I would like to help you author. Kievan Rus as a state as today's Washington's America, London's Great Britain, Paris's France has never existed, as well as Moscovy, Moscovia, Ruthenia as modern reborn Ukrainian myths have never existed also. There are no international documents with such states, no rulers, not titles of rulers mentioned such terms. It is called FAKE HISTORY, DESINFORMATION. According to the Chronicles it is called Rus, Land of Rus, or Russian land. Rus is not a predecessor of Russia. Russia is Rus actually or Ρωσία (Россия) in Greeks literally or Rusland Rusia Ryssland Rosja in other historical documents or treaties in other languages of the past and present. The Russian Primary Chronicle or "Повѣсть времѧньныхъ лѣтъ" , Rurik with his men came to Novgorod slavs and created Rus or Russian land, or land of Russians in 862: «Изъбрашасѧ триє брата и придоша къ Словѣномъ пѣрвѣє и срубиша город̑ Ладогу и сѣде старѣишии в Ладозѣ Рюрикъ а другии Синєоусъ на Бѣлѣѡзерѣ а третѣи Труворъ въ Изборьсцѣ» «и ѿ тѣхъ Варѧгъ прозвасѧ Руская землѧ». Thus, Rus came from the North, Old Ladoga was the first capital of Rus, not Kiev. Novgorod slavs spoke Russian language and they called themselves Russians so far: «словѣнескъ языкъ и Рускыи ѡдинъ ѿ Варѧгъ бо прозвашасѧ Русью а пѣрвѣє бѣша Словѣне» Then after expansion to the South and creation of the largest country in Europe they lived in Russian cities: Kiev, Chernigov. Pereyaslavl, Polotsk, Rostov, Lubech and Novgorod: Hypatian Codex: В лѣто . ҂s҃ . у҃ . е҃ı [6415 (907)] ... и по том ̑ даӕти оуглады на Рускіє городы . пѣрвоє на Кієвъ . таже и на Черниговъ . и на Переӕславъ Ж 25. и на Полътескъ . и на Ростовъ . и на Любечь . и на прочаӕ город . по тѣмь бо городомъ . сѣдѧху кнѧзьӕ 26 З. подъ Ѡльгом ̑ суще. They are called Russians living on Russian land or Rus everywhere in the Chronicles and it is actually written in Russian language, so you can read them with a bit difficulty if you know Russian language, because the one wasn't changed so much. Principalities of Rus or feudal Rus doesn't mean that Rus ended. Political, cultural, religious, and people migration to the North and Moscow is explained by Mongol devastations, The North of Russia was safer for many reasons. The today's Rus or Russia as we know today with Kremlin, politics, ideology, the laws and Heraldry was formed by Ivan 3 the Great, the primary heir of Yaroslav the Wise, Alexander Nevsky and Dmitry Donskoy if it makes sense to you. As a ruler of all Rus and as a monarch he had all rights on the fatherland of his grandfathers as lands belonging to Rurik dynasty. All three modern East Slavic nations are formations of USSR actually, because there were no division before. Actually Russia just lost it's territories: Belarus and Ukraine that have never existed before. Ukraine is composed of Malorossiya, Novorossiya, Donbass region and Eastern Ukraine that "Ukraine" literally means "У края" "near margin" or "bordering land" between Poland and Russia. Today's Russia also has many ukraines as territories as it grew, but they are called shorter "Край" ( "margin", "border" ) - federal subjects of modern Russia. Khabarovsk Krai, Stavropol Krai, Zabaykalsky Krai. As for modern Ukraine as among the most corrupted countries, the flag of Ukraine is a flag of Lower Austria, the coat of arms they took from the town Old Ladoga - the first capital of Rus in Leningrad oblast. Ukrainians live on Russian land, in Russian cities, their ideology is nazi, their history is fake, 30 years of corruption lead to elimination of first rate science, technology, industry, they stole gas, debts, nowadays they try to steal the history of great nation and civilization, but there is no Ukraine in Rus history. 🤔
Please, DO NOT use the term 'russia' for medieval Ukrainian state. It had a name Rus, not 'russia'. Yes, in greek translation Rus would be Russia. But due to the intense russian propaganda it happens a very harmful confusion. Rus / Kyiv state IS NOT 'russia' / Muscovia.
Rus were a people just as much as a state, and though the primary base (not to say the only base, in my eyes Novgorod which is just as much "Russian" as Muscovy was, was just as much "Rus" as Kiev was) was in Kiev, modern Russia holds the vast majority of former Rus lands so it wouldn't be very honest to implicate just Kiev holds claim to it. I've noticed a lot of Ukranian propaganda lately trying to separate the modem Russians from the Kieven Rus which in my opinion is not very reasonable.
@@Anonymous07192 the first issue is trying to apply concept of nationalism in medieval-renaissance period when the idea did not exist as we understand it today. We cannot say that France was the same back then where all individuals living there would say, I am French.... Well no they were profoundly loyal to their region and language and so would not have identified in this manner. I would imagine the same would have been for Russia and Ukraine
@@EvilZ2009 though you are correct in your assessment of prevailing views at the time, you misunderstand the point of what I was trying to say. I am Serbian, though the original Slavic Serbs are not native to the Balkans it wouldn't be reasonable to say that modern Serbs today aren't also descendants of the natives who had always lived there, mostly the Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Romans and Celts. The issue with the Ukranian view is despite possibly the most important capital of the Rus being in Kiev, this doesn't mean that "Russia" isn't directly tied to it on an ethnic level on an even greater basis than the modern Ukranians. It is a racist view that believes Ukranians are descendants of Nordic Vikings (which is true as is true with the Serbs and the Balkan natives, though similarly the Slavic composition is much, much greater than the Nordic) and that not only Europe ends at the Dnieper but that "Russia" or "Muscovy" as they like to call it is an Asiatic mongrel/sub-human ethnic people which simply isn't true. The fact is that Russians and Ukranians share a lot more in common than they'd like to admit.
@@Anonymous07192 Hi, I see your point and yes indeed you are correct in what you are saying and I have been told by many Ukrainians that this conflict is very personal as both countries have a very close ties to one another. The issue I was trying to bring up was a criticism or our ancestors that tried to impose an idea of Nationalism when we see in today's world that it is a failure. The Rwanda conflict had multiple factors that antagonized the situation to the brink of genocide however, one of them was the idea that tribe 1 should be separate from tribe 2 and be instead glued to tribe 3 believing that people would coexist because they were now part of a greater nation. The individuals who performed these horrible acts knew nothing of the local history, didn't care to understand it and simply imposed their will in such a manner. It is like having a discussion about Romania and Hungary in terms of what was once a greater Hungary that then lost territory and was annexed to Romania or even the dismantling of Yugoslavia which caused so many ruptures and internal strife because outside forces seeked to divide and conquer based on their own views of what was good for the people. Thank you for your good points by the way and the only thing i would end on is what I mentioned to a Ukrainian colleague which was that in the end, it is once again the Russian people and Ukrainian People who will be slaughtered to satisfy the political ambitions of individuals who are acting as if the Cold War was still on and that is truly regrettable. This conflict is pointless and only serve those who are indebting countries that are massively buying weapons (on loan) and weakening the American Dollar by giving the BRIC further legitimacy....
A Ukraine, the Ukraine - you can call it however you like. We are still here and we are still the inheritors of Rus, our old state with its heart in Kyiw, Chernihiw and Pereyaslaw.
I like how in reality many "countries" in medieval ages were loosely coupled entities and a political maps were looking more like a multicolored quilt blanket. Yet many popular historical maps show entire swaths of land in Europe as if they were united modern countries.
The maps do not show us the ethnicities or tribes but only what inbred idiot - uh I meant "nobility" ruled over what territory. People are stupid enough to think that if something is not on a map it does not exist...
The term "Ukraine" literally means the line of the borderland, also, "Ukrainian", it is literally a border guard. It cannot be a separate nation, a nationality and a sovereign entity! Because there is a border guard service in every country in the world!
@@rodjarrow6575Ты когда- нибудь слышал о праве народов о самоопределении? Я думаю что нет! А твои высказывания о том что кто-то не имеет права на существование это уже чистый нацизм!
@@user-no2kf9yr2z "Тыкать" будете своей маме родной! Ликбез от гражданина Украины сегодня временно оккупирванной выродками НАТО начиная с февраля 2014! - Что не является словом "САМООПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ" - как не старайтесь врать и брехать здесь, используя метод казуистики из романа Джоджа Оруэла под названием "84"
"Тыкать" - будете маме родной! Ликбез от гражданина Украины, сегодня временно оккупированной выродкаминато, начиная с февраля 2014 - что не является "САМООПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕМ", как не крути и не бреши здесь, используя метод казуистики из романа "84" Джорджа Оруэла...
@@user-no2kf9yr2z "Тыкать" - будете маме родной! Ликбез от гражданина Украины, сегодня временно оккупированной выродкаминато, начиная с февраля 2014 - что не является "САМООПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕМ", как не крути и не бреши здесь, используя метод казуистики из романа "84" Джорджа Оруэла...
Thank you for the wonderful podcast. It is so important to have some understanding of history that goes beyond the simplistic, propagandistic narratives coming out of corporate media.
I love this! It added many details to my understanding of the history of my people that I wasn't aware of. As someone who comes from Ukraine, I am impressed by your in-depth knowledge of Ukraine's history. Thank you for making this! There are some comments that I have though: 1. I would not call Ruthenia - Russia. Yes, both Ruthenia and Moscovia take roots in Rus. Yes, Ruthenia is just a latinized word for Rus. But, Ruthenia is a term that always refers to the Rus people within Poland/Lithuania/Austria as you yourself have pointed out, never Russia/Moscovy. 2. Also, the word kraj* meaning "country", the letter j is pronounced like y (like gUY, bUY). If you look at the word ukraine in Ukrainian, it contains the word "kraj" in it. The prefix "u" means inside the "kraj." (country). Ukraine only means "borderland" according to the Russian version of history. 3. Taras Shevchenko extensively uses the word "Ukraine" in his works and promotes the idea of an independent Ukraine. (example poem: "Гомоніла Україна"). 4. The Cossacks are Ukrainian in the modern sense. If you look at records of registered Zaporizhzhian cossacks online, you will realize that their last names sound Ukrainian, not Russian. This is evident by the suffixes they had -ko, -uk, -yk, etc. These are not Russian name suffixes. Yes, there was a plethora of other ethnicities within the cossacks but the majority were Ukrainian. I tried to make a video on this topic too, but I am not a historian and many things I talk about (much less extensively than you do here) I have learned in school in Ukraine and by doing independent research.
Ukraina - means a borderland but it comes from the Polish language. Back then when most of what is now Ukraine was a part of the Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth. There were even plans/attempts to make it a Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth. Pity it did not work out
@@jezalb2710 it is a pity because that led to Russian domination in the East. I repeat, in Ukrainian the word Ukraine means “inside the country”. It’s as simple as that. Russians and apparently Poles may claim a different origin to the word but, the fact is, it’s impossible to claim the original meaning of the word because that’s not how language works. Words evolve and morph into others. Just like the word “bayrak” means flag in Turkish and “gully/ditch” in Ukrainian. Meanings evolve.
@That Bygone Girl "Ruthenia" is the Latinization of the Greek word "Rosia." The Byzantine Greeks called what's now Russia, Ukraine and Belarus "Rosia." All of it. In fact it was the Greeks that called the area around Kiev "Mikra Rosia" or Small Russia; and the area around Moscow with it's vast wilderness "Megali Rosia" or Big Russia. In fact, as late as the 17th century, westerners referred to Muscovia as "Ruthenia." It won't let me post a link here, but I'd recommend looking up "Ruthenia" on Wikipedia. There you will find historical references to the area around Moscow and even the Russian far north and Caspian as "Ruthenia". Ruthenia very much means Russia. But the meaning/usage has changed over time. Even The Encyclopedia of Ukraine, which has a nationalist bias, admits this in its article on the term "Ruthenia." As history went on, the term "Ruthenia" became more and more restricted. Today there are 2 reasons why "Ruthenia" is used almost exclusively to refer to Ukraine, Belarus and Carpathia. 1.) Ruthenia is a Latin word, and the Catholic Church was the main space within which that name was used for the past 4 centuries, given their usage of Latin. The Rus they were talking about the most were the ones who were theirs: Uniates. 2.) Polish, Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalists began to use the term Ruthenia as a distinction between the Rus who lived in the western territories that had been occupied by Lithuania and Poland, versus the Rus in the east who coalesced around an independent Moscow. It was a deliberate act of distinction using an already existent word, albeit under a new meaning. Muscovites were unlikely to call themselves by a Latin name. They opted for the Greek "Rosia" which became "Rossiya." Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalists viewed Lithuanian and Polish annexation as a positive occurrence, owing their nationalisms to those annexations/occupations, and were happy to use the exonym applied to them by their former masters.
@@jezalb2710 it's obvious to understand that "borderland" is not a real meaning. Because the territories of Ukraine were borderlands only for Russian Empire while for Ukrainians it does not make any sense, it's not borderlands because they live on these territories.
@@Ernest-cv3cu Toads or not, it was their pond and Russians thought, let's take over and annihilate them as a population. After so many hundreds of years nothing has changed....
@@Ernest-cv3cuЕсли воспринимать" Русь" как скандинавов, то они постепенно растворились и славянизировались. Тот ,кто строил Киев тот до сих пор здесь и живёт.Названия народов меняется.Сейчас это украинцы. Фино- угорские народы ,населявшие территории Междуречья Оки и Волги также постепенно славянизировались и вследствии " обрусения" стали великороссами.И что в этом плохого?
@@user-no2kf9yr2z вы правы - это прекрасно что славяно - русы освоили это междуречье, развили там земледелие и подружились с малочисленными финно-угорскими народами охотниками-собирателями. Жаль только не сохранилось в Киеве того славянского населения после разрушения его монголами, всё оно ушло на северо-восток в Залесье, так появилась Москва. А нынешний киев в основном пришлые тюрко-поляки с небольшой примесью славяно-русов с Москвы. Но, в этом нет нечего плохова я вас уверяю!
I would also like to make another note. There was NO CONQUEST of Rus / Kyiv state by Lithuanians. There was RE-CONQUEST of Kyiv and Chernihiv by Lithuanians TOGETHER with ruthenians / settlers of Kyiv state. AND, Rus / Kyiv state became a part of Lithuanian state, WHERE ruthenian / rusyny's language was heavily in use, Kyiv intellectuals were heavily involved in governing of Lithuanian state. And Moscovia had a path SEPARATE from Rus / Kyiv. It is important distinction.
This is the most concise and comprehensive history of Ukraine I have come accross, very impressive!! Really wish I could find out more about Mihai Damianov in relation to Ukrainian nationalism?
Yes, Damianov was a very influential figure, however he’s fallen out of fashion in Ukraine in recent times and the don’t really like to mention him as much now
Interesting lecture. A couple of comments: 1. Hetman is a Polish world loaned from German. Its Ukrainian counterpart is Ataman, perhaps loaned from Polish. 2. LIberum Veto was not restricted to the Magnates. In fact ANY(!) member of the gentry had that right (Which accounted for ~ 10% of the population!)., It were the members of the minor gentry who were usually bribed (cheaper, not drawing attention to the magnates etc.) 3. Chmielnicki was, almost certainly, a member of Commonwealth gentry
In German it's "die Ukraine". A bit like "die Schweiz". In English, there are a number of geographical names with the definite article: "the Gambia" "the Hague" "the Ukraine" "the Congo" etc.
It's probably a lotmore work but it would be useful if you interacted with the maps whilst giving your lecture so we can see what specific areas we are referring to. In the more dense maps it would help a lot. That being said, I should probably just study the maps in more detail and shut up. saying Map 1,2 or 3 would help though and giving some vague area of ref within it would help.
The term "Ukraine" literally means the line of the borderland, also, "Ukrainian", it is literally a border guard. It cannot be a separate nation, a nationality and a sovereign entity! Because there is a border guard service in every country in the world!
Sounds rather complicated ! What I’d like to say about the “great Mongol empire” is that they failed miserably when they attempted to invade Japan in the 1270’s and 1280’s !!
@@gentlemanskier3107 Yes, kopf is head. Haupt means head in the chief/leader sense. He's the head honcho. I wasn't totally clear or even very clear. Sorry for the confusion. For example, Hauptbahnhof means Main traain station. So, to reiterate, it means head as in leader or chief. In the old days, it did mean head as in the thing on your neck but isn't used in that sense any longer, at least as far as I know.
Thank you for sharing and I get more knowledge of History of Ukraine. A great country. SLAVA UKRAINI!💙💛 💙💛 💙💛 💙💛 Log Live to Ukrainian! Best Wishes from STOCKHOLM - SWEDEN 😇
At first there was Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia then Andey Bogolubsky carried the icon of Lady Virgin to Vladimir and as Kiev was coquered the throne of the mitropolit and the capital moved there . Then popeGeroge VIII announsed the Third Crusad, then in 13 th century Aleksander Nevskiy held a battle with the Teutonic Order and Russia had becamre almost independent from katholics and also Greek Patriarkh . Independent from Greeek because of the Mongols that conqured all the south , and Greek were not able to send their bishops
@@Readthis880 I would indeed argue that the modern Ukrainian folks are descendants of the Rus. The problem is they seem to hate the label, the culture, the writers, the statues and the Orthodox faith that comes with that label. So yes, it's there but you must engage with it if you want to make it yours.
@@marketguydanu9888 And in Rand McNally they wear boots on their head and hamburgers eat people! But seriously what do you mean? Moskovy or the Moscow princedom certainly existed as a historical entity for a time. The Rusyn / Ruthenian people actually do exist. How do you mean? In that their reality differs from how modern Ukrainian propaganda talks about them?
Thank you for this. The history of this area is very complicated and you seem to grasp it. One thing I would have liked to see is how the Cossacks figure in the independent Ukraine. I think you glossed over this too fast and from what I read the Cossacks are mostly Ukrainians.
