyond the rapids Kamenskoye fortification. Before the rapids, perhaps, there was also a fortification, but now it is flooded with water from the reservoir of Zaporizhzhya Hydroelectric Power Station.

          Thus, this chain of fortifications provided a waterway from the Slavs to the Greeks. This path began to form since the time when Greek civilization was just beginning to take shape. That is, from Homer's times. When the war between the Trojans and the Greeks over the Bosporus and Hellespont (Dardanelles) straits was waged. It can be assumed that even then settlements along the Dnieper began to form. It is possible that Kiev is more than 3 thousand years old.
          This gives us reason to believe that the name of Kiev is as ancient as the city itself. Even in those days when Ilion was founded, when the Etruscans only settled on the Apennine Peninsula, there were already the cities of Kiev (hammers) on the Dnieper, Golun on the tributary of the Dnieper (Gelon at Herodotus, which Darius attacked) and Donets (present-day Kharkov) on Siversky Donets. I do not know which of the living cities on Earth is older than Kiev.

          Glory to Kiev, the oldest city, the city to the hero! HOORAY!!!

          Anatoly Grigorenko,
          04-08-2011 20:18
          (link)
        3. washi
          washi 23 October 2013 19: 31
          0
          Quote: Algor73
          "... they say that Kiev was founded earlier than Rome, by some" ancient ukrami "..." Please give me a reference, I have never met such a thing. And to be honest, what difference does it make which came before, the egg or the chicken. The fact is that Russia, and Ukraine, and Belarus are now independent states, inhabited by East Slavic peoples. And to argue who and how "worked" with history is absurd, since this is history, in the West, in their libraries, there is a lot of old documents confirming this or that version. Basically, everything is based on guesswork, both then and now.

          Kiev was founded before Rome. Ladoga was founded even earlier.
          How can Kiev be the mother of Russian cities if Kiev is masculine (according to the rules of the Russian language).
          Conclusion: one of the foreigners called Kiev a Mother (that is, making it not a traditional sexual orientation), and then stupidly translated, do not hesitate. History has been rewritten many times. And he will also correspond. We already see this on the examples of "Republics"
          1. moskov1
            moskov1 23 October 2013 19: 55
            +2
            mother not by name but by definition
          2. Corneli
            Corneli 24 October 2013 19: 08
            0
            Quote: Vasya
            How can Kiev be the mother of Russian cities if Kiev is masculine (according to the rules of the Russian language).
            Conclusion: one of the foreigners called Kiev Mother (i.e., having made it not a traditional sexual orientation), and then stupidly translated, do not think.

            Nestor wrote in modern Russian? laughing
            "sѣde Ѡleg knѧzha v Kievє. and the speech Ѡleg се wake up with the city of Russians."Something like this, he wrote, much like modern Russian with its spelling rules?"
            According to the most common version, the phrase is a semantic tracing-paper from Greek "метрополия"(From the Greek. Μήτηρ - мать and Greek. πόλις - city) and means the proclamation of Kiev the capital.
            Considering who Nestor is, where he wrote, what events were happening then and what relations were with Byzantium ... it is quite logical.
            But some people do not see this life without "gays", that's why they dragged the dovecote here
      2. moskov1
        moskov1 23 October 2013 17: 48
        +2
        Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. it can already be found in the annals
        1. washi
          washi 23 October 2013 19: 33
          -1
          Quote: moskov1
          Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. it can already be found in the annals

          Kiev is masculine.
          Although, given your European gay orientation, ..........
          1. moskov1
            moskov1 23 October 2013 20: 01
            0
            in Russian prisons, too, there are many gay relationships since the days of the ussr
            1. Ulan
              Ulan 24 October 2013 14: 20
              0
              You feel a lot of experience in this area of ​​human relations. lol
          2. Ulan
            Ulan 24 October 2013 08: 49
            0
            “Mother” here in context is the main city of the state ... the capital. This is exactly how it should be understood. When Oleg expelled Askold and Dir from Kiev, he united two parts of the Russian state - Novgorod and Kiev into a single state and considered that Kiev would be the best place for the capital. Hence, "behold, mother of Russian cities."
            Some understood so that all other Russian cities went from Kiev.
    3. Ksenia_art
      Ksenia_art 23 October 2013 15: 01
      0
      the mention of Moscow and the year 1147, but this does not mean that people did not live there! Russian people lived there, just Yuri Dolgoruky made an emphasis on this area and renamed it to Moscow!
      1. duke
        duke 23 October 2013 18: 22
        +1
        Yes, I suppose, and I didn’t have to rename it, the river was Moscow and the place was also Moscow, just business and everything was easier
      2. Ulan
        Ulan 24 October 2013 08: 52
        0
        That's right. Long-handed invited to a meeting in an EXISTING city and not in a clean place that Moscow called.
        This name has already been hail.
        But since this was the first mention of Moscow in the annals, this date was accepted as the city’s birth year. Which, of course, is very arbitrary.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. washi
      washi 23 October 2013 19: 24
      0
      Quote: Varchun
      I completely agree with the fact that everything has been captured by Jews since 17, but tell me. What is the period of Kiev and Moscow, the difference is about 800 years, and the time there was a time in Kiev, the population reached 100 thousand when 30 000 ate spruce in London. A fight 3 the brothers of the princes, too, is not clear. Kiev Founded: VI-VII century; conditional date - 482 year, Moscow First mention: 1147 year, so what can we talk about.

      These are official numbers.
      Mentions are taken from church records. Until ecclesiastical destroyed.
      European historians do not value Arab historians, and they destroyed most of the Arab records.
      The West will never recognize the territory of Russia as the mother of All civilization.
  5. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 23 October 2013 10: 19
    +6
    Why be surprised, because “The past in Russia is unpredictable.” First there was one interpretation of history, then another, today there is a third, God forbid, the current “democrats” will be outweighed by one more, having once started a war with history, we will never be able to end it.
  6. Boris55
    Boris55 23 October 2013 10: 20
    +6
    Stalin's definition of a nation:
    "A nation is a historically established stable community of people,
    - arising on the basis of a common language,
    - territories
    - economic life and mental makeup, manifested in the community of culture. "

    From the foregoing, it is not difficult to determine methods for tearing off some part of the state’s land.
    - to impose historical myths about the identity of peoples. (Natsik and guardians that indigenous peoples would not forget their customs - pour water on one mill)
    - modify the language, the language has changed not only in Ukraine and Belarus, but also for the most part in Russia itself - http://klin.hutt.ru/viewtopic.php?id=884#p1667
    - build customs (borders), break economic ties when industries were once dependent on each other.

    How to prevent this? - do the opposite.
    1. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard 23 October 2013 16: 57
      0
      Not in the eyebrow, but in the eye! Hold the plus!
  7. brace
    brace 23 October 2013 10: 29
    10
    Without even going into details, you can notice at least two centers of Russia: Novgorod (or rather, even Staraya Ladoga), Kiev (a little later). And the stuck cliché "Kievan Rus" is just as wrong as "Petersburg Russia".
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. Petrol
    Petrol 23 October 2013 11: 03
    -6
    "This is a noble nonsense. Russians are Russians." Russians are Russians, or rather Russians .... Russian is an adjective and can only mean language but not nationality!
    1. Silwestr
      Silwestr 23 October 2013 13: 33
      +2
      What is your nationality.
      - Russian.
      - Yeah. And I'm Ukrainian. laughing
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 23 October 2013 14: 15
      0
      So what? The second name of the Russians is Russia. Great Russians. What does it change?
      1. moskov1
        moskov1 23 October 2013 17: 54
        0
        little britain is the center. big britain is occupied territory
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 23 October 2013 17: 48
      +3
      Quote: Benzin
      Russian is an adjective name and can only mean language but not nationality!

      The adjective must be attached to the noun, and the noun itself is self-sufficient. Russian is an adjective, a person is a noun, so we are Russian people. Well, for example, Poles - just Poles or other nations - nouns without belonging to people, such nonhumans, a lateral, defective branch of people whose membership in people is in doubt.
    4. washi
      washi 23 October 2013 19: 41
      0
      Quote: Benzin
      "This is a noble nonsense. Russians are Russians." Russians are Russians, or rather Russians .... Russian is an adjective and can only mean language but not nationality!

      Russians are not a noun (just like the borderlands), but an adjective.
      Russians are not a nationality, but a state of mind, a worldview. This is a person ready to take responsibility. I can call Snowden Russian.
      Outskirts - this is also a worldview. Weak residents of the outskirts are always rushing between smart and beautiful, looking for someone to sell themselves to.
      1. Walker1975
        Walker1975 23 October 2013 23: 07
        -1
        Well, yes ... those who stood on the border and fought off the raids of the Turks and the Tatars, who went hiking in Istanbul ... yeah ... probably wimps.
        1. reserve
          reserve 24 October 2013 11: 53
          -1
          I already reminded somewhere above that there is no nationality "Russian" in nature. In the list of tribes from which Muscovy was later formed, there is "merya", "all", "chud" - but "rus" is not.
      2. Corneli
        Corneli 24 October 2013 19: 16
        +1
        Quote: Vasya
        Russians are not a nationality, but a state of mind, a worldview. This is a person ready to take responsibility. I can call Snowden Russian.
        Outskirts - this is also a worldview. Weak residents of the outskirts are always rushing between smart and beautiful, looking for someone to sell themselves to.

        А washi - this is Vasya!
        And the latter is much more real and more true than your definitions of "Russians" and "Okraintsy". Well, if this is, of course, not your philosophical dreams, but here it seems like they talked about history, and not about philosophy.
  10. alebor
    alebor 23 October 2013 11: 10
    +5
    Well, yes, in the days of ancient Rus there was no term "Kievan Rus", just as the term "Tatar-Mongol yoke" appeared much later after the disappearance of this "yoke", during the existence of Byzantium it was not called by this name. But does it follow from this that it is necessary to abandon the established historical terminology and, for political reasons, replace it with something new? This can bring confusion into the heads of people, representatives of different generations speaking different "languages" will cease to understand each other, not to mention that politics is a changeable thing and, if to please her to change scientific terms, then it will have to be done often, which will lead to the "Babylonian pillar" between people who graduated from high school in different years. It seems to me that a certain conservatism is quite appropriate in this matter.
  11. Boris55
    Boris55 23 October 2013 11: 20
    +4
    Quote: Benzin
    "This is a noble nonsense. Russians are Russians." Russians are Russians, or rather Russians .... Russian is an adjective and can only mean language but not nationality!

    Russian is not a nationality - it is a part of Russian civilization.
    It’s the same as treating European civilization as a European, and treating Russian civilization as a Russian.

    Contrasting civilization and nation is nonsense. The implementation of this nonsense is possible only from poorly informed (illiterate) population.

    Attempts to tear Ukraine away from Russia should be considered how to tear off part of Russian civilization in favor of European civilization.
    1. 3.7.964
      3.7.964 23 October 2013 12: 33
      +3
      Quote: Boris55
      Russian is not a nationality - it is a part of Russian civilization.


      What is "Russian civilization"? Maybe this is the dilution of the Russian population by Caucasians and immigrants from Central Asia? Could these be calls for jihad in a Moscow mosque? Or maybe this is the legalization of millions of illegal immigrants? Or for the word I-Russian, an article? Is this Russian civilization in your opinion?
      A nation that does not have a national identity is a dung. On which other nations grow. These are the words of Stolypin.
      Anyone who says that the Russian nation does not exist is the enemy! For only the enemy wants to make manure from the Russians. What we are currently observing.
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 23 October 2013 13: 28
        0
        Quote: 3.7.964
        A nation that does not have a national identity is a dung. On which other nations grow. These are the words of Stolypin.

        You still remember the right of nations to self-determination.

        Russia consists of many nations. According to the latest census ~ 200. Do you wish them all to be self-determined?

        The structure of tsarist Russia included Poland and Finland. After the revolution, they, as self-determined, separated. 15 independents were formed - after the next flurry, they too self-determined. 21 republic has been formed - would you like them to define themselves too?

        What's next? What would the Russians remember from what kind of tribe they were and the same was decided.



        The meaning of all this leapfrog with self-identification is the destruction of Russian civilization. Russian.
        Divide, bleed and conquer!

        For your information:
        In addition to Russian civilization, there are
        - European
        - Muslim
        - Asian
        1. 3.7.964
          3.7.964 23 October 2013 13: 41
          +1
          Quote: Boris55
          You still remember the right of nations to self-determination.

          Are you for the Russian nation to dissolve in millions of immigrants? The Russian nation, namely the Russian people, is a state-forming ethnic group. And now I-Russian is an article. Patriots of Russia are in prison (Khabarov, Kvachkov), and people like Kadyrov wear the star of the Hero of Russia. Is this your way? You can recall Colonel Budanov, the strange deaths of the generals. You perfectly understood what I wrote about, and there is no need to exaggerate. Your lecture on civilizations for preschool children.
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 23 October 2013 13: 52
            -5
            Khabarov, Kvachkov ... What did they want? Make a coup and instead of some Yids put other Yids. And what would local authorities recognize the next 37 to arrange? That after each mess we lose territory, I have set forth above for you.

            Tell me, why is a gang of Russian Jews better than Jewish Jews?

            ps
            Do you deny the existence of civilizations?
            1. Boris55
              Boris55 23 October 2013 14: 41
              -4
              Add to the above.
              So it turns out that the Russian patriots Khabarov, Kvachkov are ruining Russia, and not the Russian Kadyrov does not allow tearing part from it ...
              1. 3.7.964
                3.7.964 23 October 2013 16: 48
                +2
                Quote: Boris55
                So it turns out that the Russian patriots Khabarov, Kvachkov are ruining Russia, and not the Russian Kadyrov does not allow tearing part from it ...

