History of Russia
- Thread starter stormbind
- Start date
The Russia we know today began as Moskva, in the twilight of the Golden Horde rule over the Russian heartland. The future Czars shook off their obligations to the Mongols (who were already weakened by repeated attacks fr Timur), then began expanding in every direction for the next several centuries...
phoenix_night
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,853
stormbind said:
Before the USSR came into being...
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
In the medieval period, Russia was ruled by a great super-dynasty called the Rurikids (descendants of Rurik of Novgorod). The head of the "Rus" (what these days you have to call eastern Slavs 
) was eventually recognized through the title Grand Prince of Kiev. In the mid 12th century, the center shifted to Vladimir, so that the leader of the Eastern Slavs took the title Grand Prince of Vladimir. After the Mongol invasion, the Grand Prince of Vladimir had the responsibility for collecting taxes to give to the Mongols.
In the west, a rival emerged in the Grand Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, whose Grand Prince Daniil accepted the title "Rex Russiae" from the Pope. The Grand Principality fell under the power of Lithuania.
Moscow and Tver, amongst others, fought for that right to the crown of Vladimir. Moscow succeeded, and as the power of the Horde declined, Moscow took more and more control, taking away the indepedence of rival princes like Tver, Ryazan, the "Republic" of Novgorod, etc. The Grand Principality of Vladimr was eventually remamed Grand Principality of Moscow, and eventually the Empire of Russia.
It is important to remember, that the ethnic homeland of the eastern slavs encompassed very little of present day russia.
Ethnic map of Russia ("land of the eastern Slavs") according to the Primary Chronicle:
Pre-Mongol Vladimiran Russia
Russia on the death of Ivan the Terrible:
Russia by the reign of Peter the Great:
Ethnic map of Siberia by the reign of Peter the Great:
) was eventually recognized through the title Grand Prince of Kiev. In the mid 12th century, the center shifted to Vladimir, so that the leader of the Eastern Slavs took the title Grand Prince of Vladimir. After the Mongol invasion, the Grand Prince of Vladimir had the responsibility for collecting taxes to give to the Mongols. In the west, a rival emerged in the Grand Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, whose Grand Prince Daniil accepted the title "Rex Russiae" from the Pope. The Grand Principality fell under the power of Lithuania.
Moscow and Tver, amongst others, fought for that right to the crown of Vladimir. Moscow succeeded, and as the power of the Horde declined, Moscow took more and more control, taking away the indepedence of rival princes like Tver, Ryazan, the "Republic" of Novgorod, etc. The Grand Principality of Vladimr was eventually remamed Grand Principality of Moscow, and eventually the Empire of Russia.
It is important to remember, that the ethnic homeland of the eastern slavs encompassed very little of present day russia.
Ethnic map of Russia ("land of the eastern Slavs") according to the Primary Chronicle:
Pre-Mongol Vladimiran Russia
Russia on the death of Ivan the Terrible:
Russia by the reign of Peter the Great:
Ethnic map of Siberia by the reign of Peter the Great:
aaminion00
Stoned
Yeah. And they ripped of their far eastern possesions (Vladivostok_ from the Chinese. Lots of killing and death, blah blah blah, colapse of tzarist Russia, loss of east europe, lots of killing and death, blah blah blah, collapse of Soviet Union, modern Russia. The End.
marshal zhukov
good economist wannabe
Why did Kiev broke apart from Russia and Novgorod remained? How the Ukranians came to be ?
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
It fell away in the Mongol period, when much of the northen Ukraine (southern Ukraine was Turkic territory until very recently), Belarus and other parts of western Russia fell under Lithuanian control; it took half a millenium to reunite it with the rest of Russia (land of the Eastern Slavs 
).
If you look at the modern distinction between Ukrainians, Belorussians and Great Russians, the important fact seems to be that the former two were not part of the Mongol Muscovite state, nor then the Mongol Muscovite successor state.
In the 19th/early 20th century, Austrian Ruthenians still saw Russia as their motherland...in the same way that early twentieth cenutry eastern European Germans looked to Germany.
The real answer to your question would be to look at the history of Ukrainian/ Belorussian/Ruthenian nationalism vis-à-vis the modern Russia-proper.
).If you look at the modern distinction between Ukrainians, Belorussians and Great Russians, the important fact seems to be that the former two were not part of the Mongol Muscovite state, nor then the Mongol Muscovite successor state.
In the 19th/early 20th century, Austrian Ruthenians still saw Russia as their motherland...in the same way that early twentieth cenutry eastern European Germans looked to Germany.
The real answer to your question would be to look at the history of Ukrainian/ Belorussian/Ruthenian nationalism vis-à-vis the modern Russia-proper.
Hmmm, some elaboration on that one. Modern Russians try to claim exclusive or primary descendance from ancient Rus but the reality is this was an Eastern Slavic civilization that fathered equally all the Eastern Slavic peoples, who for the most part are represented today by the Russians, Ukrainians and Belarussians.
The role of statehood is sorely misunderstood in the formation of nationalities, mostly because modern nationalists like to believe it happened the other way around - that nationalities always form states. With the rise of Muscovy and Novgorod after the implosion of the Rus state and, as Calgacus mentioned, the Lithuanian empire expanded to the Black Sea, many Eastern Slavic tribes were cut off from these proto-Russian states. Under the Lithuanians these peoples were allowed to develop their own languages, adopt writing conventions, practice the Eastern "Greek" Christianity - a northern form of the Eastern Slavic languages even became the official language of the empire, since the Lithuanians couldn't be bothered to force them to learn the hideously-difficult Lithuanian language - so for two centuries these groups developed more or less on their own, secure within an empire that didn't intervene in their affairs. With the Polish-Lithuanian union in the 14th century, these areas eventually were absorbed by Poland which took a much more activist and interventionalist approach ("Polonization"), earning us lots of ill-will in the region and also having the opposite effect of re-enforcing the Orthodox, non-Western values of these peoples. With the rise of Muscovy from Mongol rule in the 15th and 16th centuries, Russian tsars declared themselves to be "The Third Rome", the final replacement for Constantinople (which had just fallen to the Turks in 1453), and they declared all (Eastern) Slavs who practiced the eastern, "Orthodox" Christianity to be essentially Russians. This is the point behind Ivan Grozny's declaration in 1547 that he was "Tsar of all the Russias", and commenced what historians have mis-labeled a re-gathering of all the Russian lands from foreign rule. The problem was that many of these Eastern Slavic peoples and lands had never actually belonged to Russia or even Rus. This neat re-interpretation of "Russian-ness" gave Russia an excuse to conquer foreign lands and declare them historically Russian.
The bottom line here though is that in this part of Europe a few different state centers formed - the Russias to the east, Lithuania to the north, Poland and Hungary to the West - and each at different times from c. A.D. 1000 til c. 1989 have ruled this areas inbetween them, though each never fully effectively controlled the whole region between them. The Russians and Poles called the southern and central regions between us "The Frontier", and considered it a kind of no-man's land that always required a military presence. "The Frontier" in most Slavic languages is "U-krajna", and is obviously where the name "Ukraine" comes from. These "in-between" regions were populated by many different Eastern Slavic groups, some larger and others smaller. Old Poland recognized a huge list of groups and tribes - White Ruthenians, Black Ruthenians, Red Ruthenians, etc. etc. etc. In the 19th century as nationalism took hold and many of these smaller groups were absorbed - willingly or otherwise - into larger nationalities, ancient group names and languages began to disappear. Suddenly there were only Ukrainians and Byelo/Bela ("White")-Russians. Some still fight today for their existance - a small Eastern Slavic group in modern Poland, the Lemko/Lemki, for instance still insist they are not Ukrainians although Ukrainian nationalists insist they are (just as Russians once insisted Ukrainians were just "Little Russians").
This is not a unique situation. As the German and Polish states formed in the 8th-11th centuries, between them lay lands peopled by Slavic and Baltic tribes who were determined to not be ruled by either Germans or Poles. Gradually, over centuries, most of these groups were conquered, colonized and absorbed by both but Pomerania, Silesia and Prussia required lots of military investment before they became German or Polish. In fact, despite our recent history of fighting one another, medieval Germans and Poles actually have a centuries-long tradition of cooperating against the smaller Slavic and Baltic tribes. As with the Lemko above, some of these groups still survive today. The biggest one is probably the Kaszubs, a large Pomeranian Western Slavic group in northern Poland today whose language, though Polish nationalists claim is merely a dialect of Polish, is quite different from Polish. Here is the website of a Kaszub youth group ("Odroda") trying to maintain Kaszub culture. The website is in Kaszub. For instance, the phrase "We also understand Kaszub" in Polish would be Rozumiemy tez po-kaszubsku, but in Kaszub this is "Më téz rozmiejemë po kaszëbsku."
In the 19th and 20th centuries Europe developed the notion of "Ein volk, ein Nation!", though only the Nazis actually put that in words. This mythology pretends that we can look backward through history and always see uniform and complete nationalities, each with clean borders and clear linear historical developments. The problem is that in reality European ethnic history is far, far messier and we often ignore so many groups who existed and played historical roles for centuries.
The role of statehood is sorely misunderstood in the formation of nationalities, mostly because modern nationalists like to believe it happened the other way around - that nationalities always form states. With the rise of Muscovy and Novgorod after the implosion of the Rus state and, as Calgacus mentioned, the Lithuanian empire expanded to the Black Sea, many Eastern Slavic tribes were cut off from these proto-Russian states. Under the Lithuanians these peoples were allowed to develop their own languages, adopt writing conventions, practice the Eastern "Greek" Christianity - a northern form of the Eastern Slavic languages even became the official language of the empire, since the Lithuanians couldn't be bothered to force them to learn the hideously-difficult Lithuanian language - so for two centuries these groups developed more or less on their own, secure within an empire that didn't intervene in their affairs. With the Polish-Lithuanian union in the 14th century, these areas eventually were absorbed by Poland which took a much more activist and interventionalist approach ("Polonization"), earning us lots of ill-will in the region and also having the opposite effect of re-enforcing the Orthodox, non-Western values of these peoples. With the rise of Muscovy from Mongol rule in the 15th and 16th centuries, Russian tsars declared themselves to be "The Third Rome", the final replacement for Constantinople (which had just fallen to the Turks in 1453), and they declared all (Eastern) Slavs who practiced the eastern, "Orthodox" Christianity to be essentially Russians. This is the point behind Ivan Grozny's declaration in 1547 that he was "Tsar of all the Russias", and commenced what historians have mis-labeled a re-gathering of all the Russian lands from foreign rule. The problem was that many of these Eastern Slavic peoples and lands had never actually belonged to Russia or even Rus. This neat re-interpretation of "Russian-ness" gave Russia an excuse to conquer foreign lands and declare them historically Russian.
The bottom line here though is that in this part of Europe a few different state centers formed - the Russias to the east, Lithuania to the north, Poland and Hungary to the West - and each at different times from c. A.D. 1000 til c. 1989 have ruled this areas inbetween them, though each never fully effectively controlled the whole region between them. The Russians and Poles called the southern and central regions between us "The Frontier", and considered it a kind of no-man's land that always required a military presence. "The Frontier" in most Slavic languages is "U-krajna", and is obviously where the name "Ukraine" comes from. These "in-between" regions were populated by many different Eastern Slavic groups, some larger and others smaller. Old Poland recognized a huge list of groups and tribes - White Ruthenians, Black Ruthenians, Red Ruthenians, etc. etc. etc. In the 19th century as nationalism took hold and many of these smaller groups were absorbed - willingly or otherwise - into larger nationalities, ancient group names and languages began to disappear. Suddenly there were only Ukrainians and Byelo/Bela ("White")-Russians. Some still fight today for their existance - a small Eastern Slavic group in modern Poland, the Lemko/Lemki, for instance still insist they are not Ukrainians although Ukrainian nationalists insist they are (just as Russians once insisted Ukrainians were just "Little Russians").
This is not a unique situation. As the German and Polish states formed in the 8th-11th centuries, between them lay lands peopled by Slavic and Baltic tribes who were determined to not be ruled by either Germans or Poles. Gradually, over centuries, most of these groups were conquered, colonized and absorbed by both but Pomerania, Silesia and Prussia required lots of military investment before they became German or Polish. In fact, despite our recent history of fighting one another, medieval Germans and Poles actually have a centuries-long tradition of cooperating against the smaller Slavic and Baltic tribes. As with the Lemko above, some of these groups still survive today. The biggest one is probably the Kaszubs, a large Pomeranian Western Slavic group in northern Poland today whose language, though Polish nationalists claim is merely a dialect of Polish, is quite different from Polish. Here is the website of a Kaszub youth group ("Odroda") trying to maintain Kaszub culture. The website is in Kaszub. For instance, the phrase "We also understand Kaszub" in Polish would be Rozumiemy tez po-kaszubsku, but in Kaszub this is "Më téz rozmiejemë po kaszëbsku."
In the 19th and 20th centuries Europe developed the notion of "Ein volk, ein Nation!", though only the Nazis actually put that in words. This mythology pretends that we can look backward through history and always see uniform and complete nationalities, each with clean borders and clear linear historical developments. The problem is that in reality European ethnic history is far, far messier and we often ignore so many groups who existed and played historical roles for centuries.
Stormbind, a brief and inexact periodization of Russian history:
c. A.D. 860-960: The Viking Era; Rurik (Hrorekr) & Oleg (Helgi), Scandinavian (Swedish) Vikings, either conquer or cut deals with local Slavic states on traditional Viking trade route with the Arabs (down the Dniepr River) to unite them into a single political entity, "Gårdarike". The capital was gradually moved to Kiiv (Kiev) and the land became known as "Rus" (Several theories exist about the origins of this name, a few tied to the Finnish name for the Varangian/Viking rulers, Ruotsi; "Red Beards".) The Viking overlords mixed freely with the Slavic underlings, probably the old Slavic ruling groups, which gave birth eventually to the next era:
c. 960-c. 1125: This is seen today as the golden age of Kieven Rus, and also the period when the rulers are Slavs. There was no coup or political shift that put Slavs in power; the Vikings had freely mixed and married Slavs, so Svjatoslav's reign beginning in 962 is a natural continuation of the Rurik dynastic line. Rus accepts (Byzantine) Christianity, and begins the Russian "Drang nach Südden", conquering Khazar lands.
c. 1125-1237: Kieven Rus decline; A multitude of factors lead to civil war and a deterioration of central authority, just in time for the Mongol onslaught as all of Rus succumbs to foreign conquest. Moscow is established in this period.
1237-1480: Period of Mongol rule of the Russias. Initially the Mongols and their successors the Tartars ("Golden Horde") rule Russia directly with a brutal hand (most Russian cities are destroyed) but as time passes the Mongols/Tartars lose interest, preferring to simply collect tribute from the Russians. This period sees the rise of Muscovy/Moscow and its rival, Novgorod, ending with Novgorod's complete conquest by Moscow (1478).
1480-1588: Muscovite Period: Moscow rises as the premier Russian state and conquers most other Russian states. The creation of a Muscovite empire, still (technically) ruled by the Rurik dynasty. This period also sees the massive growth of the Russian Orthodox church.
