zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 21,246
- 2,149
- 140
The issue is, that people of Kievan Rus, didn't call themselves "Ukrainians" (Borderlanders).
What's totally unimportant. Germans never call themselve "Germans" for example but we are Germans.
They called themselves "Russians".
Why? You - the Russians and the Ukrainians - had been called from us "Ruthenen" about 200 years ago. But Kiev was not called Moscow nor had been Moscow called Kiev. It's totally clear that no one in Moscow has any right to define what the people in Kiev and in the whole Ukraine have to be or to think or not to be and not to think.
The world Russia (Russians) - Ros/Rus, sounded like "Roussi" in IX century.
"Reds"?
Highly likely, it is Slavic prononciation of the Finnish word "Ruotsi" ("Swedes" in modern Finnish),
The Kiev Rus had once been a commercial settlement of the Vikings. But "Slavs" = "slaves" are the people who had been sold as slaves from the Vikings in East-Rome (Constantinople).
Interesting that you got your name from the Finns. As far as I can see it meant in the origin just simple "rowers",
which came from old Scandinavian "Rodsmen" (Rowers, Oarsmen). Highly likely, the word Russians meant "Vikings"
But "Vikings" was often only a way to live - like "Pirates" for example. Not only Scandinavians had been Vikings as far as I know. And the Swedes speak a Germanic language and not a Slawic language.
And the first western mention about the Russians (predictable it was a spy scandal), the year of our Lord 839 (when neither Novgorod, nor Kiev were captured by the Russians), Annales Bertiniani, mix up Russians with Swedes.
We have done business "since ever" with the people who lived in the region of Kiev.
-------------
Misit etiam cum eis quosdam, qui se, id est gentem suam, Rhos vocari dicebant, quos rex illorum chacanus vocabulo ad se amicitiae, sicut asserebant, causa direxerat, petens per memoratam epistolam, quatenus benignitata imperatoris redeundi facultatem atque auxilium per imperium suum toto habere possent, quoniam itinera, per quae ad illum Constantinopolim venerant, inter barbaras et miniae feritatis gentes inmanissimas habuerant, quibus eos, ne forte periculum inciderent, redire noluit. Quorum adventus causam imperator diligentius investigans, comperint, eos gentis esse Sueonum. Exploratores potius regni illius nostrique quam amicitiae petitores ratus, penes se eo usque retinendos iudicavit, quoad veraciter inveniri posset, utrum fideliter eo necne pervenerint; idque Theophilo per memoratos legatos suos atque epistolam intimare non distulit, et quod eos illius amore libenter susceperit, ac, si fideles invenirentur, et facultas absque illorum periculo in patriam remeandi daretur, cum auxilio remittendos; sin alias, una cum missis nostris ad eius praesentiam dirigendos, ut, quid de tulibus fieri deberet, ipse decernendo efticeret.
-----------------
Hmm ... A text from Hinkmar the arcbishop of Reims. He had to do with the founding of the Holy Roman Empire after Charlesmagne.
That's a long time now. As far as I know the Slaws had been 100 or 200 years old in those days. You had been babies at this time of history as the US-Americans are today small children.
And as medieval Anglo-Saxons were not Americans, same way Kievan Russians were not "Ukrainians".
The Anglo-Saxons are the founders of England and so also of the founders of the USA. If the USA would do war against GB then they would do war against their own roots. What happens when to do war against the own roots you can see very well in the Brits themselves. They did do war against their own root Germany and they wan this war in two warm ups - Stalin had helped them - but in the end they lost much more than they ever had been able to win by doing so. Nazis, Commies and Islamists had been a result of world 1+2.
By the way: If the word "Sueonum" - which Hinkmar used - has to do with the word "Sueben" then the "Angeln" in "Anglo-Saxons" maybe belonged to the same superset of people.
Last edited: