Military Review

Where did Russia go from?

99
Since the time of the notorious “perestroika”, historical science has turned into a field of political battles, which are often conducted not only by professional historians, but also by numerous “folk historians” who do not even have elementary knowledge. The purpose of information wars is to deform the consciousness of the nation, wreak havoc “in the fragile minds” of young Russians, overthrow national heroes and impose “new historical knowledge”.


Where did Russia go from?


It is no coincidence that several years ago, the outstanding Ukrainian historian academician Petr Tolochko absolutely rightly noted that “at the present time, when history has become largely the lot of amateurs, not burdened either by historical knowledge, or by the method of scientific criticism of sources, or by responsibility for said, overthrow of scientific authorities and textbook positions in historical science has become their most favorite occupation. "

Moreover, as Boris Mironov, a well-known contemporary historian, absolutely rightly noted, recently, on the basis of the modernist methodology, which replaced the “notorious” history, the scale reflection on the “special tragedy” and “bloody drama” of the Russian historical process has already grown, its “cycles”, endless “inversion turns”, etc.



At the same time, along with the well-known Western Russophobes of the type of Alexander Janov and Richard Pipes, homegrown russophobes, obviously suffering from the complex of the famous “noncommissioned officer widow”, hit this pseudoscientific game.

Suffice it to say that fluent Komsomol journalist Mr. A. Yanov, suddenly turning over the cordon to an authoritative professor of Russian history, in a number of primitive fakes - “Russia: at the root of the 1480 – 1584 tragedy” (2001), “Russia vs. Russia: 1825 – 1921 ”(2003),“ Russia and Europe ”(2007), abounding in a huge amount of factual errors, put forward an anti-scientific theory of the cyclical nature of Russian history.

The essence of this theoretical “masterpiece” that the backstage architect of “Gorbachev perestroika” and court academician Alexander Yakovlev so admired, is that the history of Russia is the history of the alternation of liberal and pro-Western reforms with reactionary and conservative nationalist counter-reforms. And these "historical cycles" over the past 500 years, this newly-born theorist counted as many 14 pieces.

In my book for teachers, which was published this fall, I was forced to repeatedly refer to numerous examples of this kind of “controversy”, which are quite consciously thrown into the scientific and especially near-scientific environment with one single purpose - to deform the consciousness of a nation, to sow chaos. in the fragile minds of the young Russians, overthrow the national heroes and impose, including at the school desk and in the university audience, “new historical knowledge”, which they succeeded in realizing on the territory of a dying Ukraine.

In order not to be unfounded, let us give some of the most vivid and characteristic examples of this kind of discussion, which have long gone beyond pure science and turned into an element of a broad social consciousness and ideological struggle on the historical front.

It is well known that since the end of the 1980s, in the face of the collapse of the communist system and the state of Marxist ideology, the alleged Soviet anti-Normanists left the trenches and began a desperate campaign to introduce their views into a wide public consciousness.

At the same time, according to the Normanists themselves, the "Ultranormanism of the Schlozer type" was adopted, which Professor Lev Klein and his ideological followers, irreconcilable fighters against "great-power chauvinism" and "Russian nationalism" began to implant.

Moreover, the pillars of modern Normanism chose a rigorous scientific controversy with their opponents to obscenely unleashed a tone that is replete with all sorts of, even obscene, insults and pasting labels of the most low-grade poshiba.

Moreover, it was modern Normanists who, not finding any new arguments, put forward the Jesuit thesis that the Norman problem does not exist at all, since it is precisely proved that the "Varangians" are Normans, and therefore a long time has come to this discussion. In other words, with their inherent modesty, they themselves hoisted the laurels of the victors and a priori reject any other opinion.

This cohort of the most active preachers of "European liberalism" was opposed and opposed by the school of Professor Apollo Kuzmin, his students, who with facts in their hands convincingly refuted many mossy "arguments" of their scientific and ideological opponents.

For nearly three hundred years, Normanists and anti-Normanists have argued among themselves on a whole range of problems, among which the most significant are:

1) the question of the ethnic nature of the Varangians and the origin of the princely dynasty and
2) the problem of the origin of the term "Rus".

In ancient Russian and foreign written sources there are completely different ideas about the origin and ethnicity of the Vikings. As established by Kuzmin, the largest specialist in the history of ancient Russian chronicling, in the Tale of Bygone Years alone there are three different and different versions of the origin of the Varangians.

So, Kiev chroniclers called “Varangians” all the inhabitants of the Volga-Baltic trade route. Novgorod chroniclers called the "Varangians" and a certain tribe, and all the Baltic tribes, highlighting especially the "Varangians-Rus". At the same time, both those and other chroniclers were understood by the name of the "Varangians" simply Pomorian, that is, the tribes that lived on the southeastern coast of the Baltic (Varyazhsky) Sea.


Bargaining in the country of the Eastern Slavs. Hood Sergey Ivanov. Illustration from the book "Pictures on Russian history" by Joseph Knebel. 1909 year

Nevertheless, for all Normanists, the Vikings are, without a doubt, the Norman-Vikings, that is, the inhabitants of ancient Scandinavia. And for the anti-Normanists, the Varangians are one of the Slavic, Baltic or Celtic, but long ago Slavicized tribes that lived on the southeast coast of the Baltic (Varangian) Sea. At the same time, there is an original hypothesis of Professor Lev Gumilev, that “Varangians” is only a term that means professional, and not ethnicity of its carriers to the military craft, but this version of the very popular now “Eurasian” is not taken into account by serious specialists. Although a number of modern Normanists (for example, Vladimir Petrukhin) also tried to present the Varangians as “mercenaries who swore an oath of allegiance,” but it is not clear who.

As proof of their correctness, modern anti-Normanists cite a number of rather weighty arguments of an archaeological, historical, and religious nature:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS


1) Among the burial grounds of druzhny kurgans in Kiev, Ladoga, Gnezdovo and other graveyards and cities to which L. Klein and Co. constantly refer, Scandinavian burials proper make up less than 1% of the total number of burials found.

Even a number of decent Normanists (Anatoly Kirpichnikov) had to admit that the famous chamber burial grounds, which, “with a light hand” by the famous Swedish archaeologist T. Arne, were declared Norman, turned out to be a very common form of burial throughout continental Europe, and not just Swedish Tags opened to them in the 1930's.

2) All Scandinavian burial grounds found are dated not earlier than the second floor. X century, that is, when the princes of the Rurik dynasty ruled the Old Russian state for at least several decades.

3) According to the data of the largest Soviet anthropologist, academician Tatyana Alekseeva, who studied in detail the craniological series of the Kiev and Gnezdovsky burial grounds, all the burials here are very different from the German anthropological type.

4) Among all the Scandinavian burial grounds no significant tombstones were found, which convincingly shows that the warriors buried in them could in no way constitute the ruling elite of ancient Russian society.

5) From the rather meager Scandinavian artifacts found on the territory of our country, it is rather difficult to determine how they turned out to be among the Eastern Slavs, either as a result of a trade exchange, or as military booty, or together with their owners, etc.

By the way, many foreign experts, in particular, the largest English archaeologist Peter Sawyer and the Norwegian researcher Anne Stalsberg, speak about this.

HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS


1) All the authors of the Byzantine chronicles have always distinguished the Vikings and the Normans as different ethnic groups.

2) Judging by written sources, the Varangians appeared in Russia and in Byzantium only at the beginning - middle of the ninth century, and the Normans recognized Russia and its southern neighbor not earlier than the second floor. X century, since the Scandinavian sagas do not know the earlier rulers of Byzantium and Ancient Russia than the Byzantine emperor John Tzimiskes (969 – 976) and the great Kiev Prince Vladimir the Holy (978 – 1015).

3) The Scandinavian sagas are well aware of the founder of the Norman dynasty Duke Rollon (860 – 932), who conquered Normandy and became a vassal of the French king Charles III the Simple (898 – 922).

However, they stubbornly remain silent about the “Norman” king Rurik (820 – 879), which causes legitimate surprise, because, according to our homegrown science fiction writers, he was the founder of a huge state in the lands of the Eastern Slavs.

4) Varygs, who came to the lands of the Eastern Slavs, were already (or always) Slavonic, as the cities of Novgorod, Ladoga, Izborsk, and others founded by them had Slavic etymology.

RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS


1) Thanks to the work of many Soviet scientists (Boris Rybakov, Apollon Kuzmin, Vladimir Toporov, Oleg Trubachev, Alexander Ishutin) it is well known that all Russ, Slavs and Finns, who became the core of the ancient Russian people, had their own pantheons of the pagan gods of the Indo-European, Hittite, Iranian or actually Slavic and Finnish origin, which included Perun, Khoros, Veles, Svarog, Stribog, Dazhdbog, Mokosh and other deities.

However, none of the thirteen Scandinavian deities, including the supreme god Odin and his sons Thor, Vidar or Balder, in Slavic, Russian or Finnish theonymism has never existed and could not be by definition.

2) In numerous written sources of various origins, the term "Rus" is used in a highly contradictory and ambiguous manner. In some sources we will find direct indications that the Rus are the Varangians, in others their direct connection with the Slavs will be asserted, and in the third they are called the original ethnic community.

According to a fair opinion of all the same Professor Kuzmin, in the Tale of Bygone Years alone there are two different concepts of the beginning of Russia: Polyansko-Slavic, which was directly connected with Norik-Rugiland, and Varangian, oriented towards Baltic Russia. This circumstance was one of the main reasons for the split among past and present historians, archaeologists and linguists.

Some authors (Serafim Yushkov, Vladimir Petrukhin, Elena Melnikova, Ruslan Skrynnikov, Igor Danilevsky) believe that the term "Rus" was originally of a social nature and, apparently, was used to designate a specific social layer of the Ancient Russian state, most likely for the princely squad. .

At the same time, all orthodox Normanists, with the exception of Professor S. Yushkov, insist on the Scandinavian origin of this term, putting an equal sign between the concepts of "Rus" and "Norman squad", which they call "rowers" or "navigators". Moreover, a completely absurd hypothesis was advanced that this social term was later transformed into an ethnonym, which has never happened in all of human history.

Other historians, of which the absolute majority, believe that the term "Rus" bore a purely ethnic nature and under this name hid some kind of ethnos, tribe or tribal union. Supporters of this approach, in turn, are divided into several currents.


The funeral of a noble Rus. Hood Heinrich Semiradsky

Most foreign and Russian Normanists (T. Arne, Richard Pipes, Lev Klein, Alexander Kan, Gleb Lebedev) believe that the term "Rus" had a purely Scandinavian etymology and was derived from the Finnish word ruotsi, which means Sweden.

However, as the largest Russian linguist Academician Andrei Zaliznyak correctly noted, modern Normanists in their linguistic constructions are guided by the techniques of “amateur linguistics”, which builds its conclusions “on the random similarity of words”, do not take into account the fact that “the external similarity of two words (or two roots) in itself is not yet evidence of some historical connection between them. "

Moreover, the well-known German philologist Normanist Gottfried Schramm in his latest work Altrusslands Anfang (“Beginning of Ancient Russia”, 2002) called this interpretation of the term ruotsi “Achilles' heel of Normanism” and proposed throwing off this ballast, from which Norman theory would only benefit.

A number of major Russian scientists (Oleg Trubachev, Alexander Nazarenko) took a similar position, who, while remaining convinced Normanists, still put the interests of science above the clan interests of Lev Klein and Co.

