Vikings Settling in Russia - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

End of Roman society, feudalism, rise of religious power, beginnings of the nation-state, renaissance (476 - 1492 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#1106717
Not wanting to clog the Finnish Etiquitte topic, I thought I'd create one where it should be.

Vikings in Russia: from the 9th century AD

Unusually for the Vikings, trade rather than plunder is the main reason for their penetration deep into Russia during the 9th century AD. The rivers of eastern Europe, flowing north and south, make it surprisingly easy for goods to travel between the Baltic and the Black Sea.

One spot is particularly well-favoured as a trading centre. Near Lake Ilmen the headwaters of the Dvina, Dnieper and Volga rivers are close to each other. Respectively they flow into the Baltic, the Black Sea and the Caspian. Goods ferried by water between these important trading regions converge on this area. By the early 9th century Viking tribes known as the Rus have a base on the site of Novgorod.

Although they are not Slavs, there is justice in the Rus giving Russia her name. Their development of trade, particularly down the Dnieper (a route which becomes known as Austrvegr, or the 'Great Waterway'), lays the foundation of the Russian nation.

In 882 a Viking leader, Oleg, moves his headquarters down the Dnieper, seizing the town of Kiev. Here, in 911, he negotiates a commercial treaty with the Byzantine empire.

A Viking successor of Oleg's in Kiev, two generations later, describes how this first Russian city is the centre of a triangular trade between civilized Byzantium in the south, the steppe lands in the middle, and the wild forests of the north.

In this place 'all goods gather from all parts: gold, clothes, wine, fruits from the Greeks; silver and horses from the Czechs and Hungarians; furs, wax, honey and slaves from the Rus'.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Pla ... oryid=ac14

Aparently I've been told that the Rus' was a tribe that settled the Eastern Slavic plains. I argue that the Rus' tribe was a Swedish (hence Viking) tribe.
Discuss, ridicule etc.
User avatar
By Maksym
#1106875
The historical analysis from the article has excluded all research done since the 18th century. I will only offer one question:

Can you explain the reasons for Rus being mentioned in Arab chronicles before the appearance of the Varangians?
By imagicnation
#1107057
Because as the article shows, the Rus had settled on the site of Novgorod (or near) which meant they had key rivers leading to the Baltic and Black Sea. I'm guessing that goods reached Arabia and that's why the Rus' are mentioned. And the reason they were mentioned before would probably have somthing to do with the fact that the Viking tribes were powerful before the Varangians.
User avatar
By Maksym
#1107115
The article says nothing about the question I asked. As for your response, the Arab chronicles deal with the Black Sea and lower Dnipro. Care to explain how Bravlin fits into your theory? How about other chronicles that contradict the Primary Chronicle?

Do not refer to the junk article again, thank you.
By imagicnation
#1107134
What? So many confusing things. I'm confused. Just go google 'Russia Vikings' and you'll find plenty of sites talking about it.
I'm guessing the reason why the Rus are mentioned before the Varangians is because they were there earlier. That to is mentioned not only in my 'junk' article but in several other articles of at least some standard.
http://www.sverigeturism.se/smorgasbord ... kings.html
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/varangians.shtml
http://www.viking.no/e/russia/index.html
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/egfroth/rus.html
User avatar
By Maksym
#1107146
Can you just reply to my questions?

You can post one hundred websites, but none of it is abundance when they use exactly the same source.
By imagicnation
#1107181
I thought I already have? The Rus' happend to be there before Varangians. Simple. The water is collected before it's boiled.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1108820
By the early 9th century Viking tribes known as the Rus have a base on the site of Novgorod.


seizing the town of Kiev.


he negotiates a commercial treaty with the Byzantine empire.



I dislike the article for its soft language, giving the impression the Rus just walked in and were civil. They gained power through Military conquest, uniting and plundering the power/deevlopment of others. The Rus assimilation into the native Slavic groups went hand-in-hand with the development of their civilization.
Last edited by Thunderhawk on 02 Feb 2007 13:33, edited 1 time in total.
By imagicnation
#1108823
Well apparently the myth is that the people of Russia asked the Vikings to come and rule them, which I do admit, is rather shaky. Perhaps the Vikings threatened to destroy everyone unless they were made rulers?
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1108838
I (we?) have had that discussion elsewhere, a couple times.


I susupect that the lack of a centralized military power made the region easy pickings for anyone with enough force wanting to make an empire.


The Chronicle of Nestor strikes me as a piece of history spun to make it suitable for the time - propaganda of their age, making the current rulers seem more legitimate then would-be conquerors threatening them. Though I suspect there is truth somewhere in there:
Perhaps the Vikings threatened to destroy everyone unless they were made rulers?

seems most plausible.