                Yeah, a couple with Chubais, are very worried about the future and integrity of Russia. Do you yourself believe in what you wrote?
            2. duke
              duke 23 October 2013 18: 24
              +2
              translate, you yourself understood what they said, as it is Russian and Jewish Jews ??? This is aerobatics - minus 10 to you, I have not heard such a thing, Zapadentsi at work ... look, Jewish Jews can take offense ... lol
              1. Boris55
                Boris55 23 October 2013 18: 46
                0
                It is not necessary to change the master, but the entire slave system!
                One person, like Stalin, can strangle her for a while, but not win.
        2. Setrac
          Setrac 23 October 2013 17: 55
          -1
          Quote: Boris55
          For your information:
          In addition to Russian civilization, there are
          - European
          - Muslim
          - Asian

          There are only six civilizations.
          In addition to white - Russia and the north of Europe, there is yellow - China, black - Africa, brown - India, red - the now almost destroyed American Indians, and gray - the rest of Europe, northern Africa and Asia Minor.
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 23 October 2013 18: 41
            +2
            Civilizations are not determined by skin color.
            They are determined by their dominant concept.
            European civilization includes Europe, England, America, Australia.

            By skin color:
            The sun rises, its color is yellow - a yellow race lives at sunrise.
            The sun is setting, its color is red - the red race.
            It is cold in the north, snow is a white race.
            In the south it is hot - the black race.
            All the rest are mutants laughing
            1. washi
              washi 23 October 2013 19: 44
              0
              Quote: Boris55
              Civilizations are not determined by skin color.
              They are determined by their dominant concept.
              European civilization includes Europe, England, America, Australia.

              By skin color:
              The sun rises, its color is yellow - a yellow race lives at sunrise.
              The sun is setting, its color is red - the red race.
              It is cold in the north, snow is a white race.
              In the south it is hot - the black race.
              All the rest are mutants laughing

              civilizations are determined by worldview.
              their two
              collective and selfish
  12. mithridate
    mithridate 23 October 2013 11: 21
    +6
    history is rewritten a million times by the enemies of the Slavs
  13. Cristall
    Cristall 23 October 2013 11: 22
    +6
    I have not seen a single "true" history textbook. I have seen strongly or weakly politicized sources. There are nauseating sycophantic times (like some history textbooks of Ukraine, not all but there are) and there are less.
    History is a prostitute of time and power for the satisfaction of the development vector.
  14. major071
    major071 23 October 2013 11: 27
    11
    In Soviet times, we were taught at school that there was Kievan Rus. Now they teach that no. Years through 20 they will write that there was no Rus at all, and until the 18 century, Russians lived in caves and hunted mammoths in Siberia. This is what happens when foreigners write the history of the state.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 23 October 2013 11: 41
      +5
      History, as well as all other sciences, is kept in power.
      And whoever pays, he has a story.
      And this is very convenient - each generation has its own worldview, its own worldview. If necessary, you can very easily set some on others. To organize, so to speak, the next civil war (the Orange Revolution) to replace the local elite with a more loyal master.
      1. 3.7.964
        3.7.964 23 October 2013 13: 50
        +5
        Quote: Boris55
        And whoever pays, he has a story.

        Gold words! I agree 100%. Let's see who orders the music today? How the national minorities have realized themselves in Russia (the Russians are also the national minority in Russia) We won’t go deeper, take a look at what everyone has in mind. Moscow television: Pozner, Svanidze, Shvydkoi, Yakubovich, Mlechin - who's Russian here? Mitkova, Notkin, Pavlovsky, Novozhenov, Solovyov - who is the Tatar? Milyavskaya, Osokin, Gordon, Arkhangelsk, Flyarkovsky - who are the Bashkirs? Glusker, Khavin, Arkanov, Shommer, Sable - who's the dude? Galkin, Dibrov, Makarevich, Shenderovich, Tanya-Dunya - are these Avars or Kabardins? And how to offend the silence of the eternal television regulars Radzinsky da Zhvanetsky, Wulf da Zhirinovsky, Ryazanov da Khazanov - are all the Chukchi? Draw your own conclusions.
  15. apostol88
    apostol88 23 October 2013 11: 33
    +4
    He looked that the author of Buzin didn’t even read this nonsense! negative
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 23 October 2013 12: 11
      +4
      Plus. There is such a profession - a pseudo-scientist. This is when a person has read Wikipedia plus several books and puts forward his theory, sucked from the finger - the facts are adjusted to each other and interpreted arbitrarily as a pseudo-scientist likes, and all the facts that contradict the pseudo-scientist’s theory are simply ignored. Elderberry is a prime example.

      Oh yes ... Still, the pseudo-scientist does not write scientific books and does not publish in scientific journals and rarely gives sources from which he took information. All of his books are non-fiction, where none of the postulates from which he builds can be verified.
  16. Ross
    Ross 23 October 2013 12: 04
    +3
    Quote: New Russia
    Russian is a cross between 3 peoples, Slavs, Finno-Finns and Balts


    Chud peoples, all and Meria are not at all Finno-Ugric, as you probably had in mind. These are the same Slavs, with their genetics. Ilya Muromets is a typical representative of them.
    1. Netrocker
      Netrocker 23 October 2013 15: 18
      +1
      the whole, measuring, miracle, muroma - these are just the Finno-Ugric peoples ... but the so-called Vyatichi or Polab Slavs - they existed more west of them ...
  17. Ulan
    Ulan 23 October 2013 12: 06
    +4
    The author of the article tries to return us to Norman theory and claims that the Swedes created the Russian state.
    There it is.
    Sorry for the harshness, but this nonsense has long been refuted.
    Comrade Stalin was right.
    The Normans could not create anything simple in Russia under the rule, they did not have the state themselves. And in Russia, it was different where was they invited to reign the grandson of Gostomysl? In the open field?
    Right, Comrade Stalin, undoubtedly right, the Norman theory of bullshit imposed on Russia.
    1. Corneli
      Corneli 24 October 2013 20: 13
      +1
      Quote: Ulan
      The author of the article tries to return us to Norman theory and claims that the Swedes created the Russian state.

      Well, firstly, Rurik is a Dane, not a Swede (this is if you follow the Varangian version)
      Quote: Ulan
      The Normans could not create anything in Russia, a simple floor for the reason, they themselves did not have the state.

      But they had a tag (military leaders / princes), their warriors and a great desire to swim where to thread, for example:
      1. In 839, the Vikings founded a kingdom in Ireland with a capital in Armagh.
      2. In 845, Hamburg and Paris were sacked.
      3. From 850 to 878 fought in England, with the first English king - the result of the capture of almost half of England.
      4. In 870, the Vikings found the first settlement in Iceland
      5. In 875, the Vikings first visited Greenland.
      6. In 911, the Saint-Clair-sur-Ept Treaty handed over the territory of Normandy to the Norman leader Rollon.
      And what they did in Germany and France, finally a complete paragraph for local government.
      Let me remind you "The call of the Varangians" to Russia - 862, Oleg's campaign against Byzantium - 907.
      And yes, the Danes (and Rurik according to Norman theory the Danes, not the Swedes) had centralized rule (kings), which did not prevent them from controlling a vast territory and collecting giant armies of those times (which centralized France could not cope with). But among the Norwegians and the Swedes, the king (king) was moreover with approx. 700 years.
      Rurik, Oleg, Igor, and even Svyatoslav were not kings (kings), but military leaders (land gatherers who did not sit in the mansions in the capital, but went on campaigns), like the Viking jarls. The yard (in the modern sense of the word) appeared only under Vladimir (partly under Olga).
      Quote: Ulan
      And in Russia it was otherwise where they invited the grandson of Gostomysl to reign?

      Awesome conclusion! If there is a city (settlement) where you can invite to "reign", then there was a state in Russia, but in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, England was not?
      Tip: Before you talk about what the Vikings had or what they could and did, read about them. And it's funny to read just such nonsense, when you "prove" something about the Vikings without knowing anything about them, based only on hypotheses and the hatred of anti-Normanists.
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 28 October 2013 22: 16
        +1
        Rurik was never a Swede! Rurik (distorted by the time of Rerik) was called the firstborn (boy) among the Slavs. This is a purely Slavic name. But in Sweden such a name did not exist at all. And the Vikings called the people (Slavs) who boiled salt, and who then transported it and sold it under guard. All these people were called Vikings. And you yourself understand, if someone attacked them, then later these villages were raided and plundered, in revenge.
  18. Sineys
    Sineys 23 October 2013 12: 33
    -2
    And with what fright is the Zaleshan land, later Vladimirskoe, Rostov, Suzdal, etc. principalities founded by landless princes Rurikovich among the Finno-Ugric tribes Erzya, Moksha, Murom, Meschera, all, etc., later called Muscovy, became Russia? All Russia that was there is the princely warriors. Only later did the pervert and alcoholic Petya 1 call this land the Russian Empire, so it is still necessary to write in textbooks that up to that moment the state was called MOSKOVIA, and the people who inhabited it were Muscovites. I no longer mention the bright period when these principalities were part of the Jochi ulus, and even (I will encroach on the sacred) there is an assumption that Moscow was founded not by Yuri Dolgoruky, but with the permission of Khan Mengu-Timur's grandson Batu, since before the third census Moscow was somehow not mentioned in the Golden Horde in 1272 (the second census was carried out in 1257 under the leadership of the "holy" Alexander of the so-called Nevsky - anat (named brother) of Khan Sartak, son of Batu). As an appanage principality - Moscow appeared in 1277, when Mengu-Timur gave a label to reign in it to the 16-year-old son of the aforementioned Alesander - Daniel. Some will remember the "chronicle vaults" that were skillfully compiled and corrected by the "historical commission" of the German b ... di Katka 2, so I have no confidence in them, because this very German princese really did not want to lead her empire from the Jochi ulus and Tatar bedding. In particular, in the "annals" it is written that in 1156 Prince Yuri Dolgoruky "laid the city of Moscow below the mouth of the Neglinnaya ...", while the aforementioned Yuri, according to other written sources in 1156, was the Grand Duke in Kiev without leaving, where he died in 1157g. Oh yes, I will mention that in 1362, on the Sinyiye Vody River in Podolia, a battle took place between the troops of the Grand Duke of Lithuania (Lithuania or Lyutva, the ancient Rus tribe of Lyutichi, and now Belarusians) of Olgerd and three local noyons of Khan Murad - Kutlubakh, Kachibei and Dimeiter (or Dmitry?), In which the Lithuanians and Rusyns (now Ukrainians) won a decisive victory. After this battle, the lands of true Russia were freed from the influence of the Golden Horde, but the Suzdal, Moscow, Tver and other Zaleshan princes carried tribute to the Horde for another two hundred years and went there for labels to the principality, crawling on their knees in the dust and kissing the khan's boot.
    The famous Russian historian K. Valishevsky who worked during the reign of Nicholas II the Bloody, wrote: “Only the Russian population that left a sweeping wave of the recent colonization movement left the ethnographic point of view of nine-tenths of the country (Muscovy). There was no need at that time to “scratch” the Russian to find a Tatar, and especially a Finn. The basis of the population everywhere was the Finnish tribe. "
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 23 October 2013 13: 58
      0
      Yes ... a clinical case. My dear, your Svidomo nonsense is not interesting to anyone here.
      An illiterate undergrowth is declared and begins to make a clown out of himself. You tell us tales about ancient ukrov, 140 thousand years old and who invented a wheel, tamed a horse and taught other wild people how to agriculture. And also, Jesus is not Galilean, but Galician, but Columbus was born near Sumy.
      You made a mistake with the address, push this rubbish on your Svidomo forums, and here people are much more competent than you.

      About the Battle of the Blue Waters - In 1362, the Russian-Lithuanian army of Olgerd defeated the three Tatar hordes -Krymskaya, Perekopskaya and Yambalutskaya, who again tried to subjugate the Podolsk land. The victory over them (and not over the Golden Horde) allowed Olgerd to displace the FAITHFUL ORDER OF THE PRINCE Michael to the and plant in Kiev your prince Vladimir.
      We are not talking about any Ukrainians here, but the people of Kiev at that time were loyal to the Horde.
      1. Walker1975
        Walker1975 23 October 2013 16: 02
        0
        Quote: Ulan
        We are not talking about any Ukrainians here, but the people of Kiev at that time were loyal to the Horde.


        Well ... you know ... there is such a country in Europe - Italy. And there is another - in the Russian pronunciation Romania, but translated literally as "Roman". So let's say that Romanians are real descendants of the Roman Empire, because there were no Italians then.

