Is Rus the direct predecessor of Russia?

Dir

Nov 2015
1,957
Kyiv
- any citizen of Russia will answer you for that - Yes, of course! Оur Russia is the direct heir of Rus. The most of the citizens of other countries will give you a similar answer - if they are more or less familiar with the history of Russia.

Russia is a direct heir of Rus - this thesis over the centuries has acquired the features of a historical axiom

Is it truth? I propose to look at this thesis once more - as they say, c нашей нынешней колокольни - from the bell tower of today.

So, Rus was a medieval state in the east of Europe. After the invasion of the Mongols in 1240 this state ceases to exist.

And when did it appear? I mean - when the Rus appeared as a real state?

Russian history claims that the state of Rus emerged in the north-west of present-day Russia, in the area of ​​Lake Ilmen in 9 century. The first ruler was Rurik, and he reigned in Novgorod in that time. Rurik was a Varangian, that is, a Viking. According to the traditional Russian version soon after the death of Rurik his descendants moved the capital of Rus to Kiev. 1000 km to the south.

Is it so? The problem is that Novgorod in the 9th century did not yet exist.

Russian archaeologists dug Novgorod along and across. And in the layers of the 9th century nothing was found except clay and mud.

Novgorod was a city built by the middle of the 10th century. This was at one time spoken by the chief archaeologist of Novgorod Academician Yanin. He has been digging there for more than 50 years.

And what was in those parts? In the 9th century in 4 kilometers from Novgorod was the Varangian settlement. Historians call it now the Rurik Fortification or Rurik Settlement. Рюриково Городище.

And the same Yanin argues that Novgorod did not have a direct genetic connection with either the settlement or the Old Ladoga. New cities were built by local tribes - Slovenes and Finno-Ugric Сhud - that is, early Estonians and Karelians. And the Varangian settlements lived on their own in that area. Moreover - the Russian archaeologist Nosov, who has long been excavating Rurik settlement, found there characteristic Varangian ring-shaped pins.

http://archnov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Nosov-2004.pdf

They were found in Old Ladoga and in another famous Varangian settlement - on the Dnieper - Gnezdovo. It is 10 miles from Smolensk.

But in Novgorod not one such artifact was found

Moreover, the Novgorodians never called themselves Rus. And in Ruska Pravda, written in Kiev for Novgorod, the Novgorod Slovenin is contrasted with Rusyn, a resident of Rus from the Kievan territories.

Moreover - if you localize Russia according to the Tale of Bygone Years (Повесть Временных Лет) then find out that Rus in the annals is a small area a bit larger than the Kiev oblast (nowadays region_. It included Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslav - a city 100 km south of Kiev. Novgorod in TBY was opposed to Rus as well as the Zalesye. That is, the Volga-Oka interfluve where eventually the Russian ethnos will be formed in 12c. Russians sometimes call this region the Cradle of Russia.

Why did the Varangians badly gain a foothold in Ilmen region and in the mass went south? Because Varangians Askold and Dir found in the Middle Dnieper Basin - in the Kiev region - rich and densely populated lands. The Bavarian Geographer of the 9th century lists several Slavic tribes on the territory of today's Ukraine - Volynians, Drevlyans, Ulichi - and indicates the number of cities they have - several hundred of towns for each of these people.

He probably mentions the tribe Rus - Ruzzi. But the number of their towns he does not indicate. Apparently he did not have reliable information on this matter.

Nestor calls Rus Varangians. Is it correct? I'm not sure.

The Vikings did not call themselves Rus in their sagas and other documents. They called themselves Rus when they arrived in Constantinople in the 9th century from Kiev. Maybe they meant that they came from Rus?

Nestor says that Kiev stood in the land of Polyany. But at that time there was another tribe with this name - Polans (Polyany). In the Vistula basin in Poland. And this ethnonym turned into Poles (Polacy) and there is no need to doubt its reliability. And as for the Dnieper glades - except for Nestor, no one for some reason did not mention them at that time.

For historians hydronyms - I mean the names of local rivers - are an important determinant of early ethnicity in a given region. So - south of Kiev in the Pereyaslav area - one of the three major cities of Rus - there were 4 small rivers with the root Ros. Let me remind you that in the annals Rus was often written as Rous - Роусь. These are the rivers Ros, Rosava, Rostava, Rosavitsa. They exist now, too under the same names. And this is the land of Polans in Nestor version. So maybe the his Polans were really called themselves as Rus in 9-10cc?

