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.
I get what this poster is saying. I think he's saying that the Mongols created this monolithic entity that stretched from the Far East to Moscow and beyond. Such a unified entity didn't exist before. After the Mongols were defeated and withdrew, "Russia" gradually expanded to fill their place as the ruler of all that terrain north of the Chinese border. In an over-simplified kind of way, it makes a certain sense.
But that is historically inaccurate. The was no Russia before the Mongol invasion and there wasn't any after the Mongol Empire fell apart. Ivan the Terrible created the tsardom of Russia around 1550, and it was a fraction what Russia is now. The Crimean Khanate was defeated in 1774 and Vladivostok fell into Russian hands in 1860.
But that is historically inaccurate. The was no Russia before the Mongol invasion and there wasn't any after the Mongol Empire fell apart. Ivan the Terrible created the tsardom of Russia around 1550, and it was a fraction what Russia is now. The Crimean Khanate was defeated in 1774 and Vladivostok fell into Russian hands in 1860.
Of course there was Russia before Mongol invasion.
As weakly the principalities were connected during Kievan Rus, the common religion accepted by all of them, their common bloodlines plus a number of other factors indicate that indeed there was Russia before mongol invasion.
It's just shortly before Mongol's invasion it was slowly but surely disintegrating.
But that is historically inaccurate. The was no Russia before the Mongol invasion and there wasn't any after the Mongol Empire fell apart. Ivan the Terrible created the tsardom of Russia around 1550, and it was a fraction what Russia is now. The Crimean Khanate was defeated in 1774 and Vladivostok fell into Russian hands in 1860.
You are wrong. "Russia" is the Greek form of spelling "Rus". Ivan the Terrible became "tsar" after the fall of Byzantine Empire (it is related with the movement of the Orthodox center to Moscow). He did not create the state. He developed a state that existed many centuries before him.
Last edited by Maksim_Frolov; 12-12-2015 at 01:06 PM..
Mongols were nothing but a scourge on Russian princes that couldn't make a move of unification when it was badly needed already at earlier times, as an ancient "Tale of Igor's campaign" testifies.
Yes you are right. The consequences of war with Mongols were terrible (economic, political, cultural). For example, Old Ryazan - huge city - was destroyed and never recovered. Probably the only plus is a rigid system of governance. This allowed centralize lands.
Last edited by Maksim_Frolov; 12-12-2015 at 01:25 PM..
So are you seriously contradicting your previous statements that the was an united Russia before the Mongol invasion? And when the Mongols left, Russia was united immediately after that? All Russian history denies this.
So are you seriously contradicting your previous statements that the was an united Russia before the Mongol invasion? And when the Mongols left, Russia was united immediately after that? All Russian history denies this.
Rus lands is two factors at that time: Orthodoxy and Rurik dynasty. Rus could disintegrate into separate principalities and then united back. Moscow was able to unite the lands. But it was not the only solution. At the site of Moscow could be Novgorod, Tver or (perhaps) Lithuania (Kiev). They could also be called Russia.
And all the rulers of Kievan Rus were either descendants of Vikings or Finnic, so not even Slavs.
Yes, that particular lineage of Rurik came from Scandinavians - the first ones to advance the interests of future Russian state were originally from Jutland, and according to Primary Chronicles, somewhere around 856 or 862 the "Viking band" arrived into Northern Russia. ( The vikings that settled in Russian territories acquired the name "Rus" for whatever reason and hence - the future name of the country is most likely derived from there.)
But that was Novgorod. Oleg ( or whatever his original name was) who later became grand prince of Kiev, was probably not even from the same band, but he proceeded with the same policies as his predecessors in Novgorod. Why Slavs were willing to have "Varangians" among them and even relying on their military help - that's a mystery for me, because as we know "Varangians" ( or Vikings in Westen terminology) were not all that benevolent in Europe.
But the fact remains - they settled there, they mingled with the locals, they organized a state and their descendants became the rulers of Kievan Rus ( and later - Moscow Rus,) although granted - their wives were all of local ( or foreign, according to state interests) origin.
So yes, originally Kiev Rus ( and later Moscow Rus) have been founded indeed by the seafarers, not by the nomads. And even the prince of Moscow that was one of the "Rus" descendants, while enlarging his principality, was carefully watching for waterways - all the neighboring rivers, making sure that growing Moscow principality would always have plenty of interconnected water routs.
In spite of residing in different principalities, the Rus princes were "rotating," sending their sons/relatives to sit on this or that throne in the major cities of different principalities, hence prince of Kiev could be later prince of Vladimir, Ryazan or Suzdal. So obviously all connections ( as far as language, customs, trade) were there. What was often NOT there, was the military union, since as I've already mentioned the princes tend to bicker and fight among each other, creating unions and ganging up on each other. And that's what brought their downfall in case with Mongols, and that's what prince of Moscow later on decided to fix once and for all, demanding everyone to submit under his rule.
Rus lands is two factors at that time: Orthodoxy and Rurik dynasty. Rus could disintegrate into separate principalities and then united back. Moscow was able to unite the lands. But it was not the only solution. At the site of Moscow could be Novgorod, Tver or (perhaps) Lithuania (Kiev). They could also be called Russia.
Not so simple in case of Lithuania. If it were just Lithuania - yes, Russians and Lithuanians were living side by side in one state and intermarrying often. The king of Lithuania was a pagan at that point from what I remember, but he had no problems with Russians being already Christian Orthodox by that time, when he took over part of them.
However the constant threat from Teutonic knights made Lithuanians make a union with Poland. And Poland was already under Catholic dominance. Once you put this factor in equation - watch for troubles. Because obviously this brought a conflict between Polish Catholics and Russian/Lithuanian Orthodox, that were immediately suppressed in this new state.
Not so simple in case of Lithuania. If it were just Lithuania - yes, Russians and Lithuanians were living side by side in one state and intermarrying often. The king of Lithuania was a pagan at that point from what I remember, but he had no problems with Russians being already Christian Orthodox by that time, when he took over part of them.
However the constant threat from Teutonic knights made Lithuanians make a union with Poland. And Poland was already under Catholic dominance. Once you put this factor in equation - watch for troubles. Because obviously this brought a conflict between Polish Catholics and Russian/Lithuanian Orthodox, that were immediately suppressed in this new state.
I agree. Grand Duchy of Lithuania has not been strongly Catholic in the first phase of its existence. If I'm not mistaken, some rulers of Lithuanian dynasty were Orthodox. It attracted Rus lands. But conflict began when Poland reinforced impact. One of the results: Khmelnitsky signed an agreement with Orthodox Moscow and Moscow fights with Poland for dominance over the Kiev lands.
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.
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.
