Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Demographic Deep Dive: Russia (FOLLOW-UP)" video.

@vredacted3125 ...What are you smoking? The Sofia Chronicle mentions Novgorod in 862, while the Novgorod Chronicle mentions it first in 862. If it was founded in 930, then where exactly did Oleg come from to capture Kiev? In fact, what was his goal of securing a trade route 'from the Varangians to the Greeks' if he was coming home to nothing? You need to cite these "archeological surveys". With no evidence, your opinion is worthless. Rus' was not exclusively the southern region. You're still trying to draw a line around a specific territory like it is a modern country. You're misunderstanding history at a basic level. Like I said before, according to every Chronicle that survives today, ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́ was originally just the lands wherever the Роусь conquered. The Роусь then became the name for the Slavic tribes that lived there. Rus' was founded in Novgorod by Rurik, therefore the people there are Rus'. Simple as that. I don't care which events you think legitmize your EXCLUSIVE claim to the legacy of Rus' and I don't care what a dead Ukrainian scholar thinks of it either. You need to explain WHY those events mean that only the southern part of Rus counts as Rus. You need to provide the primary evidence, here. Dates, names, figures, explanations. I could say that my opinion is "indisputably proven" by some Russian scholar too. So now what? Unless you understand how and why it is indisputable, you are just blindly believing what someone tells you. So please, explain. Don't just give the events, WHY does a military campaign against Constantinople mean that only the southern areas are Rus? About the rest of your comment: Moscow conquered Novgorod, so what? You JUST said that Kiev attacked Constantinople. So attacking another city doesn't mean that someone isn't Rus. Also if you put "democratic" in quotes, saying that it actually wasn't democratic, then why does it matter anyway? Sounds like you're saying that Novgorod wasn't democratic anyway so what difference does it make, and how does that mean that BOTH cities weren't still ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́? Kiev was ruled by a Velikiy Knyaz, that's not democratic either. So why are you using the "democracy" argument when Kiev doesn't reach that standard either?? I agree that Muscovites aren't anything like Rusyns. They also aren't anything like Permians, Omskites, or Krasnodarians. Each city and region has its own culture, this was true during the Rus period too, how does this prove that Moscow wasn't Rus? THE RURIKID DYNASTY MOVED TO MOSCOW, RUSSIA. The Dynasty that founded the Rus lands which you're claiming belongs only to Ukraine, started in Novgorod, Russia, and ended in Moscow, Russia. Also, I am ethnically Rusyn. Ukrainians aren't Rusyns. Don't try to claim that, too. The Boykos, Lemkos, Hutsuls, and other smaller groups have a distinct Carpathian culture that a Kyivan would not recognize before 1921.
9
I take issue with this. The name Russia was not invented by Peter I, that is a Ukrainian ultranationalist myth, with no more evidence supporting it than the idea that Russians are actually Finns/Turks/Mongols/whatever. The Byzantine name for Rus, Ρωσία (Rus-ia) first appeared in 1387 and was used interchangeably with Rus throughout the 15th century, continuing into the 17th century. Even as far back as Pope Gregory VII used Ruscia when writing to Iziaslav I. The name itself is much older than Peter I and referred to Rus. When western Rus fell to the Mongols and later Poland-Lithuania, it referred to what was left of it (Novgorod and Vladimir-Sudzal). But even if you think Russia only started with the Grand Duchy of Moscow, then 'Russia' has still been called Rus since its inception. It never stopped calling itself Rus, even after the Mongols took over. There is no record of Katherine having to force people to call themselves anything. Also, Russia is not an offshoot of Ukraine. If you want to argue that Ukraine is the original Rus because of geography (since Kiev was its capital) then you have to address the fact that Novgorod was the founding city of Rus, and that Oleg traveled south and captured Kiev. By this definition, Rus started in modern Russia. You're also ignoring that the Rurikid Dynasty died in Volhynia and only survived in Moscow, after Mstislav IV did not produce any children. And the fact that the Western Rus lands were Polonized so much that they stopped calling themselves Rus and started calling themselves Ukrainians. Thankfully Belarus avoided this fate.
6
@vredacted3125 No, it is incorrect. Just because Italian sources say it, you think it's the ultimate truth? Maximus of Lakedaimonia referred to "Muscovy" as both Ῥῶς and Ρωσία. Different words for the same thing. Muscovy or Moskowia was a term that first circulated in the Polish royal court, and appears to have been invented to diminish Rus claims over the parts of Rus that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had previously captured and were trying to Polonize. That Italian document you are referring to, the first written mention of Moscovia in 1500, was printed right around the time the Milanese princess Bona Sforza was married off to the Polish King Sisigmund I. It was a political name, created not because it reflected the truth but because it benefited the Polish. In fact if you won't believe Russian claims, there is outside evidence of how the Rus saw themselves. Jacques Margaret, a French captain who served in Russia wrote to England: "foreigners make a mistake when they call them Muscovites and not Russians. When they are asked what nation they are, they respond 'Russac', which means 'Russians', and when they are asked what place they are from, the answer is Moscow, Vologda, Ryasan and other cities". The transition between Rus and Russia is slow, and it always referred to all 3 parts of the Rus: modern day Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. Only later did Latin start to distinguish between 'Ruscia' (Russia) and 'Ruthenia,' (Ukraine) neither of which were called Rus. You may not like it, but Rus was founded in Novgorod, Russia. The Rurik Dynasty moved to northern Rus (Russia) after Kiev was destroyed. Rus is Russia, sorry.
5
@vredacted3125 Nope, wrong. So much wrong here. You're already trying to give each separate area its own lineage. When they were all united as Rus land. Rus was FOUNDED in NOVGOROD, NOT Kiev. The first entry in your chronology should be Rus'. You also make the mistake of even trying to call something a Duchy, like it is a modern country. Until the French Revolution, there were no nation-states. There was no Ukraine or Russia, just ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́ that was ruled by a князь. The idea of a Великое Княжеcтво as a political item SEPARATE from a ruler's title came much later. But, if you really want to do chronologies... Ilmen Slavs + Kriviche & Vyatiche tribes → captured by Rurik in 862, Novgorod is established → Rus' → Novgorod Republic (after Mongol destruction of Rus') → captured by Ivan Grozny → Rus' again (Italian sources don't matter, what did the people call themselves?) → Tsardom of Russia → Russian Empire → RSFSR → Russian Federation Polyanie tribes → (Iranian tribes which had been Slavicized) paying tribute to Khazaria → Kiev captured by Oleg in 880 → Rus' → Kingdom of Ruthenia (not independent, Polish vassal) → Galicia-Volhynia → Cossack Hetmanate + Zaporozhian Sich → captured by Russia → Ukrainian SSR → Ukraine Now which one to you looks like the more consistently Rus aligned country? Do you think that the Byzantine Empire was not Roman in culture because it did not control Rome?
5
While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think Russian imperialism is responsible for this particular problem. In the 1910s all Slavic countries infer the Empire were having 6 children per woman, this would have continued even if the Tsardom had survived. It was Communism which developed the country too quickly and incompletely, and brought birthrates plummeting.
5
@danbaltic9678 In your case it's especially bad, aren't the next generation of Estonians (as an example) only a few hundred thousand? Only Tallinn has grown, all other places are depopulated. But this has also happened with Russia, just less due to people being so far inland that they can be in a "bubble", so they don't feel the pull of emigration as much.
2
Not easy when the US is vying for influence over trade with Europe. I mean imagine how much money would not be available (even the crumbs after the oligarchs steal it) if Nordstream I had not been built
1