1588-1613: "Time of Troubles"; End of Rurik line leads to multiple claimants to the throne and civil war, as well as foreign intervention (Poles occupy Moscow, Swedes occupy Novgorod). Period ends when Mikhail Romanov rallies boyars (aristocratic Russian land-owners) and establishes the new dynasty, the Romanov dynasty.
1613-1682: First period of Romanov Dynasty. Romanovs establish first close ties with Europe, become more active in European political/economic affairs. This is when Western Europe first has an in-depth relationship w/ Russia.
1682-1825: Imperial Russia; Russia's golden age, when it is accepted as a major power in Europe and its new capital (St. Petersburg) is consulted by other European powers about world affairs. Huge period of territorial expansion and conquest. Many of Russia's most remembered leaders - Peter I, Catherine II the Great, Alexander I - ruled during this period.
1825-1917: Period of Decline; Russia still considered a major power in Europe but its economic and social development lags increasingly behind the rest of Europe. Loses several critical military and political challenges in this period, and even when it wins - several successful wars against Turkey - the other European powers convene conferences to strip Russia's victories (1878). European powers conspire to keep Russia out of "Europe"; Britain and France propping up the Ottoman Empire to keep Russian ships out of the Mediterranean and Germany and Austria teaming up to block Russian political influence in the Balkans. Period of increasing frustration for Russian ruling groups, coupled with the rise of Russian nationalism. Also, a slow and grinding industrialization radicalizes Russia's tiny working class and peasantry, sparking several revolts and revolutionary groups.
March 1917-November 1917: Revolutionary Russia I; Tsar overthrown and replaced by revolutionary council ("sovjet"), but lead by moderate Socialists. Kerensky government insistance on continuing the very unpopular Russian participation in World War I leads to continued revolutionary unrest, creating an ideal climate for a coup by a small but hyper-radical revolutionary group, the Bolsheviks.
1917-1992: Soviet Russia. Extreme radical group with 19th century romantic revolutionary ideology seizes power, holds on until finally running the country's economy into the ground in the 1990s. Can be broken into the following sub-periods:
A. 1917-1924: "War Communism"; Revolutionary leader Lenin expects Russia to become platform for world revolution, struggles to win civil war and maintain ideological focus for country.
B. 1924-1929: Interim post-revolutionary period; death of Lenin leads to prolongued power struggle, attempt to institutionalize revolution.
C. 1929-1953: A new leader, Stalin, emerges and moves to modernize Soviet Russia to be able to compete militarily and politically with Europe, while initiating extreme purges in which all enemies and potential enemies - c. 15 million people - are liquidated. Especially takes care to eliminate all original leaders of 1917 revolutions so as to be able to have complete ideological control over country. Massive industrialization, which even survives extreme mauling of country in 1941-45 war (c. 22 million war dead). Post-war Soviet Russia resurrects Tsarist imperial model and establishes Soviet Russian empire in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Mongolia. Although origins and motives are hotly debated, Soviet Russia enters into a global political and neo-military confrontation with the West (led by the United States) called the 'Cold War', lasting until Soviet Russia's implosion in 1991.
D. 1953-1964: Post-Stalinist period, Khrushchov eventually consolidates power (1957) but aggressive military stance against the West, coupled with military emphasis on new nuclear weapons, leads to coup in 1964. Khrushchov is remembered for his relaxation of Stalinist police controls but he was determined to defeat the West.
E. 1964-1985: "The Empire Strikes Back"; Stalin tried to constantly keep the developing bureaucracy on its toes by randomly subjecting it to arrests and deportations to Siberia but the massive Soviet bureaucracy had consolidated its power in post-Stalinist period and was able to orchestrate Khrushchov's overthrow in 1964. Bureaucrats - who wanted to keep the gravy train that gave them special privilages in Soviet society running - installed the exceedingly stupid Brezhnev in power, even keeping him as a figurehead in the early 1980s by which time he had become quite senile. After Brezhnev finally died in 1982, they installed the exceedingly aged Andropov in power but he died a year and a half later, to be replaced by the equally aged (and ailing) Chernjenko, who died after less than a year. Finally in 1985 they gave up and chose Gorbachov.
F. 1985-1991: Gorbachov period; Gorbachov, realizing the Soviiet economy is near collapse, attempts unsuccessfully to reform Soviet Union. Introduces many political and economic reforms but all are stunted by the fact Gorbachov still wants to maintain the basic elements of Soviet power and society - communism, primacy of the communist party, and party leadership in all major economic and political matters. Cuts the empire in Eastern Europe and Mongolia loose (1989-1990) to save costs, but eventually succumbs to a coup (1991) that tries to re-enstate the Brezhnev model of Soviet power and government. Coup fails, leading to total collapse of Soviet Union. Most of the 16 Soviet republics, including Russia, bolt for freedom.
1991-1999: Immediate Post-Soviet Russia; Attempts to develop Western-style democracy and economic reforms to Russia, instituted haphazardly and with large dis-enfranchised elements of former ruling elite resorting to mafia-style activities. Most Russians begin to sour on political/economic reforms. Hero of 1991 coup, Boris Jeltsyn, turns out to be incompetent leader.
2000-Present Era of Vladimir Putin; odd mixture of Western-style democratic reforms coupled with authoritarian policies. The jury's still out on what kind of Russia Putin is trying to create, and what kind of Russia will emerge from his tenure.
c. A.D. 860-960: The Viking Era; Rurik (Hrorekr) & Oleg (Helgi), Scandinavian (Swedish) Vikings, either conquer or cut deals with local Slavic states on traditional Viking trade route with the Arabs (down the Dniepr River) to unite them into a single political entity, "Gårdarike". The capital was gradually moved to Kiiv (Kiev) and the land became known as "Rus" (Several theories exist about the origins of this name, a few tied to the Finnish name for the Varangian/Viking rulers, Ruotsi; "Red Beards".) The Viking overlords mixed freely with the Slavic underlings, probably the old Slavic ruling groups, which gave birth eventually to the next era:
c. 960-c. 1125: This is seen today as the golden age of Kieven Rus, and also the period when the rulers are Slavs. There was no coup or political shift that put Slavs in power; the Vikings had freely mixed and married Slavs, so Svjatoslav's reign beginning in 962 is a natural continuation of the Rurik dynastic line. Rus accepts (Byzantine) Christianity, and begins the Russian "Drang nach Südden", conquering Khazar lands.
c. 1125-1237: Kieven Rus decline; A multitude of factors lead to civil war and a deterioration of central authority, just in time for the Mongol onslaught as all of Rus succumbs to foreign conquest. Moscow is established in this period.
1237-1480: Period of Mongol rule of the Russias. Initially the Mongols and their successors the Tartars ("Golden Horde") rule Russia directly with a brutal hand (most Russian cities are destroyed) but as time passes the Mongols/Tartars lose interest, preferring to simply collect tribute from the Russians. This period sees the rise of Muscovy/Moscow and its rival, Novgorod, ending with Novgorod's complete conquest by Moscow (1478).
1480-1588: Muscovite Period: Moscow rises as the premier Russian state and conquers most other Russian states. The creation of a Muscovite empire, still (technically) ruled by the Rurik dynasty. This period also sees the massive growth of the Russian Orthodox church.
1588-1613: "Time of Troubles"; End of Rurik line leads to multiple claimants to the throne and civil war, as well as foreign intervention (Poles occupy Moscow, Swedes occupy Novgorod). Period ends when Mikhail Romanov rallies boyars (aristocratic Russian land-owners) and establishes the new dynasty, the Romanov dynasty.
1613-1682: First period of Romanov Dynasty. Romanovs establish first close ties with Europe, become more active in European political/economic affairs. This is when Western Europe first has an in-depth relationship w/ Russia.