Nestor lived a hundred years after the Polans had ceased to be a tribe. Three Slavic tribes of the 6 Slavic tribes who lived on the territory of Ukraine somewhere in the 10th century were mentioned as the people of Rus. The title ethnos of the eponymous state of Rus.

By the way, the region of early Rus is located on the eastern part of so-called pre-Slavic territory. Hence, according to archeologists and geneticists, the earlies Slavs began to settle on other edges.

And what happened at this time in the north in 1000 miles from Kiev?

There lived a Slavic tribe of Slovenes there. Or rather, two tribe - Slavic Slovene and Finno-Ugrians - Chud. According to the latest data the Slovenes had a close relationship with the Poles and was a product of mixing of newcomers from Poland with local finno-ugric Chud (it was a Slavic name for the tribe) of the territory near Ilmen lake. Latter mixture of Slovenians and Chud was called Novgorodians. They seemed to became Slavic speakers.

Some Russian historians now singled out the Novgorodians as a separate East Slavic people.

Novgorod in the 10-11 century was under the rule of Rus and paid tribute to Kiev. There the Grand Duke of Kiev sent one of his sons in the role of governor.

And in the 12th century Novgorod separated from the power of Rus and became a Novgorod Republic.

Were the Novgorodians early Russians? I really doubt. They did not look like medieval Russians at all -



It is obvious that the early Russian ethnos formed somewhere in the 12th century not there, but much more to the east. In Zalesye, in the Volga-Oka interfluve on the Rostov-Suzdal lands.

Why only in the 12th century? Because before the 11th century there were practically no Slavs in that region - it was the area of ​​the Finno-Ugric tribes - Merya, Muroma, Meshchera, Erzya and Moksha. A large archaeological expedition of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the 2000s stated the earliest Slavic artifacts in that region with dating not earlier than the end of the 10th century. And the Slavonicity of those artifacts is very controversial. But this is a separate topic

Traditional Russian historiography describes the powerful waves of Slavic settlers in those lands in the 10th-13th century.

And local Finno-Ugrians count as extremely small tribes. Is it so? We know that before that some of the Ugres migrated to the south, and then to the west from Ural region. And conquered the territory of Hungary, and turned into Finno-Ugric the local inhabitants. Obviously the Finno-Ugrians of Russia were neither small nor weak tribes. Moreover, they were not only hunters and pastoralists, but also farmers in early Zalesye!

It was a real sensation when a large archaeological expedition of the Russian Academy of Sciences, under the leadership of the chief academician of Russia Makarov, began to dig for the first time the rural settlements of Zalesye and found out that.

Earlier, archaeologists dug out there only the cities and townlets that Rus placed in those parts of Russia since the 11th century. And this expedition found out that long before the appearance of the Slavs there - no later than the 7th century the local Finno-Ugrians had already mastered agriculture and actively maintained its slash form.

The fact is that the Finno-Ugrians of the Urals from where they migrated in the first millennium, were skilled metallurgists. Bronze they mastered a long time ago. And from the beginning of the first millennium iron was already smelted and processed by them. In the Urals there were some kind of metallurgical complexes of local these Finno-Ugrians. And their iron products were dispersed in a huge district up to the Baltics.

Steel, what they did gave not only first-class weapons, but also fine steel axes. And they allowed to conduct effective slash farming. Thus, the Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia in the 1st millennium were very advanced technologically tribes - so this made their expansion to the south-west successful

And now the word for genetics. Leading Russian geneticists Oleg and Elena Balanovskiy studied in detail the Russian gene pool in the Russian Plain. That is in primordially-Russian edges. And they came to the conclusion that in its central part - where the Russians were formed as an ethnos - the role in the genesis of autochthonous Finno-Ugrians was very weighty and even decisive

It remains to add that slash farming in the early years gave a huge harvest - once in 20-30 higher than when plowing agriculture.

And since there was a lot of forests in the Zalesye, the Finno-Ugrians having engaged in farming no later than the 7th century AD , received rich bread to multiply as a local people

Was there a massive Slav migration from Rus to the Zalesye in the 10th and 12th centuries, as Russia is trying to prove to us?

It was not and could not be.

First, 1,000 km for the migration of sedentary farmers is a very long distance. Secondly, slash farming yields the first harvest only after 5-6 years from the start.

