The origins of Russia - Summary on a Map
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 апр 2024
- Let's retrace on maps the first origins of Russia, from the creation of Novgorod during the IXth century, until the end of the Time of Troubles and the beginning of the Romanov dynasty.
--------
Support the channel on Patreon: / geohistory
--------
English translation & voiceover: Matthew Bates www.epicvoiceover.com/
--------
Original French version: • Les origines de la Rus...
Russian version: • Образование Русского г...
Arabic version: • أصول روسيا
Spanish version: • Los orígenes de Rusia ...
Portuguese version (Brazil): • ORIGEM DA RÚSSIA: da f...
Japanese version: • ロシアとウクライナの起源
German version: • Die Ursprünge Russland...
Korean version: • 러시아의 기원 - 지도로 보는 러시아의 ...
--------
Music: Created for Geo History
--------
Software: Adobe After Effects
--------
Chapters
00:00 The Varangians
01:15 Kievan Rus’
02:52 Russian principalities
04:56 Catholic and Mongol threats
06:24 Mongol invasion
08:00 Grand Duchy of Moscow and Lithuania
09:59 Ivan the Terrible
11:43 End of the Rurik Dynasty
12:56 Time of Troubles
#geohistory #history #russia #origins #ukraine #belarus #kievanrus
Shooting the ashes of the false Tsar out of a cannon in the direction of the country that supported him is one of the most Russian things imaginable 😄
Why ashes not whole body?
@@takasmaka820 the whole body couldn't fit in a cannon, so they chopped him first and then burned as he was stinking.
Poles had been doing this too in that time.
With a little-known historical fact today that the basis of the Slavic population of Moscow are the ancient tribes of the Vyatichs, who according to the Russian chronicle are the Lyakhs... In fact, one nation that was divided by religion, some became Catholic Poles, others became Orthodox Russians. Vyatichi: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyatichi
@@rodjarrow6575
Many Slavic tribes participated in the formation of RUSSIA, including the Polyan tribe. it was this tribe that became the center of the formation of Poland. also, the association of Slavic tribes that formed Russia included such tribes as the White Croats and Ilmen Slovenes (the area of Veliky Novgorod), and there were two dozen Slavic tribes united in Russia, plus or minus, the same association included Finnish and Turkic tribes, in the 15th-16th century Siberian tribes were also joined
"so it's all trade routes?"
"Always have been"
China noises in the back...
Recommended after putin interview
There Are also myths
Хах, это точно
Mind ya business😂😂
Rus' is not Russia
@@stantheman276So basically your argument is that a bunch of people instead of selecting their own leaders, chose to select a foreigner and then hail his line as the line of royalty and as Prince, literally going against nearly every known case of tribe selecting leaders in the world at that time.
Nice try, buddy.
It was never called "Kievan Rus" until 18th century. Russian historians retroactively named it that.
You're right they were called Rus
Russian historians simply designated the time period "Kievan Rus" to separate this period from the period of "feudal fragmentation", after which Rus' forever became Muscovite.
@@ilyapangorchav nope.
@@gunterodim1535 it is a mislabelling is what I'm saying.
Oh then what were they called mr apollo?@@apollo5261 Cause the Russian empire existed since the 16th century and they were the Rus state before that. I dearly hope you wont call it Ukraine because that didnt exist since 1917
i find the history of eastern europe and the baltic area very interesting, because it's something we never learn in school in italy
In the United States we don't learn about any out of country history besides World War II.
@@RickFoxChicken And even that is a Iie. Revizioned history where "USA" singIe handedIy defeated nzis.
But in fact, 80% of fighting was done by Soviets.
Reasonably so. Eastern European history is a mess of names of rulers significant towns and areas, dates of fights, of election of new ruler, of the downfall of empires, of revolutions etc.
It's not history that a child can meaningfuly keep up with. In Greece we did learn a tiny amount of Lithuanian Polish empire, the Kievan Rus, the Mongols and Tartars and the Vikings of the north etc. Yet none will remember they were even taught any of these.
It's interesting to me that both Western Europe and Eastern Europe were significantly influenced by the two halves of the Roman Empire. The West dominated by Roman Catholicism while the East dominated by Constantinople's Orthodoxy.
@@zippyparakeet1074 yeah so many things in East and Western Europe come from Rome is very fascinating.
So this is what the Meet Arnold guy is doing now?
isnt that riddle?
Yeah
@@PeterTremor riddle is a channel which is also the meet arnold guy
I guess so , i miss the old one
@@andrade4630 My friend Google is not opening, I need help. Can you tell me where the Turks live, the names of a few Turkish empires and a few modern Turkish states?
Fun Fact: It was Russia who saved The Union during the American Civil War as they sent their Navy to San Francisco and New York when England and France were just about to enter the war on the side of the Confederates since London created the Confederates. France was already in Mexico making a spear head movement to resupply the Confederates and to open up a Pacific Theatre and to create a port in California. England already amassed 11,000 troops and growing stationed at their Northern Confederacies border now called Canada ready to open a Northern Theatre to divert Union troops away from their Southern Confederacy then to attack The Unions naval blockade. The Union would have been completely destroyed and annexed by those two great powers leaving the Confederates to exist as a puppet state of London.
London was already courting (threatening/bribing) other countries to get involved like Spain while Russia was in talks with Prussia to ally with incase London was to intervene.
Seeing all of this Tsar Alexander II wrote a letter to Queen Victoria saying “If you enter in this war it will be a casus belli for all out war with the Russian Empire”. The stage was set for the 1st World War and Russia stopped it.
There is also a memorial in San Francisco for the
hundreds of Russian sailors who came off their Asiatic fleet ships that died while helping the city put out a fire that threatened to lay waste to it during the War.
Wow, never knew so many countries were involved!
@@sravasaksitam The Russian fleet also threatened to Shell Australian ports along with other British Pacific Colonies if Britain aided the Confederates. A confederate war ship spent a lot of time in Australian waters and was supported by the Australian public, some even signing on as crew members. This Confederate war ship laid waist to the US Pacific whaling fleet and is reported to have fired the last shot in the war
Russia also helped Thailand (Kingdom of Siam) maintain its sovereignty from being completely Partitioned/Annexed from the British and French around the same time. The very word Thai (ไทย) means 'free man' in the Thai language which is partially to thank to the Russians as they might have ended up being a colony or part of another country/colony if not for their intervention.
@@JPJ432russia is to responsible for dozen of independent movements in africa or created indirectly the finish state, after 700 years of swedish occupition did russia conquer finland in the wars and gave the fins a country with real borders, autonomy what was a last step to become independent and they dozen of monuments from alexander the second in finland, another example is the armenian genocide, after tsar nicholas heard about it he instantly send hes soldirs to the caucasus to help the people, 394k armenians got saved what was 99% of the population, tsar nicholas is the main reason why this nation exists today
The Civil War was almost entirely a ground war, so it is amazing how a few Russian ships out in the ocean could have made much of a difference. They didn't stop the Confederates from trading cotton or tobacco with Europeans in exchange for weaponry. So you might say the Russians did almost nothing.
@@texaswunderkind For a little more context: The British (City of London) are the ones who created our divide in the first place to put brother against brother. After the war Lincoln wanted to rebuild the South and had plans to do so. He and half his Cabinet were assassinated by London. Many of the others that survived had multiple assassination attempts on them especially William Seward who had like a dozen or so, many almost killing him. Most of the Operations for the Civil War and post war plans and assassinations were made in London and then sent to Montreal a hub for spies and intel in the Americas for the British Empire then passed through to Confederate President Jefferson Davis to follow the orders. Many of the South's own leaders were selling out the South to British interest even General Lee. Unfortunately London had many of their Tentacles and Webs on both sides. Lincoln stated that the Department Of State is completely controlled by British Interest that he had to constantly fight against. It was in the 1870s that a Paradigm Shift happened were the British took control within the Reunited States through subversion (which was easy to do so as all their agents were brought back into the Union and a large part of their opposition killed) and have had it all the way up to this day. Some presidents fought against it like Garfield, McKinley, Harding, Roosevelt, and Kennedy and all were killed. Probably the best book to read on the subject is "The Clash of the Two Americas. The Unfinished Symphony" by Matthew Ehret. I have no affiliation with them but they also have an audiobook which can make it easier since not many people like to sit down and read anymore. It has multiple references on the bottom of each page of the book.
