Youtube comments of (@styrman1337).
-
402
-
140
-
111
-
99
-
Sequel on Oleg: https://youtu.be/hpxhdhO1KDg
Answering common comments:
C: Why do you use Russia in your video titles?
A: Because I have access to statistics of what my viewers and potential viewers are interested in and most of them search for "Russian history". The region is commonly called "The Russian Plain"(shortened as Russia). It is a long-established and accepted name in academia and popular perception. Until a better name comes up and becomes as widely accepted, I will use Russia in order to make my videos as accessible and comprehensible to a wide an audience as possible.
C: Why not use "Rus" instead of "Russia"?
A: Because new viewers have no idea what "Rus" is, which is relatively obscure history compared to most historical - even medieval - topics. Furthermore, "Rus" was referred to as "Russia" in Latin since the 11th century - Rhosias in Greek since the 10th. You can look it up very easily.
C: Rurik's existence has been proven by DNA!
A: Watch the video.
C: Rurik's existence has been proven by archaeology!
A: Archaeological findings do not prove that a certain person going by a certain name associated with a certain legend existed, unless if you'd locate a finding with the name and bearing some association with the legend. There is however, some archaeological findings which align with the legend - Riurikovo Gorodishche(Rurik's fortress, believed to be the original Novgorod, it is a modern term for the archaeological site) was founded in the mid-9th century, close to Rurik's later attested reign(which contradicts the Primary Chronicle which said that Novgorod was much older); both RG and the settlement at Ladoga were subject to fires in the 870s, indicating some sort of turmoil, like the one preceding Rurik's attested reign and invitation. But again, this does not prove that a guy called Rurik existed, only that the legend written down 300 years later might've had a grain of truth to it. Remember that stories get modified over time, however. I've talked about this in previous videos.
C: Why do you deny the existence of Rurik?
A: Rurik's existence has never been denied in the video.
C: Rurik was a Swede from Roslagen!
A: Watch the video.
C: Rurik's existence has been proven by the Primary Chronicle! Do you also deny the existence of Julius Caesar or Napoleon?
A: The Primary Chronicle is the first available source mentioning the existence of Rurik, and it was written almost 300 years after his purported existence. Historians judge sources as more reliable based partly on proximity to the occurrence of events, and prefer to cross-reference with multiple proximate sources. Julius Caesar and Napoleon have countless sources from their own lifespans writing about them. I didn't discuss this in-depth in the video but perhaps I should have.
C: You support Putin/You support NATO/This is Anti-Germanic revisionism/This is Anti-Russian propaganda
A: The sign is a subtle joke. The shop is called "Sneed's Feed & Seed", where feed and seed both end in the sound "-eed", thus rhyming with the name of the owner, Sneed. The sign says that the shop was "Formerly Chuck's", implying that the two words beginning with "F" and "S" would have ended with "-uck", rhyming with "Chuck". So, when Chuck owned the shop, it would have been called "Chuck's Fuck and Suck".
88
-
Post-script comments:
- Some people in the comments pointed out that I mistakingly referred to the tribe of Krivics as Finnic whilst they were Slavic. Please note that I am unable to edit these videos after they've been uploaded, the best thing I can do is make these post-script comments.
- I get a few comments on this video and others pushing a narrative that because the modern word "Slave" stems from "Slav", this means that Eastern Europeans were enslaved by vikings. It is true that eastern europeans were taken as thralls to Scandinavia(along with Celts, Southern Europeans), and sold as slaves to the Caliphate. This is not where the modern word "Slave" comes from. It comes from Venetians buying Slavic prisoners from the Balkans and Bohemia and selling them as slaves to the Muslims. In this period and even later, it was common to refer to slaves by their ethnic identity. "I bought a group of Slavs", "I bought a group of negroes", etc. Because Slavs made up the majority of Venetian-sold slaves, the word became synonymous with "indentured servant" in the western world. It has nothing to do with the vikings and their trade with the muslims, who didn't really distinguish between any fair-skinned slaves, referring to anyone from Francia to Rus' as "Saqaliba". The word Slav itself seems to be Slavic in origin and seems to mean "glory" among other things.
