There's a beautiful video (+ playlist) made by Schwerpunkt on this topic. Recommended to anyone who is in need on an endless content about Medieval Eastern Europe
Great but with a caveat. There was never such thing as a "Kievan Rus". It was a historical invention or umbrella term for all the constantly shifting and warring Russian principalities. Apart from that everything accurate.
@@user-cg2tw8pw7j This is a historical myth. But, I speak English too poorly to explain everything to you. The role of the Scandinavian in the history of Rus was invented later for political reasons.
@@user-xr4wu4rp2r But the Russians had heard of the Nordics because they came from Finland by ship and were fighting the Khazar Empire and the Muslim kingdom of the Volva Bulgars.
@@user-cg2tw8pw7j The Scandinavians never sailed from Finland to the lands of the Slavs. The inhabitants of the future Novgorod Republic knew the Scandinavians perfectly well, since most of them were Wenden from the Slavic lands of the southern Baltic. RUS was the same Wenden. Rurik was a Slav and related to the princely family of the Obodrites. He is officially in the genealogy of the Dukes of Mecklenburg, direct descendants of the Obodrit princes. Rurik was a relative of the elected ruler of Novgorod Gostomysl. He had the legal right to rule the inhabitants of the Russian north, who came from the Wenden lands. Slavs, united by the power of Prince Svyatoslav, a descendant of Rurik, fought with Khazaria and Bulgaria. (Rurik - Igor - Svyatoslav). Scandinavians in Russia appeared only in the 11th century under Yaroslav the Wise, and only then in the sagas there are mentions of "Gardarika" - the country of cities. The myth that Rurik was a Swede appeared in the 17th century at the court of the Swedish king, who then claimed Russian lands during the dynastic crisis in the Russian Kingdom, which is called the "Time of Troubles". And since then, this legend has entered historical science.
The Kyivan Rus was the Roman Empire of Eastern Europe. It was not a single people, but many tribes and lands that were ruled by a single city in what is now Ukraine. Russia didn't even exist back then, but formed as a vassal state of the Golden Horde of the Mongols. It existed as Moscovy for around 500 years, until Ivan the Terrible started to invade and annex the lands belonging to Novgorod and he adopted the earlier term Rus.
@@Genevybes Rus is no more an ethnic group or a complete state that the Roman Empire was an ethnic group or a complete. The Rus were an elite who ruled across a kingdom of many ethnic groups and nations. The Rus collapsed before Moscovy (Grand Duchy Of Moscow) was even formed. Moscovy didn't adopt the term Rus until after they invaded and took over the nation of Novgorod in the early 1500s. Moscow adopting the term 'Rus' is like Napoleon of France suddenly trying to claim the title Roman Emperor for the French. Claiming a title belonging to a previous people does not make that claim legitimate. Especially when the new nation was not formed by the earlier people. Moscow was not formed by the Rus as it was formed as a vassal state to the Golden Horde of the Mongols. That is the truth.
@@TsiganoIs your premise that the cultural identity of those lands has been destroyed? And that Moscow is more Mongolia than Kiev? I would encourage you to compare these two nations and examine Moscow and Kiev today. The answer becomes clear when you observe that Kiev and Moscow share much more similarity than Moscow and Ulaanbaatar do.
@@Genevybes You can say the same thing about Paris and Madrid or London and Berlin, but this does by no means make them the same people, nor the same nation. Even if languages are related like French and Spanish are or German and English is, they are not the same language and there are unique cultural a social distinctions between them all. Moscow is thousands of miles away from Kiev. They are not the same people anymore than Romanians are Italians. Moscow and the Kremlin uses propaganda and manipulated history to create false connections.
@@Tsigano I'm a bit confused about your point. The Kievan Rus is equally a predecessor state of both Ukraine and Russia, with a shared history between them.