The earlier the long-term resettlers could be fed is not clear. Mereover that they met a strong local competitors.

Probably, the slash peasants migrated very slowly - no more than 1 kilometer per year, cutting the forest farther and farther from their huts - and then moving to the very nearest district to where there was a thick forest. The path from Rus to Zalesye was very long and difficult. First - almost 1000 kilometers along the Dnieper to the north. They had to row against the current. Then - on the Valdai heights to the Volga. There in Valdai the Dnieper and the Volga have their origins. And further down the Volga to the Zalessky region. Was there such a long river route suitable for the mass of rural migrants?

I do not think so. Moreover, the climate there was more severe, and the soil is incomparably poorer than in Rus. A number of Russian historians agree that before the 12th century there was no direct road - дорога прямоезжая - from Rus to Zalesye at all. Zalesye separated from Rus impassable Bryansk forests, inhabited by aggressive and hostile to Rus Vyatichi

The so-called straight road was cut through only by Andrei Bogolyubsky closer to the middle of the 12th century.

And on it immediately went not crowds of peasants from Rus to Zalesye , and the Zalesye at the behest of his knyaz Andrei Bogolyubsky sent its troops to burn and cut the capital of Rus Kiev. By that time the formal power of Rus over the Zalesye region ends and more than 5 centuries the future Russia lives its own life. Or the life of the Horde under which Russia stayed almost three hundred years.

Some part of Rus - its peasants and townspeople - really migrated from Kiev region in the 11-12th century under the pressure of the nomads of the southern steppes. But not to the very distant Zalesye territories - but to the neighboring Galicia-Volyn principality. Where at that time already lived the same Rus, where there were rich lands with fertile soils and where there was not at that time the onslaught of nomads. It remains to add that even in the 17th century the people of Galicia and Volhynia still called themselves by etnonym Rus.

And later they called themselves Rusiny - the Ruthenians. This was the name of a single representative of Rus in the Primary Chronicle since 10c. Rus as a country and its ethnos - and Rusyn as a single representative of Rus. I can add that in 18-19 cc most of Ukrainians called themselves Rusins. Русины. Now that ethnonym lives just in most Western part of Ukriane - in Transcarpathia where the Russians, similar in name, came later only in 1944, and did not stay long.

After that, the whole classical version of early Russian history began to creep right before my eyes.

There was no mass migration of Slavs from Russia in the Zalesye in the 9-13th century. There was not and could not be. And why there was a rapid population growth? Because the local Finno-Ugrians produced a lot of bread. And there was no external threat there until Batu which prevented them from multiplying and multiplying.

In Eastern Europe apart from other tribes and peoples there were two large people - Rus from the 10th century on the territory of Ukraine on the Middle Dnieper - and Russians from the 12th century in the interfluve of the Oka and the Volga. Two separate people. And Russia's attempts to treat them as a single Old Russian people do not correspond to real circumstances and facts.

Zalesye, or rather, its major part that was called Opolye by the 12th century became a densely populated rural area with many peasants - and a poor and weak urban culture. Its inhabitants will ruin and burn the capital of Rus Kiev in 1169 - and at the same time begin a fierce confrontation with Novgorod. In the 16th century Muscovy will arrange in Novgorod a real genocide. And the genetics Balanowski can not practically find traces of the former Novgorodians in that city and in its district. Why this happened is also a separate issue

How did the ethnic process pick out where ethnos Russians was formed in the main features in the 12th century? I think it was somewhat similar to the ethnogenesis of Mexicans

Both there and there - an external colonizer. In Mexico - Spain, in Zalesie - Rus that came from Kiev. Both there and there the population was made up of autochthonous tribes and peoples ethnically far from the colonialists. In Mexico - the Indians, in the Zalesye - Finno-Ugrians.

Both here and there, under the influence of colonial power, the local population gradually switched to the language of the occupiers. In Mexico - to Spanish, in Zalesie - to the spoken language of Rus (you can safely call it the early Ukrainian language))) as a colloquial - and a written Church Slavic. THat Koine is based on the old Bulgarian language.

It was not only language and religion that bore the Zalesye with Rus. There was a direct link at the elite level - and in Rus and in Zalesye the princes were Rurikovichi. On this story about whether Rus was a kind of early Russia, you can finish. Was not.