@@froggylegspeople that is wrong. The Don Cossacks were an entirely separate cossack society from Zaporizhzhian Cossacks which are talked about in this video. That was not the capital of all Cossack land. Also to see what nationality made up most Cossacks you have to google archives/registries of Cossacks from earlier centuries. Once you do that you’ll realize most Zaporizhzhian Cossacks have Ukrainian surnames. They end with suffixes -uk* -yk* -ko.
@@froggylegspeople I’m aware that there were more societies… what I’ve been trying to say again and again is that Zaporizhzhian Cossacks have nothing to do with Don Cossacks. The persons question was about the role of Cossacks in Ukrainian society which is why I’m pointing out Zaporizhzhian Cossacks which are instrumental to the Ukrainian identity.
Їхні основні закони це те що всі мають були християнами та знати українську мову. Більшість козаків етнічно українці, далі йдуть поляки та росіяни, зрідка були навіть шотланці! Але по ідеї по національності всі козаки вважались українцями або русинами(стара назва українців)
@@GalicianGranddaughter666 what’s wrong with the Don Cossacks exactly? Are they not Ukrainian enough for you ? How do you know what Cossacks he was talking about, I didn’t hear him make that distinction. You’re suggesting that Cossack society was totally separate and mutually exclusive and they didn’t intermingle but that just isn’t true
3:20 Novgorodъ on the Volxovъ river most definitely did not exist on the 9th century, while Kyjevъ most definitely existed well before the 9th century.
Yet he managed to talk for over an hour and a half about Ukraine without discussing Jews (or Greeks, who founded Mariupol). And he implied Ukrainian Ruthenians rejected the Greek Catholic Church, though we know the majority in the west joined it. Today it is the single largest denomination in Ukraine. His Russo-focused perspective colors the entirety of his presentation. He missed his own hoped for “objectivity” by a few yards. All nation states are artifacts, including the Russian one. Ukraine emanated from its particular history.
You need to check out an excellent essay on Belarus, and how it's identity/nationalist movement is manipulated by western forces, as well as the internal historical Polish minority. It's listed on my channel. Link is in my "About" section since UA-cam won't let me post a URL.
@@ghalston5641 What? „All nation states are artifacts“, I see. Did you learn that in school elsewhere? Where? So what is your approach to discuss these topics?
In order not to call Ukraine a borderland, you need to understand Slavic languages and understand what the word "kraina"(country) is and why there is a "U" prefix. You can write the Ukrainian word "країна" its "country" in Google Translate and then translate it into Polish and then into English. It translates as country or state. So why do you tell Russian propaganda about the border? Whose border was Ukraine, if when Ukraine was Kievan Rus, for example, the Kingdom of Poland in the west of Kievan Rus was afraid of becoming the border of Kievan Rus, and Russia did not exist in the east at that time, Russia appeared only in 1721... Ukraine is not a borderland. Russians call Ukraine a borderland to humiliate that they are not a country but a part of their Russia, but Ukraine in Slavic languages is translated as a state that is higher than its other possessions, i.e. Kievan Rus. The prefix "U" and the word "kraina"(country) (in Slavic languages "kraina" its - country, is a state) and the prefix "U" means a state higher than the lands that are under its control and pay tribute to them during the time of Russia, at that time such a country as Russia did not exist... When Kyivan Rus was baptized in 988 in Kyiv, not even Moscow existed and Russia did not exist from Moscow to the Bereng Sea. Russia as a state began its existence only after Vladimir Suzdal principality attacked Kyiv in 1169, and then, together with the Mongols, they destroyed Kyivan Rus in 1240, and then the Moscow principality was born there, which then became a kingdom and in 1721 called itself Russia as a Byzantine variant , but they did not have the lands of Russia, which were the middle of the Dnieper region, so in fact, to put it briefly, Russia is a fictional country that wants to occupy the lands of Ukraine in order to seize Kyiv and take away the history of Kyivan Rus. It is the same as if Ukraine said that it was Lithuania after 1240, or Poland... but Ukraine does not take away the history and names of other countries and peoples and does not take away their history from them, and yes, Ukraine admits that it was part of Lithuania, but Ukraine does not says that she is Lithuania? Russia, taking the name and creating an analogue of the name Rus', called itself Russia and is now going to war to take away the history of Ukraine and its land, while Ukraine could have been called, for example, Scythia and that's all. Another proof that Ukraine is not Russia, but that Kyivan Rus and Ukraine are not the "border" of Russia, which did not exist for 700 years when Ukraine was a state and Kyivan Rus was baptized in Kyiv in 988, is that - The word Ukraine is essentially an analogue of the term inland, inland, center, that is, Rus, and according to the annals, this is the middle Dnieper region, it is there that there are the rivers Ros, Rosavka, Rosava, Rostavitsa and a bunch of villages with the same names, and in the west there is the city of Rava Ruska , Ruska and not Russian) also in the east there is the village of Ruska Lozova, and down the Dnieper River Ruska Polyana, there is also Ruska Ternova, Ruska Tishki, etc., the village of Rosava, etc., there is Rumunia right near the border of Ukraine the village of Ruska Polyana, too, 90% of Ukrainians live there. Therefore, Ukrainians are Russ, Ruthenians, Ruthenians, but since Kievan Rus collapsed after 1240, it was necessary to create an analogue of a new name for the lands that were Rus and the lands that belonged to Rus, and this is in conditions when there is a horde in the northeast, which confuses concepts, namely this horde invented the adjective word Russians, which they called different tribes of the Fino-Ugro-Taro-Mongol. As for why Russia took the Roman name of Russia, this is also a separate story, Russia has always stolen the history and heritage of foreign states, then it fought for the right to be the main heir to Rus, after the collapse of Rus itself became part of the Golden Horde and fought for the right to be its main heir, but the Crimean Khanate won there, then Moscow fought for the right to be the main heir to Byzantium and may have heard how they called Moscow 3 Rome, they created Kleinods supposedly theirs with fake letters for Monomakh's hats, etc., and Byzantium called itself the Roman Empire type 2 from Rome and the Roman Empire, which they gnawed in the west, here Russia, too, taking history, following the example of Byzantium, decided to take the history of Russia, but it could not be called Russia directly; another, now Russia has decided to go to war and steal the history of Russia by twisting, this is one of the reasons to go to war with Ukraine. Russia wants to Steal the history of Kievan Rus in Ukraine, this is a small part of why Russia attacked, Russia also wants to restore the Soviet Union and wants Ukrainians to survive again under Russian repression, Russia deported Ukrainians, made famines, threw Ukrainians into foreign wars like Finland in 1939. If the Ukrainians do not have their own separate state, then I assure you, Russia will start throwing Ukrainians at war in Kazakhstan, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. If they fight back to help Ukraine, then Russia will go further with a war on other countries. Ukraine is the only country that can stop Russia and destroy Russia as a Soviet Union so that it no longer goes to war.
39:39 - Chmielnicki or Kmielnitsky...and Cossacks. Thats a nice spin on the story, but not actual history. Revolt had nothing to do with Independence. 1. the Picturesque Cossacks of 16 and 17th century were landless peasants, runaways, and vagabounds, adventures, turned steppe warriors that have organised themselves in the style of fighting and customs on The one and only true historic original Cossacks, the Zaporozian Cossacks and their Sicz, or Sitch.. however spelled in english. These Cossacks, have been a fighting force, a light cavalry and light infantry. They did not or could not own the land, and preferred steppe warrior lifestyle, then hard work toiling lands or farms. They were raiding and pillaging as bad as Tartars and often working with them. At a Point in time, when Polish Cities and holdings grew, and more locals were assimilated into Poland Lithuanian realm, these Cossacks had to be managed and made useful. Polish Parliment dedicated yearly budget to employed them in defence of the population living int the regions up and at the ukraine areas i.e borderlands, and to prevent them from raiding eastern provinces of The Republic. Also they were required to sware filthy to the crown and the Republic and to fight in it's wars everywhere and anytime. i.e. they were placed the on the Register. Administered by hetmans who would chose who gets the pay. These Cossacks were known as Registered Cossacks. Those Registered Cossacks would have the letters confirming their status, and could have employed from their affiliates from their own pay, or on the promise of loot their retainers. Which were not Registered, had not appropriate letters, and were the responsibility of the Registered Cossack and ultimately their elected Hetman, and had to sware filthy to the crown and The Republic. In such a way the Cossack host would be assembled for war, and their economy operated. Gradually, over centuries Cossacks were outclassed by the advances on the battlefields and in warfare and because of increase in diplomacy and thus become less reliable as a fighting force. Their economic model and their ways of conducting warfare did not aged well and at some point Parliament reduced the size of the registers on to which Cossacks were reliant. At the end it ment less money to go around for ever growing number of Cossacks looking for a war, easy money, and loot. Although Cossacks were spirited fighting force to be reckoned with, they were undisciplined, and thus not reliable, which caused issues when you play the escalatory use of force as a chess pieces in the great game of negotiated conflict resolution via diplomacy. Thus messed up Cossak way of life. Their economic foundation, had shifted. And their choices were either to go back to farming, or go on to pillaging to sustain way of life. And they instead of become useful, like upgrade their ways of war making, or become farmers, they decided to raid Poland and Ruthenian and Polish population alike because they knew it and it was easy pickings for them. In the meantime you have Chmielnicki, who started his own private and personal war with other Polish Noble, over some disputed land and his wife that run oft with the former. After numerous petitions and personal visits, Polish King could not really help him with his dispute with other Polish noblemen (which carried some favour with king) , albeit gave him free hand to settle this one way or the other. Unfortunatelly Chmielnicki Quickly hooked with some disgruntled Cossacks turned pirates that were ready to fight for pocket money and personal war turned out of proportions after these Cossacks went butt shit crazy and started slashing and burning, looting and causing havoc. Now King did not like it, took exception to that and wanted Chmielnicki to put an end to it, or face consequences. Chmielnicki fell with the bad company, got trapped, felt power since he had the ear of the king, was educated, and took upon himself the role of the advocate General of the Cossack grievances. After violance and pogtoms, King and nobles had enough, and the whole thing (originally personal issue) escalated out of proportion and into revolt, that took a life on it's own, and beyond anything that Cossacks expected. Mind You there was active Russian agitation that looked for ways to divide Ruthenians and Poles. (Not that there was no tension to exploit, but that was manageable between Orthodox and Catholics, nobles and peasants (not sefs) ). Ethnic component was not much of an issue at that time. But the whole thing had nothing to do with Independence however broadly understood. Linking it to Ukrainan identity is severly overstretching imagination. Cossacks first allied with Tartars, then with Russians, and after they got the taste of Ruski mir they literally bagged Polish King to get under his Protection and returned voluntarily under Polish crown. The need to modernise the political landscape within the Republic in terms of Ukraine as a political region or Partner was recognised, however, due to democratic processes within the Republic many nobles had an issue with elevating bunch of unruly trouble makers (who up until recent were pillaging and killing their families and their estates in terrible Pogroms. ) to a peer group level in stance and in political influence. So that is the history how Region ultimately fell pray to Russia hundred or so yearslater and become a place of Russification and ethnic cleansing.
Ви так кажете ніби частина етнічно-історичних українських зелель не були під польською окупацією, шляхта(особливо польська) не ставали козаками та подібне
@Arsla No, Ruthenian Population of the Territories of what has become Ukraine of today, had been literally depopulated by Mongols. What little left of the Locals, was but a small percentage of survivors. After Mongols retreated, Lithuanians replaced them as local tax men. But Lithuanians were not developing Infrastructure, just collecting taxes. Like Mongols before them. In the meantime, Poland started to Clash with Lithuania over some Territories in Halych regions, and Volhynian. To stop the conflict, Poles elected in parliament to marry then female Polish King (not queen) to the Lithuanian Prince and elevated him to the status of the King, thus securing Personal Union between the two countries. Poles were City Builders and developed infrastructure while Lithuanians as a Light horsemen provided services which later Cossacks assumed. Into that Land Many peoples of Varied backgrounds from Nobles to lowest of the low start immigrating, they were driving to settle there and have a second or simply first or one and only chance of starting New Life and carve something that provides for freedom, financial independence, and good life. Surviving "Natives" where often Minority, and Ruthenian Nobles, they had their need to populate their lands with skilled labour, hence multinational settlers. But these were located on prescribed and agreed plots, and mortgages and or were given lands under different locational laws. But that is separate story. Those that were not fortunate to be in position to buy land, or secure rights to own one, for whatever legal reason, or simply did not want to get mortgage and hoped for quick money from looting, went further east, to the lands that earned the nickname Wild Fields. (Technically under Polish and Lithuanian Jurisdiction. These lands were open to all brave, hardy, desperate or stupid settlers, and if you were able to hold it, it was yours. There they tried their luck against uneasy Nature and Tartars or Mongols. More often than not, whatever they have made, built or created, was ruined by Mongols or Tartars raids, and many had to simply fight to protect themselves and their families. These People were later to become what people in popular imagination call Cossacks. (But hey were not the Zaporizhian Cossacks who apparently had been an ethnic group, used their lifestyle and social organisation because this was the only model of operating that was conducive to survival in this unforgiving land). But Cossack were not ethnic group, they represented large cross section of Neighbouring societies coming from the high and mighty to low and downtrodden. Cossacks are the result of the circumstances of living in what essentially was a warzone. Area of Ukraine a borderland between Mogol-Tartar-Turkic and later Muslim World and Christian Civilisations. What I am saying here is not depreciate the story of Cossacks, it took hardy people to survive and thrive in that land, they developed certain culture and traditions that become important part of regional folklore and tradition. Their Subsequent struggles for recognition as an equal members of the Republic of free peoples, and have all the privileges and liberties and protections of Polish Lithuanian nobles bestowed up on them, and to secure the place at the table is as inspirational story as much as Polish that fought for the same thing for centuries as well. Poles failed to recognize and or accept their Cossack brethren requests for equality within the realm. Everyone had their reasons. One thing is certain, that caused further divisions and played both peoples into the hands of Russian tyranny with tragic consequences for both of the nations. But modern-day Ukraine, while it does borrow much from the Cossack heritage, was not and is not build by Cossacks but by the People of multinational heritage who tilled the land, built cities and created infrastructure that was able to sustain Cossacks fighters and their lifestyle for centuries.
I like the video overall. I do contend with is quick dismissal of names. The Russ doesn’t “ essentially mean Russia”. The Muscovites take the name “Russia” to essentially lay claim to the Russ. When you use this language it takes away from cultural, political, and linguistic differences between these peoples. The Russ was a large area, but they’re not all Russian “ in the modern standard”.
The Galician language is a Ukrainian dialect. In 1867 it was given recognition as one of official languages of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the context of the move by the Habsburg rulers to use the Rusyn population of the eastern part of the Province of Galicia and Lodomeria as a counterweight to the Polish nobility who dominated that province.
@@michaelmills5984My grandmothers parents came to the US in 1910 and 1912 from near Lviv. ( They spoke,read and wrote Ukrainian and Polish). I knew they came from Austria-Hungary not Russia and remember hearing one of grandmother's sisters saying how their parents'family loved the Emperor. Now it all makes sense
What is impressing me is that this is all extemporaneous. The fact you forgot the name of that city actually gives credence to your presentation. Impressive.
Snap er niets van het komt in een opwelling maar begrijpen hoe of wat,waarom is nog een behoorlijke blinde vlek, daarom is een begeleider op dit gebied noodzakelijk die beste man daarboven laat nog niet zijn kaarten zien daarom zit ik nog steeds in een afwacht mode WJ dus doe je best heb al een wandelstok 😂 ook dat was in een opwelling om die mee te nemen waarom😍? Die rare pool
Imagine being a professor of history and having a UA-cam expert discount the 39 years of academic study because you temporarily forgot the name of one of tens of thousands of places you’ve learned about
@@paladro let’s hear your history of Ukraine Buddy, show us how it’s done. No doubt you’ll do a analysis of the key differences between Bandera and Maknho
54:21 that is simply untrue - just read T. Shevchenko's poem "Заповіт" (testament/last will): "Як умру, то поховайте Мене на могилі Серед степу широкого На Вкраїні милій" (When I die then bury Me in a grave In the broad steppe In lovely Vkraine)
@@niarlatotepbasset go for tge time stamp. It's about the statement that members of the Brotherhood of Cyrill and Methody did not use the term "Ukraine". But Shevchenko - a member of the brotherhood did use it which is actually well known by anyone who really knows something about Ukraine unlike this youtuber who just makes up "alternative facts"...
Nah I think there’s a lot of hotspots of warfare like: Northern France and Belgium, the Rhineland, northern Italy, western Poland and eastern Prussia, the balkans, etc
I missed the stream when it was live, but I enjoyed every minute of watching this lecture. Being betrothed to a Ukrainian myself, I think it important to understand the history of her country, and I find it very intriguing at how it morphed from regional designation to national identity in a slow and complex manner. I also think you do a very good job lecturing, and I don't regret my subscription one bit. God Bless.
Most vivid and deep insights into the evolvement of identity of Ukraine, appretiate your deep study and understanding, the historical development and happenings very important in understanding the actual fault lines of today, thanks a lot, can i ask your name please
Ukraine saw some huge battles between the Ottomans and Polish Lithuanian commonwealth. 1st Chocim and with Chleminitsky and the Commonwealth Beresteczko. And far smaller ones during the uprising
Some "ukraines" started 70 km south of Moscow which makes it sound ridiculous to call Ukraine a borderland not even gonna talk about how Mark Brandenburg is a tiny province of Germany while Ukraine is a giant country twice as big as Germany with its own language, culture, army, religious groups etc. Krain/Ukraina/Vkraina=country craj/krai=border It's a false friend / paronym. It's like saying England means "tight land" because "eng" means "tight" in German...
