Is Rus the direct predecessor of Russia?

Dec 2017
606
-------
Dir!

You wrote a lengthy post to which I will reply in details a little later when I have time. In short, Varangians were rus people. I am writing rus in lower case on purpose. Look up at Byzantium chronicles that mention agreement between rus people and the Byzantium. Also Arab chronicle in which arab traveler met rus people in Volga Bulgaria (present day Tatarstan) describing their customs. It's also irrelevant if Rurik was a real person. Rurikid were real and they were of Norse descent.
 
Aug 2014
175
New York, USA
Kiev city was not in a steady decline. The state Rus with capital in Kiev coined by historians as Kievan Rus was in decline since Yaroslav the Wise prior to Mongol invasion. Rus was a large state from Carpathians to Ladoga lake (near east Baltic) that was difficult to control.
The sack was made possible with deterioration of authority of Kievan princes that started in the 1050s. Kiev city itself was in decline starting with the first sack in 1169. By the time Mongols came, the city itself was burned and plundered multiple times. By 1300 it was just another provincial town.
 
Dec 2017
606
-------
The sack was made possible with deterioration of authority of Kievan princes that started in the 1050s. Kiev city itself was in decline starting with the first sack in 1169. By the time Mongols came, the city itself was burned and plundered multiple times. By 1300 it was just another provincial town.
The sack was inevitable if you see the map of Mongols controlling territories from eastern China, southern Asia (northern India) and all the way to Poland and Hungary.
 
Mar 2019
24
Europe
In those times no army could withstand the army of Genghis Khan.
What do you mean no army?

The conquest of the Mongols stopped at Poland. They were also defeated in some battles. Not many, but still... their reputation was not excellent.
Fact of the matter is that the mongols never entered what most perceive today as West Europe.
 
Nov 2015
1,674
Kyiv
The sack was made possible with deterioration of authority of Kievan princes that started in the 1050s. Kiev city itself was in decline starting with the first sack in 1169. By the time Mongols came, the city itself was burned and plundered multiple times. By 1300 it was just another provincial town.
In fact, the situation there looked a little different from the way you describe it.

The raid on Kiev in 1169 was the first capture of the capital of Rus in its history. But the campaign was not organized by a Rus coalition. It was organized by the Rostov-Suzdal Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. The grandson of the Grand Duke of Kiev Monomakh and the son of the daughter of the Polovtsian Khan Aepa. A number of Russian historians call Andrew “the first Russian prince,” and in the 18th century Tatishchev called Andrei even the forerunner of the Moscow autocracy.

Why?

The father of Bogolyubsky Yuri Dolgoruky (he is considered the founder of Moscow) sought to occupy the throne of the Grand Duke of Kiev all his life, and twice he succeeded. He was buried in Kiev, in the Lavra.

Andrei was born in Zalesye, in distant Suzdal. And all his life he tried to separate Zalesye from Kiev - and from Rus. In essence, Zalesye can be considered early Russia.

Andrew not only organized the pogrom of Kiev. He also actively advocated the separation of Zalesya from the Kiev church and to arrange a separate church mitropolia. And immediately after the pogrom of Kiev he sent for this a bishop of Rostov Fedorko to Constantinopl . Constantinople did not support the idea of creating a new mitropolia in Zalesye

And Andrew is also known for another story. When his father arranged him a prince of Vyshgorod (Vyshgorod is a fortified city near Kiev, at the confluence of the Dnieper and Desna), he stole the sacred icon of the Virgin Mary from the city church and took it to his Zalesie. According to legend, this icon was painted on a piece of tabletop, behind which the Last Supper took place. Now this stolen icon is the most revered in Russia. The Russian icon #1.

In the end, Andrei will be killed by conspirators from his entourage

What united Andrew Bogolyubsky and 11 princes that joined the Zalesye army, which went to Kiev under the command of his son ? Only one. All of them, like Bogolyubsky himself, were kin to the Polovtsian khans. I can bring a list indicating this relationship.
All the team were sons of the daughters of the Polovtsian khans or their sons-in-law. Therefore, some historians with irony called the storming of 1169 the first campaign of the Horde on the capital of Rus.

