Settlers in Eastern Europe

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by El Chupacabra
I don’t know what the historians say, but once one takes a stroll down the Nevsky Propekt in Saint Petersburg, one sees the resemblance between the Scandinavians and the Russians.

Petersburg was influenced by Sweden.

But that does not really say anything about the origin of the Russians does it?

A separate question - is there consensus as to whether the Viking traders at least influenced the development of the area?

 

[unmerged(19034)]

Crazy...If it walks like a duck and quacks like one, it's a duck.

 

[crazy canuck]

Except that Petersburg was built much later when Swedish influence had nothing to do with whether the Rus originated with the Vikings or something else.

 

[unmerged(19034)]

Yes, well the Russians weren't "build" along with it, now, were they?!

Anyway...looks like we're getting nowhere...I, for one, give up!

 

[unmerged(8913)]

Originally posted by El Chupacabra
Yes, well the Russians weren't "build" along with it, now, were they?!

What do you mean by this? It doesn't make much sense....

 

[unmerged(19034)]

Canadian talk, I wouldn't expect you to understand what's it all "aboot", eh?!

 

[Conrad]

From the 7th century and onwards Scandinavians used the Russian waterways for plundering and for trading. The Swedes established trade routes between Scandinavia and Greece and the Califate. They established strongholds in order to control this lucrative network in a country where there were still few slavs. Most tribes were Fenno-ugrian. The slavs were still confined to present day Belarus and Ukraine with a few settlements such as Novgorod in present day Russia. The upper Volga region was quite settled by Swedes which is present in the archaeological record as well in observations about the looks of Russians in that region.

In the icelandic sagas Russia had two names: Gardarike (land of the cities) and Greater Sweden (like Italy was called Magna Graeca in antiquity). The Scandinavians were called Rus (from Ro(d)smen = rowing men. In Finnish, Sweden is called Ruotsi and in Estonian Sweden is called Rootsi). These Scandinavians married Slav women and were slavicised. Scandinavian names were also Scandinavised, such as Igor <- Ingvar, Oleg <- Helge, Olga <-Helga, etc. From this time, there are numerous Russian loan words in present day Scandinavian and numerous Scandinavian loanwords in Russian.

This history quite early was unconvient for more slavocentric scholars. The first Russian chronicler Nestor wrote that the Vikings were "invited" by the Russians to rule them because their "land was vast and rich but there was no order".

Later this version of Russian history was called the "Norman theory". In Russia history is politics, nationalism is politics and history is nationalism.

Saint-Petersburg was not founded until the beginning of the 18th century but on land recently taken from Sweden.

 

[unmerged(9622)]

Originally posted by Conrad
Khimaira wrote: "Ehe-he, where did you find this nonsense may i ask? The Norman Theory faced the strict oppposition as early as 19 th century and i actually base my comments on the works of two major Russian historians Soloviov and Klyuchevskoy who died long before Stalin came to power. And this Stalin-Commie nonsense just shows how much you were brainwashed - not everything in Russia is related to Stalin, there are lots of other outstanding people i dare say."

I'm married into the family of a Russian history professor. It is from her and her colleagues that I've learnt about Stalin's wishes about Russian history writing. The opposition might be older, as more nationalistic scholars must have found it offensive, ever since the national romanticist movements started in Europe.

Nice to hear you're married, but still it doesn't explain much about Stalin's issue - the only place where Ryurik is shown as a Viking prince who came to rule Slavs is "Povest' Vremennykh Let" which is in turn a sample of discrepancies (as it mentions him and other Varangian nobles or warrirors (?) who concluded a peace treaty with Byzantine after the raid of prince Oleg), since no other manuscripts prove this story. Most likely Varangians were asked to come to Kievan Rus but rather as mercenaries to fight nomads and Balts than prince, descendants of Danish konungs as it was shown in "PVL".

And Stalin i may assure you had lots of other stuff to handle than history about Normans in Russia.

P.S. For thinking over -

The first reliable record about Russians in Eastern Europe is in "Bayern Chronograph" compiled between 811-821, - Ruzzi were mentioned there after Khazars and this record as you can see dates back far earlier than first stories about Norman coming to this area.