Aware of all the flaws in their previous interpretation of the origin of the term "Rus", some researchers have hit the other extreme, trying to find the origins of this term in the territory of Sweden itself in the coastal province of Ruden (Roden) or Ruslagen (Roslagen).

However, as a number of Russian and Swedish scientists convincingly proved (Lidia Grotto, Karin Kalissendorf), modern Ruslagen appeared on a geographical map of the Swedish kingdom only in the XIII century, and until then this coastal area was still under water, since the level of the Baltic Sea in the area was then on 5 – 7 m above modern.

A number of major modern scholars, including among the Normanists themselves (Oleg Trubachev, Valentin Sedov), are searching for the origins of the term "Rus" either in Iranian, whose speakers were Scythians or Sarmatians, or even sees a common Indo-Aryan basis in it.

The largest Soviet-style anti-Normans (Boris Rybakov, Mikhail Tikhomirov, Arseny Nasonov, Henrik Lovmyansky) believed that the term "Rus" was local, of Slavic origin and under this name was hidden one of the East Slavic tribes that lived in the middle reaches of the Dnieper, on the banks of a small river Ros , as mentioned in the "Tale of Bygone Years" itself.


Academician Boris Rybakov

Later, this name became associated with the whole Polyansky tribal union, which stood at the origins of the ancient Russian statehood on the southern tip of the East Slavic lands. Other Soviet “anti-Normanists” (Peter Tretyakov) also tended toward the southern ancestral homeland of the Rus, but they were not related to Eastern Slavs, but to Chernyakhovtsy or their descendants. At the same time, these historians did not exclude the fact that these particular Ruses were somehow connected with the Germanic or Western Slavic tribes.

Finally, modern and true anti-Normanists (Apollon Kuzmin, Vyacheslav Fomin, Elena Galkina) believe that the origins of the term "Rus" should be sought among various ethnic "Rus" living at least on the territory of the Baltic, Dnieper, Podon, Danube and Black Sea Rus.
At the same time, at the time of the emergence of the Old Russian state, these Rus were already Slavicized long ago, although initially:

1) Glade-Rus - descendants of northern Illyrians who lived on the middle Danube, on the territory of Norik-Rugiland;

2) Vikings-Rus were one of the Celtic tribes that lived on the southern coast of the Baltic (Varyazhsky) Sea and the nearby islands (Rugen);
3) Alans-Rus were descendants of Iranian-speaking Roksolans, who acted as the bearers of the famous Saltovo-Mayatsky archaeological culture. By the end of the 9th century, the representatives of these three branches of the Rus formed the so-called Russian clan, who then composed the ruling elite of the Old Russian state.

Thus, the question of the origin of the term "Rus" is associated not so much with the "Norman" or "Varangian" problems, as with the so-called Khazar problem, where there are even more speculations and speculations than the Normanists.

At the end of the 19th century, the famous Kiev jurist Herman Barats in several of his articles made a sensational statement that The Tale of Bygone Years was a remake of the Khazar-Judean writing, and the first Russian princes were the Khazar Jews.

Then this topic faded into the background for a long time, but from the end of 1950 the active study of the archaeological monuments of the famous Saltovo-Mayatsky culture, which a number of then archaeologists, primarily Mikhail Artamonov and Svetlana Pletneva, began, was not quite appropriately attributed to the entire Khazar kaganate, artificially expanded the very territory of this state is enormous.

Although even then, within the framework of this archaeological culture, two local variants were clearly delineated: the forest-steppe, anthropologically represented by the dolichocephalic population, and the steppe with the brachycephalic population, which, in turn, also consisted of several territorial variants.

Even then, a number of prominent Soviet archaeologists, in particular, Ivan Lyapushkin and Dmitry Berezovets, put under serious doubt many of the conclusions of their Moscow colleagues and said that the forest-steppe version of the Saltovo-Mayak archeological culture belonged to the Alanian population of Don region, which had never been a part of the Khazar kaganate.

Soon these quite reasonable conclusions were supported by major Soviet historians (Boris Rybakov, Apollon Kuzmin), and at present this promising hypothesis has been further developed in the works of Doctor of Historical Sciences Elena Galkina, which identifies the Don Alanian version of the Saltov Mayan culture with the central part of the Russian Kaganate mentioned in Byzantine, Western, and Muslim written sources of the 8th – 9th centuries.
At the same time, the mock hypothesis about the prevailing influence of the huge Khazar Kaganate throughout Eastern Europe is currently being actively developed by homegrown Normanists, Israeli Zionists (N. Gotlib), and Ukrainian nationalists (Omelyan Pritsak), and even “Eurasian patriots” (Leo) Gumilev, Vadim Kozhinov), who really want to find among the founders of the Old Russian state not only Swedes, but also the Jewish Khazars.

In recent years, this issue has acquired not just a sharp, but extremely painful and relevant character for various political forces.

In particular, the “frostbitten” Zionists began to make claims to possessing the “original historical ancestral home” of the Jewish people, and our “Eurasian patriots”, not appreciating the very essence of these “scientific” discoveries, hit the other extreme and began to talk about a special period “ Khazar-Jewish yoke "in the history of ancient Russia.
Author:
Originator:
http://историк.рф/special_posts/откуда-пошла-русь/
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Koshak
    Koshak 17 January 2016 05: 31
    +5
    Really. "history is politics turned to the past."
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 17 January 2016 09: 42
      +9
      so, good article, good because it clearly shows what the Traditional History of TI is. TI and especially Russian history is a pseudoscience in which the evidence base is extremely weak and insufficient to prove the fundamental provisions of history, such as the "Norman theory".
      "Norman theory" is a false historical position, an ideological-informational weapon created by the Germans of Catherine Milerombaerschlozer in the era of the mythologization of Russian history, when Russian historical thought was simply suppressed by foreign domination. This was the time of the formation of the modern historical paradigm, and this article tells what modern history is. There are various historical schools, obvious Russophobes, even non-Russian names and all sorts of others with a "verified" scientific and political course that looks more like a marketan boat.
      "Scientific" substantiation of the problems of representatives of these historical schools is simply ridiculous, take the same Zaliznyak, in addition to the fact that he is a Russophobe - "the Russian people with a history is an extremist", so his "scientific" approaches resemble more arbitrariness and ad-libbing, which was analysis of his article on "professional and amateur linguistics". "Professional" linguistics from Zaliznyak is an ill-founded set of words based on as much logic as a shamanic spell from an African cannibal tribe, which did not prevent such "researchers" from receiving RAS awards ...
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 17 January 2016 10: 04
        +1
        Quote: Sveles
        so, a good article, good because it clearly shows what the Traditional History of TI is.

        The article seeks to show what "non-traditional history" is, if only because "Traditional and Academic History" does not consider Rurik to be unambiguously an "alien"! fellow
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 17 January 2016 11: 04
          +4
          Quote: Mr PIP
          Quote: Sveles
          so, a good article, good because it clearly shows what the Traditional History of TI is.

          The article seeks to show what "non-traditional history" is, if only because "Traditional and Academic History" does not consider Rurik to be unambiguously an "alien"! fellow


          Arctic fox "heard the ringing ..." how does TI "not consider Rurik an alien"? and who then considers Rurik a foreigner can Fomenko and Nosovsky? The academic science that creates history textbooks just considers Rurik to be a foreign Varangian from Scandinavia, and the fact that "some" like the opposition think that the concept of RUSSIA is not "ethnic" but "social", then such "confrontations" of opinions in TI they say once again that such "science" can never discover the truth, but only drive from empty to empty.
          And if you somehow noticed criticism of non-academic history, can you show where this article is located?
          The real researchers of history, Fomenko and Nosovsky, have long ago disassembled the falsity of the "Norman theory" according to the most important historical document of the Radziwill Chronicle and have established that the most basic sheets, i.e. the sheets where they talk about the Norman vocation and the sheet where they talk about the linking of the chronicle to the Scaligerian chronology ARE FORGED. That's the whole answer to the "Norman theory", which the author of the article did not notice, of course, but he is ready to procrastinate his "arguments" for as long as you like ...
          1. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 17 January 2016 11: 23
            +1
            Quote: Sveles
            Academic science, the one that creates history textbooks, just considers Rurik a foreigner-Varangian from Scandinavia

            No. Academic history in textbooks only illuminates the very fact of Rurik and illuminates versions of its origin, and the reason for such a long debate about versions of academic history is only the lack of sufficient evidence in recognizing any of them as the only true one.
            And the "political debates" around this topic among ordinary people are only evidence that they have "nothing to do".
            Point.
            Quote: Sveles
            Real researchers of the history of Fomenko and Nosovsky

            You probably wanted to say "real mathematicians" now crazy? wassat
            Damn, even before "historical research" Fomenko amused the scientific community by drawing pictures on paper in "4 dimensions" - what is it all about ?! laughing
            1. Sweles
              Sweles 17 January 2016 11: 34
              -2
              Quote: Mr PIP
              Quote: Sveles
              Academic science, the one that creates history textbooks, just considers Rurik a foreigner-Varangian from Scandinavia

              No. Academic history in textbooks only illuminates the very fact of Rurik and illuminates versions of its origin, and the reason for such a long debate about versions of academic history is only the lack of sufficient evidence in recognizing any of them as the only true one.
              And the "political debates" around this topic among ordinary people are only evidence that they have "nothing to do".
              Point.
              Quote: Sveles
              Real researchers of the history of Fomenko and Nosovsky

              You probably wanted to say "real mathematicians" now crazy? wassat
              Damn, even before "historical research" Fomenko amused the scientific community by drawing pictures on paper in "4 dimensions" - what is it all about ?! laughing


              "crazy"? minus you, you are the same "scientist" as the German founders of Russian history, do not you like Fomenko's artwork? But this only speaks of your "scientific approach and a great culture like you, when the specifics are answered with stupid laughter or gnashing of teeth ...
              1. Mr. Pip
                Mr. Pip 17 January 2016 12: 12
                -1
                Quote: Sveles
                you are the same "scientist"

                You "for some reason" ignored the phrase that "academic science does not consider the Norman theory to be the only correct one." I wonder why?! laughing
                Quote: Sveles
                don't like the artwork of Fomenko?

