Elen's history lesson

[Jack]

Well Elen I am glad to see that at least you are not arguing with me about the Kiev Rus dynasty at one time occupying the land today known as Moscow.

This past spring my timing was such that I was fortunate to be going between Russia and Ukraine at a time when there was talk about Russia wanting Crimea back, in fact this was in the same time frame in which I met you.

In Russian papers, from Russian politicians, "we want Crimea back".  And the newspaper article went on to say that Russian soldiers had lost there lives in taking this land in the 1774 and they wanted it back.

So in the Ukraine newspaper there was a reply sent to Russia and these same politicians and it said something to the effect,...'whoaaa, if your wanting to go back in history and say Crimea was your's first, as you fought for it, took it from the Turks in 1774, then we, Ukraine, want to go back even further in history and take back our land which includes Moscow'.   In this newspaper article, on the front page, was a very detailed map of the land that belonged to the Kiev-Rus dynasty which occupied much of Russia including what is known today as Moscow.

That pretty much shut-up the Russian politicians who did not want to give Moscow back to Kiev.  But then a few days later, after Turkey diplomats had read this article about Russia wanting Crimea back they said "Hey! if anyone get's Crimea back it is us, we were the righful first owners of this land!".

.............................


Kievan Rus′ was the early, mostly East Slavic state dominated by the city of Kiev from about 880 to the middle of the 12th century. From the widely accepted historiographocal point of view, Kievan Rus is considered a  predecessor state of three modern East Slavic nations, Belrus, Russia and Ukriane.  (A predecessor state is an established state in international law that is succeeded by a new state or states)
Originally Rus (Русь, Rus’) was a medieval country and state that comprised mostly Early East Slaves. The territories of that old Rus are today distributed among the countries of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. That early "Rus" state had no proper name; by its inhabitants it was called "Ruskaya zemlya" (with Ruskaya alternatively spelled as Rouskaya, Ruskaya, Rus'kaya, and Russkaya), which might be translated as "Rus land" or "Land of the Rus".

In modern English historiography, Kievan Rus is the most common name for the ancient East Slavic state (often retaining the pedantically-correct apostrophe in Rus’, a transliteration of the soft sign, ь) followed by Kievan Russia, Ancient Russian state, and, extremely rarely, Kievan Ruthenia. In Old east Slavic literature the East Slavs refer to themselves as muzhi ruskie ("the Rus men") or rarely, rusichi

Starting with the economy, the state’s rapid development was based on its advantageous location; it was near the major lands and water trade routes. This is why the location of Kievan Rus’ was important. The habitants of Kievan Rus’ used the Dnieper River for commerce trades. As the development of the Roman Empire, rivers were important for the rise of any city. The Dnieper River facilitated the trade of this East Slavic state to other tribes and cities.

Vladimir I (958-1015) was the first ruler to give Rus’ political unity. Saint Vladimir Svyatoslavich the Great was the grand prince of Kiev who converted to Christianity in 988, and proceeded to baptise the whole Kievan Rus.

Why Elen do I mention Vladimir I at this time?  As you know Elen, Vladimir spent some time in Novgorod. Novgorod is the most ancient Slavic city recorded in Russia. In 1136 Novogorod seceded from Kiev.

The impact of the Mongol invasion on Kiev, one of the most advanced cities and cultures at the time, was devastating. A complete civilization wiped from the earth.  As older centers such as Kiev and Vladimir never recovered from the devastation of the initial Mongol attack, the new cities of Moscow, Tver (it is said Marc Dayton was there even at this time) and Nizhny Novogorod began to compete for hegemony in the Mongol-dominated Russia.
Throughout the Middle Ages, the city of Novgorod thrived culturally.

The city's downfall was a result of its inability to feed its large population, making it dependent on the the Vladimir-Suzdal region for grain. The main cities in this area, Moscow and Tver, used this dependence to gain control over Novgorod. Eventually Ivan III  (Ivan the Terrible) annexed the city to Muscovy (Moscow) in 1478.  Novgorod remained the third largest Russian city until Ivan the Terrible sacked the city and slaughtered thousands of its inhabitants in 1550.

Elen, does any of the above help you to understand the role that the Kievan Rus dynasty had on the beginning of Russia?  Does any of this history lesson help you to understand where the name Ruskaya, the name Rus'kaya, Russkaya, ruskie (the Rus men),  Ruskaya zemlya, the "Land of Rus" or Russia come from?

[Wild Orchid*]

here we go again.

That early "Rus" state had no proper name; by its inhabitants it was called "Ruskaya zemlya" (with Ruskaya alternatively spelled as Rouskaya, Ruskaya, Rus'kaya, and Russkaya), which might be translated as "Rus land" or "Land of the Rus".