Ukrajina - okrajové územia na kraji od panstiev, územie ktoré oddelovali vierovyznanie, Pravoslávne, Grécko katolícke, Rimsko katolícke, Islam, preto na tom území nikdy nevzniklo kráľovstvo ani mocné kniežatstvo, vždy na ňom prebiehali bitky o ovládnutie, územie u Kraja povýšil na štát Turkotatarský Žid Lenin-Ulianov v roku 1922 v ktorom žije minimálne 6 národov a ďalšie národnosti, len ten vymyslený ukrajinský neexzistuje. Dnes na území u Kraja vládnu Chazari 🔱 dokazuje to štátny znak s Chazarskym trojzubcom, je to jeden národ zo šiestich.
My grandmothers parents came to the US from near Lviv in 1910 and 1912. My grandmother didnt know much about her parents lives back in Europe. They were not ysuhht much. This video bring together s lot informstion i hsve read. It all makes more sense after this video
I would also like to mention, that the terms that were used for self-describing of settlers in Rus / Kyiv state were - rusyny (ruthenians), ruski (руські). While these terms WERE NOT USED for settlers to the eastern-north from Rus = future Moscovia. There were living - Muscovites. The trend of calling muscovites as 'russians' appeared a FEW CENTURIES later, when young moscovian state started creating an 'ancient history' of itself by basically appropriating the history of Rus / Kyiv state. In the territory of current Ukraine term 'rusyny' / 'ruski' have been used till 19 or even 20 century. It had a history a thousand of years. While in so-called 'russia' term 'russians' has been appropriated and used for around 500-600 years.
Let’s face it, 40 million people want to be Ukrainians in Ukraine now and are suffering AGAIN because of it. History has many interpretations and the Soviet one has had preeminence and continues to be the ideology for the invasion.
what is not clarified here is that RUS and Russian do not signify the same. Russia did not come into existence as the name for russia until 1721. Muscovy was the name given to the early russian state. So please do not confuse ancient RUS with russia
@@Copium-f4d Rus was a collection of statelets with the one in Kyiv being the main/dominant one. There was no big united state, A bit like the state ruled by Charlemagne
@@catnap387 I mean any situation when anyone proclaims himself a successor of a state with a similar name while straight descendants can have different name (e.g. Italy is more related to Ancient Rome than Romania, as well as Germany and Netherlands are closer to the Frankish Empire than France, the similar is about links between Ukraine, Rus and Russia).
Speaking of the Cossacks reminded me of a story that my grandmother told me about her grandfather who fought on the Eastern Front in WWI. She said he told her that he and his fellow German soldiers feared the Cossacks the most. They were always on edge about them crawling up to them through the grass and slitting their throats in the night with certain long knives they carried. Luckily that he did not suffer that fate but rather was shot in the leg and sent back home, to live on to old age albeit with a bit of a hobble.
This ''historian'' use Russian books from XIX century to say something about Ukraine. Ukrainian national idea rise up in eastern Ukraine, not in austrian part - Mykola Mykhnovskyi (from Poltava) is first ideologist of Ukrainian nationalism
This historian would have done what all good historians do, use all the sources , not just the ones that are “approved” . I bet you don’t like modern art either
Thank you very much for dedicating your time and bringing history of Ukraine to the focus. But I have to make a couple of important notes: 1. Rus (or Kyiv state) and 'russia' ARE NOT the same thing. There was no continuity and inheritance between Rus and 'russia'. Rus - it's medieval state that was located primary in the territory of today's Ukraine. So-called 'russia' is myth, created FEW CENTURIES later in Moscow. 'russia' / Moscovia is related to Rus in a similar way as Romania is related to Roman Empire. 2. There was quite a clear distinction, WHICH territory was Rus and which was not. So, when somebody would come to Vladimir or Rostov or Novgorod FROM Rus (Kyiv, Chernihiv, Pereyaslav) - they would say 'I go to Vladimir / Rostov / Novgorod'. If they would come from Vladimir / Rostov / Novgorod TO Rus - they would say 'I go to Rus'. There are plenty of written sources proving that. In other words, what is territory of so-called 'russia' today - were under INFLUENCE of Kyiv state = Rus, but they WERE NOT part of it. Just fyi, measure the distance between Kyiv and Rostov / Vladimir / Novgorod. And ask yourself HOW it could be integral environment (economically, mentally, linguistically, ethnically). 3. Novgorod appeared on the map few DECADES later than Kyiv. It proven simply by archeology. Novgorod WAS NOT sort of beginning or pre-state of 'russia'. It was absolutely another phenomenon from Kyiv and Moscow, that was completely occupied, DESTROYED and annexed by moscovian tsar Ivan. Even linguistics proves that reconstruction of language of Novgorod and language of Kyiv - were quite different languages.
after the fall of Kyiv, the successor was not the Volodymyr-Suzdal principality, but the Galicia-Volyn principality, which held a governor in Kyiv and became the kingdom of Rus under King Danylo
Let me simplify this lolol Originally it was all Kievan Rus - eastern Slavic state, founded mostly by Vikings that were invited to(most likely) or conquered(unlikely) roughly Novgorod-area, and moved from there. By the time Mongols got there, it was already fragmented into many principalities, but with 3 main centers - Vladimir Rus, Novgorod Rus, and Southern Rus. After Mongols these pieces went their separate ways. Vladimir Rus paid tribute to Mongols for about 100-150 years. Novgorod Rus remained largely independent, though also paying tribute. And Southern Rus joined with Lithuania and beat back Mongols. Though they were paying tribute as well. This is the root of the 3 separate countries - "Russia", Belarus and Ukraine. Ukrainian language is a recent "invention", where "Russian" language has remained largely indistinguishable from the "Old Russian" and is simply a continuation of the Kieven Rus language. Etc. etc. THIS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MEAN THAT I SUPPORT THIS HORROR OF A WAR, that my Russia has declared on Ukraine. This is madness, and has NO RELATION to what average Russians feel about this. Actions of one mad dictator does NOT mean we all support this. Most of us Russians are horrified by this. Glory to Ukraine! Slava Ukraine! Hold fast, my brothers!
@@arsla5308 what on earth do they teach you in Ukrainian schools? How to hate Russians? Did the USA set your curriculum? I’ve read quite a bit about Viking history and what he says is pretty accurate. He even said at the end he supports Ukraine so what is with the attitude? I sense it
@@AIAvionics "Ukrainian language is a recent 'invention'" is far, far from the truth. Yall are gonna need to explain that one. The linguistic divide of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia traces its history back to the fragmentation of Kievan Rus. They all come from Old East Slavic that was spoken in this region, likely with many dialects. There is only a 60% lexical similarity between Ukrainian and Russian, that's the same difference as between German and English.
I like yours way of stating something you want to be true(whatever it is) without any more or less valid proof of it. If you talk about languages the proofs should be obviously based on some linguistic studies, which are highly recommended to be read by you. And same applies to all other subjects like history or culture or genetics. And as you are lucky enough to be able to use English it's highly recommended to read something in it to pretend to some objectivity of that studies
I can't help having the impression that I'm reading a Russian textbook. I think this narrative that has been created in the times of the Russian Empire needs a bit of refreshment, to say the least. Especially when you talk about Ukraine in these times. What sources were used?
Why do you say that? What was wrong with it? What about when it was part of Lithuania and Poland and the Ottoman Empire, were they ok or do they need changing too?
@@StoutProper мається на увазі що ця розповіть схожа на часткову російську пропаганду. Коли розказуєш про якусь країну треба розказувати це з оптики тієї країни
@@StoutProper imagine listening about Irish/Scottish/American colonies history from the English perspective. It might be partially true. But it's not what these people would say about themselves. Means it's not the first source you must stick to. In the case of Ukraine it's a bit special, because we have basically started that what is now called "Russia". So when you simply hear "the center of power has moved to Suzdal" it must require a bit more reasoning than "just because it's where Moscow kingdom starts from - and it gives us the right to claim Kyiv" :)
The definitive article of "The" is used for several countries in the German language. It would be grammatically incorrect to omit it. You wouldn't say. " Im visiting city." You would say " Im visiting the city " This obsession with " The" is silly
ARE YOU TELLING ME ALL THIS SOLDIERS ARE KILLING EACH OTHER ARE THE SAME PEO WITH DIFFERENT NAME, HOLY CRAZY CRAP, HUMAN CONDITIONING AT IT'S BEST. NICE VIDEO SALUDOS ❤
@@catnap387 hello thanks God I don’t have to defend my position, ,,,,THEY ARE ONE ,,, LA HERMANDAD , definitely defend it for me , yesterday and today. VIVA DUTCH LAND , THANKS TO GERMANICO Y ALEMAN . saludos
A correction Genghis or Chinngis does not mean universal it means biting like a wolf. It's also possible that it means change. Khan of course means chief or leader. Kahn of Khans would be Kakhan (more or less) Temujin refused to call himself khan of khans.
Thank you so much for this video! Wanted to note that the full name of the medieval state was "The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia". It was like an ally against the Mongols(and sooner Moscovites). The capital was on the territory of modern Lithuania. But Ukrainian(Ruthenia) influence was very big, for example they used 'Russkaya pravda' as a source of truth for the law system, 'Ruthenian' language as a state language. Also they got baptized to Orthodox as Ruthenians were in the same religion. Kyiv was much more developed and populated compared to Vilnius(but not as powerful as it was before the horde destroyed it in 1240). The population ration was like 70% to 30% with domination of Ruthenians. When the Poland joined the ally it became a little bit more chaotic since they are Catholics and they use the Latin alphabet. Then some of the Ruthenians started to consider new ally with Moscow state since in these aspects Ukraine and Russia are pretty similar. And this ally was signed in the 'Rada of Pereyasliv'. It was signed on the equal conditions. This was probably the biggest mistake since Russians started to cheat and then just destroyed Ukrainian(Ruthenian) state for around 150 years. You said that Ukrainian nationalism was born in Austro-Hungary. The truth is in the part of the country that was occupied by Russians, all of the Ukrainian papers were destroyed(the language was banned). Also some activists were physically killed. So this is the only reason why national idea is more observable in other parts of the country.. Odessa and Kherson were not created by Russian empire in XIXth century. You can google, they were continually inhabited by Ruthenians then Cossacks for at least 400 years. At the time when 'Kochubey' was renamed to Odessa, it was a greek colony, Cossack and then Turkish port. The same story for other cities that you listed. Pretty few of them were really created by Russians. Most were colonized. By the way, beautiful city of Mariupol that also in your list was here at least since the days of the 'Battle of Kalka river'(it was in your video, it's the battle when Kievan nobels were defeated by golden horde). Then it was, again, a cossack city for centuries. Only then these big 'rebrenders' came, destroyed our chronicles and language and said that they built everything, gratis, gratis! But archeology clearly states the opposite. As well as chronicles outside of Ukraine. Now Mariupol is destroyed again by these crazy barbarians.
Ruthenia are the Russian (Ruthkie) populated land. Thruout history world maps of population and countries, you will never find the word "Ukrainian", "Ukraine" or "population Ukrainian"until 1905, because Ukraine had not existed at that time. "Kiev Rus" ( not Kyiv Rus) on all centuries old maps were written in Russian languich. Cancel Reply
The claim that Odessa and Kherson were continuously inhabited by Ukrainians for 400 years is absolute nonsense, a product of the worst form of extreme Ukrainian chauvinist historiography. The historical fact is that both modern cities were originally part of the "Wild Field", a desolate steppe region largely uninhabited except for a few nomadic Tatars. Neither had ever been part of Kyivan Rus, or of the Ukrainian part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the Medieval Period they belonged to the territory of the Kipchaks or Cumans, the people that the Russians called the Polovtsy; that territory was called "Dasht-e Kipchak" by the Ottoman Empire, meaning the Land of the Kipchaks. Neither Ukrainians nor Russians lived permanently in that region. Before the region where Odessa is situated was conquered by the Russian Empire at the end of the 18th Century, a small Tatar village called Hadji Bey existed on the site of the present Odessa, which was founded by Empress Catherine II in 1794. She populated it by bringing in colonists from all over Europe, but most of the first colonists were Moldavians from the Ottoman Empire. Ukrainians, Russians and Jews also settled there, and ever since its establishment Odessa has been culturally and linguistically Russian. I visited it in 2010, and it was entirely Russian, all the signs were in Russian, and the local museums and monuments glorified Russian history. I have read that since the Ukrainian nationalist extremists took over Odessa in 2014 the statues of Catherine II has been removed in act of barbaric vandalism. Kherson was founded in 1778 by Empress Catherine II, after the annexation of that region by the Russian Empire in 1774. before that the region had been part of the Ottoman Empire. It became a base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and in 1783 a shipyard was opened where Russian naval ships were built. In 1897, the population was 50 % Great Russian by language, 30% Jewish (Yiddish-speaking) and 20% Little Russian (Ukrainian). As for Mariupol, the territory on which it is located had for centuries been part of the Crimean Khanate, and neither Russians nor Ukrainians lived there permanently, although Zaporizhian Cossacks occasionally raided it during their perennial wars with the Tatars.. This region was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1775, and incorporated into the newly established Azov Governorate. The town of Mariupol was founded in September 1779, named after the Empress Maria Fedorovna, the second wife of Paul the son of Catherine II, who became Emperor in 1796. In 1780 the new town was settled by Greeks relocated from the Crimea, which was now under Russian domination although still nominally part of the Ottoman Empire. Over time these ethnic Greek settlers became completely russified. In 2014, many of the inhabitants of Mariupol rose in revolt against the new anti-Russian government in Kyev which had come to power through a violent coup, but their uprising was crushed by the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which ruled the city until its defeat by Russian forces in May last year. As for the Battle of Kalka River in May 1223, that took place in Kipchak territory, not in the territory of Kievan Rus, since the Kalka River is situated in the former "Wild Field", and joins the Kalmius River near the site of the present city of Mariupol. The reason it took place in Kipchak territory is that the Kipchaks had previously been defeated by the invading Mongols, and had asked Prince Mstislav the Bold of Halych, the father-in-law of the Kipchak Khan. Mstislav the Bold formed a coaltion of Rus princes, who together with the Kipchaks initially defeated part of the Mongol army, which then retreated eastward to the Kalka River, pursued by the Rus and Kipchak army. On the banks of the Kalka River, a second battle took place in which the Rus-Kipchak coalition was soundly defeated and most of the Rus soldiers killed. Thus, the fact that that battle between the Rus-Kipchak coalition and the invading Mongols took place close to the present Mariupol can in no way be taken to mean that in the 13th Century the territory around the presnet Mariupol was Ukrainian and inhabited by Ukrainians.
@@maroragoltsman1655 thank you for the point! It's not true the same way as Austria != Australia. You can find tons and tons of information just using wikipedia.. Ukraine is one of the names of the country. It should not be new to you that countries change their names in historical perspective. One of modern examples: Holland and Netherlands e.t.c. And the name of the country Ukraine itself is not new, you can find it in Ipatievskaya Letopys by 1189(the first historical fact) and then on many maps, agreements e.t.c. It's not complex to google. May i ask you, do you know what is 'Russian language' nowardays? Where it was created? Who is mr Prokopovych?
@@michaelmills5984 Thank you for the answer! I hope we'll have an adequate discussion. In my opinion, your note that this "territory" was a "Wild Field" and no one lived here except tatars contradicts your next paragraph where you say that there lived Kipchaks. You can also read about Pechenegs. As well as Scythians. As well as many other inhabitants, actually. Herodot, the father of history describes who lived here, in the Pontic steppe and Crimea. And you can follow the logical line and explore who inhabited this land through time. It's nonsense that you can imagine how fertile land on a trade road can be uninhabited by no one for centuries before, o-magic-magic, noble Moscowites, began to cultivate it. The city that was created on the territory of Odessa by the Ruthenian-Lithuanian kingdom is named Kaczubyeiow(Pretty similar to Tatars Hadji-Bey). You're right that this beautiful city was a subject of constant wars between Tatars, Turks, Ukrainians, and, at some point also Russians. But please don't put to the extreme the scale of Russian influence. It's kind of neglectable in historic perspective that it was occupied from 1794 to 1917. I accept that at this period there was a big development. Just keep in mind that it was a time of industrial revolutions and whole world was in a stage of reconstruction. So even Russian empire did something. We can only imagine how it may be if Russians will not occupy the city. I want to share the article about archeological findings in Kherson, if you're interested - pls use translator that works for you: www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-regions/3080771-hersonski-kordoni-derzavi-vitovta-i-niakogo-ruskogo-mira.html It shows the evidence(not only written that i've referred to), but archeological about Ruthenian-Lithuanian roots of the city. I mean, we can dive deeper and explore who lived here even before. But the point of our discussion is to show that Russians just created a fake history, an unimaginable history where some facts that exist in reality are not existing in their theory(Ukraine) and created facts that are not existing in reality(Russia is a superior country that bring the civilisation to all of the neighbours). Which is again, nonsense, you can see how Russians live outside of Moscow and St.Peterburg and find that the country that exports gas and oil(pretty stupid move, huh? why they just sell resources?) ), people live literelly without gas, roads and toilets. If you want, let's have a chat about 'Russian language'? I'll prove you some facts that this language was in use in all of the region(not only modern Ukraine and Russia). And it was created and standartized in Kyiv. Only at the time of Peter 1 it was spread to Finnish-Hungarian tribes of Moksha and others to be used in modern Russia. So it's a big question about the roots of the Rus culture(actually, no. Everyone knows that it starts from Kyiv).
Вы по моему не упоминули, что "Киевская Русь" не историческое название. Это российские историки ввели такой термин. Государство называлось Русь, русская земля. Русь пошла из Великого Новгорода - это территория России. И Россия никогда не называлась "Московией". Московия - это латинское название Москвы первоначально. Так называли Русское Царство только в Европе в Средние века.
