Kievan Rus' and the Early Reign of Yaroslav the Wise | The World 1000 Years Ago
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 січ 2023
- Kievan Rus' is a medieval state which has often been left out of discussions concerning the Middle Ages. Many people know only a thing or two about it, if anything at all. And yet, this medieval Slavic realm has a truly fascinating history, both in-and-of-itself, but also for understanding current events amongst its successors. So let's discover what was going on there in the 1020s--1000 years ago.
Throughout this video, I make frequent use of illustrations from the Radzivilov Chronicle, also called the Königsberg Chronicle. This is an illustrated manuscript of a chronicle which adds on to the Russian Primary Chronicle. The manuscript is currently held at the Library of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, but a full digitization can be found here (where I obtained the images used in the video): radzivilovskaya-letopis.ru/ind...
Suggestions for further reading:
-Janet Martin, Medieval Russia, 980-1584 (2007)
-Simon Franklin, Jonathan Shepard, The Emergence of Rus, 750-1200 (1996)
-Christian Raffensperger, The Kingdom of Rus' (2017)
-Maureen Perrie, ed., The Cambridge History of Russia, Vol.1, From Early Rus' to 1689 (2008)
#history #medieval #middleages #academic #educational #kievanrus #ukraine #russia #belarus #kyiv #kiev #novgorod #yaroslav #vikings #slavic #orthodoxchurch #king #prince
You know how you know when you're a history nerd? You're watching a mini-doc at 10 AM on a Saturday morning 30 minutes after publishing from a channel with 5k subscribers on a culture nobody talks about from a period everyone thinks is dark.
Seriously though, good stuff. Really enjoying your content!
It's 3am here and yes I agree I'm totally a nerd 😂😂
Thanks. You are definitely filling an important gap in most readily-available channels, which - as you say - often gloss over this area and period. I'll look forward to more from your series.
That was good. Thanks! I now have the Raffensperger book in my Kindle queue. Ever since a few Ukrainian bloggers (as well as a former prime minister of Sweden) have put out a version of "Russia stole Ukraine's history," I've been trying to learn more. That led me to Serhii Plokhy's books, which I've been binge reading. But I'm glad to learn about Raffensperger, as I learn better when I get the story from multiple angles. I hope you don't stop putting out videos on this topic.
I've got more suggestions in the description. Raffensperger's is more about the argument surrounded the role of the Kniaz, but the others give more of an overview of events and society
"Russia stole Ukraine's history" - propaganda nonsense for the suckers of ignorance.
Thanks! Greetings from Lithuania
Fascinating stuff! You had me at the beginning with your comment about whose history gets taught.
Thanks for another interesting video on a subject I've never really heard of.
For a future video idea - it would be cool if you have insights on what the everyday lives of the regular peasants looked like. I don't know if there are any good sources for this sort of information though, as more often than not it doesn't tend to be recorded. But you might have a few sources in the back of your head.
Fantastic videos you are making 👍🏼
Tucker Carlson with President Putin interview brought me here.
Damn it got you interested in History
I would love to learn more about the relationship between Eastern Byzantium and Anglo Saxon England? Constantine's mother was reputedly born in York? Apparently declared Christianity official in York in 321(?) Would he have travelled by sea?
King Harold II (Godwinson) daughter Gytha of Wessex c1053- 1098 married Vladimir II Monomakh of Rus. Gytha became a princess of Kievan Rus. That would be after the Norman invasion.Were links strong between Rus and England? I see the arrival of Augustine in 597 as Rome meddling in the established Christian Church ( as we know came from ireland via Egypt) Intrigued about Varangian guard too...... Thank you!
At the time of Constantine, England was still a Roman province, so that was before the Anglo-Saxons came. He was born and raised in (Roman) Britain and his soldiers declared his emperor there, so it was a province which was near to him. During the Anglo-Saxon period there were still some connections to Byzantium and after the Norman conquest, several Anglo-Saxon nobles went to Constantinople to join the Varangian guard.
As for Anglo-Rus relations, the Rus tended to marry into lots of royal families and had strong ties to much of northern Europe. Harold Hardrada, who also invaded England in 1066, had lived in exile at the court of Yaroslav the Wise for a time before he became king of Norway. Incidentally, he had also served in the Varangian guard for a time.