If it was Russkaya Zermlya - Russian Land why do Ukrainians want it back? Just because Kiev happened to be the capital of it? That's why Kiev for me is more of a Russian city... So what it was occupied by Ukrainians later on? 

[Maxx2]

I am waiting for Elen's spirited reply. Jack is in for his own history lesson.

Maxx 

[Turboguy]

I think Elen is a little like the USSR.  History is what you want it to be at the time.  Don't take that as a bad comment Elan,  I really enjoy your posts and your take on things.  I may disagree with you sometimes but I enjoy your viewpoints and a lot of times you have great information.

[BC]

I remember a couple of comparable discussions that just wouldn't quit..

My solution was to put on the biggest smile I could and say "OK! -You're right honey!".. She invariably smiled back, fully aware I was adding a good dash of salt.  But 'said was said' and we moved on to other more pleasurable things to do.

[jb]

BC,

I think I can say with some degree of correctness, that if you share your home with a woman who was educated during the communistic Soviet era, their history books present an alternative reality to what we learned in school.  For example, up until she got here, my wife was completely convinced that Russia singlehandedly defeated Nazism during the "Great Patriotic War", my usage of the term "World War II" greatly confused her.  Going head to head with a Russian in a history debate will likely only result in both parties being convinced that the other is completely wrong.

I have learned there are somethings best not discussed.

[Elen]

sorry I posted my lesson about Kiev Rus on other thread but I can do this that one more time

[Elen]

here a map of Kiev Rus - for you could get an idea WHERE exaclty it was
Thick green line - is a boder of knyz Oleg times - the first knyz of Kiev Rus
Red spots - "russian" towns
Red dotted line - famouse track from Varangian to Greeks

[Elen]

hummmm something does not add up here Elen.   ???   
"Your aware that old Russian knyazya had residence in Kiev and that was why they called the area Kiev Rus", but Elen, how could that be? How could there be a Russian residence 400 years before there was anything called Russia or Russian, 500 years before a city called Moscow?   

Elen we are taking someone's good topic in another direction. Let me start a new topic, Elen's history lesson.

Main Gott     If you really think that Russia started from Moscow then you for sure must take some history lesson

If you want to call something like "mother of Russia" ( in a meaning of appearance the first STATE)  then it's not Kiev at all but NOVGOROD  - Russian city

here for you some short story how Kiev Rus appeared

before IX century there were no something which could be called like state at the territory of modern Russia and Ukraine You would drown in information if I started to name all those old Slavic nations. There were many ( for those time) towns with their own rulers but they could not keep their independence and suffered from forays of Varangians on the north and from  Hazards on the south or just were supposed to render tribute to them. 

In 862 ( or in 842 from other sources)  people in Novgorod banished Varangians from their lands and as there was no good candidate for ruler among themselves they called for somebody "from the seas"  It was three brothers Rurik (got the main town Novgorod) Sineus ( town  Whitelake) and Truvor ( town Izborsk)  ( historicals argue till nowdays where exactly they came from but not from south ( Ukraina) for sure )

 In 864 Ruric sent his two boyars - Askold and Dir - into marsh to Tzargrad ( other name Constantinople - now Stambul)  - other version is those two just got piss at Rurik for something and left him. But on their road by river Dnepr  they met town Kiev and decided to stop there. Like it was wrote in chronicle " They saw a town and asked people whose were they People said " Our town was bulit by three men - Kyi-Tzhek and Horiv but they were dead long ago and now we are nobodies and render tribute to Hazards) So two Novgorod's rebels decided to organized their own kingdom

After Ruric's death in 879 and because of little ages of his son Igor knyz Oleg (relative of Rurik)  got a throne in Novgorod. Oleg with little Igor in 882 made a marsh down Dnepr "colonised" all who he met at his trip and in at least arrived to Kiev and  occupied it too luring out Askold and Dir from  the town and killed them. One version of the story says Askold and Dir were betrayed by their people - no wonder as it seems it's national "Ukrainian" habit - to betray time after time those who ruled them.   

So Oleg moved his residence from Novgorod to Kiev( as it was more close to rich Byzantium - the main trade partner)  and since this time historical started to speak about Kievskay Rus   

So that - let "Ukrainians"  believe that they were the mother of Russia but Russians fail to see their "big" role in building Kiev Rus. - there was no such neither in political matter ( it was not their "Ukrainians" rulers who made efforts to built that Kiev Rus ) nor in territorial matter as "Russian" part of that Kiev Rus was bigger.

