You said that someone else mentioned that Russians founded it, thus I added that part.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You said that someone else mentioned that Russians founded it, thus I added that part.
@Khimaira
It seems to me to be very trixy translation. Well, first of all AFAIK best manuscript to read "Povest vriemiennych let" is lawrientiewski one, written in 1377. Next one is hipacki manuscript - ~1420. I don`t remember when Radziwillan one was written but for sure it was later.
I`ll try to translate to english polish translation by F. Sielicki (I know, it sounds like a deaf phone) of PVL taken from lawrientiewski letopis:
And they went over see to Varangians, to Rus`. Because so they called themselves, those Varangians - Rus`, just like other ones call themselves Swedes, others Normans and Angles, and different ones Goths - so did they [call themselves].
I`m no expert in english, but in polish it looked clearly that Rus` are a branch of Varangians (and this word meant roughly foreigners of scandinavian/german origin)
Looking at your translation, translating "druzii" as "friends" is a bit odd (your russian text into english): Because they call themselves Varangians Rus` (enemies of Rus`?), while friends call themselves Swedes, friends call themselves "urmyanie" (I guess that`s the fault of Radziwillan manuscript, sounds like Ormians indeed), friends call themselves Goths.
IMHO this translation does not have much sense (feel free to correct, I`m no expert at linguistic). Why Varangians would be enemies of Rus and Swedes, Ormians and Goths - friends? It completely does not agree with the rest of the text, at least in my book. You may of course question the value of polish translation, that`s true. At least use try to use closest source as possible i.e. lawrientiewski letopis.
And generally, why don`t you believe PVL so much?
It seems to me to be very trixy translation. Well, first of all AFAIK best manuscript to read "Povest vriemiennych let" is lawrientiewski one, written in 1377. Next one is hipacki manuscript - ~1420. I don`t remember when Radziwillan one was written but for sure it was later.
I`ll try to translate to english polish translation by F. Sielicki (I know, it sounds like a deaf phone) of PVL taken from lawrientiewski letopis:
And they went over see to Varangians, to Rus`. Because so they called themselves, those Varangians - Rus`, just like other ones call themselves Swedes, others Normans and Angles, and different ones Goths - so did they [call themselves].
I`m no expert in english, but in polish it looked clearly that Rus` are a branch of Varangians (and this word meant roughly foreigners of scandinavian/german origin)
Looking at your translation, translating "druzii" as "friends" is a bit odd (your russian text into english): Because they call themselves Varangians Rus` (enemies of Rus`?), while friends call themselves Swedes, friends call themselves "urmyanie" (I guess that`s the fault of Radziwillan manuscript, sounds like Ormians indeed), friends call themselves Goths.
IMHO this translation does not have much sense (feel free to correct, I`m no expert at linguistic). Why Varangians would be enemies of Rus and Swedes, Ormians and Goths - friends? It completely does not agree with the rest of the text, at least in my book. You may of course question the value of polish translation, that`s true. At least use try to use closest source as possible i.e. lawrientiewski letopis.
And generally, why don`t you believe PVL so much?
This thread reminds me that there was also Norman Theory of polish origins. IIRC it was thrown away in the beginnings of XXc. as a bullshit. Now polish historiography admits that there were Vikings in Poland but only as mercenaries, nothing more and it`s astonishingly resembling russian path of thinking. I wonder what do foreign historians think about it? Maybe it`s obvious for everyone but Poles, that Poland was ruled by a viking dynasty?
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.402
- 38.945
Neither, have I.
All I can find is that the idea seems to have been the work of one person:
_________________________________________________
An important writer of history is Karl Szajnocha (1818-1868), born in Galicia of Czech parents. He began his labours with The Age of Casimir the Great (1848), and Bolellaw the Brave (1849), following these with Jadwiga and Jagiello, in three volumes (i855—1856)—a work which Spasovich, in his Russian History of Slavonic Literature, compares in vigour of style and fullness of colour with Macaulay’s History of England and Thierry’s Norman Conquest. Our author was still further to resemble the latter writer in a great misfortune; from overwork he lost his sight in 1857. Szajnocha, however, like Thierry and the American Prescott, did not abandon his studies. His excellent memory helped him in his affliction. In 1858 he published a work in which he traced the origin of Poland from ,the Varangians (Lechicki /?oczcztek pols-ki), thus making them identical in origin with the Russians.
