Talk:Rus' people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Belarus  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / History / Demographics & ethnography (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Norse history and culture (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Human Genetic History  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of genetic genealogy, population genetics, and associated theory and methods articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

split[edit]

this is a classic {{coatrack}} article. Rather than the people, it discusses the etymology of Rus. The people and their history are in fact treated at Rus' Khaganate. The etymology ("normanist/antinormanist") should be discussed at etymology of Rus. --dab (𒁳) 13:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Merge the article into Etymology of Rus.--Berig 18:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh, it's only a coat-rack if it's biased. Where is the bias? 155.188.183.7 (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything Etymology of Rus should be merged into Rus' (people). more in detail about it at Talk:Etymology_of_Rus_and_derivatives [1]--Termer 18:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Updated the tag--Termer 18:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

They should be merged. The article on the Etymology of Rus in any case is repetitive and confusing, with its first two sections seemingly going over the same territory twice, and leaving some things in a muddle. It's a "true fact," for example, that the (modern) Finnish word for Swedes is routsi (and for Sweden, Routsimaa -- the land of the routsi). Analogous words are found in Estonian (rootsi and Rootsimaa) referring to Swedes and Sweden. This isn't proof of the Nordic roots of the Rus', but it's consistent with it.--Mack2 (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter really --Mack2 (talk) but let me point it out anyway. the (modern) Finnish word for Swedes is NOT routsi but ruotsalaiset and for Sweden, it's not Routsimaa but Ruotsi--Termer (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
PS. Also, either its a proof for anything or not, is not for us to decide whose job is just to refer to any published source out there and cite what it says. Merge or not? Sure, just that it would make sense to merge the Etymology article with this one, not vice versa like suggested in the beginning I think.--Termer (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
PPS. actually, as it appeared it mattered after all because --Mack2 had already updated the Etymology article according to the false meanings of the words. I had to revert the edit. --Termer (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ruotsi, rootsi. Finnish, Estonian for Sweden. But rootslane in Estonian (ruotsalainen in Finnish) for a Swede; while in Estonian rootsi also means "Swedish" as in rootsi keel ("Swedish language").(talk) 09:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Rootsi" on it's own does not mean "Swedish" even though the spelling is the same in "rootsi keel" that means "Swedish language". The logic and grammar of finnic languages is very different from Indo-European languages --Termer (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

the problem here is that this article isn't about any "people", it is about a name, about sources that attest that name, and about the historiography of the Rus' Khaganate, all of which is fully discussed elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 17:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you're incorrect at this time. In Greek and Arabian sources the "Ros" ("Rus") people are identified with the Scythians, the Huns or the Goths, later with the Norsemen..., Also the Rus people refers to the people of Kievan Rus "people of Rus" meaning basically the ancestors of modern Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. Therefore suggesting that Rus' (people) means only and is strictly limited to the people of Rus' Khaganate simply isn't true.--Termer (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If anything than Rus' (region) perhaps should be merged with something. Either with the people or the name article or most likely with Kievan Rus since the region article doesn't say anything new really and even uses the map of the Kievan Rus.--Termer (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rus' (region) is a (good-faith) content fork, duplicating material from the more mature articles on Kievan Rus and Rus (name). The idea that the state and the historical region are two different things is not really supportable—Kievan Rus was not a country in the modern sense. The article's contents should be rolled into those two articles.
The same can be said about much of the content of Rus' (people). There's a bit too much overlap and forking for me to be comfortable with this whole set of articles. Michael Z. 2008-11-27 01:22 z
People should always come first I think.:-) Because it's the people who give names, colonize regions, establish states etc. And therefore any history is a history of people, not a history of impersonal names or regions. So if anything, all related regional and/or name articles should be merged into this one in my opinion. Also, the article could be renamed simply to Rus'ian people, that has been both applied to the Varangians in the 9th century all the way to eastern Slavs until the16-17 centuries, instead of using ambiguous Rus' that can refer to either the people, the lands or the state.--Termer (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The article about the ethnic group is called East Slavs. The Rus were originally a separate foreign ruling class, who sooner or later became naturalized. Michael Z. 2008-11-27 06:38 z
Sure, that's more or less exactly what I just said, the Rus' were originally a group of Vikings/Varangians, most likely from a region that is called Roslagen in modern Sweden. However, after the Varangians assimilated, the name Rus' was applied to the Eastern Slavs until 17-18 century, until Peter the Great came up with Rossiya that is the origin of the modern name for Russia and Russians. Please see for example The Russians, Rus As Land and People By R. R. Milner-Gulland.--Termer (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
PS. Also if anybody says that the Russian scholars no longer dispute the Normanist theory by saying dated info. they no longer do, that's fine by me. just that it would still need an appropriate source claiming that there is a consensus now among Russian scholars and therefore the Anti-Normanist theory is obsolete. until that is not happened, nothing justifies sipmly removing sourced material from the article without providing any sources for reference to an alternative claim.--Termer (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Indo-iranian hypothesis[edit]

О. Н. Трубачев. К истокам Руси Г.В. Вернадский —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knyf (talkcontribs) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a solution[edit]

Is it that hard to call the Varangians and Rus a mixture of Finno-Ugric and Norse people? There's evidence to believe that Rurik was of Finno-Ugric origin, and many of the place-names and settlements have Finnic roots.

The old Proto-Slavic, Baltic and Germanic peoples all had the same root from the beginning, so I don't see why this is a big deal. CormanoSanchez (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Swedish language explains the duplicity of the roots 'Rossia' or 'Russki'.[edit]

The point is in Swedish language ,"o",/sounding like in "pot"/, is pronounced as "u",/sounding like in "put"/, in many cases. In English "o" sounds by default as "ou",but in few cases it is "u" too,in "to" for example.In Swedish good examples are words 'bor'-'boende' or 'hon'. The verb 'bor' -'to live' and corresponding noun 'Boende'-inhabitant are read like this 'bor'-sounds as buhr ,word 'hon'-'she' also sounds as hun. In Swedish there two other ways to spell out "o" ,in some cases "a" can sound as "o" and ,of course, "å" which always sounds as "o". In practice, it explains why "Ros" and "Russ" are interchangeable. For genuine Swedish speaker "o" sounds somewhere in-between "o" and "u". In some dialects it is sooner "u". Russian does not have such sounding for "o"at all, in some cases it can be heard as "a"/sounding like in 'path'/ ,but never as "u" - Russian "y". Which means Russians can not explain how it is that there're different spelling roots in names "Rossiya""Rus""Russki". While Swedish language has such feature. Another important point is that since Swedish is small language and is little known by world the info is easy neglected in favor to bigger and more known Russian,yet an objective scientist would find interesting things. The Swedish adjective's ending "ska" might be spent attention on. Here goes a quote from article Rus(name)- -**Slavic adjective "russkiy"** Well,it is not only Slavic adjective,as brief check on Swedish will show you. In Swedish you say -'pråta på Engelska'-speak English 'på Franska'-on French 'på Polska'-on Polish 'på Svenska'-on Swedish 'på Ryska'-on Russian 'på Norska'-on Norwegian

