Elen's history lesson

[Elen]

No Bruno Kiev Rus was not created by moder historics - this name was in historical documents already in 10 century

[Jack]

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

Elen, I do not claim that Kyi was king of Kiev Rus, your making that claim, not me. There is no supporting documents or history to support that, only speculation that this dynasty, this settlement, was started in this area sometime after the founding of Kiev.


......882 . Happy ??....

882 Elen?  Are you sure? Or are you quoting the date that Oleg seized Kiev? If so Elen are you stating that Oleg was the founder of the Kiev Rus dynasty and he started the Kiev Rus dynasty in the year 882, the year he seized Kiev?

If so there are differing dates. The Rurik Dynasty ruled what is now Russia from 862 to 1598. It should be noted that Russia did not exist during this time, rather the state that existed from 862 to 1240 was called Kievan Rus. 
Ok, here is one date 20 years earlier that yours that the Kiev Rus dynasty was attributed to.

Another date Elen, .........According to the Primary Chronicle the earliest chronicle of Kievan Rus′, a Varangian Viking named Rurik was first established in 860.

And another date,.........Though many historians view the 9th century Varangians as legendary, the real settlement of Aldeigjuborg was associated with the name of Rurik, and established around Kiev in the 8th century.

And one more date, the 7th century,.....Given the postulated pro-Scandinavian bias of the Russian Primary Chronicle, some Slavic historians have debated the role of the Varangians in the establishment of Kievan Rus. Ultimately at stake in this controversy are culture and heritage. The question is whether East Slavic civilization owes an element of its cultural origin to the Scandinavian rulers of the 9th -11th centuries, or whether that heritage may be attributed exclusively to the Slaves, as the Slavists would have it in which date to the 7th century and the founding of Kiev.


.......I can tell you about 20 versions of this linguistic issue  Which one you would preffer......


Elen, I would prefer to examine the version that you believe.  You know that my beliefs are wrong, that the name Russia did not come from the Kiev Rus dynasty, I would like to hear your beliefs. Everything written in this post is directed at trying to get your explanation as to the meaning and orgin of the word Russia.

Whenever I say the word Russia comes from the Kiev Rus dynasty you say nyet, notta, no way.  Ok, I have given you three or four different theories that I believe that all have roots or connections to the Kiev Rus dynasty.  I think there are too many coincidences associated with the timing and the word Rus and "land of Rus", "Rus land", "men of Rus" and "rooski" for the word Kiev Rus to not be the direct origin of the word Russia.

Russia never existed at this time but you say there are many sources of the word Rus long before the Kiev Rus dynasty and this is where the name Russia comes from.  I would like to look at the origin, or the version you believe to be the correct origin to the word Russia.  Can you do that?  Can you figure which two or three or four of the 20 versions you believe the most are the origin of the name Russia and tell me, as I have passed my beliefs onto you.

 

[Jack]

Elen,.......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


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

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



Thank you, thank you, thank you Bruno.  The link above (which is copied below) is saying exactly that, that Rus, that "land of Rus, "Rus land", is subsequently derived from, as denoted by modern historiography as Kievan Rus.   

But I also mentioned that Elen was not going to agree with this version.




This article should include the material from Rus' (people).
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."

[Elen]

I didn't get what exactly I's not going to agree with - I agree with all 20 theories of origin of word Rus - Russia and etc

I don't agree that there was no particular historical date of appearence state called Keiv Rus ( exactly THAT in TWO words) since 10 century in historical documents   but only something produced by moder historicals

I don't agree with version that Kiev Rus was "subsequently derived" from old STATE  "Rus land" just so by its own like evolution.  Because firstly Rus land was not STATE but a common name wich used to describe several tribes ( and it's nessesary to came to common conclisuion which exactly tribes it was first of all ) And secondary state Kiev Rus appeared not like a result of deriving but like a result of integration by initiative, with struggles and under ruling kings came not just from "something there in old times" but from NOVGOROD  and it happened in very particular time period.

Though this fuss with name Russia would not be big deal if somebody at the Ukraina now would not try to claim themselves like exclusive "founders" of Russia just because that Russia happened to be on territories next to Kiev.