Reference:

Norman theory - a trend which says that Varangians were the founders of the Russian state, was first introduced in the 2nd quarter of XVIII centruy by German historians at Russian Academy of Science G.Z. Bayer and G.F. Miller and A.L. Schloezer. The ground for such a stipulation was the story of "Povesti Vremennykh Let" about coming of three Scandinavian princes Ryurik, Sineus and Truvor to rule the Slavic people of Nothern Russia.

This theory already in the middle of XVIII century face a hard opposition in the person of M.V. Lomonosov who tried to prove that the idea was fabricated to prolong the timespan of the ruling dynasty. Later this theory was officially introduced as correct by Karamzin N.M.


The 19 th century witnessed the irreconcilable debates over it - the major oppponent to it was one of the greatest Russian researchers S.M. Soloviov who rephrased the claims to it - he admitted the coming og Varangians to Rus itself but doubted that they were righteously rulers, most likely they were either mercenaries or battle leaders like those of Cossacks much later (that is Cossacks chose an ataman who commanded during the war). This oppposition was backed by such historians as Ilovaysky, Gedeonov, Vassilievsky and more.

Soviet historians in their majority criticized this theory too for its inconsistency. (Grekov, Rybakov, Tikhomirov)

 

[Conrad]

Khimaira wrote:"Nice to hear you're married"
I am glad you appreciate that but I don't know what it has to do with the subject.

The fact is that Stalin wanted to control every aspect of Soviet society, and that this is fairly known in history circles, and especially in circles studying Scandinavian-Russian history.

True there is only one historical source, and historical sources are often contradictory.

There are however plenty of linguistic and archaelogical proof for early Viking influence in Russia dating back to the 7th century.

What we cannot argue against is the presence of Scandinavian names within Russian aristocracy such as Oleg (Helge), Olga (Helga) and Igor (Ingvar). The names of the rapids in the Dnepr are etymologically Scandinavian. What is also difficult to argue against is the heavy Scandinavian presence in archaeological records, such as Staraya Ladoga, Gorodishche in Novgorod, Smolensk (vast fields of Scandinavian mounds), Kiev, etc.

The English do not deny Viking influence on their history, and neither do the French (Normandy). Rollo is not regarded as non-existent, like Rurik (by certain scholars), even though there must be very few historical and non-contradictory sources. Only certain Russians seem to resent Viking influence on their history. I wonder why.

Khimaira wrote "The first reliable record about Russians in Eastern Europe is in "Bayern Chronograph" compiled between 811-821, - Ruzzi were mentioned there after Khazars and this record as you can see dates back far earlier than first stories about Norman coming to this area."

"Ruzzi". In Old High German it should have been pronouned "rootsi" like in "root". Estonians still call Sweden "Rootsi" and the Finns call it "Ruotsi". This is very interesting as the population of Russia at the time was overwhelmingly Fenno-ugric. They should have used a similar name for Swedes.

There were actually very few Slavs in present Russia at the time too. Scandinavians had had trade routes in the area for millenia with the Fenno-ugric tribes that were the original inhabitants of present Russia, such as the Merya (present day Moscow).

If there are ANY true founders of Russia it is not the ruling Scandinavian elite of the 9th and 10th centuries, nor the Slavs that arriving from Belarus and western Ukraine were to provide the language of the country, it is the Fenno-ugrian tribes that were already there.

 

[unmerged(5367)]

Originally posted by Khimaira
Don't be too fast at jumping into conclusions - this Norman Theory appeared several centuries ago and still very debatable and most Russian historians do not believe it. I would recommend you to come to Snowball CK FORUMS to scrutinize that with our forumites, especially Chernish, University Prof. of History.

P.S. There are several works which state that Rus stands for Old Slavonic word denoting "bear".

Bear.. hmm.. same tribe that was in 13th warrior?

 

[Red_Revolution]

It is true, that it was the Swedish who first populated Russia. The influence of the Rus streched from the Baltic sea, all the way to the Black sea. To two greatest cities in Russia (at the time), Kiev and Novogrod was founded by these Swedish vikings, and their "nation" was wast and great. The Viking colonies was linked together by the huge rivers of central Russia. Their raids plagued the Byzantine coastline for decades, and they even made several attempts to conquer Constantinople. The debate today is how the Rus, was driven from Russia. The Teory is, that they were just too few too control huge Russia, and they were beaten in picted battles against eastern invaders, and the ones who was left, were integrated into slavic culture.