As an American we never learned about this. In school we learn about fifty states and history for half of our school career.
Конечно ,ваша история по возрасту как наш "большой театр"
Same, when I was at school in the UK we only learn European history 1874-1980
В США плохо с преподаванием истории в школах. Это известно.
Me : "Oh nice a new video"
*"The impostor"*
Me : "Oh"
uh oh
GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD
that's a bit sussy
When the Tsar is sus
amogus
I love seeing borders moving.
Ps: ok it is really moving now...
Borders are actually the weakest part of these series.
Same
@@MateoF Sure, I can. What I mean about the borders being the "weakest part" is that they were clearly drawn without any attention to details or without trying to trace them from the original maps. This creates a sense of "border gore", because they are drawn like no borders ever would be, and clearly not like they were actually looking like. That makes them look rather inaccurate and kind of like a doodle, not like a map and it is clear they were drawn by the eye and not traced or anything. That just makes them look really bad, especially when you are already used to how Grand Duchy of Lithuania or Poland were supposed to look like. Sometimes they can be a bit historically inaccurate as well. Like, don't get me wrong, they are still not terrible, and the plot and the historical knowledge and voiceover are really good and that's why I'm watching these, but borders are just something I have to cringe through and hope they won't make me cringe too much. I hope you don't mind.
@@Altermerea agreed
Me too lmao
"He was assassinated and his ashes were then shot out from a cannon towards Poland"
😂
There was a fierce stubborn resistance of the Russian Slavs to the Mongol hordes. A lot of examples, incl a town of Koselsk (near modern Ryazan), that had been called The Fierce Town by the Mongols with all of its people incl women fighting to the end. But the forces were clearly unequal. It was a giant Horde and if not for the total Russian resistance that had depleted its initial punch, all of the Europe would have been conquered. You can see it from the sheer size of the Mongol empire set up by Genghis Khan who had subdued the China in the first place
Китай пал только в 1279 году, гораздо позже большей части Руси. К тому же не вся Русь была покорена монголами, а лишь бо́льшая часть.
Sp Europe should thank Russian?
@@user-pd9ju5dk5s rather bulgarians and poles. Russia paid tribute to them and showed little resistance
@@12crenshaw Russians did resist the Mongols - hence many burned cities and overall decline of cultural and economic life in Kievan principality that had become the Wild Plain (Dikoe Pole). Those who paid tribute and showed no resistance were not ruined.
Poland and Bulgar (Volga bulgars) were also pillaged, if you want to thank them for that, well, up to you.
@@12crenshaw haha polish propaganda😂
One thing to note is that the map shows some bodies of water that did not exist until 20th century. Rybinsk Reservoir is an example. It might be worth trying to find older digitized maps for future presentations if those are available.
The. U do another video with the changes
ruclips.net/video/PTc1YRqs160/видео.html
...
But in the past there are still more Waters around kiew und the Prypjat.
Of Tartaria for example.
yes we need an accurate map of all swamps!
"And his ashes are fired from a cannon in the direction of Poland" Metal.
Poland: Damn i could've rule the half of the Asia
их подвела демократия - они очень сложно принимали даже простые государственные решения. пытались учитывать мнение каждого дворянина. в то время побеждали более централизованные государства. да и всегда это будет. для простого населения это как правило незаметно никак.
Oleg didn't 'found the Kievan Rus'. Kievan Rus isn't a historical term, it's one created by 18th-century Russian historians to refer to the part of Russia's history that was centred around Kiev. In its day, Kievan Rus' were just called "the lands of Rus", which means "the lands of Russia" - "Russia" is the Latin phrasing of Rus. And what's retroactively called "Kievan Rus" didn't originate and wasn't founded in Kiev, but began in Novgorod, which was the first capital of "Kievan Rus". When Oleg conquered Kiev, he expanded the lands of Rus to include Kiev, and then he moved Rus' captial from Novgorod to Kiev. The conquering and capitalising of Kiev wasn't the founding of Oleg's kingdom or a historical state, it was the expanding of one that already existed.
Додик, Новгород не являлся Русью вовсе, и по археологическим данным основан не ранее 930 года, Киев на несколько веков старше Новгорода.
_Садись,два_
I can't see the previous comment to reply to it directly, for some reason, but that comment is wrong. Rus' is the name of the tribe which then became the Rus' kingdom with its capital in Novgorod, and which later moved its capital to Kiev in 882. Kiev is older than Novgorod, but Rus' didn't originate in Kiev, and the pre-Rus' Kiev has nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine. Kiev being older than Novgorod really has no relevance to this discussion.
The Rus' tribe also predates Novgorod, and they lived in regions further east of Novgorod, though they first formed a state with Novgorod as its capital: "The two original centres of Rus' were Staraja Ladoga and Rurikovo Gorodishche, two points on the Volkhov, a river running for 200 km between Lake Ilmen in the south to Lake Ladoga in the north."
"According to the first Russian annals, the Primary Chronicle, Rurik was a Scandinavian "from the tribe of the Rus" whom the people of Novgorod invited in 862 to assume rule over them, as they had been unable to govern themselves. Accompanied by his family and retinue, Rurik settled in Novgorod, and his brothers took control of adjacent regions. The area under their authority came to be called "the land of the Rus" and eventually Rus'. The descendants of Rurik continued to rule over this region following his death about 873."
@@__Ruslan_Nedokolenko__ Quoted from the OP:
I can't see the previous comment to reply to it directly, for some reason, but that comment is wrong. Rus' is the name of the tribe which then became the Rus' kingdom with its capital in Novgorod, and which later moved its capital to Kiev in 882. Kiev is older than Novgorod, but Rus' didn't originate in Kiev, and the pre-Rus' Kiev has nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine. Kiev being older than Novgorod really has no relevance to this discussion.
The Rus' tribe also predates Novgorod, and they lived in regions further east of Novgorod, though they first formed a state with Novgorod as its capital: "The two original centres of Rus' were Staraja Ladoga and Rurikovo Gorodishche, two points on the Volkhov, a river running for 200 km between Lake Ilmen in the south to Lake Ladoga in the north."
"According to the first Russian annals, the Primary Chronicle, Rurik was a Scandinavian "from the tribe of the Rus" whom the people of Novgorod invited in 862 to assume rule over them, as they had been unable to govern themselves. Accompanied by his family and retinue, Rurik settled in Novgorod, and his brothers took control of adjacent regions. The area under their authority came to be called "the land of the Rus" and eventually Rus'. The descendants of Rurik continued to rule over this region following his death about 873."
@@thischannel1071 Про Рюрика мы знаем из летописей написанных Нестором через столетия после описываемых им событий. Кроме этого упоминания, нет никаких других источников. Рюрик это легендарная личность. По археологическим данным, культурный слой ранее X века в Новгороде не обнаружен, но легендарный Рюрик, каким то образом, там смог появиться в IX. Никто из киевских князей в летописях не упоминается как Рюрикович.
По летописям, Русь локализуется как Киев, Чернигов, Переяслав...
Новгородцы не являются русинами - они новгородцы, и никак иначе. В летописи за 1141 год читаем: "А когда Святослав (Ольгович) удирал из Новгорода в Русь к брату, то послал Всеволод навстречу ему". То есть, Новгород, не является Русью.
@@thischannel1071 (translated by app)
We know about Rurik from the chronicles written by Nestor centuries after the events he describes. Apart from this mention, there are no other sources. Rurik is a legendary person. According to archaeological data, no cultural layer earlier than the 10th century was found in Novgorod, but the legendary Rurik, somehow, could appear there in |X. None of the Kievan princes is mentioned in the annals as Rurikovich. According to the annals, Rus' is localized as Kyiv, Chernigov, Pereyaslav... Novgorodians are not Rusyns - they are Novgorodians, and nothing else. In the annals for 1141 we read: “And when Svyatoslav (Olgovich) fled from Novgorod to Rus' to his brother, Vsevolod sent to meet him.” That is, Novgorod is not Rus.
Rurik not founded Novgorod,Novgorod already was by that time.Rurik was invited to rule on Novgorod
yes, just like Smolesnk. Official date is 863 according to annals, but archeology says 3rd or 4th century
Именно с именем князя Рюрика связано первое упоминание о Новгороде в летописи 859 года: "И принял всю власть один Рюрик, и пришел к Ильменю, и срубил городок под Волхвом, и назвал его Новгород, и сел тут княжить, раздавать волости и города рубить"
@@algalkin Таких летописей нет,летописи появились лет через 300 и информация была там искажённая.Тем более вставляли чтобы узаконить права Киева и Рюриковичей на Новгород.Здесь только архиологии может помочь.А она говорит что Новгород был до Рюрика.