1682-1825: Imperial Russia; Russia's golden age, when it is accepted as a major power in Europe and its new capital (St. Petersburg) is consulted by other European powers about world affairs. Huge period of territorial expansion and conquest. Many of Russia's most remembered leaders - Peter I, Catherine II the Great, Alexander I - ruled during this period.
1825-1917: Period of Decline; Russia still considered a major power in Europe but its economic and social development lags increasingly behind the rest of Europe. Loses several critical military and political challenges in this period, and even when it wins - several successful wars against Turkey - the other European powers convene conferences to strip Russia's victories (1878). European powers conspire to keep Russia out of "Europe"; Britain and France propping up the Ottoman Empire to keep Russian ships out of the Mediterranean and Germany and Austria teaming up to block Russian political influence in the Balkans. Period of increasing frustration for Russian ruling groups, coupled with the rise of Russian nationalism. Also, a slow and grinding industrialization radicalizes Russia's tiny working class and peasantry, sparking several revolts and revolutionary groups.
March 1917-November 1917: Revolutionary Russia I; Tsar overthrown and replaced by revolutionary council ("sovjet"), but lead by moderate Socialists. Kerensky government insistance on continuing the very unpopular Russian participation in World War I leads to continued revolutionary unrest, creating an ideal climate for a coup by a small but hyper-radical revolutionary group, the Bolsheviks.
1917-1992: Soviet Russia. Extreme radical group with 19th century romantic revolutionary ideology seizes power, holds on until finally running the country's economy into the ground in the 1990s. Can be broken into the following sub-periods:
A. 1917-1924: "War Communism"; Revolutionary leader Lenin expects Russia to become platform for world revolution, struggles to win civil war and maintain ideological focus for country.
B. 1924-1929: Interim post-revolutionary period; death of Lenin leads to prolongued power struggle, attempt to institutionalize revolution.
C. 1929-1953: A new leader, Stalin, emerges and moves to modernize Soviet Russia to be able to compete militarily and politically with Europe, while initiating extreme purges in which all enemies and potential enemies - c. 15 million people - are liquidated. Especially takes care to eliminate all original leaders of 1917 revolutions so as to be able to have complete ideological control over country. Massive industrialization, which even survives extreme mauling of country in 1941-45 war (c. 22 million war dead). Post-war Soviet Russia resurrects Tsarist imperial model and establishes Soviet Russian empire in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Mongolia. Although origins and motives are hotly debated, Soviet Russia enters into a global political and neo-military confrontation with the West (led by the United States) called the 'Cold War', lasting until Soviet Russia's implosion in 1991.
D. 1953-1964: Post-Stalinist period, Khrushchov eventually consolidates power (1957) but aggressive military stance against the West, coupled with military emphasis on new nuclear weapons, leads to coup in 1964. Khrushchov is remembered for his relaxation of Stalinist police controls but he was determined to defeat the West.
E. 1964-1985: "The Empire Strikes Back"; Stalin tried to constantly keep the developing bureaucracy on its toes by randomly subjecting it to arrests and deportations to Siberia but the massive Soviet bureaucracy had consolidated its power in post-Stalinist period and was able to orchestrate Khrushchov's overthrow in 1964. Bureaucrats - who wanted to keep the gravy train that gave them special privilages in Soviet society running - installed the exceedingly stupid Brezhnev in power, even keeping him as a figurehead in the early 1980s by which time he had become quite senile. After Brezhnev finally died in 1982, they installed the exceedingly aged Andropov in power but he died a year and a half later, to be replaced by the equally aged (and ailing) Chernjenko, who died after less than a year. Finally in 1985 they gave up and chose Gorbachov.
F. 1985-1991: Gorbachov period; Gorbachov, realizing the Soviiet economy is near collapse, attempts unsuccessfully to reform Soviet Union. Introduces many political and economic reforms but all are stunted by the fact Gorbachov still wants to maintain the basic elements of Soviet power and society - communism, primacy of the communist party, and party leadership in all major economic and political matters. Cuts the empire in Eastern Europe and Mongolia loose (1989-1990) to save costs, but eventually succumbs to a coup (1991) that tries to re-enstate the Brezhnev model of Soviet power and government. Coup fails, leading to total collapse of Soviet Union. Most of the 16 Soviet republics, including Russia, bolt for freedom.
1991-1999: Immediate Post-Soviet Russia; Attempts to develop Western-style democracy and economic reforms to Russia, instituted haphazardly and with large dis-enfranchised elements of former ruling elite resorting to mafia-style activities. Most Russians begin to sour on political/economic reforms. Hero of 1991 coup, Boris Jeltsyn, turns out to be incompetent leader.
2000-Present Era of Vladimir Putin; odd mixture of Western-style democratic reforms coupled with authoritarian policies. The jury's still out on what kind of Russia Putin is trying to create, and what kind of Russia will emerge from his tenure.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Vrylakas said:
The literary evidence points almost conclusively to Scandinavian origins. We have Islamic sources, Byzantine sources, Frankish sources and then a later Russian source, each one of varying value. It is not so much that we have one piece of evidence from these that is absolutely irrefutable; but rather, that we have different literary sources from different places that all seem to offer the same conclusion. However, that does not mean that there is no doubt at all, since the society of Kievan Rus does not appear very Scandinavian.
The earliest source comes from the Frankish realm of Western Europe. It was written by Prudentius of Troyes, who records a Byzantine embassy which was accompanied by certain men who stated that their tribe is known as the Rus. This would tell us very little about the issue, were it not for the fact that Prudentius further writes: after investigating carefully the reason why they had come, the emperor determined that their clan was Swedish. We really do not know exactly how the emperor determined this, but it seems pretty likely that he had the means available to be accurate. Louiss background as a Germanic ruler, who took an active role in the attempted conversion of Denmark, suggests that he is highly unlikely to have been far off in his judgement. His personal background aside, Louis would have had access to men who could determine this. What the Bertinian annals tell us therefore is that by 839, bearing in mind the potential of slight inaccuracy, western Christendom knew of a people called the Rus, who had links with Byzantium and who they thought to be Swedish.
None of the other contemporary, non-Russian sources are as explicitly precise as this, but nevertheless, they do appear to indicate that the Rus were Scandinavians. Ibn Fadlans description of the Volga Rus is particularly revealing. He describes the funeral of a Rus chief. It is revealing because his description of the sacrifice-accompanied boat burial is exactly what one would expect to lie behind the archaeological finds at Sutton Hoo in England, where amazingly preserved ruins of precisely this kind of boat burial have been found. These finds date from a few hundreds years before the Rus appear in our sources, but they come from the same kind of Germanic society as the 9th century Scandinavians. Although Ibn Fadlan and other Arab writers recount many cultural practices of the Rus that look quite generic for early northern societies, this one is quite specific, and there is no evidence that the early Slavs, Finns or any of the other indigenous cultures located north of the Black Sea practiced this. Once again, it looks as if our Rus come from Scandinavia.
Just as revealing is the account of the Rhos (this time
) by the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Constantine makes it clear that the Rus were not Slavs, as he several times distinguishes between the languages. For those that argue that the Rus were always a Slavic people, this is a very difficult piece of evidence to get round.Archaeological evidence also lends weight to the Scandinavian hypothesis. Scandinavian finds at Sarskii Fort, Gorodische and Staraia Ladoga make it highly likely that Scandinavians were settling in much of modern Russia. The large quantities of Moslem dirhams found in Scandinavia or amongst Scandinavian goods elsewhere tell us that the Vikings had strong trading links with the Arab world through what became the lands of the eastern Slavs.
Almost as hard to get around is the evidence of the Primary Chronicle. It appears to indicate that the Varangians came from the Baltic Sea, and that these particular Varangians were known as Russes, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, Angles and Goths. This people impose tribute about the native inhabitants, which is thrown off until they request that some Rus brothers should rule over them. The head brother is called "Ruric", a name which appears in other sources as a prominent Dane lord. It seems that one is compelled to accept that the original Rus were Scandinavians of some sort.
