Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:23 PM
 
13,134 posts, read 40,621,897 times
Reputation: 12304

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eloy View Post
I see. You use the out-of-date information. No Vikings based this city. The city settlement has more than 4000 years. Holmgrad - Slovensk - Noovgorod.
Thanks for letting me know ... as i've clarified on these forums that my knowledge of Russian history is scant and so i seem to remember hearing about the Rus founding it on a History Channel show that had featured the Vikings travels from the 800's to the 1000's.

I just went and looked at it's wiki site as it states it was founded in 859 as maybe you should contact Wiki if this is incorrect? .

Veliky Novgorod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by Six Foot Three; 03-04-2010 at 01:32 PM.. Reason: Changed - 6/3
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Planet Water
815 posts, read 1,543,941 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6 FOOT 3 View Post
Thanks for letting me know ... as i've clarified on these forums that my knowledge of Russian history is scant and so i seem to remember hearing about the Rus founding it on a History Channel show that had featured the Vikings travels from the 800's to the 1000's.

I just went and looked at it's wiki site as it states it was founded in 859 as maybe you should contact Wiki if this is incorrect? .

Veliky Novgorod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also what??. For a long time archeological excavations are made, yield the results. Both Novgorod and Moscow are restored on a place of the destroyed cities. Novgorod = a new city (restored). I celebrated 4000 thousand years to Novgorod and 7750 years of Rusi. These Deutch academicians in the Kremlin destroyed history and culture and did not know Russian!

Read Russian Wikipedia

Last edited by eloy; 03-04-2010 at 02:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 02:39 PM
 
Location: New York City
2,745 posts, read 6,464,547 times
Reputation: 1890
Quote:
Originally Posted by eloy View Post
Also what??. For a long time archeological excavations are made, yield the results. Both Novgorod and Moscow are restored on a place of the destroyed cities. Novgorod = a new city (restored). I celebrated 4000 thousand years to Novgorod and 7750 years of Rusi. These Deutch academicians in the Kremlin destroyed history and culture and did not know Russian!

Read Russian Wikipedia
Yes, and Russia is also the birthplace of elephants
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Planet Water
815 posts, read 1,543,941 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMarbles View Post
Yes, and Russia is also the birthplace of elephants
What not so? I have not put commas? 7750 years from occurrence of Skifia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 03:12 PM
 
Location: New York City
2,745 posts, read 6,464,547 times
Reputation: 1890
Quote:
Originally Posted by eloy View Post
What not so? I have not put commas? 7750 years from occurrence of Skifia.
What you are saying is, at best, a highly controversial theory. Of course, Russia was inhabited since pre-historic times, but whoever those people were, very few would call them "Russian". And they themselves certainly would not call each other "Russian".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Planet Water
815 posts, read 1,543,941 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMarbles View Post
What you are saying is, at best, a highly controversial theory. Of course, Russia was inhabited since pre-historic times, but whoever those people were, very few would call them "Russian". And they themselves certainly would not call each other "Russian".
You should consider Vedical history. Not a Christian epoch. There is "Rus" much.
At you concepts are mixed. You speak "Russia", the German language speaks "Rusland"
These are two different concepts. In Vedical times are two main words: AR and RA.
As a result "Russia" or old "Rassea" is "the earth which has been mastered by the person directly". Simply the Christianity destroyed it and changed names of people and the name that people would forget the past. Now we see a monument of "1000 Russia" is 1000 Christian empire!!! But not Russian!!! The name "Rus" was received by people
In places where people accepted "pagan religion. Christians have stolen all names and have appropriated them and have told that they have formed statehood.

Or here an example. You speak: Bear. We speak Medved / Med - honey, Ved (a) - knowledge =
The animal which can find Honey. you should analyze slavic languages a Sanskrit. BUT. You take Ugrian, English, Semitic names and ga to their other people. Brad.

Last edited by eloy; 03-04-2010 at 03:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 04:34 PM
 
1,308 posts, read 2,865,653 times
Reputation: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trudy Rose View Post
That has always bothered me,too. It all depends in which era the history of a certain event was written about. Gibbon wrote about the fall of Rome from his perspective and the political times in which he lived. A book about the same subject written today would be entirely different. It is something to be aware of when reading about history.
If you watch Western films in the US it tells you much more about the society when they were created than the West. People project their own reality on the past, particularly when they know little of it. But "knowing" is a tricky subject. In our common positivistic views of science, objective experts go out and somehow collect raw facts, analyze them a way accepted by all, and reach common results.

As actual researchers know this is not the way it happens. Individual, organizational, and national bias lead individuals to certain subsets of facts - values define not only what is found, but where to look and what is considered important. There are not, even in the hard sciences, one generally accepted way to analyzing data or uniformly accepted methods. Even after analysis is done, what it means is unclear. Two scientists, and even more those outside the hard sciences, can come to entirely different understanding of the same data.

Albert Einstein never won a Nobel prize for relativity. Its because the biases of scientists of his era (who had believed in a concept called the ether and were philisophically incapable of chaning quickly) took decades to accept the theory. One of the most popular theories of scientific learning argue that a wide range of disconfirming studies has to occur to change a paradigm, regardless of how clearly a study shows the existing understanding of reality is wrong.

People aint Vulcans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 04:50 PM
 
Location: New York City
2,745 posts, read 6,464,547 times
Reputation: 1890
Eloy, any specific sources you can recommend?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Planet Water
815 posts, read 1,543,941 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMarbles View Post
Eloy, any specific sources you can recommend?
Ruskolan . Weles kniga . Легенда о словене и Русе .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 05:34 PM
 
515 posts, read 716,715 times
Reputation: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trudy Rose View Post
That has always bothered me,too. It all depends in which era the history of a certain event was written about. Gibbon wrote about the fall of Rome from his perspective and the political times in which he lived. A book about the same subject written today would be entirely different. It is something to be aware of when reading about history.
You may find it interesting to read "Terry Jones' Barbarians....an Alternative Roman History".

Yes, this is the Terry Jones of Monty Python fame; he is also an historian.

Jones describes most of the old Roman writers as propogandists but he certainly cleared up many (for me) fuzzy points of Roman history especially the questions on why Constantine and others adopted, adapted and forcibly spread Christianity so eagerly.
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top