@@rusgercin9630 да археология как бы говорит, что Новгород в современном месте был основан даже позже этой даты, а именно в 930 году. То есть летопись ещё его "старит". Было, конечно, "Рюриково Городище", но это не совсем Новгород и там тоже непонятно.
@@ddd7386 Ну в любом случае по летописи ориентироваться. Можно только в общих чертах, так как кто такой Рюрик , уже сказать даже тогда не могли, а когда и кто кого основал тоже самое.Остается только догадываться.
Plot twist: russians are vikings who didn't like boats
Actually they like boats But only on rivers .
Those were the goths
Actually goths visigoths were timelines to late 4th century to 800s .
russians have nothing to do with the vikings. russians (ethnic nationality) are slavs and vikings are normans
@@joedoe9208 you missed the joke
One thing to note, Rurik is a leader, who has been invited. Every single country forms itself trough thousands of years of developing.
@df7217 There are a lot of scientific views of that, tho the most accepted one is that he did. After all, there is an entire dynasty of Rurik, that ended in 1598
@@Kusemurkin27 this is the conventional name of the dynasty
@@salatykk We can't know for sure wether he existed or not, there is just not enough proof
@@Kusemurkin27 есть исследования ДНК. все его потомки - это в основном 2 мужские линии, основная из которых скандинавская. так что скорее всего это не просто миф. кстати потомков сейчас множество.
@@drugsl и?
There were many principalities in Rus', and in different periods different principalities had greater influence. First, Novgorod was the most influential, then Kiev became the most influential. then Rus' fell into decline, after which Kiev lost all influence as it was plundered and burned, and the Grand Duchy of Vladimir became the new center of influence in Rus' for objective reasons, then the Grand Duchy of Vladimir turned into the Grand Duchy of Moscow, again simply because on the territory In the most influential Principality of Rus', a new most influential city appeared, which, for objective reasons, like Kiev and Novgorod earlier, began to attract wealth and people, Moscow became the most important trading center of Rus'. And after that, the Grand Duchy of Moscow, having depleted most of the free Rus', Turns into Tsardom of Russia and later into the Russian Empire. Not one historian in the world has no doubts about this. Only among Ukrainians, whose entire Wikipedia is full of both pseudo-history and lies, moreover, closed from editing? How is it that the Ukrainian wiki is 80% different from wikis in any other languages of the world where everything converges into the same facts. What are you afraid of closing articles from editing? What would real historians and scientists not be able to correct this nonsense? And yes, at what point in history, except in your imagination, did the name Muscovy exist as real name of the state?
I think it's because they have a national identity crisis. There are also many nationalistic biggots on both sides (Russia & Ukraine).
Just with a logicial & unbiased mindset, anyone should see that they all share the same heritage. It reflects their language, culture & history.
Super sad to see how they divided.
I personally blame a mixture of the Mongol Invasion, the Polish/Lithuanian Commonwealth & Communism for the division of the Rus (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine)
Muscovy is called in other languages the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Just as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is simply called Lithuania.
This can be seen if you watch this video in different languages (this channel has analogues in different languages and related videos)
@@Ki-dz4ro 1) Anna Yaroslavna (daughter of Prince Yaroslav the Wise and Queen of France) in the west is called Anna Russian.
2) Also Rus' and Russia - the words are similar.
3) The term "Kievan Rus" appeared only in the 19th century, as a designation of the time period when Kyiv was the capital of the country. So was Ladoga Rus (approximately 859-862), Novgorod Rus (862-882), Vladimir Rus (1243-1389), then Moscow Rus (1389-1547 (or 1478)). It was just Rus'. We don't say "Moscow Russia" or "Petersburg Russia", no, we don't.
4) When Kyiv was captured by Prince Oleg, he gave him the title "Mother of Russian Cities". And throughout our history, Kyiv has been with such a title.
5) The art that has developed throughout the history of Rus' is called Old Russian art. (Even on Wikipedia it says)
6) “Let us not disgrace the Russian land, but lie down with bones, for the dead have no shame!” (It is difficult to translate into English) - this is how Prince Svyatoslav addressed the squad before the battle of Arcadiopol in 970.
This is the expression of Prince Svyatoslav from "The Tale of Bygone Years".
7)Rus and the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Russian kingdom (until 1598) were ruled by the Rurik dynasty.
That is why the history of Rus' is the history of Russia
@@user-oh5nc1qb5u To be exact, Russia wants to claim the history of Rus))) While Ukraine has the capital of Rus - Kyiv, the money of Rus - hryvnia, and the symbol of Rus - trydent (tryzub).
@@vitaliyparfeniuk6304 Мы ведь можем говорить не по английски, верно? Каким образом Россия "ХоЧит укРастЬ истОрИЮ рУСИ"? Династия с момента основания Руси и до создания Русского Царства - Одна. Это были Рюриковичи. И к тому же была одна религия - православие. Русины, Русские, Русы, Рутены и пр. пр писания - это все синонимы. Если вы отсчитываете свою историю от захвата юго-западных земель Литвой, то это позорище. Русы были там холопами, там даже и речь не шла о каком то равном отношении к бывшему населению Руси. И страна эта была КАТОЛИЧЕСКОЙ. По этому да, Руская история это история России, история, в которой последняя отстояла право на свою независимость и построила огромное государство
GeoHistory: uploads
Me: *My happiness is unmeasurable and my day is improved*
2:52 "yaroslav the wise"
a wise king! nice can't wait for all his great reforms
3:28 "yaroslav devides the Kievan Rus among his sons"
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ DAMN IT YAROSLAV
He, actually, made a first written law in Russia, Russkaya Pravda. Also he is first person who started stone building, but that is just forgotten
@@tyryonolofing3405 that was the first written law in Rus. Rus is not Russia, like Roman Empire is not Romania
@@OrkosUA comprasion is incorrect obviously, but this was first written law in the medieval state of Rus, and geographically also first for future Russian State, which is direct successor to the north-eastern principalities, broken up from Kievan Rus. More clearly, Suzdal-Vladimir principality splited from Kievan Rus, and was using laws of Yaroslav, and after Mongol invasion, when Suzdal and Vladimir were brutally sacked and destroyed, principality splited again, and one of them was principality of Moscow, which after three hundred years of reunification, will finally assume title of Tsar. So it's not like Romania and Rome, because it's countinious, has similar dynasty and religion, and some cultural stuff is much closer.
@@tyryonolofing3405 don't bother explaining history to Ukrainian. They are still pissed they were left on outskirts (the literal translation of the name "Ukraine") while their heirs ran north and freed themselves from Mongols and Poles several hundred years earlier than they did with the Ukraine. The fact Rurikids had continuous dynasty up to 1530es first relocating to Vladimir way before the Mongol invasion and then ending up in Moscow - Vladimir's colony - wont fit in his mind.
@@cianakril may be.. But I still hope for the best. Also, you see, in reality it's even more complicated, because boyar's families of Moscow, Novgorod and Lithuanian-controled parts of Rus, including cadet braches of Rurikid and Olgedovich's. In fact, Shyiskie were cadet branch for Rurikid dynasty, and that was enough to accept their overturn against poland-backed Lzhedmitriy. And one of the most powerful, and crucial supporter of Romanovs in their attempt to assume tsardom in 1613 was boyar house Trubetskiye, who were.. Cadet branch for former Lithuanian kingdom dynasty.
Very well done, thank you!
Kievan rus is actually Ukraine
FYI: this is low-quality content that greatly distorts the real history. A lot of key things are glossed over or distorted, and this creates a completely wrong perception of what really happened. One gets the impression that the author is simply quoting propagandistic history textbooks that have been produced in Moscow for centuries.
Ukraine never existed before 1917
And, dear Ukrainians, whether you like it or not, the official date of the founding of Novgorod is considered to be 859, according to the first mention of the city in the late Nikon Chronicle (XVI century). In the Tale of Bygone Years, created in the 12th century, the city was first mentioned in 862. This is exactly the case in all official sources. Yes, the Novgorod that we see now was rebuilt later, according to various historical research. But again, it is known that before this there was a settlement on the Rurik Settlement, a little upstream of the Volkhov and closer to Lake Ilmen. Also, there is a theory that there was a settlement in the Peryn area, as evidenced by various archaeological finds from 5-8 centuries from different cultures, which suggests that even then trade was carried out on these lands
And what can you say about Kyiv celebrating 1500 years from the foundation in USSR in 1982?