Не в Европе, а только в Литве и Польше и затем Речи Посполитой, потому что в Европе Россия всегда оставалась Россией! Можете посмотреть европейские карты 16 ,17 веков, в которых (в отличии от европейских карт заказанных правителями Литвы и Польши и последующей Речи Посполитой) европейские картографы, такой, как Вильом Блау обственноручно писал в заглавии своей карты пояснение всему польско-литовскому невежеству, писал латынью "Russia vulgo Moscovia" - что в переводе с латыни буквально означает "Россия, которую всякое польско литовское невежество называет Московией" - дело в том что латинское "vulgo" является корнем современного слова "ВУЛЬГАрно", т.е. невежественно...
3:00 There was no collapse or break of any civilization in between Rus (839-1434) and Muscovy (1502-1917) because these countries never bordered and were completely unrelated.
The wrong explanation of the Ukraine name. "Kraine " means country in Ukrainian. Ukraine means " in the country " .When people were asked " where do you live " they were answering : " In the country " which in Ukrainian language is u ( in ) kraine ( country ). The narrative that that means " border" or "edge" of the land had been introduced by Russian historians trying to shift the central role of Ukraine as Kyiv Rus heirs , steal that role from Ukraine and appropriate it to Russia. And present war between Russia and Ukraine has the same reason from the Russian side.
LOL kievan rus originated in NOVGOROD. kyiv was the second most important capitol later. no one stole anything the son of alexander nevsky daniel was prince of moscow. kievan rus is shared histroy of russia, ukraine and belarus. dont try ur anti russia propoganda here my little bandera
Now you must do the history on Poland. I am very educated in her history and there is a bit more to it then Ukraines. The Poles, Russ and Ukraine are close not only in land but do have some intersecting history's.
3:50 There was no such thing as «the Rus' civilisation» since Rus itself was part of the European civilization. There are archeological artifacts or cultures attributed to Rus and its expansions but, they have nothing to do with Muscovy (1502-1917) that emerged from the Horde (1243-1502).
"The Roos" were tribes of Scandinavian Vikings that sailed up the Danube & Volga establishing settlement & trade routes along the way, all the way to Constantinople where their runes are still carved into the floor of the Caliphs palace !
Q: their runes are still carved into the floor of the Caliphs palace... A: There are no runes in the Great Palace of Constantinople but, there is a rude carving in Hagia Sophia.
To state it in the simplest way possible, the medieval Principality of Kyivan Rus' (Ukrainian transliteration) (roughly pronounced as "roosh") (aka Kievan Rus' as the Russian transliteration) was a completely separate entity from what eventually became known as "Russia" (aka Rossiya pronounced as Rassiya). In fact, following the destruction of Kyivan Rus' by Mongol hordes in 1240, some of the Kyivan Princes fled west and eventually established the new Kingdom of Halychyna (aka Galicia) and Volynia. Other Princes sought refuge in and around Novgorod. Furthermore, the name "Russia" did not even exist at that time and it was only later that it became known as "Muscovy". As for the name "Russia", this was an invention by Tsar Peter the Great in and around the beginning of the 18th century. And, the primary reason why Tsar Peter chose the name "Russia" was based on his attempt to usurp the history of the Kyivan Rus' into Muscovite history so as to provide a certain level of prestige to the Muscovite lands that he ruled. Therefore, in reality, there has never been any direct connection between Kyivan Rus' versus the Russian State as we know it as they were two entirely different entities with entirely different histories.
Well there is that fact that after destruction of Kiev at the hands of Mongols church moved its centre into...Moscow. Also Ivan III after beating Novgorod proclaimed himself ruler of all Rus way back in 15th century
This is incredibly incoherent; the 'muscovites' both usurped the Rus and had nothing to do with the Rus when they 'invented' the term Russia. This is simply a latinisation of Rus. I understand that there is a Ruthenian Latin influenced western sphere of the Rus who are culturally distinct, but that does not map onto supposed Ukrainian identity, and modern day Ukrainian nationalism is rooted in exaggeration, deceit and revolutionary doctrines which any sensible man should despise.
@@drarsen33 Following the Mongol invasion of Kyivan Rus in 1240 and the near total destruction of the capital city of Kyiv, the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Orthodox Church decided to move his seat to the safety of the northern city of Vladimir which was later moved to the city of Moscow. Concurrently, a split arose between several other Princes of the failed Principality of Kyivan Rus who decided to move the seat of power in a southwest direction to the Principality of Halychyna (aka Galicia) which in turn became a Kingdom several years later. Furthermore, as Halychyna claimed to be a successor State of Kyivan Rus, these events marked another step forward in the evolution of a distinct Ukrainian identity which was later solidified by the emergence of the Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossacks beginning in the 1400's to the late 1700's.
@@romandawydiak4476 so basically after destruction of center part of power moved west and part north both coalescing local forces around them. My rule of thumb is "does country has name of people or are people named by geographical location". If it is second option nation is probably secondary identity that grew or was made into nation. For example in ex yugoslavia only serbs croats and slovenian fall into first category with rest falling into second
@@romandawydiak4476 Muscovy and Vladimir-Suzdal were founded by descendants of Vladimir Monomakh (Kiev) so you are wrong. Muscovy is one of several Rus principalities, there was also Novgorod, Smolensk, Riazan, Chernigov, Tver, etc. Please stop spreading fake nationalist history. Muscovy refers to a principality not an ethnic group.
Maybe inadvertently, but the lecture very much uses the lexicon and viewpoint of the Russian empire to describe and contextualise Ukraine, and also the concepts of Rus (proto people and proto state) vs Russia (Rossya, a deliberate naming of an empire) are confused and not well defined.
If you're curious as to our thoughts on the broad sweep of Rus'/Russia history we do cover this in more depth in the Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality series. I have described this as a civilizational break as obviously the pre-Mongol Rus' never existed as a consolidated centralised state, let alone a Tsarist Autocracy. Perhaps an example would be to compare the rump Novgorod-Muscovy of the 13th and 14th centuries with the Kingdom of Asturias in Spain after the Umayyad conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom. Nevertheless I must emphasise as I have seen accusations of my uncritical use (or perhaps misuse) of a Russian view point (as a Catholic historian of Austria-Hungary I find this funny), that the nucleus of modern Ukraine was in Galicia (west Ukraine, Lviv) within the Austrian Empire, which save for a brief moment in 1915 was never part of the Russian Empire or something claiming to be a Russian nation state (the Soviet Union was officially internationalist). It was however once part of the Rus' Kingdom of Halych in Red Ruthenia. Perhaps I should have made this point more explicit, but the civilizational break in the 13th century foreshadowed the emergence of two Rus' successor states, one western orientated (Halych-Ukraine) and the other eastern orientated (Moscow-Russia). The former was conquered by Poland, the latter affected only a partially realised re-unification and re-contextualisation of Rus' nationhood.
@@ApostolicMajesty пробачте але ні. Росія не має відношення до Русі це проста крадіжка чужої назви та історії. Вам дійсно не вистача української точки зору та прочитання багатьох українських науково-історичних робіт
6:50 What essentially means a borderland in modern English simply did not exist in medieval Slovenic because there was no modern concept of the state and its borders.
A high quality account. But slightly careless in some important places. According to some other sources, Alexander Nevsky grew up as a hostage (a typical practice, for his father was a Prince granted the right to rule by Mongolian Han) in the Golden Horde, his wife was Mongolian, and his role in the battle with Teutonic Knights is disputed, simply because he was a teenager at the time. But, you do get the demarcation right. Therefore, first, the Grand Dutchy of Moscow appears, and only centuries later during its expansion phase into former Rus lands does it change its name to Russia. A cunning use of language! So, Russia was borne out of Moscovy as a vassal of Golden Horde. While Rus is a proto-state for Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.. Russia itself is a later formation, and is as much Asia as it is Eastern Europe, and by no means Rus.
@@2005OEFArmy or let’s imagine a brighter future. Poland annexes Königsberg. Japan annexes Kuril Islands. Georgia takes back Ossetia and Abkhazia. Ichkeria declares independence once again. Belarus gets rid of Lukashenka. And Russia is chopped off further by all who were wronged by it in the past. What a future awaits!
4:30 So called «rota system or the ladder» was invented by Muscovite monarchist propaganda and has nothing to do with the rule of succession that existed in Rus well before Jaroslavъ Volodiměrovičь, who was not called «the wise» by the way.
I have both Polish and Belarusian (white Rus) heritage & growing up I've met many people who were Russian and Russian speakers. When asked where in Russia they are from they would name the region within Russia proper or say Belarus or the Ukraine and then name the specific place. They didn't see Belarus or the Ukraine as seperate countries but regions of the one nation, Russia. Russian identity is strongly tied to all three Rus states. the Russian language and Orthodox faith play an important role. My Belarusian family identified as Poleshchuki, the specific region they are from, of the Russian Orthodox faith and Belarusian people but Belarus was also an enlarged region/country, but still all connection to great Russia. They spoke their mixed Belarusian/Ukrainian dialect natively, then Great Russian and some also spoke Polish. They saw Great Russian, Little Russian, White Russian and even Poles as belong to the same people. To be Catholic was to be Polish and to be Orthodox was to be Russian, both with some exceptions. God bless
All these Western films will never tell you what you wrote! Because the political purpose of these films is to create the basis for sawing the Slavs into small parts, small nations constantly at war with each other, according to the ancient Roman rule of governing the world: "Divide and Rule" (divide et impera)
Я украинка и согласна с вами, что" русский" это скорее конфессионим.Современные русские превратили конфессионим в этноним. Я не говорю что это плохо. Плохо лишь то, что под этим соусом они захватывают чужие территории и убивают украинцев .
@@user-no2kf9yr2z Конфессиональный Ликбез вашему позорному евро-невежеству, которое понятие не имеет о том, что все 100% украинцев - русские (за исключением евреев в креслах влады современной Украины и всей антирусской лживой пропаганды Украины), увы, все украинцы -русские, начиная с Крещения Руси 988 года (а, не Крещения Украины которого никогда не было)! Увы, впервые в истории и мире официально начали распиливать Русский народ на отдельные республики и отдельные народы / отдельно на русских, и отдельно на не русских украинцев (в их новом советском паспорте) именно в СССР начали советские евро-коммунисты! Используя казуистическую евро-формулировку: "русские и украинцы народы братья"! Но, в СССР все были народами братьями: и латыши, и армяне с азербайджанцами, и грузины, и якуты и узбеки и т.д. - 16 братских республик СССР...! Так вот, до начала СССР до начала советского изгнания церкви из жизни державы Российской, в период Российской империи априори было невозможно начать евро-распиливание народа Русского на отдельные Республики и отдельные народы...! Почему? Потому что начиная с Крещения народов мира церковь утверждала титул царя, короля, великого князя (владыки земли и народа) только на собственное национальное имя этой земли и народа! И, ни как иначе! Всю тысячелетнюю историю Руси (России) церковь в час коронации каждому следующему владыке Руси (России) утверждала только одно имя - РУССКОЕ (!) начиная от границы с Польшей (на которой и сегодня стоит старинный городок Рава-Русская (а не украинская) во львовской области современной Украины! Даже в период нескольких столетий польско-литовской оккупации части земли Русской и части народа Русского, тем не менее, каждому следующему католику королю Польши и последующей Речи Посполитой их Римско-католическая церковь в час коронации, вот для этой части оккупированной польшей и литвой земли Руси - утверждала специальный титул: "Великий князь Русский" (латынью: "magnus dux Russiae" - из полного списка всех титулов короля Речи Посполитой). Увы, ни какого "короля Украины" или "Великого князя Украинского" или на худой конец "царя всея Украины" - такой чуши, такого бреда сивой кобылы никогда не было в истории королевских титулов Европы! НИКОГДА! Потому что церковь, и Православная, и католическая утверждает титул владыки народа и земли (титул короля, царя и велико князя) только на собственное национальное имя этого народа и этой земли, и ни как инче! Именно поэтому до 1917 года с последующим евро коммунистическим изгнанием церкви из жизни СССР априори было невозможно начать распиливание народа русского на части, отдельно на русских и отдельно на не русских украинцев... Ликбез вашему невежеству о том кто и когда придумал украинскую национальность - которой никогда не было в истории мира до СССР! Потому что "ПОГРАНИЧНИК (украинец) это не национальность! Потому что "ПОГРАНИЧНИКИ" есть у каждого народа мира, в каждой стране мира! - Конфессиональный ликбез вашему позорному евро-невежеству с тоннами жовто-блакитных евро-галушек в ваших ушах, напханых туда в течении вшей жизни
@@user-no2kf9yr2z идиотка с напхаными жовто-блакитными евро-галушками в ослиных евро-ушах! Не ври и не позорься своим евро-невежеством! Узнай для начала какой национальный титул обе церкви и православная и католическая всю историю в час коронации в церкви утверждала каждому следующему владыке земли и народа современной Украины.... Увы, это всегда был только один титул "Великий князь Русский" в том числе и во времена польско литовской оккупации...
If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Many thanks.
I would like to help you author. Kievan Rus as a state as today's Washington's America, London's Great Britain, Paris's France has never existed, as well as Moscovy, Moscovia, Ruthenia as modern reborn Ukrainian myths have never existed also. There are no international documents with such states, no rulers, not titles of rulers mentioned such terms. It is called FAKE HISTORY, DESINFORMATION. According to the Chronicles it is called Rus, Land of Rus, or Russian land. Rus is not a predecessor of Russia. Russia is Rus actually or Ρωσία (Россия) in Greeks literally or Rusland Rusia Ryssland Rosja in other historical documents or treaties in other languages of the past and present. The Russian Primary Chronicle or "Повѣсть времѧньныхъ лѣтъ" , Rurik with his men came to Novgorod slavs and created Rus or Russian land, or land of Russians in 862: «Изъбрашасѧ триє брата и придоша къ Словѣномъ пѣрвѣє и срубиша город̑ Ладогу и сѣде старѣишии в Ладозѣ Рюрикъ а другии Синєоусъ на Бѣлѣѡзерѣ а третѣи Труворъ въ Изборьсцѣ» «и ѿ тѣхъ Варѧгъ прозвасѧ Руская землѧ». Thus, Rus came from the North, Old Ladoga was the first capital of Rus, not Kiev. Novgorod slavs spoke Russian language and they called themselves Russians so far: «словѣнескъ языкъ и Рускыи ѡдинъ ѿ Варѧгъ бо прозвашасѧ Русью а пѣрвѣє бѣша Словѣне» Then after expansion to the South and creation of the largest country in Europe they lived in Russian cities: Kiev, Chernigov. Pereyaslavl, Polotsk, Rostov, Lubech and Novgorod: Hypatian Codex: В лѣто . ҂s҃ . у҃ . е҃ı [6415 (907)] ... и по том ̑ даӕти оуглады на Рускіє городы . пѣрвоє на Кієвъ . таже и на Черниговъ . и на Переӕславъ Ж 25. и на Полътескъ . и на Ростовъ . и на Любечь . и на прочаӕ город . по тѣмь бо городомъ . сѣдѧху кнѧзьӕ 26 З. подъ Ѡльгом ̑ суще. They are called Russians living on Russian land or Rus everywhere in the Chronicles and it is actually written in Russian language, so you can read them with a bit difficulty if you know Russian language, because the one wasn't changed so much. Principalities of Rus or feudal Rus doesn't mean that Rus ended. Political, cultural, religious, and people migration to the North and Moscow is explained by Mongol devastations, The North of Russia was safer for many reasons. The today's Rus or Russia as we know today with Kremlin, politics, ideology, the laws and Heraldry was formed by Ivan 3 the Great, the primary heir of Yaroslav the Wise, Alexander Nevsky and Dmitry Donskoy if it makes sense to you. As a ruler of all Rus and as a monarch he had all rights on the fatherland of his grandfathers as lands belonging to Rurik dynasty. All three modern East Slavic nations are formations of USSR actually, because there were no division before. Actually Russia just lost it's territories: Belarus and Ukraine that have never existed before. Ukraine is composed of Malorossiya, Novorossiya, Donbass region and Eastern Ukraine that "Ukraine" literally means "У края" "near margin" or "bordering land" between Poland and Russia. Today's Russia also has many ukraines as territories as it grew, but they are called shorter "Край" ( "margin", "border" ) - federal subjects of modern Russia. Khabarovsk Krai, Stavropol Krai, Zabaykalsky Krai. As for modern Ukraine as among the most corrupted countries, the flag of Ukraine is a flag of Lower Austria, the coat of arms they took from the town Old Ladoga - the first capital of Rus in Leningrad oblast. Ukrainians live on Russian land, in Russian cities, their ideology is nazi, their history is fake, 30 years of corruption lead to elimination of first rate science, technology, industry, they stole gas, debts, nowadays they try to steal the history of great nation and civilization, but there is no Ukraine in Rus history. 🤔
Please, DO NOT use the term 'russia' for medieval Ukrainian state. It had a name Rus, not 'russia'. Yes, in greek translation Rus would be Russia. But due to the intense russian propaganda it happens a very harmful confusion. Rus / Kyiv state IS NOT 'russia' / Muscovia.
Rus were a people just as much as a state, and though the primary base (not to say the only base, in my eyes Novgorod which is just as much "Russian" as Muscovy was, was just as much "Rus" as Kiev was) was in Kiev, modern Russia holds the vast majority of former Rus lands so it wouldn't be very honest to implicate just Kiev holds claim to it. I've noticed a lot of Ukranian propaganda lately trying to separate the modem Russians from the Kieven Rus which in my opinion is not very reasonable.
@@Anonymous07192 the first issue is trying to apply concept of nationalism in medieval-renaissance period when the idea did not exist as we understand it today. We cannot say that France was the same back then where all individuals living there would say, I am French.... Well no they were profoundly loyal to their region and language and so would not have identified in this manner.