As for name Rus then there are SUCH many arguing among historicals where it came from then I don't even want to start this discussion. Take that just like a fact that this name Ros-Rus- russich and some other variations was used in WESTERN  historical chronicles and documents even before Kiev Rus like a description for unions of nations lived at eastern Europe territories.

 As for Moscow then it's role in building Russian state came later when it was a need again to collect separated "kindoms" with a king in each town and fight for independence once more
-----------------------------------

for those who think that I'm little in the USSR then this my post based on such document called " The story of times" ("Повесть временных лет") wrote by monk of Kiev-Pechor lavra in 1113 year. So I'm even far in time than  you suggested 

 Though I do hope you are not such paranoid to see soviet propaganda and "Moscow hand" in this document    And I want to see that person who would call knyz Oleg hohlom 

 Of  course history is what we want to be in many cases but come on it should not be changed in such degree that to count the founder of Kiev Ruz, relatives and heirs of Ruriks tzarz dinastia that ruled Russian lands more than 700 years like "ukrainian"   

Как ныне сбирается вещий Олег
Отмстить неразумным хазарам.
Их сёла и нивы за буйный набег
Обрег он мечам и пожарам.
С дружиной своей, в цареградской броне,
Князь по полю едет на верном коне.

Пушкин  - еще один "советский пропагандист"

[Elen]

Well Elen I am glad to see that at least you are not arguing with me about the Kiev Rus dynasty at one time occupying the land today known as Moscow.

ha-ha-ha I'm not agruing with you that heirs-at-law ( Igor - the son of the first Rurik got Kieve throne from Oleg when he became older enough for that)  of RUSSIAN Ruriks dynastya had residence once upon a time in Kiev - Рюриковичи мы 

 stick out your mind from MOSCOW. Russia and Russians started NOT from Moscow and Moscow is not Russia - never heard such words?   

All your post could just prove that THERE WAS old Russian- old slavic if you wish - state with 700 years Russain dinastya - no mention about "ukrainians" at all

I'm off with my history lesson for today If I have a desire I' ll tell you how  what's called Ukraina now was included into Russian Empire after fighting it out from Poland-Lituva-Turkey and etc and how Bogdan Hmelnitskyi ASKED to be a part of Russian Empire ( as he did it several times before got an answer from Russians because Russians had not big wish to get one more pain in A$$ dealing with Poland. Such repeating asking could be seen like begging  ) but we shall be polite correct and name it just asking  )l

[Jack]

..."Main Gott     If you really think that Russia started from Moscow then you for sure must take some history lesson'.....

Elen, how, when, why to you think "I" believe Russia started from Moscow !!!!  I'm trying to tell you just the opposite!

Elen, Vladimir, founded in the year 990 by the KIEVAN prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich was the first capitol of Russia.  Moscow did not exist until the year 1147, some 157 years after the founding of Vladimir ( which like Kiev was also destroyed by the roaming Mongol Tatars)

Elen, relatively little is known about East Slavs prior to approximately 9th century AD. The reason for this lies mainly in the apparent absence of written language and remoteness of East Slavic lands. What little is known comes from archaeological digs, accounts of foreigners who occasionally visited Rus.

In order to distinguish the early "Rus" state from other states that subsequently derived from it, is denoted by modern historiography as Kievan Rus."  So Elen, I think your probably not going to want to agree with modern historiographies.

Based on archaeological and linguistic evidence, historians theorize that the Slavs formed as an ethnic group in the middle of 2nd millennium BC in the area that is now split between Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, western Belarus and northwestern Ukraine (What, no Russia!)

In the centuries to follow, Slavic settlers met multiple other ethnic groups that either lived or moved to the East European Plain. The best known of these groups were the nomadic Scythians, who occupied the region of modern Ukraine and southwestern Russia from about the 6th century BC to the 2nd century BC and whose skill in warfare and horsemanship is legendary.

By the 6th century, the Slavs were the dominant ethnic group on the East European Plain.  Elen, the 6th century, the years from 500 to 599.
By 600 AD, the Slavs split linguistically into southern, western, and eastern branches. The East Slavs settled along the Dnieper river in what is now Ukraine  (HELLOOOOO 600 AD Elen, a few hundred years before Novgorod. 859 - The Town of Novgorod was first mentioned in the Russian chronicles); they then spread northward to the northern Volga valley, east of modern-day Moscow and westward to the basins of the northern Dnister and Western Bug rivers in present-day Moldova and southern Ukraine.

There is no complete agreement on the origin of the word Rus, though many theories were introduced. According to the Normanist theory,  which has the broader traditional acceptance in the West, the word "Rus'" was adopted by the Slavs. So Elen, we know your not going to want to acknowledge the Normanist theory.

