Comments by "Варяжский вопрос" (@normanism) on "UsefulCharts" channel.

  1. Volodymyr (both person and the city) never spelled as Vladimir It spelled as "Володимѣръ" or VolodimEr. Why don't you use historically accurate names instead of Ukrainian adaptations?
    1
  2.  @vlad6607  Rossian history starts with Moscow And the history of Moscow Duchy starts from Rus. It is that easy.
    1
  3.  @vlad6607  Nobody says that Moscow was major center initially but why does it matter? Moscow emerged at 10th century as a town of Vyatiches, then it was a city within different Duchies of Rus so its connection is direct. You probably confuse emerging as a city with emerging as a duchy. By the time Mongols came, Rus was a conglomerate of more or less independent states under the same dynasty. Some of those states and cities were conquered by Litva, some kept continuation with Rus. So if not Moscow any other capital like Vladimir, Tver, Nizhniy Novgorod or Ryazan would become a center of the unification of the former lands of Rus'. It would be a natural historical process either way.
    1
  4. There is a theory that a Swedish word "roᚦi" (ruthi, "rowers"), the self-name of a group of sea merchants, transformed into "Ruotsi" in Finnish language. So once Slavic people reached the Northen areas with Finno-Ugric people they told them the name of Rus'es in their language. So Finnish "Ruotsi" transformed in Slavic languages into "Rusi" ("Русь"). In 12th century the reduced vowels Ь and Ъ were replaced with soft and hard signes so Rusi turned into Rus'.
    1
  5. why did Rus monarchies have princes and not kings? Actually they called them "kniaz", a Slavic word which has German ethymology related to konung, könig or king. The "prince" is a direct translation to English.
    1
  6.  @bogdankovalyov4959  Daniel of Galicia and their ancestors as not beeing 'Russian' monarchs but Ukrainian Their duchy neither was a Ukraine nor monarchy.
    1
  7. If that wasn't the case then the Nordic culture and DNA would be much more prominant Well Rus'es were a relatively small group so they couldn't leave a valuable track in DNA of a huge area from Baltic sea to Black sea. But archaeology confidently connects the ancient Russian military and elite funeral rites (in 9-10 сenturies) with the burials of eastern Sweden. and the Rurikids wouldn't use Slavic names and deities within a generation The first generations of Rurikids still used Nordic names: Rurik (Hrorerk), Askold (Haskuldr), Oleg (Helgi), Olga (Helga), Igor (Ingvar). When we read the peace treaty of Russia with Byzantium from 944 there is a big amount of Nordic names like Sven, Bern, Karl, Gunar, Turbern etc. Also Ruruk probably was not the first generation of Rus'es because we track them since 839 in Annales Bertiniani.
    1
  8. Can you give examples of Slavic words where prefix "U" means "in"?
    1
  9. ​​ @olehleb all your examples are verbs, but krajina isn't a verb right? I believe that V replaces U only on Latin maps since in Latin alphabet there was no U letter (Tvrchia, Dvci, Forvm, etc). But let's consider your version. Can you give examples of Slavic words with prefix V meaning "in" proving such a construction is possible?
    1
  10.  @olehleb  no actually if you give some trustworthy examples I would agree with you. Let's see: узбережжя - the prefix here is UZ- so it's a wrong example. Установа, управа, вхід - verbal nouns which inherit their prefixes from the verbs. But Ukrajina isn't a verbal noun (there are no verbs "ukraijiniti" or "vkrajiniti"). Therefore it can't be a case of changing condition of the object ("ustanoviti", "upravljati") or moving it (vhoditi).
    1
  11. ​ @Kwerd Украина - глагол?
    1
  12.  @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
  13. ​ @Kwerd нет, я просил назвать слова, где приставка "У" имеет значение "в", так как вы утверждали, что Украина это значит "вСтране".
    1
  14. A more accurate translation would simply be "the land" or "the country Then where does U come from? U-country? A land BY a country?
    1
  15.  @DonGeritch  every part of the word should have meaning. If the actual word is "krajina" what does the U in prefix?
    1
  16.  @DonGeritch  in "ум" and "участие" u is a part of the root so it doesn't work, "узнаваемый" is probably the closest to "украинный"/"укра́йный".
    1
  17. The fortress you call "Nevanlinna" was built by Sweds who called it Nienskanz. Nevanlinna (a foretress on Neva river) is what the Finns called it, resettled by the Swedes in Ingria, as a more loyal Lutheran population. But what they called it, did not particularly bother anyone, since the Finns were not even a nation at that time and were considered Swedes. Russia had wars and peace treaties with Sweden. But Nienskanz was not Saint-Petersburg, it was a very small town built around the fortress. Peter the Ist built a fortress on the new place and the centre of the city shifted way far from Nienskanz which place is now at the outskirts of the city.