You correctly said that “Kievan Rus” is a term. However, subsequently, you used it on an ongoing basis to refer to the entire state, which is not correct. The state was called simply - Rus'. Without the prefix "Kyiv". Kyiv was the third capital of Rus'. Before Kyiv, the capitals were Ladoga and Novgorod - “Novgorod Rus', Ladoga Rus', etc. But these are all terms and nothing more (introduced into historical circulation in the 19th century) These are not separate states. As I said earlier, the state was simply called Rus. 0:32 - 1:00 No. This is not in the "primary Russian chronicle" It says different. There were 4 tribes. They invited the Varangians (Vikings) to reign. Three brothers came along with their clan (Varangians): The eldest is Rurik and the two younger ones are Sineus and Truvor. Rurik began to rule in Ladoga. Sineus is in Beloozero, and Truvor is in Izborsk. 2 years later, Sineus and Truovr died (it is not said why) and Rurik took over all power. Rurik did not found Kievan Rus Rurik founded Rus' and the Rurik dynasty. Kyiv as a city was captured much later, after the death of Rurik. Kyiv was captured and made the capital by Rurik's friend (and his son's regent) Knyaz Oleg the Prophet. Rurik was invited to reign in 862. Kyiv was captured by Oleg the Prophet in 882 2:30 Rus' was not an Empire. Rus'-Russia became an empire only in 1721. 9:45 Not the entire territory of Rus' was divided into principalities. The Novgorod Republic was founded in Novgorod (the second capital of Rus'). In case of war, the Novgorod Republic could call upon the Knyaz. For a limited period. However, the Knyaz in the Novgorod Republic did not have dictatorial powers. The republic was ruled by boyars (the upper class of the people). In general, the Novgorod Republic is one of the most interesting parts of Rus'. ____ Overall the video is good. Errors are not critical. They simply create confusion in perception and historical sequence.
You are forgetting that during the time of Novgorod there was no Kievan Rus'/Rus", they were still Varangians/Swedish Vikings. The moving of central powers from Novgorod to Kyiv is what formed the Kievan Rus' and started the long history of the Slavic people. Novgorod became a very helpful principality but was never the capitol of the Kievan Rus'.
@@drewdj45 You are doing exactly what I wrote about. Using erroneous wording, you get confused in history. By history in this case I mean the ancient Russian chronicles, known as the “Primary Russian Chronicle” I will not convince you that everything written in them is true. This is doubtful. However, this document dates back to the beginning of the 12th century (1110) and was written in Kyiv by the monk Nester. And this document is the only document that sheds light on the beginning of the formation of the state of Rus' from the point of view of the people closest to that time. There are no others, only the guesses and hypotheses of historians (some of which, by the way, I consider quite worthy) Therefore, if we speak from the point of view of this document (Primary Russian Chronicle), then Rus', as a state, arose in 862. Since the chronicle directly states: “In 862, the Slavic tribes invited Rurik from the Rus tribe to rule. The Russian land was named after their tribe. There are several important nuances here: 1. Rurik and the Varangians were called Rus by the Slavs. They believed that they were from the Rus tribe. (yes, this is apparently an erroneous name, but this is exactly what the Slavic tribes believed) 2. The Rurik family began with Rurik, which ruled Rus', and then the Russian kingdom until 1598. Yes, Novgorod has never been the capital of Kievan Rus. Since Kievan Rus never existed. Once again: this is a term. It was simply Rus'. And it was Novgorod (after Ladoga) that was the capital of Rus'. Once again, this is stated in the Primary Russian Chronicle. It does not say that Novgorod was precisely the capital. But the words are like this: "Rurik began to rule in Ladoga, and then founded and began to rule in Novgorod" Thus, the first city in which the first representative of the Rurik dynasty began to rule was Ladoga, then Novgorod. And since the Rurik dynasty comes from Rurik, Rurik and his invitation to rule is considered a landmark moment in Russian history. And this is the year 862.
@@reorioOrion The term 'Russian land' in this context doesn't refer to a modern nation-state but rather to the territory where the events unfolded. Rurik and his Varangians were initially invited to help quell internal strife. However, it's crucial not to overlook the significant transformation from Rus' to Kievan Rus', with Kyiv playing a monumental role in the history of the Rus'/Slavic people. Delving into the Bygone Years, the legendary founding of Kyiv in 482 AD by Kyi and his siblings marks a pivotal moment (Could even be the first founded state, but It's not clearly stated). Rurik rules successively in Ladoga and Novgorod. The true zenith occurs when Oleg captures Kyiv, ushering in the era of Kievan Rus', as eloquently stated in the Chronicle: "Рѹ́сьскаѧ землѧ Києвскаѧ". The Bygone Years vividly depict Kyiv as the political and cultural nucleus of Rus'. It serves as a bustling center for trade, witnessing the development of the first legal system used by the Rus'-the Russkaya Pravda. Kyiv becomes the cradle of Rus' Christianity under Grand Prince Vladimir I, the numerous Princes residing in Kyiv play indispensable roles in shaping the political and cultural landscape. In light of these historical facts, referring to them as Kievan Rus' is not only appropriate but captures the essence of a transformative era.