I would imagine the same would have been for Russia and Ukraine
@@EvilZ2009 though you are correct in your assessment of prevailing views at the time, you misunderstand the point of what I was trying to say. I am Serbian, though the original Slavic Serbs are not native to the Balkans it wouldn't be reasonable to say that modern Serbs today aren't also descendants of the natives who had always lived there, mostly the Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Romans and Celts. The issue with the Ukranian view is despite possibly the most important capital of the Rus being in Kiev, this doesn't mean that "Russia" isn't directly tied to it on an ethnic level on an even greater basis than the modern Ukranians. It is a racist view that believes Ukranians are descendants of Nordic Vikings (which is true as is true with the Serbs and the Balkan natives, though similarly the Slavic composition is much, much greater than the Nordic) and that not only Europe ends at the Dnieper but that "Russia" or "Muscovy" as they like to call it is an Asiatic mongrel/sub-human ethnic people which simply isn't true. The fact is that Russians and Ukranians share a lot more in common than they'd like to admit.
@@Anonymous07192 Hi,
I see your point and yes indeed you are correct in what you are saying and I have been told by many Ukrainians that this conflict is very personal as both countries have a very close ties to one another. The issue I was trying to bring up was a criticism or our ancestors that tried to impose an idea of Nationalism when we see in today's world that it is a failure. The Rwanda conflict had multiple factors that antagonized the situation to the brink of genocide however, one of them was the idea that tribe 1 should be separate from tribe 2 and be instead glued to tribe 3 believing that people would coexist because they were now part of a greater nation. The individuals who performed these horrible acts knew nothing of the local history, didn't care to understand it and simply imposed their will in such a manner.
It is like having a discussion about Romania and Hungary in terms of what was once a greater Hungary that then lost territory and was annexed to Romania or even the dismantling of Yugoslavia which caused so many ruptures and internal strife because outside forces seeked to divide and conquer based on their own views of what was good for the people.
Thank you for your good points by the way and the only thing i would end on is what I mentioned to a Ukrainian colleague which was that in the end, it is once again the Russian people and Ukrainian People who will be slaughtered to satisfy the political ambitions of individuals who are acting as if the Cold War was still on and that is truly regrettable. This conflict is pointless and only serve those who are indebting countries that are massively buying weapons (on loan) and weakening the American Dollar by giving the BRIC further legitimacy....
The Ukraine is Russia.
A Ukraine, the Ukraine - you can call it however you like. We are still here and we are still the inheritors of Rus, our old state with its heart in Kyiw, Chernihiw and Pereyaslaw.
I like how in reality many "countries" in medieval ages were loosely coupled entities and a political maps were looking more like a multicolored quilt blanket. Yet many popular historical maps show entire swaths of land in Europe as if they were united modern countries.
The maps do not show us the ethnicities or tribes but only what inbred idiot - uh I meant "nobility" ruled over what territory. People are stupid enough to think that if something is not on a map it does not exist...
Tartaria ?
@@gladeloy3341 yes
JESUS
Superb and well researched. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
The term "Ukraine" literally means the line of the borderland, also, "Ukrainian", it is literally a border guard. It cannot be a separate nation, a nationality and a sovereign entity! Because there is a border guard service in every country in the world!
@@rodjarrow6575Ты когда- нибудь слышал о праве народов о самоопределении? Я думаю что нет! А твои высказывания о том что кто-то не имеет права на существование это уже чистый нацизм!
@@user-no2kf9yr2z "Тыкать" будете своей маме родной! Ликбез от гражданина Украины сегодня временно оккупирванной выродками НАТО начиная с февраля 2014! - Что не является словом "САМООПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ" - как не старайтесь врать и брехать здесь, используя метод казуистики из романа Джоджа Оруэла под названием "84"
"Тыкать" - будете маме родной! Ликбез от гражданина Украины, сегодня временно оккупированной выродкаминато, начиная с февраля 2014 - что не является "САМООПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕМ", как не крути и не бреши здесь, используя метод казуистики из романа "84" Джорджа Оруэла...
@@user-no2kf9yr2z "Тыкать" - будете маме родной! Ликбез от гражданина Украины, сегодня временно оккупированной выродкаминато, начиная с февраля 2014 - что не является "САМООПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕМ", как не крути и не бреши здесь, используя метод казуистики из романа "84" Джорджа Оруэла...
Thank you for the wonderful podcast. It is so important to have some understanding of history that goes beyond the simplistic, propagandistic narratives coming out of corporate media.
I love this! It added many details to my understanding of the history of my people that I wasn't aware of. As someone who comes from Ukraine, I am impressed by your in-depth knowledge of Ukraine's history. Thank you for making this! There are some comments that I have though:
1. I would not call Ruthenia - Russia. Yes, both Ruthenia and Moscovia take roots in Rus. Yes, Ruthenia is just a latinized word for Rus. But, Ruthenia is a term that always refers to the Rus people within Poland/Lithuania/Austria as you yourself have pointed out, never Russia/Moscovy.
2. Also, the word kraj* meaning "country", the letter j is pronounced like y (like gUY, bUY). If you look at the word ukraine in Ukrainian, it contains the word "kraj" in it. The prefix "u" means inside the "kraj." (country). Ukraine only means "borderland" according to the Russian version of history.
3. Taras Shevchenko extensively uses the word "Ukraine" in his works and promotes the idea of an independent Ukraine. (example poem: "Гомоніла Україна").
4. The Cossacks are Ukrainian in the modern sense. If you look at records of registered Zaporizhzhian cossacks online, you will realize that their last names sound Ukrainian, not Russian. This is evident by the suffixes they had -ko, -uk, -yk, etc. These are not Russian name suffixes. Yes, there was a plethora of other ethnicities within the cossacks but the majority were Ukrainian.
I tried to make a video on this topic too, but I am not a historian and many things I talk about (much less extensively than you do here) I have learned in school in Ukraine and by doing independent research.
Ukraina - means a borderland but it comes from the Polish language. Back then when most of what is now Ukraine was a part of the Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth. There were even plans/attempts to make it a Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth. Pity it did not work out
@@jezalb2710 it is a pity because that led to Russian domination in the East. I repeat, in Ukrainian the word Ukraine means “inside the country”. It’s as simple as that. Russians and apparently Poles may claim a different origin to the word but, the fact is, it’s impossible to claim the original meaning of the word because that’s not how language works. Words evolve and morph into others. Just like the word “bayrak” means flag in Turkish and “gully/ditch” in Ukrainian. Meanings evolve.
@@GalicianGranddaughter666 you might want to check the etymology of the word Ukraine.
@That Bygone Girl "Ruthenia" is the Latinization of the Greek word "Rosia." The Byzantine Greeks called what's now Russia, Ukraine and Belarus "Rosia." All of it. In fact it was the Greeks that called the area around Kiev "Mikra Rosia" or Small Russia; and the area around Moscow with it's vast wilderness "Megali Rosia" or Big Russia.
In fact, as late as the 17th century, westerners referred to Muscovia as "Ruthenia." It won't let me post a link here, but I'd recommend looking up "Ruthenia" on Wikipedia. There you will find historical references to the area around Moscow and even the Russian far north and Caspian as "Ruthenia". Ruthenia very much means Russia. But the meaning/usage has changed over time.
Even The Encyclopedia of Ukraine, which has a nationalist bias, admits this in its article on the term "Ruthenia." As history went on, the term "Ruthenia" became more and more restricted.
Today there are 2 reasons why "Ruthenia" is used almost exclusively to refer to Ukraine, Belarus and Carpathia. 1.) Ruthenia is a Latin word, and the Catholic Church was the main space within which that name was used for the past 4 centuries, given their usage of Latin. The Rus they were talking about the most were the ones who were theirs: Uniates. 2.) Polish, Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalists began to use the term Ruthenia as a distinction between the Rus who lived in the western territories that had been occupied by Lithuania and Poland, versus the Rus in the east who coalesced around an independent Moscow. It was a deliberate act of distinction using an already existent word, albeit under a new meaning. Muscovites were unlikely to call themselves by a Latin name. They opted for the Greek "Rosia" which became "Rossiya." Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalists viewed Lithuanian and Polish annexation as a positive occurrence, owing their nationalisms to those annexations/occupations, and were happy to use the exonym applied to them by their former masters.
@@jezalb2710 it's obvious to understand that "borderland" is not a real meaning. Because the territories of Ukraine were borderlands only for Russian Empire while for Ukrainians it does not make any sense, it's not borderlands because they live on these territories.
What a great channel! One of the best on UA-cam!
To my knowledge, Kiev was already establishment when the Rus came down from the NW
Там было село с жабами, потом русские построили город.
@@Ernest-cv3cu Toads or not, it was their pond and Russians thought, let's take over and annihilate them as a population. After so many hundreds of years nothing has changed....
@@Ernest-cv3cuЕсли воспринимать" Русь" как скандинавов, то они постепенно растворились и славянизировались.
Тот ,кто строил Киев тот до сих пор здесь и живёт.Названия народов меняется.Сейчас это украинцы.
Фино- угорские народы ,населявшие территории Междуречья Оки и Волги также постепенно славянизировались и вследствии " обрусения" стали великороссами.И что в этом плохого?
@@user-no2kf9yr2z вы правы - это прекрасно что славяно - русы освоили это междуречье, развили там земледелие и подружились с малочисленными финно-угорскими народами охотниками-собирателями. Жаль только не сохранилось в Киеве того славянского населения после разрушения его монголами, всё оно ушло на северо-восток в Залесье, так появилась Москва. А нынешний киев в основном пришлые тюрко-поляки с небольшой примесью славяно-русов с Москвы. Но, в этом нет нечего плохова я вас уверяю!
his voice got so raw at the end. The man needs some water breaks, maybe some honey lemon tea or something
Elderberry lozenges.
The smell will remind you of your father. Geddit?
Some cack perhaps
I think I am needing more red wine..😊🍷...hmmm
Ok
@@klytouch7515 with my
This is a well organized and presented overview, with some vivid corroborative details.
Excellent lecture. Thank you very much!
I would also like to make another note. There was NO CONQUEST of Rus / Kyiv state by Lithuanians. There was RE-CONQUEST of Kyiv and Chernihiv by Lithuanians TOGETHER with ruthenians / settlers of Kyiv state. AND, Rus / Kyiv state became a part of Lithuanian state, WHERE ruthenian / rusyny's language was heavily in use, Kyiv intellectuals were heavily involved in governing of Lithuanian state. And Moscovia had a path SEPARATE from Rus / Kyiv. It is important distinction.
Strange about how once the Poland Lithuania Union was formalized Poland pilfered Ukraine from Lithuania
This is the most concise and comprehensive history of Ukraine I have come accross, very impressive!! Really wish I could find out more about Mihai Damianov in relation to Ukrainian nationalism?
Український націоналізм це в першу чергу справа Міхновського
Yes, Damianov was a very influential figure, however he’s fallen out of fashion in Ukraine in recent times and the don’t really like to mention him as much now
Id say Ivan Franko and Mykhaylo Dragomanov were the first true ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism in actionable political activism sense
Is that a real person?
Kiev suffered so much thru the centuries!
so does the abused minorities.
Great stream!
I must say it's refreshing hearing an educated westerner not automatically morally condemn countries as Russia and Serbia
It just a pity that this sort of work gets suppressed and dumbed down to a simple goodies/baddies message that erases the history of this area
Rascia from Serbs made Russia peoples
@@64cousins scroll though the comments and you start to see a bit of that
Interesting lecture. A couple of comments:
1. Hetman is a Polish world loaned from German. Its Ukrainian counterpart is Ataman, perhaps loaned from Polish.
2. LIberum Veto was not restricted to the Magnates. In fact ANY(!) member of the gentry had that right (Which accounted for ~ 10% of the population!)., It were the members of the minor gentry who were usually bribed (cheaper, not drawing attention to the magnates etc.)
3. Chmielnicki was, almost certainly, a member of Commonwealth gentry
Hetman and Otaman are two different things and Ataman is the russian version, we use Otaman
Слово германцы произошло от города Керан в Сирии! Украинцы и керманцы пришлые племена из Сирии (Мари) финикийцы
Hetman is a higher title, Otaman is the leader of a group of Cossacks, or Koshovyi Otaman who ruled Sich
In German it's "die Ukraine". A bit like "die Schweiz". In English, there are a number of geographical names with the definite article: "the Gambia" "the Hague" "the Ukraine" "the Congo" etc.
You are telling Russian version of history
Excellent ... excellent...Brilliant Job 👍👍
Hello from Kyiv. 🎉 I am excited 😅 about starting your video
Привіт із Києва!
Very good Sir.
It's probably a lotmore work but it would be useful if you interacted with the maps whilst giving your lecture so we can see what specific areas we are referring to. In the more dense maps it would help a lot. That being said, I should probably just study the maps in more detail and shut up. saying Map 1,2 or 3 would help though and giving some vague area of ref within it would help.
The term "Ukraine" literally means the line of the borderland, also, "Ukrainian", it is literally a border guard. It cannot be a separate nation, a nationality and a sovereign entity! Because there is a border guard service in every country in the world!
So you're asseting that Ukraine cannot be a separate nation from Russia? Just checking if you're completely nuts.@@rodjarrow6575
@@rodjarrow6575 LOL, Kraina mean country, Україна means inside country in ukrainian)
stop posting BS
@@rostyslavhalchyshak1612 Ignorant nonsense for suckers
@@rostyslavhalchyshak1612 A typical comment from an ignorant person, or a liar.
Sounds rather complicated ! What I’d like to say about the “great Mongol empire” is that they failed miserably when they attempted to invade Japan in the 1270’s and 1280’s !!
Yeah, the Japanese made mincemeat of those damn Monguls!
@@johnnyjayrider187 Good for them. They repelled the babarians from over-running the Japanese islands!
@@johnnyjayrider187 it wasn't the Japanese, it was the sea
@@Laotzu.Goldbug Wow! A real life ''Obergruppenfuhrer''. I thought that rank was abolished after 1945.🙂
they did conquer the rest of the eurasia until Carpathians.
Hauptman is captain and the roots are haupt = head and man is of course man. Literally headman or captain.
Isn’t ‘kopf’ head?
@@gentlemanskier3107 Yes, kopf is head. Haupt means head in the chief/leader sense. He's the head honcho. I wasn't totally clear or even very clear. Sorry for the confusion. For example, Hauptbahnhof means Main traain station. So, to reiterate, it means head as in leader or chief. In the old days, it did mean head as in the thing on your neck but isn't used in that sense any longer, at least as far as I know.
@@TheRagingPlatypus Great, thanks for the explanation!
The world took "The" out of Ukraine February 27th.
Yeah calling it the Ukraine doesn’t fit the narrative
maybe its "A Ukraine" now 🤔
@@myassizitchy in 1918 there were four independent Ukraine’s, maybe we’re going back to that
@@StoutProper 1918... 😭
24 of February!!!
Great lecture. More pls good sir
Thank you! Exactly what I needed! Excellent!
Awesome video !
it would be wonderfull if you post the sources for this video, books and articles. I would like to read more on this topic
Thank you for sharing and I get more knowledge of History of Ukraine. A great country. SLAVA UKRAINI!💙💛 💙💛 💙💛 💙💛
Log Live to Ukrainian! Best Wishes from STOCKHOLM - SWEDEN 😇
very good, thank you
Amazing video! But, when are you going to dedicate an episode to Poland??? ;) 🇵🇱
At first there was Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia then Andey Bogolubsky carried the icon of Lady Virgin to Vladimir and as Kiev was coquered the throne of the mitropolit and the capital moved there . Then popeGeroge VIII announsed the Third Crusad, then in 13 th century Aleksander Nevskiy held a battle with the Teutonic Order and Russia had becamre almost independent from katholics and also Greek Patriarkh . Independent from Greeek because of the Mongols that conqured all the south , and Greek were not able to send their bishops
The Metropolia of Kyiv was "moved" because Muscovy kidnapped the Metropolitan of Kyiv and locked him up until he agreed to sign.
“Carried” the icon? Why not simply say steal? As you muscovites always do
Thank you for this summary! It's a pleasant surprise these days to hear an accurate history - including naming etymology - in English.
Btw, I have a friend who is a descendant of Ruthenian immigrants who considers himself Russian/Rus.
Cossack mostly Russians. In every Russian region there's Cossacks.
@@Readthis880 I would indeed argue that the modern Ukrainian folks are descendants of the Rus. The problem is they seem to hate the label, the culture, the writers, the statues and the Orthodox faith that comes with that label. So yes, it's there but you must engage with it if you want to make it yours.
@@justian1772 Moscovy, Moscovia, Ruthenia as modern reborn Ukrainian myths have never existed.
@@marketguydanu9888 And in Rand McNally they wear boots on their head and hamburgers eat people! But seriously what do you mean? Moskovy or the Moscow princedom certainly existed as a historical entity for a time. The Rusyn / Ruthenian people actually do exist. How do you mean? In that their reality differs from how modern Ukrainian propaganda talks about them?
Thank you for this. The history of this area is very complicated and you seem to grasp it. One thing I would have liked to see is how the Cossacks figure in the independent Ukraine. I think you glossed over this too fast and from what I read the Cossacks are mostly Ukrainians.
@@froggylegspeople that is wrong. The Don Cossacks were an entirely separate cossack society from Zaporizhzhian Cossacks which are talked about in this video. That was not the capital of all Cossack land. Also to see what nationality made up most Cossacks you have to google archives/registries of Cossacks from earlier centuries. Once you do that you’ll realize most Zaporizhzhian Cossacks have Ukrainian surnames. They end with suffixes -uk* -yk* -ko.
@@froggylegspeople I’m aware that there were more societies… what I’ve been trying to say again and again is that Zaporizhzhian Cossacks have nothing to do with Don Cossacks. The persons question was about the role of Cossacks in Ukrainian society which is why I’m pointing out Zaporizhzhian Cossacks which are instrumental to the Ukrainian identity.