    1
  18. the first settlement in modern day Russia It was not the first settlement, accordingly the archeological excavations the lowest level of Novgorod is dated by 930s CE. So in the time of Rurik the town didn't exist. The settlement where Scandinavians are tracked the earliest (since 753 CE) is Ladoga (in sagas "Aldegjuborg"). Also in 2km there is Gorodische (the layer corresponding with vikings is dated by 860s CE). But there were so many little towns on the trade routes so the task of finding the earliest doesn't make solution (and if we're talking about Russian Federation there are cities like Derbent established around 6th century BCE). was called "Holmgard"a common Scandinavian name for a place Konstantin Porphyrogenes, describing Kiev of Igor's time (around 950CE), mentions the Dnieper rapid names both in Russian (or Rosian) and Slavic languages. So I believe all the towns had double names in the first place and after few generations the Scandinavian language became redundant.
    1
  19. The word "kraina" means land or country in Ukrainian Okay but how would you turn U in Ukraine into "our"? Do you know any other words formed the same way?
    1
  20. ​ @teelkenjr6325 if Ukraine is U+krajina (country) what the U stands for? A country U (krajina U)? A land by a country (u krajiny?).
    1
  21. ​ @teelkenjr6325 okay so what is the full meaning of Ukrajina then?
    1
  22. @ksonz_b that is what I said - "U+kraj+ina" (at/by+edge+ina). We can see it by the context, in the Russian Primal Chronicles this word was used for bordering lands like Galich (bordering with Poland) or Pereyaslavl (bordering with Nomads). "Vkrajina" instead of "Ukraina" is a matter of phonetics: in Ukrainian there is an "euphony rule" sometimes used in poetry and music which changes the letter У (U) to В (V) at the beginning of a word when the preceding word ends with a vowel or a diphthong ("Nai Vkraina vsia radiie").
    1
  23. It doesn’t make sense that the heartland of the Rus could mean Kyiv meant borderland They never called Rus "Ukrajina". In the 12th century they called "Ukrajina" the bordering duchies: Galiczska Ukrajina and Pereyaslavlskoe knjazhestvo. Later they called "Ukraina" the area between crown Polish land and the steppe. But destroyed and abandoned Kiev wasn't the "heartland" anymore.
    1
  24. It would be fair back in the 90's but sadly the modern Scandinavians do not show much wisdom even ruling their own countries: for example Sweden of fear joined NATO although nobody ever threatened it. And in couple decades Russia will have to deal with Stockholm emirates because - well you know why.
    1
  25. When Trump attacked the reservations of Indians?
    1
  26. No, rus is a correct form because it's a self-designation of a group of people. Also if you read Scandinavian sagas you almost won't meet there the word "viking". This word was widely popularized by pop-culture but in the Early Medieval it meant just a regular pirate and not only Scandinavian. They believe Rus'es took such a name because it was unusual for Scandinavians using small rowing boats instead of keeled sea vessels so this word defined first a social group. Also there is a word "ruᚦi" ("ruthi") written down on a runestone of 11th century which as they believe could mean a a squad of rowers on rowing boats. This word could transform to "ruotsi" in Finnish (the name of Sweden) and "rusi" in Slavic language.
    1
  27.  @KasumiRINA  "украина" comes from Old East Slavic "оукраина" from Proto-Slavic *ukrajina. у- (u-) +‎ край (kraj) +‎ -ина (-ina). First mentioned in the XII centiry in the Primal Chronicle for Pereyaslav and Galich principalities due their bordering positions. 1187: "Переӕславци бѣ бо любѧ дроужиноу . и злата не сбирашеть имѣниӕ не щадѧшеть . но даӕшеть дроужинѣ . бѣ бо кнѧзь добръ . и крѣпокъ на рати . и моужьствомъ крѣпкомъ показаӕсѧ . и всѧкими добродѣтелми наполненъ . ѡ нем же Оукраина много постона" 1189: "И еха и Смоленьска в борзѣ и приѣхавшю же емоу ко Оукраинѣ Галичькои
    1
  28. mythical character who was described as a man 10m tall Where?
    1
  29.  @vlad6607  The rulers of Russia were the direct heirs of the princes of Rus - Igor, Svyatoslav, Yaroslav, etc. And like Igor, who once dreamed of capturing Constantinople, they wanted to become the spiritual heirs of Byzantium, which even after its destruction remained a guiding star for them. So they were not only physical heirs but also continued their projects.