        By the way, Russians always say. Here was a state - Muscovy (such as the successor of Russia - why not?), And there was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At the same time, he is modestly silent that his full name is: Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russian, Zhemoyt. And it included Kiev, Chernigov, Minsk ... And it coincides with the territory of Kievan Rus much more.
        1. Ulan
          Ulan 23 October 2013 17: 58
          +1
          I know. Firstly, no state called "Muscovy" has ever existed in history. Just like a state called "Kievan Rus".
          Mr. Sineus is really repeating the nonsense of Svidomo "historians" like Bebik.
          Any literate person understands this. So what I wrote about ancient ukrov is being drawn in for the truth to the people of Ukraine. So I wrote a truth that someone really didn’t like.
          I can easily "prove" that the real Finno-Finns are Ukrainians, but let the Svidomites have fun with such nonsense.
          Peter the First, you see, ordered to call "Muscovy" the Russian Empire.
          And do you support this stupidity?
          Well then, give the decree of Peter the Great on this topic-From what date the decree and where does it say that the people from such and such a date to call the state not "Muscovy" and "Russian Empire".
          And tell me, dear, since what year, date and month, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus began to be called "Muscovy"? Do you have any documents on this? Maybe Dmitry Donskoy ordered? Or Ivan III? Or maybe Ivan the Terrible issued a decree?
          Or maybe you will answer another question: why did suddenly Ukrainians appear on the lands of Southern Russia instead of the Rus-Ros-Russians living there? Wasn’t, wasn’t and suddenly appeared from somewhere?
          Rusich were taken out and instead of them they brought Ukrainians?
          Apparently by analogy svidomye "historians" believe that in North-Eastern Russia at first lived the Russian-Russians, and then they were taken out and brought in by the "Muscovites".
          And you want me to comment on such nonsense?
          And Mr. Sineus is simply a provocateur, which many roams on the Russian Internet.
          1. moskov1
            moskov1 23 October 2013 18: 11
            -2
            it’s very simple in fact Ukraine. There are Russians, only Muscovy is Ugro-Finnish tribes. They joined Russia
            1. hrych
              hrych 23 October 2013 18: 40
              +1
              And why did Russia go further along the path of the development of civilization and apparently launched into the space ugro-Finn Gagarin? And why the true Russ - Bandera or Banderlog stopped their development and are still dull farmers?
              1. moskov1
                moskov1 23 October 2013 19: 06
                0
                it’s no secret that Georgians Stalin took scientists to Moscow
              2. Walker1975
                Walker1975 23 October 2013 22: 56
                +1
                Something is poor. Your intellect, my friend. Regarding the contribution of Ukraine to the development of space:

                Poltava is the birthplace of many famous inventors, scientists and designers working in the space industry. The first among them was the name of one of the pioneers of astronautics - Yuri Vasilyevich Kondratyuk (Alexander Ignatievich Shargey) (1897 -1941). It was he who proposed the options for space modules for landing them on other planets - landing not only the entire space ship, but a separate module with the astronaut and equipment. The American space station Skylab used elements of Kondratyuk’s technology when it made its first and subsequent landings on the moon.
                At the beginning of the 1916th century, he calculated the optimal flight path to the moon. These calculations were used by NASA in the Apollo lunar program. The trajectory proposed in XNUMX by Shargey was subsequently called the “Kondratyuk Track”
                Another famous creator of space technology Vladimir Nikolaevich Chelomei (1914 - 1984) studied in Poltava (again in Poltava!) And Kiev.
                The name of Sergey Pavlovich Korolev (1907-1966) - the Admiral of the Universe, whose labors and his colleagues opened the space era, launched the world's first space satellite, the world's first astronaut, the first spaceships to the moon and other planets.
                Sergey Pavlovich was born in Zhytomyr. The Queen has a lot to do with Ukraine, his relatives lived in Nizhyn. Studied in Odessa and Kiev Polytechnic Institute.
                Spaceships SP. The Queen was equipped with powerful jet engines, the author of which was the famous designer of rocket engines, our fellow countryman Valentin Petrovich Glushko (1908-1988), who was also born in Ukraine, in Odessa.
                A native of Kozatin (now Vinnytsia region) Andrei Grigoryevich Kostikov was one of the developers of the famous Katyusha rocket launcher.
                Finally, at the Design Office "Southern" in Dnepropetrovsk, he created a powerful shield of the Motherland - a space rocket shield - Mikhail Kuzmich Yangel (1911-1971) - the most famous designer of the space industry, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences, twice Hero of Socialist Labor, laureate of the Lenin and State premium designer of formidable missile weapons.

                Is it enough?
                1. hrych
                  hrych 23 October 2013 23: 36
                  +2
                  My friend, my intellect is so poor, because for me those who are now called Okraintsy are not such, for me Little Russians, Belorussians and Great Russians are completely Russian. But here the Galicians, whom we call Bandera, who reformatted your country, especially language, history, etc. for me are completely alien, wild, uncouth peasants who have nothing to do with outer space, though they started the village.
                  And your words only say that people born to you (more precisely, on our common land), having learned within the framework of a Russian scientific school (and not in a mov) and in the capital city of Moscow, having the opportunity to reach the cosmic distance. I’m talking there exclusively about banderlogs. There is no need to speculate on the Cossacks because the Army, together with the regalia, on the orders of Mother Empress formed the Kuban Army and, with its full complement, went into the Kuban and Novorossia with losses. Yes, and tell the Cossack something on the Move, not only that, he won’t understand anything, he’ll also chop the sword with his tongue for this language of filthy enemies. Mother tongue is their surzhik.
                  1. hrych
                    hrych 24 October 2013 00: 05
                    +3
                    When Korolev launched Gagarin, the uncouth Galicians only crawled out of the forest under an amnesty.
                    1. Walker1975
                      Walker1975 24 October 2013 01: 15
                      +1
                      And what happened in Muscovy when there were fraternal schools and the Kiev-Mohyla Academy in Ukraine?
                      1. hrych
                        hrych 24 October 2013 01: 52
                        +2
                        Enough to grind, there was no Ukraine and there is nothing to call Russia, where Kiev always entered, the unofficial German name Muscovy. Few German executions? Kiev all his life came to Russia, the capital was even a couple of hundred years, then a province, of course there were Polish and German occupations. Ukraine is not thousands of years old, Ukraine originates from Bialowieza, Hetman Skoropadsky and Petlyura do not count. A thousand years of Rus, whether you like it or not, consider yourself a true Rus, so be called so, and not the shameful Polish suburb. There are no people on the outskirts drove the Russians, the Hutsul, Galicians and Volhynians, they imposed the left half-Polish movement, which the Cossacks do not understand, and begin to freeze ukrov. Muscovy is illiterate that the Tsar Bell, Tsar Cannon were illiterate, ignorant about the fraternal schools, the bell tower of Ivan the Great, there are in Kiev those years that there is nothing like that, there is only Lavra and that of the Russian church. Take the birch bark letters of Novgorod, literate butchers are not that. You don’t have any annals confirming your chauvinism, not a damn thing at all, one Polish novelist was quoted here and that’s it. And Khmelnitsky did not reunite Ukraine, but the Cossack Army subordinated to the Russian Tsar, and that because of the great turmoil in Russia. Give a chronicle, give medieval chronicles, I agree, but only all chronicles and chronicles speak of Rus.
                      2. Ulan
                        Ulan 24 October 2013 10: 09
                        +1
                        In Ukraine, there were no epics like the Russians. There is nothing at all.
                      3. Corneli
                        Corneli 24 October 2013 20: 22
                        +2
                        Quote: Ulan
                        In Ukraine, there were no epics like the Russians. There is nothing at all.

                        Yeah, Nestor the Chronicler (c. 1056 - 1114) - chronicler, hagiographer of the late XI - early XII centuries, monk Kiev Pechersk Monastery.
                        Even the "epic" Ilya Muromets is buried in our monastery ... laughing
                        Or are you talking about some other "epics"?
          2. Aleksey_K
            Aleksey_K 28 October 2013 22: 22
            0
            And who told you that Gagarin was smart? He's just a very well trained pilot. With a very healthy body, with a cheerful and companionable character. Successfully approached in height and weight. And if he were smart, then climbing into the company to the top, he should have understood that language is my enemy. Everyone who begins to teach power is dying. So he was brought under an accident.
        2. Ulan
          Ulan 24 October 2013 08: 59
          -1
          Well, yes ... Ukrainians are Russian and Japanese are Georgians. It is called agreed. You really choose whether you are Russian or Ukrainian.
          Although I agree, of course, these are the Russians whom the Poles "baptized" into Ukrainians. And the Ukrainians agreed with this.
          The Poles tried to baptize us into Muscovites, and if we had not kicked them out in 1612, perhaps that would have happened.
          That's where all this rubbish comes from.
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 23 October 2013 18: 02
      +2
      Quote: Walker1975
      So let's say that Romanians are real descendants of the Roman Empire, because there were no Italians then.

      And this will be true, ethnically - Romanians are the same Romans, it happened because there was no Roman Empire on the Apennine Peninsula, it was placed there when rewriting history.
      1. hrych
        hrych 23 October 2013 18: 56
        +3
        There are still romances, certainly the descendants of Caesar.
    3. hrych
      hrych 23 October 2013 18: 31
      +1
      That's not true, they said this: We, Tsar of All: Small, White and Great Russia. Naturally, not of Kiev, but of Rome, the heiress of Muscovy and Moscow. Third Rome, there will be no fourth. That's what they said. There was no Kievan Rus, the capital was moving from Novgorod to Kiev, from Kiev to Vladimir, etc. Lithuania is truly a Russian state, but did not own Kiev.
      1. Walker1975
        Walker1975 24 October 2013 01: 38
        +1
        And why is Moscow the Third Rome?
        1. hrych
          hrych 24 October 2013 02: 21
          +2
          Because the first fell from the Vandals (actually Rome in Italy), the second from the Turks (New Rome aka Constantinople), the grandmother of Ivan the Terrible, the wife of Ivan the Third, Sofia Paleolog was the niece of the last Roman Emperor (Byzantium), her descendants, they are Russian the kings were the direct heirs of the Roman Emperor, proclaimed Moscow the Third Rome.
        2. Setrac
          Setrac 24 October 2013 10: 23
          +1
          Quote: Walker1975
          And why is Moscow the Third Rome?

          The dream of the former greatness of a fictional empire.
  19. moskov1
    moskov1 23 October 2013 18: 03
    0
    Kiev did not pay tribute to the Khan. And Moscow for 300 years carried money to the Tatar-Mongol yoke.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 23 October 2013 19: 27
      +1
      Cool. And why then did Olgerd Kiev have to storm three times?
    2. washi
      washi 23 October 2013 19: 50
      -2
      Quote: moskov1
      Kiev did not pay tribute to the Khan. And Moscow for 300 years carried money to the Tatar-Mongol yoke.

      Of course I didn’t pay. Because after the internecine wars, this village did not interest anyone.
      1. moskov1
        moskov1 23 October 2013 20: 11
        -1
        Yes, because the Russians do not like leaders above themselves just waiting.
        1. hrych
          hrych 23 October 2013 20: 56
          +2
          First, Kiev was destroyed by Batu, there is a corresponding annals, but the fact that Kiev did not pay tribute is complete, unsubstantiated nonsense, if the city was taken, then it paid and how, since it was not razed to the ground. If you want not to carry nonsense, you must always refer to the source. Further, when Vladimir and later Moscow became the capital, Moscow sovereigns ruled the people of Kiev until Kravchuk (we do not consider German and Polish occupations). Ali wrong?
          1. Ulan
            Ulan 24 October 2013 10: 25
            +1
            Exactly. Moreover, if the princes of North-Eastern Russia almost all died during the capture of cities or in field battles with the Mongol-Tatars, then the Kiev princes escaped from the city when approaching the Batyi, having entrusted the old governor Dmitry, who defended the city with honor, to defend the city.
            1. Corneli
              Corneli 24 October 2013 20: 45
              +1
              Quote: Ulan
              Moreover, if the princes of North-Eastern Russia, almost all died during the capture of cities or in field battles with the Mongol-Tatars, then the Kiev princes with the approach of Batu’s troops fled the city

              Oh, what are the heroes of the princes of North-Eastern Russia and what is not a hero of the Kiev prince:
              Mikhail Vsevolodovich (also known as Michael of Chernigov, 1179–1246) - Prince Pereyaslavsky (he reigned a year before the owner was gone),
              Novgorod (1224, 1229) Refused to fight for Novgorod after the campaign of the Vladimir-Suzdal princes in Chernigov land,
              Chernihiv (1223-1246), in fact, he is the Prince of Chernigov, including the pope,
              Galitsky (1235-1239) briefly captured the Grand Duke of Kiev (1238-1239, 1241-1243) in the war for the Kiev throne. The son of Vsevolod Chermny and the daughter of the Polish prince Casimir II.
              However, reading the history of those years, it’s pointless to say who is Kokoy or whose prince. They were all the same, they were all biting with each other like lousy dogs, betraying each one 20 times.
              P.S. And during the siege of Kiev, he did not seem to have escaped, but he was in Hungary with Daniel, they tried to conclude an alliance against Batu.
      2. Ulan
        Ulan 24 October 2013 10: 22
        +1
        Plano Karpini, wrote that Kiev is completely destroyed and there are almost no inhabitants. In its vicinity, the horde of the brother of the great khan wandered, who gave the monk the escort to the headquarters of the great khan.
        There is a version, I will not argue that it is correct, I will only voice it, that the Tatars resettled people from the Caucasus (Circassians) to these deserted lands, hence the blackness of the Ukrainians and the name of the inhabitants of those places - "Cherkasy". That was fixed in the name of one of the cities on Dnipro city Cherkassy. I had a chance to visit it, at the association "Khimvolokno" Beautiful city. When I was returning back I did not specifically take a train ticket, but took a ticket for the "Meteor" from Cherkassy to Kiev.
        And I did not regret it, very beautiful places. Volga and Dnieper, brother and sister.
        By the way, as for the notorious Finno-Finns. I live in the vicinity of the Oka River, 100 km from Moscow. Vyatichi settlements there from the 8th-9th century, if not earlier. That is, they lived there from ancient times.
        1. hrych
          hrych 24 October 2013 11: 08
          +3
          After the fall of Kiev, summer 6748, after 10 years, i.e. summer 6758 Danila Romanovich, the prince, who according to the chronicle owned the Russian land: Kiev, Vladimir, Galich, "other countries" went to Batu for a label and with a tribute. The chronicler is indignant, because Danila's father was: "a tsar in the Russian land, his ilk conquered the Polovtsian land and fought all over other countries, his son had no honor ..."
          Source Galician-Volyn chronicle, apparently then there were no Bandera people with the great historian super-pimply Yushchenko, and Kiev and Galich, like Vladimir, for some reason were not called Okraina and for some reason not in MOV, but in Old Russian, but they were called Russian land.
          1. Corneli
            Corneli 24 October 2013 21: 04
            +1
            Quote: hrych
            After the fall of Kiev, summer 6748, after 10 years, i.e. summer 6758 Danila Romanovich, the prince, who according to the chronicle owned the Russian land: Kiev, Vladimir, Galich, "other countries" went to Batu for a label and with a tribute. The chronicler is indignant, because Danila's father was: "a tsar in the Russian land, his ilk conquered the Polovtsian land and fought all over other countries, his son had no honor ..."

