The common English-language name for the medieval state centred around modern-day Kyiv is Kievan Rus'
Although the modern-day capital of Ukraine is commonly spelled Kyiv in current English, per the Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME and the community consensus outlined on this talk page in April 2021, we use the spelling for the medieval state that is the more common name in English-language historiography, which is Kievan Rus', not Kyivan Rus'. This is not a comment on the identity or association of the medieval state to any modern country, language or culture; it is merely the spelling by which it is more commonly known in English-language literature.Please do not request that Kievan Rus' be changed to Kyivan Rus': any such request will be denied.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rusyns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rusyns 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.RusynsWikipedia:WikiProject RusynsTemplate:WikiProject RusynsRusyns articles
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.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine 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.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
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.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
Noam Cohen (31 May 2022). "Wikipedia acts as a check on Putin's false view of history". The Washington Post. Since the Russian invasion, the English Wikipedia articles about the historical figures and topics Putin invoked have been racking up pop-star numbers. ... Also with Bandera-type numbers is the article about Kievan Rus' (just under a million views), the ancient kingdom led by Vladimir the Great (225,000).
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
RM, Kievan Rus' → Kyivan Rus', Not moved, 19 April 2021, discussion
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
If I got a euro for every time someone posted a message on this talk page saying it should be Kyivan instead of Kievan, I could buy a train ticket to Kyiv by now. The WP:COMMONNAME is not gonna change any time soon (even though trends have been observed in that direction recently, they are not significant enough yet). NLeeuw (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the historical, triangular red banner of Kievan Rus according to frescoes from the chronicles to the article
No it shouldn't be. It's just a random banner, nothing indicates it was used by Kievan Rus' princes. On the second picture it's clearly used by two sides. Also those pictures are from 15th century. Marcelus (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ermenrich and Marcelus are correct. Unless you can show a banner, flag or coat of arms to have been used historically, probably in roll of arms / armorial, it is mere speculation to suggest that a simple monocoloured flag used by multiple sides was "the" banner of all of Kievan Rus'. NLeeuw (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a random banner at all. My sources are the miniatirues from a very significant source called the Primary Chronicle - "Radziwiłł Chronicle" and an icon called «Богоматерь Знамение» (Битва новгородцев с суздальцами). The triangular flag was the most common type of battle flag of Rus (so in the plural the inhabitants of Kievan Rus' were called). The banner marked the middle of the army. It was guarded by banner bearers. From afar it was visible - whether the squad was defeated (the banner fell down) or the battle was successful (the banner ‘stretched like clouds’). The shape of the banner could also be in the form of a trapezoid, and also with three or two triangular wedges of cloth. Vbokivs (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historical chronicles describe and depict the flags of Russia as triangular red cloths of different lengths. Even if the miniatures are from 15th century, they depict events that happened during Kievan Rus' existence. In Rus, instead of the words ‘flag’ and ‘banner’ the word ‘styag’ was used, because the army was pulled together under it. Nonetheless, it is the same as a flag. Vbokivs (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need a source that explicitly says that the red triangle was the banner of Rus'.
The part about multiple colours you are referring to from the article is related to the beginning of Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov's rule. So it is not about Kievan Rus, but rather Tsardom of Russia. Vbokivs (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another miniature from the Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible, but it doesn't depict something that happened in the Kievan Rus', but rather a conflict that happened between the Moscow Principality in 1378 and the Golden Horde. They are using that exact red triangular banner because the Rus' army used it even before the Mongol invasion and the Moscow Principality continued this. Vbokivs (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you've said is original research. You have no source stating that the Rus' used a red triangular banner, only your own observation of primary source images that were made hundreds of years after the end of Kievan Rus.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tasty ice-cream for sale at the shop around the corner! Now at a discount of 23 grivny apiece! Check out our new flavour "Vladislav, Baby Don't Hurt Me!"[Joke]
Seriously though, I haven't got a clue. Seems like the illustrator of the Radziwiłł Chronicle just used the most vivid colour on his palette to paint some but not all of these flags with. Red tends to be best noticeable from a distance in all kinds of weather conditions. It's one of the leading theories of why the Dutch Prince's Flag, originally orange white light-blue, changed to red white dark-blue at sea (which in turn inspired the modern Russian white blue red flag) so that it was better recognisable in the distance, regardless of sun glare, fog, mist, or cloudy skies.