Їхні основні закони це те що всі мають були християнами та знати українську мову. Більшість козаків етнічно українці, далі йдуть поляки та росіяни, зрідка були навіть шотланці! Але по ідеї по національності всі козаки вважались українцями або русинами(стара назва українців)
@@GalicianGranddaughter666 якщо ви про козаків на Кубані, то вони теж в більшості були українцями
@@GalicianGranddaughter666 what’s wrong with the Don Cossacks exactly? Are they not Ukrainian enough for you ? How do you know what Cossacks he was talking about, I didn’t hear him make that distinction. You’re suggesting that Cossack society was totally separate and mutually exclusive and they didn’t intermingle but that just isn’t true
It's great, only criticism is it's low resolution. Would have been easier to read the map's details better if so!
Any chance you'll do Portugal?
3:20 Novgorodъ on the Volxovъ river most definitely did not exist on the 9th century, while Kyjevъ most definitely existed well before the 9th century.
It's so refreshing to hear a westerner speak intelligently on this topic. It's remarkably rare
Yet he managed to talk for over an hour and a half about Ukraine without discussing Jews (or Greeks, who founded Mariupol). And he implied Ukrainian Ruthenians rejected the Greek Catholic Church, though we know the majority in the west joined it. Today it is the single largest denomination in Ukraine. His Russo-focused perspective colors the entirety of his presentation. He missed his own hoped for “objectivity” by a few yards. All nation states are artifacts, including the Russian one. Ukraine emanated from its particular history.
You need to check out an excellent essay on Belarus, and how it's identity/nationalist movement is manipulated by western forces, as well as the internal historical Polish minority. It's listed on my channel. Link is in my "About" section since UA-cam won't let me post a URL.
@@ghalston5641 What? „All nation states are artifacts“, I see. Did you learn that in school elsewhere? Where? So what is your approach to discuss these topics?
Lol 😂👍
@@lowersaxon Google it. I am not your teacher.
In order not to call Ukraine a borderland, you need to understand Slavic languages and understand what the word "kraina"(country) is and why there is a "U" prefix.
You can write the Ukrainian word "країна" its "country" in Google Translate and then translate it into Polish and then into English. It translates as country or state. So why do you tell Russian propaganda about the border? Whose border was Ukraine, if when Ukraine was Kievan Rus, for example, the Kingdom of Poland in the west of Kievan Rus was afraid of becoming the border of Kievan Rus, and Russia did not exist in the east at that time, Russia appeared only in 1721...
Ukraine is not a borderland. Russians call Ukraine a borderland to humiliate that they are not a country but a part of their Russia, but Ukraine in Slavic languages is translated as a state that is higher than its other possessions, i.e. Kievan Rus. The prefix "U" and the word "kraina"(country) (in Slavic languages "kraina" its - country, is a state) and the prefix "U" means a state higher than the lands that are under its control and pay tribute to them during the time of Russia, at that time such a country as Russia did not exist... When Kyivan Rus was baptized in 988 in Kyiv, not even Moscow existed and Russia did not exist from Moscow to the Bereng Sea. Russia as a state began its existence only after Vladimir Suzdal principality attacked Kyiv in 1169, and then, together with the Mongols, they destroyed Kyivan Rus in 1240, and then the Moscow principality was born there, which then became a kingdom and in 1721 called itself Russia as a Byzantine variant , but they did not have the lands of Russia, which were the middle of the Dnieper region, so in fact, to put it briefly, Russia is a fictional country that wants to occupy the lands of Ukraine in order to seize Kyiv and take away the history of Kyivan Rus. It is the same as if Ukraine said that it was Lithuania after 1240, or Poland... but Ukraine does not take away the history and names of other countries and peoples and does not take away their history from them, and yes, Ukraine admits that it was part of Lithuania, but Ukraine does not says that she is Lithuania? Russia, taking the name and creating an analogue of the name Rus', called itself Russia and is now going to war to take away the history of Ukraine and its land, while Ukraine could have been called, for example, Scythia and that's all.
Another proof that Ukraine is not Russia, but that Kyivan Rus and Ukraine are not the "border" of Russia, which did not exist for 700 years when Ukraine was a state and Kyivan Rus was baptized in Kyiv in 988, is that -
The word Ukraine is essentially an analogue of the term inland, inland, center, that is, Rus, and according to the annals, this is the middle Dnieper region, it is there that there are the rivers Ros, Rosavka, Rosava, Rostavitsa and a bunch of villages with the same names, and in the west there is the city of Rava Ruska , Ruska and not Russian) also in the east there is the village of Ruska Lozova, and down the Dnieper River Ruska Polyana, there is also Ruska Ternova, Ruska Tishki, etc., the village of Rosava, etc., there is Rumunia right near the border of Ukraine the village of Ruska Polyana, too, 90% of Ukrainians live there. Therefore, Ukrainians are Russ, Ruthenians, Ruthenians, but since Kievan Rus collapsed after 1240, it was necessary to create an analogue of a new name for the lands that were Rus and the lands that belonged to Rus, and this is in conditions when there is a horde in the northeast, which confuses concepts, namely this horde invented the adjective word Russians, which they called different tribes of the Fino-Ugro-Taro-Mongol. As for why Russia took the Roman name of Russia, this is also a separate story, Russia has always stolen the history and heritage of foreign states, then it fought for the right to be the main heir to Rus, after the collapse of Rus itself became part of the Golden Horde and fought for the right to be its main heir, but the Crimean Khanate won there, then Moscow fought for the right to be the main heir to Byzantium and may have heard how they called Moscow 3 Rome, they created Kleinods supposedly theirs with fake letters for Monomakh's hats, etc., and Byzantium called itself the Roman Empire type 2 from Rome and the Roman Empire, which they gnawed in the west, here Russia, too, taking history, following the example of Byzantium, decided to take the history of Russia, but it could not be called Russia directly; another, now Russia has decided to go to war and steal the history of Russia by twisting, this is one of the reasons to go to war with Ukraine.
Russia wants to Steal the history of Kievan Rus in Ukraine, this is a small part of why Russia attacked, Russia also wants to restore the Soviet Union and wants Ukrainians to survive again under Russian repression, Russia deported Ukrainians, made famines, threw Ukrainians into foreign wars like Finland in 1939. If the Ukrainians do not have their own separate state, then I assure you, Russia will start throwing Ukrainians at war in Kazakhstan, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. If they fight back to help Ukraine, then Russia will go further with a war on other countries. Ukraine is the only country that can stop Russia and destroy Russia as a Soviet Union so that it no longer goes to war.
39:39 - Chmielnicki or Kmielnitsky...and Cossacks. Thats a nice spin on the story, but not actual history.
Revolt had nothing to do with Independence.
1. the Picturesque Cossacks of 16 and 17th century were landless peasants, runaways, and vagabounds, adventures, turned steppe warriors that have organised themselves in the style of fighting and customs on The one and only true historic original Cossacks, the Zaporozian Cossacks and their Sicz, or Sitch.. however spelled in english.
These Cossacks, have been a fighting force, a light cavalry and light infantry.
They did not or could not own the land, and preferred steppe warrior lifestyle, then hard work toiling lands or farms.
They were raiding and pillaging as bad as Tartars and often working with them.
At a Point in time, when Polish Cities and holdings grew, and more locals were assimilated into Poland Lithuanian realm, these Cossacks had to be managed and made useful.
Polish Parliment dedicated yearly budget to employed them in defence of the population living int the regions up and at the ukraine areas i.e borderlands, and to prevent them from raiding eastern provinces of The Republic.
Also they were required to sware filthy to the crown and the Republic and to fight in it's wars everywhere and anytime.
i.e. they were placed the on the Register.
Administered by hetmans who would chose who gets the pay. These Cossacks were known as Registered Cossacks.
Those Registered Cossacks would have the letters confirming their status, and could have employed from their affiliates from their own pay, or on the promise of loot their retainers. Which were not Registered, had not appropriate letters, and were the responsibility of the Registered Cossack and ultimately their elected Hetman, and had to sware filthy to the crown and The Republic.
In such a way the Cossack host would be assembled for war, and their economy operated.
Gradually, over centuries Cossacks were outclassed by the advances on the battlefields and in warfare and because of increase in diplomacy and thus become less reliable as a fighting force.
Their economic model and their ways of conducting warfare did not aged well and at some point Parliament reduced the size of the registers on to which Cossacks were reliant.
At the end it ment less money to go around for ever growing number of Cossacks looking for a war, easy money, and loot.
Although Cossacks were spirited fighting force to be reckoned with, they were undisciplined, and thus not reliable, which caused issues when you play the escalatory use of force as a chess pieces in the great game of negotiated conflict resolution via diplomacy.
Thus messed up Cossak way of life.
Their economic foundation, had shifted. And their choices were either to go back to farming, or go on to pillaging to sustain way of life.
And they instead of become useful, like upgrade their ways of war making, or become farmers, they decided to raid Poland and Ruthenian and Polish population alike because they knew it and it was easy pickings for them.
In the meantime you have Chmielnicki, who started his own private and personal war with other Polish Noble, over some disputed land and his wife that run oft with the former.
After numerous petitions and personal visits, Polish King could not really help him with his dispute with other Polish noblemen (which carried some favour with king) , albeit gave him free hand to settle this one way or the other.
Unfortunatelly Chmielnicki Quickly hooked with some disgruntled Cossacks turned pirates that were ready to fight for pocket money and personal war turned out of proportions after these Cossacks went butt shit crazy and started slashing and burning, looting and causing havoc.
Now King did not like it, took exception to that and wanted Chmielnicki to put an end to it, or face consequences.
Chmielnicki fell with the bad company, got trapped, felt power since he had the ear of the king, was educated, and took upon himself the role of the advocate General of the Cossack grievances.
After violance and pogtoms, King and nobles had enough, and the whole thing (originally personal issue) escalated out of proportion and into revolt, that took a life on it's own, and beyond anything that Cossacks expected.
Mind You there was active Russian agitation that looked for ways to divide Ruthenians and Poles. (Not that there was no tension to exploit, but that was manageable between Orthodox and Catholics, nobles and peasants (not sefs) ). Ethnic component was not much of an issue at that time.
But the whole thing had nothing to do with Independence however broadly understood. Linking it to Ukrainan identity is severly overstretching imagination.
Cossacks first allied with Tartars, then with Russians, and after they got the taste of Ruski mir they literally bagged Polish King to get under his Protection and returned voluntarily under Polish crown.
The need to modernise the political landscape within the Republic in terms of Ukraine as a political region or Partner was recognised, however, due to democratic processes within the Republic many nobles had an issue with elevating bunch of unruly trouble makers (who up until recent were pillaging and killing their families and their estates in terrible Pogroms. ) to a peer group level in stance and in political influence.
So that is the history how Region ultimately fell pray to Russia hundred or so yearslater and become a place of Russification and ethnic cleansing.
Це не зовсім так. В козаків були свої поселення та вони грабували тільки тих хто грабував їх(привіт кримли, турки, росіяни та поляки)
Так само козаки мали свою конституцію, будували церкви та освітні заклади
Ви так кажете ніби частина етнічно-історичних українських зелель не були під польською окупацією, шляхта(особливо польська) не ставали козаками та подібне
Серйозно не треба так паплюжити своїми наговорами цим прекрасних бійців та еталон демократії на їхніх землях
@Arsla No,
Ruthenian Population of the Territories of what has become Ukraine of today, had been literally depopulated by Mongols. What little left of the Locals, was but a small percentage of survivors.
After Mongols retreated, Lithuanians replaced them as local tax men. But Lithuanians were not developing Infrastructure, just collecting taxes. Like Mongols before them.
In the meantime, Poland started to Clash with Lithuania over some Territories in Halych regions, and Volhynian.
To stop the conflict, Poles elected in parliament to marry then female Polish King (not queen) to the Lithuanian Prince and elevated him to the status of the King, thus securing Personal Union between the two countries.
Poles were City Builders and developed infrastructure while Lithuanians as a Light horsemen provided services which later Cossacks assumed.
Into that Land Many peoples of Varied backgrounds from Nobles to lowest of the low start immigrating, they were driving to settle there and have a second or simply first or one and only chance of starting New Life and carve something that provides for freedom, financial independence, and good life.
Surviving "Natives" where often Minority, and Ruthenian Nobles, they had their need to populate their lands with skilled labour, hence multinational settlers. But these were located on prescribed and agreed plots, and mortgages and or were given lands under different locational laws. But that is separate story.
Those that were not fortunate to be in position to buy land, or secure rights to own one, for whatever legal reason, or simply did not want to get mortgage and hoped for quick money from looting, went further east, to the lands that earned the nickname Wild Fields. (Technically under Polish and Lithuanian Jurisdiction. These lands were open to all brave, hardy, desperate or stupid settlers, and if you were able to hold it, it was yours.
There they tried their luck against uneasy Nature and Tartars or Mongols.
More often than not, whatever they have made, built or created, was ruined by Mongols or Tartars raids, and many had to simply fight to protect themselves and their families. These People were later to become what people in popular imagination call Cossacks. (But hey were not the Zaporizhian Cossacks who apparently had been an ethnic group, used their lifestyle and social organisation because this was the only model of operating that was conducive to survival in this unforgiving land).
But Cossack were not ethnic group, they represented large cross section of Neighbouring societies coming from the high and mighty to low and downtrodden.
Cossacks are the result of the circumstances of living in what essentially was a warzone. Area of Ukraine a borderland between Mogol-Tartar-Turkic and later Muslim World and Christian Civilisations.
What I am saying here is not depreciate the story of Cossacks, it took hardy people to survive and thrive in that land, they developed certain culture and traditions that become important part of regional folklore and tradition. Their Subsequent struggles for recognition as an equal members of the Republic of free peoples, and have all the privileges and liberties and protections of Polish Lithuanian nobles bestowed up on them, and to secure the place at the table is as inspirational story as much as Polish that fought for the same thing for centuries as well.
Poles failed to recognize and or accept their Cossack brethren requests for equality within the realm. Everyone had their reasons.
One thing is certain, that caused further divisions and played both peoples into the hands of Russian tyranny with tragic consequences for both of the nations.
But modern-day Ukraine, while it does borrow much from the Cossack heritage, was not and is not build by Cossacks but by the People of multinational heritage who tilled the land, built cities and created infrastructure that was able to sustain Cossacks fighters and their lifestyle for centuries.
My wife of twenty years is from Ukraine 🇺🇦 and is very emphatic to our children that it’s Ukraine without The in front of it.
without "The" in front of it.
Very informative video, thank you!
Cool video.
I like the video overall. I do contend with is quick dismissal of names. The Russ doesn’t “ essentially mean Russia”. The Muscovites take the name “Russia” to essentially lay claim to the Russ. When you use this language it takes away from cultural, political, and linguistic differences between these peoples. The Russ was a large area, but they’re not all Russian “ in the modern standard”.
I love the video. I would like to learn more about the Galacian language reforms you mentioned. Thanks.
The Galician language is a Ukrainian dialect. In 1867 it was given recognition as one of official languages of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the context of the move by the Habsburg rulers to use the Rusyn population of the eastern part of the Province of Galicia and Lodomeria as a counterweight to the Polish nobility who dominated that province.
@@michaelmills5984My grandmothers parents came to the US in 1910 and 1912 from near Lviv. ( They spoke,read and wrote Ukrainian and Polish). I knew they came from Austria-Hungary not Russia and remember hearing one of grandmother's sisters saying how their parents'family loved the Emperor. Now it all makes sense
What is impressing me is that this is all extemporaneous. The fact you forgot the name of that city actually gives credence to your presentation. Impressive.
Snap er niets van het komt in een opwelling maar begrijpen hoe of wat,waarom is nog een behoorlijke blinde vlek, daarom is een begeleider op dit gebied noodzakelijk die beste man daarboven laat nog niet zijn kaarten zien daarom zit ik nog steeds in een afwacht mode WJ dus doe je best heb al een wandelstok 😂 ook dat was in een opwelling om die mee te nemen waarom😍? Die rare pool
Imagine being a professor of history and having a UA-cam expert discount the 39 years of academic study because you temporarily forgot the name of one of tens of thousands of places you’ve learned about
@@StoutProper and we've never heard of a recorded production being edited for accuracy... half-assed academics do half-assed work.
@@paladro let’s hear your history of Ukraine Buddy, show us how it’s done. No doubt you’ll do a analysis of the key differences between Bandera and Maknho
54:21 that is simply untrue - just read T. Shevchenko's poem "Заповіт" (testament/last will):
"Як умру, то поховайте
Мене на могилі
Серед степу широкого
На Вкраїні милій"
(When I die then bury
Me in a grave
In the broad steppe
In lovely Vkraine)
That song was written in 1845, which is much later.
@@niarlatotepbasset go for tge time stamp. It's about the statement that members of the Brotherhood of Cyrill and Methody did not use the term "Ukraine". But Shevchenko - a member of the brotherhood did use it which is actually well known by anyone who really knows something about Ukraine unlike this youtuber who just makes up "alternative facts"...
The land most fought over in all the Earth.
Odd how this is usually the most sought after nation in the game of RISK
Nah I think there’s a lot of hotspots of warfare like: Northern France and Belgium, the Rhineland, northern Italy, western Poland and eastern Prussia, the balkans, etc
If only Tucker had watched this Livestream.
I missed the stream when it was live, but I enjoyed every minute of watching this lecture. Being betrothed to a Ukrainian myself, I think it important to understand the history of her country, and I find it very intriguing at how it morphed from regional designation to national identity in a slow and complex manner. I also think you do a very good job lecturing, and I don't regret my subscription one bit. God Bless.
24k views! AM hitting some serious number, brillaint well deserved, one of the best history channels around.
Most vivid and deep insights into the evolvement of identity of Ukraine, appretiate your deep study and understanding, the historical development and happenings very important in understanding the actual fault lines of today, thanks a lot, can i ask your name please
Ukraine saw some huge battles between the Ottomans and Polish Lithuanian commonwealth.
1st Chocim and with Chleminitsky and the Commonwealth Beresteczko.