            From you warps you from the name Ukraine. Russia doesn’t want Russia and Belarus (created in the 20th century) and Belarusian language(imagine there is such fellow ) you don’t have a barrel.
            Why fright we called Little Russia? Why then not Polyana, Scythia, Sarmatia, or other names with which our territories or tribes on it dominated in ancient times?
            1. hrych
              hrych 24 October 2013 23: 57
              +2
              Firstly, the name of the outskirts is Polish, and most importantly, it has never been related to most of today's Ukraine, but only to the lands bordering Poland. And like Kiev, once the capital turned out to be the outskirts? Language, i.e. Mova, also not native to most of your citizens, but only for Galicians, because essentially a Polish dialect. There is surzhik which is clear to everyone, but not the same. On the face of linguistic and linguistic genocide. Nobody forces to be called Little Russians, but since it was Russia for a thousand years, why invent a Polish contemptuous name. By the way, Little Russia is again not a designation of the current territory, and the people of Kiev before the fall of Nicholas II never called the Little Russians, this is the lot of Dikanka. It's just that all this from a historical and linguistic perspective sounds silly. In principle, this is tearing your state into two parts and, in fact, will be the reason for its destruction, the contradictions are insoluble. Well, there is no historical base, besides Polish inventions, there is still a church schism, and this makes the state not a steel core, but a jellyfish. It is becoming easier for Belarusians to be a single people and there are no such problems and assert themselves, and they don’t need to invent a story. Hutsuls, Galicians and the rest (in my understanding) of the Russian population are too different in the ethnic and civilizational sense, respectively, cannot be one people.
              1. Corneli
                Corneli 25 October 2013 11: 05
                0
                Quote: hrych
                Firstly, the name of the outskirts is Polish, and most importantly, it has never been related to most of today's Ukraine, but only to the lands bordering Poland.

                Firstly, the same Polish as Russian. Or when this word refers to the border lands in Russian written sources, did the Poles enter it there? laughing
                In the second steppe of Ukraine (most of its territory), in fact, it has always been a "borderland" both for Kievan Rus and for Poland and for the Russian Empire.
                Quote: hrych
                And like Kiev, once the capital turned out to be the outskirts?

                But how did Constantinople turn out to be Istanbul? And Byzantium - Turkey?
                Quote: hrych
                Language, i.e. Mova, also not native to most of your citizens, but only for Galicians, because essentially a Polish dialect.

                I'm smiling. Have you ever heard the Polish, Ukrainian and Polish-Ukrainian dialect of the "Westerners"? It seems to me not, otherwise such nonsense is difficult to write. As if Polish more differs from Ukrainian than Russian.
              2. Corneli
                Corneli 25 October 2013 11: 12
                +2
                Quote: hrych
                Nobody forces to be called Little Russians, but since it was Russia for a thousand years, why invent a Polish contemptuous name. By the way, Little Russia is again not a designation of the current territory, and the people of Kiev before the fall of Nicholas II never called the Little Russians, this is the lot of Dikanka. It's just that all this from a historical and linguistic perspective sounds silly.

                The entire territory of modern Ukraine was not called Rus' for a thousand years. And even most of it was not called that, as well as "Little Russia". So the question of the name of the entire territory of the type is open ...
                Quote: hrych
                In principle, this is tearing your state into two parts and, in fact, will be the reason for its destruction, the contradictions are insoluble.

                LTD. And then what to say about the Russian Federation? There are 80 such "insoluble contradictions" there. But people do not live, they do not hysterical that they are about to fall apart into 80 pieces.
                Quote: hrych
                Well, there is no historical base, besides Polish inventions, there is still a church schism, and this makes the state not a steel core, but a jellyfish.

                What, God forgive me, "historical base"? Two continents (North and South America) have the same "historical base", if not worse. So there are no countries there?) And in general, most of the modern states have a rather dubious (if in your opinion) historical base, and this does not bother them much. Church schism can be weaved here neither to the village nor to the city. Is it medieval here? Planned religious wars and the Inquisition?
                And again, I repeat to the end:
                Belarusians - Eastern Slavic people, ethnicity, nation. There is also a Belarusian language. And the state of Belarus. But this does not bother you, I did not notice tantrums on the forum that there is no such language or such a people. hysteria only about Ukraine and its language.
                It's actually funny to read. You should not express your claims to Austro-Hungarians or Poles. And to the USSR. It was in the USSR that countries such as the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Belarus appeared. And it is quite funny that the Russian Federation began to bulge its "Russianness" (and hysterical about Ukrainianness) 20 years after the collapse of the Union. The reasons are clear, only this is populism and politics, and not concern for the history or people of Ukraine.
                1. hrych
                  hrych 25 October 2013 14: 52
                  +2
                  In terms of language, he personally communicated with the "Eastern Ukrainian", who said that due to the Polonisms and pronunciation, of course he understands, but with difficulty the Westerners. That Russian did not present any difficulties to him, of course, is also not an indicator, before it was mandatory. I was especially surprised that the helicopter is called a helicopter on the move.

                  The fact that in the annals (in particular in the Ipatievsky list) there is the word oukraina, but it had a purely geographic outskirts of Rus and not only the Galich lands were called so, but also the outskirts in the east and south were mentioned and the inhabitants of those places were never called outskirts.

                  Next, turn to the quote:

                  According to the dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, after the end of the XVI century South Russia as part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania entered the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, part of its territory, stretching from Podolia in the west to the mouth of the Dnieper (“Ochakovo field”) in the south and includes most of the lands of the future Yekaterinoslav province in the east, became unofficially in this state called "Ukraine" [15]. This was due to the border location of these territories in Polish state.

                  Thus, in the XVI-XVIII centuries. “Ukraine” is becoming a specific geographical concept, equivalent to the names of other historical and ethnographic regions (Volyn, Podolia, Pokutye, Severshchina, Chervona Rus, Zaporozhye) which are assigned to the Middle Dnieper (Southern Kyivshchina and Bratslavshchina) - the territory controlled by Cossacks [16]. Residents of this territory began to be called Ukrainians or Ukrainians [17]. The geographical, rather than ethnic, linkage of this concept is demonstrated by the fact that Ukrainians were also called the serving Polish gentry in these territories [18].
    3. Ulan
      Ulan 24 October 2013 10: 13
      +1
      Your monosyllabic self-style comments are quite amusing. However, Kiev paid tribute. You just don't know.
    4. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 28 October 2013 22: 34
      0
      This is because in Moscow, the Tatar-Mongols ran out of steam and there was no longer any strength to go to Europe through Ukraine. So, for example, the French took Moscow, and then they lacked strength. Out of breath. And the Nazis stopped near Moscow, Stalingrad and Murmansk. Also exhausted. Here are the Tatar-Mughals too! And you reproach us with this, that you did not allow your lands to be plundered. If Moscow had not resisted, then the Tatar-Mongols would have reached Paris.
    5. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 28 October 2013 22: 39
      0
      And then the question is about a strong Ukraine. And why was Crimea a khanate, why the territory occupied now by the Odessa region did not belong to Ukraine and the Asians ruled there? Why only by water (along the Dnieper) did Ukrainians barely get to the Black Sea with heavy losses? Well, strong Ukraine, answer!
  • hrych
    hrych 23 October 2013 18: 23
    +2
    Submit written sources of the census carried out in the Horde, is it really in the "Secret Legend" or not in the chronicles of Rashid-ed-Din, ah they do not exist in nature, so there is nothing to grind. Valishevsky is a super-famous historian, apparently known to you, and that's enough. All this blizzard just beats to pieces by the study of haplogroups, where the Russian people otnyut not Finno-Ugrians and not Mangoloids and epicanthus (if of course you know what it is) of the European peoples is in the smallest quantity, as well as among the Germans. Those. bordering on the Chinese, Mangols (current), Chukchi, etc., etc., have preserved the purity of the Caucasian race, and your libel has a number of correct judgments that are drowned in general vomit.
  • duke
    duke 23 October 2013 18: 29
    +2
    delirium tremens - minus 10, but what about the same Novgorod, Vladimir Russia? Ryazan, Moscow land ??? The same Tver? Everywhere ruled Kiev, Novgorod, Vladimir, but Russian princes ... Dear, after the rotten zapadenskoy moonshine-gorilki, take a crispy, tasty, Russian cucumber ...
    1. moskov1
      moskov1 23 October 2013 19: 16
      -2
      probably you are not familiar with the book 'moxel land'
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 23 October 2013 19: 29
        0
        Nice humorous book. One Erzyan acquaintance said about her "must, he even managed to make a mistake in the name".
      2. Ulan
        Ulan 24 October 2013 10: 28
        0
        It is familiar. Mr. Belinsky (the real surname is different) amused historians a lot with his bullshit.
        Well, for those who are fond of "Harry Potter" and "The Lord of the Rings", the fantasy of Mr. Belinsky is also suitable.
        I will not disassemble its nonsense in detail, it has already been done hundreds of times.
    2. moskov1
      moskov1 23 October 2013 19: 25
      0
      The books you read. The history was written under control, Catherine the German. Stalin Gruzin. Beria Gruzin. Trotsky Jew ... you think they told you the truth about the genus
  • Wal
    Wal 24 October 2013 07: 47
    0
    Erzya and Moksha looks more like Jewish tribes
  • smprofi
    smprofi 23 October 2013 13: 12
    0
    Thus, with the help of Stalinism and totalitarianism, the phrase “KIEV RUSSIA” was hammered into the heads of several generations for the FIRST TIME.

    again, Stalin is to blame for everything ...

    1. hrych
      hrych 23 October 2013 18: 45
      +1
      Present to the world at least one chronicle of Leo the Deacon or Bagryanorodny, you can Arab chroniclers, where at least once the word Kievan Rus sounds.
      1. Corneli
        Corneli 24 October 2013 21: 37
        +1
        Quote: hrych
        Present to the world at least one chronicle of Leo the Deacon or Bagryanorodny, you can Arab chroniclers, where at least once the word Kievan Rus sounds.

        And nitsche that the lion army of Svyatoslav mainly calls the Scythians or the Taurus Scythians, and only occasionally dews? laughing Rename Ukraine in Taurian Scythia?
        And Konstantin mentions 3 !!! people, Scythians, Slavs and dews. Living in our (approximately) territory seems to be in union, but even their language is different.
        And the Arabs and the early Byzantines did not mention dews or Russes at all. There are Antes, Wends, Scythians, Sarmatians, Sakaliba, Slavs ... but no Russians.
        1. hrych
          hrych 25 October 2013 00: 35
          +2
          And vsezh Russ called their name (ukrov unfortunately did not remember). Chronists calling Slavs Russ, again did not surprise, you know it now. And what was called Scythians and ethnically were the successors of the historical school, as Herodotus glorified Scythians. Feel free to call the Russ Scythians, the Greeks a thousand years ago it was more visible. You probably didn’t read the scarlet-born, there he knew perfectly well who he was talking about and did not forget to mention the Pachinaks (Pechenegs).

          Here is a quote on chroniclers and my beloved Lomonosov, who in his conclusions always refers to chroniclers, and does not weave a gag:

          Lomonosov proved the Slavic affiliation of the people of Russia (Russia) through the identity of their Prussians. The Prussians themselves (Baltic tribes) he defined as Slavs, attracting to the "accomplices" Pretoria and Helmond, who believed "Prussian and Lithuanian language for the Slavic branch", as well as personal opinion about the similarity of "their (Prussians) language with Slavic" [5]. At the same time, toponyms with the root “Rus” are indeed found in the former Prussia and coastal Lithuania, and early medieval sources record the activities of a certain Russia there.

          Another source of the Slavic hypothesis is the message of the Arab geographer Ibn Khordadbehwhose data on Eastern Europe are among the oldest (840s), who believed that the Rus is a Slavic people. Ibn Khordadbeh is the only eastern author who attributed Russia to al-Sakalib, the rest of the Arab authors describe them separately.