 

[Conrad]

I guess the Rus generally married slav women, started speaking slavic and together with the Slavs and the Finns became Russian, just like the Frank elite that had invaded from Germany and their Gallo-roman subjects became French in France.

 

[Alexandru H.]

There is a reference in the Annals of Saint Bertin, which mentiones that in 839, at the court of emperor Louis, at Ingelheim, arrived a convoy from Constantinople. With it, there were also travelling two men, who called themselved "rhos". Louis asked his nobles who were these men, and he received the following answer "they are swedes". So, he locked them up, fearing that they were spies for their brothers, the Danes.

 

[unmerged(9622)]

Originally posted by Red_Revolution
It is true, that it was the Swedish who first populated Russia. The influence of the Rus streched from the Baltic sea, all the way to the Black sea. To two greatest cities in Russia (at the time), Kiev and Novogrod was founded by these Swedish vikings, and their "nation" was wast and great. The Viking colonies was linked together by the huge rivers of central Russia. Their raids plagued the Byzantine coastline for decades, and they even made several attempts to conquer Constantinople. The debate today is how the Rus, was driven from Russia. The Teory is, that they were just too few too control huge Russia, and they were beaten in picted battles against eastern invaders, and the ones who was left, were integrated into slavic culture.

Huh, thanks God no Martians were ever noticed colonizing Russia


P.S. Kiev was out of the range of influence of Varangians. And it was founded if you don't know in the 6th century. Novgorod by the way was also founded by Slavs and had quite a long history of its own princes - Izbor, Burivoi, Gostomysl, Vadim the Brave and etc. So please, do not state that Swedes were the founders, Slavs themselves were quite literate and wise enough to build cities and you try to convince the public that they were something between Neandertals and monkeys.

 

[unmerged(1057)]

Originally posted by Red_Revolution
It is true, that it was the Swedish who first populated Russia. The influence of the Rus streched from the Baltic sea, all the way to the Black sea. To two greatest cities in Russia (at the time), Kiev and Novogrod was founded by these Swedish vikings, and their "nation" was wast and great. The Viking colonies was linked together by the huge rivers of central Russia. Their raids plagued the Byzantine coastline for decades, and they even made several attempts to conquer Constantinople. The debate today is how the Rus, was driven from Russia. The Teory is, that they were just too few too control huge Russia, and they were beaten in picted battles against eastern invaders, and the ones who was left, were integrated into slavic culture.

The swedish heartland and Russia had dynastic links long after the Viking age though..

 

[Galleblære]

Hmmm, I sense a lot of pride and nationalism in this thread....

The scandinavians had no doubt a great influence in russian lands, like they had elsewhere, but the extent seems to be difficult to say. Probably somewhere between the two extrems displayed in this thread.

 

[unmerged(9622)]

First, I AM BOILING of this brilliant collection of such statements, OK one after one:


1)

Originally posted by Conrad
The fact is that Stalin wanted to control every aspect of Soviet society, and that this is fairly known in history circles, and especially in circles studying Scandinavian-Russian history.

The fact that you are a bit mistaken, a damn good bit - this is fairly known in history circles especially in circles studying Scandinavian-Russian history (Oh great, how come? Our historians are so indifferent to this problem?) and this knowledge was disclosed to you by who? God himself? No one in this country never ever heard about Stalin sitting in the Lenin Library and trying to reshape the history of Russia; He was mostly concerned first of all - about his own power and secondly about Great Patriotic War and thirdly, about restoration of the country afterwards about political moves against his opponents. Why the hell should he care about in what way Ryurik was called to Russia? And then if he did care, PLEASE PROVIDE THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS SIGNED BY HIS HAND, MEMOIRES OF HIS RELATIVES, POLICIANS OF THAT PERIOD?


2)

Originally posted by Conrad
True there is only one historical source, and historical sources are often contradictory.

There are however plenty of linguistic and archaelogical proof for early Viking influence in Russia dating back to the 7th century.

Plenty, ok show them - links any? 7th century - wow! why not the 7th century BC? I am ready to admit Scandinavians in Northern Russia (Karelia) and in Baltic region but please do not assure me that they were there in Kiev in 7 th century, this is such an utter nonsense that i am not even intending to give counter arguments, because it is just not true.