  • på Danska'-on Danish

So as you see Swedish adjective ends in rather similar way.I regret to admit that Slavicist theorists in Russia never really bothered to learn some Scandinavian ,just for once for objectivity sake,instead of directly charging into patriotic minded theorizing.The truth in such cases is the first victim. ¨ 17:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talkcontribs) 15:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting hypotheses. Do you know where this is published? - 7-bubёn >t 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. But still you walk around word construction of Indo-European Caucasian language. Every one of them is similar. Particularly when you mention ancient words. Even old-english "thou knowest" = you know is pronounced almost like modern russian "ty znaesh". I mean the construction is absolutely the same because russian is quite "orthodox" language comparing to English in the meaning of its semantics. So "aa snakke" or "aa spaake" (don't remember which is correct - I'm not that fluent in nordic) "...paa Ryska" is just similar construction of relative languages. It could play little to no part in the ethimologuy of the word "Rus". PS: The best translation of the word "Rusyi" into modern russian is not "dark blond" as mentioned here. It is closer to the color of wheat. If you've ever seen the wheat or if you remember, for example, how Anna Kournikova's hair color did look like you'll catch up with what I mean =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.70.236.62 (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC) You misplace categories,alas,-it won't work. You try to prove that Indo-European words are all the same,but here I was talking about rules of pronunciation not etymology.Anywhere since Arabs had names for Medieval Eastern Slavic *Saqaliba* ,they knew the difference between Slavic and Vikings the word *Rus* they used for Scandinavians. On 'hair color' naming theory : since original Western Russia was populated by Balts,Sarmatians,Finnish(in fact the most popular hero of Russian tales Ilya Muromets was possibly from Finnish tribe Muromi) for Eastern-Slavic to call themselves 'fair-haired' would not have any meaning at all due the similarity to neighbors.With Mongolian-Turkic conquest of Russia many parts of pre-invasion Rus got new Turkic population ,Cossacks,for example,are russified Turkic people(*Turkic word,qazaq, which means "adventurer"*-quote 'Cossaks');the Turkic Qasim Khanate' in Ryazan existed only 196 km East of Moscow etc etc.The regions with remained Slavic population invested new local meaning into the old name of their original lords to differ themselves from the Tatar newcomers.But they have no reason to differentiate themselves in the 8-9th century.The name of river Ros near Kiev would be far more serious localist theory then semantics based on modern Russian.Anywhere, I believe in Swedish theory .Scandinavians have not mutated their namings.The Goths left Sweden in the 3th century BC ,yet some immigrants from Swedish Gotland moved to leave together with Crimean Goths in the 12th century AC.Ancestry,kinship,namings were well preserved in Scandinavia,so if people from Roslagen area,which has the same name till our days, embarked into foreign adventures it sooner that initially their name was the one for the new nation they've created.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talkcontribs) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 


The discussion about the origins of Rus is already over[edit]

The renowned archeologist, Wladyslaw Duczko, has know once and for all compiled all of todays knowledge abour the Rus people and the conclusion is clear. The Rus people are from Sweden and there more specifically, from Roden (Roslagen). This is know also acknowledged by russian archeologists, so it now time to stop loose theiries that are totally groundless and lack any support from contemparary sources. Id someone objects to the reasearch carried out by Wladyslaw Duczko, please state if you are:

  • a renowned reseacher and
  • present evidence with your sources. Second hand material is not accepted.

A link to Wladyslaw Duczko's book, Viking Rus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalregementet (talkcontribs) 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

what is yourproblem? The article clearly states that Rus and Roslagen share the same etymology. --dab (𒁳) 19:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, yes. AFAIK the debate has been settled in practice for some time. Western historians have been near-unanimous on the Nordic origins of the Rus, and the Eastern/Russian dissenters have largely come around to that as well. I think this article needs some re-structuring though. In part to reflect this, but as it's currently written there's a bunch of redundancy and confusion. (e.g. the connection to Ruotsi is mentioned no less than four times!) The intro is too long and has some redundant/irrelevant information. I suggest making the bulk of the article handle the 'Normanist' view in a concise and uninterrupted fashion, and leave the 'alternate' theories to a section at the end. Anyone against that idea? --Pykk (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • While cleanup is always good, I don't see the need in the major restructuring. I remove the irrelevant piece. "Alternate theories" are already at the end: how further you way to move them? If you mean the section "Etymology", I suggest to split it into two parts and merge them into corresponding Norm and anti-Norm sections, leaving a brief summary, kind of: "the suggested etymolologies may be split into two main groups, according to two main trends: N & anti-N, see the corresponding sections". Now that we are here, the page Rus (name) begs for major cleanup: written as a poorly referenced essay rather than a decent wikipedia article. - Altenmann >t 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok - I support this but the two sections can´t be given the "same" status. The Normanist theory is already proven and accepted by the scholars, so the "anti normanist" theory has to be mentioned as some sort of curiosity. Dalregementet (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

this article does indeed need some cleanup. But I would ask Dalregementet (talk · contribs) to stop adding his Roslagen thing to the lead. This article is unambiguosly titled Rus' , and its scope is the medieval population known as rus' русь. Yes, it is (virtually) undisputed that the name is cognate to that of Roslagen. So what? It still isn't the article about Roslagen. --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like you to stop your tiring updates since the present people of Roslagen is the original Rus people. That is a FACT and is both historically and archeologically proven. The people in Roslagen still uses the label, so please, try to understand that people from Roslagen is Ros/Rus! Dalregementet (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But as Dbachmann said, this article is not about the people of Roslagen. Please stop adding it to the top of the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You don´t seem to understand - the Rus people in Roslagen are the original Rus people. Rurik and the Rus people emigrated from Roslagen to Holmgård according to the Primary chronicle. I would recommend you to get more familiar with Swedish and Scandinavian history before you edit anything related to that. Here is some reading by the researcher that knows most related to this topic: http://books.google.se/books?id=hEawXSP4AVwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Dalregementet (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed piece[edit]

The following text removed from article:

Research by Brian Jones (2008) of place names within the area of settlement by Norsemen in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Wales, suggests significant evidence of a wide geographic cultural continuum amongst the Norsemen. For example, within the periphery of north Wales, the words 'Orme' (Norse meaning Snake) as in the Great and Little Orme, and 'Rhos' (Norse possibly meaning the Rus peoples) as in Rhos-on-Sea and Rhosneigir (etc.), is indicative that the Norsemen shared a broad cultural base across the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Trade and tribal leadership networks would have supported a linguistic and cultural connection of these enclaved 'sea cove' Norse populations. The east Norsemen migrated to the east through the 'Volga/Dnieper route' which connected the Gulf of Finland with the Bysantine populations, whilst the west Norsemen looked to the North Sea - the 'Atlantic route'. Brian Jones' model of Norse dispersion indicates that both east and the west migrations are likely to have taken the form of seasonal predatorial explorations, followed by occasional permanent settlement in 'soft' areas with second generation (offspring expansion) resettlement arising from within these, rather than significant population migrations or invasions from the original homeland.

This is a summary of a work of a Brian Jones whoever he is. While the info in this piece may be useful for the current article, in this form it is unacceptable, because it is written in the out-of context form. Any added text must have primary focus on the article topic. - Altenmann >t 18:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Rus = Swedes[edit]

Article has clear nationalist bias. Rus were not "Swedes". This misinformation is based on Annales Bertiniani fragment:

qi se, id est gentem suam, Rhos vocari dicebant; comperit eos gentis esse sueonum

This does not mean that the Rus = Swedes. It means that the norhtmen visiting Louis the Pious at Ingelheim were part of the nation called the Rus' (qi se, id est gentem suam, Rhos vocari dicebant] and by nationality these particular Russes were Swedes (comperit eos gentis esse sueonum].

Just like British nation consists of Welsh, Scots and English nationality. It is an fact that Welsh are indeed British, but that does not make English Welsh. Nor does it mean that British are Welsh, even Welsh indeed are part of the British nation.