It means that Kyiv is centuries older than Novgorod.
@@dddo3706 Kyiv was first mentioned in documents in 915, Novgorod in 859. What's the question? If we take all sorts of myths and legends as a source, then both cities are older, but we are talking about official sources and documents, right?
By the archeology, Novgorod was found in the second half of X century. The man in XII century simply couldn't know about dates in IX century. @@ro2038
East slavic tribes -Kryvich, vyatich, drevlyane existed long before Ryurik. They had their own Kings, localized fights between each other , eventually mingled and united starting Russian nation. Ryurik was invited by people of Novgorod.
Rurik was proven a made up legend, not historical fact. DNA tests of Rurikid dynasty bodies were made, they had indeed scandinavian ancestry, but from 11th century, not 9th.
There was nothing "russian" about them. Russian nationality formed much, much later.
@@imaginarystranger1974
Specially for alternative Ukrainians.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_of_Russia
@@musckowit A monument from1859 year. 😅😅😅😅
@@sirenka9192
What amuses you so much?
Ivan Turgenev once wrote:
"Nature creates while destroying, and doesn't care whether it creates or destroys as long as life isn't extinguished, as long as death doesn't lose its rights"
It is true, and what is more true is that even if life are extinguish, Nature doesn't care, as it is still a part of nature at the end.
That is the law of the entire Universe. Matter and life are all cyclical. But do we understand the why? Why is existence in an ever expanding Universe cyclical instead of a steady line of immortal progression? Does the illusion of choice which humans and other animals make really even matter in the grand scheme of things here on Earth when eventually our Sun will die too? All of our historical choices will be for naught. The rest of the Universe does not care.
“In the end we will be judged not by what we have destroyed.
But what we have created.”
-Wilhelm Strasse
Nature doesn't care if mankind or all creatures go extinct.
Turgenev is considered a Russian, but in fact a Tatar, because in fact there were never any Russians in Muscovy))
Interesting how there is one story but many interpretations. Different country, different story for the same event. ;)
But, the basic overview of centuries is helpful. Even though some smaller details may differ from story to story.
I have to say the narration is exciting and the history fascinating! -Subscribed!
12:28 no natural obstacles or resistance? Are you kidding? It was almost impossible to get to Siberia, they had to drag their ships through mountains,set a stay and live through the winter with almost no food and equipment and then conquer the Siberian tribes while Moscow almost didn’t care about them thus no more people or weapons, keep in mind that it was an unfriendly places with severe weather and they was just a group of Cossacks
Yap. Nothing worth mentioning at all...
Yermak is the conqueror of Siberia, he was a bandit and a robber and was caught and brought to trial, but he was asked that he would choose execution or serve Russia, he chose to serve and he was told that he should look and explore unknown and wild lands called Siberia
this guy seems to not know anything about slavis countries history
Who cares about the real and truthful info these days. A seducive visual, thats what important
Thank you:) I am descendant of the Cossacks here in Siberia:)
It is amazing how many times people of this region have fought, merged, divided, turned on allies, became friendly with past enemies and done it over and over again. Up to and including the year 2022.
It's a soap opera....with deadly consequences.
How is history of Europe different?
England, France, Spain, Papal states, Austria(Austro-Hungarian empire), German principalities(latter Prussia)...
7 years war, 30 years war, 100 years war...
Stewart's dynasty, Bourbons, Habsburgs, Popes...
All stabbing each other backs/creating alliances in order to keep balance of power.
Old news.
@@aleksandarcvetkovic5436 It's not except this is post WWII, modern world with protections in place by Russia and most other countries in the world. Has Russia not learned it's lessons. Putin is a madman, no different than Hitler.
@@nickmcnellis3937
Eh, world of politics and powerful states is full of mad people.
One can say Gulf war, invasion on Iraq, destroying Lybia, turning head when Saudi Arabia attacks Yemen was also act of mad people.
But those kind of things depend from what side one gains perspective.
Justifying war is diplomatic skill to convince own people and others that reason is righteous.
Bad thing is opposite side does the same.
I don't like NATO and Russia with same intensity.
Both are warmongers accusing other one for warmongering.
@@aleksandarcvetkovic5436
Europe has developed so much as a result of constant wars. It is obvious. War moves progress faster than anything else.
Yaroslav diving his empire among his sons reminds me of Charlemagne who did something similar.
Sometimes i am puzzled by what Russia was capable of. Why is it we never learnt about these great conquest of land and only learnt about the Roman Empire?
Потому что это придуманная история,чтобы скрыть реальную
@@neo7555 как скажешь, братан.😂
@neo7555 what's the real story?
@@NTEPNTсмотри Интервью Путина ) с Такером
@@jeckson9673 тут треть видео из пальца высосана, года так до 1050 примерно
I took a Russian history class in undergrad about 20 years ago, and I really, REALLY wish that they would have used the map visuals that you did, because holy shiz this was WAY more interesting now than reading it in text and listening to lectures back then.
A monk became tsar by bullshitting...unreal.
it was a prank
by Poles
If you live in a country that has become a colony. which is unrealistic. You don't have to speak for other countries!
ruclips.net/video/-aHWAp0GlXA/видео.html RUSSIAN TOP SECRET: REAL HISTORY OF KYIVAN RUS`. Lecture by Oleksandr Palii, Ukrainian historian
@@user-jr9ye5jp9f интересный фанфик.
Не путай Русь и Россию
The only forces better then the winter:
- Mongol
- Poland
lithuania too,
its kind of weird not including it
@@windex1613 LITHUANIA STRONG 🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪🇱🇹💪
@@Gvazdika. It’s always nice seeing people who really are proud of their country
@@Gvazdika. Oh fuck sorry Lithuania too
@@marshmallowenthusiast9032 i was being satire but i am proud of my nation but it does have its own problems like population loss
Lol at the comments that saying "kievan RUS are not actually RUS"
Brainwashed smh they always try to play down Russian history in every period
Know the Ukrainian is a Nazi. Rus' began with the city of Novgorod. after the Novgod prince captured Kyiv. Ukrainians became Russians after they began to pay tribute to the Russian prince who settled in Kyiv. Before this, the Kievites paid tribute to the Khazrs. The Russians defeated the Khazars and settled in Kyiv.
You are a Ukrainian Nazi, you declare on the basis of national hatred paid for by the media and the Pentagon, but in ancient times there was no Ukrainian nation and the concept of a Ukrainian. You must clearly understand that the first sloltsa of Rus' is the Ladoga region and the ancient city of Ladoga (but this is closer to the settlement of the Vikings who lived where there were trade routes by water) Then the capital became Novgorod. Rus' came from it. and then Kyiv was crowned Prince of Novgorod. Overlay maps in Photoshop and don’t lie to others, the northern part of Russia is Rus. The word rus is not the Greek word Rus (this is a river, river bed or rowers from Gothic). Archaeologists have confirmed that the island of Rügen is a find for Slavic paganism. The Slavs lived in the Baltic region, but Finno-Ugrians and Vikigs (Nordics) also lived there. Many Baltic cities have Slanic city names, half of Germany (Prusia) has Slavic place names and the same in the north. part of the Baltic coast belonged to the Russians. but the Livonian order (Teuto) took away the direct access to the Baltic Sea that the Russians once had, and the Livonian order consisted half of the Slavs. Almost all the Baltic countries today are former Russian principalities. which were divided for religious reasons, when Catholics took away lands during the Crusades, or for reasons of dividing the power of princes.
Some people fail to understand that Kievan Rus was a mix of modern day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus TOGETHER.
some people do not understand that such a comment supports the occupation of the territory of Ukraine by the Russians and the death of hundreds of thousands of people
Your maps are THE BEST backdrop to your script . . . EVER. It makes so many connections for my understanding. Thanks!!
Understanding what? Primitive Russophobic propaganda? It was exposed back in the 17th century by the Russian historian, academician Lomonosov: the version that Rurik is of Scandinavian origin was invented by the Swedes during their war with Peter 1. This is banal, military propaganda. Rurik was from the Baltic Slavs, and this is officially recognized by all real historians.