@@drewdj45 Calling Rus' Kievan Rus is no more appropriate than calling the Russian Empire - St. Petersburg Russia, the Russian Federation - Moscow Russia, the USA - Washington USA, and so on. This is inappropriate based on the fact that the state itself has never called itself such. It called itself Rus. Vladimir the Great (under whom Rus' adopted Christianity) was both the Knyaz of Kyiv and the Knyaz of Novgorod. He held both of these titles at the same time. Like other Knyazs. Of course, Kyiv plays a monumental role in the history of Rus'. "Let Kyiv be the mother of all Russian cities" Knyaz Oleg. Primary Russian chronicle. "The true zenith occurs when Oleg captures Kyiv, ushering in the era of Kievan Rus', as eloquently stated in the Chronicle: "Russian lands of Kiev." Let's say that this was the zenith of Rus'. But that was not its basis. Besides this, I have never seen the phrase “Russian land of Kiev” in the chronicles. There is no such thing there. And this simply cannot happen there, since Kyiv was not the only principality of Rus'. Kyiv was the capital and main principality. The second (until a certain time) was Novgorod and other principalities. There (if we are talking about the Primary Russian Chronicle) there is the following phrase: "HERE IS THE TALE OF THE PAST YEARS, WHERE THE RUSSIAN LAND CAME FROM, WHO BECAME THE FIRST PRINCIPAL IN Kyiv AND HOW THE RUSSIAN LAND ARISED." (This is the very beginning of the piece) The chronicler never once calls the Russian land the Russian land of Kyiv.
Well, Russia had 3 capitals - Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslav. Ladoga and Novgorod Ilmenskiy never been a capital of Russia. Archeology tells us that Novgorod didn't exist in IX centuary. Novgorod was established in the second half of X centuary only. But Rus were famous from 6-7 centuary from Arab, Iranian and Greek records. Also Rus people didn't use Scandinavian pantheon of Gods, they used Iranian one. They had a cult of sword, same as king Arthur. First kagan-imperor of Rus was Igor the Old (or Olderman). This name in luzhitskiy language meant hunter and was very popular not only in Russia, but also in Serbia, Croatia and even in Northern Italy.
Sweden had a great influence on Russia about 1000-1200 years ago. It was common that in the elite of Kyiv-Rus or Novgorod -Rus that they had one, two or more swedish ancestors/relatives. As late as 14th c icelandic scribes called Rus area for "The great/big Sweden". Common cultural features still exists. F.ex. in eastern Sweden when older people see a black cat they still spit three times over left shoulder to stop misfortunes to happen, exactly what they do in Russia...Other similarites is a sacrifice to Tomte/Nisse or farmspirit, in Russia it´s called Domevoi. Both people used to put steel in cradle or threshold to stop Trolls or Lezji(treepeople) to steal the children...
Let's all shout out to the Massagetaean Alani, the Greuthungii, and the Anteans for making up the ancestries of the present-day East Slavic peoples (Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russians).
Factually incorrect on many levels. Again it only focuses on the time of the Varangian conquest and forward with no consideration of the differing cultures in the areas that would be ruled by the Varangians as the Kyivan-Rus. The Finno-Ugric tribes in the North in what would largely become the principalities Novgorod and Vladimir-Suzdal, and the Eastern Slavic tribes to the South the balance of Kyivan-Rus principalities. The gradual disintegration of the Kyivan-Rus state started after the death of Yaroslav the Wise with many princes ruling over different territories and of course the fighting that came with it for power, though none ever attained a unified state again. The final death of the Kyivan-Rus was the sacking of Kyiv in 1240CE by the Mongols. The principality of Vladimir-Suzdal (later Muscovy) fell two years earlier in 1380CE, and was was a vassal to the Mongols thereafter until 1552CE. The principality(ies) of Galicia-Volhynia had a brief period of vassalage to the Mongols, but was able to regain its independence under King Danylo the first king of all Rus (aka the Kingdom of Ruthenia). Eventually this became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1349CE. The Polish-Lithuanians eventually gained the territories of the principalities of Polotsk, Smolensk, Chernigov, Pereyalsav and Kyiv (the majority of the former Kyivan-Rus Lands) from the Mongols. We all know that periods of rule by one group of people over another does not make a unified people. Scottish, Welsh or Irish are not English, the French are not Roman, nor are the Israelities (take your pick of) Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman or Turkish. These previous tribal differences and the difference in rule help account for the large degree of mutual intelligibility between Belarussian and Ukrainian vs the two when compared to Muscovite (russian), and why they are not or never were the same people.
With this I still can't see why would modern Russia use the past Mongol occupation as being inheritors/successors of the Mongol Empire despite their "resistances."