Pechenegs: 👁️👄👁️
I descend from Yaroslsv the Wise, Anne, King Henri 1 of France..
Who else is here after the Putin x Tucker interview?
How far east did slavs settle as pagans ie did they ever make it to Ural Mountains
No not at this point in time
A recent study has found that haplogroup NO of the Finno-Ugric peoples and their descendants probably spread to today's Russia from Northern China about 12,000-14,000 years ago.
Take a look at the facts about The exonym "Hungarian" comes from "Ugor".in 895 The Magyars/Hungarians belonged to the Onogur tribal alliance, and it is possible that they became its ethnic majority The Hungarian people refer to themselves by the demonym "Magyar" rather than "Hungarian". "Magyar" is Finno-Ugric from the Old Hungarian "mogyër". "Magyar" possibly derived from the name of the most prominent Hungarian tribe, the "Megyer". The tribal name "Megyer" became "Magyar" in reference to the Hungarian people as a whole
Anthropologically, the type of Magyars of the conquest phase shows similarity to that of the Andronovo people, in particular of the Sarmatian groups around the southern Urals. The Turanid (South-Siberian) and the Uralid types from the Europe-Mongoloids were dominant among the conquering Hungarians .. And this is the same as you will find in Russians finish today!!!
According to a 2008 study, the mitochondrial lines of the Hungarians are clearly indistinct from that of neighboring Slavs like Ukrainians and Polish people ..
The Hungarians like the Finish are of the same as Magyars what we today call Hungarian. (Magyar" is Finno-Ugric ) Four 10th century skeletons from well-documented cemeteries in Hungary of ancient Magyar individuals were sampled. Two of the four males belonged to Y-DNA Haplogroup N confirming their Finno-Ugric origin that proves and supports the historical claims that today's Finish and Hungarians come from Turanid (South-Siberian) and lived around what we today call northern and eastern part of Russia ..
The Finno-Ugric peoples are any of several peoples of Eurasia who speak languages of the Finno-Ugric group Karelians, Finns, Udmurts, and Komis. The traditional area of the indigenous Sami people is in Northern Finland and the Kola Peninsula in Northwest Russia and is known as Sápmi. Some other Finno-Ugric peoples have autonomous republics in Russia: Karelians (Republic of Karelia), Komi (Komi Republic), Udmurts (Udmurt Republic), Mari (Mari El Republic), and Mordvins (Moksha and Erzya; Republic of Mordovia).
German anthropologist J. F. Blumenbach compared Finnish, Sami (the Arctic reindeer herders) and Mongolian skulls and concluded that the Finns were ‘Mongoloid’ and not ‘white’ like the Swedes or Finland’s Swedish-speaking aristocracy. This was widely accepted and led to the Turanian theory - that both the Finns and Sami had originally come from the East - as well as strengthening the view, according to Finland-Swede sociologist Nina of Enehjelm, that Finns were somehow ‘other’..
He found that Sami, Estonian, Hungarian were from the same family but so were a series of languages across Siberia such as Komi and Mari. And even languages like Mongolian seemed to have a similar grammatical structure. This led to the ‘Migration Theory,’ the Finno-Ugric peoples arrived in Europe from Mongolia around three thousand years ago and finally got to what today is Finland and the northern part of Russia. The more recent discovery of genetics has added further evidence to the ‘Mongol’ claim. Geneticist Richard Kittles found in 1998 that Finns have ‘Dual Origins’ between Finno-Ugric and Mongoloid as measured by their ‘Y Chromosome Haplotype Variation.’ Other geneticists estimated that Finno-Ugric has between 10 percent and quarter Mongoloid genes..
And in 2003, Slovenian geneticist Andrej Marusic observed that the Finnish and Russian propensity to alcoholism could be explained by the Mongolian ADH22 gene ‘which is common in Eastern peoples but almost unheard of Europe.’
Vladimir Lenin may have had Mordvin ancestry. There is a belief that President Vladimir Putin of Russia is the potential of Finno-Ugric Vepsian ancestry.. failures by Russians to never really get out it backward ways I think you can be assigned to being "too Finish Urgic Mogoliish “ - meaning, primitive, backward, culturally un-European.
When Russians attempt to define their own race and assert that they are European it just comes over as false, and as far as today's scientific research goes, we can now conclude with certainty, Russian are not white Europeans it is a myth !!!