 More over those "exclusive founders" some  "majical" way get only ukrainian nationality ( don't mistake with ukrainian citizenship)   though even now there are enough Russians live in the Ukraina because territories of modern Ukraina WAS Russian state, Kiev WAS Russian city and Russian nations were not  brought there by Stalin  at all ( like somebody claimed with what discussion was started )

 And Ukrainian nation itself is just a nation wich appeared MUCH more later like a result of  deriving from that old Russians And therefore now the Ukraina could claim any role on founders of  Russia ONLY like beeing a part of those Russians. Russians themselves don't deprive ukrainians of their right to be a part of that long and complicate history but ONLY like a part of noother but old Russians

[Elen]

882 Elen?  Are you sure? Or are you quoting the date that Oleg seized Kiev? If so Elen are you stating that Oleg was the founder of the Kiev Rus dynasty and he started the Kiev Rus dynasty in the year 882, the year he seized Kiev?
If so there are differing dates. The Rurik Dynasty ruled what is now Russia from 862 to 1598. It should be noted that Russia did not exist during this time, rather the state that existed from 862 to 1240 was called Kievan Rus. 
Ok, here is one date 20 years earlier that yours that the Kiev Rus dynasty was attributed to.

  882 is a year from chronicles when Oleg seized Kiev and jointed two kindoms Novgorod and Kiev - I'm bored already to repeat you that in third or more time. Don'r stick to words I gave you all dates already :  when Rurik was born ( ~810) when Rurik got Novgorod throne (862) when Oleg got throne in joint kindom of Novgorod and Kiev.( 882) ( TEMPORARY because  direct heir - Igor son of Rurick was TOO young - don't remeber correctly but something about 8 ages And  Rurik delegated rights to Oleg untill Igor'd reach 16 ages) I WROTE ALL OF THAT ALREADY DID YOU READ ANYTHING??
   Pick any year wich you wish for to name it like starting of dynastya as I have not idea what exactly you mean when you are speaking about date of starting dynasty.

Another date Elen, .........According to the Primary Chronicle the earliest chronicle of Kievan Rus′, a Varangian Viking named Rurik was first established in 860.

And?? 2 years differences OKAY I was wrong on 2 years - let it be Rurik was invited on Novgorod throne on 2 years early

And another date,.........Though many historians view the 9th century Varangians as legendary, the real settlement of Aldeigjuborg was associated with the name of Rurik, and established around Kiev in the 8th century.

And one more date, the 7th century,.....Given the postulated pro-Scandinavian bias of the Russian Primary Chronicle, some Slavic historians have debated the role of the Varangians in the establishment of Kievan Rus. Ultimately at stake in this controversy are culture and heritage. The question is whether East Slavic civilization owes an element of its cultural origin to the Scandinavian rulers of the 9th -11th centuries, or whether that heritage may be attributed exclusively to the Slaves, as the Slavists would have it in which date to the 7th century and the founding of Kiev.

I don't care at all what exactly herritage Russians had - there were too many bloods mixed to make any fuss about millions theories  I WROTE I was not going to discuss theories about nationality of Rurik  - let he be from Mars - I would admit green blood in me

Elen, I would prefer to examine the version that you believe.  You know that my beliefs are wrong, that the name Russia did not come from the Kiev Rus dynasty, I would like to hear your beliefs. Everything written in this post is directed at trying to get your explanation as to the meaning and orgin of the word Russia.

Whenever I say the word Russia comes from the Kiev Rus dynasty you say nyet, notta, no way.  Ok, I have given you three or four different theories that I believe that all have roots or connections to the Kiev Rus dynasty.  I think there are too many coincidences associated with the timing and the word Rus and "land of Rus", "Rus land", "men of Rus" and "rooski" for the word Kiev Rus to not be the direct origin of the word Russia.

Everything written by me was derected on getting you an idea that there was no one solid theory about word Russia so that it's wasting of time to discuss this problem but not theories about state wich called Kiev Rus and wich had its roots in Novgorod

 My theory is that word Rus was created (I skip ~19 theories where exactly at Russian plate it appeared and wich linguistic roots it had)  BEFORE state Kiev Rus was foundated by Oleg. Oleg just picked up ( but not created) something wich was "in the air" in one or another form and wich was using for one or another area of Russian plate and for one or another ( according to ~19 theories) groups of slavic tribes. My point is simple - word Rus is something more older than the state Kiev Rus.