Theories of native Slavic origins for "Rus", known as the Anti-Normanist theories, garner a narrower support among western scholars but are widely popular within Russian historical thought. Suggested origins for "Rus" include (1) The Iranian tribe of the Roxolani, who inhabited southern Ukraine, Moldova and Romania.  (you may not like this theory either Elen as it's pointed again at Ukraine) or (2) One of two rivers in Ukraine, the Ros and Rusna  (near Kiev and Pereyaslav).  Heck Elen, your not going to like this theory as to the origin of Rus, or Russia either.

Another theory Elen is the background of Rus, as in Kievan Rus, Ruthrnia and Russia, is the same as in the Finnish and Estonian usage and is believed to derive from Varangians, the people from Roslagen. 

Elen, Maxx says you are going to educate me as to the real history of the meaning of Russia, where it came from, etc. I am waiting for your reply. As I have sent you some what I consider very valid theories, would you please send me your proclaimed theories as to where the word Russia comes from.


PS. Glad to see your map of the Kiev Rus dynasty is similar to the one I posted.

[dfb]

Additional entertainment on the history of Rus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus%27_%28people%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Rus_and_derivatives

I especially like the theory for the origin of Rus:
"A Slavic word rusy (refers only to hair color - from dark ash-blond to light-brown), cognate with ryzhy (red-haired) and English red."

[Elen]

Elen, how, when, why to you think "I" believe Russia started from Moscow !!!!  I'm trying to tell you just the opposite!

Because you constantly reminde me that there was something KIEVAN before Moscow appeared and I just still hold a hope that you will get that those KIEVAN you are speaking about had roots in NOVGOROD - your Vladimir was a hair of that first Rurik from Novgorod and that fact that russian dynastia of tzars had residence some time in Kiev does not make Ukraina like mother of Russia ( THAT's what was your statement wich or disussion started)
 

Elen, Vladimir, founded in the year 990 by the KIEVAN prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich was the first capitol of Russia.  Moscow did not exist until the year 1147, some 157 years after the founding of Vladimir ( which like Kiev was also destroyed by the roaming Mongol Tatars)

Here you again reminde me that Moscow didn't exist and after you would ask me why do I advice you to stick off from Moscow 

 BTW  Vladimir Svytoslavovich since 969 was NOVGOROD prince    and after killing his brother Yaropolk he got throne in Kiev in 980

I really can't get what you are trying to prove me - are you saying that Russia was founded by Kiev princes??  ( and therefore russians should count Ukraina like a mother? ) If so then I can't get WHY do you ignore the fact that Kiev princes are just a PART of RUSSIAN RURIK dynastya which has it's root in russian city Novgorod ( well may be Novgorod is not Russian enough for you?   and Ruriks are not russian as well?? )

Elen, relatively little is known about East Slavs prior to approximately 9th century AD. The reason for this lies mainly in the apparent absence of written language and remoteness of East Slavic lands. What little is known comes from archaeological digs, accounts of foreigners who occasionally visited Rus.

In order to distinguish the early "Rus" state from other states that subsequently derived from it, is denoted by modern historiography as Kievan Rus."  So Elen, I think your probably not going to want to agree with modern historiographies.

I didn't get what you are trying to say me once more My point is Kiev was capital of RUS and residence of Rus princes.  That RUS included territories not only which now belong to Ukraina ( and some of wich it got from Russian Empire in adittion later) , princes in Kiev who collected and organized that Kiev Rus were from dynastya wich started with Novgorod's prince Rurik and which till now considered like dynastia of Russian tzars.

Based on archaeological and linguistic evidence, historians theorize that the Slavs formed as an ethnic group in the middle of 2nd millennium BC in the area that is now split between Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, western Belarus and northwestern Ukraine (What, no Russia!)

Nice to know such theories. But you see we all "formed" from monkeys  who lived in Africa.  As for Slavs then they formed not only in 2nd century but later as well

The East Slavs settled along the Dnieper river in what is now Ukraine  (HELLOOOOO 600 AD Elen, a few hundred years before Novgorod.

HELLOOOO  Jack we were speaking about who was a founder of Kiev Rus. I didn't deny that due to georgafical position of Kiev people settled there some early than in other parts of Russian plane . But those people could not manage to built  independent state and if there was some resemblance of state in early times then to 882 year there  was already nothing exept a territory under Hazars .

There is no complete agreement on the origin of the word Rus, though many theories were introduced. According to the Normanist theory,  which has the broader traditional acceptance in the West, the word "Rus'" was adopted by the Slavs. So Elen, we know your not going to want to acknowledge the Normanist theory.

