Comments by "Варяжский вопрос" (@normanism) on "UsefulCharts"
channel.
-
11
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is similar to how the Carolingian dynasty
The analogy with the Carolingian Empire is not correct, because the Franks had feudal law, which allowed land ownership in exchange for military service. Nothing like this existed in Rus' until the 15th century. The right to own land was exclusively possessed by the Rurikovichs, who were considered princes by birthright. Rus could be compared with family corporation where all the branches of main business are shared between the family members. There was no any feudal law that's why the term vassal is also incorrect.
The notion of the whole Rurikids Dynasty is fabricated in the 14th and 15th centuries by Moscow
You should not confuse the naming of dynasty with dynasty itself. And the first Russian chronicles mentioning Rurik exist since the 11th century.
It was not the same dynasty that ruled in both Kyiv and Moscow
And "not the same branch" doesn't mean "not the same dynasty". Will you deny that Alexander Nevsky was prince of Kiev? His son Daniil was the first prince of Moscow. It is that easy.
The last branch of the Rurikids in modern Russia that ruled in Moscow died out with Feodor I
Vasily Shujskij also was Rurikovich.
The Romanov dynasty of Russia does not have a direct, proven genealogical connection to the Rurikid dynasty of Rus
They had connection through the marriage of Anastasia Romanova with Ioann IV which made their family the most noble and upper the many other princely branches. Mikhail Feodorovich was elected by representatives from each land which means recognizing his right to rule. Actually Rurikovichs is one of the most long-lasting dynasty. In Sweden, Poland, France, Italy and many other countries the dynasties were changing as fast as underwear. For example the Swedish royal dynasty comes from the Napoleon's general Bernadott. How close was he related with Olof Skötkonung?
Putin's misguided ideas of ''One Nation
If you allowed Russian language as the second state language as in Belarus (and many other countries with few state languages like Finland, Canada, Switzerland etc), nobody would be able to come to you with the idea of infringement of rights of Russian minority. Nationalism leads to losing lands and Multi-culturalism leads to extending.
2
-
@jaanushiiemae2164 Analogies with French dynasties are inappropriate, since in Western Europe in the 10th century already feudal law, according to which it was possible to own land as a vassal. In Rus', princes became princes only by birth, and no one except members of one family had the right to own any land.
If you believe that a princely dynasty in Rus' never existed, you should demonstrate a "social lift", how some boyars or noble Slavs became princes.
If you believe that there is no succession between Igor and Daniil of Moscow, you also need to show this - where it ended and when, and what scientific publications indicate the falsity of dynastic data in Russian chronicles.
Ivan the Terrible traced himself not only and not so much from Rurik, but from the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus. With the annexation of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, the Russian state became an empire, and it needed a new status. Such a status was given by the succession from the Roman emperors.
2
-
It doesn't really matter where Ruses came first because in 9th century there was no a state anyway and Ruses were just Scandinavian merchants. However, tracking the Scandinavian graves and antiques by archeology we can clearly see them coming from North (Volga route) to the South (Dnieper route).
The most common reason why Ruses had to come to Dnieper was the so called "first silver crisis" when the arabian dirchams stopped coming to Khazaria, Ruses had to switch to Byzantium market. Dnieper river route was an excellent place for trading with Konstantinopolis.
The joy or pride to be first who Ruses came the first is doubtful because several written sources state that Ruses sold Slavs on the slave markets in Bulgar, Itil and Konstantinopolis.
The end of 9th century is a bit too early for Igor, he is mentioned only in the peace treaty of 944 in the Primal Chronicle. Konstantin VII Porfirogenis mentions him only around 950 also stating that his son Sfendoslavos rules in Novgorod. So coming from Novgorod to Kiev, Ruses kept it for themselves not breaking up with Volga route.
The previous peace treaty from 911 doesn't mention Igor at all knowing Oleg as a prince (and strangely doesn't mention Kiev). However we can track the presence of the Northen population in Kiev by a log building in Podol in the 880s of the 9th century. Until that, there was not a single log building in Kyiv; the traditional dwellings of the Polyans and Severians were semi-dugouts dug into the ground. In the North, the Slavs borrowed the log building technology from the Finno-Ugrians, so this building may correspond to the chronicle arrival of Oleg to Kiev, when he brought with him Slovenes, Krivichi and Chud.
Further, at the turn of the 9th-10th centuries, we trace a new tradition for these places of chamber inhumations, which suggests that a group of Scandinavians occupied a dominant position in Kiev, which can also be associated with the arrival of Oleg. All that has nothing to do with Ukraine but with geography and economy.
2
-
2
-
which has its roots from Catherine the Second
It has its roots from the Primal Chronicle, the first Normanist was the Kievan monk Nestor.
who was very famous of erasing historical evidence and making up history
What exactly "erased" Catherine II that made her so famous?
if and his ancestors were variags - this doesn’t mean that they were Vikings from Scandinavia
It does, because Nestor himself outlined the circle of Varangian peoples: Swears, Urmans, Getae, Angliani and Rus. The first written source mentioning Rus people, Bertin Annales from 839, states that Franks recognized in Ruses Sueones. Ioann the Dean also calls Ruses "normans".
Most probably Novhorod which mentions in the chronicles is a Novhorod Siversky
The legend mentions 3 brothers who came to 3 cities: Novgorod, Izborsk and Beloozero, all 3 in the North. And by the Variazhskoje Sea the chronicler clearly meant Baltics. The worst lie is lie to yourself :)
which is based on archeological findings
Can you refer on a scientific article on archeology proving that Novgorod-SEverskiy existed in the 9th century?
Novhorod on the Ilmen (the great Novhorod) doesn’t have any confirmed archeological evidence of settlements until the late 11th century
Another lie. Look up: Tarabardina O. A. Dendrochronology of medieval Novgorod (based on archaeological research materials from 1995-2005). Abstract of diss. Cand. of History. - M., 2007
The statement - Rus is Russia is like to say that Alfred the Great from England is the ancient king of USA
No it's like to say Alfred the Great, the King of Anglo-Saxons was king of England or Great Britain.
In the chronicles the term "to go to Rus" always means to go to Kyiv, Chernihiv, Pereyaslav, Halytsko-Volyn principality
It was the period of feudal fragmentation, when each principality of Rus considered itself a separate state. But in the same way, the inhabitants of the Kiev principality actively called themselves Kyians.
The people there were not rusyny and never were
You can look up the treaty between Novgorod and Gotland from 1189 where Novgorod people call themselves "rusiny" while they call Gauts "varyagi"
"Оже емати скотъ варягу на русинѣ или русину на варязѣ а ся его заприть, то 12 мужь послухы, идеть ротѣ, възметь свое"
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1