Russia never existed at this time but you say there are many sources of the word Rus long before the Kiev Rus dynasty and this is where the name Russia comes from.  I would like to look at the origin, or the version you believe to be the correct origin to the word Russia.  Can you do that?  Can you figure which two or three or four of the 20 versions you believe the most are the origin of the name Russia and tell me, as I have passed my beliefs onto you.

How long are you going to mix historical coonceptions? RUSSIA - STATE in morden meaning of this word - didn't exists But old Western slavic and other ( as "slavic" were conneted no to all tribes on Russian plate) tribes whose names were simmilar ( in phonetic linguistic way) to modern word Russia existed for centures at Russian plate
Theories just argrue where exactly were that the only one Ros"- Ruyna-Rossolan - Robs and etc wich could be for sure named like pre Russia word Also the words wich were in harmony with Russia existed in foreigner languages to describe in GENERAL those who came from place now called Russian plate

 MY personal believe - THAT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL as all after all those who lived at Russian plate ( NOT ONLY THOSE who lived next to Kiev) started to call Russians.  I have no wish to drown in phonetic analysis of turks-skyfes-normandic-old slavic-arabian-Byzantium and etc variations
The point is simple - name RUS wich Oleg alredy used in documents could not poped up "just so" in his head and grew at empty place But at the same time - no way I belive in "reasoning" that Oleg fought for throne of kindom with Kiev Rus as in those times there was not such state-kindom or other UNION   like Kiev Rus yet. Kiev kindom founded by two Novgorod rebels - yes (don't make me repeat one more time a story of Askold and Dir ) But not the state wich called Kiev Rus. Your theory about Kiev Rus in Kyi's times does not have scence because even if it was the first significant union on Dnepr it was not the only one wich word rus in meaning union of old slavic tribes could be stuck to.

 if you have nothing to do on week end then read this

http://lants.tellur.ru/history/danilevsky/d04_4.htm
http://litopys.org.ua/rizne/spysok/spys05.htm
we are not nationalistic so here is one on ukrainian laguage
http://litopys.org.ua/rizne/hens.htm

 there are enough theories for you would be busy for next mongol tatar igo on Russian territory and I believ in all those theories 

PSSS but if you such insist that I must pick up my favotrite theory then I would choose that one wich says that actually word rUs ( with exactly U but not O like that little river Ros' had ) came not from georgafic location and was not a name of particular tribe but rather like a word which actually meant UNION and united by some signs groups of different old nations. On yearly stage those signs could be looks or locations in meaning general direction  where somebody appeared from  wich "foreigners" used to describe those tribes (variouse - not only who lived closed to Kiev) they dealt with or signs by wich old russian tries made self-determination (one of the main importent of such characteristic was "common enemy" - that what was for all histoty through centuries made RUSSIANs to joint in unions.)  On later stage those signs became more "political and economical" - one main ruler-united army-united taxes and etc   
and in the light of that "my" theory it's impossible to claim that RUSSIA didn't exist before Kiev Rus and therefore that KIEV has exclusive right on word RUSSIA.
But all after all the main word in combination Kiev Rus is RUS but not Kiev 

   

[Wild Orchid*]

But I may be wrong in all this.

- Dan

I think you are... I’ve got an impression that he is trying to say to us, that Russians have nothing to do  with Kiev Rus, it was and is Ukrainian state from his point of view. To me it is similar if I tried to convince you that Indians have nothing to do with US and afro-americans are the righteous owners of  that land. 

[Elen]

Nope I vote for Chingachguk the Great serpent like a founder of The United States of Amecrica

[Bruno]

Nope I vote for Chingachguk the Great serpent like a founder of The United States of Amecrica

Maybe you can clain the full America for yourself... take a look at the map below :



It show a genetic study over the migration of people... It seem that between 26000 and 34000 year ago, some population from Siberia have migrate via Bering to America. They was the first human on these continent... Since Siberia is a part of Russia now, maybe you can clain the America being your property...

