Re: [sig] Book: Kiev Rus, by B. Grekov - thoughts?
- [clip your posts --moderator]
The clip is exhaustive about normanism and antinormanism theories (I would respect the Russian historiography in writing normanist with one N instead of two.I have another theory which goes back to Jared Diamond, an Australian historian who noticed invented a very nice term for a state such as the one the Varangians established in Ladoga (in norse ALDEIGJUBORG where ALDEIGJA - Ladoga - is the transcription of Aled Jogi which in Carelian means Low River because the VOLHOV - the river of Novgorod - hear mouths into the Lake of Ladoga AFTER SOME RAPIDS)and later in Novgorod. The word is CLEPTOCRACY i.e. a state based on burglary and larceny. I, as an Italian, believe that it is better to call the first Varangian State A MAFIA STATE. In my latest work (which i titled CHRIST and the RUS MAFIA) I demonstrate that in the Chronicles it is cealrly stated that the Swedes presented themselves to the local landowners (Slavenes and Finns together) as the mafia does it today: WE ARE ARMED PEOPLE WHO ARE AT YOUR DISPOSAL FOR DEFENDING YOU FROM OTHER ARMED PEOPLE THAT HAUNT THIS COAST. YOU PAY AND WE WILL DEFEND YOU FROM THEM. This simply masquerades the fact that the Varangians themselves were THE MENACE! So at the end where Novgorod lies today there forms three centers: On the left bank there is the DETINEZ (which can be translated as CHILDRENS STOCKING CENTER where the hostages were kept and where also the kinds to be sold as slaves were locked up by the Swedes) while on the right bank divided by the ZHILOTUG (a canal rivulet) south were the Slavenes and north the TCHUDES (finns) and each controled the other. Why did the Varangians come to such a solution? If you remember the Vikings started to plunder and sackage the next to them seacoasts which were inhabited by Christians and had already abbeys and churches where local riches where kept, so the Vikings had an immediate revenue on their expeditions abroad. All the contrary happened for the Eastern Vikings who arrived here and the coast were desolated: No church, no people (finns and the balts used to live back in the forests and in any case their denisty was very low). Still they knew that Constantinople and BAGHDAD bought from here many valuables such as SLAVES (in the first place), HONEY (il was the most dear and the sole sweeteners for the kings and emperors), WAX (this was a very important raw material to enlighten the dark medieval world and the huge houses of churches and to make bronze objects)etc. So they had to find how to get into this traffic. They first were recruited as BODYGUARDS or CONVOY GUARDS on seasonal salary along the Russian Rivers to the South but then they caught the occasion when the Slavenes invited them to make out a steady way of life by their weapons. Why RUS? My opinion is that this word means simply MAFIA as we use COSA NOSTRA to describe a group of people that uses to act as a Mafia. It may be that they picked it up at the Cazar Kingdom's (AS LATER WAS WITH THE WORD kaghan TO DEFINE THE HEAD OF KIEV)from the Hebrew ROSH/RUSH i.e. the CHIEF.
[clip your posts --moderator]
> >So, what is "Pravda Rus'ka"? And what is >anActually, as extreme viewpoints, they hardly express the whole truth. The incompleteness of both theories was obvious by end-of-war. The only thing was that usually both arguments were used in the Cold War: that the Slavs were wise enough to live by their own law (USSR), and that the Slavs were stupid enough to lack their own ruling hand even in the early days of Slavic states (Western historians). As with any politic reasons, both theories had distorted historic truth many times. The discussion on that topic raged in the FIDOnet echoconference SU.HISTORY about this spring-summer, and must be available through Googlegroups. Sorry, but it is in Russian. :-)
> -- Paul
> Near as I can tell, it seems that the Normanist vs
> AntiNormanist has to do with theories of how Russia
> developed and the origin of the name "Rus'".
>Actually, Ibn Fadlan (being a VERY emotional and not in the least impartial viewer - say, he reports of seeing a huge log-size snake, on the middle Volga, near Bulgar, some 150-200 kilometers south from Kazan - anyone can use Googlemaps and see how stupid a lie it is) says of some Rus merchants and describes their funeral rituals - saying nothing about their origins. Their origins, pardon me - is stated as a scientific fact by Michael Krichton, the same who wrote Jurassic Park, - his rather pulpy fiction novel The Eaters of the Flesh (13th warrior with Banderas is based on it) cites Ibn Fadlan for pages, to make the reader believe that the characters are really normans, of which there is actually NO proof.
