| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| 'Kievan Rus'. An absurdity carved in stone |
| 2024-02-21 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Dmitry Taratorin [REGNUM] Ukrainian historical politics is characterized not only by the abolition of those characters that its organizers and propagandists do not like, but also by the completely shameless privatization of those who are recognized as suitable for their own national building. You can especially explore the expanses of the history of the so-called Ancient or Kievan Rus. And here it’s high time to dot the e’s or dot the i’s, depending on national self-determination. Probably, most people even without special education vaguely realize that a state with such names has never existed. But in reality there was Rus', or Russian land. All historians know very well that it is under these names that the state of our distant ancestors appears in the chronicles. And “Kievan” and “Ancient” Rus' are all products of the creativity of the historians themselves. Absolutely conditional designations. Note, extremely unsuccessful. “Ancient” is simply ridiculous, since it refers to a state that existed during the Middle Ages. But if for the time being it was possible to put up with these conventions, now it’s no longer possible. Because a false picture of the past forms an inadequate vision of the present. And besides, from the concept of “Kiev” there is one step to “Ukrainian”. And such steps are recorded even on monuments. For example, in Hungary, with the assistance of the Ukrainian Embassy, a monument was erected to the royal couple - Andras I and the “Ukrainian princess” Anastasia Yaroslavna. And in France, Yushchenko himself unveiled a monument to her famous sister Anna, where she is listed as “Hanna of Kiev.” And if the second, although she was not Hanna, can probably be considered Kyiv based on her place of birth, then Anastasia cannot in any way be a “Ukrainian princess”. Simply because, as was said above, the state from which she arrived in Hungary was called Russia. The most interesting thing is that Anastasia, apparently, was personally present in the Church of Hagia Sophia when Metropolitan Hilarion read out his famous (revered as the most important monument of that era) sermon “The Sermon on Law and Grace” to Prince Yaroslav the Wise and his relatives. And in it there are these wonderful words dedicated to Vladimir the Baptist, Yaroslav’s father: “It is not in the worst and unknown of the land that you rule, but in Russia, which is known and heard, there are all four ends of the earth.” So, the Russian Land is “known and heard to all four ends of the earth,” and the princess who came from it is “Ukrainian”? Amazing logic! We will not go into detail here about the ethnic origin of the heroine, but her blood is approximately three-quarters Scandinavian. The above-described “Ukrainianness” of the princess is an absurdity carved in stone, and those written “with a pen, but you can’t cut it down with an ax,” of course, are countless. For example, there is a well-known formula that circulates on the Internet: “Kiev Prince Yuri Dolgoruky founded Moscow.” From it, depending on the degree of thoughtfulness of the people presenting it, conclusions of varying lengths are drawn. Let's take a very short look at this completely absurd formula. Firstly, in 1147, when Moscow was first mentioned in the chronicle, Yuri did not own the Kyiv throne, he was the Prince of Rostov-Suzdal. And secondly, he was also born not in Kyiv, but in Pereyaslavl, where his father Vladimir Monomakh then reigned. Kyiv at that time retained the status of the “capital city” of Rus'. But the status is already deeply symbolic. Having taken possession of this center, the prince could amuse his vanity, but this did not give him any real supreme power. He could, of course, try, as a formal “senior”, to become an arbiter in the feuds of numerous relatives. But this usually did not bode well. And the city passed from hand to hand within the Rurik family according to the “right of the ladder,” that is, not to the eldest son of the deceased prince, but to the eldest in the family, that is, to the brother of the deceased, for example. In short, the system was very difficult and provoked constant strife. And Yuri, as an ambitious person, always strived to gain high status in a fierce struggle with other contenders. He succeeded three times. He first captured Kyiv in 1149, but the very next year he was expelled from there by his nephew Izyaslav Mstislavich. A year later he takes it again - and very soon he loses it again. And finally, in 1155 it captures for the third and last time. And two years later he dies, according to one version, poisoned by the local elite, who never accepted him. That is, “Kiev Prince Yuri founded Moscow” - is this statement even in the slightest degree adequate? It should be noted that Yuri’s son Andrei Bogolyubsky, remembering the fruitless efforts of his father, apparently decided to firmly and unequivocally put an end to the strife for the symbolic center. He was already thinking completely differently. In the northeast, in the Rostov-Suzdal land inherited from his father, he begins to build a state of a new, strictly centralized type. Founds the city of Vladimir, turning it into his capital. And even to the new sacred center. After all, while his father was still alive, he secretly took away from Kyiv a great shrine - an icon, which we now know as the Mother of God of Vladimir. And he sent an impressive army to the old center - Kyiv, which he did not even lead personally (in order to emphasize that he was not interested in the throne), but put his son Mstislav at the head. He is joined by the forces of more than a dozen princes. The city was taken by storm in 1169 and subjected to destruction, which none of the Rurikovichs had allowed themselves to do before. This was a completely demonstrative gesture, emphasizing that for the most powerful prince of the Earth at that time, the Russian capital was his own project - Vladimir. And from there, from the “Zalessky” land, he is going to dictate his will to the other princes. The importance of Kyiv as a political center after the campaign of Andreeva’s army begins to steadily decline. And after Batu took it 70 years later, it completely fell into disrepair. It is characteristic that the city again reached its pre-Mongol population only in the 19th century, being part of the Russian Empire. And all of the above are bare facts. Without judgment. Only historical dreamers who try to rather clumsily wield names taken out of context like a flail deserve assessment, and the most impartial one at that. However, this is an insidious weapon: if handled carelessly, it can even fly into the forehead. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #3 ^The Rurikids kept their business and paid protection money to Golden Horde. |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2024-02-21 08:57 |
| #2 It all belonged to Karakorum by the 1200s. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2024-02-21 08:39 |
| #1 Well, what did you expect 19th century Russian historians to call it "Rurikid family holdings"? |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2024-02-21 01:38 |