It must be said that at that time the princes of Rus willingly intermarried with the daughters of the Polovtsian khans. This gave them a great advantage in internecine fights - Polovtsian cavalry.

It was a bad time. One prince fought with another, and the participation of the Polovtsy in this civil strife became almost constant. And the first battle between Rus and the Mongols on the river Kalka (in the Donetsk region) in 1223 was a joint battle of Rus and the Polovtsy. The Mongols completely defeated the allied army, and after 15 years fell upon Zalesye and Rus

It must be said that the Zalesye troops did not participate in that battle. Zalesye already lived his own life, in fact completely separated from Rus. And I associate it with the ethnic factor. By the middle of the 12th century in Zalesye, in the Volga-Oka interfluve, a new ethnos was formed. The Russians.

In essence, it was based on autochthons from 5 Finno-Ugric tribes who converted to the Slavic language and adopted Christianity. In the 19th century, the well-known Russian historian Klyuchevsky wrote in detail about the fact that they had hated Kiev. And their first Prince Andrew organized the pogrom of the capital of Rus.

And the main role in that pogrom was played by the Zalesye militia. The so-called Rostov Thousand - Ростовская Тысяча.

As for the status of Kiev after 1169, the changes in it have little to do with that pogrom. Kiev quickly settled. At that time this city with a population of more than 50 thousand people was among the five largest cities in Europe. And as an indicator - during the first raid, the Mongols destroyed almost all the cities of Zalesye - and there were about a dozen of them, and also they stormed Vyshgrod, which stood on the same bank as Kiev, 15 kilometers away, and the large city of Pereyslav on Dnieper 100 kilometers south of Kiev. One of the three largest cities of Rus. But they did not dare to storm Kiev during that raid - having come to its walls, as the chronicler says, they were surprised at the greatness and beauty of the city.

The Mongols would come to Kiev again only two years later - by their entire huge army, which had prepared for the great western campaign. And only after two months of the siege will they take this city by storm.

Plano Carpini, driving through ruined Kiev a couple of years after the assault on his way to the Mongolian capital Karakorum writes that there are hardly 200 homesteads left in the city. Is it a lot or a little? At that time, 200 housings are a medium-sized European city. Moreover, the Mongols destroyed in the city only one stone temple - the Desyatinnaya Church - out of 5 stone temples. And on the way back, Carpini will describe many European merchants whom he met in Kiev, a big feast in his honor, hosted by the local governor, and the crowds of Kievites who went out to meet him. And Carpini after the pogrom of Batu calmly calls Kiev the capital of Rus.

Not only that - even more than half a century after the invasion of Batu, the department of the Mitropolite of Kiev and All Rus was located in Kiev - until the Tatar-Mongols moved it to Zalesye, which is much more loyal to them than Rus. And until 1461, the mitropolit even living in Moscow, was still called the Mitropolit of Kiev and All Rus. Митрополит Киевский и всея Руси
 
Nov 2015
1,674
Kyiv
Again - we compare Kiev with the cities of then-Russia, isn’t it?

I do not deny that Kiev after the invasion of Batu was significantly weakened and never took the role that it held until 1240. But I will remind you that at first the Mongolian strike struck Zalesye - and then Rus with Kiev.

At the same time Zalesye was a rural region with a weak urban culture. The excavations of its capital Vladimir-on-Klyazma in the 2000s showed that most of the territory inside the long city wall remained undeveloped. The famous Russian historian Soloviev (19th century) calls the majority of a dozen cities of Zalesye as large villages surrounded by a palisade

Mongolian pogrom of Zalesye in 1237-1238 led to its weakening and desolation. And during the time of the Moscow tzardom those old cities of Zalesye were generally faded into the background and became, as you said, ordinary provincial cities. Other cities have risen. Moscow, which before Batu was a small imperceptible town. And Nizhny Novgorod, which was founded only 15 years before the invasion of Batu in Zalesye

The Mongols moved to Zalesye along frozen river beds. With land roads, it will be bad there even after several centuries, and rivers will remain the main artery. Slavization of Zalesye before this happened along the rivers. The same rivers along which t the Mongolian troops walked. It was a “Slavic” part of Zalesye. And in the forests, far from the main rivers, the unslavic Finno-Ugrians still lived. By the way, the villages in Zalesye usually were small - with 2-3 courtyards most of them

And since the Mongols ruthlessly slaughtered the townspeople after the assault, they struck a dramatic blow to everything that Rus brought there. Maybe this is the reason why Zalesye later lay under the Horde with such enthusiasm? But this is a separate topic.

Zalesye - that is, early Russia - had a chance grow into Rus and fully integrate into it. But as far as I can see by a number of signs, this did not happen. Why?

- Zalesye had no autochthonous Slavic population. It was inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes. In the south there lived the Baltic tribe of Golad.

- Local Finno-Ugrians were not “backward tribes of hunters and cattle breeders,” as Russian historians and Russian propaganda claim. Ever since the 7th century, they mastered agriculture. And this is the main conclusion of a large archaeological expedition of the Russian Academy of Sciences of the 2000s, which for the first time carried out large excavations in rural areas in those regions

- The Finno-Ugrians in that part of Europe mastered the smelting and processing of iron 10 centuries before the arrival of the Slavs in Zalesye

. They were excellent metallurgists and made excellent weapons and axes, indispensable for burning agriculture

- The Finno-Ugrians were not timid and downtrodden tribes that fled into the distant forests when the Slavs appeared there or meekly assimilated by them, as history teachers taught us in the Soviet Union during the school years. They were belligerent and aggressive. Having migrated from their native places to Hungary, the Ugres
terrorized Europe and led one campaign after another, reaching even Spain. The Cheremis Wars, the uprising of Mari (late Merya) against the Moscow tzardom in the 16th century, forced Ivan the Terrible to curtail the fighting in the Livonian War and send 3 regiments to suppress the uprising

- Russian veterans of the Second World War say that only Germans and Hungarians were a serious opponent for them. And I remind you that Hungary did not capitulate to the Russians even when they captured almost all of their country in 1945.

- anthropology and genetics do not confirm the Russian hypothesis about the massive coming of the Slavs to those regions in the 10-13 century. Finno-Ugric autochthons played a huge role in early Russian ethnogenesis.

- Zalesye was separated from Rus by impassable Bryansk forests (hence its name). In the forests then lived
warlike Vyatichi, which Rus was able to conquer with great difficulty.

- before the separation of Zalesye from Rus, there was no direct land road to it. It was cut through th Bryansk forests
only in the 12th century. And the first ones who used that road were not the colonists from Rus - but Zalesye herself sent its army to smash the capital of Rus

- instead of a direct land road from Rus to Zalesie before the 12c existed a long - one and a half thousand kilometers - roundabout river way. 1000 kilometers upstream of the Dnieper, the portage in Valdai - and downstream of the Volga, and then - along the Oka. Accordingly, Zalesye did not have close economic ties with Rus, and mass migration from Rus to those distant lands was unlikely due to transport problems - and other problems, too.

Slavic migration could be from the northern edges - Pskov and Novgorod. But since the Novgorod lands did not have a large population (as an indicator - only half a dozen cities in them at that time) - there are no signs of their depopulation due to migration to Zalesye. At the same time, not only Slavs, but also numerous local ugrofins could migrate from Novgorod - as an indicator - an appearance of so called Chudsky Konets (finno-ugric part of the city) in Rostov, the city of Zalesye. The Russians called Chud the local finno-ugric tribes around Novgorod and all ones in the north-west of nowadays Russia

- Zalesye was ruled by Rus for no more than one and a half centuries. And the transport problems of communication with it, the lack of active trade with Rus, the relatively short period of being a part of Rus and the non-Slavic autochthonous population of Zalesye did not lead to the fact that the people there became in time the same Rus that populated Kiev lands. According to the Primary Chronicle - Rus herself.

