Comments by "Варяжский вопрос" (@normanism) on "UsefulCharts"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kwerd окей, проверяем:
ввік, вголос, всюди, вниз, всередині - наречия, у вас же ВкрайинА, а не ВкрайнИ.
взір, узор - в здесь не приставка, а часть корня.
всміх, укіс, взвіз, угода - отглагольное существительное, но глагола вкрайнити нет.
узлісся, взбіччя, взгір'я - приставка уз, а не у, у вас же не Взкрайина.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vlad6607 princes still fought to hold Kyiv even as its economic importance declined
I do not debate that. But they weren't fighting to take this seat but to put there their "deputy" or "representative" who would provide their interests while themselves preferring to remain in more profitable Vladimir or Galich. When Mongols came to Kiev there was such a deputy - Dimitr representing the will of prince of Galich Daniil.
If you remember when Alexander Nevsky got Kiev from Mongols he wasn't satisfied and kept fighting with his brother Andrey for the most desirable place - Vladimir.
it fragmented into separate political entities with no intention of reunification
It was fragmented way before Mongols so the destruction of Kiev didn't change too much. But when Kiev was conquered by Litva it became a town of another state. As for church mitropoli, the metropolitan’s residence was moved to Vladimir in 1299 then in 1325 to Moscow. Which is the continuity.
Vladimir-on-Klyazma was rising economically and politically. That doesn’t make it a successor of Kyivan Rus
All the possessions of the Rurikids family were Rus. You can clearly see it in "Tale of the Destruction of the Rus' Land" a text of 13th century which outlines the borders of Rus in a very detailed way.
Lithuania actually preserved more of the Rus’ elite
But as you say they became "new branches" and new dynasties within new state so they lost their continuity with Rurikovichs.
and Orthodox tradition than Moscow did
Much of what Lithuania preserved — Orthodox Christianity
Litva soon united with Poland where Catholicism and Greek-Catholicism were actively imposed by the authorities.
the Grand Duchy of Lithuania called itself “Litva i Rus
It was "Great Duchy Lithuanian, Russian and Zhamoitian" but the duches were Lithuanians while Slavic population was a national minority there.
ruled over Kyiv
Kiev in Lithuania was a destroyed peripheral town so ruling it didn't mean anything.
and adopted the Russkaya Pravda and Old Church Slavonic
Well many countries adopted Old Church Slavonic - Moldova, Valachia, Serbia, it doesn't make them heirs of Rus.
It fought the Mongols militarily (unlike Muscovy
Moscow actually took over mongols and tatars and conquered their lands until the Pacific Ocean and then conquered Poland and Lithuania too. So you can't say it didn't do anything.
negotiated with the West without abandoning its Rus’ identity
Then why it's Ukraine and not Rus?
Moscow, by contrast, broke with Kyivan traditions, replacing them with its own ideology (e.g. “Third Rome”
First, what ideology Rus had in the first place? It didn't have any. Second, it was one single family, no matter in Kiev, Vladimir or in Moscow. If Kiev remained independent and was a strong center, its princes would try to play the card of "Translatio imperii" too because that time only a lazy ruler didn't try it. Even Skopje tried to represent themselves as the "Third Rome". Conquering so many lands with non-Slavic population Russkoje Gosudarstvo became an empire for sure.
Legitimacy comes from cultural continuity, not convenience
I would say that legitimacy comes from the power, if the state is strong it can do anything it wants, if not it's opinion doesn't matter. Whole world history is the right of the strong.
1
-
1
-
@alexandrppc9043 "словянами" не называло себя ни одно славянское племя. Были "словене". А форма слова "русь" характерна как раз для финно-угорских названий (ср. чудь, весь, сумь, емь, ливь, лопь, водь), славянские же этнонимы имели совсем другую форму (ср. поляне, древляне, висляне и кривичи, радимичи, вятичи).
1
-
@alexandrppc9043 словяни походить від "слово" тобто ті, що розмовляють зрозумілою мовою
Это вы про этноним VI-IX вв. Научный термин славяне - люди, говорящие на языках славянской группы.
важливо, що держава утворена на основі племен
Племенные различия стёрло только христианство. А так и у восточных славян было до 10 разных традиций. В очерченном вами треугольнике (Киев, Чернигов, Переяславль) жило три разных культуры: луки-райковецкая, волынцевская и роменская, каждая из которых имела отдельные погребальные обряды, украшения и пр. В культурном плане древляне и волыняне были гораздо ближе к полянам (одна культура и антропология), чем северяне.
у назві відео ідеться про якусь міфічну українську монархію
Думаю, автор наоборот хотел сделать красивый реверанс в сторону украинцев - мол, он не шовинист и знает, что Российская монархия была не только государством русским. Но тот, кто поступается научными принципами, чтобы не обидеть активистов, и теряет научный авторитет, и всё равно обижает активистов, которые будут недовольны в любом случае.
імперія насильницько асимілює поневолені народи
Мифологема "один народ" относилась к восточным славянам, а не ко всем народам РИ. В имперские же времена идея пан-славизма была крайне популярна не только в России, но и в Сербии, Болгарии и Польше (ещё со времён Мавро Орбини). Собственно и ПМВ началась из-за того, что Россия вступилась за "братский" сербский народ.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the name Rus was appropriated later, in 18 century by Peter I
Peter the Ist called it Russian Empire (since 1721), until then it was Russian Tsardom (1547-1721), Ioann the IVth called himself "Great Sovereign, by the grace of God, Tsar and Grand Duke of all Rus', Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, Ryazan, Tver, Yugorsk, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and others".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1