Russian Primary Chronicle (Nestors Chronicle) also makes it very clear that the Rus' are separate nation from the Swedes. "Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Nonmans, Angles, and Goths, for they were thus named ".

Infact early Rus' were collection of different (mainly) Fennoscandian tribes, having their headquarter at Aldeigjuborg located southeast shore of lake Ladoga. East Scandinavians, or Swedes, certainly were part of this nation but so were western Finns whom emigrated to shores of Ladoga about 800 AD, Vepsians were allready there back then. Even name of the trading town Aldeigjuborg (or Aldeigja), is Old Norse renderation from original Veps name of the settlement, Alodejoki.

The Rus' were not Swedes, they were Rus'. Article should be modified to more neutral pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.205.242 (talkcontribs)

Do you have scholarly references which put forth this opinion?- Altenmann >t 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Which opinion ? That the Rus' operated from Aldeigja/Staraya Ladoga ? That the Rus' were "multinational" ?
I would suggest Gwyn Jones: History of the Vikings (page 250 ->), Håkon Stang: Naming of the Russia, Wladyslaw Duczko: Viking Rus: studies on ::the presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe. Many of these are allready mentioned in the reference list of the article. Yet the article ::doesnt really fit the description and ideas of these modern scholars.
Also the Roslagen is not the source for the word Rus' as the article says. Vilhelm Thomsen debunked the theory allready 1876 in his Relations ::between ancient Russia and Scandinavia and yhe origins of Russian state. Roslagen is way too modern name to be considered as the source for the ::Rus'. Old Norse name for "rowers" would have been something along the line *röther. Yet here we have the famous Roslagen , in the first ::paragraph of the article. Håkan Stang in his Naming of Russia explains the origin of the word Rus' from Vepsian language *Roc briliantly. Note ::that the Aldeigja/Staraya Ladoga is right on the spot where the Vepsians used to live (and partially live even today). So the referenses are ::there but the article is like "fresh northern wind from mid-1800's". Article even starts : The Rus' (from Ukrainian: русь, [rusʲ]; also Ros, ::Rhos, from Swedish: Ros.. Huh! Swedish was not even spoken back then. It was language now known as Old Norse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.205.242 (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The 3 Viking princes: Before I moved, I had a book, printed prior to WWII on Polish history, that was part of a volume of books dealing with the history of European countries. I no longer have it, but I refuse to accept that I was the ONLY American that had access to that high school library book. If you can find it, cite it, post the relevant passage, & (unlike me) can remember how to use grammar, I would appreciate it. Until then, bear with me as I try recite the passage, from a 30 year old memory (I am NO bard):

3 Viking princes came to a bend, in the Vistula river, & set up camp. The oldest, Lech, climbed the tallest nearby tree. He looked around & said, "This is where I will build my kingdom." He called it Lechistan. His descendants adopted the Latin name for the previously indigenous people, Poles, when they converted to Catholicism. The middle brother, Czech, conquered the Bohemian gypsies to the west & establish what is now know as The Czech Republic. The youngest, Rus made a fort on the river north of Kiev.

I also find it disconcerting the even I mild historian would come up with a statement like: the highly civilized & wealthy Slavic Kievs, being the major trade center for half of Europe for hundreds of years, would NEVER hire seasoned Viking raiders to be there King. Ignoring a thousand years of wealthy Romans hiring barbarians to fight their battles for them. ** Hyperbole paraphrasing to drive the point.

Ignorant[edit]

Rus were Swedes and they still are since the people in Uppland are called "Rospiggar". In the Swedish province of Dalarna, the males are called "Dalmasar".

Wladyslaw Duczko has in his book "Viking Rus" clearly proved that the Rus people came from Sweden - and that from varoius sources, sources in central Europe, Kiev, Constantinopel and the Caliphate. The evidence are pointing in one direction only - Sweden. This is also supported with "tons" of evidence in the form of archeological findings - findings that hasn´t been properly examined until the fall of the Soviet Union. Really funny that you refer to Vilhelm Thomsen 1876... The question is: Do you have any credentials whatsoever in order to have some weight in matters regarding old Norse, archeology and history? I don´t think so.

Sweden is named Ruotsi by the Finns, the Estonians and the Sami in all times. Just grasp that!

"Infact early Rus' were collection of different (mainly) Fennoscandian tribes, having their headquarter at Aldeigjuborg" - A big joke not supported by archeological finds.

The Rus' were Swedes - Wladyslaw Duczko has lots of sources to back this up - sources whom many were not known 1876. even spoken back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalregementet (talkcontribs) 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Swedes didn't exist in time of Rus'. Better luck next time.--93.87.103.157 (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, they did. The Swedes were mentioned as the Suiones by Tacitus in the first century AD and as the Sueones by Jordanes in the fifth century AD. Sverige, the Swedish name for Sweden, means "Svea rike", the realm of the Swedes, and Roslagen was a part of the land of the Swedes long before the time of the Rus'. Thomas.W (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That Rus came from Roden / Roslagen, as the name Rus suggests, is the most plausible theory. But is it absolutely the truth, that is another matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.190.251.57 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

yes, you are indeed ignorant. There were no "Swedes" in the 8th century. There was nebulous coalitions of people called Suiones, but they were not Swedes ! Anyhow, the Rus were diverse, some argue they were mostly from the Danish peninsula; others were local Balts. 152.76.1.243 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you are the ignorant one, and what you write is total BS. See my more than one year old reply a couple of steps up in this thread. The Swedes existed as a people, centered around Uppland (with Roden/Roslagen being the name for the coastal area of their lands), at least two thousand years ago, that is long before the 8th century, and have lived in that area ever since. Thomas.W talk to me 10:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Thomas, you are yet again wrong. Read but this:

Many scholars analysing ninth-century lands to the north of the Carolingian realm a priori use the term Denmark to describe them. Influenced by the teleological approach to the origins of modern Denmark, some historians think that ninth-century Denmark was united under dual Danish kingship, others stress that it was a non-unified territory ‘characterized by multiple kingship and dynastic strife’.3 Most of them, however, agree that the people living on these lands in the early Viking Age were called Danes, and the latter are often viewed as a coherent ethnic group, the precursor of the modern Danish nation.4 These views have been dominant within Danish historiography since the nineteenth century and still dominate modern Danish society.5 Yet, these perceptions of Denmark as a stable territorial unit — more or less corresponding with the modern Danish state — going back to the ninth century or even earlier and the Danes as a homogenous ethnic group living on the Carolingian border seem to be very questionable after a closer look at our sources. Available evidence suggests instead that, similar to other early medieval gentes, the ninth-century gens Danorum was constructed under the influence of both contemporary ethnic discourses and a specific political situation to the north of the Frankish world: First, this particular gens is a telling example of how long-lasting ethnic discourse affected the Frankish vision of their northern neighbours — the vision that has influenced modern historiography so much. Second, the gens Danorum illustrates well the construction of a political community out of a fluid world of early medieval ethnicities as a response to particular circumstances — in this case as a reaction to the situation in the northern Carolingian frontier in the early ninth century — and its dissolution when those circumstances ceased to exist. (Frontier Identities: Carolingian Frontier and the gens Danorum. In "Franks, Northmen and Slavs")