Why not as far as this word ( never mind where it came from) described those who in future became Russians?

Theories of native Slavic origins for "Rus", known as the Anti-Normanist theories, garner a narrower support among western scholars but are widely popular within Russian historical thought. Suggested origins for "Rus" include (1) The Iranian tribe of the Roxolani, who inhabited southern Ukraine, Moldova and Romania.  (you may not like this theory either Elen as it's pointed again at Ukraine) or (2) One of two rivers in Ukraine, the Ros and Rusna  (near Kiev and Pereyaslav).  Heck Elen, your not going to like this theory as to the origin of Rus, or Russia either.

When I get what conclusions about russian-ukrainian discuaaion you make from such theories then I tell you I like them or not 

Another theory Elen is the background of Rus, as in Kievan Rus, Ruthrnia and Russia, is the same as in the and is believed to derive from Varangians, the people from Roslagen.

You see yourself that there are a lot of theories abput word Russia so better stick to older times when evrybody already knew where Russian knyz had their lands 

Elen, Maxx says you are going to educate me as to the real history of the meaning of Russia, where it came from, etc. I am waiting for your reply. As I have sent you some what I consider very valid theories, would you please send me your proclaimed theories as to where the word Russia comes from.

Maxx didn't say exactly such thing And I did say that since there was no one single theory about where such word came from ( and MY real history admit this fact as well including red hair theory too  ) so it's just a waste of time to discuss it.
Russians were not solid nation and came from many old slavic nations and in order to separate them from ukrainian nation it's better to find out where the word ukrainians first appeared at world scene. I don't know and give you a chance to educate me what exactly old slavic nations you see like ukrainians and what criteria you use when you put one or another into "ukrainians"  and we shall see what role those "ukrainians"  palys in old time for to have a right to speak abpout themsleves like "mother of Russia"
 
As for me I can't determine ukrainians in times we are speaking about As well as it's hard to say exactly who could be called and since what times like russians. But one is for sure - even such separation of old slavics could be done  it would be connected with appearence of RUSSAIN state but not ukrainian

PS. Glad to see your map of the Kiev Rus dynasty is similar to the one I posted.

Why should you expect something another? We do know where boders of Kiev Rus were and who exactly was the founder of that first state wich later became Russian Empire

[coco]

Yes Helen the first Rus was founded by Swedish Vikings.Vlademir is Scandinavian-Waldemar.Olga is Helga.
And the third Rus Moscow had little in commun with the first one,after the long Tatar domination.
In our body's the rotten blood of the Mongols.Maxim Gorky poet of Stalin

[Elen]

Да,  Скифы мы!
Да, азиаты мы -
С раскосыми и жадными глазами
 
Александр Блок

Yes Helen the first Rus was founded by Swedish Vikings.Vlademir is Scandinavian-Waldemar.Olga is Helga.
And the third Rus Moscow had little in commun with the first one,after the long Tatar domination.
In our body's the rotten blood of the Mongols.Maxim Gorky poet of Stalin

Aha  One more who has a wish to claim his inheritance  for russian dynastia  Take your place in a row after ukrainians  and wait pacient for your turn

[Wild Orchid*]

Based on archaeological and linguistic evidence, historians theorize that the Slavs formed as an ethnic group in the middle of 2nd millennium BC in the area that is now split between Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, western Belarus and northwestern Ukraine (What, no Russia!)

In the centuries to follow, Slavic settlers met multiple other ethnic groups that either lived or moved to the East European Plain. The best known of these groups were the nomadic Scythians, who occupied the region of modern Ukraine and southwestern Russia from about the 6th century BC to the 2nd century BC and whose skill in warfare and horsemanship is legendary.

What that suppose to mean? Haven’t you heard of other nations that moved/relocated  in times or just disappeared from the face of Earth?  Yes, that’s right, where our (Russian) ancestors used  to live there are now parts of Ukraine and Belorussia… So what? 

Could you please explain what you are trying to do in this thread? We do know where are we coming from. Are you trying to prove us wrong?

[Admin]

What that suppose to mean? Haven’t you heard of other nations that moved/relocated  in times or just disappeared from the face of Earth?  Yes, that’s right, where our (Russian) ancestors used  to live there are now parts of Ukraine and Belorussia… So what? 

Could you please explain what you are trying to do in this thread? We do know where are we coming from. Are you trying to prove us wrong?