71
-
64
-
63
-
55
-
53
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
29
-
27
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
16
-
16
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
Your antagonistic attitude is baffling when several of your conclusions are already stated in the video, such as limited evidence of Scandinavian colonization, little to no evidence of Scandinavian state formation in Rus', and most evidence pointing to Scandinavians being present as traders and mercenaries. There is also an abundance of items indicating the presence of Scandinavian culthood in the region, ranging from runic inscriptions to amulets. The religious rites described of itinerant Rus in Volga Bulgaria by Ibn-Fadlan and others appears to be a blend of Scandinavian, Finnic, Slavic, and Turkic practices - this is something I will discuss in a future video. And there is evidence to limited to Scandinavian colonization around the upper Volkhov, such as grain findings similar to ones from Middle Sweden and findings of iron plows of Swedish craftsmanship. I mostly discuss this in the video on Aldeigjuborg/Staraya Ladoga, a settlement primarily inhabited by Scandinavians until the end of the 10th century. Regarding the Wendish theory I am familiar with it and I think it is possible due to vast archaeological findings of West Slavic items in the Volkhov region, most importantly at Gorodishche on Lake Ilmen which appears to have been the center of the "Rus Khagan", but this is something I'll be discussing in the video about the settlement aforementioned.
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Your comment only it makes it appear as if you are interested in basic summaries and if that is the case then I'd recommend ChatGPT or Wikipedia. If you had the patience or curiosity to watch the rest of the video before getting upset by a few words and ragequitting the video, you would have learned that the "two cultures" were not the only ones that mattered, and that this is a gross oversimplification. There are plenty of channels and mediums discussing the oversimplifications, this is not one of them. I like the details and nuance and most of my viewers do also. You say that only Slavs and Scandinavians were important. Slavs were a minority in the region where the Scandinavians started trading - Balts had maintained a trade network there since the stone ages and it was primarily inhabited by Finno-Ugrians. The Scandinavian clans never controlled the trade network to Byzantium(which didn't become important until the mid-10th century, before then the most important one led to the Caspian), it was controlled by nomads and semi-nomads including the Volga-Bulgarians and Khazars, and to a lesser extent Magyars, then Pechenegs and Cumans. Scandinavians were neither the only ones involved in the Baltic - the silver trade began between Western Baltic Slavs(Obotrites) and Ladoga(Finnic territory), and would eventually be managed by Frisians(Proto-Dutch). If you wish to learn more, I have plenty of sources listed in my video descriptions. Some commenters act as if I invent stuff out of the blue or come up with radical ideas, no, this is research and opinions published by reputable scholars, publically available for you to engage in. These videos serve as summaries of them.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
this isn't a law court, this is discussing history which occured over a thousand years ago. it has nothing to do with your ridiculously constructed strawman scenario. history does not have an objective truth, that is impossible to know without a time machine. it is a narrative or rather a perception constructed by individuals with the use of available evidence, be it written, archaeological, or genetic, all of which is limited and doesn't provide a complete picture, allowing for different interpretations to be drawn, many of which are often extreme. "the truth lies somewhere inbetween" in the context of history, means that every side painting a different narrative probably contains some grain of truth which it draws from. does it mean that all of it is true? probably not, but it's what we have to work with, and which is why history has to be taken with a grain of salt. take for example the Primary Chronicle - it speaks of Varangian/Scandinavian involvement in early Rus which some have since denied. now we have archaeological and genetic evidence to prove their presence in the region. some use these materials to say the Varangians ran Rus, while others say there were just traders
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is true that eastern europeans were taken as thralls to Scandinavia(along with Celts, Southern Europeans), and sold as slaves to the Caliphate. This is not where the modern word "Slave" comes from. It comes from Venetians buying Slavic prisoners from the Balkans and Bohemia and selling them as slaves to the Muslims. In this period and even later, it was common to refer to slaves by their ethnic identity. "I bought a group of Slavs", "I bought a group of negroes", etc. Because Slavs made up the majority of Venetian-sold slaves, the word became synonymous with "indentured servant" in the western world. It has nothing to do with the vikings and their trade with the muslims, who didn't really distinguish between any fair-skinned slaves, referring to anyone from Francia to Rus' as "Saqaliba". The word Slav itself seems to be Slavic in origin and seems to stem from "Slovo" meaning word. During the viking age, middle ages and early modern period, the word for slave was thrall/träl. This is basic knowledge you should know before making ridiculous statements. Feel free to list more of your "empirical evidence" and more of your "top scholars".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1