To say that Russia is Rus is like say that Romania (Transilvania) is Roman empire. First. "Kyivian Rus", not "Kievian". Kiev - it is russian spelling, not Ukrainian. It is only Kyiv and Kyivian Rus. Now let's go to the real history, not russian propaganda, wich was spreading by russians inside of Russia and around the world for centuries, when Ukraine was under the russian occupation. The history of Russia (originally Moscovia) does not begin with Kyivian Rus, just as the history of England does not begin with Roman Empire, despite part of Great Britain was under the rule of Roman Empire. Have you ever heard English call Rome their first capital? Rus never was like something "one", integral. There lived many different tribes, not only Slavic, which had different cultures. In the beginning the center of Rus was in Kyiv and another lands were under the rule of Rus, like Gaul (France) or Britain was under the rule of Roman Empire (Italy), and people from those lands paid tribute to the Prince of Kyiv. But then in the 11-12th centuries principalities became more and more independent. And in chronicles only principalities which were on territory of modern Ukraine were called Rus. People from Novgorod principality or lands of future Moscovia (Vladimiro-Suzdal principality) and others were saying they "go to Rus" when went to Principality of Kyiv, Principality of Chernihiv or Principality of Pereyaslav (later also Principality of Halychyna-Volyn). They didn't call themselves Rus, we clearly read this in chronicles. After invasion of Golden Horde in the west of modern Ukraine emerged the Kingdom of Rus. Later another part of Ukrainian lands became a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia. And when Kingdom of Rus was occupied by Kingdom of Poland it was called the Rus Voivodeship. Modern Ukrainians untill the 19th century were called Rus/Rusyny/Rusychi/Ruthenians. From the 16th century Ukrainians had another names like "Ukrainians" and "Cossacks" (Ukrainian knights), but they were used with names Rus and Rusyny. Meanwhile lands of future Moscovia never were Rus. Those lands were inhabited by completely different tribes (even non-Slavic) of Volga Finns: Mari, Mordvinians, Merya, Murom, Meshchera, also another tribes Veps, Permians. The rulers of those lands were distant descendants of the dynasty of Kyiv Princes and in the later centuries (starting from the 15th century), they began to add to their titles word "Rus", "Rossia", but those lands had nothing to do with Rus. Like British monarchs until the 19th century added to their title words "King of France". Lands of Moscovia were called Vladimir Principality, then Moscovian principality and then Tsardom of Moscovia or just Moscovia. Only in 1721 Peter I (who even was from another dynasty, meaning he couldn't even "formally" do it) stole the greek name of Rus (Rossia) when called himself an "all Rossia emperor" and Moscovia suddenly became a Russian empire. But Moscovians for a very long time didn't call themselves "Russians". And another countries also didn't recognise Moscovia as Russia. For example, Poland. How Polish could acknowledge that Rus is suddenly thousand of km away, if litteraly in their country was Rus Voivodeship?
PART 2 "lands of future Moscovia never were Rus. Those lands were inhabited by completely different tribes (even non-Slavic) of Volga Finns: Mari, Mordvinians, Merya, Murom, Meshchera, also another tribes Veps, Permians." PART TRUTH: "lands of future Moscovia were inhabited by completely different tribes (even non-Slavic) of Volga Finns" LIES BY OMISSION: omitted to say that ALL OF THEM were assimilated by far larger Slavic population: first wave in VI century, second large wave IX-X century (Kriviches, Ilmen Slavs, Vyatiches, Radimiches and Severyan-Slavs), third wave XII-XIII century from modern day Northern Ukraine and Western Ukraine. Assimilated aka Finno-Ugric inhabitants make mixed kids, kids grow in Slavic environment, make more mixed kids, till everyone becomes Slav. "Like British monarchs until the 19th century added to their title words "King of France". English monarchs RULED huge territories of France before. Chunks of France were part of the English Crown. The French national identity did not exist back in that time as it is today. It was hugely united by the French Revolution. "Lands of Moscovia were called Vladimir Principality" LIES BY OMISSION: And were ALWAYS called a part of "russkaya zemlya" (land of Rus'). "then Moscovian principality" LIES. At that time Principalities of ancient Rus didn't have official names. "The Great Duchy of Moscow" is a cabinet term, coined by historians. "Tsardom of Moscovia or just Moscovia" LIES. It called itself "Russkoye Tsarstvo" (the Russian Tsardom) and was called so by foreign powers in official documents and treaties (google Stolbovo Peace with Sweden in 1617 and read the text of the treaty in Swedish) "Only in 1721 Peter I (who even was from another dynasty, meaning he couldn't even "formally" do it) stole the greek name of Rus (Rossia)" BLATANT LIES. Peter I was CROWNED as Emperor instead of a Tsar and hence the Russian Tsardom became the Russian Empire. "But Moscovians for a very long time didn't call themselves "Russians"." BLANTANT LIES. All Orthodox Slavic population (the majority) of the Russian Tsardom was calling themselves "rusin" or "russkiye liudi" and it is allover state documents of the time! "And another countries also didn't recognise Moscovia as Russia. For example, Poland." BLATANT LIES: Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth concluded countless treaties with the Russian Tsardom and calls it in official documents: "Tsarstwo Rosyjske" (the Russian Tsardom), Sweden calls the Russian Tsardom in its pre-Peter I treaties "Ryssland" (google Stolbovo Treaty) "How Polish could acknowledge that Rus is suddenly thousand of km away, if litteraly in their country was Rus Voivodeship?" Twisting of facts (it was not "Poland" but Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), LIES (it DID call the Russian Tsardom "the Russian Tsardom" in documents). "if litteraly in their country was Rus Voivodeship?" Like today a medieval provinces are divided between countries: there is the Belgian Limburg and the Dutch Limburg, the Belgian Brabant and the Dutch Northern Brabant. CONCLUSION: litterally bunch of lies, omissions, twisting of facts and transferring of modern notions into past where they didn't exist. AND I am also pretty sure IT IS NOT the official position of modern Ukrainian professional historians. It is more a political narrative.