                I will try to explain, they do not "like" anyone who understands. To put it very briefly (and in details it will be difficult for me) "four-dimensional space" is a mathematical method necessary for simplicity of calculations and proofs of various theories dedicated to the universe, because in "three-dimensional calculus" they are not computable due to the impossibility on the scale of "three-dimensional algebra" to operate with infinite quantities is abstract and understandable if.
                Therefore, his "art" is ridiculous, that in our reality "four-dimensional space" does not exist - Fomenko just went crazy wassat
                And his "history" is also itself, he stopped seeing the differences between mathematical equations and objective events wassat
                1. Sweles
                  Sweles 17 January 2016 13: 43
                  0
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  You "for some reason" ignored the phrase that "academic science does not consider the Norman theory to be the only correct one." I wonder why?!

                  there was one so funny on the site.
                  the fact that some dissenters such as Rybakov may even believe that Rurik is not a Varangian from Sweden, and the Varangian from the Baltics does not say at all that he took a position opposite to the academic opinion i.e. the academic opinion is considered with his opinion, as kraz at the intersection with other cars is in the first place, and secondly, his opinion about the very existence of Rurik is as realistic as the tale of the pockmarked chicken, for the reason that all these chronicles are kept pseudo disputes are of false origin ...
                  Quote: Mr. PIP
                  I will try to explain, they do not "like" anyone who understands.

                  don’t bother, you didn’t understand anything, if academician Fomenko doesn’t like a tie, this does not mean that his research is not true ...
                  1. Aljavad
                    Aljavad 17 January 2016 23: 34
                    0
                    Sweles US Today, 13:43 ↑ New
                    Quote: Mr PIP
                    You "for some reason" ignored the phrase that "academic science does not consider the Norman theory to be the only correct one." I wonder why?!
                    there was one so funny on the site.
                    the fact that some dissenters such as Rybakov may even believe that Rurik is not a Varangian from Sweden, and the Varangian from the Baltics does not say at all that he took a position opposite to the academic opinion i.e. academic opinion is considered with his opinion, as kraz at the intersection with other cars is firstly, and secondly his opinion about the fact of beings


                    I got it! The main thing for you is to kick the academic opinion in a stronger way!
                    And everyone there is culture, culture, history, Truth ... - only distract from the "important matter" ...
                    1. Sweles
                      Sweles 18 January 2016 12: 22
                      0
                      Quote: Aljavad
                      I got it! The main thing for you is to kick the academic opinion in a stronger way!
                      And everyone there is culture, culture, history, Truth ... - only distract from the "important matter" ...


                      as usual, you didn’t understand anything, you really can’t say anything, you can’t answer, your faces have been erased, you are a typical representative of traditional history, so usually representatives of the horse breed answer, maybe you’re in the stable?
              2. solzh
                solzh 25 November 2020 14: 27
                23
                Quote: Sveles
                don't like Fomenko's artwork?

                It is precisely that Fomenko's works are artistic, not scientific. And that says it all about him.
            2. co-creator
              co-creator 17 January 2016 21: 15
              +1
              Quote: Mr. PIP
              You probably wanted to say "real mathematicians" now crazy?
              Damn, even before "historical research" Fomenko amused the scientific community by drawing pictures on paper in "4 dimensions" - what is it all about ?!

              He may have had fun, but he is an academician. Just because such titles do not give.

              P.S. Academic history and its adepts amuse a little less. As people say, hanging noodles about UFOs - HISTORIANS CAN BE, BUT WE ARE NOT WHAT?
              1. shasherin.pavel
                shasherin.pavel 18 January 2016 20: 03
                +1
                Quotation: blooded man
                he is an academician. Just because such titles do not give.

                How are they given? You know? There are statistics from Soviet times: 19 doctoral dissertations on the topic "A cat has a tail, not a fifth leg, reborn into a tail." There was even then such an anecdote: "An academician (with all conceivable regalia) leaves his post and hands over his laboratory to his son. Two weeks later, the son comes home and says:" Father, I have decided your topic, over which you have been fighting for 30 years! "
                "I didn't know that my son d ... k! I solved this problem in three days ... Just try now to find a theme for which you will be given a room, a laboratory and a Hero of Socialist Labor!"
              2. solzh
                solzh 25 November 2020 14: 27
                23
                Yes, he is an academician, but his "New Chronological Theory" is not recognized by the scientific community.
          2. Spnsr
            Spnsr 17 January 2016 12: 26
            +7
            Quote: Sveles
            Radzivilov annals and found that the most basic sheets i.e. sheets where they talk about Norman vocation and sheets where they talk about linking the chronicle to the Scaligerian chronology FORGED.

            Well, in general, the author actually says young that Sweden was not yet such as Rurik, and they, the Swedes, spoke Russian in the 17th century, although they made all attempts to switch to Latin ....
            you may have noticed, from modern history, as soon as someone wants to become a non-Russian, he immediately begins to make attempts to switch to the Latin alphabet? ...
            but in general, it amazes me in historians that they insist inevitably insist on the order of occurrence of some names from others and not the other way around, it is an etymology, and in archeology a similar order is applied, as if something first appeared there (though that there wasn’t even a trace), and then they brought him here! and these archaeologists are not confused by history, “we found more from the Vikings on the Don territory than they find“ there ”!”
            and also to etymology, all of Europe had Russian city names! and only in the era of Peter, i.e. 17-18 centuries begins to be renamed, not one historyk about it at all ....
            But this is exactly the story! ...
            1. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel 18 January 2016 20: 09
              +1
              A monument to Harold was erected in Oslo, and the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise was necessary. 1066 l 25 Sep King of Norway Harold Hardrad (= Severe), son-in-law (husband of his daughter) Kyungung Yaritslev (Prince Yaroslav the Wise, Elizabeth) invades England, but the Norwegian army was defeated at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire. 14 Oct., Battle of Hastings. Elizabeth stays in Oslo, where she died in 1077 summer. At 2015, the population of Norway is 5 mil., The people of whom 600 000 live in Oslo. In 1905, a monument to Harald was erected in the city as the founder of the city, but his wife Elizabeth was not remembered at all.
          3. V.ic
            V.ic 17 January 2016 14: 59
            +1
            Quote: Sveles
            the sheets where they talk about the Norman vocation and the sheet where they talk about the linking of the chronicle to the Scaligerian chronology ARE FORGED. That's the whole answer to the "Norman theory"

            Plus you (+)! Indeed, the astrologer Scaliger in power "equaled" with God ... It was from there, from the "work" of the crazy astrologer, that the "dark ages" in the "early" Middle Ages emerged from somewhere. You can freely / with the help of pseudochronology / describe the "correct" story!
        2. Nikolay K
          Nikolay K 17 January 2016 11: 09
          +3
          The author criticizes the "newborn" historians a lot, but he himself writes little specifics, and his arguments look unusual, to put it mildly. Take at least this one:
          "4) The Varangians who came to the lands of the Eastern Slavs were already (or always) Slavonic, since the cities of Novgorod, Ladoga, Izborsk and others founded by them had a Slavic etymology."
          Those. The author believes that the Novgorodians founded the Vikings? Is it not Rurik personally?
          In general, the author’s desire to lead all historians into one line is not understandable, naturally assuming that his own line is the only true one. We went through something similar when all historical theories that diverged from school textbooks were considered heresy. That is why, after the opening of the iron curtain of history, there were many diverse, including pseudo-historical theories put forward by amateurs.
          But it must be understood that history is not an exact science. There are only theories, to one degree or another, reliable and supported by various, often mutually inconsistent, facts. For example, the author did not indicate which of the theories of the emergence of Russia, he considers reliable.
          1. kalibr
            kalibr 17 January 2016 11: 30
            +1
            Quote: Nikolai K
            We went through something similar when all historical theories that diverged from school textbooks were considered heresy. That is why, after the opening of the iron curtain of history, there were many diverse, including pseudo-historical theories put forward by amateurs.

            Yes it is. The biggest challenge for ... is choice. To understand who is right and who to the right lacks knowledge - "ah-ah, all of them ...!"
            1. tolian
              tolian 17 January 2016 14: 27
              0
              Rather, we all ....... They are specialists. They are digging. True, some dig, others howl and Tugriks count.
          2. tolian
            tolian 17 January 2016 14: 18
            +3
            Nikolay, there is a question mark in the title of the article. After reading the article, I realized that the author does not know. Therefore he is asking. Drawing our attention to the unresolved issue and the use of this unresolved by various crooks - from professional lawyers of the Jewish-Khazars to famous mathematicians who imagine themselves as historians, cartographers, linguists, archaeologists, racologists and so on and so forth ... It is not known where Fomenko has such fertility with the company. It is necessary to give out so many volumes of "Chronology" in your age. Although it has long been noticed, the more compact a written work is, the higher the probability of its authenticity of authorship and scientific value. Walk through the works of scientists from Fibonacci to Einstein - make sure. Fomenko reminds me of Petrik, the great "scientist". True, with the difference that Fomenko is really a scientist, but with Petrik's claims to comprehensiveness. Those who disagree with me, I advise you to read the "Bible Code" by Michael Drosnin. A good illustration of how you can powder the brains of the layman.
            1. Aljavad
              Aljavad 17 January 2016 23: 45
              -1
              scholars


              Liked it - "pickle specialist"! laughing
        3. solzh
          solzh 25 November 2020 14: 25
          24
          Quote: Mr PIP
          does not consider Rurik to be unambiguously a "foreigner"

          There are still disputes about Rurik. And no one was able to reasonably confirm or deny the statement "Was there boy Rurik ".
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 17 January 2016 11: 03
        -3
        everything is pralno - the Japanese with their "northern territories" gave us statehood (and writing)
        Zionists and Normanists can walk in the forest ...

        before that, we also did not know how to count in the bazaars;
        1. solzh
          solzh 25 November 2020 14: 28
          25
          Everything was correctly said about Fomenko and other falsifiers from history.
      3. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 18 January 2016 16: 02
        +2
        in general, how many copies have already been broken ... like the logic is present among the Normanists and anti-Normanists, the whole question is, and official science, the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian patriots, where are you ??? Why in the Romanov times Milerras, Shletser and others were able to practically destroy the real history of Russia-Russia, but it is necessary to restore it, why are many facts kept silent ??? It seems that nobody needs it .... although once again we are convinced that the history is POLITICAL and more than once historical moments served as the outbreak of wars and other things
      4. solzh
        solzh 25 November 2020 14: 25
        23
        Quote: Sveles
        TI and especially Russian history is a pseudoscience in which the evidence base is extremely weak

        Do you want to say that Lomonosov, Klyuchevsky, Soloviev, and the very same Rybakov and Likhachev are extremely weak in their proof of historical processes? wassat Probably Fomenko is right in his falsifications ...
    2. Maegrom
      Maegrom 17 January 2016 12: 41
      +2
      No. This education in history is politics. In society, it is customary to confuse history as an academic science that is constantly developing, including revolutionary with the advent of new related sciences. While education, on the contrary, is more inertial and changes when the ideological background changes. In terms of knowledge itself, school education presents history as a science from the time of Klyuchevsky, new knowledge acquired by analyzing sources (starting with Tikhomirov) and genetic material, and even archaeological finds are practically not included in the course. At the same time, the view of development in general in education and the causes of events are of course marked as a weather vane for ideological reasons.
      There is a radio program "Homeland of Elephants", in which the topics that have been developed in academic science in recent years are considered, the study of such materials in the general education curriculum would knock out the ground for most falsifiers, but it is practically impossible under the conditions of the exam and almost impossible under the past tradition, for the need to simultaneously retrain all teachers when changing the program.
  2. ratfly
    ratfly 17 January 2016 07: 20
    +4
    They will write here now! The author decided to stir up a large pile of "fresh historical insights". On this I wash off, otherwise they will trample ...
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 17 January 2016 09: 50
      +2
      ratfly "Now they will write here! The author decided to stir up a large pile of" fresh historical insights ". I wash away with this, otherwise they will trample ..."
      Yes, fine ... they will not trample. Elven sectarians from the same play. Also harmful and hostile. They also work out grandmothers. Not ordinary chatterboxes on the site))) ... and the founding fathers.)))) These are not toys, even though I make fun of them. A normal mine is laid under our entire history. And these carry their own nonsense sometimes not knowing ....)))
  3. VD chauvinist
    VD chauvinist 17 January 2016 07: 30
    +8
    The mismatch of the pantheons of the gods and the lack of statehood among the Scandinavians at the time of the emergence of Russia put a fat cross on the theory of Normanism. In ancient Urartu there were kings - Rusa1 and Rusa2 - so what, Russians - Armenians ?!
    Do not blindly trust the coincidence of phonetic designs.
    1. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 17 January 2016 14: 10
      +2
      Quote: VD chauvinist
      Do not blindly trust the coincidence of phonetic designs.