The very same arguement of discontinuity. or at the very least, significant social change and re-negotiation of identity can be applied to "Sweden" in the transition from "Roman Iron Age" to "Carolingian" / "Vendel" period. In fact, it has [2][3][4] [5]. Cheers Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Certainly enough reliable, verifiable sources to seriously lay questions of any continuity to rest... most certainly over 2,000 years of continuity! Incidentally, Thomas.W, you need to improve your grasp of terminology. In academic circles, what Slovenski Volk has provided is known as RS, not BS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it's total BS since it has absolutely nothing to do with the area of Scandinavia where the Swedes have lived for more than two thousand years. Even the text quoted (which seems to be of dubious academic quality) clearly says that it is about the area of present day Denmark, that is more than 600 km south of the area that also in the 8th Century was the "realm of the Swedes", centered around Uppland, and its coastal area, Roden/Roslagen. Thomas.W talk to me 08:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Stop taking it so personally. Sweden was scantily populated in the pre-Roman Iron age; and probably not even "germanic" at that point. By Roman times, there were a handful of tirbal unions which dissolved as quickly as they formed. There was no supra-regional "Swedish" identity. The first time there was a larger consolidation of pwoer in Sweden was not until the Viking Age; any auspices of a "Swede" indentity came subsequent to that. Anyhow, that's all not particularly relevant to this articleSlovenski Volk (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not taking it personally, but what you write here is a load of BS, and shows that you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Posting a large citation that has nothing to do with the discussion also makes me doubt your honesty, so maybe it's time for a thorough check of your contributions in this field. Thomas.W talk to me 07:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
When looking at the page history I noticed that there's been some strange things happening here, with "Slovenski Volk" first making one post and an IP geolocating to Australia then rewriting it. But a comment made by Slovenski Volk in the first version of that post needs a reply, namely current concensus on Swedish ethnicity: simply- there were no 'Swedes" in 0 AD, which shows that he/she is unable to distinguish between Swedes, i.e. citizens/inhabitants of present day Sweden, and Swedes (Germanic tribe), which to me is an almost unbelievable level of ignorance, especially for someone trying to discuss things related to the Rus'. Swedes in the modern sense of the word didn't start to appear until the 13th Century when the Swedes (Germanic tribe) merged with the Geats who lived south of them (a people who were genetically the same as both the Swedes and the Danes, and spoke the same language), under a Geat leader, to form "modern" Sweden. But the Swedes (Germanic tribe) have existed for at least two thousand years, living in the same part of present-day Sweden all of that time. Thomas.W talk to me 07:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't it clarified earlier in the article? The Goths, et al, are linked to the relevant groups, whereas the 'Swedes' appears several time earlier in the body, but not linked to the Swedes (Germanic tribe) until the bottom of the "Russian views of the Rus'". As a reader, it certainly leads me to believe that modern Swedes and the old Germanic tribe are one and the same, particularly in view of previous occurrences of Swedes and Sweden linking to the modern nation-state. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't checked the internal links, but I'll go through the artice and fix it. The old subdivision of Sweden into "the land of the Geats" and "the land of the Swedes" still exists today, in the form of Götaland ("Geatland" or "land of the Geats") and Svealand ("Swedeland", or "land of the Swedes"), with the former covering present day Sweden up to just south of Stockholm, and the latter covering present day Sweden from there up to where Norrland ("Northland"), a later construction, starts. And all the way up to 1973 the formal title of the King of Sweden included being "king of the Swedes and the Geats". Thomas.W talk to me 10:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That would be an excellent start, Thomas.W. To be honest, I have no interest in trying to turn mainstream scholastic views on their head and don't have the credentials to do so (my area being Kievan Rus' and after). As I noted in August of this year, I've simply found that this article is more confusing than enlightening. Having looked at its history, it's suffered a plethora of hit and run edits and citations which haven't been properly developed and integrated. To my way of thinking, it's mainly in need of some good copyediting and translations of non-English sources (the reference list is an absolute mess!).

I haven't had a chance to come back to it, but it has remained static for some time. Any changes would be made with consensus with other interested editors/contributors, as I find bold edits to be counterproductive for articles that attract POV interest groups. The fact that a section on a talk page is entitled "Ignorant" means that developing a better, more informative article requires careful clarification and elaboration. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thomas W; I do know the difference between modern peoples and their late antique/ medieval namesakes, thank you very much for your enlightening comment. The problem is, apart from your pseudo-scholarly and nationalist approach (linking, as you do, highlighy hypothetical and ultimately unprovable name connections - which were thought of in the 19th century), you seem to think that tribes like Geats and Swedes were fixed, organic collectivities which lingered for centruies. This is not so. The Swedes first mentioned in the early two centuries AD are not the same body as those mentioned, say in the 8th century (broadly speaking). Just like the Saxons of the 9th century are not the same as those mentioned by Tacitus (given that Saxony was virtually depopulated after the 5th century; and soon repopulated to form a wholly new people by the same name); nor, in turn, are those medieval Saxons of the 9th century directly to the high Middle Age stem duchy "Saxons". Same goes for Frisians; same goes for the Venedi-west Slavs. But again, you'd be aware of that if your "know-it-all" attitude was more than a very, very transparent facade (evidenced by your very neglect of those wonderful references provided above; which merely demonstrated that you lack any sincere and genuine desire to learn the more nuanced anthropology of late antique and aerly medieval Scandinavians). Now, I've finished my discussion with you. I'd wish you well; but that would be a lie. And I'll be sure to keep an eye out for any more of your pathetic edits and even more pathetic ""references"" Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Total BS again since both archeaological evidence and written documents clearly show a continous presence of the same people. Period. So I suggest you try to learn about European history, particularly northern European history, before starting to dabble with articles about it. Thomas.W talk to me 12:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
WRONG, yet again. Nobody douts a 'general continuity' of population, but that is very different concept to ethnic continuity (I am far from suggesting that there was mass- extinction in population between, say, the 3rd century and the 8th in Sweden. But there were definitely numerous micro-regional discontinuities, changes in settlements patterns, and profound social re-arrangements-> making for the creation of wholly new "ethnies", even if the same names were re-used by the Romans, who otherwise had pretty much nil/ zilch/ squat accurate knowledge of the peoples of the north (do you think Tacitus, eg, actually set foot anywhere near Scandinavia and studied its 'natives'?). Again, you'd know that if you actually had anything more than a cursory knowlegde in anthropology. But I do not care for your ignorance, so keep reading Encarta online for your 'education', and keep up your (entirely misplaced) arrogance all you want. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Need for a serious editing[edit]

This article is, as far as I (not a speaker of Russian) can tell, largely a copy of the article in ru.wikipedia.org, including broken links to Russian-language websites. I think this has the potential to be a valuable article for en.wikipedia.org, but it needs work, perhaps from a native English speaker with a good command of Russian. User:Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In general, I think Americans (and other native English speakers???) have a very limited knowledge of both Viking history and early Russian history. I would like to see the articles on the Rus improved, and linked to from appropriate articles that get more views than this one does. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not think we have a single native English speaker on this talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Rus' peopleRus (people)

  • In the sources they are referred to as simply the Rus. Given that the name can also refer to related peoples and regions etc, it would look better to have it this way. Encyclopedia Britannica uses this version. Alphasinus (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The disputed end apostrophe represents the soft sign at the end of the Cyrillic spelling Русь. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Better avoid naming with brackets if we can. GreyHood Talk 18:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Friendly request for removal or correction of erroneous map[edit]

The "File:Europe 814.png" map - showing what Europe looked like c. 1200 years ago - needs to be removed or fixed.

The map claims to be "based on File:Europe 814.jpg map. However, it misrepresents the authentic File:Europe 814.jpg map.