A century and a half for the early Russia in the area of ​​Rus - with very problematic communications with it and alien Finno-Ugric autochthons was greatly hampered by the deep ethno-cultural assimilation of local tribes with the newly arrived Slavs.

It did not happen. As a result, we have three separate countries and three different people - Russia, Ukraine and Belarus at the moment. No miracle.

Ukrainians are descendants of settled Slavic tribes of the 7th and 9th centuries who lived on the territory of Ukraine. Belarusians are the product of the mixture of the Slavs with the local Balts. The Russians are initially the cultural influence of the newly arrived Slavs on autochthonous Finno-Ugric peoples. And then - Russians as a mix for 150 autochthonous non-Slavic peoples of Russia - and the mixing is still in process.

This is if we describe these processes in general terms. At the same time, at the heart of the evidence of this version I mainly used the works of Russian historians, ethnographers, anthropologists and geneticists. And, of course, the impressions of my life for 5 years in the Russian outback
 

ameteurhistorian

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
2,512
USA
The Rus' state is the direct ancestor to all East Slavic peoples: Ukranians, Rusyans, Russians, and Belorussians. While Novgorod didn't functionally exist until the 10th century, the true start of the Russian state was in Moscow, which was inherited/founded by the Rurikid Prince Daniel.
 

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,333
Dhaka
- any citizen of Russia will answer you for that - Yes, of course! Оur Russia is the direct heir of Rus. The most of the citizens of other countries will give you a similar answer - if they are more or less familiar with the history of Russia.

Russia is a direct heir of Rus - this thesis over the centuries has acquired the features of a historical axiom

Is it truth? I propose to look at this thesis once more - as they say, c нашей нынешней колокольни - from the bell tower of today.

So, Rus was a medieval state in the east of Europe. After the invasion of the Mongols in 1240 this state ceases to exist.

And when did it appear? I mean - when the Rus appeared as a real state?

Russian history claims that the state of Rus emerged in the north-west of present-day Russia, in the area of ​​Lake Ilmen in 9 century. The first ruler was Rurik, and he reigned in Novgorod in that time. Rurik was a Varangian, that is, a Viking. According to the traditional Russian version soon after the death of Rurik his descendants moved the capital of Rus to Kiev. 1000 km to the south.

Is it so? The problem is that Novgorod in the 9th century did not yet exist.

Russian archaeologists dug Novgorod along and across. And in the layers of the 9th century nothing was found except clay and mud.

Novgorod was a city built by the middle of the 10th century. This was at one time spoken by the chief archaeologist of Novgorod Academician Yanin. He has been digging there for more than 50 years.

And what was in those parts? In the 9th century in 4 kilometers from Novgorod was the Varangian settlement. Historians call it now the Rurik Fortification or Rurik Settlement. Рюриково Городище.

And the same Yanin argues that Novgorod did not have a direct genetic connection with either the settlement or the Old Ladoga. New cities were built by local tribes - Slovenes and Finno-Ugric Сhud - that is, early Estonians and Karelians. And the Varangian settlements lived on their own in that area. Moreover - the Russian archaeologist Nosov, who has long been excavating Rurik settlement, found there characteristic Varangian ring-shaped pins.

http://archnov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Nosov-2004.pdf

They were found in Old Ladoga and in another famous Varangian settlement - on the Dnieper - Gnezdovo. It is 10 miles from Smolensk.

But in Novgorod not one such artifact was found

Moreover, the Novgorodians never called themselves Rus. And in Ruska Pravda, written in Kiev for Novgorod, the Novgorod Slovenin is contrasted with Rusyn, a resident of Rus from the Kievan territories.

Moreover - if you localize Russia according to the Tale of Bygone Years (Повесть Временных Лет) then find out that Rus in the annals is a small area a bit larger than the Kiev oblast (nowadays region_. It included Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslav - a city 100 km south of Kiev. Novgorod in TBY was opposed to Rus as well as the Zalesye. That is, the Volga-Oka interfluve where eventually the Russian ethnos will be formed in 12c. Russians sometimes call this region the Cradle of Russia.

Why did the Varangians badly gain a foothold in Ilmen region and in the mass went south? Because Varangians Askold and Dir found in the Middle Dnieper Basin - in the Kiev region - rich and densely populated lands. The Bavarian Geographer of the 9th century lists several Slavic tribes on the territory of today's Ukraine - Volynians, Drevlyans, Ulichi - and indicates the number of cities they have - several hundred of towns for each of these people.