@@andreilukyanov4286 no one in documents was calling Muscovy "russian tsardom", neither Poles, Ukrainians or muscovites themselves. Rusyn is literally the past name of Ukrainians, as someone even remains using this name in western Ukraine, they didn't have any clue that there were "rusyns" in muscovy 😂 "There's Belgian Limburg and Dutch Limburg" this is ridiculously incomparable in scale. "Far larger slavic population" yeah, when Muscovy conquered slavic territories like Novgorod, it wiped out tyrannicaly the entire population of the city with and replace it with muscovites. Similarly to Pskov and others. Slavs unfortunately didn't have any to dominate because of tyrannical regime of Muscovy. Conclusion: you're only hurting this world with lies and justification of m*rderers, Ukrainians will give you a fair statement on the battlefront.
Awesome info. ❤ So what getting from this is Belarus & Ukraine are basically descendants/influenced by Vikings, Mongols & Romans. I was looking for how russians are influenced as being russians today. But a I guess this is close enough
Sorry they got stuff wrong. Vikings were mainly R1b1, and then I1a male haplotypes and Slavs are mainly R1A1, but also I2A, and also Slavs are mixed with baltic peoples, who are mainly i2A, and Fino-Urgic peoples, which includes R1A1, i2a, and N1C (a gene from Siberia and China), although this is smaller admixture in these groups and people can have this and be blue yeded and blond.. In fact the male line that founded the Rurik dynasty was N1C. Slavic, baltic and Fino-Ugric people i the north in Baltic sea had a similar lifestyle, but not exact same, to the Nordic Vikings which creates this ridiculous confusion
Ukraine was not influenced by the Mongols. The video almost did not tell about the division of nations after the Mongol attack on Kyiv. It was the ancestors of modern Russians who paid tribute to the Mongols and were influenced by them. After the destruction of Kyiv, the ancestors of Ukrainians moved to the Principality of Galicia-Volyn. The king Danylo ruled there. He was also a Rurikian and had the title of King of the Rusyns. Ukrainians were more influenced by Poland and Lithuania.
@@AkeN996 sweden 😂, but what is the problem with that😂, it does not mean ukraine , it was the name given to that empire “rus” and it is the same than russia and ukraine in old russian means “ border”
@@MegaPablo57 Novgorod had nothing to do with russia until Muscovy conquered it in 16th century, and erased it's people and culture. 🤡 Kyivan Rus'/Kyiv exploited northern lands with constant tribute and slavery, including finno-ugric ancestors of russians. I destroyed all your dreams 😂
this is bull mostly it is under the dane slav and norse have allways bin the dane try of the kalmar is stil here a uropa united even im a odin boy but to see the old trade and culture exchange again ill die dane
Oleksa (Nomad) There was no Kievan Rus - this is fiction! We do not say, for example, Kyoto Japan, Memphis Egypt or Kharkiv Ukraine ... There is no such thing anywhere!
The word is KIEV. Always has, always has been always will be. The fun fact is that modern day KIEV has nothing to do with Kievan Rus. This city was RUSSIAN at the time of its foundation.
Why do you argue? It is easy to prove reading the original documents - The Chronicles. From Hypatian Codex|: "Се же соуть 1имена кнѧземъ Києвьскым. кнѧжившим. в Києвѣ . до избитьѧ Батыєва . в поганьствѣ боудоущиим" The right writing is Києвѣ Kiev. Kyiv is corrupted writing you will not find Kyiv (Кыив or Киив) in The Chronicles.