Every so often I'll hear of the vikings "raiding" constantinople to extract friendly trade relationships.
Raiding the country side, maybe. The city, How? :lol:

As such, I view the chronicle of Nestor in the same light as most of recorded history - biased.
By imagicnation
#1109082
I agree. Now is it possible to lock up this thread so it may never be debated again?
User avatar
By Vladimir
#1156434
I agree. Now is it possible to lock up this thread so it may never be debated again?

Not so fast :lol:

One spot is particularly well-favoured as a trading centre. Near Lake Ilmen the headwaters of the Dvina, Dnieper and Volga rivers are close to each other. Respectively they flow into the Baltic, the Black Sea and the Caspian. Goods ferried by water between these important trading regions converge on this area. By the early 9th century Viking tribes known as the Rus have a base on the site of Novgorod.

The normanic thory has so many holes, and this is one of them.
Firstly, foregn merchants never based new cities, they used exisiting ones. Secondly, the Il'myen settlement has NO archaeological traces of vikings and ONLY slavic/finnish evidence.

There are may holes in the theory, and most of it is just pure fantasy. For example, some normanic theory adherents even claim that the danish Rorik was the same person as Rurik, and founded the Rus' a base for a northern assault upon the Byzantine - as a part of the wider offensive, and that the raids on Italy earlier were a part of it.
Little do the fantasisers know how much geographical knowledge is required for such an operation, and how much geographical knowledge Vikings really had :lol:
Anyway, that's a small part of the normanists' fantasies.

Oh, and about arabs. In Bagdad, already in the 8th century the word “slavyanin” and “rusich” were one and the same thing. Now, it’s certainly impressive how quickly the Viking social name had rooted itself in Arabic world, almost BEFORE actual involvement of Vikings with slavs :lol:
User avatar
By MB.
#1159437
Can you explain the reasons for Rus being mentioned in Arab chronicles before the appearance of the Varangians?


Becuase the Rus aren't Vikings?
By imagicnation
#1160357
All I know is that I have read several internet articles and a book which all say that early Russia had Vikings/Swedes. To what extent the Vikings settled, I have no idea. Thanks though for the 'inside' perspective Vladimir.[/quote]
User avatar
By Vladimir
#1160468
Ok :)
I was just a bit annoyed that the normanic theory is still considered... It is completely false, pure fantasy... Even if you look at how it originated, you can see what rubbish it is...
I don't know if there are translations, but there's a good book by Sergei Eduardovich Tsvetkov, "Russian history". It's the newest and most advanced source for russian histroy, starting at the creation of first settlements of eastern Slavs on the now russian soil. Where it ends I don't know - it is so fresh that its series of books are still being released yearly. I think the first three books were published already.
So anyway, in the first book he demonstrates very clearly the flaw of the normanic theory in an especially dedicated chapter, AND has numerous references to the theory's flaws throughout the book generally.
If you can, you must find it - it is very good. But again, I really don't know it's publishing and translation abroad...
I could write up a few basic facts from the book sometime if you can't get the book and want to find out...
But yeah, the inside perspective is certainly negative towards the theory, as you see)))))
By imagicnation
#1160961
So do you know where the myth came from? Is it based on any facts or is it just a romantic fairy tale to sweep away the hearts of young maidens?
By Einherjar
#1164838
Maksym wrote:Can you explain the reasons for Rus being mentioned in Arab chronicles before the appearance of the Varangians?

What is meant by 'appearance of the Varangians'? The Varangians appeared in the Byzantine world in the early ninth century. The first Arabic chronicles in the late ninth century correspond with Varangian raids into the Caspian Sea and, also, with the first Varangian attack on Constantinople (860).
User avatar
By MB.
#1172517
The Varangian Guard is a catch all phrase for any Scandinavian mercenary who fought for the Roman Empire. They came from Normandy, Austria, Scandanavia, etc.
By dugfromthearth
#13256489
since I'm late to this forum I'll resurrect an old thread

There can be little doubt that there were vikings in Russia at the time. They traveled extensively and served as mercenaries.

It is unlikely that a norse tribe moved to Russia and settled down, although not impossible.

I do have to question
Sergei Eduardovich Tsvetkov, "Russian history"
as I have found that when people release new histories of their countries it is common that the newly re-written history shows their people in a more favorable light.

also
Firstly, foregn merchants never based new cities, they used exisiting ones


I don't recall what existing city existed at Chicago, New Amsterdam, or other cities established in the new world. What was the native city that Havana replaced, or Port Royal, Jamaica?

The claim that something never happens is a very bold one. I assume you can back this up?

Secondly, the Il'myen settlement has NO archaeological traces of vikings and ONLY slavic/finnish evidence.


Which does not mean much in terms of whether vikings traded there or even if a viking warlord ruled it. Given the vagaries of what survives, a lack of archaeological evidence is not proof of anything. Now I will certainly grant that it is unlikely that a viking tribe settled there and built a city or even took over a city.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13262315
Since this thread had already been necroed..


Can anyone help me with finding:

Sergei Eduardovich Tsvetkov, "Russian history"

as I cannot. My googlefu is weak.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]