And far smaller ones during the uprising
Some "ukraines" started 70 km south of Moscow which makes it sound ridiculous to call Ukraine a borderland not even gonna talk about how Mark Brandenburg is a tiny province of Germany while Ukraine is a giant country twice as big as Germany with its own language, culture, army, religious groups etc.
Krain/Ukraina/Vkraina=country
craj/krai=border
It's a false friend / paronym. It's like saying England means "tight land" because "eng" means "tight" in German...
Ukrajina - okrajové územia na kraji od panstiev, územie ktoré oddelovali vierovyznanie, Pravoslávne, Grécko katolícke, Rimsko katolícke, Islam, preto na tom území nikdy nevzniklo kráľovstvo ani mocné kniežatstvo, vždy na ňom prebiehali bitky o ovládnutie, územie u Kraja povýšil na štát Turkotatarský Žid Lenin-Ulianov v roku 1922 v ktorom žije minimálne 6 národov a ďalšie národnosti, len ten vymyslený ukrajinský neexzistuje.
Dnes na území u Kraja vládnu Chazari 🔱 dokazuje to štátny znak s Chazarskym trojzubcom, je to jeden národ zo šiestich.
English - "country"
|| ||
V V
Slovakian - "krajna"
Belarussian - "краiна"
Ukrainean - "країна"
Polish - "kraj"
My grandmothers parents came to the US from near Lviv in 1910 and 1912. My grandmother didnt know much about her parents lives back in Europe. They were not ysuhht much. This video bring together s lot informstion i hsve read. It all makes more sense after this video
I would also like to mention, that the terms that were used for self-describing of settlers in Rus / Kyiv state were - rusyny (ruthenians), ruski (руські). While these terms WERE NOT USED for settlers to the eastern-north from Rus = future Moscovia. There were living - Muscovites. The trend of calling muscovites as 'russians' appeared a FEW CENTURIES later, when young moscovian state started creating an 'ancient history' of itself by basically appropriating the history of Rus / Kyiv state. In the territory of current Ukraine term 'rusyny' / 'ruski' have been used till 19 or even 20 century. It had a history a thousand of years. While in so-called 'russia' term 'russians' has been appropriated and used for around 500-600 years.
Let’s face it, 40 million people want to be Ukrainians in Ukraine now and are suffering AGAIN because of it. History has many interpretations and the Soviet one has had preeminence and continues to be the ideology for the invasion.
what is not clarified here is that RUS and Russian do not signify the same. Russia did not come into existence as the name for russia until 1721. Muscovy was the name given to the early russian state. So please do not confuse ancient RUS with russia
It's like Rome and Romania, or the Frankish Empire and France.
@@Copium-f4d Rus was a collection of statelets with the one in Kyiv being the main/dominant one. There was no big united state, A bit like the state ruled by Charlemagne
@@catnap387 I mean any situation when anyone proclaims himself a successor of a state with a similar name while straight descendants can have different name (e.g. Italy is more related to Ancient Rome than Romania, as well as Germany and Netherlands are closer to the Frankish Empire than France, the similar is about links between Ukraine, Rus and Russia).
@@Copium-f4d , dial down those copium dosages
Speaking of the Cossacks reminded me of a story that my grandmother told me about her grandfather who fought on the Eastern Front in WWI. She said he told her that he and his fellow German soldiers feared the Cossacks the most. They were always on edge about them crawling up to them through the grass and slitting their throats in the night with certain long knives they carried. Luckily that he did not suffer that fate but rather was shot in the leg and sent back home, to live on to old age albeit with a bit of a hobble.
He was talking about the Don Cossacks I think
Rus is not synonymous with Russia. Words are important.
But Russia synonymous with Rus.
This ''historian'' use Russian books from XIX century to say something about Ukraine. Ukrainian national idea rise up in eastern Ukraine, not in austrian part - Mykola Mykhnovskyi (from Poltava) is first ideologist of Ukrainian nationalism
Тааак!!
Are you forgetting about Daimanov?
This historian would have done what all good historians do, use all the sources , not just the ones that are “approved” . I bet you don’t like modern art either
@@AIAvionics Good historians would never use "ALL" the sources, especially those that have been proven false.
My father was Ukrainian. When I was little I called it Ukrainia. He called it The Ukraine.
Blijkbaar bezit het meerdere namen net zo NEDERLAND ( Neder- land= HOLLAND ( Hol-Land ( gas weg geeft holtes 😂👉🤔😍👉🤓
@GENETIC BEAST аutіstіс person identified
My father and mother were Ukrainian and called their country “Ukraine”
He probably was of second generation of emigrants
@@pocoexigente , tank you for identifying yourself, little WEF minion.
Thank you very much for dedicating your time and bringing history of Ukraine to the focus. But I have to make a couple of important notes:
1. Rus (or Kyiv state) and 'russia' ARE NOT the same thing. There was no continuity and inheritance between Rus and 'russia'. Rus - it's medieval state that was located primary in the territory of today's Ukraine. So-called 'russia' is myth, created FEW CENTURIES later in Moscow. 'russia' / Moscovia is related to Rus in a similar way as Romania is related to Roman Empire.
2. There was quite a clear distinction, WHICH territory was Rus and which was not. So, when somebody would come to Vladimir or Rostov or Novgorod FROM Rus (Kyiv, Chernihiv, Pereyaslav) - they would say 'I go to Vladimir / Rostov / Novgorod'. If they would come from Vladimir / Rostov / Novgorod TO Rus - they would say 'I go to Rus'. There are plenty of written sources proving that. In other words, what is territory of so-called 'russia' today - were under INFLUENCE of Kyiv state = Rus, but they WERE NOT part of it. Just fyi, measure the distance between Kyiv and Rostov / Vladimir / Novgorod. And ask yourself HOW it could be integral environment (economically, mentally, linguistically, ethnically).
3. Novgorod appeared on the map few DECADES later than Kyiv. It proven simply by archeology. Novgorod WAS NOT sort of beginning or pre-state of 'russia'. It was absolutely another phenomenon from Kyiv and Moscow, that was completely occupied, DESTROYED and annexed by moscovian tsar Ivan. Even linguistics proves that reconstruction of language of Novgorod and language of Kyiv - were quite different languages.
after the fall of Kyiv, the successor was not the Volodymyr-Suzdal principality, but the Galicia-Volyn principality, which held a governor in Kyiv and became the kingdom of Rus under King Danylo
I have worked my way up to episode 13 on the Romanovs, very informative series and vital to understand this war
Lenin killed Romanovs , Lenin was Hazar like Stalin
@@rajanajovovic6184
Lenin-Ulianov bol Turkotatarský Žid.
Stalin Gruzinec nedoštudovaný pop, vychovávala ho len matka
you kinda sound like history with hilbert hahaha i thought the dutch anthem would play at the mention good show mate
Let me simplify this lolol Originally it was all Kievan Rus - eastern Slavic state, founded mostly by Vikings that were invited to(most likely) or conquered(unlikely) roughly Novgorod-area, and moved from there. By the time Mongols got there, it was already fragmented into many principalities, but with 3 main centers - Vladimir Rus, Novgorod Rus, and Southern Rus. After Mongols these pieces went their separate ways. Vladimir Rus paid tribute to Mongols for about 100-150 years. Novgorod Rus remained largely independent, though also paying tribute. And Southern Rus joined with Lithuania and beat back Mongols. Though they were paying tribute as well. This is the root of the 3 separate countries - "Russia", Belarus and Ukraine. Ukrainian language is a recent "invention", where "Russian" language has remained largely indistinguishable from the "Old Russian" and is simply a continuation of the Kieven Rus language. Etc. etc.
THIS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MEAN THAT I SUPPORT THIS HORROR OF A WAR, that my Russia has declared on Ukraine. This is madness, and has NO RELATION to what average Russians feel about this. Actions of one mad dictator does NOT mean we all support this. Most of us Russians are horrified by this.
Glory to Ukraine! Slava Ukraine! Hold fast, my brothers!
Майже все що ви написали в цьому коментарі є російською пропагандою
@@arsla5308 what on earth do they teach you in Ukrainian schools? How to hate Russians? Did the USA set your curriculum? I’ve read quite a bit about Viking history and what he says is pretty accurate. He even said at the end he supports Ukraine so what is with the attitude? I sense it
@@arsla5308 People like you hate facts.
@@AIAvionics "Ukrainian language is a recent 'invention'" is far, far from the truth. Yall are gonna need to explain that one. The linguistic divide of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia traces its history back to the fragmentation of Kievan Rus. They all come from Old East Slavic that was spoken in this region, likely with many dialects. There is only a 60% lexical similarity between Ukrainian and Russian, that's the same difference as between German and English.
I like yours way of stating something you want to be true(whatever it is) without any more or less valid proof of it.
If you talk about languages the proofs should be obviously based on some linguistic studies, which are highly recommended to be read by you.
And same applies to all other subjects like history or culture or genetics.
And as you are lucky enough to be able to use English it's highly recommended to read something in it to pretend to some objectivity of that studies
Ukraine is used without The, just Ukraine
9:30 9:30 "Ukraine which did not exist before 1945"
😂
Is he out of his mind?
How likely is it that the German princess who ruled as Catherine was truly motivated by a desire to reunite the Rus people after 600 years?
By all acounts she quickly assimilated into russian culture and society after moving their,
She was also motivated by Russias' need for a warm water port as it was needed for exporting the grain that the rest of Europe needed.
Very interesting!
I remember when it was all Scythia.
I can't help having the impression that I'm reading a Russian textbook. I think this narrative that has been created in the times of the Russian Empire needs a bit of refreshment, to say the least. Especially when you talk about Ukraine in these times. What sources were used?
Why do you say that? What was wrong with it? What about when it was part of Lithuania and Poland and the Ottoman Empire, were they ok or do they need changing too?
@@StoutProper мається на увазі що ця розповіть схожа на часткову російську пропаганду. Коли розказуєш про якусь країну треба розказувати це з оптики тієї країни
@@arsla5308 for some reason it’s not letting me translate pal
@@StoutProper прикро
@@StoutProper imagine listening about Irish/Scottish/American colonies history from the English perspective.
It might be partially true. But it's not what these people would say about themselves. Means it's not the first source you must stick to.
In the case of Ukraine it's a bit special, because we have basically started that what is now called "Russia". So when you simply hear "the center of power has moved to Suzdal" it must require a bit more reasoning than "just because it's where Moscow kingdom starts from - and it gives us the right to claim Kyiv" :)
The definitive article of "The" is used for several countries in the German language.
It would be grammatically incorrect to omit it.
You wouldn't say. " Im visiting city."
You would say " Im visiting the city "
This obsession with " The" is silly
I got my cossack stuck in my zipper one time, hurt like hell
Slow down, the problem is you were rushin'
@@googiegress Too funny !! 😃
Was other way around for me,got the zipper stuck in my cossack which she didnt appreciate?
LOL!!!!
@@claesmansson9070 Naughty, this is a very high class channel for very high class people, out with you !!!
ARE YOU TELLING ME ALL THIS SOLDIERS ARE KILLING EACH OTHER ARE THE SAME PEO WITH DIFFERENT NAME, HOLY CRAZY CRAP, HUMAN CONDITIONING AT IT'S BEST. NICE VIDEO SALUDOS ❤
no.......they are not the same.....Just as the dutch and germans are not the same
@@catnap387 hello thanks God I don’t have to defend my position, ,,,,THEY ARE ONE ,,, LA HERMANDAD , definitely defend it for me , yesterday and today. VIVA DUTCH LAND , THANKS TO GERMANICO Y ALEMAN . saludos
to support your claim of "slavic people in moscow" you certainly can provide a single slavic toponym from the region.....
Москва - моква - мокрый, древний балто-славянский корень.
Ukrainians may not have had their state but the Ukrainian people knew who they were. They fought the russians and poles to obtain their independence.
There was no such thing as ''ethnic Ukrainian'' before late XIXth century, and they were formed in today's western Ukraine.
@@niarlatotepbasset The people of Ukraine were Ukrainians even when they were occupied by ruZZia
@@niarlatotepbasset people with Ukrаiniаn nаmes аnd surnаmes existed long before XIX century.
A correction Genghis or Chinngis does not mean universal it means biting like a wolf. It's also possible that it means change. Khan of course means chief or leader. Kahn of Khans would be Kakhan (more or less) Temujin refused to call himself khan of khans.
Thank you so much for this video!
Wanted to note that the full name of the medieval state was "The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia". It was like an ally against the Mongols(and sooner Moscovites). The capital was on the territory of modern Lithuania. But Ukrainian(Ruthenia) influence was very big, for example they used 'Russkaya pravda' as a source of truth for the law system, 'Ruthenian' language as a state language. Also they got baptized to Orthodox as Ruthenians were in the same religion. Kyiv was much more developed and populated compared to Vilnius(but not as powerful as it was before the horde destroyed it in 1240). The population ration was like 70% to 30% with domination of Ruthenians.
When the Poland joined the ally it became a little bit more chaotic since they are Catholics and they use the Latin alphabet. Then some of the Ruthenians started to consider new ally with Moscow state since in these aspects Ukraine and Russia are pretty similar. And this ally was signed in the 'Rada of Pereyasliv'. It was signed on the equal conditions. This was probably the biggest mistake since Russians started to cheat and then just destroyed Ukrainian(Ruthenian) state for around 150 years.
You said that Ukrainian nationalism was born in Austro-Hungary. The truth is in the part of the country that was occupied by Russians, all of the Ukrainian papers were destroyed(the language was banned). Also some activists were physically killed. So this is the only reason why national idea is more observable in other parts of the country..
Odessa and Kherson were not created by Russian empire in XIXth century. You can google, they were continually inhabited by Ruthenians then Cossacks for at least 400 years. At the time when 'Kochubey' was renamed to Odessa, it was a greek colony, Cossack and then Turkish port. The same story for other cities that you listed. Pretty few of them were really created by Russians. Most were colonized.
By the way, beautiful city of Mariupol that also in your list was here at least since the days of the 'Battle of Kalka river'(it was in your video, it's the battle when Kievan nobels were defeated by golden horde). Then it was, again, a cossack city for centuries. Only then these big 'rebrenders' came, destroyed our chronicles and language and said that they built everything, gratis, gratis! But archeology clearly states the opposite. As well as chronicles outside of Ukraine.
Now Mariupol is destroyed again by these crazy barbarians.
Ruthenia are the Russian (Ruthkie) populated land. Thruout history world maps of population and countries, you will never find the word "Ukrainian", "Ukraine" or "population Ukrainian"until 1905, because Ukraine had not existed at that time. "Kiev Rus" ( not Kyiv Rus) on all centuries old maps were written in Russian languich.
Cancel
Reply
The claim that Odessa and Kherson were continuously inhabited by Ukrainians for 400 years is absolute nonsense, a product of the worst form of extreme Ukrainian chauvinist historiography. The historical fact is that both modern cities were originally part of the "Wild Field", a desolate steppe region largely uninhabited except for a few nomadic Tatars. Neither had ever been part of Kyivan Rus, or of the Ukrainian part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the Medieval Period they belonged to the territory of the Kipchaks or Cumans, the people that the Russians called the Polovtsy; that territory was called "Dasht-e Kipchak" by the Ottoman Empire, meaning the Land of the Kipchaks. Neither Ukrainians nor Russians lived permanently in that region.
Before the region where Odessa is situated was conquered by the Russian Empire at the end of the 18th Century, a small Tatar village called Hadji Bey existed on the site of the present Odessa, which was founded by Empress Catherine II in 1794. She populated it by bringing in colonists from all over Europe, but most of the first colonists were Moldavians from the Ottoman Empire. Ukrainians, Russians and Jews also settled there, and ever since its establishment Odessa has been culturally and linguistically Russian. I visited it in 2010, and it was entirely Russian, all the signs were in Russian, and the local museums and monuments glorified Russian history. I have read that since the Ukrainian nationalist extremists took over Odessa in 2014 the statues of Catherine II has been removed in act of barbaric vandalism.
Kherson was founded in 1778 by Empress Catherine II, after the annexation of that region by the Russian Empire in 1774. before that the region had been part of the Ottoman Empire. It became a base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and in 1783 a shipyard was opened where Russian naval ships were built. In 1897, the population was 50 % Great Russian by language, 30% Jewish (Yiddish-speaking) and 20% Little Russian (Ukrainian).
As for Mariupol, the territory on which it is located had for centuries been part of the Crimean Khanate, and neither Russians nor Ukrainians lived there permanently, although Zaporizhian Cossacks occasionally raided it during their perennial wars with the Tatars.. This region was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1775, and incorporated into the newly established Azov Governorate. The town of Mariupol was founded in September 1779, named after the Empress Maria Fedorovna, the second wife of Paul the son of Catherine II, who became Emperor in 1796. In 1780 the new town was settled by Greeks relocated from the Crimea, which was now under Russian domination although still nominally part of the Ottoman Empire. Over time these ethnic Greek settlers became completely russified.
In 2014, many of the inhabitants of Mariupol rose in revolt against the new anti-Russian government in Kyev which had come to power through a violent coup, but their uprising was crushed by the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which ruled the city until its defeat by Russian forces in May last year.
As for the Battle of Kalka River in May 1223, that took place in Kipchak territory, not in the territory of Kievan Rus, since the Kalka River is situated in the former "Wild Field", and joins the Kalmius River near the site of the present city of Mariupol. The reason it took place in Kipchak territory is that the Kipchaks had previously been defeated by the invading Mongols, and had asked Prince Mstislav the Bold of Halych, the father-in-law of the Kipchak Khan. Mstislav the Bold formed a coaltion of Rus princes, who together with the Kipchaks initially defeated part of the Mongol army, which then retreated eastward to the Kalka River, pursued by the Rus and Kipchak army. On the banks of the Kalka River, a second battle took place in which the Rus-Kipchak coalition was soundly defeated and most of the Rus soldiers killed. Thus, the fact that that battle between the Rus-Kipchak coalition and the invading Mongols took place close to the present Mariupol can in no way be taken to mean that in the 13th Century the territory around the presnet Mariupol was Ukrainian and inhabited by Ukrainians.