Vrylakas said:
"Drang nach Südden" seems a bit strong, given that the Slavs probably entered Russia from the south, and that the 960s are the peak of Russian power in the south until the 18th century virtually. The Khazars is a brief, temporary conquest, quickly filled by other Turkic peoples. Kievan Rus never controlled much of the Steppe at all.
Vrylakas said:
Novgorod was never a rival in any real political sense; Novgorod was a vassal of the Grand Prince of Vladimir; it never kept a large military force, and it's head of state was...the Grand Prince of Vladimir, a position with the princes of Moscow eventually obtained for themselves. The lack of de facto control experienced in the late Kievan/early Mongol period enabled it to become quite independent...but it still paid the Mongol taxes to the Grand Prince, and never managed toi get a prince able to compete for the throne of Vladimiran Russia.
On another point, the Mongols never controlled the Rus territories directly. They did it through Russian rulers, who like you said, collected tribute for the Mongols. Contrary the common perception of general historians, Novgorod was actually part of the Mongol dominions in this way. The responsibility fell on the Grand Prince of Vladimir, who the Mongols would select. The title of Grand Prince was prestigious, and very profitable for the collector. Moscow got control over it (c/f Tver) by licking Mongol - or rather, Kipchak - ass...to put it crudely. How ironic it was, then, that the same state eventually gobbled up a good proportion of Mongol dominions.
Vrylakas said:
It was kind of a conquest, but it could also be seen as centralization. Russia's later claims on the Baltic as "historical territories" are obviously non-sense, but the Muscovite "conquest" was essentially the centralization of the Mongol Russian state - Vladimiran Russia - which was essentially the same state as Kievan Russia. Having said that, the Mongol invasion did change the nature of Russia, as it severed the Eastern Slavs into two groups: the western Lithuanian-then-Polish part (the GP of Galicia-Volhynia), and the part of the Mongol successor state (the GP of Vladimir-Moscow).
According to an article in the latest issue of the Swedish magazine Populär Historia (guess what the name means ) the name rus comes from an old word for row/rowing. Another theory links it with the part of Sweden called Roslagen (the Ros Law).
Personally I don't doubt that the Rus was Scandinavian, at least in culture, and that there was a constant influx of Swedish mercenaries to Russia at this time.
) the name rus comes from an old word for row/rowing. Another theory links it with the part of Sweden called Roslagen (the Ros Law).Personally I don't doubt that the Rus was Scandinavian, at least in culture, and that there was a constant influx of Swedish mercenaries to Russia at this time.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
mrtn, in my opinion, there were Germanic people there since the 3rd century AD. For instance, the Goths had a continuous presence in the Crimea since at least the 200s up until (and maybe after) the 7th century. They're not there on the Russian river system necessarily as the dominant ethnic group, but they are there.
I should point out, that it is historically very difficult to argue that the Goths were a nation rather than a set of Germanic war bands under the control of a few linked royal houses. Late Antique Goths and Early Medieval "Swedes" were essentially the same people. Goths itself probably just means people of the war god Godan (Odin), a term which became more generic by the early medieval period. (In the same way that Viking warriors were dedicated to Odin, whose hall Valhalla was reserved exclusively for them).
I should point out, that it is historically very difficult to argue that the Goths were a nation rather than a set of Germanic war bands under the control of a few linked royal houses. Late Antique Goths and Early Medieval "Swedes" were essentially the same people. Goths itself probably just means people of the war god Godan (Odin), a term which became more generic by the early medieval period. (In the same way that Viking warriors were dedicated to Odin, whose hall Valhalla was reserved exclusively for them).
The literary evidence points almost conclusively to Scandinavian origins. We have Islamic sources, Byzantine sources, Frankish sources and then a later Russian source, each one of varying value. It is not so much that we have one piece of evidence from these that is absolutely irrefutable; but rather, that we have different literary sources from different places that all seem to offer the same conclusion. However, that does not mean that there is no doubt at all, since the society of Kievan Rus does not appear very Scandinavian.
The earliest source comes from the Frankish realm of Western Europe. It was written by Prudentius of Troyes, who records a Byzantine embassy which was accompanied by certain men who stated that their tribe is known as the Rus. This would tell us very little about the issue, were it not for the fact that Prudentius further writes: after investigating carefully the reason why they had come, the emperor determined that their clan was Swedish. We really do not know exactly how the emperor determined this, but it seems pretty likely that he had the means available to be accurate. Louiss background as a Germanic ruler, who took an active role in the attempted conversion of Denmark, suggests that he is highly unlikely to have been far off in his judgement. His personal background aside, Louis would have had access to men who could determine this. What the Bertinian annals tell us therefore is that by 839, bearing in mind the potential of slight inaccuracy, western Christendom knew of a people called the Rus, who had links with Byzantium and who they thought to be Swedish.
None of the other contemporary, non-Russian sources are as explicitly precise as this, but nevertheless, they do appear to indicate that the Rus were Scandinavians. Ibn Fadlans description of the Volga Rus is particularly revealing. He describes the funeral of a Rus chief. It is revealing because his description of the sacrifice-accompanied boat burial is exactly what one would expect to lie behind the archaeological finds at Sutton Hoo in England, where amazingly preserved ruins of precisely this kind of boat burial have been found. These finds date from a few hundreds years before the Rus appear in our sources, but they come from the same kind of Germanic society as the 9th century Scandinavians. Although Ibn Fadlan and other Arab writers recount many cultural practices of the Rus that look quite generic for early northern societies, this one is quite specific, and there is no evidence that the early Slavs, Finns or any of the other indigenous cultures located north of the Black Sea practiced this. Once again, it looks as if our Rus come from Scandinavia.
??? Not sure what you're ultimately trying to get at Calgacus but I don't see that my little blurb contradicts what you're saying. I don't see that I've denied or given short shrift to Rus' Viking origins. I was just pointing out that (some) modern historians consider Rus' "Slavification" as significant, and that this process seems to have happened fairly seemlessly.
Archaeological evidence does show that the Vikings did not simply walk into the northern Dniepr forests and find the people there tabula rasa; the local Slavs had already developed a fairly sophisticated culture, with significant political and long-distance trade ties. There almost certainly was an element of conquest involved, but given the already well-developed trading routes of the Scandinavians through the region I am betting that Rurik or his predecessors already had a system of local alliances on the ground.
You may also recall Alex Bashkujev expounding on the Finno-Ugric theory in these forums earlier, by which an increasing number of paleo-ethnologists are examining the possible impact of the early proto-Finns on early Slavic socio-political development in the area. As for the sources, they only tell us that there were Scandinavians involved; they don't (or rather can't) claim Rus to be an exclusively Scandinavian venture. Rather like the Bulgars' settlement and eventual fusion with the Slavic peoples of the Balkans, many Scandinavian customs and cultural practices no doubt endured long after Rus became Slavified.
Are you suggesting that there simply were no people in the region when the Varangians appeared, that Rus in its entirety was peopled (initially) by Swedes? If that's the case, then this is simply not true. For whatever the origins of the earliest Rus ruling elite - clearly Scandinavian - there is much evidence of Slavic tribes and "statelets" (i.e., primitive political organizations) pre-dating the Varangians.
Just as revealing is the account of the Rhos (this time ) by the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Constantine makes it clear that the Rus were not Slavs, as he several times distinguishes between the languages. For those that argue that the Rus were always a Slavic people, this is a very difficult piece of evidence to get round.