And advice for the future: in relation to Russia, from English-speaking sources - you will never hear anything but lies and propaganda. You can not even hope to find at least something true - you will not find it.
I used to feel sleepy during history classes but with such great way of story telling and visualizations , history becomes quite interesting .
Real history is rated R and viewer discretion is advised. I think current history class curriculums cripple students by watering down and sugar coating. So kids watch tv and reality shows. Sad when history is much more dramatic, vulgar, and educational.
But sad that it's not a true history
I agree but history of Slavs starts before Christ and this video starts at around year 800 after christ.. Starting history with vikings is complete bullshit.
Spatial memory rules.
Awesome work.
🎉😮😅😊😂❤❤
That is very interesting! Good and Fast explanation!
6:42 It's unfear to say that there was no resistance to mongols. But yes, most of the cities fell and were burned and sacked.
Yeap, I was searching such a comment, because that is true - we - Russians fight and lost, fight and lost time and time again, but the Mongol horde lost a part of their numbers - of course I want to say major part, but I do not now numbers, so let limit only to part.
Why Mongols win? Because feudal diversity - one "prince " we call kniaz - князь - can fight alone against whole of horde and eventually lose to power of numbers, tactics and superior power of cavalry units, later on Huangary fight also in hard battles mainly due to internal problems between monarch and aristocracy, also lose, go to retreat, some years later return to already diminished force due to attrition from fight and diseases which also were at way back to Mongol capital due the death of chan
@@user-hx7yz3tb6v It's something I'm sympathetic to, because the common understanding of Chinese resistance was "China fell, Yuan was declared, and then the Mongols conquered everyone". this comes from a misunderstanding of the "China among Equals" period, where the Jurchen (proto Manchu) dynasty was able to conquer a significant chunk of the northern heartland, including Beijing, and declared themselves as the holders of the Mandate of Heaven. They fell to the Mongols quickly, but the Song dynasty held out long enough (till 1279) for the Mongols to have brought over Persian trebuchets, subjugated the Russian principalities (1230s-40s), invaded Lithuania, Poland, the Romanian principalities, Hungary, Austria, northeast Italy, Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria (1240s), sacked Baghdad, and pushed into Anatolia and the Levant before they fell.
5:36 i always love this moment in geo history when an unknown boss battle is about to come
Kievan Rus' is a not a country, it's a term invented in 19th century to describe a time period.
it was just the 'Rus'
Kiyv existed for 400 years before Novgorod was founded. Putin is telling you some fantasy story.
@@timkruger7365 not the point. the point is that where was no such country with name "Kievan Rus". How old is Kiev is completely different discussion. I don't know where you get 400, most likely 50-150 older
@@kykah01 There was no such country as Ancient Egypt. The term Ancient was applied well during the Common Era and the actual name of the country was Kumat.
Words exist to simplify communication. Just like in "Ancient Egypt" the word "Ancient" serves to clarify that we are indeed talking about the period of history before Christ, the word "Kievan" simply emphasizes that we're talking about the period of history when Kiev was the center, nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise we'd need to rename Germany into Deutschland, Japan into Nippon and Greece into Ellada.
@@olegshevchenko5869 Yes, ok... But we're talking maps here. You don't put a country called "Ancient Egypt" on a map.
Well done, short and to the point.
I would like to say that Rurik didn't found principality of Novgorod, Novgorodish people invited him to be their king
Moreover, Rurik represented the south Baltic Slavs. So, it was alright for Slavic people to invite an influential Slavonic ruler to rule. After all, who would ever invite a foreigner to rule over their land (as these western morons want us to believe)?
@@N0NamedGui well, I do sound alright. the key thing is that Rurik and his family were Slavonians, unlike the false history insinuations about his Scandinavian origin. back then, as always, people did care about culture. it was important for the ruler to come from a similar or identical culture, ans speak the same language, otherwise it would've been a slavery. only slaves do not need to understand the language of the ruler. so, think twice before you write something here
@@M7i7k7h7a7i7l they
originated from Scandinavia, but we're rulers of sorbs(I suppose that how some of the west Slavs were called). Also, as I already said, being Sorb or Bolgarian is like being foreigner to East Slavs, because they already splitted, they have different languages, and even different religion. Otherwise they wouldn't raid eachother so much.
@@N0NamedGui nope, they never originated from Scandinavia rather Scandinavians have Slavonic origin. As for Rurik, he was a Baltic Slav.
@@M7i7k7h7a7i7l Scandinavians. Have. Slavonic. Origin? That stupid.
The story is very simplified, which even sometimes causes outrage.
Very simplistic approach
You should definitely do a video about the Frankish empire/francia. Its such an interesting topic and era and I would love to see a video from this channel made about this!
I love how these videos show that human history is the history of civilizations rising and falling… conquering and being conquered…
What an amazing information tool it should be instilled in every school for a number of different cultures I find it hard to believe that nobody has ever suggested this or that this is not something that is attempted to be implemented in the school systems. Although I do actually know why that would not be the case it's just a shame that it is what it is.
Unfortuantely, this video is filled with historically-incorrect information. You can see many issues with it being pointed-out in the comments. Here's one point I've pointed out:
Oleg didn't 'found the Kievan Rus', and Kievan Rus isn't a historical term. It's a term that was created by 18th-century Russian historians to refer to the part of Russia's history that was centred around Kiev. In its day, what's today often called "Kievan Rus" was instead called "the lands of Rus", which means "the lands of Russia" - "Russia" being the latin phrasing of Rus.
And the kingdom that's being called "Kievan Rus" didn't originate and wasn't founded in Kiev, but began in Novgorod, which was the first capital of that kingdom. When Oleg conquered Kiev, he didn't create a new kingdom, but expanded the lands of Rus to include Kiev. And then he moved Rus' captial from Novgorod to Kiev. The conquering and capitalising of Kiev wasn't the founding of Oleg's kingdom or a historical state, it was the expanding of one that already existed.
"Kievan Rus" is a later abstraction of a historical time-period, and isn't a kingdom or a physical thing. So, saying that Oleg founded something that's an abstraction is a pretty ignorant, ahistorical claim.
@@thischannel1071 Actually it was other way around. Term "Kieven Rus" was used actually by non-Russian shoolars in Russia, to distinguish part what was shared between them and other East Slavs. If it would be just Russian history, then there would be no point in adding that.
And no, it doesn't mean land of "Russia". It mean, land of Rus so basically land of oar people. In reference to Swed's who created they principles there, trading with Constantinople (at the same time Wends around Vistula, created powerful tribal union). Initially Swed's created Novgorod, what was later part of Hanseatic League and sized large Fino-Ugric lands. And later captured Kviv from Khazar's, what become new capital. Moscow wasn't founded until 12'th century, shortly after that Rus fall to Mongol invasion. Ending Nordic presence in the region.
From that point majority of Rus land is sized by Lithuania, what later become part of powerful union with West Slavs. While Golden Orde control treacherous Moscow as puppet state, who become rich enforcing tributes in name of Khan. Some time later they lead to collapse to of Novgorod and size they vast Fino-Ugric lands. Around same time Golden Orde also collapse and is subjugated by they vassals.
In 16'th century, Ivan the Terrible self proclaim himself as ruler of all "Ruxians" what ever it mean? What lead to his conflict with Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth. Who actually were also rulers of majority of Rus people (in so called Cossac Ukraine). In the end Tzardom (title also stolen from Bulgaria, as Moscow never did have contact with Byzantium, fighting with Ottomans for token part of they land. So Crimea) is defeated and Moscow is taken.
Unfortunately German prince from Oldenberg family is elected as new Tzar and after defeat of Poland, abomination known as Russian Empire is formed. Some time later head of rouge Polish state of Prussia become Emperor of Holly Roman Empire and Habsburgs also spread like wildfire. As result of alliance between German nobility (at the same time Prussian princess Catherine II the Great become Tzar). Democratic Commonwealth is defeated and tear apart (after Saxons, who competed with Prussians, lost control over the realm).
Rest of history is more known.
@@TheRezro Again, what I wrote is correct - the term Kievan Rus' was coined by Russian historians. The history of Russia, which includes the history of Rus, involves many peoples. The term Kievan Rus' was not about identifying territory of specific ethnic groups, but about identifying the territory included in the political entity that was under Rus / Russian rule.