DIsclamer: Kiev Rus and Russia are diferent countries. 90% of teritory and population of Kiev Rus are now modern Ukraine !! Language of Kiev Rus is 99% the same as modern Ukrainian language. Capital of Kiev Rus was Kiev and capital of Ukraine is Kiev. Rus was the name of mostly Ukraine from literature dated from 988 year. In 14th century Moskow empire defited Kiev Rus and took its name and called its self Russia. Moskow empire and Russia have many nationalities in its empire and only 1 % of them are Rus descendents, and most of its population are asian descendents.
Nonsense, utterly nonsense. First Kievan Rus existence started in Novgorod which is in modern-day Russia. Second cities like Suzdal, Riyazan, Moscow, Vladimir, etc. were part of Kievan Rus during medieval times, that's like half the territory Of European Russia. Third Name Ukraine is a modern term that was invented in Tsarist Russia and if you translate it it means literally "In Borderlines" Russians, Belarussians, and Ukrainians are one people. But under some Historical circumstances were divided, unfortunately.
@@filipkirovski5823 Moscow was literally a dirt village at this time and only became known after the mongol conquests(when half the cities were burned to the ground). Novgorod is also a birthplace of Rus, true. But Muscowy has nothing to do with it. The fact that Muscowy conquered this republic, subjugated and killed most of the population doesb't land any legacy to Muscowy. Just another asiatic horde conquering and burning lands.
@@vadymkuzeminskiy3133 you totally missed my point, Vadim. Btw when I compare people from Moscow and from Kiev physically they look the same. Speak the same language and have the same religion.
Kiev Rus was founded in 9th century. When the Mongols invaded the lands of Kievan Rus' in the 13th century, Moscow was still a small town within the principality of Vladimir-Suzdal. Kiev Rus and modern russia have indeed several same cities like Novgorod. But modern russia has most of it's territory and most of it's cities in Asian continent and most of it's population and nationalities are asian. So, the origin of moscow kingdom is principality of Vladimir-Suzdal. And modern russians are many nationalities, origins of most of them are in asian continent. And most of Ukrainians are 1 nationality with origin from Kiev Rus and other eastern european slavic tribes.
@@YurikTrader bro do you know where Europe continent borders end? You know that Russia have European and Asian part? You know that In European part lives 80% of the population?
Russians lived in Rus and they spoke Russian language and they lived in Russian cities: Kiev, Chernigov, Lubech, Rostov, Novgorod. Rus is Ρωσία in Greeks, and Ρωσία is Russia in English transliteration. The root Rus suffix s and Greek ending ia - Russia. The same dynasty, faith, culture, language, uninterrupted history. Thus, the difference between Rus and Russia is the same as between Ρωσία and Ρωσία. Ukraine means borderland. 😭
The video is not complete. After the Mongol attack, Russia was divided. It was this event that contributed to the emergence of modern Russians and Ukrainians. You told about the Muscovites (modern Russians) who submitted to the Mongols and paid them tribute. But where the history of the King Danil a Galician who moved to Lviv and had the title of King of Rus` and the subsequent fate of those Ruthenians is connected with the Lithuanian royalist and the commonwealth. Either remove the name Ukraine from there or add about this
Germany was called Prussia, its also similar name to russia, why dont you call russians descendents of Prussia? Moscow calls itself third Rome, but it was not originated from Roman empire. Moscow city was created from Finland and Asian tribes. Search for its origin there.
Rurik was a Russian who founded the Rurik dynasty. The Rurik dynasty ruled Rus', then the Russian kingdom and was interrupted only in 1598. Much later than the end of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. Ivan the Terrible and his son were the last, legitimate, Russian rulers of the Russian kingdom. Ivan the Terrible and his son are direct descendants of Rurik, the founder of Rus'. There is no contradiction here. After the death of the son of Ivan the Terrible, a civil war began in the Russian Kingdom. The civil war ended with a new dynasty being chosen to the throne - the Romanovs. The first Romanov Tsar, took the title of Ivan the Terrible and his son. Thus, the history of Rus' continued in the Russian Kingdom, which became the Russian Empire, which was created by the great-great-grandson of the first Romanov - Peter the Great. The Russian Empire included Ladoga, Novgorod, Kyiv, Vladimir and Moscow. All these cities are former capitals of Ancient Rus'. This is direct succession.
@@reorioOrion Rurik was a legendary person. He doesn't exist in chronicles or documents of Byzantium, Arabic or European countries. He was created by writer of Primary Chronicle of Rus (not russia) like Romulus and Remus, who builded Rome, or Ukrainian Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv, who builded Kyiv, because in the Middle Ages people liked to make up stories about the origins of cities and dynasties. And even in Primary Chronicle no one from Princes of Kyiv were named after Rurik, they were named only after names of their fathers (this is mean there was no "Rurikids"). The rulers of Kyiv who founded Rus were Scandinavians who assimilated.