Archaeological evidence also lends weight to the Scandinavian hypothesis. Scandinavian finds at Sarskii Fort, Gorodische and Staraia Ladoga make it highly likely that Scandinavians were settling in much of modern Russia. The large quantities of Moslem dirhams found in Scandinavia or amongst Scandinavian goods elsewhere tell us that the Vikings had strong trading links with the Arab world through what became the lands of the eastern Slavs.
Almost as hard to get around is the evidence of the Primary Chronicle. It appears to indicate that the Varangians came from the Baltic Sea, and that these particular Varangians were known as Russes, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, Angles and Goths. This people impose tribute about the native inhabitants, which is thrown off until they request that some Rus brothers should rule over them. The head brother is called "Ruric", a name which appears in other sources as a prominent Dane lord. It seems that one is compelled to accept that the original Rus were Scandinavians of some sort.
Again, I impugned no ethnic origins to Rus, no did I ever claim Rus to be exclusively a Slavic entity. I've re-read my little blurb above and cannot see how you would get that idea. Perhaps it is my bad English. Nonetheless, while the Vikings most certainly founded Rus as a political entity, to believe that only Vikings or Scandinavians were involved is also an error. There most certainly were Slavs involved from the beginning, in the very least as the local indigeonous peoples, along with others.
"Drang nach Südden" seems a bit strong, given that the Slavs probably entered Russia from the south, and that the 960s are the peak of Russian power in the south until the 18th century virtually. The Khazars is a brief, temporary conquest, quickly filled by other Turkic peoples. Kievan Rus never controlled much of the Steppe at all.
A couple points on this one:
1. "Drang nach Südden" was really more in the vein of a joke, though I would disagree with your point that Russia only attempted a southward expansion in the 18th century. Ivan Grozny and many of his successors fought many wars with the Tartars, expanding into southern territory as they could. The experience of the Mongol conquest and subsequent Tartar years of ruler and tribute created a strong focus for Russian security concerns southward, even if large-scale success only came in the late 17th century and onward.
2. Not sure where you get the notion of Slavs "entering Russia from the south". The geographical origins of the Slavs is nowhere near a settled point, with many regions vying for the label of the Slavic "Urheimat". Many credible theories place Slavic origins northward (or some even in the Balkans), towards modern Belarus or even farther northeast. Linguistic evidence also suggests a northern "ethnogenesis", though it is hardly conclusive. The point is no one has established where the Slavs originated to anything approaching wide acceptance.
Part II a'comin'
Part II:
Novgorod was never a rival in any real political sense; Novgorod was a vassal of the Grand Prince of Vladimir; it never kept a large military force, and it's head of state was...the Grand Prince of Vladimir, a position with the princes of Moscow eventually obtained for themselves. The lack of de facto control experienced in the late Kievan/early Mongol period enabled it to become quite independent...but it still paid the Mongol taxes to the Grand Prince, and never managed toi get a prince able to compete for the throne of Vladimiran Russia.
!!!
Youre using a political technicality to overlook what was a very real and often violent rivalry. The Posadniks who ruled Novgorod were a sop to Kieven tradition, and while Muscovy obtained the ultimate right to appoint Novgorod princes this became an empty gesture as by the early 13th century the Posadniks were virtually stripped of any real power and subject to elections. By the end of the 13th century the Posadniks were subject to annual re-elections, with the more important result that Muscovy now tried to assert its rule over Novgorod directly. By the early 15th century the Novgorodians (?) played a neat trick of diluting Posadnik power even more through numbers; they tripled their numbers and forced them to face re-election every 6 months. This was a part of a systematic attempt to dilute not only princely but Muscovite power in Novgorod. This led to the war in the mid-15th century which ended in Novgorods conquest by Muscovy, and its submission to direct Muscovite rule (1456) and finally outright annexation (1478). The final chapter came when Ivan Grozny sacked and burned Novgorod a hundred years later (1570) on the basis of a rumor.
On another point, the Mongols never controlled the Rus territories directly. They did it through Russian rulers, who like you said, collected tribute for the Mongols. Contrary the common perception of general historians, Novgorod was actually part of the Mongol dominions in this way. The responsibility fell on the Grand Prince of Vladimir, who the Mongols would select. The title of Grand Prince was prestigious, and very profitable for the collector. Moscow got control over it (c/f Tver) by licking Mongol - or rather, Kipchak - ass...to put it crudely. How ironic it was, then, that the same state eventually gobbled up a good proportion of Mongol dominions.
I disagree on this one. The Mongols who retreated from the Polish-Hungarian campaign of 1241-1242 did not withdrawal to Mongolia; they stopped in Suzdal and set up shop there. The Russian principalities were incorporated formally into the Mongol empire, and Russian princes had to report to Karakorum not only to pay tribute but for ceremonies, dispute mediation and political consultations. The Mongols set up the Golden Horde state with its capital at Sarai and ruled Russia much as they ruled most of their empire. As I alluded to in my little blurb above, however, the Mongol empire began to deteriorate fairly quickly and by the 15th century it was a fiction, with the Golden Horde doing little more than collecting tribute from Russian princes. The Mongol military presence in the Russias of the later 13th century was fairly light but given that most major Russian cities had been reduced to rubble in their invasion Rjazan, Kalomma, Moscow, Suzdal, Vladimir, Rostov, Yaroslav, Tver, etc. there was little need.
It was kind of a conquest, but it could also be seen as centralization. Russia's later claims on the Baltic as "historical territories" are obviously non-sense, but the Muscovite "conquest" was essentially the centralization of the Mongol Russian state - Vladimiran Russia - which was essentially the same state as Kievan Russia. Having said that, the Mongol invasion did change the nature of Russia, as it severed the Eastern Slavs into two groups: the western Lithuanian-then-Polish part (the GP of Galicia-Volhynia), and the part of the Mongol successor state (the GP of Vladimir-Moscow).
I describe it as a conquest because it was much more than just a re-constitution of the Kieven Rus lands, and furthermore it was carried out by a state (Muscovy) which only came to exist in the final years of Kieven Rus and which, in the context of pre-Mongol Rus, had no historic authority to be the center of any revived Rus. The point is I am breaking a commonly-accepted historical continuity between Rus and Muscovite Russia. I think it's important to make the distinction between Rus and Russian history because Rus encompasses much more (culturally and geographically) than Russia, at least in the Eastern Slavic lands. Imagine how different German history might have been if Bavaria or Saxony had emerged as the land that unified Germany in the 19th century; I am asking the same question about Russia. Because it was Moscow that unified Russia, Russia has since born the basic cultural and political imprint of Muscovy, just as Germany bore the basic imprint of Brandenburg-Prussia.
Posted by Mrtn:
According to an article in the latest issue of the Swedish magazine Populär Historia (guess what the name means ) the name rus comes from an old word for row/rowing. Another theory links it with the part of Sweden called Roslagen (the Ros Law).
Personally I don't doubt that the Rus was Scandinavian, at least in culture, and that there was a constant influx of Swedish mercenaries to Russia at this time.
Novgorod was never a rival in any real political sense; Novgorod was a vassal of the Grand Prince of Vladimir; it never kept a large military force, and it's head of state was...the Grand Prince of Vladimir, a position with the princes of Moscow eventually obtained for themselves. The lack of de facto control experienced in the late Kievan/early Mongol period enabled it to become quite independent...but it still paid the Mongol taxes to the Grand Prince, and never managed toi get a prince able to compete for the throne of Vladimiran Russia.
!!!