Regarding this: "And no, it doesn't mean land of "Russia". It mean, land of Rus so basically land of oar people." You're saying that "lands of Rus" means lands of Rus. But a phrase doesn't mean itself - it is itself. What a phrase or word means is what it's equivalent to. Russia is the Latin phrasing of Rus, and so "lands of Rus" and "lands of Russia" are the equivalent phrase, and one means the other.
The word Rus, and therefore Russia in Latin, means "people who row". So, you can say that "lands of Rus" means both "lands of Russia" and "lands of people who row", because the phrase "lands of Rus" is equivalent to either. For the point of my post, I was showing the connection between Rus and Russia, that they're the same word just in two different languages, and why Russia has -sia added.
@@thischannel1071 Except Russians didn't exactly rule Rus people. Whole thing was mostly Imperialist projection of Ivan the Tribe, later fallowed by German Tzars. It is why claiming history of Rus as "Russian" is plain wrong. Russians being bastard child of Slavs and Mongols, try ethnically cleans other Rus people (and Slavs in general). It is why your argument doesn't really make sense. Kieven was added to distinguish historically different center then Muscovy. That all about it.
@@thischannel1071 You must clearly understand that the first sloltsa of Rus' is the Ladoga region and the ancient city of Ladoga (but this is closer to the settlement of the Vikings who lived where there were trade routes by water) Then the capital became Novgorod. Rus' came from it. and then Kyiv was crowned Prince of Novgorod. Overlay maps in Photoshop and don’t lie to others, the northern part of Russia is Rus. The word rus is not the Greek word Rus (this is a river, river bed or rowers from Gothic). Russia is the Greek style of the name of Rus'. The Greek Church influenced Rus'.
When someone says "Kievan Rus" he can turn his diploma back to McDonalds. This term appeared in XX century and refers to historical period, it was never a name of country.
@Młody PiSowiec
It was simply Rus, Russian Land or Russia which is just Rus’ in Latin.
Rus' and Russia is not the same. It is like Rome and Romania.
russian ancestors - the most insignificant remnants of Ugrians, Finns and other defeated nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes.
@@sirenka9192 Russia is a latin version of name "Rus", on western maps Rus was marked as Russia.
This version of Ugrian-finns ancestors is popular between ukrainian nazis, but genetic researches show that it is false.
@@TheLustmord88 Not exactly, Russia (Рѡсїѧ) is the Greek word for the name Rus' (Русь). When the tsar of the Moscovites Peter 1 issued a decree on the renaming of Moskovia, it was a deliberate theft of the Rus brand, but he could not rename it directly, so he used the Greek word. Moskovia is the same Rus' as Abibas is Adidas. The reason for such theft was that historically the lands of Moskovia inhabited by wild Ugro-Finnish tribes left the Stone Age relatively recently, only in the 10th century AD, but mentally they are still in the Stone Age.
@@sirenka9192 No historical documents can prove it, while all documents we have and archeology prove it's wrong, but ukrainian nazis like to believe this delusion.
I heard a story that Ivan the terrible’s son was pushing his old man… saying something along the lines of “Lol, what are you gonna do? kill me?”
Actually, some historians claim that Ivan the Terrible's son was pissed off by his father who strongly disapproved of his wife wearing clothes he hadn't liked and behaving, in Tsar Ivan's opinion, badly. Matter of fact, he even beat her. Ivan's son therefore sticked up for his wife. You know the ending
Not to mention the fact that his son's wife was pregnant
@@denissuccess3304 actually its more like legend. If you are son of Tsar, your wife have so many servants, who know about clothes and stuff, so its practically impossible to be in front of the Tsar and be dressed improperly.
@@denissuccess3304 that’s a myth actually-there is no evidence or at least anything that points out the assumption that he actually killed his son
Yes
**Stab**
To those who debate on whether the Kievan Rus was Russian or Ukrainian, I challenge you to provide an answer to the question of whether Charlemagne's empire was French or German as it is a similar question to the one you are trying to answer.
Charlemagne's empire was French
@@user-wr9bm8zt7b Frankish
@@patricofritz4094, exactly my point.
@@nathanpangilinan4397 France and Germany made up it is time for Ukraine and Russia to do the same . They are one people divided over time . They are both the successors of Kievan Rus . Only one is in line with the West and the other is ...well ...Russia
No dude. They presented "history of USA as UK" here. Its diffrent story. Sioux will never be brit same as Russian will never be Rusyn, who is slavic, european like brit. Difference is that there is no sea beteeen colony (Russia) and orgin (Ruś).
At 8:50 , there was a misunderstanding. Jadwiga of Anjou was a King of Poland, not a queen, so he obtained the hand of Polish king
Jadwiga is a woman's name.
@@user-oo5sk9ut6dно она была королем
@@OLZAKinchik I do not know Russian. I did not send this.🫣
Very Funny... The Moment Ivan III star regain back the say "annexed" 😂😂😂
interesting, giving a good overview of the major developments taking place! I look forward to the next chapters
Tatar, also spelled Tartar, any member of several Turkic-speaking peoples that collectively numbered more than 5 million in the late 20th century and lived mainly in west-central Russia along the central course of the Volga River and its tributary, the Kama, and thence east to the Ural Mountains. The Tatars are also settled in Kazakhstan and, to a lesser extent, in western Siberia.
Wait tartars and TAtars were the same ethnic group?
very complicated-but interesting. ty
Kievan Rus it’s period until lands were divide between princes.
This term was introduced in the 20th century to define a period of time when the capital was in Kyiv.
Kievan Rus was a state before Mstislav in 10XX (dont remebmer year) signed a decree on the "patrimony", which leads to collapse of the Kievan Rus
@@SvinnayaOtbivnaya бред сивой кобылы. Изучите реальные исторические источники..
Древняя русь
@@user-vc4db3rz6z мдаа смотря на тебя зразу видно как советская история сделала с человека зомбаря
@@Roma-cn8vd интересно, а какая же тогда история? Расскажи-ка мне
Весь мир твердит одну историю, а в Украине, ПОСЛЕ 14 ГОДА, другую
Хотя можешь и не пытаться, ведь всё равно твои слова окажутся полным бредом
Im still affected by the new voiceover.
Complete Agree
but its getting more normal
I'm your 100th liker and I could say that I've heard this voice on multiple channels, for example "Ridddle"
I'm your 100th liker and I could say that I've heard this voice on multiple channels, for example "Ridddle"
I'm your 100th liker and I could say that I've heard this voice on multiple channels, for example "Ridddle"
Wow good piece
This is interesting. I feel the question on the "Origin of Things", especially life is pointless, and with history is challenging as we don't know but tend to speculate, especially further back we go. What is useful are the ruins that people built with might and power, way more then us. However, they got ruined because they wrong themselves. We are no invincible as they decay is obvious. Man learned anything form history? Yes, but never heed!
Indeed.
For 30 years, the Russian Federation used the new technologies of the West for its militarization. The prolongation of the war and the gradual capture of new territories strengthens the idea of "Great Russia" in the hearts of Russians. The idea of "great Russia" will forever supplant the idea of the truth of Western values of tolerance and new technologies, without satellite-corrected point strikes on the locations of Russian troops, there will be no victory for the Western countries.
This is not 1918, there will be no revenge in 100 years.
There are such a good scenario in this it could be used for a 8 seasons TV show like Game of thrones :)
Joke apart, this is truly interesting... and complex history !
indeed it is! For example before Ivan III the Great was Visilliy II the Dark - his face was mutilated and he was blinded by his rivals who hope he will never get on the throne being blind, but he claimed the throne and rule for the 37 years
One thing to notice: there were no such thing as Kievan Rus. It was all just Rus, with different knyazhestva as administrative units. "Kievan rus" is modern term created to depict the time period (Same as "ancient greece" or "ancient egypt").
хоч одна нормальна людина
Because that Russ state inbetween Scandinavia and Byzantine had nothing to do to recent formation called Russian federation.
I can imagine there was no 'real' centralised authority during that time period, but I've neve heard of Kievan Rus being described as a time period instead of a country
@@Snoflakes_1 When it comes to authority, it was rather typical case of a federation with federal gov being too weak to boss the subject around.
@@Stan732 except the fact major ethnos formed russia and russian federation after is same from rus
Loads of information in a short amount of time. Thanks.