          There is an opinion that the ethnonym "grew" has a different origin than "rus", being much more ancient. Proponents of this point of view, also originating from MV Lomonosov, note that the people “grew up” was first mentioned in the VI century in “Church History” Zachary Ritor, where it is placed next to the peoples of the "dog people" and the Amazons, which many authors interpret as the Northern Black Sea coast. From this point of view, it is elevated to the Iranian-speaking (Sarmatian) tribes of the Roxalans or Wolverines, mentioned by ancient authors.
        2. hrych
          hrych 25 October 2013 03: 02
          +2
          The connection between the Rus and the Prussians undoubtedly takes place not only in pronunciation. But accordingly, the crawls crawl out here:
          Cornelius Tacitus in the treatise "Germany" localized the location of the Rugian tribe on the Baltic coast, which said that they differ from other tribes in their round shields, short swords and obedience to the kings. The neighbors of the Rugs in the east were the Baltic tribes of the Estians, considered the ancestors of the Prussians. To the south of the rugs lived the Goths (Gotons according to Tacitus). Further, the rugs go in descriptions of chroniclers with Goths, Vandals and Gepids, and the first barbarian king of Italy (according to the chronicler Jordan) - Odoacr.

          In the XNUMXth century, the ethnonym Rugi was transferred by Western Europeans to the inhabitants of Kievan Rus (for chauvinists like me, it was not transferred, but transferred by kinship right).

          The earliest mention of Slav rugs is contained in the Raffelstetten Customs Code, published around 905 to collect trade duties from merchants from rugs and bohemians (Czechs) who wish to trade in the Bavarian East Mark on the Danube.

          The successor of Reginon, talking about the mission of Bishop Adalbert in Kiev from 961 to 962, calls Princess Olga the Queen of Rugorum (reginae Rugorum) and repeatedly refers to Russian Rugov. The English priest Roger, in his Chronicle of the end of the 1th century, describing the events in England in the XNUMXst half of the XNUMXth century, writes about one noble exile: "he fled from this land to the land of rugs, which we call Russia."

          Information about rugs (Kievan Rus) also entered France in connection with the marriage of the French king Henry I to Anna (1051), daughter of Yaroslav the Wise. Reporting on this wedding, Guillaume Jumiège, the author of the Norman story, wrote that Henry married the daughter of the king of rugs.

          Well, we now know, armed with knowledge of archeology, anthropology, and most importantly of the distribution of haplogroups, that the people living in the Baltic and Scythian-Sarmatian Wolverines had the same blood and it was by no means German or Celtic. The most important works of ancient authors are confirmed by science. And you descendants of these great ancestors should not be called the outskirts.
    2. washi
      washi 23 October 2013 19: 51
      +1
      I have such signs where I want there and hang.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • vvpll
    vvpll 23 October 2013 14: 25
    0
    This is how Nestor the Chronicler describes the emergence of Russia in The Tale of Bygone Years (early 12th century):

    In the year 6367 (859). The Varangians from the overseas levied tribute to the miracle, and from words, and from Mary, and from Krivichi. And the Khazars took from the glades, and from the northerners, and with the Vyatichi with a silver coin and a squirrel from smoke.
    In the year 6370 (862). They drove the Varangians across the sea, and did not give them tribute, and began to dominate themselves, and there was no truth among them, and clan after clan rose up, and they had strife, and began to fight with each other. And they said to themselves: "Let us look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right." And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Russia. Those Varangians were called Rus, as others are called the Swedes, and some Normans and Angles, and still other Gotlandians - that's how these are. Chud, Slovenia, Krivichi and the whole of Russia said: "Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come to reign and rule over us." And three brothers with their families were elected, and took all Russia with them, and came, and the eldest, Rurik, sat in Novgorod, and the other, Sineus, - on Beloozero, and the third, Truvor, - in Izborsk. And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed. The Novgorodians are those people from the Varangian family, and before they were Slovenes. Two years later, Sineus and his brother Truvor died. And one Rurik took all the power ...


    As for Kievan Rus, Nestor describes it this way:
    And he (Rurik) had two husbands, not his relatives, but boyars, and they asked to go to Constantinople with their kin. And they set off along the Dnieper, and when they sailed past, they saw a small city on the mountain. And they asked: "Whose town is this?" The same ones answered: "There were three brothers" Kiy "Schek and Khoriv, ​​who built this town and disappeared, and we are sitting here, their descendants, and pay tribute to the Khazars." Askold and Dir remained in this city, gathered many Varangians and began to own the land of the glades. Rurik reigned in Novgorod. Rurik died and handed over his reign to Oleg, his relative, giving him his son Igor, for he was still very small.
    In the year 6390 (882) they came to the mountains of Kiev, and Oleg learned that the princes here were Askold and Dir. He hid some of the soldiers in the boats, and left others behind, and he himself proceeded, carrying the baby Igor. And he swam to the Ugorskaya mountain, hiding his soldiers, and sent them to Askold and Dir, telling them that "we are merchants, we are going to the Greeks from Oleg and Prince Igor. Come to us, to your relatives." When Askold and Dir came, all the others jumped out of the boats, and Oleg said to Askold and Dir: "You are not princes and not a princely family, but I am a princely family," and showed Igor: "And this is the son of Rurik." And they killed Askold and Dir, carried it to the mountain and buried Askold on the mountain, which is now called Ugorskaya, where now Olmin's yard; on that grave Olm built the church of St. Nicholas; and Dirov's grave - behind the church of St. Irene. And Oleg, the prince, sat in Kiev, and Oleg said: "Let this be a mother to the Russian cities." And he had Varangians, and Slavs, and others, who were called Rus.
    1. hrych
      hrych 23 October 2013 18: 48
      +2
      And where is the word for Nestor - Kievan Rus?
      1. reserve
        reserve 24 October 2013 11: 57
        0
        For some reason, Olezhka Buzina in his opus does not write that after Ekaterina2 there were no originals of chronicles left, but only "lists", and all the originals were destroyed.
  • Sineys
    Sineys 23 October 2013 14: 28
    +3
    Quote: Ulan
    Yes ... a clinical case. My dear, your Svidomo nonsense is not interesting to anyone here.
    An illiterate undergrowth is declared and begins to make a clown out of himself. You tell us tales about ancient ukrov, 140 thousand years old and who invented a wheel, tamed a horse and taught other wild people how to agriculture. And also, Jesus is not Galilean, but Galician, but Columbus was born near Sumy.
    You made a mistake with the address, push this rubbish on your Svidomo forums, and here people are much more competent than you.
    About the Battle of the Blue Waters - In 1362, the Russian-Lithuanian army of Olgerd defeated the three Tatar hordes -Krymskaya, Perekopskaya and Yambalutskaya, who again tried to subjugate the Podolsk land. The victory over them (and not over the Golden Horde) allowed Olgerd to displace the FAITHFUL ORDER OF THE PRINCE Michael to the and plant in Kiev your prince Vladimir.
    We are not talking about any Ukrainians here, but the people of Kiev at that time were loyal to the Horde.

    Oh, sorry uncle! Now I’ll run away to do my homework ... And if you are serious, quote where I mentioned "the ancient ukrov, who are 140 thousand years old and who invented the wheel, tamed the horse and taught other wild people to agriculture. And also that Jesus is not a Galician, but a Galician, but Columbus was born near Sumy. " And what's wrong with the information about the Battle of Blue Waters? Do you dislike my statement that the majority of the population of the pre-Moscow period of the principalities of the Zaleshan land were not Russians? So write, and justify why this is not so. Do you hate the thought that these lands were under the control of the Horde? What to do, the time was like that. Well, yes, I bent a little about two hundred years of crawling on my knees, here I’m sorry I added emotional coloring for the catchphrase. However, listen, my dear, your interpretation or personal perception of the events of history may not coincide with that of other people. You can stupidly memorize what the "historians" are feeding you, or you can try to sort out the versatile information yourself and make up your own picture of that time and the world. However, you can also impose your current political predilections and complexes and shout that the Russians then lived in the designated principalities and Russia was there. And let's not insult if you want to continue to exchange views with me personally. I will not respond to rudeness, I do not want to communicate according to the principle "do it yourself."
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 23 October 2013 18: 11
      0
      You didn’t screw up the young man. You completely misinterpreted the whole story. You have decided correctly, you’d better go to school. And do not distort like an experienced swindler, it was not you personally who spoke about the one hundred and forty thousand-year-old Ukrainians, but your so-called historians. You are really a swindler, because who in their right mind would object to you that the inhabitants of Zalesskaya, North-Eastern Russia were not "Russians".
      Is it not clear that the concept of "Russian" did not exist then?
      This is a scam. And you declare it "opinion." You call without insults, but called Peter the Great and Catherine.
      I don’t want to exchange personally with you, for one simple reason you don’t know the topic, but repeat the gossip spread in Ukraine about the history of Russia.
      And to prove that you're lying is very easy.
      Answer those questions about the mythical "Muscovy" that I asked Walker1975. And yet, which of the rulers of North-Eastern Russia called himself the Tsar or Grand Duke of "Muscovy". Where is at least one document where he calls himself that.
      Well, then we can talk.
    2. washi
      washi 23 October 2013 19: 55
      0
      And if the horde is Russia?
      More and more historians are inclined to this.
  • edeligor
    edeligor 23 October 2013 14: 36
    +2
    I made one conclusion for myself from this article - it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe a single history book in the world! All politicians, of whatever colors they were, prescribe history for themselves. Read the comments on this article - complete nonsense! Who was so much amazed Mr. Sineys especially - such convinced theorists will bring the truth to any hallucination of a schizophrenic !!!!!!! The truth is one - we are the children of Adam and Eve, everything else is theory.
  • Corrint_25
    Corrint_25 23 October 2013 14: 42
    0
    Quote: Cristall
    I have not seen a single "true" history textbook

    Read more about O. Buzin, he knows the story lol
  • rexby63
    rexby63 23 October 2013 14: 52
    +3
    The article is a clear minus. And this:
    This Lysenko from history, who was born in Mirgorod and taught before the revolution in the girls' gymnasium


    Reading the names of only two works does not give the right to insult a person who cannot answer you. Moreover, a person who understood history more than an individual by the name of Buzin
  • Sashko07
    Sashko07 23 October 2013 15: 14
    +1
    Quote: smprofi
    Thus, with the help of Stalinism and totalitarianism, the phrase “KIEV RUSSIA” was hammered into the heads of several generations for the FIRST TIME.

    again, Stalin is to blame for everything ...


    Instead of a thousand words... laughing
    1. hrych
      hrych 23 October 2013 18: 52
      +1
      Instead of a thousand words, some kind of a little board with wrapped up cheap screws that can speak about low financing of cultural objects in Ukraine.
      1. smprofi
        smprofi 24 October 2013 00: 29
        +2
        Quote: hrych
        some kind of board

        Do you like this one more?

        1. hrych
          hrych 24 October 2013 00: 41
          +1
          Kindly and the plate is not cheap, and the hardware is decent, and most importantly not on the move.
          1. Corneli
            Corneli 24 October 2013 21: 45
            +2
            Quote: hrych
            Kindly and the plate is not cheap, and the hardware is decent, and most importantly not on the move.

            Looks like those who hung the first sign on the church did not have access to Gazprom's bins. And in general, you found something to boast about, if you have a picture of a golden toilet here, ala Hussein with Putin's name, will it be the top of steepness? And the main thing is not on the "Ukrainian Move, but it is possible on the Belarusian Move, will you not be bothered by it?)
  • xan
    xan 23 October 2013 15: 28
    0
    I consider insignificant knowledge about the origin and antiquity of the Slavs, about the founders of cities, and who are older - Moscow, Kiev or Novgorod. About the common roots of the ancestors in my opinion indicates the similarity of the language, which allows us to conclude about the common ancestors of the Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Bulgarians, Czechs, etc. In this sense, I do not understand those who derive the origin of the Cossacks from the Turks, if their language was Russian. And I consider important events that changed the course of history, such as the unification of part of the Russian principalities around Moscow, and that the Moscow elite was not exchanged for nishtyaks, like Lithuanians and Poles and other Czechs. It is important who did what and who managed to achieve what. Russia, led by Moscow, is generally beyond competition. And in this sense, for me, Tatars and Bashkirs, alien in terms of language, with the Chuvash and Mordovians are much closer than peoples related in terms of language - they began to build Russia before Ukrainians and Belarusians. Even in troubled times, when the fate of Russia hung in the balance, they stood for the Russians, unlike the Ukrainians and Belarusians who fought on the other side.
    And bending fingers on the topic whose city was founded earlier, who previously had a constitution or university, and the like, are generally funny to me. There were periods in the life of each country when it was necessary to exert all the mental, physical and technical forces, in general, everything that was created by this state and the social community of people, for one purpose - survival. And the Russian people here with Moscow are again out of competition - they managed to unite not only common in language, but also common in spirit peoples. It is foolish to think that the Tatars and other non-Slavic peoples strained from under the stick.
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 23 October 2013 18: 18
      +2
      As you can see even on the forum that not everyone considers Russians to be Russians. And in order to justify the difference between Russians and Ukrainians, Belarusians come up with their own theory of origin.
      And although you are undoubtedly right, I think there are plenty of dissenters.
  • zmey_gadukin
    zmey_gadukin 23 October 2013 15: 29
    +3
    laughed gentlemen ... really laugh through tears
    we see firsthand how history is changing. Moreover, the ancient
    1. Ksenia_art
      Ksenia_art 23 October 2013 18: 02
      0
      Quote: Ross
      Chud peoples, all and Meria are not at all Finno-Ugric, as you probably had in mind. These are the same Slavs, with their genetics. Ilya Muromets is a typical representative of them.

      fully support!
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 23 October 2013 15: 35
    -2
    First Romanovs
    Kazimir Valishevsky
    The historical work “The First Romanovs” by the Polish-French historian Casimir Valishevsky is by far one of the most fascinating expositions of Russian history during the formation of the Romanov dynasty, created by a foreign historian.