__________________________________________________
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PO/POLAND_RUSSIAN.htm
Perhaps, he wanted to create a parallel between the origins of Russia and Poland.
Well, Vikings passed through Poland too. Who knows?
It was in their best interest to have friendly princes controlling the portages (just like in Russia). They probably didn't want to be stuck halfway between Scandinavia and Greece because of a stubborn local prince.
Conrad
All I can find is that the idea seems to have been the work of one person:
_________________________________________________
An important writer of history is Karl Szajnocha (1818-1868), born in Galicia of Czech parents. He began his labours with The Age of Casimir the Great (1848), and Bolellaw the Brave (1849), following these with Jadwiga and Jagiello, in three volumes (i855—1856)—a work which Spasovich, in his Russian History of Slavonic Literature, compares in vigour of style and fullness of colour with Macaulay’s History of England and Thierry’s Norman Conquest. Our author was still further to resemble the latter writer in a great misfortune; from overwork he lost his sight in 1857. Szajnocha, however, like Thierry and the American Prescott, did not abandon his studies. His excellent memory helped him in his affliction. In 1858 he published a work in which he traced the origin of Poland from ,the Varangians (Lechicki /?oczcztek pols-ki), thus making them identical in origin with the Russians.
__________________________________________________
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PO/POLAND_RUSSIAN.htm
Perhaps, he wanted to create a parallel between the origins of Russia and Poland.
Well, Vikings passed through Poland too. Who knows?
It was in their best interest to have friendly princes controlling the portages (just like in Russia). They probably didn't want to be stuck halfway between Scandinavia and Greece because of a stubborn local prince.
Conrad
Last edited:
Well, I've never heard of such dinasty, at least not in the historical times. There are some strong nordic influences in the pre-historic (I mean pre-written history) times, especially in cultures like Biskupin or "Truso". The others quite influenced were the Pomeranians (Volin, Uznam...), but there are as many Nordic Influences, as "Slavic" or Germanic. These were simply cultures made of different people living on the border between the cultures. Noone can say, OTOH, anything about their rulers...
Cheers
Comparing the reasons why Vikings become rulers in many Russian tribes/cities/kingdoms to situation on the lands of Polish tribes, I hardly believe in some sort of permanent ruling caste of Vikings.
Russia was much better staging ground for traveling to Bizantium, Asia and Islamic world - due to the good routes (Volga, Dnieper). If you compare Poland, you would have to sail Vistula or Oder, then move boats across the moutains to Morava, then go for Danube and cross the Hungary (it would be interesting to see Viking/Magyar battles). Not as attractive as great rivers of Eastern Europe.
I do belive however, that temporary Viking dynasties could occur in Poland (and become permanent in, for example, Pomerania).
Maybe king Popiel? Popiel Popielsson?
Russia was much better staging ground for traveling to Bizantium, Asia and Islamic world - due to the good routes (Volga, Dnieper). If you compare Poland, you would have to sail Vistula or Oder, then move boats across the moutains to Morava, then go for Danube and cross the Hungary (it would be interesting to see Viking/Magyar battles). Not as attractive as great rivers of Eastern Europe.
I do belive however, that temporary Viking dynasties could occur in Poland (and become permanent in, for example, Pomerania).
Maybe king Popiel? Popiel Popielsson?
The thing is that in Russian, i mean Old Russian - the word druzii can be a polysemic word but in this place major authors seem to agree that it stands for Friends thus trying opppose Varangians - Rus to the rest peoples mentioned in manuscript:
Varangians - Rus --- enemies of Slavs
the Rest --- friends
This is what i actually said in my post, this is what was written in manuscript.
Again, i want you to pay attention - enemies of Slavs (i believe mostly due to the raids deep into Slavic territories using rivers)
Copper Nicus wrote:
_______________________________________________
If you compare Poland, you would have to sail Vistula or Oder, then move boats across the moutains to Morava, then go for Danube and cross the Hungary (it would be interesting to see Viking/Magyar battles). Not as attractive as great rivers of Eastern Europe.
_______________________________________________
If the Vikings passed Poland, there are some easier routes such as Vistula-Pripet-Dnepr and Vistula-Dnestr.