W-O,

I *think* Jack is merely trying to point out that the first Slavic empire was formed by the foundation of the Kievan Rus in, or near, the current city of Kyiv. That empire was founded by settlers from Scandinavia - became the Kievan Rus empire - and the nobility of that empire later fled the Mongol invasion from the South and relocated to what is now near Moscow.

My suspicion is Jack would like to slay one of those sacred cows of superiority we sometimes hear from the Muscovites among us.

But I may be wrong in all this.

- Dan

[andrewfi]

Dan ~ That may be true, but he is tilting at the wrong windmill.

History is always looked at through the perspective of the present. I am sure that in times past this discussion would not have occurred even to the major players because they knew nothing of today's political, cultural and economic dispositions.

There was simply a bunch of ruffians and scallywags wandering around forcing tribute from other, more settled ruffians and scallywags. They were not founding empires or kingdoms - at best running a family business.

A resolution of the discussion as framed by Jack is not possible and his point can not be well made because there is no single point of resolution. One might also argue that some of his premises seem to be faulty - not a big help! (Andrew discovering emoticons today)

[Jack]

Hey Andrew,

I think it is clear to many people and scholars as to the role that the Kiev Rus dynasty had on the development and founding of Russia. Vladimir I, the grand Prince of Kiev, being instrumental in establishing the first capitol of Russia in the city named after him is only one of many such things to reflect such.

The first written record of Russia is attributed to being in the year 859 with the city of Novgorod. Novgorod was part of the Kiev Rus Kingdom (considered the first Russian state) until they gained there independence in the year 1014.

Kyi, Shchek, Khoriv, and their sister Lybed are considered the first inhabitants of Kiev and it is believed Kiev was named after the elder brother Kyi. Archeological excavations from Kyi and family, and other settlers, indicate there ancient settlement from the 6th century. Is there an official date as to the beginning of the "Kiev-Rus dynasty" ? No, but this is the earliest time frame that anyone has been able to determine.  Is there a time frame as to when the first standing upright man first appeared on earth? Again no but some scholars have said about 35,000 years ago

Andrew I believe Russia is derived from the word Rus as in the Kiev Rus dynasty. Ruskaya,  "Rus land" or "Land of Rus". Muzhi ruskie, "the Rus men".

Whenever Elen has seen me mention something to the effect that the word Russia came from the Kiev Rus dynasty she is the first to holler wrong, not correct.  I have sent Elen what I believe are some three (or four) valid theories as to where and how the name Russia was derived.  Since Elen is so sure this is not true I have asked for her opinions, theories, as to where the name Russia came from. Quote from the Russian Embassy website (Russian Embassy in Washington, DC): "Later, in the XIX-th century, the three stripes on the flag were thought to embody the commonwealth of three Slavonic nations - Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian. When I spent my first couple of years in Russia I wondered what the heck was "the Ukraine". Once I visited Ukraine of course fell in love with it's people, it's culture and history. I heard many times the term "Mother Russia" and Ukraine being used in the same context. Many Ukraine people feel Ukraine is Mother Russia based on it's steep and personal history. After reading, studying, much of the early history, I also believe Ukraine is Mother Russia.  But to say this to a Muscovite!  "Oh noooo, no way Americanize, stay with your own history, you don't know ours!"

Now would like to comment on three things you wrote.

(1) There was simply a bunch of ruffians and scallywags wandering around forcing tribute from other, more settled ruffians and scallywags.

I would agree with you on this only to the extent including the roaming Mongol Tatars.  I think many of the people who were residence of Kiev, of Novgorod, were good people and a good society, not ruffians or scallywags as you are describing. Oh sure as in any society you will have certain individuals, such as Ivan the Terrible, but this society on the average I believe were a good people.

(2) They were not founding empires or kingdoms.

I respectfully GREATLY disagree with this statement from you. In fact it was estimated at the time, 1240, that Kiev was the 5th largest civilization in the world. It's own language, culture, art, paintings, impressive trade,etc. What a magnificent kingdom Kiev must have been in 1200, in 1220. When I walk the streets of St. Andresky, the same street in which parts existed at that time, when I see remains from the magnificent Golden Gate protecting the 50,000 inhabitants of Kiev and think of the 74 days of constant pounding it took the Mongol Tatars to break thru the Lyndiski gates (site of present day Independence Square) I often wondered where Kiev would be today if this founding empire of the Kiev Rus dynasty, this kingdom, had not been wiped from the earth in a matter of months.

They did indeed produce a wonderful empire, it was simply destroyed for doing something that no one else (including the then inhabitants of Russia) would do and that was to stand up to the Mongol's and say "No, your not getting our silver, our goats, our women"  and of course paid the ultimate price for there defiance.