    Polish-Russian Ukraine
    I. Ukraine
    Ukraine or Outskirts means a border country. Even now, the Russians call in the same way the various marginal parts of their empire: the Polish provinces, Transcaucasia, and Central Asian possessions. In olden times, such a name served in particular to denote a vast space with undefined boundaries, which, expanding its plains along the lower reaches of the Danube to the Dnieper and Don, touching on one side of the Carpathians, and on the other extending along the Black Sea, represented at the same time a kind of neutral soil between neighboring countries and a connecting point between Europe and the plains of Central Asia.
    Along this path, once Asian life penetrated the European world, and it was precisely here that two currents, civilizations and barbarism, having come from that and from another continent, met and faced terrible force. In this way, migratory birds, locusts, nomadic tribes, Mongol armies and the plague penetrated west from the east. From the west, in order to stop the barbarians in front of the threatened cultural centers, the defenders of civilization entered this battlefield, where the armies of antiquity and modern eras continuously met, from Darius and Cyrus to the Polish legions. According to one poet, "in this field plowed by horse hooves, manmade by human corpses, dotted with white bones, irrigated by a hot rain of blood, the harvest of sorrow grew."
    Being a border country, Ukraine often changed both its borders and its masters. Having no historically known rulers before the establishment of the Varangian princes in Kiev, which later, before the Carpathians and the Don, was included in the Russian state by Vladimir (980-1054) in the first half of the fourteenth century (1319-1333), it left this aggregation and went to Lithuania. In the next century, a new turn of fate changed her fate again, and before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, she, opening them access to Moldova, Wallachia and even to the banks of the Dniester, to the entire vast territory between this river, the Dnieper and the Black Sea, increased the possession of Poland in the Lithuanian - the Polish federation, which was created by Jagiello's entry into the possession of the Piast legacy. In the second half of the fifteenth century, the northeastern border of both countries was 150 kilometers from Moscow! In the southeast, the coastal cities of Belgorod, Ochakov, Kochubei were Polish ports. Sending huge transports of grain from here to Greece, they created a fortune for a large number of Polish families: Buchatsky, Jaslovetsky, Senyavsky, who owned vast neighboring regions.
    1. xan
      xan 23 October 2013 21: 36
      0
      Quote: mhpv
      First Romanovs
      Kazimir Valishevsky

      This Pole evokes a feeling not of a historian, but of a political writer. I read 4 of his books (the Time of Troubles, the first Romanovs, Peter the Great, about Elizabeth), although after the first it became clear that fiction and fitting facts to the preconceived opinion of Valishevsky himself was a dime a dozen. Valishevsky killed his life in substantiating the European view of Russians - stupid inert, incapable of progressive barbarians who were always lucky and who were pulled into the light by a few European mercenaries. He is one of the founding fathers of European Russophobia. It is foolish to consider his opinion as the opinion of a qualified unbiased historian. He has rebelled barbarians, beasts and bandits from the impossible life of the Ukrainian peasants, and Polish troops who have slaughtered entire cities — bringing the civilized order to the heroes and the inevitable victims associated with this.
      Valishevsky is a cheap historian, and a writer is also cheap.
      1. Mhpv
        Mhpv 24 October 2013 09: 39
        0
        Quote: xan
        Valishevsky is a cheap historian, and a writer is also cheap.

        So I'm in order for people to understand how they write history in their own way and put quotes from his book, but some on the site are guided by emotions, and not by common sense, to slap minus more quickly and delve into why!
        And sometimes it’s useful to read such publications in order to understand what the West is striving for, it will not be worse if you read meaningfully.
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 23 October 2013 15: 36
    0
    Meanwhile, from the second half of the same century, the victorious and destructive invasion of the Ottoman Empire put an end to this much-promised rebirth. Forcing the Polish occupation to constantly retreat, it limited it in the south to the environs of Kiev, Bratslav and Bara. Behind them and to the sea, it left only the vast steppes beyond the power of the Sultan, henceforth completely uncultivated, the so-called “wild fields” (dzikie pola), where only traces of ancient human villages were preserved in some places.
    Even later, in the second half of the sixteenth century, the rise of Polish domination and Polish culture manifested itself again in the same places, never reaching, however, the same size, and at this time the name "Ukraine" was generally applied by the Poles to this part of their possessions, but always in pretty general form. Officially, this name appears for the first time in the "constitution" of 1530 (Volumina legum, II, 1320); but later it was still used rather vaguely, when they talked about "infinite space", on the other side of Sluch and Murakhva, in the Dnieper and Bug basins, before the separation of waterways with the Donets and the "Ochakov steppes." In some palatinates of Kiev and Bratslav, there were 2 square leagues, but together with the Chernigov principality, this figure often included other regions.
    The origin and ethnic character of the population of this country is not easily amenable to certainty. Legend reveals giants there, vi? Letni, vi? Liniani? (giants in Russian, wielki - in Polish) and obro (olbrzym - giant in Polish and Czech). Shafarik finds the same root in the name of Anta, which was given in Germany to the same population.
    In the northern part of the country, as less wild, this population, apparently, early showed an inclination towards industry, but at the same time, features of effeminacy and sybarism were very noticeable in it. Kiev women were known as coquettes and goldfinches, and Boleslav Polsky, having come to this city in 1706 to help the Russian prince Izyaslav, found the real Kapuy there. During the reign of the first princes from the house of Rurik, life in this country gives the impression of a constant holiday. In epic songs dating back to this era, only feasts are sung, at which Vladimir “Clear Sun” sat and the heroes and heroines of this epic are not only courageous, but also profligacy; such was Churilo Plenkovich, a true type of belligerent Don-Juan, such is also the wife of the Danube, who reveals amazing dexterity in archery, and at the same time knows how to humiliate her husband in another way. A deeply democratic spirit seems to have been characteristic of this nascent society. Contrasted with the dukes and kings, the favorites of the legend are always of dark origin, the sons of men and the poor. The only cult that reigned among them until the very introduction of Christianity was the cult of power. Later, when faced with each other, these two principles create some kind of mixed culture and Kiev, this ephemeral capital of an empire based on violence, and a hotbed of intense religious life, a favorite place for orgies, where the victorious Cossacks of the seventeenth century will compete with the Varangian winners of the tenth centuries, and the center of pilgrimage, reflected all these different moods. But along with the Norman victory, preceding the Polish conquest, other elements penetrated into this environment: Greeks, Swedes, Danes, Poles, Germans, Jews, Bulgarians, and their influx, which went in an uncontrollable stream, never turned.
    What was the local indigenous population, if any, and what kind of relationship was established between him and these immigrants?
  • Sineys
    Sineys 23 October 2013 16: 04
    +1
    Now it’s NOT KIEVSKAYA, but what next - NOT RUSSIA?
    And by the way, an interesting statement by the Russian journalist Mikhail Leontyev.
    http://censor.net.ua/video_news/168901/rossiyiskiyi_jurnalist_ukraina_sformirova
    las_izza_nelepyh_i_marazmaticheskih_obstoyatelstv_a_ee_tsentr
  • Egor-dis
    Egor-dis 23 October 2013 17: 01
    0
    In general, I respect the elder. Writes cool, and in most cases, his gaze is pretty sober. But with regard to the history of Ukraine-Rus, he writes complete crap. And all because, firstly, he is a convinced Normanist, and secondly, he begins to consider the history of Russia from the vocation of the Varangians and baptism, i.e. simply ignoring the "golden" millennia of "Gardariki" that came before that. In fact, he "analyzes" history "at the end" of the power of the Slavic-Aryan civilization. Meanwhile, our local toponyms are mentioned in "Bahagwat-Gita" (and when was it written?).

    But racial ukrov have their own messiah - Yu. Kanygin and his new testament "The Way of the Aryans" wassat That’s where the pseudo-scientific nonsense that only the truly racial Galician’s brain can withstand can survive.

    From more or less sane historical research I would recommend Grigorenko "Where did the Slavs come from?"
  • gameover65
    gameover65 23 October 2013 17: 44
    0
    damn it, there’s simply no time to read all the comments if I repeated someone’s thought, litter.
    article, some nonsense of a Slavophobe! Yes, yes, you are right to do what you fear, for we are the bearers of truth and justice and we wake up!
    What kind of NAX Varangians, if in Germany, for example, more than 700 Russian cities?
  • Sineys
    Sineys 23 October 2013 18: 59
    +2
    Quote: Ulan
    I know. Firstly, no state called "Muscovy" has ever existed in history. Just like a state called "Kievan Rus".
    Mr. Sineus is really repeating the nonsense of Svidomo "historians" like Bebik.
    Any literate person understands this. So what I wrote about ancient ukrov is being drawn in for the truth to the people of Ukraine. So I wrote a truth that someone really didn’t like.
    I can easily "prove" that the real Finno-Finns are Ukrainians, but let the Svidomites have fun with such nonsense.
    Peter the First, you see, ordered to call "Muscovy" the Russian Empire.
    And do you support this stupidity?
    Well then, give the decree of Peter the Great on this topic-From what date the decree and where does it say that the people from such and such a date to call the state not "Muscovy" and "Russian Empire".
    And tell me, dear, since what year, date and month, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus began to be called "Muscovy"? Do you have any documents on this? Maybe Dmitry Donskoy ordered? Or Ivan III? Or maybe Ivan the Terrible issued a decree?
    Or maybe you will answer another question: why did suddenly Ukrainians appear on the lands of Southern Russia instead of the Rus-Ros-Russians living there? Wasn’t, wasn’t and suddenly appeared from somewhere?
    Rusich were taken out and instead of them they brought Ukrainians?
    Apparently by analogy svidomye "historians" believe that in North-Eastern Russia at first lived the Russian-Russians, and then they were taken out and brought in by the "Muscovites".
    And you want me to comment on such nonsense?
    And Mr. Sineus is simply a provocateur, which many roams on the Russian Internet.

    Forgive me for being late in answering - I have to earn a penny for the kids for milk. As for your considerations - finally, for having my own opinion, I was awarded the title of "provocateur". And if I defend him, then you will probably call him a senior provocateur or a provocateur-major there.lol Regarding your questions - the Moscow State, the name adopted in historical works of the political association that preceded the formation of the All-Russian Empire. Other names of the Moscow state - Moscow region, Moscow region; In the documents of that time, the Moscow state is sometimes called simply Moscow, while foreigners often called it Moscow. On October 22, 1721, Chancellor Golovkin, after the end of the service in the Trinity Cathedral, attended by the Tsar's family, the Synod, the Senate and all the highest government officials (in short, the then glamorous party) read the text of the petition for Petya 1's acceptance of the title of All-Russian Great Pope and Emperor (Father Fatherland, Emperor of All Russia, Peter the Great). Which was graciously received by the named. On the question of "ancient ukrakh" - I very much ask you to submit a scan of a textbook or research on this matter, otherwise I somehow apparently lagged behind the all-Ukrainian trends in the historical context. On the issue of the name of the people - now we are called Ukrainians, before (before the Bolshevik coup in tsarist Russia) they called us Little Russians, even earlier they called the people Rus, Rusyns, even earlier the glades, Drevlyans, Volynians, etc., even earlier the Sklavins and Antes , and how there is in the depths of centuries - then only God knows. In essence, the resettlement of the Finno-Ugric tribes - click on the picture and you will be happy.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 23 October 2013 23: 17
      +1
      But the theory of the change of capitals Novgorod - Kiev - Moscow causes me great doubt. This was how it was supposed to happen, so that the capital would shift from Novgorod by a thousand kilometers (and this with those roads and transport) and even when Novgorod was a powerful prosperous city. Why all of a sudden?

      And the goal of this theory, most likely, is simply the desire to appropriate succession.
      1. hrych
        hrych 23 October 2013 23: 59
        +2
        It was not the city that moved, but the grand-ducal family moved to where the center of the state was. Trade routes change over time, when the "path from the Varangians to the Greeks" began to flourish, and this happened when the Novgorod army dispersed the steppe inhabitants from the Dnieper lands and in order not to return, the prince's squad should not sit far in the north, as you said, a thousand kilometers away, but closer, hence Kiev flourished. Svyatoslav, while fighting in the Balkans with the Romans, wanted to move the capital to Pereyaslavets on the Danube because it was the center of the empire, but failed and died. The throne moved to Vladimir thanks to victories over the Pechenegs and Polovtsy with the expansion of the empire to the east, and most importantly, with the decline in the value of the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks", since Byzantium began to languish. Next comes the expansion to the east, battles with Kazan and Moscow became the center and as a result the capture of Siberia, and Kiev and Novgorod became a hole. Peter moved the capital to Peter, tk. he saw himself as the ruler of Europe there and waged wars, but he died, and the capital remained on the border, although thanks to his installation they captured the Baltic and then Poland.
        Capitals move, as a rule, to the center of the Empire (with its military expansion) and the large role of the economy and trade routes. A good example is the relocation of Emperor Constantine to New Rome (called Constantinople) when they captured Anatolia, Bactria and Mithridates kingdom.
        1. Corneli
          Corneli 24 October 2013 22: 04
          +1
          Quote: hrych
          A good example is the relocation of Emperor Constantine to New Rome (called Constantinople) when they captured Anatolia, Bactria and Mithridates kingdom.