He probably mentions the tribe Rus - Ruzzi. But the number of their towns he does not indicate. Apparently he did not have reliable information on this matter.

Nestor calls Rus Varangians. Is it correct? I'm not sure.

The Vikings did not call themselves Rus in their sagas and other documents. They called themselves Rus when they arrived in Constantinople in the 9th century from Kiev. Maybe they meant that they came from Rus?

Nestor says that Kiev stood in the land of Polyany. But at that time there was another tribe with this name - Polans (Polyany). In the Vistula basin in Poland. And this ethnonym turned into Poles (Polacy) and there is no need to doubt its reliability. And as for the Dnieper glades - except for Nestor, no one for some reason did not mention them at that time.

For historians hydronyms - I mean the names of local rivers - are an important determinant of early ethnicity in a given region. So - south of Kiev in the Pereyaslav area - one of the three major cities of Rus - there were 4 small rivers with the root Ros. Let me remind you that in the annals Rus was often written as Rous - Роусь. These are the rivers Ros, Rosava, Rostava, Rosavitsa. They exist now, too under the same names. And this is the land of Polans in Nestor version. So maybe the his Polans were really called themselves as Rus in 9-10cc?

Nestor lived a hundred years after the Polans had ceased to be a tribe. Three Slavic tribes of the 6 Slavic tribes who lived on the territory of Ukraine somewhere in the 10th century were mentioned as the people of Rus. The title ethnos of the eponymous state of Rus.

By the way, the region of early Rus is located on the eastern part of so-called pre-Slavic territory. Hence, according to archeologists and geneticists, the earlies Slavs began to settle on other edges.

And what happened at this time in the north in 1000 miles from Kiev?

There lived a Slavic tribe of Slovenes there. Or rather, two tribe - Slavic Slovene and Finno-Ugrians - Chud. According to the latest data the Slovenes had a close relationship with the Poles and was a product of mixing of newcomers from Poland with local finno-ugric Chud (it was a Slavic name for the tribe) of the territory near Ilmen lake. Latter mixture of Slovenians and Chud was called Novgorodians. They seemed to became Slavic speakers.

Some Russian historians now singled out the Novgorodians as a separate East Slavic people.

Novgorod in the 10-11 century was under the rule of Rus and paid tribute to Kiev. There the Grand Duke of Kiev sent one of his sons in the role of governor.

And in the 12th century Novgorod separated from the power of Rus and became a Novgorod Republic.

Were the Novgorodians early Russians? I really doubt. They did not look like medieval Russians at all -



It is obvious that the early Russian ethnos formed somewhere in the 12th century not there, but much more to the east. In Zalesye, in the Volga-Oka interfluve on the Rostov-Suzdal lands.

Why only in the 12th century? Because before the 11th century there were practically no Slavs in that region - it was the area of ​​the Finno-Ugric tribes - Merya, Muroma, Meshchera, Erzya and Moksha. A large archaeological expedition of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the 2000s stated the earliest Slavic artifacts in that region with dating not earlier than the end of the 10th century. And the Slavonicity of those artifacts is very controversial. But this is a separate topic

Traditional Russian historiography describes the powerful waves of Slavic settlers in those lands in the 10th-13th century.

And local Finno-Ugrians count as extremely small tribes. Is it so? We know that before that some of the Ugres migrated to the south, and then to the west from Ural region. And conquered the territory of Hungary, and turned into Finno-Ugric the local inhabitants. Obviously the Finno-Ugrians of Russia were neither small nor weak tribes. Moreover, they were not only hunters and pastoralists, but also farmers in early Zalesye!

It was a real sensation when a large archaeological expedition of the Russian Academy of Sciences, under the leadership of the chief academician of Russia Makarov, began to dig for the first time the rural settlements of Zalesye and found out that.

Earlier, archaeologists dug out there only the cities and townlets that Rus placed in those parts of Russia since the 11th century. And this expedition found out that long before the appearance of the Slavs there - no later than the 7th century the local Finno-Ugrians had already mastered agriculture and actively maintained its slash form.

The fact is that the Finno-Ugrians of the Urals from where they migrated in the first millennium, were skilled metallurgists. Bronze they mastered a long time ago. And from the beginning of the first millennium iron was already smelted and processed by them. In the Urals there were some kind of metallurgical complexes of local these Finno-Ugrians. And their iron products were dispersed in a huge district up to the Baltics.

Steel, what they did gave not only first-class weapons, but also fine steel axes. And they allowed to conduct effective slash farming. Thus, the Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia in the 1st millennium were very advanced technologically tribes - so this made their expansion to the south-west successful

And now the word for genetics. Leading Russian geneticists Oleg and Elena Balanovskiy studied in detail the Russian gene pool in the Russian Plain. That is in primordially-Russian edges. And they came to the conclusion that in its central part - where the Russians were formed as an ethnos - the role in the genesis of autochthonous Finno-Ugrians was very weighty and even decisive

It remains to add that slash farming in the early years gave a huge harvest - once in 20-30 higher than when plowing agriculture.

And since there was a lot of forests in the Zalesye, the Finno-Ugrians having engaged in farming no later than the 7th century AD , received rich bread to multiply as a local people

Was there a massive Slav migration from Rus to the Zalesye in the 10th and 12th centuries, as Russia is trying to prove to us?

It was not and could not be.

First, 1,000 km for the migration of sedentary farmers is a very long distance. Secondly, slash farming yields the first harvest only after 5-6 years from the start.

The earlier the long-term resettlers could be fed is not clear. Mereover that they met a strong local competitors.

Probably, the slash peasants migrated very slowly - no more than 1 kilometer per year, cutting the forest farther and farther from their huts - and then moving to the very nearest district to where there was a thick forest. The path from Rus to Zalesye was very long and difficult. First - almost 1000 kilometers along the Dnieper to the north. They had to row against the current. Then - on the Valdai heights to the Volga. There in Valdai the Dnieper and the Volga have their origins. And further down the Volga to the Zalessky region. Was there such a long river route suitable for the mass of rural migrants?

I do not think so. Moreover, the climate there was more severe, and the soil is incomparably poorer than in Rus. A number of Russian historians agree that before the 12th century there was no direct road - дорога прямоезжая - from Rus to Zalesye at all. Zalesye separated from Rus impassable Bryansk forests, inhabited by aggressive and hostile to Rus Vyatichi

The so-called straight road was cut through only by Andrei Bogolyubsky closer to the middle of the 12th century.

And on it immediately went not crowds of peasants from Rus to Zalesye , and the Zalesye at the behest of his knyaz Andrei Bogolyubsky sent its troops to burn and cut the capital of Rus Kiev. By that time the formal power of Rus over the Zalesye region ends and more than 5 centuries the future Russia lives its own life. Or the life of the Horde under which Russia stayed almost three hundred years.

Some part of Rus - its peasants and townspeople - really migrated from Kiev region in the 11-12th century under the pressure of the nomads of the southern steppes. But not to the very distant Zalesye territories - but to the neighboring Galicia-Volyn principality. Where at that time already lived the same Rus, where there were rich lands with fertile soils and where there was not at that time the onslaught of nomads. It remains to add that even in the 17th century the people of Galicia and Volhynia still called themselves by etnonym Rus.

And later they called themselves Rusiny - the Ruthenians. This was the name of a single representative of Rus in the Primary Chronicle since 10c. Rus as a country and its ethnos - and Rusyn as a single representative of Rus. I can add that in 18-19 cc most of Ukrainians called themselves Rusins. Русины. Now that ethnonym lives just in most Western part of Ukriane - in Transcarpathia where the Russians, similar in name, came later only in 1944, and did not stay long.

After that, the whole classical version of early Russian history began to creep right before my eyes.

There was no mass migration of Slavs from Russia in the Zalesye in the 9-13th century. There was not and could not be. And why there was a rapid population growth? Because the local Finno-Ugrians produced a lot of bread. And there was no external threat there until Batu which prevented them from multiplying and multiplying.

In Eastern Europe apart from other tribes and peoples there were two large people - Rus from the 10th century on the territory of Ukraine on the Middle Dnieper - and Russians from the 12th century in the interfluve of the Oka and the Volga. Two separate people. And Russia's attempts to treat them as a single Old Russian people do not correspond to real circumstances and facts.