Some years ago some Swedes actually reenacted a Viking voyage on the Vistula-Dnestr route to Constantinople.
_______________________________________________
If you compare Poland, you would have to sail Vistula or Oder, then move boats across the moutains to Morava, then go for Danube and cross the Hungary (it would be interesting to see Viking/Magyar battles). Not as attractive as great rivers of Eastern Europe.
_______________________________________________
If the Vikings passed Poland, there are some easier routes such as Vistula-Pripet-Dnepr and Vistula-Dnestr.
Some years ago some Swedes actually reenacted a Viking voyage on the Vistula-Dnestr route to Constantinople.
Ok, but look at your text:"Bo tii zvakhusya varyazi rus', yako se druzii zovuts' svie, druzii zh urmyane, druzii i gote."
Word "druzii" is repeated 3 times and it does not look well or logically: "Because they are called enemies of Rus`, while friends call themselves Swedes, friends call themselves "Urmyanie", friends and/also [are?] Goths.
There was no reason to express it in such strange way. And what does it mean that friends call themselves(..), friends call themselves(...), friends call themselves...? It is not logical. This sentence looks a lot better when you translate "druzii" as others.
Moreover, why, according to you, they (Rus?) went over sea? At least in my translation of oldest manuscript present, they (Czuds, Slovens, Krivichi, Merans, Wes) were looking for a prince:
"They (Czuds, Slovens, Merans, Wes) expelled Varangians and they did not pay them tribute and they started to rule themselves alone. And there was no justice, and one family was [fighting]against the other, and and there were quarrels, and they started to warry among themselves. So they said to themselves: Let`s find the ruler who would govern us and judge by the law. And they went over see to Varangians, to Rus`. Because so they called themselves, those Varangians - Rus`, just like other ones call themselves Swedes, others Normans and Angles, and different ones Goths - so did they [call themselves]. Czuds, Slovens, Krivichi and Wes said to Rus`: Our land is great and fertile, but there is no order. So come to us to rule and govern us."
How all of this goes, according to no-norman theory?
It is possible, especially now, when most of the forests are gone. But note that in their times those 160 km. between Bug and Pripet rivers were extremely hard to cross. It was possible, but they could really make their lives easier by using their eastern route. And 150 km. is quite a long distance for carrying your boat on your back, even for a bunch of hungry blondes...
Cheers
Halibutt wrote:
________________________________________________
And 150 km. is quite a long distance for carrying your boat on your back, even for a bunch of hungry blondes..
________________________________________________
Yeah, it would explain why they preferred the longer trip through Russia.
________________________________________________
And 150 km. is quite a long distance for carrying your boat on your back, even for a bunch of hungry blondes..
________________________________________________
Yeah, it would explain why they preferred the longer trip through Russia.
Woreczko wrote:
_______________________________________________
Because so they called themselves, those Varangians - Rus`, just like other ones call themselves Swedes, others Normans and Angles, and different ones Goths - so did they [call themselves].
_______________________________________________
This is an interesting list of Varangians: Rus (people from the coast north-east of Stockholm), Normans (Scandinavians in general), Goths (people from Gotland. The Gotlanders were really very active in the trade between Scandinavia and the Caliphate. Etymologically the Got in Gotland is identical with Goth), and Angles (Englishmen were at the time much more "Scandinavian" than today after the heavy Danish settlements in England and the great similarities between the Anglo-Saxon and the Scandinavian tongues). After the Norman conquest thousands of Englishmen joined ... the Varangian guard in Constantinople.
And of course "Swedes", which comprised e.g. Rus and Gotlanders (according to tradition the Gotlanders became "Swedes" to have the protection of the Swedish kings).
It appears to be a list of Varangian nationalities, even though he does not distinguish between generic (Norman), basic (Swedish), and specific (Rus, Got) terms.
Perhaps this is a reasonable but clumsy translation: "Because so they called themselves, those Varangians - Rus`, just like other Varangians call themselves Swedes, other Varangians Normans and Angles, and different Varangians Goths - so did they call themselves."
_______________________________________________
Because so they called themselves, those Varangians - Rus`, just like other ones call themselves Swedes, others Normans and Angles, and different ones Goths - so did they [call themselves].