      Moreover, if you recall one old man with a razor, I deeply doubt most of the theories (at the everyday level, for not a specialist) Normans were a "sea people" Most of the settlements had on the coast in order to quickly pull up reinforcements, or just as quickly "heroically retreat "How many of those fighters could have come along the rivers to the mainland? a hundred, two? Yes, their locals will grind them even without much resistance in a year. The aliens cannot hold onto power.
      From here the conclusion suggests itself - the origin of Russia came from the continent, presumably from the mixing and interpenetration of the Scythians and the Baltic nationalities. IMHO
      1. Aljavad
        Aljavad 18 January 2016 00: 21
        0
        The Normans were a "sea people" Most of the settlements were on the coast, in order to quickly pull up reinforcements, or just as quickly "heroically retreat"


        The Vikings, later called "Normans" in France, i.e. "northerners" - not a people, not a culture. This is a phenomenon. Wandering gangs of Scandinavians who have not received an inheritance at home and are looking for good luck in a foreign land. They had no settlements (of their own). Their more successful relatives lived in the settlements, who were not very happy about their "prodigal brothers and did not consider themselves" Vikings ". That is," they could not pull up reinforcements either. When kings and a state appeared there, the Vikings were gone. The Viking's chance is to either return rich or settle in a foreign land. The Duke of Rollon was lucky. In Sicily, too, lucky. Could (theoretically!) Ride in Novgorod. And there was no influence on religion, language and way of the population! Too few of those (theoretically!) Aliens. And there could be no archaeological finds. About the tramp is best said in the pestne:
        "I'm in English boots,
        And in a Chinese shirt.
        In the Russian hat is big -
        And with an Indian soul.
        The Vikings were not artisans. And they dressed in what God sent. And armed - if not in the trophy, then made by the local master. If not only from home, but also from home, they raided lightly, without tzatsek-pecek.

        Here, the magazine Military History printed the Varangian from Constantinople.

        But that's all - little things and scales!
        No alien "Varangians" from either the West or the East can "plant" a state if society is not ready for it.
        And the whole debate is about the origin of the founder of the ancient dynasty. He has minimal interest (at the level: how many women did Tsar Peter have? And how many of them gave birth to?), But he swells up to a universal scale!

        Ah, the Vikings! They brought order to the cyto-snarls! Look, did the Britons bring order to Africa?

        Next.
        From here the conclusion suggests itself - the origin of Russia came from the continent, presumably from the mixing and interpenetration of the Scythians and the Baltic nationalities. IMHO


        Is Russia the people? or state? About the people - you must not forget the Finno-Ugric peoples, such as the Mordovians, and the steppe neighbors, but all this is based on the Slavs. With constant cultural mutual enrichment.

        PS: from the Scythians - "yes", "ax" and "dog".

        1. fennekRUS
          fennekRUS 18 January 2016 19: 24
          0
          I look at your sarcasm past the checkout went-not appreciated. Let me curiosity. Hobby history or profession?
        2. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 18 January 2016 20: 16
          +2
          In the winter of the 1043-44 summer, Kyungung Harold, who returned from service in Byzantium, celebrates the wedding with the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise Elizabeth. Harold III the Cruel regains the throne of Norway (Nororvegr = Northern Route). For his wife, Harald orders to build a city that the Norwegian lands did not know yet - Oslo Fortress. Elizabeth invites European merchants to Oslo, guaranteeing them safety. Seeing the wealth obtained not by robbery, but by trade, the Norwegians begin to be baptized, which facilitates their trade in Europe. Norwegians from small settlements are moving to the walls of Oslo.
      2. kalibr
        kalibr 18 January 2016 22: 30
        +1
        Oh, go to Wikipedia for the Normans or the Vikings. There will be a list of references below. Excellent, accessible, well-written reputable publications. Many are on the web. No need to speculate, fantasize - just read!
    2. venaya
      venaya 17 January 2016 14: 27
      0
      Quote: VD chauvinist
      In ancient Urartu there were kings - Rusa1 and Rusa2 - so what, Russians - Armenians ?!
      Do not blindly trust the coincidence of phonetic designs.

      Blindly trust is worthless. In addition to phonetic constructions, there are other, in particular archaeological data, including recent studies both in the field of genetics, and a more detailed study of the dynamics of the development of religious movements. All this together gives a really more complete picture of our past, phonetics is here only to help. In addition, the numerous legends about white gods and the numerous facts of the rule of individual tribes of people with a significantly higher culture of a different ethnicity should not be forgotten.
      Quote: fennekRUS
      presumably from the mixing and interpenetration of the Scythians and the Baltic nationalities. IMHO

      As for the Scythians, so the current Scots (sot) and according to genetics Rusichi and the current word "Scythian" is a rather young transformation from the word "skete" (to wander, cattle), the same Rusichi. But the Baltic peoples appeared, God forbid, in the XNUMXth century. The word "balt" itself was not known before the XNUMXth century, so the presence of such nationalities earlier is more like an ordinary tufa.
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 17 January 2016 19: 52
        +1
        And Livs, Ests, Litvyagas - who is this?
        1. Lord of Wrath
          Lord of Wrath 18 January 2016 12: 14
          +1
          Quote: kalibr
          And Livs, Ests, Litvyagas - who is this?

          And it is precisely the BALTs that are) As for me, it would be better for Rurik to be Norman than Lithuanian.
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 18 January 2016 12: 31
            0
            Quote: Lord of Wrath
            Quote: kalibr
            And Livs, Ests, Litvyagas - who is this?

            And it is precisely the BALTs that are) As for me, it would be better for Rurik to be Norman than Lithuanian.


            Livs are Courland
            Estonians are Chukhons
            Litvyagi-this zhmudy
            so in Russian ...
      2. fennekRUS
        fennekRUS 17 January 2016 20: 41
        +2
        Quote: venaya
        But Baltic nations appeared, God forbid, in the XNUMXth century

        Ek you waved! I will explain - the Baltic nationalities not equal Baltic state.
      3. Aljavad
        Aljavad 18 January 2016 00: 56
        +1
        But the Baltic peoples appeared, God forbid, in the XNUMXth century. The word "balt" itself was not known before the XNUMXth century, so the presence of such nationalities earlier is more like an ordinary tufa.
        including recent research both in the field of genetics,


        According to genetics, it was the Balts who more than others (except for the Basques) retained traces of the genotype of "Paleolithic hunters" - the first wave of Sapiens in Europe.

        And the Scots are the same "Rusichi" as, for example, the Pashtuns. Or their neighbors - the blue-eyed blondes of Kalash and the mountain valleys of the Himalayas.
        the current word "Scythian" is a rather young transformation from the word "skete" (to wander, cattle), the same Rusichi.


        The word "skete" means a small monastery in Greek. It does not apply to the Scythians, khoya is also in Greek, but through other letters.

        Do not be like the ancient Ukrams, who dug the seas, and on whose moo the Adam and Eve mumbled.
    3. Aljavad
      Aljavad 17 January 2016 23: 52
      0
      The mismatch of the pantheons of the gods and the lack of statehood among the Scandinavians at the time of the emergence of Russia put a fat cross on the theory of Normanism. In ancient Urartu there were kings - Rusa1 and Rusa2 - so what, Russians - Armenians ?!
      Do not blindly trust the coincidence of phonetic designs.


      There were NO Armenians in Urartu! And their relatives too.
      the Urartian language is closely related to the Hurrian language ... is in a distant relationship with modern North Caucasian (Nakh-Dagestan) languages
  4. samarin1969
    samarin1969 17 January 2016 08: 08
    +5
    The author too categorically expresses his arguments (on the "founding" of the Varangian cities in the Baltic, on the pantheon of gods, on the role of the Scandinavians in the Old Russian state).
    The author tries to see POLICY in all scientific disputes.

    Among the ruling dynasty were Helgi and Ingvars, paying tribute to the Khazars - not a reason for tantrum.
    These were episodes of the creation of the Great State, no more.
    Russia had a mixed population with a dominant Slavic culture.
    Most Slavic speakers are not Slavs by blood.
    Similar phenomena of displacement and creation of a foreign elite are typical for many states of England, France, Bulgaria ... Robbers from the north "helped" the formation of a state in Eastern Europe - there is no tragedy in this.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 17 January 2016 08: 43
      +5
      Quote: samarin1969
      Among the ruling dynasty were Helgi and Ingvars, paying tribute to the Khazars - not a reason for tantrum.
      These were episodes of the creation of the Great State, no more.
      Russia had a mixed population with a dominant Slavic culture.
      Most Slavic speakers are not Slavs by blood.
      Similar phenomena of displacement and creation of a foreign elite are typical for many states of England, France, Bulgaria ... Robbers from the north "helped" the formation of a state in Eastern Europe - there is no tragedy in this.


      Yes, the excessive politicization of history does not do honor to the historian either. And do not make tragedies from the fact that in the past we robbed others, others - us. Such was then a life based on violence. The fact that we are slowly rising to the heights of civilization is not a reason to beat ourselves in the chest, sprinkle ashes on our heads and blaspheme all those who even think a little differently!
      1. venaya
        venaya 17 January 2016 09: 39
        +5
        Quote: kalibr
        do not make tragedies from the fact that in the past we robbed others, others - us. Such was then a life based on violence

        Do you seriously think that today no one is robbing anyone? Today’s practice (as well as yesterday’s and the day before yesterday) shows that if anything changes, only robbery technology, robbery traditions remain unchanged, and even some countries have economies based precisely on robbing dependent (sometimes not even very dependent) countries. Examples of darkness!
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 17 January 2016 10: 56
          +2
          Quote: venaya
          Do you seriously think that today no one is robbing anyone?

          Where have you read that I seriously believe that today no one is robbing anyone? You are a psychic who can read in consciousness from a computer screen. It was about the past. Much has now survived from it: naked savages, the custom of clitorotomy, "robbing the weak by the strong." But civilization still got bigger. Or not?
          1. venaya
            venaya 17 January 2016 12: 36
            +2
            Quote: kalibr
            ... we slowly rise to the heights of civilization ... civilization nevertheless became more. Or not?

            When I see the term "civilization" I have a feeling of complete misunderstanding of what the author means. I immediately recall the work of T. Campanella "The Civilization of the Sun" for some reason usually translated into Russian as "City of the Sun". Perhaps by this term you mean the concept of "culture", then there would be more clarity in your expressions. Perhaps this Latin term should be perceived as "urban culture" and, in general, it is advisable to use more Russian-language terminology, this may give a greater understanding of the text of your post, and it is not clear what to mean by this term, in itself very, very controversial. So it is not clear how, in your opinion, one can express the value of "civilization" (in what measures), specify.
            1. Aljavad
              Aljavad 18 January 2016 01: 06
              +1
              When I see the term "civilization" I have a feeling of complete misunderstanding of what the author means.


              Many words in human languages ​​are ambiguous. And not all of them are terms. The terms are characteristic of scientific and technical literature. For everyday speech, to which our correspondence should be referred, are characterized for the most part with the word, which in human languages ​​is ambiguous.

              The word "civilization" is usually used as an antonym to words denoting savagery and primitiveness.

              So it should be understood.