@@maroragoltsman1655 thank you for the point!
It's not true the same way as Austria != Australia. You can find tons and tons of information just using wikipedia..
Ukraine is one of the names of the country. It should not be new to you that countries change their names in historical perspective. One of modern examples: Holland and Netherlands e.t.c.
And the name of the country Ukraine itself is not new, you can find it in Ipatievskaya Letopys by 1189(the first historical fact) and then on many maps, agreements e.t.c.
It's not complex to google.
May i ask you, do you know what is 'Russian language' nowardays?
Where it was created? Who is mr Prokopovych?
@@michaelmills5984 Thank you for the answer! I hope we'll have an adequate discussion.
In my opinion, your note that this "territory" was a "Wild Field" and no one lived here except tatars contradicts your next paragraph where you say that there lived Kipchaks. You can also read about Pechenegs. As well as Scythians. As well as many other inhabitants, actually.
Herodot, the father of history describes who lived here, in the Pontic steppe and Crimea.
And you can follow the logical line and explore who inhabited this land through time.
It's nonsense that you can imagine how fertile land on a trade road can be uninhabited by no one for centuries before, o-magic-magic, noble Moscowites, began to cultivate it.
The city that was created on the territory of Odessa by the Ruthenian-Lithuanian kingdom is named Kaczubyeiow(Pretty similar to Tatars Hadji-Bey).
You're right that this beautiful city was a subject of constant wars between Tatars, Turks, Ukrainians, and, at some point also Russians. But please don't put to the extreme the scale of Russian influence. It's kind of neglectable in historic perspective that it was occupied from 1794 to 1917.
I accept that at this period there was a big development. Just keep in mind that it was a time of industrial revolutions and whole world was in a stage of reconstruction. So even Russian empire did something. We can only imagine how it may be if Russians will not occupy the city.
I want to share the article about archeological findings in Kherson, if you're interested - pls use translator that works for you:
www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-regions/3080771-hersonski-kordoni-derzavi-vitovta-i-niakogo-ruskogo-mira.html
It shows the evidence(not only written that i've referred to), but archeological about Ruthenian-Lithuanian roots of the city.
I mean, we can dive deeper and explore who lived here even before. But the point of our discussion is to show that Russians just created a fake history, an unimaginable history where some facts that exist in reality are not existing in their theory(Ukraine) and created facts that are not existing in reality(Russia is a superior country that bring the civilisation to all of the neighbours).
Which is again, nonsense, you can see how Russians live outside of Moscow and St.Peterburg and find that the country that exports gas and oil(pretty stupid move, huh? why they just sell resources?) ), people live literelly without gas, roads and toilets.
If you want, let's have a chat about 'Russian language'? I'll prove you some facts that this language was in use in all of the region(not only modern Ukraine and Russia). And it was created and standartized in Kyiv. Only at the time of Peter 1 it was spread to Finnish-Hungarian tribes of Moksha and others to be used in modern Russia. So it's a big question about the roots of the Rus culture(actually, no. Everyone knows that it starts from Kyiv).
@@ruslanklymenko1019 guess he's not interested in an adequate discussion
Вы по моему не упоминули, что "Киевская Русь" не историческое название. Это российские историки ввели такой термин. Государство называлось Русь, русская земля. Русь пошла из Великого Новгорода - это территория России. И Россия никогда не называлась "Московией". Московия - это латинское название Москвы первоначально. Так называли Русское Царство только в Европе в Средние века.
Не в Европе, а только в Литве и Польше и затем Речи Посполитой, потому что в Европе Россия всегда оставалась Россией! Можете посмотреть европейские карты 16 ,17 веков, в которых (в отличии от европейских карт заказанных правителями Литвы и Польши и последующей Речи Посполитой) европейские картографы, такой, как Вильом Блау обственноручно писал в заглавии своей карты пояснение всему польско-литовскому невежеству, писал латынью "Russia vulgo Moscovia" - что в переводе с латыни буквально означает "Россия, которую всякое польско литовское невежество называет Московией" - дело в том что латинское "vulgo" является корнем современного слова "ВУЛЬГАрно", т.е. невежественно...
3:00 There was no collapse or break of any civilization in between Rus (839-1434) and Muscovy (1502-1917) because these countries never bordered and were completely unrelated.
Sure...sure...
243 thousand Muscovite soldiers have been killed in Ukraine for sure.
Would like to know more about to what extent did the Cossacks ever embrace Ukrainian nationalism.
After this lecture I feel like I'm an expert on Ukraine.
The wrong explanation of the Ukraine name. "Kraine " means country in Ukrainian. Ukraine means " in the country " .When people were asked " where do you live " they were answering : " In the country " which in Ukrainian language is u ( in ) kraine ( country ). The narrative that that means " border" or "edge" of the land had been introduced by Russian historians trying to shift the central role of Ukraine as Kyiv Rus heirs , steal that role from Ukraine and appropriate it to Russia. And present war between Russia and Ukraine has the same reason from the Russian side.
LOL kievan rus originated in NOVGOROD. kyiv was the second most important capitol later. no one stole anything the son of alexander nevsky daniel was prince of moscow.
kievan rus is shared histroy of russia, ukraine and belarus. dont try ur anti russia propoganda here my little bandera
"appropriate" lol
@@svarog8253 The main instigator of all anti russia propaganda in the world is your favorite tsar putin my dear big ignoramus.
5:00 There were no «principalities» in Rusь, not to speak of their hierarchy.
Now you must do the history on Poland. I am very educated in her history and there is a bit more to it then Ukraines. The Poles, Russ and Ukraine are close not only in land but do have some intersecting history's.
😀👍
they are fully responsible for all disasters that t hey received.
3:50 There was no such thing as «the Rus' civilisation» since Rus itself was part of the European civilization. There are archeological artifacts or cultures attributed to Rus and its expansions but, they have nothing to do with Muscovy (1502-1917) that emerged from the Horde (1243-1502).
"The Roos" were tribes of Scandinavian Vikings that sailed up the Danube & Volga establishing settlement & trade routes along the way, all the way to Constantinople where their runes are still carved into the floor of the Caliphs palace !
Q: The Roos were tribes of Scandinavian...
A: There was no such tribe nowhere in Scandinavia.
Q: establishing settlement...
A: There is no single town established by Scandinavians along the Danube and Volga rivers.
Q: their runes are still carved into the floor of the Caliphs palace...
A: There are no runes in the Great Palace of Constantinople but, there is a rude carving in Hagia Sophia.
More than 10 Turkic states and tribes ruled Ukraine in history
To state it in the simplest way possible, the medieval Principality of Kyivan Rus' (Ukrainian transliteration) (roughly pronounced as "roosh") (aka Kievan Rus' as the Russian transliteration) was a completely separate entity from what eventually became known as "Russia" (aka Rossiya pronounced as Rassiya). In fact, following the destruction of Kyivan Rus' by Mongol hordes in 1240, some of the Kyivan Princes fled west and eventually established the new Kingdom of Halychyna (aka Galicia) and Volynia. Other Princes sought refuge in and around Novgorod. Furthermore, the name "Russia" did not even exist at that time and it was only later that it became known as "Muscovy". As for the name "Russia", this was an invention by Tsar Peter the Great in and around the beginning of the 18th century. And, the primary reason why Tsar Peter chose the name "Russia" was based on his attempt to usurp the history of the Kyivan Rus' into Muscovite history so as to provide a certain level of prestige to the Muscovite lands that he ruled. Therefore, in reality, there has never been any direct connection between Kyivan Rus' versus the Russian State as we know it as they were two entirely different entities with entirely different histories.
Well there is that fact that after destruction of Kiev at the hands of Mongols church moved its centre into...Moscow.
Also Ivan III after beating Novgorod proclaimed himself ruler of all Rus way back in 15th century
This is incredibly incoherent; the 'muscovites' both usurped the Rus and had nothing to do with the Rus when they 'invented' the term Russia. This is simply a latinisation of Rus.
I understand that there is a Ruthenian Latin influenced western sphere of the Rus who are culturally distinct, but that does not map onto supposed Ukrainian identity, and modern day Ukrainian nationalism is rooted in exaggeration, deceit and revolutionary doctrines which any sensible man should despise.
@@drarsen33 Following the Mongol invasion of Kyivan Rus in 1240 and the near total destruction of the capital city of Kyiv, the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Orthodox Church decided to move his seat to the safety of the northern city of Vladimir which was later moved to the city of Moscow. Concurrently, a split arose between several other Princes of the failed Principality of Kyivan Rus who decided to move the seat of power in a southwest direction to the Principality of Halychyna (aka Galicia) which in turn became a Kingdom several years later. Furthermore, as Halychyna claimed to be a successor State of Kyivan Rus, these events marked another step forward in the evolution of a distinct Ukrainian identity which was later solidified by the emergence of the Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossacks beginning in the 1400's to the late 1700's.
@@romandawydiak4476 so basically after destruction of center part of power moved west and part north both coalescing local forces around them. My rule of thumb is "does country has name of people or are people named by geographical location". If it is second option nation is probably secondary identity that grew or was made into nation. For example in ex yugoslavia only serbs croats and slovenian fall into first category with rest falling into second
@@romandawydiak4476 Muscovy and Vladimir-Suzdal were founded by descendants of Vladimir Monomakh (Kiev) so you are wrong. Muscovy is one of several Rus principalities, there was also Novgorod, Smolensk, Riazan, Chernigov, Tver, etc. Please stop spreading fake nationalist history. Muscovy refers to a principality not an ethnic group.
The Ukraine, or Ukraine?
2 правильно. Без прибавок
Maybe inadvertently, but the lecture very much uses the lexicon and viewpoint of the Russian empire to describe and contextualise Ukraine, and also the concepts of Rus (proto people and proto state) vs Russia (Rossya, a deliberate naming of an empire) are confused and not well defined.
If you're curious as to our thoughts on the broad sweep of Rus'/Russia history we do cover this in more depth in the Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality series. I have described this as a civilizational break as obviously the pre-Mongol Rus' never existed as a consolidated centralised state, let alone a Tsarist Autocracy. Perhaps an example would be to compare the rump Novgorod-Muscovy of the 13th and 14th centuries with the Kingdom of Asturias in Spain after the Umayyad conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom. Nevertheless I must emphasise as I have seen accusations of my uncritical use (or perhaps misuse) of a Russian view point (as a Catholic historian of Austria-Hungary I find this funny), that the nucleus of modern Ukraine was in Galicia (west Ukraine, Lviv) within the Austrian Empire, which save for a brief moment in 1915 was never part of the Russian Empire or something claiming to be a Russian nation state (the Soviet Union was officially internationalist). It was however once part of the Rus' Kingdom of Halych in Red Ruthenia. Perhaps I should have made this point more explicit, but the civilizational break in the 13th century foreshadowed the emergence of two Rus' successor states, one western orientated (Halych-Ukraine) and the other eastern orientated (Moscow-Russia). The former was conquered by Poland, the latter affected only a partially realised re-unification and re-contextualisation of Rus' nationhood.
@@ApostolicMajesty пробачте але ні. Росія не має відношення до Русі це проста крадіжка чужої назви та історії. Вам дійсно не вистача української точки зору та прочитання багатьох українських науково-історичних робіт
Sweeet, thank you, just starting to watch it now!
6:50 What essentially means a borderland in modern English simply did not exist in medieval Slovenic because there was no modern concept of the state and its borders.
"Okrajina" can be also translated as "edge" in general
There is no such word in Slověnic languages, it is completely meaningless and thus cannot be translated.
Thanks 😊
A high quality account. But slightly careless in some important places. According to some other sources, Alexander Nevsky grew up as a hostage (a typical practice, for his father was a Prince granted the right to rule by Mongolian Han) in the Golden Horde, his wife was Mongolian, and his role in the battle with Teutonic Knights is disputed, simply because he was a teenager at the time. But, you do get the demarcation right. Therefore, first, the Grand Dutchy of Moscow appears, and only centuries later during its expansion phase into former Rus lands does it change its name to Russia. A cunning use of language! So, Russia was borne out of Moscovy as a vassal of Golden Horde. While Rus is a proto-state for Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.. Russia itself is a later formation, and is as much Asia as it is Eastern Europe, and by no means Rus.
Well Russia and Belorus are back together and Ukraine will be back in the fold soon enough.
@@2005OEFArmy are you sure about that?
@@2005OEFArmy or let’s imagine a brighter future. Poland annexes Königsberg. Japan annexes Kuril Islands. Georgia takes back Ossetia and Abkhazia. Ichkeria declares independence once again. Belarus gets rid of Lukashenka. And Russia is chopped off further by all who were wronged by it in the past. What a future awaits!
@@marshagordon2703 Ukraine will lose this war whether you and I like it or not.
@@GalicianGranddaughter666 кьоненсберг належить Німечинні, а не польщі
4:30 So called «rota system or the ladder» was invented by Muscovite monarchist propaganda and has nothing to do with the rule of succession that existed in Rus well before Jaroslavъ Volodiměrovičь, who was not called «the wise» by the way.
I have both Polish and Belarusian (white Rus) heritage & growing up I've met many people who were Russian and Russian speakers. When asked where in Russia they are from they would name the region within Russia proper or say Belarus or the Ukraine and then name the specific place. They didn't see Belarus or the Ukraine as seperate countries but regions of the one nation, Russia. Russian identity is strongly tied to all three Rus states. the Russian language and Orthodox faith play an important role. My Belarusian family identified as Poleshchuki, the specific region they are from, of the Russian Orthodox faith and Belarusian people but Belarus was also an enlarged region/country, but still all connection to great Russia. They spoke their mixed Belarusian/Ukrainian dialect natively, then Great Russian and some also spoke Polish. They saw Great Russian, Little Russian, White Russian and even Poles as belong to the same people. To be Catholic was to be Polish and to be Orthodox was to be Russian, both with some exceptions. God bless
All these Western films will never tell you what you wrote! Because the political purpose of these films is to create the basis for sawing the Slavs into small parts, small nations constantly at war with each other, according to the ancient Roman rule of governing the world: "Divide and Rule" (divide et impera)
Я украинка и согласна с вами, что" русский" это скорее конфессионим.Современные русские превратили конфессионим в этноним.
Я не говорю что это плохо.
Плохо лишь то, что под этим соусом они захватывают чужие территории и убивают украинцев .
Россия, Украина, Белоруссия - одни и те же народы и принадлежат к одной нации. Бог благословил.
@@user-no2kf9yr2z
@@user-no2kf9yr2z Конфессиональный Ликбез вашему позорному евро-невежеству, которое понятие не имеет о том, что все 100% украинцев - русские (за исключением евреев в креслах влады современной Украины и всей антирусской лживой пропаганды Украины), увы, все украинцы -русские, начиная с Крещения Руси 988 года (а, не Крещения Украины которого никогда не было)! Увы, впервые в истории и мире официально начали распиливать Русский народ на отдельные республики и отдельные народы / отдельно на русских, и отдельно на не русских украинцев (в их новом советском паспорте) именно в СССР начали советские евро-коммунисты! Используя казуистическую евро-формулировку: "русские и украинцы народы братья"! Но, в СССР все были народами братьями: и латыши, и армяне с азербайджанцами, и грузины, и якуты и узбеки и т.д. - 16 братских республик СССР...! Так вот, до начала СССР до начала советского изгнания церкви из жизни державы Российской, в период Российской империи априори было невозможно начать евро-распиливание народа Русского на отдельные Республики и отдельные народы...! Почему? Потому что начиная с Крещения народов мира церковь утверждала титул царя, короля, великого князя (владыки земли и народа) только на собственное национальное имя этой земли и народа! И, ни как иначе! Всю тысячелетнюю историю Руси (России) церковь в час коронации каждому следующему владыке Руси (России) утверждала только одно имя - РУССКОЕ (!) начиная от границы с Польшей (на которой и сегодня стоит старинный городок Рава-Русская (а не украинская) во львовской области современной Украины! Даже в период нескольких столетий польско-литовской оккупации части земли Русской и части народа Русского, тем не менее, каждому следующему католику королю Польши и последующей Речи Посполитой их Римско-католическая церковь в час коронации, вот для этой части оккупированной польшей и литвой земли Руси - утверждала специальный титул: "Великий князь Русский" (латынью: "magnus dux Russiae" - из полного списка всех титулов короля Речи Посполитой). Увы, ни какого "короля Украины" или "Великого князя Украинского" или на худой конец "царя всея Украины" - такой чуши, такого бреда сивой кобылы никогда не было в истории королевских титулов Европы! НИКОГДА! Потому что церковь, и Православная, и католическая утверждает титул владыки народа и земли (титул короля, царя и велико князя) только на собственное национальное имя этого народа и этой земли, и ни как инче! Именно поэтому до 1917 года с последующим евро коммунистическим изгнанием церкви из жизни СССР априори было невозможно начать распиливание народа русского на части, отдельно на русских и отдельно на не русских украинцев... Ликбез вашему невежеству о том кто и когда придумал украинскую национальность - которой никогда не было в истории мира до СССР! Потому что "ПОГРАНИЧНИК (украинец) это не национальность! Потому что "ПОГРАНИЧНИКИ" есть у каждого народа мира, в каждой стране мира! - Конфессиональный ликбез вашему позорному евро-невежеству с тоннами жовто-блакитных евро-галушек в ваших ушах, напханых туда в течении вшей жизни
@@user-no2kf9yr2z идиотка с напхаными жовто-блакитными евро-галушками в ослиных евро-ушах! Не ври и не позорься своим евро-невежеством! Узнай для начала какой национальный титул обе церкви и православная и католическая всю историю в час коронации в церкви утверждала каждому следующему владыке земли и народа современной Украины.... Увы, это всегда был только один титул "Великий князь Русский" в том числе и во времена польско литовской оккупации...