_______________________________________________
This is an interesting list of Varangians: Rus (people from the coast north-east of Stockholm), Normans (Scandinavians in general), Goths (people from Gotland. The Gotlanders were really very active in the trade between Scandinavia and the Caliphate. Etymologically the Got in Gotland is identical with Goth), and Angles (Englishmen were at the time much more "Scandinavian" than today after the heavy Danish settlements in England and the great similarities between the Anglo-Saxon and the Scandinavian tongues). After the Norman conquest thousands of Englishmen joined ... the Varangian guard in Constantinople.
And of course "Swedes", which comprised e.g. Rus and Gotlanders (according to tradition the Gotlanders became "Swedes" to have the protection of the Swedish kings).
It appears to be a list of Varangian nationalities, even though he does not distinguish between generic (Norman), basic (Swedish), and specific (Rus, Got) terms.
Perhaps this is a reasonable but clumsy translation: "Because so they called themselves, those Varangians - Rus`, just like other Varangians call themselves Swedes, other Varangians Normans and Angles, and different Varangians Goths - so did they call themselves."
Last edited:
I understood it the same way. Note that PVL was compiled and written (origins of PVL are quite complicated) in the beggining of XIIc. I suppose chronicler felt that it`s necessary to explain exactly relation between terms "Rus`" and "Varangians" because in XIIc. it could be easily confused. Thus he used nations known rather in his times - Normans, Angles, Swedes. Dunno about Goths however.
Nevertheless it would be the best if we discussed PVL over authorized english translation, because what I have presented is mine translation of polish translation of old-ruthenian manuscript which reproduced PVL (no original text survived)
.
_____________________________________________
I suppose chronicler felt that it`s necessary to explain exactly relation between terms "Rus`" and "Varangians" because in XIIc. it could be easily confused. Thus he used nations known rather in his times - Normans, Angles, Swedes. Dunno about Goths however. Nevertheless it would be the best if we discussed PVL over authorized english translation, because what I have presented is mine translation of polish translation of old-ruthenian manuscript which reproduced PVL (no original text survived)
_____________________________________________
I have just found an English translation (don't know if it's authorised, though). It confirms our interpretation:
"They said to themselves, "Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to custom. Thus they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus. These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans and Angles, and still others Gotlanders, for they were thus named."
http://home.swipnet.se/roland/primarychronicle.html
I suppose chronicler felt that it`s necessary to explain exactly relation between terms "Rus`" and "Varangians" because in XIIc. it could be easily confused. Thus he used nations known rather in his times - Normans, Angles, Swedes. Dunno about Goths however. Nevertheless it would be the best if we discussed PVL over authorized english translation, because what I have presented is mine translation of polish translation of old-ruthenian manuscript which reproduced PVL (no original text survived)
_____________________________________________
I have just found an English translation (don't know if it's authorised, though). It confirms our interpretation:
"They said to themselves, "Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to custom. Thus they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus. These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans and Angles, and still others Gotlanders, for they were thus named."
http://home.swipnet.se/roland/primarychronicle.html
Last edited:
Originally posted by Copper Nicus
I do belive however, that temporary Viking dynasties could occur in Poland (and become permanent in, for example, Pomerania).
Maybe king Popiel? Popiel Popielsson?
Popiel, well, why not?
The problem with Viking theory is very simple: not a single trace in dynastic tradition or documents. Rurikowicze were having their own tradition, but Piasts were strongly underlining their native origins (from simple peasant called Piast). Another problem is that archeological findings support that on Polish lands there was EVOLUTION of fortification methods, weapon creation methods etc, so they do not support theory of invasion.
But definetely Piasts could have some Viking mercenaries, but then, it's also only theory - there may be Vikings, or not...