The Vikings also lived on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea on the Polish side. The daughter of Mieszko I Świętosław (Sygryda Storrada, born in 968) was the wife of the Viking king, Eric the Victorious (1 son), and her second husband was Sweyn Forkbeard. By him she had 2 sons, Harald (King of Denmark) and Cnut the Great, one invaded England and the other remained on the throne after his father. The language and runic writing of the Vikings/Etruscans is the Slavic language, the so-called runes Polish researcher, archaeologist Tadeusz Wolański 1785-1865 read inscriptions on Etruscan monuments. After writing the book, he received the protection of the tsar - a battalion of the Russian army (Poland was under partition), who did not leave him any step so that he would not die for reading and translating Etruscan inscriptions.
Please can you make one about the 100 years war? Love your video, it's pleasant to watch them all and also helps remind things forgotten
Can’t wait for part 2 Romanov expansion into Siberia, Alaska and more battles with Sweden
Well Siberia was an empty wasteland and it was completely uninhabitable, it had a lot of natural resources but nobody new that until the Russians came along. They quickly expanded and claimed the whole region because there was no human resistance as they were the first to claim the area
@@TomLikesfn684 Just like dessert of big chunk of Canada and West coast USA
@@TomLikesfn684 actually Russians met many foreign tribes during expansion, some resisted and some submitted willingly
@@afdalridwan3813 I hope you're being sarcastic
Yay! Part 2 has landed!!
@GEO HISTORY I have a great concept for another video like this one. Could you help me with that maybe? Maybe we can discuss it?
It would be interesting to see the "pedigree" chart of Apostle Paul's missionary journeys...and how that intertwines w/ everything else mentioned
Интересно что Рыбинское водохранилище было уже в древние времена
Тоже заметил
Там племя рыбичей жило
а украины не было вообще!
@@user-zw8yg9gs4v Территория Украины, тогда называлась Русь,а предки украинцев русами,русинами.Еще с 17 века сохранилась Печать Ивана Выговского,где он- Воевода Киевский Княжества Рускаго.А также Богдан Хмельницкий заключал договора от имени народа Рускаго, например «Договор между Турецким цесарем и Войском Запорожским и народом Русьским о торговле на Черном море», - так называемая Черноморская конвенция Украины с Турцией.1649год.
@@user-zw8yg9gs4v как и российской федерации
You should continue with the timeline, I felt I’m missing part 2
Description
@@ilyashuster3447 My friend Google is not opening, I need help. Can you tell me where the Turks live, the names of a few Turkish empires and a few modern Turkish states?
@@videocvdv7317 I am so sorry he did not say anything after 1 month
Wish granted
You're right, because Russian Federation appeared only 30 years ago.
Tucker: Putin i wanna know why you invaded Ukraine
Putin:
Except Putin's story had loads of lies
In the eighth century the Khazars subjugated the Slavic tribes living near the steppe . This fact opened for these Slavic groups trade routes to Black Sea and Caspian markets .
I miss the original voiceover guy. His accent was very soothing.
Yes
@Jasper Smith Not entitled at all, just said I missed the original guy. I made no demands or complaints.
As a Bulgarian - thank you for mentioning the Bulgarian Empire and Volga Bulgaria, not a lot of people are familiar with the history. 🇧🇬❤🇧🇬
you have nothing to do with those bulgarians because they were turkic of mongolian race, and you are slavic of european race. you simply stole their name.
@@joedoe9208 That's complete BS, very few Bulgarians are of 100% Slavic origin and genetic studies prove it too. Don't spread stupid sh*t on the internet.
@@joedoe9208 We are their descendants - a mix of Bulgar and Slavic ancestry. Quit your lies, you ain't fooling anyone.
@@joedoe9208 The DNA analyses prove what I'm saying. Check for it online or ask any Bulgarian that has done it. Lmao you are desperate, aren't you?
@@joedoe9208 First Bulgaria Empire was Turkic empire with Slavic/Hellenic influence , Volga Bulgaria was %100 Turkic
Забавно наблюдать на карте Рыбинское водохранилище на реке Волге, а также водохранилища на реке Днепр1000лет назад.
Love this...thank you!
It contains a lot of inaccurate information, unfortunately.
This is an impressive video the way you include so much information in such an accessible way.
I love the year-counter at the top. Like a calendar.
let's not forget the Hungarians ... who took part in the founding of Kievian Rus .... by / ÁLMOS /a "Sleepy" leader .... Hungarians played a crucial role in this. ....
much info with NO PROOF
Rurik was invited to an already existing city
there was no single city on the territory populated by slavic people
@@joedoe9208 This is bullshit.
@@gordeyvolnik why? is it because you simply don't know the archeological definition of what can be called a city? or a town? do you? can you bring 4 major criteria of the definition of a town?
@@joedoe9208 He compares Novgorod with Russian cities, not with foreign cities.
@@hazelich9113 there is no such the term as "russian city" or "not russian city" in archeology. Besides, city is not a human and can't have a nationality. However archeology has a strict definition of what can be called a town and what can't be called as a settlement. So taking into the consideration the fact that none of you know this, I repeat once again: there was no single town (not even city) on the territory of "rus". The only town was kiev, however it was established by turkic Khazars, not slavs.
Ivan IV was such a tyrant that he killed a thousand times fewer people than his contemporary King Henri IV of France. What irony))
Russian textbooks give the year 1147 and say Moscow was founded by Prince Yuri Dolgoruky.
Sure as hell, there is a Yuri Dolgoruky statue in Moscow.
In reality the year 1147 is the first mention of Moscow in Russian chronicles. Yuri Dolgoruky, Prince of Vladimir and Suzdal, invited his ally Svyatoslav, Prince of Novgorod-Seversk, to come visit him in Moscow. “Come to me, my brother, to Moskov” - Yuri wrote him.
What can we infer from this phrase? Evidently, Moscow was important enough to be known to Svyatoslav without further indications and to serve as a meeting place for two important allies. We can be quite sure it was founded before 1147. Unfortunately, we will probably never know who did it (Yuri or one of his predecessors) and when exactly.
But we can say what was the role of Moscow in 12th century.
In 12th century, Rus’ disintegrated into a number of principalities. The princes started to fight each other for the control of Kiev, because the Prince of Kiev was considered the overlord. As a result, Kiev was regularly devastated by various Russian princes. Four centres of power emerged: Galich, Chernigov, Smolensk and Vladimir-Suzdal .
The bloody war of 1146-1154 opposed two alliances. Yuri Dolgoruky was the leader of one of them. Yuri’s allies are (Vladimir-Suzdal, Novgorod-Seversk, Galich, Old Prussians and Polovtsi). His enemies are (Smolensk, Chernigov, Ryazan, Volhynia, Poland and Hungary).Moscow was a strategic fortress on the border of Yuri Dolgoruky’s lands facing three enemy principalities at the same time. No wonder he choose Moscow to welcome his ally.
No one, of course, could imagine the future of this border fortress. Yuri Dolgoruky would laugh a lot if they told him that the posterity remembers him almost exclusively as the founder of Moscow.
Ok these needs to be an series. Why is there a 5th Viking show starting again when there’s so many more epics to tell
When you are faster than russian winter
Napoleon went and almost won, Hitler tried and failed miserably.
@@ommsterlitz1805 good call
Lol
Or the Spanish conquistadors
@@ommsterlitz1805 *The Polish-Lithuanians, Charles XII, Napoleon & Hitler all failed lol.
Music in the beginning creeped the hell out of me
Amazing stuff man, which software do you use?
Nintendo
"The divided principalities did not resist the Mongols"...
What an utterly incompetent thing to say. It took almost 5 years to conquer almost all of Rus. Look up the siege of Kozelsk, named the "wicked city" by the Mongols.
It's funny to see on the map that tells about the Early Middle Ages, all the modern water reservoirs that arose in the middle of the 20th century.
So Russians were of Viking ancestory, so were the Irish. You mean to tell me that Khabib vs Connor was just East Vikings vs West Vikings?
Khabib is dagestani
Can I use this video for my meme about Putin ?
FYI: The Rus' people never called their lands Kievan Rus'. First of all, it was a loose confederacy, and it was either referred by an individual city-state name in different areas, or in general as land of Rus', something like that. The "Kievan" was added to the name much later by historians to distinguish between periods of Russian state.
They called it Russian land. Or like the Germans, Dutch still call Rusland/Russland. The Greeks called it Rossia.
*Ukrainian state
@@rostyslav96 Ukrainian state - Куёвия
@@rostyslav96 You are kidding right?