              PS: Foreign languages ​​are a tricky thing.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 17 January 2016 11: 05
      0
      Olga was Svyatoslavs and Oleg, it’s just the same in the Scandinavian fashion
      1. Aljavad
        Aljavad 18 January 2016 01: 08
        0
        Olga was Svyatoslavs and Oleg, it’s just the same in the Scandinavian fashion

        And why and who changed them like that?
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 18 January 2016 11: 15
          +1
          Then what is more convenient for them with their pronunciation ... And now others use this to seduce suckers.

          You are the Queen of England, Elizabeth the 2nd, probably clicking on her own way and not Queen Elizabeth-th (the last two letters are not pronounced in Russian at all).
          But this does not mean that she is Russian laughing
          Also, Sventoslav in the Scandinavian annals is not a Swede and not a lousy red-haired, bad-smelling unwashed Dane (the latter were generally historical enemies).

          It’s strange that I have to explain all this bully
          1. Aljavad
            Aljavad 18 January 2016 22: 42
            0
            You are the Queen of England, Elizabeth the 2nd, probably clicking on her own way and not Queen Elizabeth-th (the last two letters are not pronounced in Russian at all).

            Do not believe it! That's her name: Her Majesty Qween Elisabeth the Second. And I was very surprised that we call the king George, not Georges.

            And "ti-heych" is quite pronounced to ourselves. In the modern world, it is a shame not to know at least one foreign language. BUT BEFORE YOURS! WITHOUT MISTAKES! Even if someone is a physicist (or an engineer) laughing .

            And I asked for the purpose of provocation. In those mossy years, there was its own globalization. The way from the Varangians to the Greeks is just one example. And not all Voldemar and Stanislas from that time are Slavs, and even more so - Russians.
            The devil is in the details. And missing them is bad. And clinging to them beyond measure is unproductive.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 20 January 2016 19: 34
              +1
              So do not cling, especially systemically. And pronounce incorrectly (index not mentioned). In Russian there is no such sound, but not a kid’s tongue.

              There was no way from the Vikings to the Greeks! It was just a line of transfer of Russian troops from one border to another. The lousy semi-cannibalistic Scandinavians had nothing to offer the Greeks (and even pay for transit at customs), and the latter were too busy at first with the homosexual and then the Oedipus complex to think and be able to try to expand (including trade) somewhere further than the latitude of Sochi. The mosquitoes immediately ate them behind the Danube in the first forest.
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 17 January 2016 08: 32
    +5
    At the same time, there is an original hypothesis of Professor Lev Gumilyov that “Varangians” is just a term... He has a version that Russia and the Slavs are two different people .. He bases his statement on Arab and Byzantine sources .. of that time .. Emperor Konstantin Bagryanorodny writes in his book “On State Administration” .. Having arrived at the fifth threshold , called in Russian Varouforos, and in Slavic, Vulniprag, because it forms a large backwater, and again crossing the odnoderevki along the bends of the river, as on the first and second threshold, they reach the sixth threshold, in Russian called Leanti, and -Slavic Veruti, which means "water boiling", and pass it in the same way. From it they sail to the seventh threshold, called Strukun in Russian, and Slavic Naprezi, which means “small threshold”, and they come to the so-called Krari crossing, where the Khersonites cross on the way from Russia, and the Pechenegs go to Kherson. This crossing is approximately equal in width to the hippodrome, and the height from its bottom ... This version is not being developed ... And not being checked ... there is one reason ... there is no archaeological evidence of the existence of such a people ... But the version deserves attention ...
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 17 January 2016 10: 09
      +2
      Quote: parusnik
      He has a version that Russia and the Slavs are two different people .. He bases his statement on Arab and Byzantine sources

      Yes, there is - and what is most interesting, according to the same "sources" the Slavs are where Ukraine is today and partly Poland and Belarus, but the Russians are to the north and possibly to the east fellow
    2. venaya
      venaya 17 January 2016 17: 06
      +1
      Quote: parusnik
      He has a version that Russia and the Slavs are two different people

      In this sense, I am amazed at how far-sighted E. Klassen was when he called our people Slavic-Russ, here what is called "ours and yours." Any scientific conference traditionally begins with the definition of terms. In this sense, the so-called "science of history" has not crawled out of children's pants, if it has not yet decided on the terms themselves. I myself adhere to the theory that the term "Slavs" of Latin origin comes from the word falcon, the image of which is accompanied by the image of the sun god Ra, Yara-Ra or Yaril according to the scheme: falconry - skloveni - Slavs, that is, the term solar in Latin, or according to our sun worshipers. The term Rus or Rus too clearly indicates the religious affiliation of our people as a people of sun worshipers. So it is more likely that these two words rus and glorious mean the same solar concept, just in slightly different languages.
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 17 January 2016 19: 48
        +2
        The journal "Voprosy istorii" is waiting for your article on this topic with links to sources. Come on, wipe your nose to all pundits. Or if you are afraid to start with it, refer to History magazine for details. The requirements there are not so strict, you can give fewer links. But what a paper - glitter, pictures - lovely! And they will give your photo! Imagine how cool it is - "I have contributed to modern historical science!" It's not that here the idea spreads along the tree, eh?
  6. semirek
    semirek 17 January 2016 08: 37
    +2
    We are trying to find the thousand-year-old sources of our state, but at the same time we deny, or rather do not want to know, the events of a hundred years ago.
  7. 1536
    1536 17 January 2016 09: 02
    +6
    We are looking for the origins of the Russian nation!
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 17 January 2016 09: 51
      +3
      1536 "We are looking for the origins of the Russian nation!"
      For elves, these are not heroes.))) They sing the Tartarian heroes.)))
  8. Mr. Pip
    Mr. Pip 17 January 2016 10: 01
    +5
    A very interesting and "topical" topic, I would like to start the answer to it with the recently mentioned quote by A. Toynbee.
    "In any backward society that needs to confront a militarily and economically stronger adversary, there are two trends:" Herodianism "- advocating copying foreign public institutions, and" Zealotism "- calling for isolation in order to preserve the traditional way of life. another trend cannot lead society to success, because both of them are devoid of creativity "
    And this is also precisely why the topic of “normanization” of Rus is one of the regularly emerging topics in difficult, critical times for us - it comes up when other institutions of our national pride and self-identification are questioned.
    But let's look at the topic more impartially - even if the "Normanists" are right (which I personally more than doubt) then "well, what's wrong with that" ?! request
    The history of all countries, from the Great (let's recall, for example, China) to "not so" (yes, the same Africa) knows the periods when both individual representatives and whole foreign dynasties were in power - and for some reason this does not bother anyone and does not hit the national Pride - this is a regular occurrence in human history!
    It first.
    Secondly: the presence of a foreign Dynasty is generally not sufficient evidence of any inferiority or backwardness of the autochthonous population - there may be 100500 reasons for this, from the crisis of the local Dynasty to the "short-term adoption of progressive experience" - THE MAIN THING IS ONE - any "alien" dynasty does not mean classical occupation and from the very first years begins assimilation - for example, our "Germans" and "Georgians" - Loyal patriots of Russia, who feel and identify themselves as Russians!
    Therefore, Lord Patriots, let us respect ourselves and our history and our ancestors more!
    Even if they chose Rurik and even if he was a "Swede" (I will remind you again - I doubt it very much), then he really was the best (let's fantasize for a minute that they invited Einstein to their place) and they are a wise and correct choice did - "thought rationally and not stereotyped" fellow
    Not a third and last thing: Russia as a State in its modern conception and the Russian people in its modern conception came nevertheless later - on the scale of our history, Rurik cannot be considered the first and most important representative of it, there were much more ambitious times and figures in our country. stories.
    1. venaya
      venaya 17 January 2016 10: 24
      +3
      Quote: Mr. PIP
      chose Rurik and even if he was "Swede"

      Even the term "Swede" itself could not exist at that time, for Sweden as a state arose much later, not earlier than the XIVth century, in reality much later. Nothing is known about Sweden before the XNUMXth century, and even then, there are facts of their use of the Russian language (unfortunately, the inscriptions used Latin letters).
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 17 January 2016 10: 38
        +1
        Quote: venaya
        Even the term "Swede" itself could not exist at that time,

        You probably didn’t notice, but the word Swede is in quotes, I wonder why this is ?! fellow
        Quote: venaya
        Sweden as a state arose much later, no earlier than the XIVth century, realistically much later.

        And the history of the Country and the People does not actually coincide in time period with the History of the State - think at your leisure about the term "Scandinavia" for example fellow
        1. venaya
          venaya 17 January 2016 13: 57
          +2
          Quote: Mr. PIP
          about the term "scandinavia"

          Scandinavia is a country of rocks, and quite young ones. It comes to mind, perhaps to anyone who has visited this peninsula, from the very beginning you are met by rocks. Due to the fact that on the shores of the Venetian Gulf, now the Baltic Sea, the Venets lived all the time, then on its rocky shores lived simply rocky Venets, otherwise s-vens. Similarly, Swiss live in rocky terrain, remember the name of the nearest cities Vienna, Venice, Genoa and such nationality as Svans living in the region of the Caucasus mountains in the territory of present-day Georgia (Georgia), also a rocky terrain.
    2. Aljavad
      Aljavad 18 January 2016 01: 32
      +1
      the presence of a foreign Dynasty is actually not sufficient evidence of any inferiority or backwardness of the autochthonous population - there may be 100500 reasons for this, from the crisis of the local Dynasty to the "short-term adoption of progressive experience" - THE MAIN THING IS ONE - any "alien" dynasty does not mean classical occupation and from the very first years it begins assimilation - an example is our "Germans" and "Georgians" - Loyal patriots of Russia, who feel and identify themselves as Russians!


      Bravo! +++++

      One king (Alexander I?) Was tormented by the secret of his birth. Gossip went that he was conceived by a groom.
      And having entered the throne, he called the old and faithful courtier.
      - Who is our father ???? How to spirit !!! And then I’ll execute it.
      - Duc, our former sovereign!
      - Thank God! We are legal!

      Later he called another, also old and faithful.
      - Who is our father ???? How to spirit !!! And then I’ll execute it.
      - Duc, groom, sovereign!
      - Thank God! We are Russians!
  9. 31rus
    31rus 17 January 2016 10: 15
    +3
    Dear, it is history and it is in Russia that must have a serious scientific, practical, technical base, that is, the state at all levels must, simply must deal with history, both scientific and popular, the people must know their roots, their history, not what Western, liberal or what other "historians" should not be allowed, only scientists, only patriots. WHAT we see now there are only pennies, but PR for many years, we need a state program on a scientific basis
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 17 January 2016 11: 23
      +5
      And it does, apparently, only you do not know. There is a 20-volume history of archeology published in Soviet times. It contains ALL information about finds on the territory of our state since the 18th century, a 12-volume history of the Second World War (and although I personally did not like it) is better than the 6 and 12-volume books of the "earlier" time. There are open funds of the archives of the GARF, the Ministry of Defense, the Russian Navy and many others - please contact them on the Internet, if you want - order, they will send you photocopies. You can contact the Bundesarchive in Germany (on the subject of Russia) and the Imperial Archives in London - the Germans can even send you everything free of charge, if you ask, the British for a purely symbolic fee. And believe me, the working halls of the archives are not empty. There are so many people for the opening that there are not enough places! Here it is - the scientific base, it is better not to come up with it!
    2. Aljavad
      Aljavad 18 January 2016 01: 42
      0
      the people should know their roots, their history, not what Western, liberal or what other "historians" should not be allowed, only scientists, only patriots.


      Any national history is only a small part of the World History. And not knowing the world - you will not understand yours. And you cannot learn "not your" history without Western historians - the budget will not be enough.

      PS: Another patriot is more harmful than a liberal. For stupid, dense, cheeky and convinced of his original and inescapable rightness. - After all, he is a patriot!
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 18 January 2016 12: 07
        +1
        Quote: Aljavad
        Y: Another patriot is more harmful than a liberal. For stupid, dense, cheeky and convinced of his original and inescapable rightness. - After all, he is a patriot!


        whoever doubted that liberals like liberals rather than patriots, love of the motherland is a bit different than monetary love ...
        1. Aljavad
          Aljavad 18 January 2016 22: 59
          0
          Sveles RU Today, 12:07 ↑ New
          Quote: Aljavad
          Y: Another patriot is more harmful than a liberal. For stupid, dense, cheeky and convinced of his original and inescapable rightness. - After all, he is a patriot!

          whoever doubted that liberals like liberals rather than patriots, love of the motherland is a bit different than monetary love ...


          If you are positioning yourself as a patriot, have the courage and mind to love our dear Fatherland as it is given to us. With its wealth and poverty, genius and simplicity, which is worse than theft. With its great and controversial history. And do not nap, and do not invent all sorts of Hyperboreas! No need to tint the story! No need to improve it. History is not an award list with a list of exploits, although there are exploits. She is a storehouse of experience. The list of those rakes on which there is no trace to step on again ...

          And about the exploits. Eternal glory to the heroes. But their deeds are often the result of someone’s cowardice, laziness, theft, and even simply carelessness. And raising children on heroic examples, every effort should be made so that they do not have to perform feats. Even if they are ready for them!
  10. igorra
    igorra 17 January 2016 10: 25
    +2
    How does the West want to humiliate, humanize, deprive us of our glorious and great history, and, likewise, our memory. There is no history, cling to the Greek, Roman. What is the essence of European nations? Conquered, enslaved, mixed up many times, I am silent about the British, etc. Simple human envy of us comes to the fore, and without the strength and spirit to rise to the heights we have reached in our long history, they are trying to dunk us in that village where they have been for centuries. True, we are also to blame, regularly dipping Europeans in a barrel of sewage.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 17 January 2016 11: 12
      +3
      Igor, the West, of course, is bad, everyone knows that. But have you read the books of the English historian D.Nikol on the history of Russia? Did not read! And where is the humiliation in them? For example, I did not find, and you will not find. There is his book about the Battle of the Ice. Everything is very balanced, everything is based on annals. There are four of my books co-authored with him, about the Battle of Kalka, the Russian armies before Peter the Great, and the wars with Kazan and the Bulgars. That is, this is what is written for them, and printed by them. And there, believe me, there is also nothing to humiliate us! There are books by other Russian authors - the Ukrainian historian Chernenko about the Scythians, about the Seven Years' War, about the Civil War - there is nothing to humiliate us. And the British (and not only them, these books are translated into French, German, Spanish) read them, they get acquainted with our history. My 90 magazine publications in the magazines Military Histories, Military Wogamer, Battle Place, Military Modeling and others also did not contain statements that Russian savages drink vodka directly from the samovar! And the same thing in Belgium, where my articles were published about the Penza fortress, about archers and ... So, separate flies from cutlets! Politicians are one thing, historians are another!
      1. venaya
        venaya 17 January 2016 18: 02
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        The West, of course, is bad, everyone knows it

        Is it bad? I think that the West is just a slave, occupied! Look: the term "Europe" itself is foreign, of Phoenician origin, that is, African. Everywhere, the Latin alphabet is used, specially created by the Etruscans for their Latin occupiers from Africa, while the Etruscans themselves previously used more developed alphabets, one of which is very close to our modern one, hence such a "cuttlefish" as the English writing based on the Latin alphabet, which linguists have long thrown out of the group of alphabetic-phonetic writing and thrown into the group of hierographic forms of writing. And what the Latin alphabet imposed on the Polish or Czech language gave is disgusting to read, one sound requires up to four Latin letters - and all this is the result of precisely the occupation and slavish submission to the "master" - the slave owner, more often of African origin. And I gave only two examples, but it all started with the gradual capture of Erutreya, Galia (Porusya according to ours) and further down the list, try to take a closer look at all this, the horror of what happened and is still happening now.
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 17 January 2016 19: 27
          0
          What do you have? Problems with vision or semantic perception of the written? I wrote to you about one thing, do you answer me ALL ABOUT ANOTHER? Are you a certified philologist-linguist? It was about the West giving incorrect information about us. I wrote to you convincingly that this is not so and gave specific examples. The answer was "alphabet". Substitution of a thesis in a dispute is the cheapest and most unsuitable method!
          1. Aljavad
            Aljavad 18 January 2016 01: 47
            0
            venaya (2)
            What do you have? Problems with vision or semantic perception of the written? I wrote to you about one thing, do you answer me ALL ABOUT ANOTHER? Are you a certified philologist-linguist? It was about the West giving incorrect information about us. I wrote to you convincingly that this is not so and gave specific examples. The answer was "alphabet". Substitution of a thesis in a dispute is the cheapest and most unsuitable method!


            I am a certified philologist-linguist. And wherever you relate to these sciences, I can hardly restrain laughter.
            1. Sweles
              Sweles 18 January 2016 12: 12
              0
              Quote: Aljavad
              I am a certified philologist-linguist. And wherever you relate to these sciences, I can hardly restrain laughter.


              on the site chronologyorg, they analyzed an article by one certified philologist Zaliznyak, maybe you know? So this RAS Prize laureate confidently stated that B does not turn into C in Russian, but it turns out that this is not the case, as you can see, even graduated philologists give a blunder, and as for laughter, Russians have a saying - "laughter for no reason .. . "Well, then you know ...
              1. Aljavad
                Aljavad 18 January 2016 23: 02
                -1
                Russians have a saying - "laughter for no reason ..." well, then you know ...

                Here are just enough reasons .... A pity.
  11. 31rus
    31rus 17 January 2016 10: 26
    +6
    Now I have a question, now a monument to the deceased Polish delegation is being built on Russian soil, the question is for what merit? total permit
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 17 January 2016 11: 19
      +6
      moreover, the monument, although the Germans shot the Poles in this forest, only on the first monument it wasn’t written, but it was written differently and it costs 1940 and not 1941 when it actually happened
      but about how Gorbachev and Yakovlev stupidly forged archival documents (this lie no longer rests on anything) in order to dump the whole USSR in the shit after Stalin
      Anders army, recruiting advice from the Poles, did not want to fight with the Wehrmacht shoulder to shoulder with the Soviet Armed Forces on the eastern front and left to sit behind the manhattan through warm countries - despite their stupid conversations about how they would take Moscow before they took Berlin, nobody shot them ravines.
      the British occupied Greece, which freed itself, and shot all Greek Communists there in 1944.
      what the Nazis did in occupied Poland and in the occupied Soviet territories, this tragedy fits perfectly.
      1. 31rus
        31rus 17 January 2016 19: 10
        0
        Dear, the monument is being built of the Polish delegation killed in the plane crash, led by Kaczynski, who poured dirt, aggravated relations with Russia, it was with him that Poland took an explicit anti Russian course, and we want to capture this also in history?
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 18 January 2016 15: 53
          0
          Well, one lie with the shooting of the Poles allegedly in 1940 was already sealed there ... There was a camp, they were offered to evacuate, they refused, then the Germans came and shot them, as they usually did.
          Then this Polish president, who was impatient in bad weather, sits down there was shot down by a Russian "Bukom" birch tree. sad
  12. surrozh
    surrozh 17 January 2016 10: 56
    +2
    If academics are fighting among themselves about history, then God himself commanded us sires. An ordinary history textbook is urgently needed, in which the basis should be - "I am Russian, and I am proud of this, and do not hide anything." Having received basic historical knowledge, let the already "strengthened minds" understand the little things to anyone interested. But this base has been developed for two or three years already, and so generations can be lost, as with "non-brothers", and is ashamed of being Russian.
    1. Mr. Pip
      Mr. Pip 17 January 2016 11: 02
      +1
      Quote: surozh
      But this base has been under development for two or three years,

      Yes, this "base" has existed for hundreds of years - this base is called "historical dates and events" and access to them for anyone interested in history.
      But then yes, further "quiet uzOs" "- everyone begins to interpret these data in the qualitative terms in which they can, to the extent of their" depravity and education "- in addition to dates, knowledge of other sciences is also needed to understand history and analyze it correctly.
  13. xorgi
    xorgi 17 January 2016 11: 42
    +2
    For a long time I have sworn to argue on historical topics, I just ask you not to use the epithets "largest", "famous", etc. next to the names of any historians. First, who defines this? Zadornov is also famous and discusses historical topics, but can he be considered a historian? Secondly, history is a fragmentary science, each author has his own set of fragments and any of the "biggest-famous-famous" can be wrong.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 17 January 2016 12: 28
      +2
      Yes, this is an old stereotype and it "doesn't work" today. There are "major historians", authors of many books, but they have never been published in refereed editions, and all their "scientific works" are books on the history of aliens from Tau Ceti and women of reptilian cross-section.
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 17 January 2016 16: 15
        +1
        As far as I understand, the minus from the "comrade" who himself has a bunch of articles in the refereed publications ...
  14. Igor V
    Igor V 17 January 2016 14: 21
    +1
    Historians have turned their science into a caste and no one has the right to touch it. They solve chronological, astronomical, technological and other issues in such a way that they cause laughter among specialists, at best. Until they allow other people into their caste and listen to their opinion, the orgy in history will continue, which is always used by various ideologists.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 17 January 2016 16: 12
      +3
      And physicists have not turned their science into a caste? It's just that there are a lot of formulas in physics, and history, they say from school, "can be learned." There are many, very many specialists in related disciplines. But any science must be protected from amateurs. Do you like reptilian women? And there is a "historian" that writes about them and there are people who recommend his books as something enlightening!
      1. Igor V
        Igor V 17 January 2016 19: 18
        0
        Physics is an exact science and there are no complaints about it. smile But an academician mathematician who has taken the path of "charlatanism" and has been following it for decades, arouses my respect. I would be engaged in my geometry and would be respected by everyone, and no one would say a bad word. "In our interesting time" there is such a distortion of facts and recent history that you involuntarily begin to believe that the official history cannot be true, it is always written for someone's benefit.
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 17 January 2016 19: 34
          -1
          History is also an exact science, for it relies on the most accurate of all that is on objects that can be held in hands. Some are deeper in the ground, others are higher. There are objects described by ancient authors and now they are found. There are objects painted on ancient dishes and now they are found. Here are the objects and people depicted on the bas-reliefs and walls of temples. You can hold on to all this, but you cannot hold onto the magnetic field, it is not visible, and yet we believe that it exists. And here there are a lot of sources of the most different and ... everything is not enough for you - "not an exact science". Today everything is checked, everything is dated, everything is compared and analyzed, starting from the haplogroups of human genes, to the plaque from the armor of a Roman legionnaire. And the opinions? Yes, opinions are different, but ... opinions are not history! Learn to understand, accept, and everything will be fine! And in order to accept, you need to know a lot, which is achieved by systematic and persistent study of the subject.
          1. Igor V
            Igor V 18 January 2016 12: 38
            +3
            He once worked on an archaeological expedition. There was an interesting case. We dug a settlement of the X-XI centuries and dug up stone cores. When the head of the expedition arrived, he said to us: "What for! Then there were no guns yet." In the end, he came up with the theory that they fell from a higher layer, and their presence proves that this settlement has stood here for centuries. And now I think, maybe it was not the cores that failed, but we dug the wrong century?
            1. kalibr
              kalibr 18 January 2016 22: 17
              +1
              Firstly, yes - it could be the wrong century. Secondly, the cores for catapults were no different from the cores for guns!
        2. Aljavad
          Aljavad 18 January 2016 01: 56
          0
          Physics is an exact science and there are no complaints about it.