In this 15th-century Radziwiłł Chronicle miniature, Andrey Bogolyubsky's left arm is cut off by his assassins, although the texts claim his "right hand" was cut off. A 1965 autopsy of Andrey's body confirmed the left arm showed many cut marks.
There is no reason to believe the illustrator got everything right. For example, the Radziwiłł Chronicle, Suzdalian Chronicle (Laurentian text) and Kievan Chronicle all agree that shortly before Andrey Bogolyubsky was murdered, "Peter cut off his right hand." Yet, the adjoining illustration shows his left arm being cut off. I kid you not. Read the details at Andrey Bogolyubsky#Death. We really, really can't take these illustrations in the Radziwiłł Chronicle at face value, no matter how beautiful and unique they are. NLeeuw (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree, the color might be fake, and no studies I know of explicably state that it was THE color of Rus' banners. But if it were so so, it would make even more sense that both the Novgorod Republic and the Grand Duchy of Moscow in the future had used red, triangular banners Vbokivs (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, on the ruwiki article (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Знамя) there is some info. Styag or fringes - a military banner in ancient Russia in the form of a pole with a bundle of horse hair, a wedge of brightly coloured cloth, an animal figure or other object fixed on it. The most important characteristic of a flag is to be clearly visible from afar. And then this image is attached, Червленый стяг XII в with the description "Scarlet styag of the Russian druzhina. XII century. Chronicle drawing". Vbokivs (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also found this on the Ruwiki (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Стяг_(знамя): ‘Styag is an Old East Slavic derivation from styagati - “to pull down”. Styag literally means ‘that which pulls down’ (cf. dial. styag - ‘a pole, which is used to pull down hay on a cart’).
Later on the styag began to fasten large pieces of brightly coloured fabrics in the shape of a wedge. On the upper end of the styag was set a metal spike. The image of the Life-Giving Cross was stitched on the cloth, and a quiff, coloured with bright paint, was tied under the quiff. The ends of the styag, except for the wedge-shaped form, could have two or three tails, which were called plaits, slopes, klintsy or yalovtsy. During campaigns the flag was removed from its shaft and transported in the wagon together with weapons and armour. The princely druzhina guarded the styag. The styag was put on the shaft only before the battle. In antiquity the styag could be of huge size and its installation required considerable time. In chronicles sometimes occurs the expression ‘do not put up the flag’, which could mean ‘a sudden attack of the enemy’, ‘to be taken by surprise’. The expression ‘to put up the flag’ meant to declare war. During a battle, the flag was usually placed in the centre of the army, on a hill. The fall of the flag caused confusion in the army, so special soldiers - flag bearers - were installed to guard the flag. The enemy, on the contrary, threw the main forces at the flag. The most heated battles took place under the flags. Chronicles, when describing the battle, follow the flag: the flag's braids ‘extend like clouds’ meant a successful course of the battle; defeat was described as ‘the flag undercut’. Vbokivs (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also from the Ruwiki: Styag - a military banner in Kievan Rus' in the form of a pole with a bundle of horse hair, a wedge of brightly colored cloth, an animal figure or other object clearly visible from a distance.
