Why Vikings weren't who we thought they were, Nothing is new, Pritsak, O. wrote it in 1987. The origin of Rus´

[Litwin]

Nothing is new, Pritsak, O. wrote it in 1987. The origin of Rus´, but still some find it interesting

Why Vikings weren't who we thought they were - BBC Reel

Vikings are often thought of as 'pure-bred', blonde-haired, and blue-eyed warriors who changed the course of European history. Now a team of international scientists has debunked this modern-day myth of the Vikings by examining their genetic ancestry. The largest-ever DNA sequencing of Viking...

www.bbc.com

ps
Muscovy (ulus of Juchi) has no connection to Rus´

 

[rupol2000]

Yes. Russia in the narrow sense of the word is some kind of Baltic tribes, all the pictures and legends about their military past are a lie. This is a steppe culture, and the image of the "Russian hero" and the "dashing Cossack" is taken from the steppe Hun culture, which the Golden Horde inherited, and from which chivalry in Europe comes. Moscow appeared recently, after the collapse of the Horde, there in the 16-17th century the paganus still lived in the swamps. Moscow culture is related to the Belarusians, Litvinas and Prussians, and not to those that are understood by the patriarchal Russian culture of the steppe inhabitants of the Volga region, Don and Ukraine, with its heroic traditions.

These are peoples who lived in swampy forest lands, and were engaged in nomadic slash farming. They lived in dugouts and used stone hammers and bone needles until the arrival of the Avars in the 6-7 centuries.

In addition, the Sami are also part of the Russian ethnos, this is also a separate culture.

 

[rupol2000]

Plots like Vasentsov's painting "Three Bogatyrs" and ballad songs like "Wide Steppe" are usually presented as part of Russian culture, but this is the fruit of syncretism, this culture was historically not included in the concept of the people of Russia and its lands. In general, this is generally not modern Russia but Belarus, Lithuania and Latvia. Only the extreme northwest from modern Moscow to Novgorod was part of historical Russia, and even the center of the European part of modern Russia did not belong there.

This is not russian culture in historical sense:

This is the Great Huns, like it in Hungary for example

 

[rupol2000]

Even the Kiev land, in the northwest of Ukraine, was not part of Russia. This city was called Sambat, and it was one of the Bulgar principalities. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, shortly before the end of his existence, the Russian prince took this city, but there probably does not mean Kiev, but Kuev in Kuevia, this is somewhere in the Warsaw region. A city like Sambat could not be surrendered without a fight.

In addition, from the point of view of archeology, this is a separate region, which did not belong to the Baltic cultures of the territory of the Old Russian state. These peoples never had common roots.

 

[rupol2000]

By the Vikings, modern historians usually mean the same as the "Varangians". The word "Varang" comes from the word "Frank"(It's just a stunning "v" and reduction "ng"), and this has nothing to do with the Scandinavian warriors who left the sagas and runic writing in Scandinavia. From this word in the Slavic languages comes the word "enemy"("vrag").

The word "Rusians" is about the same as the "Prussians", they never even spoke Slavic. The Prussian language is Baltic

 

[rupol2000]

It's just a cheap show that takes advantage of the darkness of the masses. When a person from Samara or Voronezh is told about his "Russian" history, it is enough for him to look at the map, but he cannot even do that.

 

[rupol2000]

And they inflate the "greatness of Russian history" just at the expense of the heroic steppe attributes of the Hunnic countries. People like to think that their ancestors were heroes on horses and in armor, and they defended the truth.

 

[rupol2000]

The Cossacks, who are now generally recognized as Russians, openly despised the Russians, this is known even from the literature that was published by the Bolsheviks. In the book of the Bolshevik writer Sholokhov there is a phrase: there will be no smelly Ruses to rule here.
What is now considered to be the uprising of Stepan Razin on the upper Don, in fact, was a war of the Don Cossacks against Muscovy, and as a result, the Moscow colonists were driven out of the Don. There is no information that Moscow once before this event took possession of the upper Don. Moreover, this dynasty had just been established after the Great Troubles and in general it is not known what it could own except for St. Petersburg.

 

[rupol2000]

Therefore, yes, everything is correct, starting from the steppe zone of the Don Valley and the middle reaches of the Dnieper, many of Russians and Ukrainians(of course not all) descend from the steppe peoples: Bulgars, Khazars, Huns, Sarmatians, Aryans of Andronovo cultures. They were horsemen and they were the military aristocracy throughout Eurasia, and there is no subject for humiliation.

