Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
gramberto
Knight
Joined: 12-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 89
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Early Russian history Posted: 24-Aug-2006 at 23:10 |
Are the Rus slaves? I thought they were descendants of vikings?
When was the term 'rus' first used?
When did Russia become a strong state?
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 01:46 |
The Rus were Vikings but they ruled over a Slav population.The word Slaves comes from Slav people because they were constanty stolen by the Khazars who sold them to the middle east as Slaves.
The Rus became strong in the 10th century ad when Prince Syvalostolov of Kiev Rus defeated and conquered the Khazars,bulgars and Pechenegs before finally there attack on byzantine was beated off.
|
|
Majkes
Chieftain
Imperial Ambassador
Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 04:02 |
The Rus was probably created by Viking named Rurik. Rus was strong for a short period as BigL mentioned it. But if you ask about Russia, its power is connected with the rise of Grand Duchy of Moscow and Russia became really powerfull at the beginning of XVIIIth century in times of Peter the Great although it was quite powerfull even earlier for some short periods especially during Ivan III and Ivan IV reigns.
|
|
NikeBG
Colonel
Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 05:10 |
Originally posted by BigL
The Rus were Vikings but they ruled over a Slav population.The word Slaves comes from Slav people because they were constanty stolen by the Khazars who sold them to the middle east as Slaves. |
Which is probably the worst of the available derivatives of the etho-term Slavs. Not to mention that Slave is only on modern English, on Bulgarian f.e. "slave" is "rob". The two main theories for the original meaning of the word Slavs are these: 1. Deriving from the Slavic word "slava", meaning "glory". I.e. "Slaviani" should mean, according to this, glorious people.
2. IMHO, more plausible one - Deriving from the Slavic word "slovo", meaning "word, speech", as opposed to "niemtsi" (used even today for Germans), meaning "mute people". Something like the Greeks - "We can speak a language, which could be understood, the barbaroi are just saying nonsense". So, Sloveni should then be "people of speech".
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 06:34 |
I will tell you interesting story about Rurik. In Russia it was believed that he came with two brothers -- Sineus and Truvor. Sineus in russian means "the blue moustach". But later historians concluded that Sineus means actually "sine hus", which means with his house/home and Truvor means warriors (I do not remember scandinavian word for that). Hence, he came with his family and warriors. This is a good example how language barriers may lead to completely wrong interpretation.
As for Slav/Slave I do not believe it either. I could hardly imagine that people could call themselves slaves just because part of them were was enslaved. And, by the way, initially it was "slovene" (more close to "slovo") not "slavjane".
Edited by Anton - 25-Aug-2006 at 06:38
|
.
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 06:46 |
I would say that Novgorod was powerful since it's creation. It occasionalyl controlled the entire northern areas, up to Karelia and much farther north than Laadoga.
And Kievan Rus was powerful too, in it's own time.
|
|
Roberts
Chieftain
aka axeman
Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 07:38 |
Originally posted by gramberto
When was the term 'rus' first used?
When did Russia become a strong state? |
Rus is a term in which the Swedish Vikings (Varjags) were called. Finns still call Swedes "Routsi". They appeared as military elite among the slavs, though by the end of 10th century they became largely assimilated in Slavic society. The term Russia appeared only in 16th century AFAIK, before that "Russia" didn't existed. There have always been strong states in "Russia", like Kievian Rus which included all Rus teritories. In mid 11th century Kievian Rus broke up into smaller states of from which some were strong from time to time, like Kiev, Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volhynia, Novgorod and finally Muscovy.
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 09:09 |
Yah, this is an interesting topic, in fact a master's dissertation was written by a fellow student of mine at the University evaluating the pro- and anti-normanist theories concerning the Rus impact on Russian history. The pro-normanists seek to establish that the Viking invasions were fundamental to the creation of major political entities in the region (mainly Novgorod, Kiev and Smolensk as far as I know), while the anti-normanists rather focus on the Slavic contribution. Naturally, it is fundamental in this debate to what extent, and how early, the Rus were assmilited into Slavic culture.
I think that the situation resembles the one in Normandy, for even though the areas are greatly different in size the developments seem the same. A Viking elite achieves control of a foreign land, and instead of instituting apartheid they handle the new conquest by blending with the local culture. As the generations pass they adopt the names of the region and marry native women, gradually watering out their own distinctive traits. Of course, immigration from Scandinavia didn't stop with the initial wave, but it was not significant enough for the elite to remain culturally seperate. This, I'd expect, would've been especially true for Kiev, somewhat less for Novgorod where interaction with Scandinavia was greater.
Another essential topic is the relationship with Byzantium, which from the outset was characterized by hostility, the Rus conducting savage raids in the Aegean and twice attempting to take Constantinople without luck (read: Greek fire). The Battle of Arcadiopolis in 970 was decisive in favour of the Byzantines, and the Rus became more inclined towards a peaceful co-existence. During the reign of Vladimir I of Kiev, the son of the Svyatoslav I who waged war on Byzantium, the Rus were officially christened and a marriage alliance was sealed with the union of one of the Emperor's daughters and Vladimir himself (who, despite being Christian, still kept a large harem, numbering about 800 women according to one source).
Returning to the former topic, it should be noted that when Vladimir only inherited half his father's realm, the rest being given to Svyatoslav's illegitimate son Yaropolk, he visited some of his kinsmen in Scandinavia to gather men, with whom he claimed the rest of his heritage by force.
Edited by Reginmund - 25-Aug-2006 at 09:12
|
|
gramberto
Knight
Joined: 12-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 89
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 11:49 |
So are modern russians a hybrid of viking and slavs?
|
|
Desperado
Shogun
Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 227
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 12:55 |
"So are modern russians a hybrid of viking and slavs?"-Infact they are a hybrid of many more: Finno-Ugrian, Turkic, Germanic and Iranian-speaking tribes. The slavs and scandinavians are just the most important components.
It's the same as to ask whether the population of UK are just Anglo-Saxons and Normans.
|
|
Roberts
Chieftain
aka axeman
Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 14:53 |
Originally posted by Desperado
"So are modern russians a hybrid of viking and slavs?"-Infact they are a hybrid of many more: Finno-Ugrian, Turkic, Germanic and Iranian-speaking tribes. The slavs and scandinavians are just the most important components.
It's the same as to ask whether the population of UK are just Anglo-Saxons and Normans. |
You forgot to include Baltic tribes, which also played a role in forming mainly Belorussian ethicity.
|
|
Kalevipoeg
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 15:26 |
Slavs and Scandinavians. The discussion seems to be how Ryurik came to Rus and established rule there. I don't think he took so many thousands of Scandinavians with him to really have an affect on the Russian ethnicity and looks. The Russians numbered even then more than the Scandinavians. How large of an impact could they have made, as the Finns were in between the two nations aswell?
|
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...
|
|
Majkes
Chieftain
Imperial Ambassador
Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 15:51 |
Originally posted by Desperado
"So are modern russians a hybrid of viking and slavs?"-Infact they are a hybrid of many more: Finno-Ugrian, Turkic, Germanic and Iranian-speaking tribes. The slavs and scandinavians are just the most important components. It's the same as to ask whether the population of UK are just Anglo-Saxons and Normans. |
No, they are Slavs. They have some others blood but it's not significant.
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 16:55 |
Originally posted by Majkes
No, they are Slavs. They have some others blood but it's not significant. |
Well, to me Slav is lingual term not ethnical. And Russian Empire and then federation was multinational so don't underestimate these mixes.
|
.
|
|
Majkes
Chieftain
Imperial Ambassador
Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 17:48 |
Originally posted by Anton
Originally posted by Majkes
No, they are Slavs. They have some others blood but it's not significant. |
Well, to me Slav is lingual term not ethnical. And Russian Empire and then federation was multinational so don't underestimate these mixes. |
Well, we talk about Russians as a nation not about Russian's empire all nations. Besides during the middle ages there was no Russian Empire.
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 17:56 |
That was about modern Russians. There was no Empire in middle ages indeed. Just huge territorн of several Byzantine Empires in size But starting from Ivan IV Rus starts to add territories not inhabited with slavs.
|
.
|
|
Majkes
Chieftain
Imperial Ambassador
Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 18:02 |
Originally posted by Anton
That was about modern Russians. There was no Empire in middle ages indeed. Just huge territorн of several Byzantine Empires in size But starting from Ivan IV Rus starts to add territories not inhabited with slavs. |
Ok, I just wanted to point out that Russians are generally Slavs. They have some other blood for sure. Just like every other nation in the world Russians were not isolated and had contacts with other nations. i see You write in cyrylica from time to time.
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 18:16 |
The bloody problem is that I have latin, cyryllic and scandinavian in my comp. I mix them sometimes As for the topic, official Russian historiography accepts that Varjags (as they are called in Russia) were not high in number and were sort of war aristocracy in Novgorod and Kiev and later in other cities. They are accepted to be sort of Vikings but some dudes consider them as slavs from the region of present eastern Germany or Poland as far as I remember. Just mention this fact to show that there are different opinions on the question. As I remember one of those dudes was Mikhailo Lomonosov, the guy whom one should believe
|
.
|
|
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 18:36 |
Yep, official Estonian historiography also accepts that Novgorod was sieged by the Varjags who then moved on to Kiev, conquered it and founded their state.
|
|
Anton
Caliph
Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Aug-2006 at 19:22 |
They are believed to be invited by slavs.
|
.
|
|