There appeared their own separate Slavic-speaking ethnos - the Russians. And from the second half of the 12th century right after their appearance on the ethnic mao, they will go their own way, including more than two centuries - as part of the Golden Horde state. And as far as I can tell, the Moscow tzardom was much more a successor of the Horde than of the Rus

As I see it, Moscow historiography still has a great influence on Western historians who study the history of Rus and the Moscow tzardom. And I can only say - it's time to move away from their postulates, in which there is a lot of ideology and not enough historical facts.
 
Nov 2015
1,674
Kyiv
Dir!

You wrote a lengthy post to which I will reply in details a little later when I have time. In short, Varangians were rus people. I am writing rus in lower case on purpose. Look up at Byzantium chronicles that mention agreement between rus people and the Byzantium. Also Arab chronicle in which arab traveler met rus people in Volga Bulgaria (present day Tatarstan) describing their customs. It's also irrelevant if Rurik was a real person. Rurikid were real and they were of Norse descent.
I have at hand a whole bundle of references to the ethnonym rus/ros in old documents of different authors or different countries - Byzantium, Arabs, Georgia and Rus itself. If we sum up all these sources, they will be reduced to four groups:

- Rus is the Varangians
- Rus is Slavs
- Rus is the Varangians, who began to speak the Slavic language
And even that Rus is the Scythians who besieged Constantinople in 626. This is indicated in the Georgian parchment manuscript.
I have just a Russian article for the document
ПУТЕШЕСТВИЕ В СТРАНУ ПШАВОВ

At the same time, the famous Primary Chronicle of Rus which is dtd - that is, the Kiev chronicler Nestor wrote at the end of 11c - beginning of the 12c indicates that rus was originally a people, it was the Varangians who lived in the north. And then he says that the Polyanes tribe is now called Rus. And the Cronicle is full of mention of Rus in the 10-12 century as the title ethnic group of the state of Rus, which is not the Varangians at all, and the Varangians as an ethnic group are indicated there separately. About the fact that rus after the emergence of the state of Rus with its capital in Kiev was the name of its title Slavic ethnos, and not at all the Varangians, I have no doubts. If you read the Primary Chronicle and other documents of the time, you are also unlikely to have doubts about this. So you have touched on a very large and controversial topic, and it is better to consider it in a separate thread.

And finally, what will we do with the Bavarian Geographer, or rather, with the so-called list of peoples, who in the 9th century mentioned the Ruzzi (Rus?) people who lived north of the Danube?


These are the ones that live near them (i.e. the Germans - Dir) outside.

(20) Busani have 231 cities (it is a tribe Buzhane that lived on the banks of the river Bug in Ukraine - Dir)
(24) Unlitsy (Ulichi tribe located in the south-west of modern Ukraine - Dir) - numerous people, 418 cities.
(37) Velunchane (Volynyane, well-known tribe in Volynia - Dir) - 70 cities.
(41) Ruzzi -probably Rus, no number of their cities is mentioned there - Dir
(43) Liudi - perhaps the author perceived the Slavic word люди - people - as an ethnonym - Dir
(57) Opole (Opolini) - 20 cities - here, obviously, we are talking about the "Polish" tribe Polyane, and not those tribe that Nestor located in the mid-Dnieper region - Dir

What to do with this Ruzzi surrounded by other Slavic tribes? At that time (9 century) the qty of Varangians that came there from the north to those lands did not allow to designate them as a people or a tribe.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2015
1,674
Kyiv
Varangian (?) Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich, Knyaz of Kiev. Russian picture of the 19th century, created according to the Byzantine chronicler Lev the Deacon who saw Svyatoslav during his meeting with Emperor Tzimisius in 971 and describing in detail his appearance

 

Similar History Discussions