 

[rupol2000]

The Danube region of Europe was also a "Horde". The La Tene culture that emerged there, moving westward to Celtica and Italy, laid the foundations of Roman statehood. Latins at that time were so divorced in technical development from Old Europe that now it is difficult to even imagine. They rode chariots and minted coins when Europeans were still running around with stone hammers and did not know how to make pots on a potter's wheel.

 

[rupol2000]

Ancient Rome was Latin. The era of kings ended with the reign of the Tarquin. Ancient Latin inherits from the language of the Asian steppe, Their supreme god Jupiter is the heavenly god of the ancient Aryans, Dyaus Pitar, the god of thunder, the lord of the sky. There is no doubt that ancient Rome originated from the steppe culture.

 

[rupol2000]

And yes, the Vikings are not who we think of. The heroic sagas and runes were abandoned by the Old Norse, their language and alphabet correlate with the Huns and not with the Germans. Hungarians still use the runic alphabet.
Most likely these were the Franks, the word itself has the same grammar as the viscount, that is, "at court", "at the king."
They are also known for bargaining, while it is known that bargaining was despised in military cultures(in Slavic languages there is still the word "bariga" in the sense of a merchant and this has a contemptuous connotation).
Whoever they are, they serve to hide the Great Hungarian Conquests of Europe.

 

[rupol2000]

There is a possibility that these were the Britti who replaced the Jarls in Scandinavia. Jarls were proteges of the Great Khans, they gave them jarlics, letters of authority. Including Russian princes were jarls and received these jarlics from the Khans.

 

[rupol2000]

However, Ivan III was himself the Horde Khan, in the annals he is known as Ivak III Shibansky. Shiban is the son of Genghis Khan himself, and the Shibanids were the only legitimate dynasty in the Golden Horde.

 

[rupol2000]

Ivan fought with Akhmat, a representative of the Timurid empire. These were the main enemies of the Golden Horde, Moscow did not play a significant role there. Moscow princes adjoined one or the other side. Donskoy was in the army of Tokhtamysh. Moscow itself had just appeared at that time, and was supported by Khan Uzbek.
It was a very insignificant city, probably there was only a guard fortress. Several centuries later, around the 17th century, eyewitnesses said that in the center of modern Moscow, in the Chistye Prudy area, there were still swamps. This place was formerly called the Paganus Marshes. This is the center of modern Moscow. Moscow is a very young city.

 

[rupol2000]

It is believed that the native inhabitants of the Moscow swamps were the Golyad tribes. Muscovites are still jokingly called like that. This is a variant of the name of the Golind, the Golind were really a Baltic tribe, close to the Prussians.
It is curious that in Russian the words naked("goliy") and hungry("golodniy") are most likely derived from the names of these tribes. Apparently they lived in extreme poverty.
This is confirmed by some later memoirs, for example "A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow". This region has a scarce land and a damp climate, only root crops grow normally there, and for this reason before the appearance of potatoes there was little high-calorie food.

 

[rupol2000]

The Don and Ukrainian peoples, on the other hand, lived on the black soil of a temperate climate and were prosperous, especially the Cossacks. I am sure that this was the hidden cause of the peasant question and the civil war. The Northwestern peoples wanted to get the fertile lands of the Don steppe.
A significant stage of the civil war was exclusively the war of the Don Cossacks against Bolshevism and, according to Tukhachevsky, they managed to knock the Cossacks from the Don with great difficulty. They generally lost the first part of the Don campaign.
This was not a civil war in its essence. The Russian Empire was a federation of independent states, and after the collapse of the kings power, it disintegrated and nothing more connected them. After that it there was just a war between the countries.

 

[rupol2000]

Unfortunately, I don't know much about American history, but I think there are parallels here. The British colonialists most likely claimed the fertile lands of the great plains, and this was obviously associated with constant conflicts in the "wild west". Then they invented trick with "Indians with tomahawks" that have never been there. Most likely it was so. The Great Plains did not adjoin the United States for a long time, even after the annexation of the west coast.
If it was a conflict with the savages, no one would ask about the annexation of the Great Plains. They were not going to sign papers with those who could not read and write.