          An example is simply EPICALLY slop! wassat
          1. Anatolia (po. Asia Minor) and Pontus (kingdom of Mithridates) geographically almost completely coincide conquered by Rome were 50 BC - 50 BC
          2. Rome reached its maximum expansion under Trajan 98-117g
          3. Constantine officially transferred the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium on May 11 330 years
          Modestly so miss for 300-400 years! lol
          4. In 404, the capital of Zap. Rome. Empire was transferred from Rome to Ravenna. Why? Were there awesome trade routes?)
          5. Well, it just fell from a chair from the capture of the Bactria by the Romans. Bactria is, as it were, in the territory of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. The Romans never even lied there. request
          God knows what you know about Russian history there, but this is Roman-Byzantine)
          1. hrych
            hrych 25 October 2013 02: 00
            +2
            If you noticed, then it was firstly about the center of the state, and secondly about the installation at the beginning of expansion and the direction of trade routes, i.e. east, because the west was pocked all the way, i.e. before Great Britain and the Great Silk Road began to be of great importance in trade, and old Rome no longer met the requirements, plus the main wars again went on in the east with the Persians, in the west the problems started later. He didn’t indicate any time frame and Trayan had nothing to do with it. By Mithridates kingdom, I did not mean a specific time frame (for example, the war of Eupator with Pompey), but purely the territory of the Black Sea coast or a synonym for the All-Pontic state, Anatolia is the whole peninsula, and not just the Black Sea coast. In Bactria, I agree with my mistake, mixed up, territorially meant Mesopotamia. I didn’t understand by Ravenna, the reason is known to you, the Goths of Alarich were driven in Italy, the capital of the Western Roman Empire was not Rome, but Milan, Alaric, when he took it, the emperor Honorius had to look for another capital, apparently still that it is a port and if that is easy escape on a ship. There is force majeure, when the Goths drive you do not have to choose.
            1. Corneli
              Corneli 25 October 2013 10: 42
              +1
              Quote: hrych
              If you noticed, then it was firstly about the center of the state, and secondly about the installation at the beginning of expansion and the direction of trade routes, i.e. east, because the west was pocked all the way, i.e. before Great Britain and the Great Silk Road began to be of great importance in trade, and old Rome no longer met the requirements, plus the main wars again went on in the east with the Persians, in the west the problems started later.

              It's okay that at the time of the founding of Constantinople, the empire had 3 capitals Trier, Milan / Aquileia and Nicomedia (it was exactly the capital of the eastern part and Constantine moved the "court" from it to his new city). But there was no smell of "trade routes" or "expansion" there. And it smelled of fragmentation, endless civil wars and riots and attacks by "barbarians" from all directions. Hence Diocletian's attempt to split the empire into smaller pieces for a quick response. Rome (in addition to the above), has long lost the trust of the emperors, it is no wonder that Constantine, who had done all the competitors, wanted to make himself a new capital.
              It is generally better to keep silent about the absence of problems in the west (and within the empire itself) and the "main wars" with Persia, and even better, specifically, refresh your knowledge by reading with whom exactly the emperors were mainly at war at that time (believe Persia there is not the first location). You apparently have "problems" with the resettlement of the Goths and the Huns, but this is not true.
              Quote: hrych
              He didn’t indicate any time frame and Trayan had nothing to do with it.

              belay These are the times! "moving the capital when captured" This is how to understand not "framework" not? As if the text is a direct conclusion. Only 300 years passed between the seizure of the provision data and the move! So your "example" is opaquely "approximate". And I mentioned Trajan, in view of the maximum expansion of the empire under him (200 years before Constantine), but he didn’t mind moving the capital into his head (unlike him, Constantine spent half his life rushing INSIDE the “conquered” Roman Empire and dealing with crowds of competitors, but not with the Persians). And yes, Trajan, incidentally, captured Mesopotamia, and for some reason his successor abandoned it. request
              Quote: hrych
              Under the Mithridates kingdom ... but purely the territory of the Black Sea coast or a synonym for the All-Pontic state, Anatolia is the whole peninsula, not just the Black Sea coast.

              Why then was it necessary to highlight a part of Asia Minor? I would understand if Syria or Egypt were instead.
              Quote: hrych
              According to Ravenna, I did not understand ... the capital of the Western Roman Empire was not Rome, but Milan

              And why Milan? (Like Trier or Nicomedia) laughing Is there the Silk Road? Or from the north of Italy (or from Germany) closer to the Persians?
              1. hrych
                hrych 25 October 2013 14: 31
                +2
                A colleague from the neighbors of Rome left one strong state, and this is Persia, by the time of Troyan (your remark), all competitors of Rome were crushed, disparate barbarian tribes didn’t count, and at that time there were no threats other than raids. The caliphate has not yet been born. The same Huns and Goths were generally in the service of the metropolis, only then they were transformed from an army of mercenaries into states with capitals naturally at the expense of the former owner. One way or another, wars with Goths and vandals were essentially a civil war, albeit with a non-Latin ethnic group (although this is now disputed), and after the victories of Belisarius and Narzes, the Goths were simply expelled from the territory of the Empire, and the vandals (if I am not mistaken 15 thousand) simply made citizens of the Empire and gave including state positions (though with the rejection of Arianism).

                I don’t know why you underestimate the Persian trend, but first with Parthia, then with the Sassanids, Rome had constant and periodic wars. Okay, I will shut up with my speculation and turn to the encyclopedic quote:


                The struggle of Rome with Parthia, and then with the state of the Sassanids, had deep economic reasons. The trade of the Roman Empire with India and China, the most important of which was occupied by silk, passed through northern Mesopotamia or southwest Armenia, and then through Iran or Central Asia. In the same way, goods went in the opposite direction. Of great importance were the routes from Mesopotamia to the north, to Armenia and Georgia.

                In an effort to strengthen control over trade routes, while reducing trade costs, the Roman Empire steadily advanced its borders to the east, crowding Parthia.
                1. hrych
                  hrych 25 October 2013 15: 18
                  +2
                  The fact that New Rome (Constantinople), in contrast to Rome itself, is located on the border of Europe and Asia, connects the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (do not find fault with the Marmara, etc.) and their civilization, is a junction of the ancient trade routes, where it intersects "The Great Silk" and from "Varyag to the Greeks" precisely says that Constantine was not thinking about palace intrigues, but about trade, economics, an ideal place for a merchant and military fleet. And about a place not far from the western possessions, but aimed for expansion to the east. And accordingly, Constantine was unequivocally brought up on the campaigns of Alexander the Great, and the ultimate goal of expansion was definitely India (with a mix of the glorious Bactria). And there may be many so-called capitals, but giving a name to the city of New Rome is again worth a lot.
                2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Ulan
        Ulan 24 October 2013 11: 27
        +1
        You missed Vladimir. Moscow at first was just a small specific princedom of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus. Dmitry Donskoy was the Grand Duke of Vladimir. And only then the capital of the principality moved to Moscow.
        Vladimir cannot be excluded from this process, where, by the way, the metropolitan’s throne, i.e. spiritual center of Russia.
        So nobody appropriated anything. The legal successor of the unified Kievan Rus was Vladimir-Suzdal (Moscow) Russia and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia, (ON) until it became part of the Rzeczpospolita.
        After that, Moscow Russia remained the only successor.
        ON could unite all of Russia, but lost to Moscow.
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 24 October 2013 11: 20
      0
      This is what was required to prove. There is no documentary confirmation of the existence of the mythical state "Muscovy", in fact, as well as the people - "Muscovites". The name Russia (Rusia-Russia) begins to be used already at the time of Ivan the Third. He is already signed with the title “Sovereign of All Russia” and then a listing of all principalities.
      So Peter the Great was asked to accept the title of the Russian emperor. Before that he bore the title of tsar "all great and small and white" and further. No "Muscovy" is mentioned there.
      Usually, Ukrainian opponents also refer to Western maps or to Herberstein.
      But I think you will agree that your correct name is how you call yourself and how it is written in your passport, and not what nickname your neighbors gave you.
      By the way, on western maps there are often double names on the same map and "Muscovy" and "Russia". There are maps where only "Muscovy", where there is only "Russia". By the way, there are maps where the territory of both present-day Russia and present-day Ukraine is designated as "Tartaria". So, we are, in the opinion of some foreigners, "Tartars".
      So, one should be careful about the opinion of neighbors, especially since they have different ones.
      The same Herberstein in his "Notes on" Muscovy "writes about Moscow as the capital of Russia, and about Veliky Novgorod as the largest principality of Russia (Russia). And under the portrait of Vasily III in his book there is an inscription -" The Tsar and Sovereign of the Russians. "
      Jacques Margeret, in his book published in Paris in 1607, writes - "It is wrong to call them" Muscovites "and not Russians, as not only do we who live in the distance, but also their closer neighbors do. When they themselves are asked which nation they answer - Russians. "
      It is really strange if Prince Pozharsky or Minin would call themselves "Muscovites".
      So let's treat each other with respect and not invent fables about each other.
      And Bebiki and Belinsky and their followers in Russia let them write their stories for science fiction lovers.
  • Sineys
    Sineys 23 October 2013 20: 05
    0
    Oh yes, dear Ulan rebuked me for incorrect statements about Peter I and Catherine II. And what did I say wrong? Do you consider a person who personally chops off heads, tortures suspects, betrays his son's execution, mocks the church by participating in the all-drunken cathedral, drinks into alcohol and drinks everyone present, kills many people at construction sites, etc. normal? In addition, Menshikov destroyed and destroyed the inhabitants of the city of Baturyn (the hetman capital), and Colonel Yakovlev Zaporozhye Sich. So why should I respect this pervert and alcoholic? As for Katerina at number 2, how would a normal person call a woman who changes men like gloves? B. hell she is, albeit crowned. In addition, this person enslaved the "Little Russian people" and finally destroyed the Zaporozhye Sich, proclaiming: "We wanted to declare throughout Our Empire ... that the Zaporozhye Sich has been completely destroyed, with the extermination of the name of the Zaporozhye Cossacks for the future ... By God, in front of Our Empire and in front of humanity in general, to destroy the Zaporizhzhya Sich and the name of the Cossacks borrowed from it.As a result, on June 4, our Lieutenant-General Tekelliy with the troops entrusted to him from us occupied the Zaporizhzhya Sich in perfect order and in complete silence without any resistance from the Cossacks ... There is no now the Zaporizhzhya Sich in its political ugliness, hence the Cossacks of this name ... ". Why would I suddenly respect her?
    1. xan
      xan 23 October 2013 22: 06
      +1
      Quote: Sineys
      Oh yes, dear Ulan reproached me with incorrect statements about Peter I and Katerina II.

      Yes you are a moralist, Sineus! It’s easy to be a moralist only, but how difficult it is for a successful statesman.
      I will not argue about the facts presented, although many European leaders of that time are still some kind of fiends and perverts. In my opinion, it is better to have such perverts and adulterers as Peter 1 and Catherine 2 as leaders of the state than such exemplary family men as Nikolai 2.
      Quote: Sineys
      In addition, this person enslaved the "Little Russian people"

      And before Catherine, the Ukrainian peasants were free. They were especially free under the Poles when the uprisings followed the uprisings. Are you raving, alternative?
      Quote: Sineys
      and finally destroyed the Zaporizhzhya Sich,

      with gangs not controlled by states, they do so. Don Cossacks were not dispersed. And from the wiser Zaporizhzhya Cossacks the glorious Kuban Cossacks revived, but this is already a Russian phenomenon. I generally noticed that when brains are added to Ukrainians, they usually become Russian.
      Quote: Sineys
      Why would I suddenly respect her?