For instance, the "File:Europe 814.png" map does not include the "Morduines" (Mordvins) in the "Finno-Ugric Tribes", or in "Finnish Tribes" like the authentic map does.

Also, perhaps the size of "Esthland" should be shown the way it is shown in the map from 1904 (portraying the 814 situation), etc. - RasboKaren (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Fringe Finno-Ugric theory[edit]

I have reverted the addition of a long section about a fringe Finno-Ugric theory since it lacks all scientific value since it is based on a claim made by a Finnish writer that central Sweden was inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes, even as late as the 9th century AD, when all archaeological evidence, and all documentation, both local and foreign (ranging from runestones to the writings of Roman explorers), clearly shows that Southern and Central Sweden, up to far north of the Roslagen/Uppland area near Stockholm, has been inhabited by Scandinavians, i e Germanic people, since prehistoric times. The Sami people, the only Finno-Ugric people that has inhabited parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula, have never lived even anywhere near the Uppland area, but much further to the north. So a claim based on a theory that has as little scientific value as claiming that Elvis Presley is still alive doesn't belong in the article. Thomas.W (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A response to you given below - RasboKaren (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Banning Finnish language speeded up Swedification of Sweden Proper[edit]

User Thomas.W - please do not remove appropriately sourced and important information, based on guesses of ethnical backgrounds of other Wikipedia contributors.
There could not be Medieval "Swedish" sources of the Finnic- and Finno-Ugric-inhabited Kvenland - of course -, since the First ever account written in Swedish came out as late as the 14th century, Eric's Chronicle (presumably written in Turku, Finland).
As a name for a country, Kvenland seems to have gone out of ordinary usage already by the 13th century, unrecognized by scholars by the 14th century. Accordingly, the terms "Kvenland" and "Kven" are not found in Swedish literature.
However, for instance in c. 1157, in his geographical chronicle 'Leiðarvísir og borgarskipan', the Icelandic abbot Níkulás Bergsson described the lands near Norway the following way:
"Closest to Denmark is little Sweden (Svíþjóð), there is Öland (Eyland); then is Gotland; then Hälsingland (Helsingaland); then Värmland (Vermaland); then two Kvenlands (Kvenlönd), and they extend to north of Bjarmia (Bjarmalandi)."
There is other similar written evidence and much archaeological and DNA evidence for the support. My job, however, is not to write a doctoral thesis to you about this. Instead, I have appropriately provided distinguished archaeologists and historians and their works as sources.
A DNA study conducted on the prehistoric skeletal remains of four individuals from Gotland (in Southern Sweden) supports the area having been ethnically interconnected with Finland and Kvenland during the primeval era:
"The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden.[1]
It is widely accepted knowledge that still as late as in the end of the Middle Ages, Skellefteå - formerly Finnish "Heletti" - formed the border of the Finnish- and Swedish-speaking zones in what today is Northern Sweden, and that thereafter too the Finnic language zone has continued shifting much further north.
Simultaneously, Finnish place names have typically been replaced by Swedish names. Of Finnish "Heletti" became Swedish Skellefteå, of Finnish "Kainuunväylä" became Swedish Kalix River, and so on. This development had began centuries before from much further south in the modern-day area of Sweden.
It is also a commonly known fact, that the gradual evanescence of the Finnic language spoken in the area of the modern-day Norrland, Sweden, and the continued shifting further north of the Finnic language zone took place for the most part due to the restrictions and bans imposed against the use of the Finnic language spoken in the modern-day area of Sweden in the past.
In attempts to have the Finnish population of Sweden Proper "Swedified" and assimilated into the mainstream Swedish society, the use of the Finnish language had become strictly prohibited in Sweden Proper before the mid-17th-century.[2]
By the end of the 18th century, a large part of the descendants of all Finnic people historically inhabiting the territories of the modern-day Sweden had become linguistically and culturally assimilated into the Swedish mainstream society. During the previous two centuries, various laws and regulations had been passed to speed up the "Swedification" process of the Finnic people of Sweden Proper, including total banning of the use of the Finnish language.
During the reign of Christina, Queen of Sweden, a proclamation of 1646 called for the burning of houses of all those Finns who did not want to learn Swedish in the area of Sweden Proper. Reading books written in Finnish lead in some cases to imprisonments still in the 18th century.[3]
For clarification, this part could be discussed to a little larger extend in the article itself too, if necessary. The rest of my answer to user "Thomas.W" below: - RasboKaren (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This hodge-podge of oddball claims doesn't even merit an answer. What's next on your agenda? Claiming that the Greeks of antiquity were also Finns? Thomas.W (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Just one comment: Gotland is an island in the middle of the Baltic Sea, halfway between the Scandinavian Peninsula and the Baltic countries, so claiming that the 9th century AD population of Roslagen/Uppland north of Stockholm were Finns based on someone claiming that a few prehistoric skeletal remains found on an island far away from not only the Roslagen/Uppland area but the Scandinavian Peninsula as a whole could possibly have been of Finno-Ugric origin is plain silly. And proves that the whole theory is extremely fringe. Thomas.W (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
One more comment just to show what a hodge-podge of unscientific garbage your Finno-Ugric theory is: The Forest Finns (info in Swedish [6], in Finnish [7]) that you refer to were relocated from Finland, which was then part of Sweden, during the 16th and 17th centuries (starting in 1580), moving from eastern Finland (primarily Savolax) to previously uninhabited areas of north-central Sweden proper. Meaning that they arrived in Sweden proper about 800 years after the times of Rurik, and thus have no relevance what so ever to your theory. Which you would have known if you had bothered to learn something about Swedish history before trying to rewrite it. So you pick a little here and a little there, anything that suits you, without checking if it is relevant, or plausible, or giving a single reliable scientific reference that supports your theory. So how could we possibly take your theory, or you, seriously? Thomas.W (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Findings of distinguished Swedish and Finnish scientists were provided to prove your point incorrect. E.g., the prehistoric remains of the people in Gotland were shown to match closest with those of the modern-day Finns. Gotland has been a part of the country of Sweden since the birth of Sweden, and it is a part of Scandinavia as well. In the Viking Age, Sweden did not yet exist.
Currently, the land inhabited by the Svea people ("Swealand") during the 9th century is shown too far up north (without sources too). Accordingly, the map needs to be removed. It is not known how large part of the modern-day area of Sweden was still Kvenland at the time of Rurik's birth. However, closely coinciding with the information provided in Orkneyinga, Hversu Noregr byggdist states that a descendant of Fornjót "ruled over Gothland, Kvenland (Kænlandi), and Finland".
Results published in April, 2012, of a DNA study conducted on the prehistoric skeletal remains of four individuals from Gotland support the area having been ethnically interconnected with Finland and Kvenland during the primeval era, further pointing to the overall information provided in the Orkneyinga and "Hversu" accounts being accurate: "The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden.[1]
A work of Professor Emeritus Matti Klinge is also given as a source for Kvenland having bordered the Coast of Roslagen at the time of Rurik's birth. The Forest Finns are not discussed in the article, although the source about the banning of the Finnish language came from a book which focuses on the Forest Finns. The use of the Finnish language did not become banned from the Forest Finns alone, but all the Finnish-speaking people alike in the area of Sweden Proper, including Kvens, Tornedalians, Birkarls, etc. RasboKaren (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


History and support for theory of Finno-Ugric origins[edit]

The information removed by Thomas.W presents no personal views of the undersigned.

Instead, the info presents findings pertaining to a critical view shared by a number of distinguished experts. That view is today supported also by the recent Family Tree DNA studies. Accordingly, not presenting this school of thought represented by all these scientists and their related findings in this article would - of course - be wrong.

