The Origin Of Kievan Russia

[The Felonius Pope]

All of the history books I have read seem to agree on the influence of the Byzantine Empire and the Mongol Empire on

Russian history. However, there seems to be a considerable discrepancy on issue of the origin of the Rus:

I own two high school history books and am currently borrowing an advanced placement European history book. All of

these books posit that the Rus were a Varangian tribe that migrated to the south and two of the books even go as far

as to accept the foundation of the city of Kiev by Kyi, Scheck, and Khoryv as absolute fact. Making claims opposite

those of my high school books is a book by a professor of Russian history at the University of California, Berkely.

Nicholas Riasanovsky, the author of the book 'A History of Russia' expresses grave doubts as to the Scandinavian origin

of the Rus. He even goes so far as to postulate (based on Arabic and Byzantine writings) that the Rus came from

southern or south-central Europe. Anybody have any thoughts on this subject?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Unfortunately my knowledge on the topic is quite limited. I only really know of their interactions with Poland-Lithuania and the Danube.

If you want to talk about Magyars I'm your man

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Unfortunately my knowledge in this matter is pretty much on par with that of my good friend Rex, who i see has already posted. Sorry this matter is far away from my forté.

I am dimly aware of a "Kyivan Rus" as being a Medieval polity from the 9th century onwards which encompased both Kiev and Moscovy (Moscow), so im wondering if by "southern or south-central Europe" your source is inferring the region of what we now call the Ukraine, or am i just reading too much into your post?

That being said my current support despite my poor knowledge goes with the first theory you described, that the Rus descend from the Varangian tribes that came out of Scandanavia (the ones that ended up controlling the Dnieper and even ended up making an appearance in Constantinople), on superficial grounds.

I say my reasoning is superficial because one needs to remember this was about the same time the Viking tribes were expanding generally. As far as the British isles are concerned places like the Orkney and Shetland islands were settled by them, and places such as the monastery of Lindisfarne (the home of Bede) and the abbey of Iona (one of the most important places in the history of Celtic Christianity) were ravaged by raids, for example.

But i will not go any further than i already have because my lack of knowledge on the relationship between the Rus and the Varangian tribes prevents me from doing so. If what i happen to support at present which is the first theory turns out to be incorrect and it turns out Riasanovsky is in the Right here, than im very happy to change my position

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Thanks for the feedback guys. As to Rex's comment I am not so knowledgeable on the Hungarians, however that is a

a group I plan to look into. As to theyounghistorian77's comment, you hit the nail right on the head. Riasnanovsky

suggests that the Rus may have came from the Ukraine and may have lived near to the Black Sea. Impressive reasoning

skills you have there.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Thanks for the feedback guys. As to Rex's comment I am not so knowledgeable on the Hungarians, however that is a group I plan to look into. As to theyounghistorian77's comment, you hit the nail right on the head. Riasnanovsky suggests that the Rus may have came from the Ukraine and may have lived near to the Black Sea. Impressive reasoning skills you have there.

Thank you for the compliments. As far as my reasoning skills are concerned, i guess me and Rex have a way of looking at things which i gather is not too dissimilar from each others, being as we are both historians, allbeit we study different time periods.

I may look into your question and see what i come up with

 

[The Felonius Pope]

If you can garner any information on the subject I'd be glad to hear back from you.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

If you can garner any information on the subject I'd be glad to hear back from you.

is it possible for you to provide the most relavent quotations (and/or sources) from the aforementioned books in question, just so i can get a broader view of the whole dilemma?

And i think this Wiki article may be of interest to you

 

[VyckRo]

All of the history books I have read seem to agree on the influence of the Byzantine Empire and the Mongol Empire on Russian history. However, there seems to be a considerable discrepancy on issue of the origin of the Rus:
I own two high school history books and am currently borrowing an advanced placement European history book. All of
these books posit that the Rus were a Varangian tribe that migrated to the south and two of the books even go as far
as to accept the foundation of the city of Kiev by Kyi, Scheck, and Khoryv as absolute fact. Making claims opposite
those of my high school books is a book by a professor of Russian history at the University of California, Berkely.
Nicholas Riasanovsky, the author of the book 'A History of Russia' expresses grave doubts as to the Scandinavian origin
of the Rus. He even goes so far as to postulate (based on Arabic and Byzantine writings) that the Rus came from
southern or south-central Europe. Anybody have any thoughts on this subject?

The foundation of the Kiev by the three brothers should not necessarily be in contradiction with the "Varangian conquest". A legend says for example that the Bucharest city, was founded by the shepherd Bucur, historical, Bucharest was founded by "Mircea the Elder" at the end of the fourteenth century, while the settlement is official documented in 21 September 1459 in a document issued by Vlad Tepes Draculea. But, all these data necessarily have to be contradictory? not necessarily!
Early Russian history is a subject of debate even for Russians, as is the Russian name itself.

But things are not much different for the foundation of the Roman empire, nor for the term of "Britain" or the "Etymology of London", we're talking about periods in history, for which we do not have enough historical documents therefore we are considering myths and legends also.

so ...

It is not an easy question, Russia was known, and, still, is, as, the "prison, of nations".
Physically, Russia it is the larges country in the word, whit obout 6.6 milion square mile of territory, nearl twice the sice of the U.S.
A Population of 143,030,106 whit Russian as the official language but 27 others co-official languages in various regions.
The beginning of Russia, are linked by the Russian historiography, whit the rise of Kiev, that started with the city`s occupation by the shadowy Oleg of Novgorod (ruler of the Rus' : 882 - 913). According to the Primary Chronicle, the warring tribes agreed in 860-862 to invite some princes from Scabinavia to be there leaders (the three Varangian brothers, Rurik, Sinaf,and Truvor), Riurik is the one who survived. He established a dynasty around 862 ( that is accepted as the traditional date of the beginning of Russian history). Oleg of Novgorod, laid the foundation of the Kievan Rus' state, he was apparently a relative of Riurik, and he was leader of Rus, probably while the young Prince Igor ( the successor of Riurik ) was still a minor.
Oleg of Novgorod, makes the transition from the Rus' Khaganate to the Kievan Rus State.

see Here
and Here

...So that would be the beginning ... in large.

-About the Scandinavian origin
Apparently we are speaking, just of some military elite .

-"that the Rus came from southern or south-central Europe"
migration in Europe are in generally only from east to west


-"influence of the Byzantine Empire"
here is part myth and part truth, after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, Russians have tried to "seize" the Byzantine legacy. Therefore they tried to create an entire story with some Byzantine princess ...The side with, the Orthodoxy is true... the side with the third Rome is pure madness.

on the the side with the orthodoxy here's a story that I always liked:

VyckRo
The knez Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great, decided to find out which is the best religion for his people so he sent envoys to study the religions of the various neighboring nations
- on the Muslims his envoys reported there "ther is no gladness among them", and they have a religion that does not allow them to eat pork or drink wine,
- after that he consulted whit the Jews, but concluded that if they lost Jerusalem that means that God is not with them,
- In the Catholic churches from the West his emissaries saw no beauty.
But when they arrived at Constantinople they were astonished, they entered in the Hagia Sofia, and attended the Divine Liturgy made in Byzantine Rite and they reported
"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"

 

[VyckRo]

I have found a university course on Russian feudalism, that caused the fracturing of, the Kiev State, especially after Yaroslav the Wise, which led to the appearance of Russian principalities: Vladimir-Suzdal, Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia, Minsk Principality , Principality of Smolensk, Principality of Novgorod-Seversk, Principality of Pereiaslav, Tver' Principality, the Tmutarakan Principality, Principality of Murom,... and more

If that helps in future

 

[VyckRo]

If you want to talk about Magyars I'm your man

Oo :shock: I understand ...that explains your hatred towards Romanians

I mean our last conversation, when thou attacked out of the blue, me and some Romanian atheist-agnostic SteauaBucuresti

now I understand
Q.E.D

P.S.
I YOU want to talk about Magyars I'm your man!

 

[australopithecus]

Oo :shock: I understand ...that explains your hatred towards Romanians

You're doing nothing more than being a drama whore at this point. Also, being knowledgeable on a subject doesn't mean you agree with anything included in that study. My house-mate is extremely knowledgeable on the rise of the Nazi Party, but that doesn't make him an anti-Semite.

Grow up.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

If you want to talk about Magyars I'm your man

Oo :shock: I understand ...that explains your hatred towards Romanians

I mean our last conversation, when thou attacked out of the blue, me and some Romanian atheist-agnostic SteauaBucuresti

now I understand
Q.E.D

P.S.
I YOU want to talk about Magyars I'm your man!

You know, I can't help but think you would have said more or less the exact same thing if I had said Wallachians or Austrians (which I just as easily could have.)

Note: just because people call you on your ethno-nationalist bullshit doesn't mean they're racist; of the 4 Romanians I know, I like 3 (guess who's the odd man out?)