      So do not respect. You probably respect Zaporizhzhya Cossacks, advanced statesmen.
      And I have something to respect her for. World history does not need an additional explanation of its greatness, and the opinion of flawed Ukrainians like you is not interesting to anyone.
    2. Cristall
      Cristall 24 October 2013 01: 20
      +1
      Quote: Sineys
      regarding Peter I and Katerina II

      How many people, so many opinions
      For example, I am Pyotr Mikhailov, Petrus, even sometimes admire. And yes, the methods were in the spirit of the times. Thanks to Tolstoy.
      Well, and I am obliged to the Princess of Zerbskaya from Holstein (I can be mistaken) ... Katka and my favorites founded our city ... and even promoted it well.
      Yes, our Taras did not like them. It’s a matter of course, but I’d better appreciate them globally than separately and emotionally.
    3. Ulan
      Ulan 24 October 2013 11: 45
      +1
      I don’t care about your personal tantrums. However, I didn’t allow myself to make such statements about Sahaidachny or Khmelnitsky, who were also far from angels.
      What can I remember how Little Russians, along with the Poles, burned and robbed Russia?
      So leave your emotions and boorish characteristics of statesmen with you.
      We are not discussing them, but other issues. But you, as a regular demagogue, included boorish attacks on the Russian emperors, who had nothing to do with the issue under discussion, in the main discussion topic.
      Why is it being asked?
      To raise a degree?
      As they say - for the sake of a red word, will not regret mother, father?
      What you presented to Peter and Catherine can be presented to almost all political figures of that era.
      You might think that the Cossacks so beloved by you, were entirely teetotalers and virgins, did not rob, did not kill and did not rape.
      So do not hesitate, if someone is trying to bring such charges, then there will be similar ones in return.
      Will we compete in this?
      In vain, you hope that in this competition you win.
      I believe that with your post from which it all started, you translated the calm discussion on the forum into s.rach.
      Moreover, you did not submit any evidence to your words, it was subsequently confirmed that you did not have it.
  • serge
    serge 23 October 2013 20: 05
    -2
    The inhabitants of the so-called "Kievan Rus" did not know that they lived in Kievan Rus. Russia was alone. Regarding the fact that the term Kievan Rus was introduced under Stalin so as not to recognize the "Scandinavian" Rurik as its founder, this is far-fetched. Rurik was never a Scandinavian, he was a Varangian. At that time, any new brigade was called Varangians in Russia (and even now it is often called; in Soviet times, I heard about a team of builders from the Caucasus in a village). Whether warriors, builders ... Rurik was from the Baltic Slavs, encouraging, and was not just a stranger, but the grandson of the Novgorod prince Gostomysl. As for the imposition of the concept of "Kievan Rus" in Soviet times, this is an absolutely clear Jewish policy aimed at the collapse of the unified Russian state, and Stalin has absolutely nothing to do with it. In the 20s of the XX century, previously absolutely mythical and never existed Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were cut from Russian lands. The titular nations of these republic-states were invented, a story with a pronounced anti-Russian orientation was invented, languages ​​were invented from previously existing dialects. All this was done on the historical territory of the Russian people, was directed against the Russian people and was done at the expense of the Russian people. Power in the country was seized by a Jewish column, which put all this into practice. The USSR was collapsed according to a clear plan, along the borders of the so-called republics, invented after the victory of the fifth column in the civil war. Exactly the same thing is happening now in the rest of Russia, which is called the Russian Federation and is divided into dozens of fictitious national formations that have never existed in nature before. If these borders inside Russia are not burned out with a hot iron, Russia will disintegrate along these borders. This is the main purpose of the fifth column. The term "Kievan Rus", as well as, for example, "Belorussia", "Lithuanian Rus", "Lithuanian-Russian state", was pedalized by Jewish Bolsheviks with the aim of breaking up the Russian empire into its component parts. This is the meaning of this term and its historical significance, nothing else.
  • Ross
    Ross 23 October 2013 20: 25
    +1
    Quote: Netrocker
    the whole, measuring, miracle, muroma - these are just the Finno-Ugric peoples ... but the so-called Vyatichi or Polab Slavs - they existed more west of them ...

    Representatives of the White-eyed Miracles, live in the Arkhangelsk region, next to the Pomors. And you will be surprised that they are no different from us in appearance, no Finno-Ugric features. And I myself am from the places where Vesy lived, alas - and there are no traces of the Ugrians there.
  • Savva30
    Savva30 23 October 2013 21: 20
    +1
    How did this geopolitics get ... why do not we have the wisdom to answer with dignity all questions, including questions of history, and not hotly, as if we were small children ... The enemy is at the gates, and we ...
    1. xan
      xan 23 October 2013 22: 32
      0
      Quote: Savva30
      . Enemy at the gate, and we ...

      This is the enemy at the gate.
    2. Walker1975
      Walker1975 23 October 2013 23: 25
      0
      Plus. It is amazing that people who go to the analytic site are engaged in screaming and insulting each other - they should have at least a drop of brain
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • skiffdv
    skiffdv 23 October 2013 22: 49
    0
    Eh, Moderators, power pawns. This article was banned. Shame on you and shame, the hangers-on of rulers.
  • Cristall
    Cristall 24 October 2013 01: 23
    0
    Yeah .. got down to history. Share ....
    The Second World War has already been divided .. now Russia will be divided ... straight "Historical Cut" is some kind ...
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 24 October 2013 11: 56
      0
      I personally am against such a cut, and I think that the issues that need to be discussed should be calmly, respectfully, convincingly. But I don’t intend to endure when I, a descendant of the Don Cossacks and Russian peasants, try to assert with aplomb that I am not Russian .
      To those living in Ukraine, I am friendly and respectful. Besides those of course for whom Bandera, Shukhevych, veterans of the SS Galicia division, are heroes.
      But I have exactly the same attitude towards those living in Russia, for whom the heroes are Vlasov, Krasnov and others like them.
  • Searcher
    Searcher 24 October 2013 10: 08
    +1
    Varangians and Vikings are not the same thing. Vikings are Swedes and the way of their settlements in those days is unusually primitive, religious beliefs and the pantheon are different from Slavic ones, the language is also very different. The cultural community and linguistic kinship of the Slavic peoples at that time was between the peoples inhabiting the north of modern Germany and Prussia. The southern coast of the Baltic, it is even visible on the map given in the article. The speculation of the Varangians = Vikings (Norman theory), this is the history of Miller in the 18th century. At the moment, there are many arguments against this theory - these are studies in the evolution of Indo-European languages, in archeology (location of similar settlements and temples) and genetics (distribution of haplogroup R1a). It is strange that to this day they are promoting this wild Norman version.
  • Black demobilization
    Black demobilization 24 October 2013 10: 31
    +1
    The history of the past is written by the present. Whoever benefits from enmity between a single people, he divides it into Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, it's like dividing Russians into St. Petersburg, Tambov, Tver, etc. And this is probably the most terrible thing that could happen to our people who are experiencing more than once section. Appanage princes in the past, for the first time divided Russia, and the present ones have repeated or are trying to repeat. We, who still remembered a single state, need to strive for the truth by FORCE, otherwise we really are "Ivans who did not remember kinship." And the truth is that we are one people, one mother's father, and as long as we are one we are invincible !!! I do not speculate I claim !! IMHO
  • Irokez
    Irokez 24 October 2013 21: 33
    +1
    Quote: Black demobilization
    The history of the past is written by the present. Whoever benefits from enmity between a single people, he divides it into Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, it's like dividing Russians into St. Petersburg, Tambov, Tver, etc. And this is probably the most terrible thing that could happen to our people who are experiencing more than once section. Appanage princes in the past, for the first time divided Russia, and the present ones have repeated or are trying to repeat. We, who still remembered a single state, need to strive for the truth by FORCE, otherwise we really are "Ivans who did not remember kinship." And the truth is that we are one people, one mother's father, and as long as we are one we are invincible !!! I do not speculate I claim !! IMHO

    And you affirm correctly as a result of correct thinking. Logic knowers. The diversity of the Slovenian language speaks of its past, that it was once one and that depending on the distribution of people and different communication with other peoples and living conditions, it changed and the diversity was obtained once of a single language, and as a consequence of the people.
    I just thought right now, because in modern Macedonia people speak 80% almost like us, but who was Alexander the Great then by nationality? I turn on the brain and logic and feel that in the past history, something is not wherever the Slavs spit everywhere. Etruscan, too, no one can read the inscription on the basis of European languages, and Old Slavonic seems to be suitable.
  • Lexagun
    Lexagun 25 October 2013 00: 07
    0
    Well, why are you all stuck to this "Kievan Rus"?
    I have already written more than once - History is not written by historians, history is written by politicians. As they tell so historians and write. Won't write or write wrong? They will cease to be historians, or simply cease to be. You are able to imagine the court (monastery) chronicler who writes the "truth" about Book. Svyatoslav? Peter the Great? Stalin?
    No, all the revelations are only later, and only in the interests of the new (current) ruler. For political needs, they will pull up everything and everyone, and especially "guessing" (obsequious) will also be marked with all sorts of titles and regalia. I have a good attitude, for example, to Likhachev (master of philology), but it is impossible to read his translation of the "tale of bygone years" without constant footnotes to the original. Why? and he, like the absolute majority of other "translators", supplements the "original" text with words that are not there. For example, when listing the tribes living "to the north" where in a sufficiently long row they sound "..., Dregovoichi, Krivichi, Merya .... and Slovene ..." adds instead of "and Slovene" ".. and others Slovenia "automatically writing down the entire list of those listed. A little" liberty "and everyone suddenly became Slavs, at the same time a career developed wink
  • Lexagun
    Lexagun 25 October 2013 00: 08
    0
    Actually, the father of "Russian history" Karamzin, whose works underlie most of his contemporary and almost all subsequent Russian historians, was not a historian himself. He was a writer, writer, fiction writer, wrote entertaining reading material on historical themes, Fantasy. And so his Martha Posadnitsa, written in a very "motivated" way, liked the "bald dandy" that he ordered Karamzin to compose the entire Russian history in a version just as easy to read and assimilate as was done. Titanic work however. But it worked as in all other cases. For example, with Lyzlov and his equally ordered "Scythian History" in two volumes, the author's team of the "history of the CPSU", or with a general chronological scale created by Scaliger by order of the Pope of Rome (pontiff Maximus) and modified by numerous followers, Dionysius Petavius, Winkelmann and others ... After a while, what their contemporaries (with the exception of, for example, Newton, who was not only a physicist but also a historian) ceased to be perceived critically and eventually became an "established fact".

    Well, try to understand that the same Pushkin, a professional historian unlike Karamzin (see his court position and education-specialty) "earned" his links in Boldino not by being familiar with the Decembrists (one wonders, but who did not know them if, in fact high society was half of them and consisted?) or "fronderism", and so that "hooligan". describing in their tales a reality where tsars are plural, have a South Russian (North Caucasian, Black Sea) origin, Saltan, Gvidon, Dodon, Queen of Shemakhanskaya (whose husband was really a Russian prince - the son of Andrey Bogolyubsky, Yuri-gyurgiy) or uncle Chernomor. Critically refers to the official church, etc. It was not for this "alternative view" that it was too long to ring out on the chopping block, but the "rogue" was painfully known, he would give birth. After all, in the great-grandfathers there is a certain Ganibal - "arap of Peter the Great", who was never a Negro, but was a really high-class specialist, an artilleryman of Semitic (arap) origin from .. Holland. It is no coincidence that a couple of films have already been shot on this character in Holland itself, and even here with Vysotsky in the title role. And to Pushkin himself Monuments are erected not in Ethiopia but in Egyptian Alexandria. Well, God bless them.

    Kievan Rus, as a concept, appears in the historical arena at the moment when it is necessary to consolidate the power occupied by the right. The benefit of all European is to know relatives of each other and find dynastic and eventual intersections is not difficult, the main thing is to interpret them correctly wink and the peoples are not strangers to each other, although the Volga Bulgars-Tatars are much closer to the northeastern "Russian" both ethnically and culturally, despite the three-hundred-year domination of the Caucasian Tatars over them (Bulgars). After all, readers of Karamzin who are not too burdened with education can be explained about the path from the Varangians to the Greeks passing along the Dnieper to Smolensk, then for some reason crossing the western Dvina by portage (although it is perfectly possible to go down to the Baltic Sea in the excellent in terms of navigation and urban planning, the Gulf of Riga (Riga by -Russian - barn, warehouse). again dragged and decently until catching then to Novgorod, and then again rivers in the not most convenient Gulf of Finland. And this is all not taking into account the fact that the Dnieper itself was not navigable. 10 (ten) rapids however On each product you have to pull out, then pull out the ship, then push it all along the dragging up, load and so on 10 times Sadomasochists are some sort of Varangians with the Greeks.
  • Lexagun
    Lexagun 25 October 2013 00: 08
    0
    At the same time, the way to Europe along the Volga, despite some of the costs of winter navigation (as well as on the Dnieper way), it was possible to sail up to the White Sea without going to land (see map). The Dnieper will make the Dnieper navigable in 1934. The right bank of the Dnieper (Zaporozhye) was wild land, which was useless to anyone. Before the invention of the heavy plow of a breather (otherwise, a half-meter layer of turf should not be plowed) in the 19th century, it was impossible to cultivate these lands and they were developed at that time and not quite by Ukrainians (there was no such name yet). Kiev was a challenge prize between several centers of gravity. From Poland did not leave the unifying center of the Slavic lands, too much liberalism and gentry democracy. As a result, the state resource is scarce with rich tycoons and panans, and Poland loses its statehood to Muscovy, where, due to high administration and the prevalence of the public over the personal, the very same state resource can be made significant (impoverishing its own lords and population). Three sections of Poland will follow, after which if it will revive, as a state it will only be under the protectorate of Moscow or its opponents.

    Meanwhile, the Volga way shows abundant trade, after all - the northern spur of the Great Silk Road, after all, is confirmed by the treasures of Arab silver still found in many. What in the Dnieper spawn was not found (and therefore there was no significant trade). Until the end of the 17th century, the largest Russian fair will be Makaryevskaya, and the militia of Minin and Pozharsky will also generate the Volga region, and the uprisings led by the Cossacks (however, the North Caucasus, see where Stenka and Pugacheva was their native village) will be in the Volga region.
    In general, just this weekend I am taking my children once again to Suzdal and Vladimir, to Bogolyubovo, to really places of formation of the modern Russian state. In any case, Moscow was a remake, and it could accumulate a resource only when land trade in the direction of all that Smolensk and further to Poland became noticeable. The first, however, significant Russian land route (wash from the word wash-tax collectors, customs)

    Everything, it's time to sleep.
  • Aleksey_K
    Aleksey_K 28 October 2013 22: 49
    0
    Dear readers, stop quarreling! The history of the Slavs was destroyed by the Chernets (monks) of the Orthodox Christian Church. They planted Christianity among the Slavs with hot iron. Dissenters were destroyed. They destroyed the education, and several centuries later they suddenly announced that the Slavs did not have a written language and the Greeks created the Cyrillic alphabet and that there was no history, because over these centuries, all written evidence has been destroyed. Now even American archaeologists have recognized (themselves discovered) near Novgorod settlements and writing of the Slavs for 40 thousand years before the birth of Christ.
  • Vend
    Vend 4 June 2014 14: 55
    0
    That's right, a simple scientific term, people who were illiterate and far from history, became the property of an entire country and an entire historical era.