Zalesye, or rather, its major part that was called Opolye by the 12th century became a densely populated rural area with many peasants - and a poor and weak urban culture. Its inhabitants will ruin and burn the capital of Rus Kiev in 1169 - and at the same time begin a fierce confrontation with Novgorod. In the 16th century Muscovy will arrange in Novgorod a real genocide. And the genetics Balanowski can not practically find traces of the former Novgorodians in that city and in its district. Why this happened is also a separate issue

How did the ethnic process pick out where ethnos Russians was formed in the main features in the 12th century? I think it was somewhat similar to the ethnogenesis of Mexicans

Both there and there - an external colonizer. In Mexico - Spain, in Zalesie - Rus that came from Kiev. Both there and there the population was made up of autochthonous tribes and peoples ethnically far from the colonialists. In Mexico - the Indians, in the Zalesye - Finno-Ugrians.

Both here and there, under the influence of colonial power, the local population gradually switched to the language of the occupiers. In Mexico - to Spanish, in Zalesie - to the spoken language of Rus (you can safely call it the early Ukrainian language))) as a colloquial - and a written Church Slavic. THat Koine is based on the old Bulgarian language.

It was not only language and religion that bore the Zalesye with Rus. There was a direct link at the elite level - and in Rus and in Zalesye the princes were Rurikovichi. On this story about whether Rus was a kind of early Russia, you can finish. Was not.

A century and a half for the early Russia in the area of ​​Rus - with very problematic communications with it and alien Finno-Ugric autochthons was greatly hampered by the deep ethno-cultural assimilation of local tribes with the newly arrived Slavs.

It did not happen. As a result, we have three separate countries and three different people - Russia, Ukraine and Belarus at the moment. No miracle.

Ukrainians are descendants of settled Slavic tribes of the 7th and 9th centuries who lived on the territory of Ukraine. Belarusians are the product of the mixture of the Slavs with the local Balts. The Russians are initially the cultural influence of the newly arrived Slavs on autochthonous Finno-Ugric peoples. And then - Russians as a mix for 150 autochthonous non-Slavic peoples of Russia - and the mixing is still in process.

This is if we describe these processes in general terms. At the same time, at the heart of the evidence of this version I mainly used the works of Russian historians, ethnographers, anthropologists and geneticists. And, of course, the impressions of my life for 5 years in the Russian outback
Too much information to process in one go, especially for someone who is unfamiliar with Russian history.

So, in your opinion, Rus is not the direct predecessor of Russia, but predecessor of Ukraine?
 

Dir

Nov 2015
1,957
Kyiv
Too much information to process in one go, especially for someone who is unfamiliar with Russian history.
This topic is quite complicated and I could not describe it with a more concise text. At the same time the theme of succession from Rus is very important for ideology, politics, external expansion and everything else in Russia. And since I see in it very weak links, I would not like not to outline my vision of this topic.

So, in your opinion, Rus is not the direct predecessor of Russia, but predecessor of Ukraine?
- Not certainly in that way. I think that Rus was the first Ukrainian state.

What can be designated as the metropolis of Rus was on the territory of Ukraine. Heir of Rus became the Galicia-Volyn principality. But its story after 1240 was not very long. A number of standards of Rus, the territory of its metropolis and its population in the 14th century was inherited by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Zhemojt. On it the direct continuity from Russia ends. In the Moscow statehood and its standards I see a very weak connection with Rus. Rather, the Moscow tzardom was the antipode of Rus. The population of the interfluve of Oka and Volga river- Zalesye - in the times of Rus state was never called the ethnonym Rus.
 
Last edited:

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,741
Nestor calls Rus Varangians. Is it correct? I'm not sure.

The Vikings did not call themselves Rus in their sagas and other documents. They called themselves Rus when they arrived in Constantinople in the 9th century from Kiev. Maybe they meant that they came from Rus?
Identification, which like with everything about these kinds of etymologies is far from definite (can't be really, only some kinds of consensus might be possible), of the Norse as "Rus" is rather based on the "Ros", i.e. the inhabitants of the archipelago in central Sweden, and "Roslagen" the easternmost of the three provinces from which the kings of the Svear raised their "ledung" of ships and men.

Etymologically "Rolagen" is derived from "Roþrslandi", the Land of Rowers, the Ros. It actually still survives in the etymology of the Finnish word for Sweden, "Ruotsi", and Swedes, "Routsalainen", which indicates that "Ros" was a fairly widespread general descriptor for Norsemen from the western side of the Baltic as they moved eastwards. It's akin to how somewhat later all Western Europeans in the Crusades in the Holy Land were referred to as "Franks". Or later in the Middle Ages it was common to refer to Germans pushing eastwards as "Saxons", regardless if they hailed from Saxony or not.