3)

Originally posted by Conrad
What we cannot argue against is the presence of Scandinavian names within Russian aristocracy such as Oleg (Helge), Olga (Helga) and Igor (Ingvar).

Yep, i heard that, that comes from Germans who introduced this Theory:

Olga - Helga
Oleg - Helgi
Igor - Ingvar
Dir - Dyri
Askold - Hoskuldr
Tur - Tyr

and so on, but to me it doesn't seem to be too persuasive, since we can create the analogous reversed test - and Swedish Helgi will stand for Russian Oleg and so on, but this doesn't give the right to tell that Swedish kingdom was founded by Slavs, right?


4)

Originally posted by Conrad
Only certain Russians seem to resent Viking influence on their history. I wonder why.

No, we just want the truth and it is not lying somewhere between your lines, and I suspect that Vikings and Varagians are pretty much different from one another.


5)

Originally posted by Conrad
This is very interesting as the population of Russia at the time was overwhelmingly Fenno-ugric. They should have used a similar name for Swedes.

It is interesting to know where you found this information? And what you mean by saying Russia? Try to use Kievan Rus to shape it more correctly, Russia is coming to existence after the fall of Tatar khanates of Kazan, Astrakhan and Sibir.

-Did you count Slavic tribes and Finno-Ugric tribes?

I mean: Polyane, Vyatichi, Radimichi, Ulichi, White Croats, Slovene, Krivichi, Tivertsy = total: xxxx

Merya, Chud', Vod', Ves' = total xxx



6)

Originally posted by Conrad
There were actually very few Slavs in present Russia at the time too. Scandinavians had had trade routes in the area for millenia with the Fenno-ugric tribes that were the original inhabitants of present Russia, such as the Merya (present day Moscow).

Very few Slavs? Oh, dear!!!!! Please explain howz that? Didn't they reproduce themselves since 6th century, the date of coming to this area?

p.s. I imagine Finno-Ugric tribes sailing the Black Sea! (Ukrainian nationalists usually say that 8th century is the date of appearance of first Ukrainian Cossacks, this has something very very much in common)



7)

Originally posted by Conrad
If there are ANY true founders of Russia it is not the ruling Scandinavian elite of the 9th and 10th centuries, nor the Slavs that arriving from Belarus and western Ukraine were to provide the language of the country, it is the Fenno-ugrian tribes that were already there. [/B]

Well, apotheosis is arriving, i runf for Russian history forum to tell that

 

[Conrad]

_______________________________________________
Khimaira wrote:"The fact that you are a bit mistaken, a damn good bit - this is fairly known in history circles especially in circles studying Scandinavian-Russian history (Oh great, how come? Our historians are so indifferent to this problem?) and this knowledge was disclosed to you by who? God himself? "
_________________________________________________

Sorry can't help. I won't give the name of professors who already are having troubles with nationalistic colleagues due to their Jewish origins! Here I surrender out of respect for people I like! You seem to be very sensitive about Stalin, and since you love that butcher so much I'll respect your feelings and never mention him again.

_________________________________________________
Khimaira wrote: "Plenty, ok show them - links any? 7th century - wow! why not the 7th century BC? I am ready to admit Scandinavians in Northern Russia (Karelia) and in Baltic region but please do not assure me that they were there in Kiev in 7 th century, this is such an utter nonsense that i am not even intending to give counter arguments, because it is just not true."
__________________________________________________

I HAVE NEVER PRETENDED THAT THERE WERE SWEDES IN KIEV IN THE 7TH CENTURY.

_________________________________________________
Khimaira wrote:
"Olga - Helga
Oleg - Helgi
Igor - Ingvar
Dir - Dyri
Askold - Hoskuldr
Tur - Tyr

and so on, but to me it doesn't seem to be too persuasive, since we can create the analogous reversed test - and Swedish Helgi will stand for Russian Oleg and so on, but this doesn't give the right to tell that Swedish kingdom was founded by Slavs, right?"
___________________________________________________


Sure that's possible. I would not oppose such a theory as angrily as you oppose the "norman theory". However, the Scandinavian names we're talking about do have Scandinavian and Germanic etymology, but might lack a slavic etymology. So I can't help you with any reverse interpretation. There were however Slavic names that were adopted by Scandinavian kings, such as Vladimir (Valdemar), Gostislav (Gustaf) and Boleslav, but we don't know whether these names came from Russia or from Vendish territory.
___________________________________________________
Khimaira wrote: "No, we just want the truth and it is not lying somewhere between your lines, and I suspect that Vikings and Varagians are pretty much different from one another."
___________________________________________________


So why do you disregard linguistics? "Varangians" is derived from "vaeringar" a scandinavian term meaning men sworn to serve a chieftain. Or do Russian nationalists have a monopoly on defining truth.