As for Wolin (that is, Jomsborg) every serious historian know that Jomsborg is fairy tale created in XIII century by story tellers from Iceland. Jumna/Wolin/Jomsborg as appears from contemporary sources was city of Slavic pirates
)
I agree on your points concerning documents and dynastical tradition. However latest archeological discoveries show, that "civitates gnieznensis", small tribe aruond Gniezno expanded rather quickly, it started IIRC in ~920, 930 and till 992 Poland conquered (or gained by other means) all of it`s core medieval territory. It looks rather like a rapid conquest of lesser tribes, than slow evolution. It`s possible IMHO that tribe around Gniezno became such powerful and aggressive because it had viking warriors at his disposal. AFAIK there are also viking burial grounds in Poland (Kujawy?, Sandomierz?). Of course there is still no evidence that Mieszko I was a Scandinavian.
szopen76 wrote:
________________________________________________
As for Wolin (that is, Jomsborg) every serious historian know that Jomsborg is fairy tale created in XIII century by story tellers from Iceland. Jumna/Wolin/Jomsborg as appears from contemporary sources was city of Slavic pirates )
________________________________________________
You risk offending any Icelander following this discussion by your choice of words. "Fairy tales" are stories that adults tell children and that the teller knows are invented.
Icelandic sagas were oral traditions that were written down in order to preserve them. The "story tellers" of the sagas wrote down stories that they regarded as reasonably truthful. The Jomsvikinga saga would never have been written down if the writer had seen it as a "fairy tale". In the case of the Scandinavian mythology, the Christian Snorri Sturlusson wrote them down as a work of reference for poets.
As for the nationality of the pirates of Jomsborg. Yes, there were slavic pirates, but why would the Icelanders remember them as Scandinavians if they had been exclusively Slavic?
As for the real population of pirates of Jomsborg, they were probably a motley crew, as later pirate settlements tended to be.
Is there a movement among historians in Eastern Europe which wants to interpret historic events as "my own ethnicity only" enterprises?
________________________________________________
As for Wolin (that is, Jomsborg) every serious historian know that Jomsborg is fairy tale created in XIII century by story tellers from Iceland. Jumna/Wolin/Jomsborg as appears from contemporary sources was city of Slavic pirates )
________________________________________________
You risk offending any Icelander following this discussion by your choice of words. "Fairy tales" are stories that adults tell children and that the teller knows are invented.
Icelandic sagas were oral traditions that were written down in order to preserve them. The "story tellers" of the sagas wrote down stories that they regarded as reasonably truthful. The Jomsvikinga saga would never have been written down if the writer had seen it as a "fairy tale". In the case of the Scandinavian mythology, the Christian Snorri Sturlusson wrote them down as a work of reference for poets.
As for the nationality of the pirates of Jomsborg. Yes, there were slavic pirates, but why would the Icelanders remember them as Scandinavians if they had been exclusively Slavic?
As for the real population of pirates of Jomsborg, they were probably a motley crew, as later pirate settlements tended to be.
Is there a movement among historians in Eastern Europe which wants to interpret historic events as "my own ethnicity only" enterprises?
Last edited:
I doubt that there will ever be. Both Mieszko, Czcibor (recorded name of his brother) Ziemomysl, Piast etc are pure Slavic names. Dynastic tradition is very important. Dynasties usually tend to underline their begins, and if in XI century dynasty remembered that they were descendants of native peasant, then it's quite sure that they were. There would be at least ONE document which would stress scandinavian origin of the state.
Oh, wait. there is famous Dagome iudex, that is abstract written by copyist in Italia of earlier document. It's starts like this "Judge Dagome and lady Othe..." and some German historian were trying to prove that Dagome=Dagon and that was Viking name of Mieszko. Problem is that this is not original document, but its abstract, written by guy who had no idea about what he is writing about (in prologue he wrote that this is probably about Sardinia since Sardinian are ruled by judges". Dagome iudex could be mingled "Mesco Dux" (the middle age scribes had tendency to mistake foreign names) or Dagobert, name received after christening, or anything. Anyway name does not appear in any other chronicle or document.
About Jomsborg: I wish I have G.Labuda "Studies on western Slavs". He analysed plethora of sagas, chronicles etc. Problem with Jomsborg is that sagas mentioning Jomsborg came from little island far far away from it, recorded in XIII century, while ealier chronicles and documents from places much closer to it DOES NOT mention anything about it. Labuda also pointed out few inconsistencies in sagas, but i forgot them now.... Most probably it were Slavic pirates with occasional guest pirates from other nations as well. Well, Slavic pirates in XI-XIII century were plundering and raiding Denmark (I don't know about Sweden), so were equivalent of earlier Vikings, so I see nothing which would be against Slavic pirates in earlier era too...