Youre using a political technicality to overlook what was a very real and often violent rivalry. The Posadniks who ruled Novgorod were a sop to Kieven tradition, and while Muscovy obtained the ultimate right to appoint Novgorod princes this became an empty gesture as by the early 13th century the Posadniks were virtually stripped of any real power and subject to elections. By the end of the 13th century the Posadniks were subject to annual re-elections, with the more important result that Muscovy now tried to assert its rule over Novgorod directly. By the early 15th century the Novgorodians (?) played a neat trick of diluting Posadnik power even more through numbers; they tripled their numbers and forced them to face re-election every 6 months. This was a part of a systematic attempt to dilute not only princely but Muscovite power in Novgorod. This led to the war in the mid-15th century which ended in Novgorods conquest by Muscovy, and its submission to direct Muscovite rule (1456) and finally outright annexation (1478). The final chapter came when Ivan Grozny sacked and burned Novgorod a hundred years later (1570) on the basis of a rumor.
On another point, the Mongols never controlled the Rus territories directly. They did it through Russian rulers, who like you said, collected tribute for the Mongols. Contrary the common perception of general historians, Novgorod was actually part of the Mongol dominions in this way. The responsibility fell on the Grand Prince of Vladimir, who the Mongols would select. The title of Grand Prince was prestigious, and very profitable for the collector. Moscow got control over it (c/f Tver) by licking Mongol - or rather, Kipchak - ass...to put it crudely. How ironic it was, then, that the same state eventually gobbled up a good proportion of Mongol dominions.
I disagree on this one. The Mongols who retreated from the Polish-Hungarian campaign of 1241-1242 did not withdrawal to Mongolia; they stopped in Suzdal and set up shop there. The Russian principalities were incorporated formally into the Mongol empire, and Russian princes had to report to Karakorum not only to pay tribute but for ceremonies, dispute mediation and political consultations. The Mongols set up the Golden Horde state with its capital at Sarai and ruled Russia much as they ruled most of their empire. As I alluded to in my little blurb above, however, the Mongol empire began to deteriorate fairly quickly and by the 15th century it was a fiction, with the Golden Horde doing little more than collecting tribute from Russian princes. The Mongol military presence in the Russias of the later 13th century was fairly light but given that most major Russian cities had been reduced to rubble in their invasion Rjazan, Kalomma, Moscow, Suzdal, Vladimir, Rostov, Yaroslav, Tver, etc. there was little need.
It was kind of a conquest, but it could also be seen as centralization. Russia's later claims on the Baltic as "historical territories" are obviously non-sense, but the Muscovite "conquest" was essentially the centralization of the Mongol Russian state - Vladimiran Russia - which was essentially the same state as Kievan Russia. Having said that, the Mongol invasion did change the nature of Russia, as it severed the Eastern Slavs into two groups: the western Lithuanian-then-Polish part (the GP of Galicia-Volhynia), and the part of the Mongol successor state (the GP of Vladimir-Moscow).
I describe it as a conquest because it was much more than just a re-constitution of the Kieven Rus lands, and furthermore it was carried out by a state (Muscovy) which only came to exist in the final years of Kieven Rus and which, in the context of pre-Mongol Rus, had no historic authority to be the center of any revived Rus. The point is I am breaking a commonly-accepted historical continuity between Rus and Muscovite Russia. I think it's important to make the distinction between Rus and Russian history because Rus encompasses much more (culturally and geographically) than Russia, at least in the Eastern Slavic lands. Imagine how different German history might have been if Bavaria or Saxony had emerged as the land that unified Germany in the 19th century; I am asking the same question about Russia. Because it was Moscow that unified Russia, Russia has since born the basic cultural and political imprint of Muscovy, just as Germany bore the basic imprint of Brandenburg-Prussia.
Posted by Mrtn:
According to an article in the latest issue of the Swedish magazine Populär Historia (guess what the name means ) the name rus comes from an old word for row/rowing. Another theory links it with the part of Sweden called Roslagen (the Ros Law).
Personally I don't doubt that the Rus was Scandinavian, at least in culture, and that there was a constant influx of Swedish mercenaries to Russia at this time.
Been too long, since we see any long-winded substantive posts in these parts.
mrtn said:According to an article in the latest issue of the Swedish magazine Populär Historia (guess what the name means
Personally I don't doubt that the Rus was Scandinavian, at least in culture, and that there was a constant influx of Swedish mercenaries to Russia at this time.
There's another theory: the name Rus comes from the people of Roxolani, a barbaric tribe who lived in the steppes in south Russian regions, in the first centuries AD. IMHO it's more believable Ros = row/rowing
Scandinavian had a heavy influence on Rus' development, no doubt: in the first centuries of Kievian Rus' history, the 'prince GUARD' (Knjazny DRUZINA) was made mostly by Scandinavian (Varjag) warriors...
@Abulafia:
I'd add that 'Russia' is written "Rossija" and pronounced Rassìia"...
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Firstly, Ive been away and I forgot about this thread. Just found it, so, we can continue if you dont mind.
No, no, no Im very sorry, I was expounding on the point for the benefit of the person who opened the thread. Sorry I made you waste so must writing.
Certainly not. That, as you have said, would be a silly idea. Firstly, because it would leave totally unexplainable the emergence of Sviatoslav and the general Slavification of of the Russian dynasty. Secondly, the Primary Chronicle is pretty clear on the matter, and there is no reason to disbelieve it. Moreover, philologists can work out the ethnicity of all the tribes mentioned.
My opinion is that the Norse simply established a few principalities on a Slavic, Finnic and Magyar[ic] (?) subject base. Once the first generation of warriors died out, the dynasties obviously had to go native. There was still a Scandinavian presence and Scandinavian-speaking monarchy in the 11th century (as evidenced in Heimskringla), but I think it would be pretty far out to argue that Scandinavians lasted more than a few generations as the as the main ruling element.
(Curiously, the earliest written document in Russian history comes from Kiev, and is written in Hebrew).
Well, of course they may have attempted expansion in the intervening period, but they had no chance of ruling the Steppe until the age gunpowder and of the Cossacks.
Well, I dont know about the early Slavs, but there is a clear expansion of the eastern Slavs from the northern Ukraine, northwards and eastwards from the time of Kievan Rus onwards. That was all I meant!
It seems that you have your chronology confused here. Firstly, in the early 13th century Muscovy was little more than a border outpost of Vladimir. The first mention of Moscow occurs for the year 1147. Secondly, while the Posadniks became elected officials, the Prince was still a Riurikid and the Grand Prince still had a huge role here. As you can see with Grand Prince Iaroslav Vsevolodich of Vladimir, who appoints his son Alexander Nevsky as Prince of Novgorod in the late 1230s. Quoting Janet Martin, The grand princes of Vladimir regularly regarded themselves as the rightful princes of Novgorod. In the few instances in which Novgorod attempted to challenge a Grand Princes occupation of its throne, the military might of the latter obliged it to reconsider. (Janet Martin, Medieval Russia: 980-1584, p. 182). Novgorod, being a dependency, never developed an effective army to meet its immense wealth.
The only exceptional period is the 12th century, when Novgorod dilutes the power of the Posadniks, takes its prince from rival Riurikid branches and develops the tysiatskii (commander of militia). With the addition of the Archbishop, power was split at the top, making it easier for the oligarchs to control the city. Bearing that in mind, its Princes still sought and obtained support from the city to achieve the honour of Grand Prince. Moreover, decentralization was common to all of Rus in the 12th century. But at even this nadir, Rus remained at least a feudal confederation.
The onslaught of the Germans and the new Mongol assisted GPs made Novgorods increasing independence impossibleto continue. The princes of Tver and Muscovy (rivals for GP), needed Novgorod to pay the largest part of the Mongol tribute. Novgorod could play the princes of Tver and Muscovy off against one another for temporary advantage, but they never got near achieving even de facto independence.The annexation of Novgorod in the 15th century was not a proper annexation as such, it was centralization of the (Vladimiran) Russian state. It was part of a phenomenon going on all over Europe. To portray it as simply the "annexation of Novgorod to Moscow is seriously misleading
The point is, they never appointed any Mongol or Turkic rulers, nor attempted to set up an Imperial Bureaucracy. They kept and, in some senses, revived the declining Russian feudal state. The princes were maintained, even if the Khan chose the Grand Prince; the Grand Prince had to collect tribute, and they would have to go to Sarai occasionally but all of that hardly amounts to direct rule in any sense I would understand it.