@@one.girl...1 1. “Rurik is not in the chronicles” One sentence later: "Rurik was created by a writer in the Primary Chronicle of Rus'" Have you decided on an option? -) a). Rurik appears in the primary chronicle of Rus'. b). The primary chronicle consists of several chronicles from different centuries. It was written not by one writer, but by many, over the centuries. c). The entire Rurik dynasty is named after the first ruler - Rurik. 2. “No one named their sons Rurik, this indicates that Rurik did not exist” The second ruler of Rus' was Oleg the Prophet. And he was not the son of Rurik, he was his warrior. Oleg, too, no one called their descendants. Does this mean that Oleg didn’t exist either? -) 3. "Russian princes were named after their fathers" That is, all the princes of Rus' had the same name? -) If serious: Rurik - Oleg - Igor - Olga - Svyatoslav - Yaropolk - Vladimi - Svyatopolk. These are the names of the first rulers. None of them named their sons after themselves. 4. "There were no Rurikovichs" It's clear. There was a dynasty, but without a name. I got you -) 5. "Rus is not Russia" The name Russia is the Byzantine naming of Rus' - "Rosia" In 988, Rus' adopted Byzantine Orthodoxy. From that moment on, the names of the rulers, their titles and the name of the country gradually began to change in the Byzantine manner. Rus' was ruled by the Rurik dynasty. Then, the same dynasty ruled the Russian kingdom. At the beginning of the 17th century, the Rurik dynasty was replaced by the Romanov dynasty, which assumed all the Rurik titles. In 1721, Peter the Great renamed his title from “Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus'” to “Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia” And he renamed the name of the state from “Russian Kingdom” to “Russian Empire” The Russian Empire included the cities: Ladoga, Novgorod, Kyiv, Vladimir. All these cities are the capitals of Rus' and the Russian Kingdom. The Russian Empire is the direct successor of the Russian Kingdom. The Russian Kingdom is the direct successor of Rus'. Thus, Rus' and the history of Rus' are precisely Russia and its history.
@@reorioOrion - Primary Chronicle wasn't written for centuries, it was written in the 12th century and there are made up stories like Rurik, who existed only in this chronicle and didn't appear in the documents of another countries. - No one after legend about Rurik was called "Rurikid" in the Chronicle. And there were no ruler of Rus who was called Rurik, although names were very important in those days and there were many sons of rulers with names of their fathers and grandfathers like Sviatoslav, Yaroslav etc. - To say that Russia is Rus is like say that Romania (Transilvania) is Roman Empire. Or like say that English people are Romans, because part of Britain was under the rule of Roman Empire for a certain period of time. Kyivian Rus is Ukraine, another lands were inhabited by another tribes (also non-Slavic, who had different cultures) and they were just under the rule of Rus and paid tribute to Kyiv. In the 11-12th centuries they became more independent and formed their own states, and people from those lands didn't call themselves Rus.
@@one.girl...1 1. "Primary Chronicle wasn't written for centuries, it was written in the 12th century and there are made up stories like Rurik, who existed only in this chronicle and didn't appear in the documents of another countries." a) "Primary Russian Chronicle" was written on the basis of other documents, myths and chronicles that were written from the beginning of the 10th century. Nestor and the monks in Kyiv compiled these documents into a chronicle - thus creating the Primary Russian Chronicle. b) Rurik should not appear in the documents of other countries. Rurik is the founder of a dynasty and state on the lands of the Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes, which did not have a written language until the 9-10th century. There is not a word in the "Primary Russian Chronicle" that Rurik attacked Byzantium or other states. As well as the fact that he was in contact with them. So why should it be on their documents? Question: "Primary Russian Chronicle" begins with the words: "This is a story about where and how the Russian land arose" This is exactly a Russian chronicle. So why do you simply call it “Primary Chronicle”? 2. "No one after legend about Rurik was called "Rurikid" in the Chronicle. And there were no ruler of Rus who was called Rurik, although the names were very important in those days and there were many sons of rulers with names of their fathers and grandfathers like Sviatoslav, Yaroslav etc." a) None of the princes with the name Svyatoslav are named after their father. b) None of the princes with the name Yaroslav are named after their father. Only 1 - Yaroslav the 3rd is named after his grandfather Yaroslav the 2nd. c) After Rurik, there was a prince with the name of Rurik. Rurik Rostislavich. Prince of Novgorod and Grand Duke of Kiev (title meaning ruler of Rus') 1137-1215. 