Thus, the wrongfully removed info was re-inserted to the article. Please note, that the related sources are appropriately attached, among them historians who are Rurikid descendants themselves, including Vasily Tatishchev, the author of the first full-scale Russian history.

Based on the findings of the internationally renown Professor Matti Klinge, for instance, the Finnic- and Finno-Ugric-inhabited ancient area of Kvenland included the shoreline of the entire Gulf of Bothnia, on both the present-day Swedish and Finnish sides of the Gulf.[4]

The Doctor of Philosophy Matti Klinge, has served as a Visiting Professor at the University of Paris 1970-1972 and has held the Swedish Professorship of History at the University of Helsinki between 1975 and 2001.[5][dead link] Klinge is one of the most prolific Scandinavian historians.

The border of the ancient Kvenland and the primarily Swedish-inhabited area in 814 AD (approximately when Rurik is believed to have born) can also be seen pictured in the map of "The Public Schools Historical Atlas by Charles Colbeck".[6]

To juxtapose the recent Rurikid DNA studies in this informational context is appropriate and important, as the studies pinpoint that "the N1c1 Rurikid princes belong to the so-called “Varangian Branch” in" "the so-called “Finno-Ugrian”" "genetic haplogroup N1c1".[7][8]

However, the way the above-given Family Tree pages have been used as sources until now, is inappropriate and against Wikipedia guidelines, because these particular DNA pages say nothing about "Uppland" or "Roslagen", for which they have been used as sources. Nor do they mention "Germanic" descent of the Rurikids, except only in the case of Jerzy Czartoryski of Canada, who "decided to have his Y-DNA tested in the Rurikid Project in spite of what historians speculate(d) about the descent of his princely branch."[9]

Accordingly, the two Family Tree links in the earlier context and the sentence they were erroneously set to support were now removed.

The poorly compiled copycat image of the authentic map picturing Europe in 814 was replaced by the authentic map. No-one has opposed the earlier suggestion for the need to do this. The copycat map e.g. fails to include the "Morduines" (Mordvins) in the group of the "Finno-Ugric Tribes" (area bordered in the map), whereas the authentic map includes the "Morduines" in the group of the "Finnish Tribes". - RasboKaren (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This hodge-podge of oddball claims is as WP:Fringe as it can be and doesn't even merit an answer. What's next on your agenda? Claiming that the Greeks of antiquity were also Finns? Thomas.W (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
In the suggested list of references, I do not see a single academic publication. I suggest you stop edit warring (your edits in this article have been reverted already by four editors) and come back when highly cited academic publications are available.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Sources ok 4 wiki use. Some older ones r'nt ... need scruitany ... dna pages indeed say not what the old text says = misquoting sources. 213.216.208.242 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
User RasboKaren (talk) has been temporarily blocked for tendentious editing, pushing fringe theories and edit-warring, and 213.216.208.242 (talk) has been blocked for being used by Rasbokaren to evade the block. Thomas.W (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


Theory of Dmitry Ilovaysky is a fringe theory. Theory of Vasily Tatishchev is not.[edit]

Why should views of a poorly known Russian historian Dmitry Ilovaysky be introduced - e.g. in the Rus' people article -, but not the views of the better known Vasily Tatishchev (just compare the multiple Google search results for Tatishchev over Ilovaysky)?

In his writings, Dmitry Ilovaysky expounded a hypothesis of Azov Rus, which was alleged to have been centered on Sarkel and Tmutarakan. The hypothesis of Ilovaysky has not been shared by other historians. Therefore, this can be called a fringe theory. However, the "Finnish theory" represented by Vasily Tatishchev has been shared by a number of well known historians since the 1700s, including historians who are Rurikid descendants themselves. An unbiased presentation of this view needs to be included. The recently conducted Rurikid DNA studies support the views of these historians, concluding the following:

... "the N1c1 Rurikid princes belong to the so-called “Varangian Branch” in" ... "the so-called “Finno-Ugrian”" "genetic haplogroup N1c1". [10][11]

Based on the "Family Tree" DNA study, the members of the "Varangian Branch" represented by the "Rurikid princes") are “Finno-Ugrian”. They belong to the "Finno-Ugrian" haplogroup.

The prehistoric remains of the people in Gotland were brought up just because they too were shown to match closest with the modern-day Finns. Gotland has been a part of the country of Sweden since the birth of Sweden, and it is a part of Scandinavia as well. In the Viking Age, Sweden did not yet exist.

According to the closely coinciding information provided in both the medieval Orkneyinga and the 'Hversu Noregr byggdist' accounts, a descendant of Fornjót "ruled over Gothland, Kvenland (Kænlandi), and Finland". Results published in April, 2012, of a DNA study conducted on the prehistoric skeletal remains of four individuals from Gotland support the area having been ethnically interconnected with Finland and Kvenland during the primeval era, further pointing to the overall information provided in the Orkneyinga and "Hversu" accounts being accurate:

"The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden.[1]

A work of Professor Emeritus Matti Klinge is also appropriately given as a source for Kvenland having bordered the Coast of Roslagen at the time of Rurik's birth. Here are a couple of faulty elements in the article, which need fixing:

1. The "imitation" of the 1905 map picturing Europe in 814 needs to be removed, because It has critical inaccuracies, as described before

2. The current Rus' people article continues misusing two Family Tree Rurikid DNA study pages as sources. The pages do not state that Rurik was from "Roslagen" or "Uppland". Tthey cannot be used as sources for the claim.

3. In the current Varangians and the Rus' people articles, the land inhabited by the Svea people ("Svealand") during the 9th century is shown to reach too far up north, and no sources for the claim are shown.

4. The Rurikid dynasty article continues providing a claim supported only by a broken link: "...[North] Germanic speakers (Varangians).[12]" (the last time I removed the broken link was on November, 21, 2012, as can be seen here). RasboKaren (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b c DNA study published in nature.com on April 26, 2012. Pontus Skoglund on prehistoric Gotlanders: "The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns."
  2. ^ Wallin Väinö: Metsäsuomalaiset Ruotsissa ("Forest Finns in Sweden"). Helsinki, Otava, 1898.
  3. ^ Metsäsuomalaiset Ruotsissa ("Forest Finns in Sweden"). Wallin Väinö. Otava, Helsinki, 1898.
  4. ^ Matti Klinge: Muinaisuutemme merivallat (1983). Book is in Finnish, also published in Swedish as Östersjövärlden (1984) and in English as Ancient Powers of the Baltic Sea (2006).
  5. ^ Biography at the website of the Finnish publishing company Söderströms.
  6. ^ The Public Schools Historical Atlas by Charles Colbeck. Longmans, Green; New York; London; Bombay. 1905.
  7. ^ http://www.familytreedna.com/public/rurikid/default.aspx?section=news Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project - News.
  8. ^ http://www.familytreedna.com/public/rurikid/index.aspx?fixed_columns=on Family Tree DNA Rurikid Dynasty Project.
  9. ^ http://www.familytreedna.com/public/rurikid/default.aspx?section=news Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project - News.
  10. ^ http://www.familytreedna.com/public/rurikid/default.aspx?section=news Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project - News.
  11. ^ http://www.familytreedna.com/public/rurikid/index.aspx?fixed_columns=on Family Tree DNA Rurikid Dynasty Project.
  12. ^ Stratification of Y-haplogroup N1c, Jaakko Häkkinen. August 5, 2010. University of Helsinki.