    1
  30.  @vlad6607  I would say Rus survived exactly because it did not have a one strong center. Mongols destroyed Kiev but by the time it was not the "heart" or "brain" of Rus anymore but just one of the many and many centers which only formally remained the great duchy. As for financial flows Vladimir was way more attractive. Even getting Kiev from mongols Alexander Nevsky kept fighting for Vladimir. Again, it's not about Moscow, any other duchy which wasn't completely destroyed and wasn't conquered by Lithuanians could become a center of unification of former duchies or Rus.
    1
  31.  @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
  32. Толсто тролите.
    1
  33. ​ @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
  34.  @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
  35. Okay, krajina is "state" but what means "U"?
    1
  36. ​ @dmytronadyeyin2213  okay let's look one map like this. In the map of "European Tartaria" (1684). Dnieper Ukraine is marked as "Vkraina o Paese de Cosacchi di Zaporowa". In the East there was "Vkraina overo Paese de Cosacchi Tanaiti Soggetti al Moscovita". In the same map you can find TVRCHIA (Turkey) and GRAN DVCA DI MOSCOVIA (Great Duchy of Moscovia). Since in classic Latin alphabet there was no U letter, they used V instead of U. So it's still Ukraina.
    1
  37. So if Ukraine is the land of Ukrainians, what is the etymology of "Ukrainian"?
    1
  38. ​ @relaxxo182 but "u kraja" doesnt mean "in kraj", it means "by kraj".
    1
  39.  @relaxxo182  as far as I know Vkraina is the name of Ukraina on Latin maps. Since in classic Latin alphabet there was no U letter (for example Forum was FORVM), they used to write Ukraina as VKRAINA. For example in the Italian map of "European Tartaria" (1684). Dnieper Ukraine is marked as "Vkraina o Paese de Cosacchi di Zaporowa". In the east there was "Vkraina overo Paese de Cosacchi Tanaiti Soggetti al Moscovita". In the same name you can find TVRCHIA (Turkey) and GRAN DVCA DI MOSCOVIA (Great Duchy of Moscovia).
    1
  40.  @relaxxo182  as I understood your claim, V in Vkraina was a Slavic prefix and not the replacement the U letter in Latin.
    1
  41. ​ @relaxxo182 then can you give examples of the Slavic words with prefix U meaning "in" proving such a construction is possible?
    1
  42. 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
  43. How do you imagine the process of "stealing a name"? For example if tomorrow some African tribe decides to call itself "United Kingdom" or "England" will Brits say: "yeah okay, since our old name's gone, let's call ourselves "an Oatland"?
    1
  44. I think Nikolai's personality is seen even from his little actions.
    1
  45.  @AEH-df7ho  по именам племён - словене, кривичи, вятичи, радимичи и пр.
    1
  46.  @KateeAngel  The absence of Novgorod in the time of Rurik is a popular argument of "anti-Normanists", but the absence of a city in today's place (which is true) does not mean the absence of Rurik. Only 2 km from Novgorod there is Gorodishche, where in the middle of the 9th century there were fortifications, its archeology contains quite a lot of Scandinavian antiquities. They are also present in Ladoga, Pskov, Rostov and many other places, while in Kiev they appear only at the very end of the 9th century, which suggests that first the Vikings came to the route between the Baltic and the Volga and only then, few decades later, moved to the Dnieper.
    1
  47. It seems that Ukrainian commentators use the same cheat sheet. For the hundredth time - in the chronicle it is Volodimer ("Володимѣръ"), not Volodymyr ("Володымыр"). But if you look at the coins that were printed during his lifetime, there is "Vladimir" ("ВЛАДИМИРЪ НА СТОЛѢ", "ВЛАДИМИРЪ А СЕ ЕГО ЗЛАТО"). Who do you believe more - Yermak or Kniaz Vladimir himself?
    1
  48. By Peter III you probably meant Peter I? Also Mikhail Romanov was not the descendant of the beloved Ivan the Terrible's wife, his granfather was her brother and uncle of the last ruling Rurikovich Fiodor Romanov.
    1
  49. Since there was no actual "state" in the 9th century there could not be capital either. Even Kiev in 9th century was not the capital but more of a merchant base where all the Rus'es lived. In winter time they traveled around Slavic settlements, where they collected tribute. In Spring time they took the collected fur, slaves, honey, wax on boats and took it for sale to Constantinople.
    1
  50.  @elenalexey  the author of the Primal Chronicle tried to make it looking like a state. But if we read the written sources of 9-10 centuries Rus'es were a group of armed merchants who robed the local tribes and sold fur and slaves. It had nothing to do even with Early-Medieval States. So even Kiev of that time was just the place where they lived and where they gathered boats with fur and slaves before sending them to Konstantinopole - compare with its Scandinavian name "Kenugardr" ("boat town"). But if talk about where Rus'es came first - yes Ladoga is the place where they track the Scandinavian antiquities since the 8th century.
    1