          I want to.
          It's just that their troubles are buried VERY deeply. And to argue about them without a large hadron collidenr is indecent. And history is here. Everyone at school taught, seen in the cinema. And some, the smartest ones, read a couple of historical novels.
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 18 January 2016 12: 14
            0
            Quote: Aljavad
            I want to.


            Is this your scientific method? we know, we know all traditions behave just like that ...
            1. Aljavad
              Aljavad 18 January 2016 23: 09
              -1
              Sveles RU Today, 12:14 ↑ New
              Quote: Aljavad
              I want to.

              Is this your scientific method? we know, we know all traditions behave just like that ...


              This is not a method. This is a natural reaction of the body! And I advise you. How's Munchhausen?

              - Do not make a smart face! Most stupid things happen with this expression!

              PS: and after the second "know" the colon is missing! And "your" and "you" cultured people with great will deign to write ...
        3. Aljavad
          Aljavad 18 January 2016 02: 03
          -2
          "In our interesting time" there is such a distortion of facts and recent history,


          Most of these "distortions" will dissipate over the years. So you really need to know the name of rower # 5 to starboard on the flagship of Agamemnon? And to know who exactly killed the Trojans the most? And how many mistresses did Prince Svyatoslav have? And what exactly was he killed?

          These little things are forgotten. They are not needed to understand History.

          The palm of the sun does not close.
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 18 January 2016 12: 17
            0
            Quote: Aljavad
            Most of these "distortions" will dissipate over the years.


            as it’s not like the truth, judging by the number of views of Fomenko and Nosovsky’s movie clips, as well as their supporters, the number of people interested in their history is not decreasing, but growing, again you are wrong ...
          2. Igor V
            Igor V 18 January 2016 12: 27
            +2
            You can laugh at physics, but the apple is now falling the same way as in Newton's time, and the pn transition acts as Losev discovered it. Repeatability of the experiment. In history, everything rests on authority, but there is no guarantee that authority is not mistaken. As for the resorption of distortions - the idea is rather controversial, why would they be resolved. Even our, Russian, schoolchildren hardly study the Second World War, for example, and I can’t even imagine what they are studying in other countries.
            1. Sweles
              Sweles 18 January 2016 12: 38
              +3
              Quote: Igor V
              and the pn transition acts as Losev discovered it.


              3.01.1922/10.05.1903/1947. OV Losev, an employee of the Nizhny Novgorod radio laboratory (1956/XNUMX/XNUMX) discovered the amplifying properties of a crystalline zincite detector. Based on this discovery, he designed a device consisting of a semiconductor crystal and two electrodes, which allows amplifying weak electrical signals, and named it "cristadin". By its properties and design, Losev's kristadin does not differ from a three-electrode semiconductor device, now called a transistor. For the re-invention in XNUMX of the transistor, the Nobel Prize was awarded in XNUMX to the American of Russian origin Ivan Bardin (John Bardin), who personally recognized Losev's priority in his Nobel speech. Today, transistors are produced in the world in quantities of trillions of copies, forming the basis of all modern electronics and form the basis of telephones, microwave ovens, radios, televisions, players, computers, cameras, irons, watches, printers, copiers, scanners, calculators, air conditioners, photocells, systems video surveillance, etc. to infinity.
              good
              1. Igor V
                Igor V 18 January 2016 20: 02
                +2
                Thank you, Sveles, I specifically inserted the name of this ingenious 19 year old boy so that someone would hear about him. Unfortunately, he left early.
            2. kalibr
              kalibr 18 January 2016 22: 14
              0
              Because you can’t because you don’t know. But I wrote to you. What books and similar books are used by students of British colleges and universities. I read them MA dissertations - quite normal, high-quality work. I will tell you once again - separate the flies from cutlets. To get started, take the book by D.Nikol Armies of Medieval Russia, 750-1250 (Men-At-Arms Series, 333)
              and look - this is what they have been reading since 1999 of the year, and then 4 books came out.
              And I already wrote to you that everything rests on finds - for which you can hold on. Authorities are neglected and corrected not measured. How can I not understand all your speculations. Now is not a stone age, there is a sea of ​​information around. And who told you that schoolchildren hardly study the Second World War? Why such nonsense? I know at least 3 schools where, in addition to lessons, children are taken to the museum, they study the letters-triangles of relatives, write essays and presentations on the war and newspapers ... What more? Yes, books about the Second World War are read and discussed ...
            3. Aljavad
              Aljavad 18 January 2016 23: 26
              -1
              Igor In RU Today, 12:27 ↑
              You can laugh at physics, but the apple is now falling the same way as in Newton's time, and the pn transition acts as Losev discovered it. Repeatability of the experiment. In history, everything rests on authority, but there is no guarantee that authority is not mistaken. As for the resorption of distortions - the idea is rather controversial, why would they be resolved. Even our, Russian, schoolchildren hardly study the Second World War, for example, and I can’t even imagine what they are studying in other countries.


              Laughing should not be over physics - it’s for her on the drum. The events of the last 200-300 years are not quite history. It is rather politics. Biographies of still living people, with their ambition, shame and envy. Because there are so many versions. And so many copies are broken.

              When I say "History", "over time," I mean centuries and millennia. Then all ambitions and envy will dry up and dry up. It is with that remainder that the historian can work. Like the War of the Roses in Aglia.

              But schoolchildren have to learn a lot, but the main thing is how to formulate the question yourself and where to find the answer to it. And then let yourself.

              ZTs: But to teach "patriotism" is to respect neither them, nor yourself, nor those heroes. Patriotism is not taught, it is brought up all the time, by its example, by its whole life.
  15. semirek
    semirek 17 January 2016 15: 20
    +3
    History should not be pleasing to one state system, but not another. A simple example: singing the reign of Catherine the second, really great ruler of Russia, who has done a lot for our state, if not more - made strategic acquisitions for the country, we are descendants, we call the city by name we put monuments to him, or rather the state criminal of those years, I mean Emelyan Pugachev - it turns out that, logically, a monument to Basayev should be put up, only because he fought with the Yeltsin regime, which many of us curse for a lot.
    The country cannot be divided into before and after. Russia until the age of 17 is also a story, Nicholas II is also a story - maybe it is bad for many now, but what are the bad people who lived in his time, who fought and died for faith, the king and the fatherland, and why are these soldiers less patriotic than the Soviet ones who died with the words: for the Homeland For Stalin.
    For me personally, all Russian and Soviet historical figures, the historical situation of those years are interesting, but I am against extinction in the history books of portraits of government figures when they did not please the next ruler.
  16. V.ic
    V.ic 17 January 2016 15: 25
    +4
    and even “Eurasian patriots” (Lev Gumilyov, Vadim Kozhinov), who really want to find among the founders of the Old Russian state not only Swedes, but also Khazar Jews. Author Evgeny SPITSYN

    For this phrase, I minus an article by this author. The Judeo-Khazars were also paying tribute to the glades with swords, otherwise why would Svyatoslav burn Itil, occupy Sarkel (White Vezha), take Semender. Nowhere and never have the Eurasian patriots Lev Nikolayevich Gimilev and Vadim Valerianovich Kozhinov searched for the founders of Russian statehood among the Jews, among the Khazars and among the Judeo-Khazars. The author's taking in quotation marks of the definition of the Eurasian patriots regarding Gumilyov and Kozhinov is regarded as blasphemy over their memory.
    1. andrew42
      andrew42 18 January 2016 17: 44
      +2
      It was this author's pearl that pissed me off too. Where did the author discover this from Gumilyov? On the contrary, Gumilyov focuses on the uncompromising confrontation between the "Russian Kaganate" and the "Khazar Kaganate," in the terminology of Arabic sources.
      So it's not clear whether it is worth considering the article as "honey" with such a spoonful of "drma". However, it is clear who usually fires the "Eurasian patriots". Christianizers are leavened. They start with black hundreds against the "Judeo-Khazars", and end with "brothers in Christ", handing over to the Khazars with giblets.
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 18 January 2016 21: 48
        0
        "Since the time of the notorious" perestroika ", historical science has turned into a field of political battles" - but a pearl from the very beginning. Since perestroika ... but not 70 years earlier ... Perestroika had someone to learn from! Who wrote about "Satrap Suvorov"? About the fact that "Suvorov's miracle heroes are" a special breed of people "bred by this cruel defender of noble interests." By the way, it was written in 1938. And in 1941 a poster - Take an example from our great ancestors and Suvors on horseback. Either the Americans are "good", then the "bad". Broz Tito - the hero of Yugoslavia and the best friend of the Soviet people (1946), then "Tito's bloody dog, hire American internalism" (1948), see the newspaper Pravda!
  17. iouris
    iouris 17 January 2016 16: 20
    +1
    All historical searches will follow a completely different path, when "Russia" will be formed from the Russian Federation, Belarus and Ukraine. If it does not arise that history is not necessary to write: they will write in Washington.
  18. but still
    but still 17 January 2016 17: 36
    +1
    1) Glade-Rus - descendants of northern Illyrians who lived on the middle Danube, on the territory of Norik-Rugiland;

    2) Vikings-Rus were one of the Celtic tribes that lived on the southern coast of the Baltic (Varyazhsky) Sea and the nearby islands (Rugen);
    3) Alans-Rus were descendants of Iranian-speaking Roksolans, who acted as the bearers of the famous Saltovo-Mayatsky archaeological culture. By the end of the 9th century, the representatives of these three branches of the Rus formed the so-called Russian clan, who then composed the ruling elite of the Old Russian state.

    Thus, the question of the origin of the term "Rus" is associated not so much with the "Norman" or "Varangian" problems, as with the so-called Khazar problem, where there are even more speculations and speculations than the Normanists.


    ... who were the bearers of the famous Saltovo-Mayak archaeological culture

    Honestly, I have the greatest confidence in archaeological evidence - it is hardest to hide and harder to manipulate for the sake of political interests.