Now for something completely different[edit]

Just popped by to challenge the wording of the lead. "The descendants of Rurik were the ruling dynasty of Rus' (after 862), the successor principalities of Galicia-Volhynia (after 1199), Chernigov, Vladimir-Suzdal, Grand Duchy of Moscow, and the founders of the Tsardom of Russia." Where, exactly, has this information come from (yes, I've looked it up on the Encyclopaedia Britannica which is no more an independent or secondary source than Wikipedia)? Currently, it implies that there were true successor states. After Batu Khan & his kinfolk came through, Kievan Rus' ceased to exist, full stop. If you are confused about the concept of 'successor state', please read up on the subject and feel free to consult with the list of Succession of states in Europe.

The closest any states/principalities come to being 'successor states' post-razing of Kievan Rus' were: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Principality of Polotsk, the Principality of Pereyaslavl, the Principality of Chernigov, the Principality of Kiev and the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia. This has been discussed at length on the Kievan Rus' talk page & consensus unanimously reached that Kievan Rus' ended with the Mongol invasion and therefore had no successor states. All future East Slav states were created de novo. 'Successor States' has been removed from the Kievan Rus' article. If anyone has any qualms about my changing the misinformation in this particular article, please let me know as I will be doing so by the end of this week (i.e., any preferences as to how it should be phrased in order to keep unfounded claims to successorship brief). Many thanks for any input in advance! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you please indicate exactly what are you going to change? Before Yuri Dolgorukiy, the Kiev Principality was considered to be the supreme one, with all other principalities in principle subordinate to it. However, his son, Andrey I, while being entitled to become the Prince of Kiev, has chosen to stay in Vladimir. After that, nobody cared about Kiev, and why it was so easily dissolved by Mongols. What happened in 1242 is irrelevant for the big picture.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This 'linear' version of Moscow becoming the ultimate, legitimate successor-state is absolute... according to whom? This version of successorship has been scrutinized & considered contentious enough to avoid. Remember, this is English Wikipedia and there are a plethora of English language sources (as well as other secondary sources) which do not agree with what you postulate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you are not interested in looking for consensus. From what I know, this is the only Wikipedia I actively participate, so I am pretty well aware what project I am writing in.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, Ymblanter. Had that been the case, I would not have bothered to notify anyone on this talk page of my intention and ask for their input. In the interests of an NPOV, there ought to be some sort of acknowledgement of various historical interpretations. While I would rather not see a long and convoluted entry on the subject here, perhaps you're willing to work with me to find a reasonable compromise on this if we're the only two interested in the contents of this article at this time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Then may be you could restate again why for example the Polotsk Principality as of 1018 is not a successor of the Kiev Principality (as of 945).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, Ymblanter, I haven't been ignoring your query but have been busy IRL. I'm not going to go down the path of parsing the claims of the Polotsk Principality or any other principality simply because it is a non-argument. Again, I will reiterate that none of these principalities were 'successor states'. As you would know, this subdivision of Rus' (Kiev being the central state to which all others pledged their allegiance & paid tribute) was officially deployed by Vladimir I, superficially in order to avoid more blood baths between brothers for the central princedom of Kiev. After a few generations, the principalities themselves had been subdivided and were warring amongst themselves for personal power to the point where they couldn't get their acts together to fight as a united entity when Batu Khan used the disarray in his favour in order to besiege Rus'. The razing of Kiev IS of utmost significant as it was THE centre of the Rus' empire, not merely a principality. There's a distinct difference between a principality & the central governance of a kingdom with a central 'Prince' (ultimately, the 'Prince' of Kiev was the King). How can any principality claim to be a successor. They can break with the central state; they can attempt to usurp the central state: they cannot metamorphose into/become the central state. They can continue to exist as self-contained feudal states, use the opportunity to seize territory & plunder their neighbours carte blanche (as they did), but they cannot become legal successors to a defunct central state. Blood ties to the head of the Rurik dynasty & dynastic claims are put in place after the fact. This is merely a political ploy & does not reflect the reality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
My first point is that in 1242 Kiev was not the center of the Rus' Empire, the empire did not actually exist, and if something could be called "the Rus' Empire" at the time, it was Vladimir-Suzdal (though I would probably avoid this wording at all). My second point is semantics, but if in 980 we have a single feudal state, and in 1300 in the same area we have a dozen of states, five of which are ruled by the princes who are direct descendants of the 980 prince, it is fair to call them successor states. Again, this is semantics, and if you have strong feelings about this particular points, this probably can be negociated out of the lead.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
While I appreciate that you have a particular take on the subject which I don't necessarily agree with, my greater concern lies with some sort of uniformity of information in English Wikipedia which is, after all, meant to serve as a coherent source for those who don't know anything about Slavic history. This conflict of information is evidenced everywhere from Cyrillic script to any number of articles surrounding anything & everything Slavic. Non-Slavic contributors/editors have expressed their utter dismay over trying to decipher the information and state that they have come away from the experience more confused than when they began. Perhaps this could be construed as an exercise in semantics, but I believe it to be a necessary one as these particular semantical issues are being used as leverage for various current nationalistic & political ends. I'm sure you've been involved in having to constantly clean up hit & run nationalistic changes in text, as have I. I was pleased that consensus was reached on the Kievan Rus' page to avoid the loaded term 'successor states' and, if you have no serious objections, would rather collaborate with you on how to restructure the lead appropriately. To be honest, I'm sick and tired of the "we are the true descendants of the Rus'" mentality permeating historical articles. In the interests of more balanced and cohesive information - the political atmosphere being what it is - best that flag-waving be left to the non-English Wikipedias. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I see your point. Should we bypass it by replacing "successor principalities" with some longer wording, smth like "principalities created in the area formerly occupied by the Kievan Rus'"?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent suggestion. For those wanting to delve into the formation of the individual principalities & see how this evolved and tied together, the links point them in the right direction, as do the links in the infobox. Do you want to do it, or should I? Also, I don't know how you feel about the Normanist issue. At the moment, it's heavily weighted towards the Normanist theory & almost entirely dismissive of the so-called 'Anti-Normanist' view. There may be a prevalent view but, considering that there are other views, the other views need some further development. Personally, having gone through the citations I've noted that the creditable secondary source texts have, at some point or another, been overlooked in the bulk of the article. They don't actually fit the bill as being references: they look more like an additional reading list than true references. It's the notes that carry the weight of the arguments. I've been trying to clean them up & find permalinks for them but, in examining them, am not convinced that they a credible enough to carry the weighty arguments being put forward by this article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not a historian, but my understanding is that Anti-Normanist theories still have to find their recognition in academic research and are considered a kind of fringe area, whereas the Normanist hypothesis, whereas poorly justified, is a mainstream. It might be good to discuss this somewhere properly and with reliable sources, but I am not the right person to do it, and all attempts on the English Wikipedia I came across were done by some freaks and had to be immediately reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, I've noted that there have been 'fringe' theories here that could only be defined as lunatic-fringe. I'm fairly well acquainted with Normanist theory, so I'll take it from here as I can appreciate not wanting to involve oneself in edit wars (not that I have a particular war to wage, I'm only intending to refine the content of this article a little more). Thanks for all your assistance to this point!--Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, I was distracted by smth and then went on for holidays. Please feel welcome to go ahead with the edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Completely understood. I hope your holiday was pleasant & that you feel refreshed! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A remark on Constantine Porphyrogenitus bok, de administrando imperio, when he mention the Dnieper cataracts, he names them in both their Nordic or "Russian" and Slavic names. And that is in it self interesting. And I think this should be mentioned. The article only make references to the Nordic names of the cataracts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.190.251.57 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the source of the Slavic names? At the moment, the only citation given for the list within the article is "The Viking Road to Byzantium". If, indeed, Constantine names them in both languages, a balanced article would require that both be presented. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It his mentioned in de administrando imperio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.190.251.57 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look it up when I have a moment. These are exactly the kinds of details that should be elaborated on. Yes, anti-Normanist theories have come to be understood as being Tsarist & Soviet propaganda, however there is much that has been swept aside as being 'fringe' theory because it has been tarred with the same brush. Considering the amount of research still going in Russian, Ukraine (even Poland) which, while it's also being acknowledging that the Varangians played an important role in Rus', why are now independent nation-states still examining the entire area of study despite often being at political odds with each other? This page links to the Rurik/Rurikind dynasty with exhaustive lists of studies into the descendants being of a Varangian haplogroup, yet omit to note the extensive DNA research of the predominant haplogroup (an older group of related tribes in the region) still being undoubtedly prevalent in representing the current inhabitants of the areas occupied in former Kievan Rus'. Why has the emerging science of DNA studies been used to illustrate the Normanist POV yet conveniently overlooked as pertains to the majority of the population? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