As for the "Varangoi/Varyag/Varangian" that's based on the Norse "Väring", which has an unclear etymology but seems derived from the old Norse word "vár", roughly loyalty, used for men who had taken an oath of loyalty to some warlord. The Byzantines formed the Τάγμα των Βαραγγίων, Tagma ton Varangion, the Varangian Guard on that basis

As for the old chestnut whether Scandinavians "ruled" the lands of the Slavs, Ugrians, et alia, I've seen all kinds of stated versions. Soviet historiography tended to deny or minimize any potential Norse presence. It's clearly still debated, and highly charged. The solution to be seen in the Hermitage in St Petersburg fx refers to the clearly Norse artifacts found as belonging to a "retainer culture", i.e. retainers to Slavic princes who employed Norse warriors, i.e. not at all a matter of the Norse ruling anyone.

I suspect the reality might have been both at the same time. The Norse clearly did set up settlements, so on occasion they would have ruled regions from there, and they did operate a trade network along on the inland waterways all the way to Constantinopolis and Baghdad , or otherwise the archaeological finds in Scandinavia that confirms this simply wouldn't be there. But since the Norse primarily were operating that vast trading operation, stretching from the North Atlantic to the Middle East, the whole business of ruling lands would have been secondary anyway. It seems more than probable that occasionally they did, here and there, from time to time, but it's not as if there was some kind of vast "Viking kingdom" of the east or anything. Probably wouldn't have made sense to the Norse as a concept even.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2014
1,094
Rus
Main successor of Kievan Rus was Lithuanian Principality. Vladimirs Principality (direct predecessor of Russia) was lateral branch. Ukrainian root appeared even later.

Later Russia,Poland and Ukraine (last was under other name then) destroyed and ate Lithuanian Principality.
 

ameteurhistorian

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
2,512
USA
Main successor of Kievan Rus was Lithuanian Principality. Vladimirs Principality (direct predecessor of Russia) was lateral branch. Ukrainian root appeared even later.

Later Russia,Poland and Ukraine (last was under other name then) destroyed and ate Lithuanian Principality.
I think it was Galicia–Volhynia?

Either way, it sounds like the OP's main premise is that Russians aren't direct descendants of the Rus is because of heavy intermingling with non-Slavs living around and near Novgorod and Moscow, as if that's never happened before in the hundreds of years Eastern Slavs have been living in the area. The degree can vary and it can be debated, but pretty much all Eastern Slavic states have some legacy or heredity with Kievan Rus. There's just too much history and commonalities between them.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,521
Las Vegas, NV USA
I always thought the modern Russian state formed around Moscow which was on the boundary of the Khanate of the Golden Horde. As Mongol power declined "Muscovy" expanded to include neighboring city states. It underwent significant expansion under Ivan III (reigned 1462-1505) to become the direct forerunner of the Russian Empire.


The light green is the territory added by Ivan III (Wikipedia)
 
Last edited:

ameteurhistorian

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
2,512
USA
I always thought the modern Russian state formed around Moscow which was on the boundary of the Khanate of the Golden Horde. As Mongol power declined "Muscovy" expanded to include neighboring city states. It underwent significant expansion under Ivan III to become the direct forerunner of the Russian Empire.
It did. Moscow is first mentioned as a small town on the border of Vladimir-Suzdal, a part of Kievan Rus established later in the state's history that would later break off to be it's own independent state, a status that would be protected under the Golden Horde. In a series of events, Moscow would eventually the only real claimant to the Grand Principality and by extension, the entirety of Kievan Rus which would push for Muscovy's rapid wars and expansion east and southwards.

Novogorod was important up until that point, but after Ivan III essentially sacked the place and terminated its republican government, it functionally ceased as a major cultural or economic center for the Russian state.
 
Jun 2017
2,967
Connecticut
I think the best way to see this is to view Russia similar to Germany. The Rus started off quite centralized like the HRE, power became decentralized over time into a bunch of major states with a few major ones competing for power. The Kiev title became more and more symbolic similar to the Holy Roman Emperor's title. Eventually one duchy(Muscovy) became pre eminent and unified many of them again. Muscovy then became Russia and the Duke of Moscow became the Tsar hence why Moscow is the capital of Russia similar to Berlin being the capital of Germany because it was part of Brandenburg.

Ignored the Mongol thing for simplicity's sake. So yes, yes it is.