 

[Jack]

.....I’ve got an impression that he is trying to say to us, that Russians have nothing to do  with Kiev Rus, it was and is Ukrainian state from his point of view....


Wild Orchid, let me say you are 100% wrong.

Although there was no Russians or Russia during the time of the Kiev Rus dynasty, there was also no Ukrainian state at the time either. The Russian state appeared before the Ukraine state.

[Elen]

Although there was no Russians or Russia during the time of the Kiev Rus dynasty, there was also no Ukrainian state at the time either. The Russian state appeared before the Ukraine state.

Ok I even forgive you that your "odd" statement that there were Russians during ALL 700 years of Rurick dynasty ( or mabe we already speak abpout different Kiev Rus dynasties??) if you show me maps of times where Ukraina state would be picktured with boders and name Ukraina  for the first time

[Jack]

Elen your a Russian. Let me ask you when was the first time that history shows the name Russia was mentioned?  You must have some idea as to the date in history the word, the term Russia, was first mentioned. I have my time in history that I believe the word Russia first emerged and wonder how it compares with yours. 

I do not believe there was a Russia or Russians before the Kiev Rus dynasty. In your reply above you are indirectly indicating otherwise. Can you show any written chronicles of the word Russia or Russians before the Kiev Rus dynasty? Can you show of history ever mentioning the word Russia or Russians before the Kiev Rus dynasty? I think Kiev Rus is today considered the first Russian state, although the word Russia emerged for the first time some 665 years later (in my opinion), thus adding more credibilty to the word Russia being the direct offspring from Rus or "the land of Rus". And because there is some question as to when the Kiev Dynasty began, I will use your date and ask you to show me one time the word Russia was mentioned prior to the year 882, prior to the date you feel the Kiev Rus dynasty started?  I don't think you can, but if you can, then you have easily proved me wrong as to when and how the word Russia came about.

Elen, the historical origins of the Russian state are mostly those of the East Slavs, the ethnic group that evolved into the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian peoples. The major pre-Soviet states of the East Slavs were, in chronological order, medieval Kiev Rus, Muscovy, and then the Russian Empire.

Conquest by the roaming Mongol Tatars in the thirteenth century was the final blow and the end to the Kiev Rus dynasty. Subsequently, a number of states claimed to be the heirs to the civilization and dominant position of Kiev Rus. One of those states, Muscovy, was a territory located at the northern edge of the former cultural center. Muscovy gradually came to dominate neighboring territories, forming the basis for the future Russian Empire.

I have always been fascinated with Russian history and especially studying the 370 years of Russian history that were lead by the colorful years of the Czars,  from the first Czar, Ivan the IV, to the terrible death of the last Czar and his beautiful family.

Ivan IV (1533-84), the first Muscovite tsar, is considered to have founded the Russian state. This to me Elen is when I see for the first time Russia being called Russia as we know it today, some three hundred years after the fall of the Kiev Rus dynasty.

[Wild Orchid*]

Wild Orchid, let me say you are 100% wrong.

Although there was no Russians or Russia during the time of the Kiev Rus dynasty, there was also no Ukrainian state at the time either. The Russian state appeared before the Ukraine state.

Wrong in what? I asked you before, what is you point? It is not very clear to me…

[beattledog]

thanks, for the history on this

beattledog

[Elen]

Look Jack you may belive whatever you wish - in no Russians, or Russians brought to Ukraina by Stalin, you may have your own theories ( in adddition to 20+ wich were debuted for CENTURES with any result ) where word Russia comes from
but that would not change a simple fact that there WAS nation with GREAT history who lived on Russian plate for much longer period than you americans in your states and who ( WHAT A SUPRISE  ) called themselves Rusichi-Russkyie in written documents from the very 10 centure when they got their own Cyrillic alphabet And whatever attitude they had - "we are Pskovskie or we are muskovites or we are malorossy," never mind what color of hairs and sizes of eyes they had  and etc they fell themselves like one nation.