(3)  One might also argue that some of his premises seem to be faulty

Andrew not quite sure what your saying here. I am certainly no expert on Russian or Ukraine history and if I have written anything that is in-correct I would ask you to please let me know.  Now I know there is one little thing that most westerners would probably not pick-up on (maybe you caught it) that I wrote seeing of Elen, or maybe Wild Orchid, would catch and they have not yet but this will probably tempt them to find it. If you want to know what this is I will e-mail you but I'm not sure that you caught it. So I would like to ask you Andrew to please correct any mistake I have written with regards to Russian or Kiev Rus history.

Thanks Andrew.

[Bruno]

I don't agree anymore...

Between 4500BC and 3000BC, it was the late neolithic Trypillian culture ( from Триполье in Russian ) who have flourish during 1500 year in the actual Romania, Moldova and Ukraine... Since these culture have exist more long that Ukraine or Moldava, i ask the return of these two country to the village of Cucuteni in Romania...

The Cucuteni culture (after the Romanian Cucuteni village located in Iaşi county, also Trypillian culture, or Tripolie culture after the Ukrainian Trypillia (Трипiлля) village, or Tripolie culture, Tripolian culture, from the Russian version of the name: Триполье (Tripolye culture), or, as a compromise, Cucuteni-Trypillia) is a late Neolithic archaeological culture that flourished ca. 4500 BC – 3000 BC. It is a neolithic culture of Central Europe, in the area of modern-day Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, in the Dniester-Dnieper region. Mallory reports that the culture is attested from well over a thousand sites in the form of everything from small villages to vast settlements comprised of hundreds of dwellings surrounded by multiple ditches.

It was centered on the middle to upper Dniester River with an extension in the northeast to as far as the Dnieper. An urban culture is present, perhaps the first in Europe. Agriculture is attested, as well as livestock-raising, cattle mainly, but goats/sheep and swine are also evidenced. Wild game is a regular part of the faunal remains.

When it come to history, we can not be sure of everything... but in anycase, Russia and Ukraine are offspring from the same father ( Kiev Rus )... these family bond exist now and will always exist... why insist on the difference and fight each other... these two country have more in common that any other FSU country...

[Elen]

Kyi, Shchek, Khoriv, and their sister Lybed are considered the first inhabitants of Kiev and it is believed Kiev was named after the elder brother Kyi. Archeological excavations from Kyi and family, and other settlers, indicate there ancient settlement from the 6th century.

Jack you constantly miss historical conceptions - tribe and state.
  Nobody argue with you about existance of town Kiev from early times But 6th century has NOTHING to do with a STATE Kiev Rus.  -as to be called STATE there should present several signs - at least it should be INDEPENDENT public power with ruler, boders and TAXES . If tribe lived in those centures around Kiev paid taxes to Hazars( for god sake don't try to refuse existans of that STATE - I have not power to search for information about it for you  in internet)   then nothing could be tell about Kiev STATE in 6th and next centuries till Askold and Dir's times at least   .

Is there an official date as to the beginning of the "Kiev-Rus dynasty" ? No, but this is the earliest time frame that anyone has been able to determine.  Is there a time frame as to when the first standing upright man first appeared on earth? Again no but some scholars have said about 35,000 years ago

 Yes it IS. Kiev Rus is VERY particular historical STATE - not just a temporary union of slavic tribes around Kiev That state started with integration of Kiev lands and lands of Novgorod kindom by Novgorod prince Oleg who refused to pay taxes in the north to Varangian and to Hazars in the south and with submission other isolated slavic tribes to one king.
 The official beginning of Kiev Rus dynasty is Igor son of Rurik who got Kiev from Oleg who was relative of Rurik . If you are going to deny such historical figure like Veschyi Oleg then I don't know what to say  and what to speak with you about.  Proves of his doings exactly like ruler of exactly Kiev Rus are  in many historical documents

You may argue about who Askold and Dir were - heirs of Kyi ( like Ukrainians now preffer to claim)  or boyars of Rurik But there is nothing for supporting your "pro-ukrainian version and at least there IS historic document wrote by monah in Kiev in 1113 year in favour of second one. But whoever they were that Kiev kindom they organised was NOT Kiev Rus and NOBODY counts them like beginer of Kiev Rus dynasty ( BTW DYNASTY is also very particular historical conception . And an idea that 700 years RUSSIAN dynasty Rurikovichi could be called in any meaning like "ukrainian" at any historical time period just because they had residence in Kiev could exist only in ukrainian's minds  )

The first written record of Russia is attributed to being in the year 859 with the city of Novgorod. Novgorod was part of the Kiev Rus Kingdom (considered the first Russian state) until they gained there independence in the year 1014.