3. "To say that Russia is Rus is like say that Romania (Transilvania) is Roman Empire. Or like say that English people are Romans, because part of Britain was under the rule of Roman Empire for a certain period of time." Russia is Rus' not only because it occupies part of the territory of Rus'. Not only because it has the same name as Rus'. The Russian Empire is Rus' because it has direct dynastic, territorial, religious and power succession from Rus'. The Russian Empire was founded from the Russian Kingdom, which was founded from Rus'. The Russian Kingdom was Orthodox, like Rus' (after 988) The rulers of the Russian Kingdom belong to the Rurik dynasty. These are their direct heirs. The rulers of Rus', the Russian Kingdom and the Russian Empire were Russian princes. Since Rurik, the founder of the dynasty, was a Varangian from the Rus tribe. The rulers of the Russian Kingdom bore the title: "Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus'" The same title was borne by representatives of the Romanov dynasty, after the Rurik dynasty and before Peter the Great. The title "Grand Duke of All Rus'" was borne by the leaders of Rus'. This is all - direct inheritance of traditions, power, religion, title, territories, language, nationality, blood. 4. "Kyivian Rus is Ukraine, another lands were inhabited by another tribes (also non-Slavic, who had different cultures) and they were just under the rule of Rus and paid tribute to Kyiv. In the 11-12th centuries they became more independent and their own states formed, and people from those lands didn't call themselves Rus." a) “Kievan Rus” is a historical term coined by the Russian historian Solovyov in the 19th century. Such a state never existed. There was a state of Rus'. b) The name Ukraine as a state arose only in 1917. Neither the name nor the terminology contains the root “Rus”. The nationality of Ukraine is Ukrainians, not Russians. Ukraine is not Rus' and has nothing in common with it. This is directly indicated by its name and the name of its nationality. If Ukraine thought that its history was the history of Rus', it would be called Rus'.
YOUR video is using an outdated theory. Vikings were mainly R1b1, and then I1a male haplotypes and Slavs are mainly R1A1, but also I2A, and also Slavs are mixed with baltic peoples, who are mainly i2A, and Fino-Urgic peoples, which includes R1A1, i2a, and N1C (a gene from Siberia and China), although this is smaller admixture in these groups and people can have this and be blue eyeded and blond.. In fact the male line that founded the Rurik dynasty was N1C. Yes of coure there is some Mongol and Tatar blood in some Slavs too And in some cases Greek, and Roman and a small amount of German and Celtic. Slavic, Baltic and Fino-Ugric people i the north in Baltic sea had a similar lifestyle, but not exact same, to the Nordic Vikings which creates this ridiculous confusion
The Bulgarians in the south of the Viking Kingdom were very influenced by the Vikings. When someone important to them died, they would build a ship and put the dead person’s things in it, put the body of the important person and burn the ship in the river.
The names of the three brothers who founded the Rurik dynasty: Rurik. Sineus. Truvor. They were succeeded by Oleg. Oleg was succeeded by Igor. These are Slavic variants of Scandinavian names. It's already been proven I don’t know where you got your data from, but it contradicts banal logic.
Russia, Ukraine and Belarus should unite and become as powerful as they once were before. They share a millineum of history that should inspire and unite them as Slavic people to become mighty again. My perspective from a Caribbean history buff.
Couldn't agree more. They should. People should also stop stealing, killing, lying and fighting. And the weather should always be a nice and comfortable 24° Celsius, with only mild winds and light rain in the evenings to cool us down.
@@justmechilling... I respectfully disagree. Mother nature rules time and she decides what events to happened, what to recycle in time, and not us humans. Now, what I mentioned above may not happened in our lifetime, but who knows what the future holds in 100, 200 or 300 years from now. We never know what she has in store for our reality.
@@kurzeful no you can't the Ukraine already found their own identity then you can't go back, only I seeing could happen is also Belarus eventually want to be independent from Russia. What does nature has to do with borders created by humans
Wild finno-ugric tribes, which are predecessors of "russians", payed huge amount of money to Kyiv and increasing its welfare. They didn't know such thing as "russia" 😂
no, from the historical investigations, the word ‘Ukraine’ (Україна) derives from the word ‘країнаʼ, which means country. there’re plenty independent resources to check this. this term actually was first met in the XII century literature and has nothing to do with the russian version of history.
@@marianneb.7112 Mostly fighting, killing and trying to get one's flag to the top of the hill. The one who succeeds gets to write said history in whatever fashion they choose.
@@ivareskesner2019 That was true until the current time when the Anglo Americans brought us freedom, diversity, democracy, equal opportunity, civic discourse, transparency, truth, multilateralism, free trade and everything else good. Their wars are only to save us from evil dictators and restore democracy to all people of this earth. Hope you're grateful for them?! :)