    Who was the bearer of the Saltovo-Mayak culture (traces of which extend over a vast territory)? Alans and Bulgarians. Scientists (Russian) distinguish them by the peculiarities of burials and the anthropological differences of the remains of the buried. Anyone who is interested in this topic knows about the famous treasure of the Bulgarian Kubrat (part of the treasure is in the Hermitage), and about the state of Ancient Great Bulgaria even before the Khazar state, and that the Bulgarians (about 60% of the population) and Alans entered the Khazar state , and the Khazars, and other nations. Judaism was accepted only by the ruling elite. There were Christians, Muslims, and Gentiles. Kubrat, by the way, was a Christian. Pottery and ancient settlements are very similar to those found on the territory of Bulgaria (Danube). Apparently, it may well be that the founders of the Old Russian state were precisely the representatives of the above peoples, because they had real states even before Kievan Rus, and archaeologists find numerous traces of their life near the places where Kievan Rus was subsequently formed. And some Russian scientists believe that the Bulgarians founded Kiev (at first as the Sambation fortress for defense against the Khazars when they fought with them). Google and look on this topic in YouTube - you can find out interesting things.
  19. Tektor
    Tektor 17 January 2016 17: 53
    0
    SchA and I will bring my 5 kopecks ... Russia went from Hyperborea - a large continent in the north, most of which has now been flooded for the last 12 thousand years, and only Greenland and the islands of the Arctic Ocean, which are the mountain peaks of this continent, are still available for observation and studying. Rus is a generalized name for the peoples who lived along the river beds and traded in trade and transport services "from the Varangians to the Greeks." The peoples were engaged in fishing, hunting, manufacturing weapons, breeding bees, weaving, and they were easy on their feet, because were not tied to arable land in connection with the zone of risky farming, except for meadows ...
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 17 January 2016 18: 44
      -5
      But the analysis of the haplogroups shows that there was no Hyperborea and the ancestors of people with the haplogroup Ra1 (that is, the "Rus" and the Russians as such) never lived in Siberia, that there were two centers where this haplogroup came from, and one can argue which primary, which secondary , but ... one in the south of Russia and the other north of India. That's all! "The investigation is over, forget it!"

      And more about the production of weapons ... A little more detail - "schA, please clarify - which ones?"
      Oh, they’ve taken away the tsatska and get angry ... Well, scribble, let off steam, you are my heartfelt hyperboreans, maybe the haplogroups in the analyzes will change!
      1. andrew42
        andrew42 18 January 2016 17: 46
        +1
        Something from the "trample the problem" methods. What other "centers" will we find? Maybe in Thailand? Did you not contact Muldashev?
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 18 January 2016 21: 52
          0
          Some of the methods did not understand anything, but I write to write ...
    2. Aljavad
      Aljavad 18 January 2016 02: 08
      +1
      Russia went from Hyperborea - a large continent in the north, most of which is now flooded the last 12 thousand years, and only Greenlea


      Sihirta lived there, however. Google it.
  20. VSkilled
    VSkilled 17 January 2016 20: 12
    +1
    ... Zionists began to claim their possession of the "original historical ancestral home" of the Jewish people ...

    Well - so ...

    Iran, if not today, tomorrow it will build up a "vigorous bomb". So, the logic of the Sionyug is very clear: it is urgently necessary to "squeeze out" the new land.

    Another "promised" and "historical" ...
  21. Pre-cat
    Pre-cat 17 January 2016 22: 53
    +2
    The fact that the Norman theory does not stand up to criticism is clear already by the fact that the "great and terrible" conqueror of Normandy, Duke Rollo, for some reason did not begin to conquer the lands near his side - a wealthy commercial Novgorod, to take control of the path promising great benefits from the Varangians to the Greeks (where it was possible to get rich for the protection of merchants) but the devil knows where, in the land, where then there was no smell of civilization. And all because the Slavs in Russia (which did not yet exist as a whole) were sufficiently organized and combat-ready to break into uninvited guests. And without looking at the fact that these are formidable Vikings, before whom Europe and England tremble. Moreover, there is historically reliable information about several punitive campaigns by Novgorodians and Slavs who lived on the Baltic coast to the very lair of Vikinkinism laughing and the ruin of their settlements in Sweden.
    And about the origin of the word "rus" ... Russia has always been a melting pot of peoples. She absorbed many peoples without a trace, dissolving almost without a trace. And in a non-violent way. And what's the difference, after all, where this name came from, from what language. The main thing is that "Russia" sounds proudly.
  22. varov14
    varov14 18 January 2016 03: 31
    +4
    Gentlemen, I have not bothered with this question for a long time - where did the Russian land come from. I read a bunch of literature and realized that for me it is violet, I am Russian because I am Russian. Even if it turns out genetically that I am a Turukhansk Australopithecus, I will consider myself a Russian, since I consider myself a bearer of the Russian idea, spirit, way of life. My ancestors left me a legacy of a strong, fully efficient state and my task is to do the same for posterity. But here a problem has already arisen and now it would be worth discussing. So, in order to direct the development of the state in the right direction, I can hardly skate through the Norman tribesmen, castes, groups, classes, individual individuals without a moment's hesitation and without bothering with unnecessary remorse. In order to exist, and even more so to break up in the modern world, from all Russian nations it is necessary to create a shock fist, a broom, where everything is together, and not on a twig. Where everyone is equal, successful, in demand .... All public institutions of the state must work for this idea, then the future is ours. It is time for homegrown "capitalism" to set conditions, or it becomes a "statist" and a Pitriot and puts forward and implements the idea of ​​the further development of the state. Or it’s enough to bang on your ears hanging noodles about your great role as an engine of progress - to demolish it along with the roof as unnecessary. And not figuratively, but naturally, so that there was no one to run around the Hague courts.
    1. Pre-cat
      Pre-cat 18 January 2016 12: 11
      +2
      I agree with you. Russian is one who thinks in Russian (namely in Russian and not in Russian), a native of Russian culture, an adherent of Russian values. And who was in his ancestors by genes does not matter. The most, perhaps, an incredible example is Catherine the Great. Purebred German! But she became a purebred Russian!
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 18 January 2016 12: 44
        +1
        Quote: The cat is half-educated
        Perhaps the most incredible example is Catherine the Great. Purebred German! But she became a purebred Russian!


        yes no friend she did not become Russian, on the contrary, all her life she persecuted the Russians Lomonosov, Pugachev, under e2 serfdom-slavery became the most terrible in Russian history. She was German and supported only her German-Westerners and planted everything Western, just like Peter destroyed everything Russian, and history was rewritten, so this bitch became "great" ...
  23. Lord of Wrath
    Lord of Wrath 18 January 2016 12: 28
    0
    Prophetic Oleg's contract with Byzantium:
    "we ... of the Ruskago clan: Karly Inegeld Farlof Veremud Rulav Guda Ruald Karn Frelav Rur Aktev Truan Lidulfost Stemir"
    I sincerely do not understand why such holivars. Recall the UK. Captured dozens of times. Celts-Romans-Angles-Saxons-Dans-Normans. And they proudly from this claim. This is history
    And with us, they decided for some reason that it is a shame. Well, let's take Rurik to the Balts. What do we have from the Baltic Prussians (almost completely cut), the Mazury (the analogue of the Chukchi in Poland, by the number of anectodes) of the Lithuanians .. etc. Will it be easier for us that Rurik is Lithuanian? Oh well, figs !! Can we do the pomors?
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 18 January 2016 12: 53
      0
      Quote: Lord of Wrath
      Recall the UK. Captured dozens of times. Celts-Romans-Angles-Saxons-Dans-Normans.


      all this was not, far-fetched, invented, then imposed, Rurik is a Norman from the Varangians from Scandinavia, also a lie, because the chronicles from which these characters are obtained are unreliable, and all this is from the 18th century, what other Rurik is a Murik? When you get a well-made bill with all colors and the proper resolution, but on the wrong paper, then the reaction of a normal person is unambiguous - a fake. The same logic applies to the annals, but since 250 years these annals were not used by the Germans except historians , then there was an opinion that all sorts of Ruriks are real characters and they keep chatting and talking about "Rurik" ...
      1. Lord of Wrath
        Lord of Wrath 18 January 2016 13: 10
        0
        Quote: Sveles
        250 years, these chronicles except German historians did not use

        Let's remember not so long ago, are you not afraid that 90% of noble families in Russia, according to our chronicles, are "from German", in the sense of "foreigner"? For example, the Vorontsovs, after 1 crusade, Simon African came to Russia, bringing with him 400 soldiers.
        Romanovs and then "from the Germans"
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 18 January 2016 13: 33
          0
          Quote: Lord of Wrath
          Let's remember not so long ago, are you not afraid that 90% of noble families in Russia, according to our chronicles, are "from German", in the sense of "foreigner"? For example, the Vorontsovs, after 1 crusade, Simon African came to Russia, bringing with him 400 soldiers.
          Romanovs and then "from the Germans"

          the fact that at the time of Putra earlier and then later RUSSIAN KNOWLEDGE was destroyed, it is a fact recognized even by TI, after Peter there were no boyars and boyar clans left - EVERYTHING WAS DESTROYED. Apparently in those days, there was one GRAND WAR OF THE MOSCOW-HORDIAN EMPIRE with the West from Razin, streltsy revolts, the Northern War, and Peter's campaigns in Persia and Turkey, the empire lost the war, and in 1773 Pugachev or who he was finally defeated was also Great Tartaria, although the Chinese and Independent Tartaria held on until the mid-19th century ...
          1. TұrKBөrӨ
            TұrKBөrӨ 18 January 2016 16: 13
            0
            Suvorov received the highest awards for the defeat of tartaria. Tartaria lost technologically.
            1. V.ic
              V.ic 18 January 2016 21: 24
              0
              Quote: ТұрКБөрӨ
              Suvorov received the highest awards for the defeat of tartaria.

              He didn’t smash the tau-kitans?
          2. solzh
            solzh 25 November 2020 14: 35
            23
            Quote: Sveles
            in 1773 Pugachev or whoever he was there was finally defeated and Great Tartary, although the Chinese and Independent Tartaries held out until the middle of the 19th century ...

            Ooooh, this is ... cool wassat
            I have no words laughing
            I wonder if you yourself believe in what you wrote?
    2. solzh
      solzh 25 November 2020 14: 30
      23
      Quote: Lord of Wrath
      What we have from the Balts

      Baltic Slavs, close to our ancestors, Eastern Slavs.
  24. Elena2013
    Elena2013 19 January 2016 06: 41
    +1
    Bosnian pyramids. Lecture of S. Osmanagich. Part 1-4
    PS The lecturer jokes amusingly along the way.



  25. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. kig
    kig 23 January 2016 22: 26
    0
    Historical science is a very useful science. It can be very easily controlled and indicated where the truth is and where is not. This is not physics or mathematics for you. Historical science is not based on experiments or observations, but on historical materials (chronicles, memoirs, photographs, etc.), which makes it even more useful. Each such material can be viewed from a variety of points of view and draw completely different conclusions. And they will all look correct and logical. In addition, incorrect historical evidence that does not fit into the general line can be completely ignored. But historical science, meanwhile, is a very necessary and demanded science. If not for her, how would we have known that the Tatar-Mongol rule in Russia was a real "yoke", that is, "an enslaving force"? But when historians looked more closely at this period, it turned out that there was no yoke. And in general ... I don't even want to discuss the topic of this article, because history is a science.
  28. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 26 January 2016 21: 16
    0
    I liked the article. For me, a new author, there is something to think about.
  29. den-protector
    den-protector 9 December 2016 22: 00
    0
    The Varangians (Vagirs) are one of the tribes of the Western Slavs, as well as many other Slavic tribes squeezed out of central Europe by German feudal lords under the leadership of papal Rome. They did not follow the example of the Western glades (Poles), Croats, Slovaks, Slovenes who converted to Catholicism, and found refuge in Russia. These refugees became the backbone of the new state of Russia. Although before them in Russia there were also state entities (Slavia, Artania, Kuyavia).
    1. solzh
      solzh 25 November 2020 14: 29
      24
      Quote: den-protector
      Varangians (Vagirs) - one and the tribes of the Western Slavs

      Historians Soloviev and Klyuchevsky denied the purely ethnic content of the term Varangian. They believed that the Varangians meant either all the Baltic inhabitants, including the Slavs, or armed merchants and their warriors.