Fine example how half truth could easely turn into something closed to lie

   Novgorod was "initiator" of foundation what is called Kiv Rus. Novgorod princes deprivated Kiev kindom of its independence,( and that independence from hasars to that time was gained  due to two other Novgorod boyars according to chronicals )  jointed territories of both kindoms and move their residence to Kiev  - exactly in SUCH order but not just Novgorod was a part of Kiev Rus and got independece only in 1014

[BC]

I'm beginning to think Jack and Elen are in luv.......

 

[Jack]

Elen, do you know for a fact that Kyi, Shchek, Khoriv, and Lybed did not collect taxes in some form or another?  Maybe they accepted goats, or chickens or wheat, how do you know that the tribe, the settlement established on the banks over looking the Dnipper river, did not collect some sort of taxes from the other inhabitants as was common during those times?

The history revolved around Rurik and Oleg is quite well know and not disputed, certainly not by me. So Elen can you tell me the date that the Kiev Rus dynasty started?

And what about the name Russia?  Can you tell me where this name came from since you say it had nothing to do with the Kiev Rus dynasty.

[Elen]

Elen, do you know for a fact that Kyi, Shchek, Khoriv, and Lybed did not collect taxes in some form or another?  Maybe they accepted goats, or chickens or wheat, how do you know that the tribe, the settlement established on the banks over looking the Dnipper river, did not collect some sort of taxes from the other inhabitants as was common during those times?

Mos probably they do But I know for sure that that historical organisation of poltic life didn't called STATes at all   You can't claim that primitive tribes had STATEs even if their leaders got the best chiken. I don't claim that your Kyi was leader of primitiv tribal but to claim that he was a king of Kiev Rus is too much If you wish to name Kyi like a ruler of some state then pick up some other name for that pro-state union he ruled ( THAT's how historics call it otherwise you)   because Kiev Rus started with 9 th centure and to that 9th centure that Kiev was alredy under Hasarz levy - like many other slavic towns wich with the same result could be called slavic states

The history revolved around Rurik and Oleg is quite well know and not disputed, certainly not by me. So Elen can you tell me the date that the Kiev Rus dynasty started?

882 . Happy ??  ( well if you want a date of Rurik bithday then it's ~810 And I warn anybody from Western Europe I'm not going to argue with you till blue face what exactly nationality that Rurik had  )

And what about the name Russia?  Can you tell me where this name came from since you say it had nothing to do with the Kiev Rus dynasty.

I can tell you about 20 versions of this linguistic issue  Which one you would preffer. And I said that Rus was used before Kiev Rus state appeared as such word had too many variation and variouse nation used similar words for describing tribes at variouse part of Russian plate So I told you it's wasting time to dicuss this issue Better clarify one more what exactly you are trying to prove me with talks going round Kiev Rus

My position is Kiev Rus was organised like a state by knyzya from dynasty wich came from Novgorod , wich ruled after Kiev Rus for ~ 700 years  by variouse states wich appeared due to variouse wars at Russian plane and wich by any meaning could be called Russian tzar dynasty ( or at least old russian  dynasty) And only Ukrainians try to arrogate to a role of beginners of that dynasty  while they never managed to built any state by themselves  and had not any ukrainian dynasty at all.  Better for them ( and for you as well) just to admit that they were just a part (a little one wich) of slavics and drop their silly attempt to pretent at any exclusive role 


 

[Bruno]

And I said that Rus was used before Kiev Rus state appeared as such word had too many variation and variouse nation used similar words for describing tribes at variouse part of Russian plate So I told you it's wasting time to dicuss this issue Better clarify one more what exactly you are trying to prove me with talks going round Kiev Rus

I think that Elen win the round here... same english encyclopedie say the same...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Rus_and_derivatives

Originally Rus (Русь, Rus’) was a medieval country and state that comprised mostly Early East Slavs. The territories of that old Rus are today distributed among the Russian Federation, Belarus and Ukraine.

That early "Rus" state had no proper name; by its inhabitants it was called "Ruskaya zemlya" (with Ruskaya alternatively spelled as Rouskaya, Ruskaya, Rus'kaya, and Russkaya), which might be translated as "Rus land" or "Land of the Rus". In a similar fashion, Poland is still called Polska by its inhabitants, and the Czech Republic (Česká republika) is commonly called by its adjectival name.

In order to distinguish the early "Rus" state from other states that subsequently derived from it, it is denoted by modern historiography as "Kievan Rus."

It seem that the term "Kievan Rus" have not historical value since it is a term created by modern historian simply for help to make the distinction between the original Rusland and the actual one...