Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "VisualPolitik EN"
channel.
-
18
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@My_initials_are_O.G.cuz_I_am
"The 16th century chronicler Alexander Guagnini's book Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio wrote that Rus' was divided in three parts. The first part, under the rule of the Muscovite Grand Duke, was called White Russia. The second one, under the rule of Polish king, was called Black Russia. And the rest was Red Ruthenia. He also said Moscow was the center of White Russia and the Russian metropolitanate, and that the Grand Duke of Moscow was called the White Czar, especially by his subjects."
So not really - no White Ruthenia is certainly not Belarus ;) "Only by the late 19th century, the name was associated with the area of present Belarus. "
"the close connection between the Rus' and the Norse is confirmed both by extensive Scandinavian settlement in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine and by Slavic influences in the Swedish language.[55][56] Though the debate over the origin of the Rus' remains politically charged, there is broad agreement that if the proto-Rus' were indeed originally Norse, they were quickly nativized, adopting Slavic languages and other cultural practices. This position, roughly representing a scholarly consensus (at least outside of nationalist historiography), was summarized by the historian, F. Donald Logan, "in 839, the Rus were Swedes; in 1043 the Rus were Slavs".[40]"
Essentially Poles got their rear end kicked by Vikings and became Rus.
Russia is as much descendant of Kievian Rus as is everyone else in the region. I.e. accounts that Ukrainians are descendants more than Russians or vice versa are just nationalism.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1