___________________________________________________
Khimaira wrote: "It is interesting to know where you found this information? And what you mean by saying Russia? Try to use Kievan Rus to shape it more correctly, Russia is coming to existence after the fall of Tatar khanates of Kazan, Astrakhan and Sibir."
___________________________________________________


True! Defining a nation based on its present day border is a hard task. Especially if we want to define the modern nation in respect to the state of affairs a thousand years ago. Let's say that Russia to me in the middle ages was European Russia north of the steppes.

___________________________________________________
Khimaria wrote: "Did you count Slavic tribes and Finno-Ugric tribes?

I mean: Polyane, Vyatichi, Radimichi, Ulichi, White Croats, Slovene, Krivichi, Tivertsy = total: xxxx

Merya, Chud', Vod', Ves' = total xxx"
___________________________________________________

So, counting the number of tribes is an indication of their distribution and number? I could give you a few more Fenno-ugric tribes: Muromets, Ingrians, Mordvinians and Permians. The regions with Baltic languages was also vaster in Eastern Europe than it is today. Did not some of the tribes you mention live in other parts of the Slavic lands?

__________________________________________________
Khimaria wrote: "Very few Slavs? Oh, dear!!!!! Please explain howz that? Didn't they reproduce themselves since 6th century, the date of coming to this area?"
__________________________________________________

Sure there were plenty of slavs in present day Ukraine and in present day Belarus. I forgot that some Russians regard the Ukraine and Belarus as "Russia" too.

__________________________________________________
Khimaira wrote: "p.s. I imagine Finno-Ugric tribes sailing the Black Sea! (Ukrainian nationalists usually say that 8th century is the date of appearance of first Ukrainian Cossacks, this has something very very much in common"
__________________________________________________

Sure there a plenty of Finns that say that it was so. Certain Finnish scholars pretend that the Varangians were actually Finns. Just like some Russians want to make the Varangians Slavs. What a people the Varangians must have been as they are so immensely popular!!!

__________________________________________________
Khimaira wrote: "Well, apotheosis is arriving, i runf for Russian history forum to tell that"
__________________________________________________

Great do that

Take care Khimaira. It gives me great pleasure to discuss with you, but you seem to take it all so personally judging from the tone of your messages and your choice of words. I don't want to shake you up too much, and as I have a thesis to write I don't think I care enough.

 

[Conrad]

About Chimaira's reply about Russians founding Sweden:

Yeah, according to Snorri Sturlusson, the Icelander who wrote down the Scandinavian mythology. The Swedish kingdom was founded by Odin from the area around Don in southern Russia.

The famous Norwegian Thor Heyerdahl (Kon-Tiki, Ra, etc.) actually made excavations in Azov before he died (quite recently) to prove that Sweden was founded by people from present day Russia.

Why not? It does not hurt my national feelings as the "Norman theory" seems to hurt Khimaira's. Perhaps I just haven't got any inferiority complex that makes me have to prove that Sweden was founded by a Swedish royal dynasty Frankly, I don't care. It would only be very interesting if our first dynasty had come from a place far far away.

 

[Galleblære]

That with Thor Heyerdahl is correct, but he was never really able to prove or disprove anything. As usual, his theories were met with great sceptism, and even butchered by so called "old school" historians.

Some of Heyerdahls very interesting theories at this site, with the possible origins of the scandinavian, with a theory that Azerbaijan may be the ancesteral homeland of the Caucasian people.

http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/31_folder/31_articles/31_thorazerconn.html

This is more about his theories about Odin (Wotan) and his digs in Azow.

http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai102_folder/102_articles/102_heyerdahl_storfjell.html