A History of Medieval Russia - Page 18 - Historum

Rozh · May 30th, 2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RollingWave

Or rather, they emerged from the ashes of the Khazaria empire a different civilziation than either the Vikings or Pre-Rus Slavs / Finno-Ugric anyway. including most noticablly the adoptation of (orthodox) Christianity.

In the span of 3 generation, from Sviatoslav I -> Vladimir the Great -> Yaroslav the wise, the situation of the Rus changed at an amazing pace, when Sviatoslav I came to power, they were still basically the Rus Khaganate, still predominantly pagan, and still a vassal of Khazaria, however by the end of the Yaroslav, the kievan Rus principalities were firmly established, they were firmly christian, and they had along the way just happen to destroy the two great political entity borderin them at the time (Khazar Khaganate and the first Bulgarian Empire) .

The connection between my post and your reply is rather vague to say the least. At any rate, Rus' certainly did not rise from the ashes of Khazaria and such a statement is preposterous. Furthermore, while some Slavic tribes payed tribute to Khazaria, Rus' never did so. And lastly, while the christianization of Rus' certainly was a liturgical revolution (and a cultural reformation) it was not a political revolution — Rus' remained Rus'.

**Belloc** · May 30th, 2012, 06:05 PM

Well a greater sense of political unity and centralization of power did occur as a result of Christianization, so there were political implications for the Rus'.

Rozh · May 30th, 2012, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belloc

Well a greater sense of political unity and centralization of power did occur as a result of Christianization, so there were political implications for the Rus'.

Of course, there were political implications, I never claimed there weren't. However, like before its christianization in 988, Rus' remained the same political entity, still run by the Rurikid princes and their druzhinas under the system of kormlenie and still populated by its same Slavic and Finno-Ugric population. In other words, christianized Rus' was politically not the radically different state like the poster that replied to me implied it was.

**Belloc** · May 30th, 2012, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rozh

Of course, there were political implications, I never claimed there weren't. However, like before its christianization in 988, Rus' remained the same political entity, still run by the Rurikid princes and their druzhinas under the system of kormlenie and still populated by its same Slavic and Finno-Ugric population. In other words, christianized Rus' was politically not the radically different state like the poster that replied to me implied it was.

Ahhhh I see.

RollingWave · May 31st, 2012, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rozh

The connection between my post and your reply is rather vague to say the least. At any rate, Rus' certainly did not rise from the ashes of Khazaria and such a statement is preposterous. Furthermore, while some Slavic tribes payed tribute to Khazaria, Rus' never did so. And lastly, while the christianization of Rus' certainly was a liturgical revolution (and a cultural reformation) it was not a political revolution — Rus' remained Rus'.

The documentation of the early Rus is limited, but there's plenty of reasons to believe that the Rus Khangante's relationship with the Khazars were close to that of a vassalage, or at least a sattelite state (that they used the term Khangante itself should say much), for one thing, the Rus's trade relied heavily on passing over Khazar lands, especially the Don / Volga portage, which meant they were almost surely one of the largest contributor to the Khazar's tilth income. And there were at least some evidence that Khazars had a degree of ability to direct Rus raids in the direction of their choosing, at least until the Rus outgrew and eventually destroyed them.

Challenging Traditional Views of Russian History - S. G. Wheatcroft - Google

**arras** · May 31st, 2012, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RollingWave

The documentation of the early Rus is limited, but there's plenty of reasons to believe that the Rus Khangante's relationship with the Khazars were close to that of a vassalage, or at least a sattelite state (that they used the term Khangante itself should say much),

They also called their rulers Caesar (Czar). that does not mean they were vassals or Roman Empire.

Rozh · May 31st, 2012, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RollingWave

The documentation of the early Rus is limited, but there's plenty of reasons to believe that the Rus Khangante's relationship with the Khazars were close to that of a vassalage, or at least a sattelite state (that they used the term Khangante itself should say much), for one thing, the Rus's trade relied heavily on passing over Khazar lands, especially the Don / Volga portage, which meant they were almost surely one of the largest contributor to the Khazar's tilth income. And there were at least some evidence that Khazars had a degree of ability to direct Rus raids in the direction of their choosing, at least until the Rus outgrew and eventually destroyed them.

Challenging Traditional Views of Russian History - S. G. Wheatcroft - Google

You have no basis to your claims of Khazar suzerainty over Rus' (just because it's theorized about in some obscure book doesn't make it true). The fact that Rus' payed toll when passing Khazar controlled lands is a wholly different matter than tribute and has nothing to do with political suzerainty. Similarly, just because Sweden took out toll on the Russian trade passing through the Baltics in the the 17th century doesn't mean that Muscovy was a subordinate state to Sweden.