@@rostyslav96 лол
1610: Imagine what could happen if polish king didn't want to convert Russia into catholicism and he became Tsar. History would be totally different with Polish-Lithuanian-Russian Empire.
Uncle Joe made a mistake to enlarge Poland at the expense of Germany.
@sir hill Wow! Let’s everyone go back to his indigenous land then! My argument is different. Without Soviet victory there would be neither Poland nor Russia as we know them today. Polish people should be more humble and less full of themselves for Poland was defeated and subdued, what they have now has bee given to them at the expense of millions of German people who were ethnically cleansed from Silesia, East Prussia, and Pomerania.
@sir hill why did the Second World War not begin with the partition of Czechoslovakia by Poland and Germany? Ah, it's inconvenient just to remember it. I understand. I will also add that Poland was divided not by Germany and Russia, but by Germany and the USSR. You need to know the history
@@ericingefara4179 This 1k km2 of Silesia was taken from us by force in 1919, and we agreed to keep it in Czechoslovakia in 1920, when Red Army was at the Warsaw gates. Btw, in 1919 there was approx 150 k. Poles living there, but in 1938 only 20 k....
We were not a signatory of Munich treaty, and we earlier proposed Czechs common defence against Germans, but Benes wonted us to allow Stalin's Red Army to go through Poland with help for them. Great idea! ;-) And contrary to Germans or soviet's we did not threw out people from their houses, nor arrest them and send to Siberia, nor shut in the back of head...
That makes the difference which Putin is not telling for an obvious reasons (although he likes to remind this example of "polish aggression" as a counter - example for soviets massive genocide crimes).
And if you diversify so strictly between Russia and USSR, why Russians are not doing this, or doing this only to deny ties between soviet genocides and Russia?
More like Polish-Polish-Polish empire. It might have been called Poland-Lithuania, but Lithuanians were marginalised and polonised (and Ruthenians were practically cattle).
Good 👍
Why does the video stop abruptly at 1613? What happened in the remaining 300 years until the October revolution 1917?
Hungarian capital became a global city after the unification of Buda, Óbuda and Pest on 17 November 1873, with the name 'Budapest'. So no mongol conquerors could do anything about Budapest at the time - for it didn't exist. If it's history then let's take it seriously ;)
Rus’
*not to be confused with “Russia”, which derives its name from the Rus’ but historically is a completely different state, which almost all its existence was at war with the Rus’.
Just like the Holy Roman Empire was actually Germany, Russia is actually Muscovy, despite their best attempts to convince everybody otherwise.
Its name “Russia" received only in 1721, when Peter I passed a decree to change Tsardom of Muscovy’s name into the “Russian” Empire (“Russia” originates from Rosia, name used by the Greek Orthodox Clergy in regards to Kyivan Rus')
Under the reign of Cathrine II Muscovites where even pushed for continuing to identify as Muscovites, and where forced to call themselves “Russian”.
Lands that “Russia” claims were part of the original Rus’, but actually weren't, are Novgorod, Suzdal, and Ryazan, since in historical texts of XI-XII centuries they are mentioned as separate entities from Rus’. They can be considered parts of extended Rus’, although their culture was distinct from main Rus’.
In 1493 Moscow prince Ivan III appointed himself to be the Great Ruler of All Rus’. No other kings acknowledged that. From that point on Muscovy started to make false claims on Rus’ ownership.
“Russia” is an offshoot of Ukraine and not the other way round, despite what Soviet and “Russian” historians have been trying to say for years. Kiev was a developed cultured capital when Moscow was just another swamp village.
Germany used to call itself the Holy Roman Empire, that didn’t mean they became the Romans, and all of a sudden had a right to claim whole of Italy and its history, but yet, that’s exactly what “Russia” did in regards to Rus’-Ukraine.
@@vredacted3125 "“Russia” is an offshoot of Ukraine"
Do you even understand how absolutely stupid this sounds?
Ukraine is just a Russian word for "border region". Russia started in Kiev and even though it lost Kiev for some time, that doesn't mean that somehow Russia now is an offshoot of the "border region".
Stop pushing this weird propaganda. Stop rewriting history.
@@DoubleBob you are mistaken
@@DoubleBob Ukraine in russian kinda sound like border land. and Russians often speculate that ukraine was border land of russian empire.
Itself it doesn't make much sense, since t it's symbols existed long before russian empire took it's name in 18th century.
(past 300 years)
And in Rus' language Ukraine, one of the meaning is - inner country, meaning, center of Rus'
@@vredacted3125 So, you simply assume that the video is based on fake history and e.g. Kievan Rus didn't exist?
Also why do you think the Russian Empire "took" it's name from a country that didn't exist?
"And in Rus' language Ukraine, one of the meaning is - inner country, meaning, center of Rus'"
Provide some evidence for that, cause I believe you've fallen victim to strange nationalist propaganda that started during the 19th century, but which wasn't remotely mainstream. But why would you believe fringe views that deliberately rewrite history and play word games just to dupe the ignorant into accepting lies.
The misstake after the first minute of the video: Oleg is not Ruriks heir, but a regent to Ruriks heir Igor
#BradHartliep, of Royal Blood, descended from the #Viking #Kings of #Rus and #Kiev, descended from #Tsars of the #Rus and the #Romanov, the only Rightful #President and #Tsar of #Russia, and the only #Tsar who can #SaveRussia and #Restore the #RussianEmpire .. #TsarBrad, #KingOfRussia
Kyiv founded in 482. Novgorod founded almost 400 YEARS LATER in 859.
@@user-pv7bf2nv3j yet the Novgorod and its duke united the Rus and captured Kiev, not otherwise
Great video, but why does it end in 1613? Still a lot of history to tell
One of my relatives were found 950ad right there near smolensk
How about a series of videos about the conquests of Rome or Alexander the Great? This will provide a huge number of views.
The title of Ivan IV itself was deliberately distorted in English in order to emphasize the alleged bloodthirstiness of this ruler. In Russian, the title of Ivan IV sounds like formidable (Грозный), not terrible (Ужасный). In this way it is also translated into languages other than English. Formidable means both instilling fear in enemies and respect, and not horror from a bloodthirsty monster.
During the life and reign of Ivan IV in the Western states, there were enough bloodthirsty and cruel rulers who more deserved the name terrible. In comparison to them Ivan IV is innocent child. For example, the Good Queen Bess - Elizabeth I, beheaded Mary Stuart, because she was convicted of betrayal. And she was not named Terrible Queen Bess, despite the fact that she, according to some reports, executed another 89 thousand of her citizens.
By the way, in France, just during the reign of Ivan the so-called Terrible, in just two weeks, zealous (and barbaric) Catholics slaughtered about 30 thousand Huguenots. Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II looked at this fact through his fingers.
Finally, with regard to the introduction of the oprichnina in Russia. Its conduct was justified by betrayal among the elites. The mere betrayal of the boyars is worth something, they killed the mother of Ivan IV and opposed him throughout his life. After the death of Grozny and Godunov, it was the traitors of the boyars who placed Polish puppets on the Russian throne. In the same list, the Novgorod conspiracy against Ivan IV. Documents remained about the Novgorod conspiracy, from which it follows that it was not a secret conspiracy of a small group of representatives of the nobility, but a large-scale conspiracy. And these were not jokes, because both the command administration, which ruled the Novgorod land, and the social elites were involved in it. “Archbishop Pimin wanted to give them Novgorod and Pskov to the Lithuanian king, and they wanted to kill the tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia with malicious intent, and put Prince Vladimir Andreevich in the state,” the document says. That is, we are talking about a coup d'etat and the assassination of the king, in fact, and not about the fantasies of helpless and innocent souls who suffered for nothing (although, probably, the mob did not suspect this).
I am proud that now the English speaking experts with really deep education can tell the truth to the wide audience 👏
Indeed there are some french king that deserved the name terrible, I won't deny it. By the way we don't have french king named Maximilian II, you probably look for Henri II, Charles IX, Francis II or Henri III (these were the king of France during the war of religion 1562-1598)
take a look how Russian border changed during Ivan IV reign. Now you understand why westerners prefer to call him "Terrible"? :)
@@feelcollins9191 The borders moved to the East after many years of suffering from the eastern invasions. What is so terrible for "the Westerns"? )))
@@ireneantares4802 seems Russia get stronger. No matter in what direction. His figure was demonized same way as Putin nowadays.
And Grishka Otrepiev aka Pseudo-Dmitriy same figure as Navalny today - got all possible support.