New sourcing, and ? Fringe[edit]

Dear Mr Thomas. Hello. I am I am perplexed as to how, on the one hand, you dismiss arguably some of the world leading scholars in eastern European scholarship, such as Simon Franklin [8], Jonathon Shepherd[9], Omeljan Pritsak[10] and Horace G Lunt [11] - western trained scholars mind you (not crack-pot Bolsheviks !)- presenting post-modern, non-partisan perspectives which are very much in line with current anthropological thinking; whilst on the other, you consider the online dictionary you used as a "source" to be credible ?! I must say the irony is deliciously funny. Moreover, my addition has not removed any other of the other perspectives in the main of the body; but merely presents a more tertiary level analysis of high-level authors inserted by a more informed editor. So the addition stays. Period. Your very initial revert was contra WP:ROWN; as it was not a bad edit, but very much the opposite.

Now, as for the part of the lede I deleted, I did so because it is irrelevant and not WP:RS. This online dictionary [12] to which it is sourced fails WP:RS miserably, and in any case such whimsical etymological connections are peripheral to the main thrust of the article. Once you find a proper academic paper discussing it, feel free to add it to the relevant article. But keep in mind, too much has been made on alleged etymological connections. They are, always shall be, hypotheses. They are the Romantic whimsical theorems of yesteryear, and have righty been harshly criticized and dismissed by Goffart[13] (on the supposed Gotland-Goths link) and Curta (Venedi-Slavs)[14]. I would be more than happy to email any of the papers I have discussed to you so you may verify, or better still, enlighten yourself. Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that much of this article is based on spurious sources, the majority of which don't qualify as anything other than simplistic summaries of outdated children's encyclopaedia's. What reference list exists is out of date and in languages other than English (which would only be okay if there weren't contemporary English language sources available). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"Children's Encyclopedias" - ha ha very much so. There actually is more and more quality work coming from, both, werstern scholars and 'new generation' Russian scholars which thankfully go beyond the old, mundane debates. Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

More Criticism - Rus' vs Swedes[edit]

Has anybody already pointed out an obvious / a deliberate mistake in the current article: the Rus' were a group of Varangians among others like Swedes and Gutes

According to the Primary Chronicle, the Rus' were not Swedes, Normans, Goths, Angles, Galicians, Wallachians, Romans, Germans or Venetians.

Frankly, I'm not sure the Swedes were even Varangians.

Direct quotes from the Primary Chronicle:

"For the following nations also are a part of the race of Japheth: The Varangians, the Swedes, the Normans, the Gotlanders, the Rus', the English, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Romans, the Germans, the French, the Venetians, the Genoese, and so on. Their homes are situated in the northwest, and adjoin the Hamitic tribes."

"They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Rus': these particular Varangians were known as Rus', just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, English, and Gotlanders, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichians, and the Ves' then said to the people of Rus', “Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come to rule and reign over us.” They thus selected three brothers, with their kinsfolk, who took with them all the Rus' and migrated. The oldest, Rurik, located himself in Novgorod; the second, Sineus, at Beloozero; and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. On account of these Varangians, the district of Novgorod became known as the land of Rus'. The present inhabitants of Novgorod are descended from the Varangian race, but aforetime they were Slavs.[15][16]Finnedi (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(Yawn) What's next, Finnedi? Your old self-invented theories about the Rus' being Finns? Thomas.W talk to me 22:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thomas.W, it sure didn't take you long to arrive. :D I have splendid news for you. Have you seen these:
1. Catherine, the Great: "Gostomysl hatte vier Söhne...Die mitlere Tochter Umila war die Gemahlin eines Finnischen Königes von waragischer Abkunst. Aus dieser Ehe entsprossen Rurik und seine Brüder."[17][18]
2. Tatischev's Russian history (read chapters 4 and 5)[19]
3. Alexandre Dumas, sr: "Le prince varègue épousa Umila, fille de Gostomielz; il l'emmena en Finlande; elle fut la mére du grand Rurik."[20]
4. The Swedish E.J.Biörner who saw the lost Chronicle of Joachim wrote that the Varangians were Carelios Kyriosque Fennicos.[21]
Will you edit the sentence "the Rus' were a group of Varangians among others like Swedes and Gutes" to "the Rus' were a group of Varangians like the others were Swedes and Goths" or should I do that?Finnedi (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Read WP:FRINGE. Thomas.W talk to me 19:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, an imaginary "Swedish Realm" just collapsed before my eyes, and all I did was I copied a direct quote from the Primary Chronicle. Do you call the original text "fringe"? The text in the article must be corrected, otherwise I'll have to ask for a dispute resolution in this matter as well. If you continue the way you do, what do you think is going to happen eventually?Finnedi (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism - Rodzlagen / Roden[edit]

The text under the map of Europe in the 9th century "Roslagen is located in the northernmost tip of the pink area marked "Swedes and Goths"", is plain misleading.

Rodzlagen didn't exist before the 15th century and even its predecessor Roden was mentioned first as late as 1296. The theory suggesting Rus / Ros came from Rodzlagen / Roden is but a Swedish utopia. The article at least should aim at a scientific and neutral approach. [22] Finnedi (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just like RasboKaren a few sections up you pick a little here and a little there, whatever suits you. There are three sources in the article that support the etymology of Roden -> Rus, which trumps your link. Thomas.W talk to me 19:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Please, this is not about me or you, a Swede, but what suits the logic. The Roslagen => Rus' theory is way too tenuous to be presented as "the most prevalent theory". Now, why would the Rus' have been named by the Finns with a Finnish word, "Ruotsi", if the Rus' were Sveas (Swedes)? If the Rus' were Finns, like Catherine the Great and Tatischev et al claimed, then I could understand the logic but then "Ruotsi" would have had to mean something else than a Svea. Also, it's terribly misleading to present a map of Europe from the year 814 and write underneath that Roslagen is on that map when we know that no Roslagen or Roden existed that time.Finnedi (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but "Ruotsi" is the Finnish name for Sweden, not the Rus'. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
????? Where does anyone claim that Ruotsi means Rus'? That part of the text is the etymology section of the article, showing that Ruo-/Ru-, the first part of Roden/Roslagen, is used as a "geographical description" for Sweden/Swedes in various languages, for example in the Finnish and Estonian words for Sweden. Ruotsi/Rootsi. Thomas.W talk 16:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)