> The Normanist theory says that Russia was developed
> and named out of the Scandinavian influence -- using
> the writings of Ibn Fadlan, who calls the norse
> raiders "Rusiyyah", and Ibn Rustah calls them "Rus"
> and differenciated them from the Slavs, the native
> peoples. Basically, it says the Rus were varagians,
> and they took over, just like the Norse in Normandy.
And, afair, Ibn Ruste says about the tribe Rus, which is a neighbor to the Slavs, and Rus merchants buy from the Slavs. No native vs. newcomers. And some other Arabic source names Rus "a tribe among teh Slavs", - thus, no agreement with the sources even in this.
Actually, there is no proof that Scandinavians ever called themselves "Rus". The Finns called them ABOUT so (Ruotsi) - yes (and, afair, they called the Swedish like this), but the Scandinavians themselves - never. Even the fact that Ruotsi is related to the word Rus - lacks proof.
> The AntiNormanist position is that the nation formedAlso, the fact that "Rus" for 12 century Russians meant Kiev and Chertnigov region, they could even say "He went to the Rus" meaning a trip from outer regions like Rostov, Novgorod, etc to Kiev, Chernigov, Liubech, etc.
> more from the native Slavic people, with a source for
> the word "Rus" being imbedded in the slavic language:
> Ruslo (riverbed), Rusalka (river-spirit). Also the
> two rivers in the Ukraine the Ros' and Rusna. The
> AntiNormanists contend that the norse/scandinavianAbsolutely. There is a very small circle of Scandinavian words borrowed.
> influence was completely absorbed by the local
> culture, leaving hardly a trace.
Also, there is a little wider circle of Russian/Slavic words borrowed by Scandinavians.
BTW, the idea of two antagonist theories just omits something: the legendary Riurik could be
neither a Slav nor a Scandinavian. In 9-10 century the Slavs could have called a warlord of Celtic origin, they still lived in the south Baltic by then.
> Actually, Ibn Fadlan <SNIP>. Their origins, pardonme - is stated as a scientific fact by Michael
> same who wrote Jurassic Park, - his rather pulpyHere's an americanism for you, Alex: "No shit,
> fiction novel The Eaters of the Flesh (13th warrior
> with Banderas is based on it) cites Ibn Fadlan for
> pages, to make the reader believe that the
> characters are really normans, of which there is
> actually NO proof.
Sherlock." :D Crichton's apologia is in the author
notes for "Eaters of the Dead". I'm rather offended
that you for some unknown reason assumed that I was
using a work of fiction as a reference, as if I didn't
know the difference, rather than thinking I was
attempting to create a brief summary based on acedemic
sources. Clearly, if I am making an effort to read
straight through this ponderous mass known as Grekov's
"Kiev Rus", I am not a johnny-come-lately to the world
of acedemic research.
I WAS attempting to simply paraphrase the wikipedia
article that was posted at the same time whole hog.
I personally, as I said at the end of my email, have
no thoughts or opinions or even support either the
normanist or antinormanist argument, having not done
enough research on the subject. Note the "As near as
I can tell" at the beginning of my email.
>Also, the fact that "Rus" for 12 century RussiansSources? Citations?
>meant Kiev and
>Chertnigov region, they could even say "He went to
>the Rus" meaning a trip
>from outer regions like Rostov, Novgorod, etc to
>Kiev, Chernigov, Liubech, etc.
>BTW, the idea of two antagonist theories just omitsSources? Citations? Archeological references?
>legendary Riurik could be
>neither a Slav nor a Scandinavian. In 9-10 century
>the Slavs could have
>called a warlord of Celtic origin, they still lived
>in the south Baltic by then.
Please, when you make these "correction" comments of
yours, which come across as very definitive in tone,
site some sources? Thanks.
Sfandra Dmitrieva iz Chernigova
Kingdom of the East
"Earth: The most dangerous place known to Man. Billions of humans have died there." --TarynEve, "Desert Isle" (ENTff)
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
- Lets not let the endemic bickering of the Old
World color this "new world" we are all creating, si
vous plait. Michael Chriton is a hack genre writer, as
is well known, so I doubt that anyone ever uses his
works as any serious historical source, even on the
tertiary level, outside entertainment. OTOH, works of
modern entertainment often have a utility of shedding
light on important, yet obscure bits of history that
might otherwise be overlooked in the shadows of some
of the historical "monolith" areas of discussion and
Back to the subject, is there a group that
encompasses the middleground, sans political dogma,
and takes the pragmatic approach of fairly rapid
assimilation with trace influence in the already
existant culture? I know of hardly any human culture
at any point in history that hasn't been noticably
affected by contact with other cultures, sometimes
quite pervasively and enduringly.
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005