Russians try to claim they are something they are NOT !!
Russians are NOT Western European (Russians have claim to be for a long time it goes back to Peter the great wish to be a European nation ) but it is nothing but a myth a type of fake nationalistic, myopic, backwardness , and unaccepting of objective truth that Russians are in-fact nothing more than dissidents of Finno-Ugric tribes that assimilated with Mongolians back when the land of Moskal ( northern Russia ) was annexed by the Mongolians and made it a part of the Golden Horde…
(unlike the Real Slavic people the Ukrainians and polish people that never assimilated with Mongolian occupiers )
The Russian DNA is evidence that they are not white Europeans.
Testes of today's Russian males DNA have shown that they, like their ethnic brothers the Finnish people, share most of their chromosomes with the Chinese, and Mongolians (the Mongolian chromosomes ) just like the Finnish people do as well !! This has proven without a doubt that Russian is NOT European as they share their DNA with the Mongolians and the study also shows that no other Europeans (with the exception of Finno-Ugric people) share that same chromosome structure with the Mongolians as Russians do !! ..
And why is this you ask ..
Answer… because Russians are Finno-Ugric people that assimilated with Mongolians and NOT white Europeans like Slavic or Germanic people are..
Why is it so vitally important to find this proof you ask?
Answer… It shows a systematic falsification by Russia that started with Peter to falsify its history and links to Europe so Moscow can put down the claim to the Kievan Russia history, cultural and lands !!
What conclusion can we take out of all this data ??
1. Russians are NOT Slavic it is a myth !!
2. Russians are closer genetically linked to Finno-Ugric and Mongolians 3. Slavic people like the Polish and Ukrainians are NOT genetically linked to Finno-Ugric and Mongolians..
4. Russians need to reevaluate their own history and accept the facts that they are nothing genetically to do with Slavic peoples heritage and therefore have no calm to Slavic lands, culture, and history !!
5. The Finno-Ugric/ Mongolians that are today's Moskli Russians have in fact appropriated another ppl.(Ukrainian/ Slavs ) culture, heritage, lands and history and today are like they have done for centuries lying about their own background and history to put down the claim to other ppl. heritage and lands..
6. Ukraine has never really been Russian lands .
Any more than Norway is Swedish or Danish (or Finland is Swedish or Russian ) just because Norway was forcefully taken into a union with Sweden and Denmark ( the same as Finland was with Sweden taken into a union ) and for some time under Swedish and Danish occupation and the rule , does NOT make Norway into Swedish or Danish lands ...
Norway like Ukraine and Finland was just a politically and military occupied nation for some time in its history that's all..
Norway has been from time to time under Swedish and Danish occupation and even some Norwegian cities was built by Swedish and Danish occupier's....
But that doesn't mean that Sweden or Denmark owns Norway or that Norwegians are Swedish or Danish ANY MORE THEN Russia owns Ukraine and Ukrainians are Russians or Sweden owns Finland and the Finnish ppl- are Swedish ....!!!
First real Tsar
Alas! I really wanted to watch this video! But.... all the contemporary politics, both in the video and the comments, took all the wind from my sails.
I'll stick to your videos on less radioactive topics; at least for now.
There never existed such state as 'Kievan Rus' just as there never existed a state such as a 'Parisian France'. Киевская Русь or Kievan Rus is a term invented by Russian historian Michael Maksimovich in the 19th century to describe the Medieval Russian territories with the centre of a certain city which was the capital of the political life back then. That is why constructs such as Suzdal-Rus, Vladimir-Rus, Murom-Rus also exist...
Precisely why I mentioned that in the video
@@studiumhistoriae Thanks for your answer, I will watch your video now entirely.
What do you think about the Ukrainian revisionism, that Kiev was the capital of Medieval Ukraine and Yaroslav the Wise was a Ukrainian ruler?
@@vladnikolaev1558 I would say Yaroslav is just as Ukrainian as he is Russian and Belorussian, since the modern distinctions between them did not exist as they do today. Ukrainians do not have exclusive rights over Yaroslav, and neither do Russians or Belorussians.
Saying that Kiev or Kyiv was the capital of medieval Ukraine is obviously a statement with political and cultural implications, but I wouldn't say that it's wrong, since Kievan Rus' is indeed medieval Ukraine, while also being medieval Russia and Belarus. I personally prefer not to use those terms when speaking about the period because of the implications, which is why I use Kievan Rus' like most historians.
