Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Styrman" channel.

@troydavis1 Your professor needs better training. "Russ-ia" had been in use alongside "Rus" since the 15th century. It is just the Byzantine Greek name for Rus, it wasn't invented in the 1700s lol The reality is, all 3 nations have a connection to the Rus state. The only claim I will make is that Russia has the strongest claim to its political legacy (the starting city, Novgorod/Gorodishche) both being in Russia; the political continuity of the Rurik Dynasty (they all moved north away from Kiev to Vladimir after the Mongols invaded); and the cultural legacy (Russians weren't forcibly Polonized for 300 years like Ukraine and Belarus were).
321
@SeriyMar ?? Few hundred kilometers, what is your point? Rus was not started in Kiev, Kiev was captured by the Rus. Sounds familiar?
84
@robinbreeds9217 ...Yes, they did. Even Viking sources mention moving downwards along the Dniepr to reach and capture Kiev (by Oleg). Kiev's starting history is being captured by a stronger outside power. You can come up with conspiracy theories all you like but we have multiple letopisy in both Ukraine and Russia confirming this. The Rus were Vikings, and they traveled south to capture Kiev.
52
@SeriyMar They didn't travel through «болота», they traveled down the river Dniepr.
34
@alekshukhevych2644 No, Kiev makes more sense for English. "Keev" is the best you will get with the "Ukrainian" spelling of it. The nuance of the vowels is lost in English, it's a poor transliteration. Russian version is better.
25
@alekshukhevych2644 Not nearly as much of a myth as Kyi. We have strong evidence of Scandinavian rule over Slavic lands at around the time of the legend. We also have archaeological evidence of Novgorod being founded around that time too, and that the Rus did extend their power to Kiev after raiding the city. You will need to specify what you mean by "Rus itself according to all manuscripts is literally North-Central Ukraine". That is vague and patiently untrue— East Slavic settlements were also concentrated in northern pockets around Novgorod and current Pskov, far from Kiev. Also— weren't you just questioning the truthfulness of the manuscripts? You seem to be cherry-picking which parts you believe. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about the Polans tribe— Russians trace their tribal ancestry to the Krivichi and Vyatichi. Old Ukrainian isn't directly descended from Old East Slavic— it became distinct from Ruthenian/Rusian after Poland changed its vocabulary to such an extent that it separated from the uncaptured Rus territory (modern Russia). 300 years of Polish occupation changed western Rus into Ukraine and Belarus. I won't pretend like Russian is very similar to the Old Rus language— it has gone through a vowel shift, like English did with Old English. It has picked out Dutch and German words during its Imperial period. But to try and claim that Ukrainian is more similar to it than Russian is insane. Maybe if you purged all Polish borrowed words, but then you'd lose 40% of your vocabulary.
15
@SeriyMar If you are talking about me— stating facts. If you refuse to take very clear evidence— for example Swedish king Anund Jakob helping Yaroslav the Wise against the Pechenegs, who were in the south near Crimea— then I don't know what else to say to you. It is extremely clear that Kiev was captured by the Rus coming from the north. Every source that we have confirms this. From both old Scandinavian and Rus sources. I don't even know what you can say to deny this besides screaming "it's all fake!!" (and then offering no good alternative history, and showing no artifacts or ancient texts to support your idea). I don't even know why you oppose the idea so much, is it because it places the start of Rus history in modern day Russian territory? Why does that matter to you?
10
@alekshukhevych2644 Neither. Those are English translations. The Old Slavic term is Кии. And it's a folk legend, a myth. Kiev was already a town by the time the Rus captured it from the Khazars. The oldest written mention of Kiev are spelt Кїєвъ. Old Ukrainian spelled it as Кїєвь. The story of Кій was invented later as a nice way to explain the city. But there is no written record of Кій ever existing.
8
 @garrgravarr Just the pinned one. Maybe some farther down. He is just exaggerating. If you want to find bots from both sides, political analysis channels are full of them
5
@sportsfisher9677 Of course the Rurik line was quickly Slavicized, but the lifestyle and Viking practices did not change right away. They still were trying to raid Constantinople generations after settling in the Slavic lands that would be named after them
5
@SeriyMar Sounds like someone is in denial. Can you prove me wrong? Do you have all-new letopisy with a completely different story? Where do you think the Rus came from??
5
@SeriyMar What does that have to do with the things you told me? You replied to me first, saying that the Rus didn't travel through mud to reach Kiev. I didn't say anything against that, I just said that the Rus captured Kiev by coming from the north, and then you called it bullshit. I don't understand why when you agreed with me a few comments before that
5
Would be very funny if true, but probably just false cognates
4
@erkkinho Deported, not erased. Most Karelians have been absorbed into the Finnish population and lost the traits that made them distinct from the rest of Finnish population. The only distinct people left are the Saami, and even they have been heavily Finnicised.
3
@PsevdonimKanalaNahuy Hohol)
3
Depends. In modern Russian, о at the start of most multi-syllabic words has been shortened to а or even a -schwa. But it used to be pronounced fully, so maybe it makes sense when quoting directly. For the purpose of describing it though, whichever sounds best in English is the best to use. Flows better
1
@erkkinho You're getting worked up over semantics. I was referring to the Finnic population living the the Karelia region, not just speakers of the Karelian language. From that point of view, I am right— after the Winter War, most of the residents were evacuated to Finland. There are about 10% Karelians in Karelia today.
1
 @stariyczedun The real answer. Thank you.
1
@robinbreeds9217 Can you prove it is a lie? Are you going to tell me that the letopisy on display in Kiev right now are faked?? You're mad that your country has lost in history so you are lying toy yourself to make yourself feel better. You are trying to escape pain.
1
@SeriyMar The Hypatski Kodeks is visible in Ukraine right now, it details the travels of Oleg. You're a delusional nationalist who wants to change history to soften your feelings.
1
@misterparrot No, the Primary Chronicles do. The ones written in Kiev. That's literally the history of the Rus. Ukraine cannot claim a connection to the Rus without also acknowledging where they came from— they were Vikings who founded their dynasty in Novgorod, as is written in the Chronicle. Unless they want to just skip over a period of early history in their textbooks? There isn't any other "alternative" history, that "disproves" the importance of Novgorod, because the Chronicles are the only information we have about the Rurikids. You told me to learn history, but you aren't acknowledging it yourself. What happened after the Kingdom of the Rus was founded? The Mongols forced Danylo to open the gates to Kiev (which wasn't even part of Danylo's kingdom) and burned it to the ground. And then Poland annexed the Kingdom. Additionally, the Rurikid dynastic line died out in western Rus' because Mstislav IV had no children, so only Vladimir (later Moscow) had any Rus' royals left. Sorry bud.
1