 Troubles started when some other nations from abroad tried to interferre and split that one russian nation That's EXACTLY a story with Ukraine where influence of Catholic Church ( it was exactly Church business)  was derected on tearing ukrainians from Russia. They did that for centures and they continue to do that now - for their own propuses. And now YOU americans  jointed that "game" with your politic. The same was with White Russia but Belorussians could stand such influence better in any times than Ukrainians and do it better till now. Ukraina always preferred to sit on two chairs at the same time chosing what "bosses" were more profitable at particular moment So feed them better Americans or they would re-write their history one more time 

 Comclusion :- before saying something there about Ukraina-Russia relationships it's would be better to learn-learn and learn ( like Lenin said  )  the history .( and not ONLY what posted at your wickpedia English language site) or in some other sourses produced by nowdays Ukrainians for money from Poland and the West.This advice not only for Jack but for all of you foreigners

I hope you did read what I posted for you At least you know now that there was ( and still is) such town NOVGOROD where Kiev Rus dynasty ( like you preffer to call it) came from.  Sign that on paper and put it on your wall THE STATE KIEV RUS STARTED WITH JOINT LANDS OF NOVGOROD AND KIEV BY NOVGOROD PRINCE OLEG History HAS its own particular milestones in time and there ARE events wich mark those milestones or it would not be such thing like HISTORY but only politic.

Ps I too like WO* could not get your point in this discussion I din't try to prove you that there was RUSSIAN STATE before Kiev Rus I told you that roots of word RUS in times before Kiev Rus, that Kiev Rus is considered like  the first state where such nation who called themselves rusichi , and that the said state Kiev Rus started not with Kiev but with UNION lands by iniciative of Novgorod

I think it's enough already about Kiev Rus Next lesson will be when somebody else decides to say something there about Russia "occupied" something in the Ukraina

[Wild Orchid*]

Google says very clearly where the word RUSSIA came from.  And it is useful  for finding the origin of the word Ukraine - Okraina - on the border of Russia. Ukraine as the word couldn’t even exist without Russia. How can you have the border without the state? So what was first egg or the chicken in this case?

[Jack]

geeee whizzzzz Elen!     All I was trying to do was debate you, learn from you, as to the origin and meaning of the word Russia.  I have my beliefs which greatly differ from yours and I appreciated your hindsight as to your beliefs as I think it helped to educate many. You have taken a thread that I have tried hard to keep directed on history and now you are trying to make it political.  I really do not care to discuss politics (especially on a Russian discussion board) as so many people who have such strong political beliefs also have their feelings and emotions too closely wrapped in those beliefs. As I do not want to make this into, or take this into, a political debate, this will be my last post on this thread.

Ok, as my portion of Elens history class is over I need to correct one known error.

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. 

What's not correct with that statement?    ???   I figured westerners would not catch it but thought Russians might. How many American's know who the first president was? How many Russians know who the first Czar was?

Ivan IV, Russia's first Czar, was Ivan the Terrible.

[coco]

In fact you are more or less correct

[Bruno]

Ok, as my portion of Elens history class is over I need to correct one known error.

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. 

What's not correct with that statement?    ???   I figured westerners would not catch it but thought Russians might. How many American's know who the first president was? How many Russians know who the first Czar was?

Ivan IV, Russia's first Czar, was Ivan the Terrible.

Me too, i need to correct one of your error...

In the same post, you make Ivan III and Ivan IV be "Ivan the Terrible"... so, after some research :

Ivan III Vasilevich (Иван III Васильевич) (January 22, 1440 – October 27, 1505), also known as Ivan the Great, was a grand duke of Muscovy who first adopted a more pretentious title of the "grand duke of all the Russias". Sometimes referred to as the "gatherer of the Russian lands", he quadrupled the territory of his state, claimed Moscow to be a Third Rome, built the Moscow Kremlin, and laid foundations for the Russian autocracy. He was the longest-reigning Russian ruler ever.

Ivan IV Vasilyevich (Russian: Иван IV Васильевич) (August 25, 1530 – March 18, 1584) was the Grand Duke of Muscovy from 1533 to 1547 and was the first ruler of Russia to assume the title of tsar. His long reign saw the conquest of Tartary and Siberia and subsequent transformation of Russia into a multiethnic and multiconfessional state. This tsar retains his place in the Russian tradition simply as Ivan Grozny (Russian: Ива́н Гро́зный which translates into English as Ivan the Fearsome). He is commonly referred to in English as Ivan the Terrible.