Every country uses history for a reason, to tell a story through a nationalistic narrative. Sometimes it's well intentioned, sometimes benign, and sometimes highly problematic. In Ukraine's case, it's clearly in an attempt to reassert its independence from Russia, which, although it leads to emphases which may be ahistorical, doesn't seem all too problematic when Russia stands as a genuine threat to its sovereignty.
@@studiumhistoriae I am very glad to have the chance to discuss this matter, since it is very difficult to speak because of the fact that this subjects get politicized. My friend, don't think of my comment as a way to descredit you or your knowledge. See it as a respectfull way of discussing this subject and trying to come to historical truth.
I agree with you that Ukrainians, the Russian federation, the Belorussians don't have exclusive rights over Yaroslav since those states didn't exist back then.
You seem to agree with the fact that many Ukrainian historical emphases may be ahistorical but that it would be right as Ukraine is trying to form its independent state.
However history is a science and not a political and colored storytelling. Political history discredits the science of history in overall. Or does the English historical discipline allow their students to use ahistorical construction according to political tendencies?
To see which identity Yaroslav the Wise had, it would be right to see the documental proof in that time which would show how he identified himself back then? Don't you agree?
Yaroslav the Wise and the Grand princes of Kiev identified themselves as rulers of the 'Russian Land'. Or as they called 'Zemlya Ruskaya'. They didn't identify themselves as rulers of the Russian federation nor Ukraine.
I am myself from Belarus and history is taught in the same political way unfortunately. They say that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarussian state in which Old-Belarussian was spoken.
However this is also wrong. If we look to the sources even when the Grand Duchy of Lithuania existed together with the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth we will see the following:
French mercenary Jacques Margaret who wrote the first printed French travel account of the Tsardom of Russia in 1607 which said:
"However also should be known that there are two Russia’s: the one which carries the title of an empire, which the Poles call White Russia - and Black Russia which is owned by the Polish crowne.”
Diplomat and advisor of Polish King Sigismund II, Martin Kromer in the 16th century wrote about Rus:
“the same Russians are living under the rule of Moscow as under the rule of the Polish King”.
Tadeusz Chatsky (1765-1813) one of the creators of the Polish constitution of 3th of May 1791 wrote about the Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that it was “written in a Russian barbaric dialect”.
Mercator in his famous world Atlas writes about the grand duchy of lithuania: "Lithvania dvcatvs, Samogitia, Rvssia & volhinia."
As you see there are enough of historical resources that state the fact that the people and territories back then were in fact historically Russian (not Russian Federative) and it should be wrong to speak about a different identity.
Before 1917, before a political Ukrainian nation was created, and afterwards an ethnic nation. Statistically none of the citizens of Kiev back then called themselves as 'Ukrainians'. They had never been familiar with that term and identified themselves as Russians.
It was simple - if you were orthodox christian, you were Russian - if you were catholic, you were Polish. This is how our ancestors simply identified themselves.
The political consciousness on national level only developed later during the Soviet Union when Great-Russians became Russians, Little-Russians became Ukrainians and Belorussians (kept their name).
Our countries are all now independent, it's a fact. However perhaps all our problems come from the fact that politicians are trying to use our common history in a wrong ahistorical way which only brings to destabilization of our states.
@@vladnikolaev1558 omg, you're so delusional. First of all, the ruler of Kyivan Rus' was called either as Grand Prince of Kyiv or Grand Prince of Rus'. So it could be called Kyivan Rus' as well. Suzdal is not Rus', nor was Vladimir. All that territory was called Zalissya which was a colony of medieval Ukraine. The land was called "Ruthenian Land" or "Land of Rus' ". It is all again, names of a medieval Ukraine. If you from Belarus, you should know that Polotsk Principality was trying its best to be independent from Kyiv and Medieval Ukraine. By saying that you have a common history with Ukraine, you are discrediting your ancestors and history. Is that really what you want?
Real name for Putins Russia is Moscovite!
The Finno-Ugric name of Russia is Rus, real name of Ukraine is nearborderland.
Slava ancient and mighty nearborderland (ukraine)! 🇺🇦🔱👍 Slava nearborderland historians! 🤡🏳️🌈💪🏿