Secondly...to offer some comparison...the Mongols actually replaced the native rulers with themselves in central Asia, Iran and China. They didnt in Russia. Thats what I meant.
Muscovys authority came from the Khan in Sarai. The term used Khan in Russian sources is Tsar. He used Russias traditional Grand Principality political structure, and supplemented it with his force. In the Khans eyes, the Grand Prince of Vladimir was his administrator and his chief tax-collector. In Russian eyes, he was their Grand Prince (as we pejoratively translate in English), and the ruler of their historic feudal world.
I must say, that my experience is that in popular history (the stuff they teach at schools, and the stuff non-specialists say), a break tends to be emphasized. (In contrast, with, say France after the Carolingians, even though the Capetian state didnt even share ethnicity with the Frank; unlike the Russian case). In my opinion, this break exists to a certain extent, but I wouldnt claim it was any more or a break than, say, the Holy Roman Empire under Friedrich II with the Holy Roman Empire of Charles V.
Im also concerned with the deep prejudices which many people have against Russia. Western historians (Davies for instance), constantly seek to discredit Russias legitimacy by rubbishing the governments claims to continuity with Kievan Rus. (Ive had to invent the term Vladimiran Rus to counter it). It is true that Rus was split by the Lithuanian and Mongol conquests, but the claim to these lost territories made by the Russian state which survived were as legitimate as that logic can make them. The general picture is that while the heartland of Rus (the area between Kiev and Novgorod) was mostly taken over, the north-west border zone survived and re-orientated the state, and reunified it when it had the chance. In the process, nationalisms emerged in the Ukraine and, to a lesser extent, Belarus. Modern Russias continuity with Kievan Rus might be compared with a (theoretical) Romance-speaking Byzantine Empires claim to be the successor of Rome; or with Tang Chinas claim to be the same state as Han China. You may not agree, but I think we should see this matter in context!
Vrylakas said:
No, no, no Im very sorry, I was expounding on the point for the benefit of the person who opened the thread. Sorry I made you waste so must writing.
Vrylakas said:
Certainly not. That, as you have said, would be a silly idea. Firstly, because it would leave totally unexplainable the emergence of Sviatoslav and the general Slavification of of the Russian dynasty. Secondly, the Primary Chronicle is pretty clear on the matter, and there is no reason to disbelieve it. Moreover, philologists can work out the ethnicity of all the tribes mentioned.
My opinion is that the Norse simply established a few principalities on a Slavic, Finnic and Magyar[ic] (?) subject base. Once the first generation of warriors died out, the dynasties obviously had to go native. There was still a Scandinavian presence and Scandinavian-speaking monarchy in the 11th century (as evidenced in Heimskringla), but I think it would be pretty far out to argue that Scandinavians lasted more than a few generations as the as the main ruling element.
(Curiously, the earliest written document in Russian history comes from Kiev, and is written in Hebrew).
Vrylakas said:
Well, of course they may have attempted expansion in the intervening period, but they had no chance of ruling the Steppe until the age gunpowder and of the Cossacks.
Vrylakas said:
Well, I dont know about the early Slavs, but there is a clear expansion of the eastern Slavs from the northern Ukraine, northwards and eastwards from the time of Kievan Rus onwards. That was all I meant!
Vrylakas said:
It seems that you have your chronology confused here. Firstly, in the early 13th century Muscovy was little more than a border outpost of Vladimir. The first mention of Moscow occurs for the year 1147. Secondly, while the Posadniks became elected officials, the Prince was still a Riurikid and the Grand Prince still had a huge role here. As you can see with Grand Prince Iaroslav Vsevolodich of Vladimir, who appoints his son Alexander Nevsky as Prince of Novgorod in the late 1230s. Quoting Janet Martin, The grand princes of Vladimir regularly regarded themselves as the rightful princes of Novgorod. In the few instances in which Novgorod attempted to challenge a Grand Princes occupation of its throne, the military might of the latter obliged it to reconsider. (Janet Martin, Medieval Russia: 980-1584, p. 182). Novgorod, being a dependency, never developed an effective army to meet its immense wealth.
The only exceptional period is the 12th century, when Novgorod dilutes the power of the Posadniks, takes its prince from rival Riurikid branches and develops the tysiatskii (commander of militia). With the addition of the Archbishop, power was split at the top, making it easier for the oligarchs to control the city. Bearing that in mind, its Princes still sought and obtained support from the city to achieve the honour of Grand Prince. Moreover, decentralization was common to all of Rus in the 12th century. But at even this nadir, Rus remained at least a feudal confederation.
The onslaught of the Germans and the new Mongol assisted GPs made Novgorods increasing independence impossibleto continue. The princes of Tver and Muscovy (rivals for GP), needed Novgorod to pay the largest part of the Mongol tribute. Novgorod could play the princes of Tver and Muscovy off against one another for temporary advantage, but they never got near achieving even de facto independence.The annexation of Novgorod in the 15th century was not a proper annexation as such, it was centralization of the (Vladimiran) Russian state. It was part of a phenomenon going on all over Europe. To portray it as simply the "annexation of Novgorod to Moscow is seriously misleading
Vrylakas said:
The point is, they never appointed any Mongol or Turkic rulers, nor attempted to set up an Imperial Bureaucracy. They kept and, in some senses, revived the declining Russian feudal state. The princes were maintained, even if the Khan chose the Grand Prince; the Grand Prince had to collect tribute, and they would have to go to Sarai occasionally but all of that hardly amounts to direct rule in any sense I would understand it.
Secondly...to offer some comparison...the Mongols actually replaced the native rulers with themselves in central Asia, Iran and China. They didnt in Russia. Thats what I meant.
Vrylakas said:
Muscovys authority came from the Khan in Sarai. The term used Khan in Russian sources is Tsar. He used Russias traditional Grand Principality political structure, and supplemented it with his force. In the Khans eyes, the Grand Prince of Vladimir was his administrator and his chief tax-collector. In Russian eyes, he was their Grand Prince (as we pejoratively translate in English), and the ruler of their historic feudal world.
I must say, that my experience is that in popular history (the stuff they teach at schools, and the stuff non-specialists say), a break tends to be emphasized. (In contrast, with, say France after the Carolingians, even though the Capetian state didnt even share ethnicity with the Frank; unlike the Russian case). In my opinion, this break exists to a certain extent, but I wouldnt claim it was any more or a break than, say, the Holy Roman Empire under Friedrich II with the Holy Roman Empire of Charles V.
Im also concerned with the deep prejudices which many people have against Russia. Western historians (Davies for instance), constantly seek to discredit Russias legitimacy by rubbishing the governments claims to continuity with Kievan Rus. (Ive had to invent the term Vladimiran Rus to counter it). It is true that Rus was split by the Lithuanian and Mongol conquests, but the claim to these lost territories made by the Russian state which survived were as legitimate as that logic can make them. The general picture is that while the heartland of Rus (the area between Kiev and Novgorod) was mostly taken over, the north-west border zone survived and re-orientated the state, and reunified it when it had the chance. In the process, nationalisms emerged in the Ukraine and, to a lesser extent, Belarus. Modern Russias continuity with Kievan Rus might be compared with a (theoretical) Romance-speaking Byzantine Empires claim to be the successor of Rome; or with Tang Chinas claim to be the same state as Han China. You may not agree, but I think we should see this matter in context!
Similar threads
