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

@elenalexey It is well known normanistic crap This is data from written sources of the 9th-10th centuries: Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Ibn Fadlan, Ibn Ruste, which describe Rus only as militarized merchants who collect tribute from the local Slavs. But the real ruler has also administrative functions - court, protection of the local people from enemies and other kinds of management. Only by the time of Olga when the size of tribute becomes fixed and starts reminding "taxes" they start seeing some signs of a real state there.
1
@elenalexey well the idea that Rurik was invited to Ladoga/Novgorod and it was a capital of his state is also from written sources. What else would prove your opinion if you exclude the Nestor's Primal Chronicle?
1
@elenalexey it doesn't answer my question.
1
@elenalexey : D
1
@МатвейАнтонов-г8э okay... What is this supposed to prove?
1
Well, she was not in slavery, rather she was a servant (laundress) in the lands transferred to Russia under the peace treaty. Peter I issued a decree on succession, according to which the throne would pass to whomever the tsar indicated in his will. But he left no will (or it was destroyed), and the throne passed to his widow Catherine I under the control of his former associate Menshikov, who then occupied one of the most important roles in the country. But Catherine died a year later, and competitors sent Menshikov into exile. And the throne passed to Peter II, the grandson of Peter I. So Catherine's succession to the throne did not play a big role.
1
Romanovs did not need Rurik to prove their right to Ukraines (there were two Ukraines, Don and Zaporozhje) because they weren't heirs of Rurik, it was a different dynasty. Their rights to Ukraines were officially performed by multiple treaties (with Poland, Ottoman empire and Pereyaslavskaya rada) and soon even Poland and Lithuania became parts of Russia. The question of origins of Rus was brought up by German historians and actually Miller's paper was rejected by Academy and forbidden for publication. So you just try and project modern history into the past.
1
Haven't you ever heard of the emperor Mazepa and tsar Sagajdacznij? :D
1
 @Kwerd and George Bushes senior and junior are monarchs too, gutsule?
1
He was "varyag" (idk how it is on English), and the varyags are all nations, that lived next to Baltic sea In the Primal Chronicle the Varangians are only Swedes, Normans, Gauts, Angles and Rus.
1
@vlad6607 Halych was in the far west Exactly, western and eastern borderlands of Rus'. bordering Poland and Hungary, not the steppe There are borders with foreign countries. If every principality at the edge of something gets called a “borderland,” then all of Rus’ is a borderland We have such a definition only about Galich and Pereyaslavl. Can be assumed that it worked for a Kievan chronicler. The diphthong “Ou”, representing the sound [u], not [o] I didn't say it represented O and if "ou" is simple "u" it's a digraph and not a diphthong. reveals a phonetic realization closer to “Ukraina” (inland) from the outset—not “Okraina "Okraina" has etymology from proto-slavic "obkrajina" but "ukrajina" is still a bordering-land. Otherwise give examples of the Slavic words where prefix U means "in".
1
@vlad6607 its nothing more then your assumption not supported by any arguments It is supported by written sources and the fact that both Pereyaslavl and Galich are bordering lands. Far East and far West. Ou” represented the sound [u], not [o I did not debate that. But it doesn't change the fact that Ukraina is a borderland because U is "by" and "kraj" is edge. The prefix “v-” in Old East Slavic meant “in” or “within Okay, no problem, just show some other examples proving such a construction (with "V" as "in" in prefix) is possible. So originally the word “Vkraina”, meant “inland The name of Ukraine comes from the name area it had within Poland. So why Polish doesn't know "Vkraina" and only "Ukraina"? If they called it so they should have known better? For example Ukrainian “IN the mornin” can be spelled as /vrantsi/ as well as /urantsi If it was "Vkrajini" then it would work. But vrantsi is an adverb and Ukraina is a noun. Just give some examples of nouns with V as In. Together with the quote from the Hypatian Chronicle all evidence supports the reading of “Ukraina” as an integral land, not a marginal frontier Okay, so why did they call Pereyaslavl duchy just Oukrajina ("cried all Oukrajina") how would the reader get that some "land inland" is Pereyaslavl?
1
I would not say there was any influence of the actual Rome but Rus could take Western Christianity from Germans. It almost happened in the Olga's era when she didn't like the attitude of Konstaninos Porfirogenis. But all the Kiev economy was tightly connected with Konstantinopole and there was no any stimulation for a "German choice".
1