If the banner was meant to be visible from a distance, then it makes sense to make it red, since it is the most visible color. Vbokivs (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm not wasting any more time on this pointless conversation. This is all WP:Original research, we are not going to add any flag or banner or standard to this article whatsoever based 21st-century Wikipedians' interpretations of illustrations of chronicles written centuries later. NLeeuw (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the national flag, everything is more complicated. There were no national flags before either, but there were princely military banners with symbols. Why were they needed at all? Some philologists still believe that the Russian word styag, or banner, is related to the verb ‘to pull together’. It is as if there is a princely styag and the commanders must pull together their units and rally around it. Therefore, a styag was just a tall pole, on top of which something noticeable or bright was attached, so that it could be seen from distance. Originally, it could be tufts of grass or a horse's tail, but over time, bright pieces of cloth began to be used. What colour does immediately catch the eye? Red, therefore, a princely styag was a tall pole with red ribbons, which eventually became triangular, rectangular or other, more complex shapes. As the strips of fabric grew bigger in size, they began to be embroidered with symbols or images of what was especially dear, such as the image of the Virgin, the face of the Saviour, cherubim and seraphim, the sun and the moon. And the person who carried the banner and was responsible for its safety became very important, because as long as the banner stood up on the battlefield, it meant that the Prince was alive and his men had to fight to the death. But if the banner fell, then something happened to the Prince, and in the morality of that time it implied that vassals were thus freed from their vassal oath, because back then they swore allegiance not to the state, but personally to the Prince. As it was written in the ‘Tale of Igor's Campaign’, "... and Igor's banners fell." Styag was later also called znamya, from the word ‘a sign’ - it was a banner on which something related to faith was embroidered, for example, the face of the Saviour. Znamya, unlike styag, was necessarily consecrated by some church hierarch or a priest before the battle. The one who carried znamya was called znamenosets, or a standard-bearer, the one who carried horugvi in the Cossack troops was horunzhiy, or a cornet, and the one who carried prapor was praporshik, or an ensign, these are all synonyms. All in all, it was a very responsible and important mission. Banners were mostly red, because it is clearly visible from afar and thence red is considered the commander's colour. However, there is a mystery - do you know what colour Dmitry Donskoy's banners were on Kulikovo Field, as many historians believe? They were black and holy images were embroidered on them with gold and silver thread. Afterwards, in the 19th century, a dispute broke out in society, because if Dmitry Donskoy had black flags, this confirmed that the imperial colours, black-yellow-white, were historical and ancient, but if they were red, then it would be advisable to advocate for the tricolor, i.e. red-blue-white. And so, such a theoretical dispute broke out on this score among historians that they even argued that the chronicler, describing the Mamai massacre, had made a spelling mistake and in fact the flags were not cherny, or black, but chermny, or scarlet, that is, red. Following this logic, it turns out that the chronicler made a mistake in one piece of text, i.e. missed one letter, four times, and since this scroll counts about five hundred re-writes of it, all the scribes also, respectively, made a mistake in all five hundred copies. I don't know, let's assume that this is a historical mystery and perhaps some of Dmitry Donskoy's banners were really black. In any case, it is officially known that after, all the banners of Ivan the Terrible were red. Vbokivs (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The video even depicts an image of the red, triangular flags that fall under the description in the lecture itself that I just forwarded (at 28:09). Vbokivs (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr -- You just wasted your and our time preaching to the choir. We know very well there were military banners. But you did not provide any proof that there was an official flag/banner of Kievan Rus as a state. - Altenmann>talk05:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what we are discussing here. (Please remind me, what we are discussing. Maybe I spaced out). Yes, some Russian cities have similar coats of the arms even today. So what? - Altenmann>talk23:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article criticaly overlooked the role of Polanian tribe in Kyivan Rus'. Even if, as this article suggests, vikings were the first to be called "Rus'", Kyivan Rus' was centered around Polanian tribe, Rus' vikings were representatives of Polanian tribe, all their conquerings in Eastern Europe became Polanian conquerings, all tribute they gathered from Northern slavic tribes was coming to Polanian center of Kyiv, and Polanians themself started to call themself Rus' in 852 as the chronicle suggests. Other slavic tribes like Ilmen Slavs or Kriviches never called themself Rus', they were using this name for Polanians, yet you mentioned them like equals. Polanians were basically metropoly of Kyivan Rus'. I'm not sure if anyone here cares about this article, but if you do - please put this as the suggestion. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also take into the account that this article claims Kyivan Rus' was an amalgamation of principalities at certain period of time, which is not the case because at this point they were no longer part of Kyivan Rus', Rus' as a name only applied to the territory of Central Ukraine, which also matches the territory of Polanians. So, it's better to consider that this principalities have separated and were no longer part of Kyivan Rus' in the article. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to have particular things to be included in the article, you could write up said text (with sources) here on the talk page (as you seem knowledgeable about the topic), and someone might then be so kind to add it to the article for you :) Nakonana (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then there are plenty of things I want to change so here is my text variant:"Kievan Rus',[a][b] also known as Kyivan Rus',[c][7][8] was the first East Slavic state in Eastern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century.[10][11] Conquering and encompassing a variety of polities and peoples, including East Slavic, Norse,[12][13] and Finnic, it was ruled by the Kyivan Rurik dynasty, founded by the Varangian prince Rurik.[14] The name was coined by Russian historians in the 19th century to describe the period when Kiev was at the center. At its greatest extent in the mid-11th century, Kievan Rus' stretched from the White Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south and from the headwaters of the Vistula in the west to the Taman Peninsula in the east,[15][16] dominating over the East Slavic tribes.[11]
According to the Primary Chronicle, the first rulers of Rus' were two princes Askold and Dir(r. 862-882), who carried out a successful raid on Constantinople. First major territorial expansions of Kyivan state began during Oleg the Wise (r. 879–912). He established Kyiv's control over the Varangian-Greek trade route and used it to gather tribute from the conquered Slavic tribes northern of Kyiv. [17]
The state began to decline in the late 11th century, gradually shrinking in population and size as more Principalities went their own way independently from Kyiv
In the south, in the area around Kiev, were the Poliane,[37] the Drevliane to the west of the Dnieper, and the Severiane to the east. To their north and east were the Vyatichi, and to their south was forested land settled by Slav farmers, giving way to steppelands populated by nomadic herdsmen.[38]. In the northern region around Novgorod were the Ilmen Slavs[36] and neighboring Krivichi, who occupied territories surrounding the headwaters of the West Dvina, Dnieper and Volga rivers. To their north, in the Ladoga and Karelia regions, were the Finnic Chud tribe."
These are changes I want to include for now, and here are sources:
History of Ukraine, Fourth Edition, by Orest Subtelny, page 57:"As more and more principalities went their own way, Kiev's wealth, population, and territory shrank until it ranked little higher than other princi- palities. It was at this stage that the city of Kiev and its surrounding lands became referred to as Ruskaia zemlia, the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word."
It's not clear what exactly you want to modify, can you highlight the changes? If there are too many of them, it's better to discuss them one-by-one.
Also, note that Subtelny mentions "the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word" which implies that there is also the broad sense, which corresponds to the whole Kievan Rus' (the adjective is a much later addition of course). Alaexis¿question?20:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have written the text I want to be included in the article for now, scroll higher.
Well, this broad sense of Kyivan Rus' didn't exist at this point of time, this is why Subtelny mentions that Kyivan Empire has "declined" and "shrank in size", until only it's ethnic metropolitan Ukrainian territories were Kyivan Rus'. Broad sense of Kyivan Rus' is just like any other country and it's empire. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you expect other editors to compare your version and the current one and find changes this can take a long time.
To make things easier for other editors, I'm asking you to list the changes: what you propose to add, what you propose to remove and what are the sources for each change (Subtelny or smth else). Alaexis¿question?19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically write something along the lines of:
I suggest the following passage:
"{{tq|copy and paste the relevant text passage from the current wiki article here}}"
be changed to:
"{{tq|write your suggested text for the new passage here}}<ref>{{Citation| author=Orest Subtelny | title=History of Ukraine | edition=4 | date= | page=57 | quote=As more and more principalities went their own way...}}</ref>"Nakonana (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, here it is, I'll provide additional sources in case something is unclear:"
"... was the first East Slavic state and later an amalgam of principalities[9] in Eastern Europe.. "
Change to:
" was the first east slavic state in Eastern Europe"
Source:History of Ukraine, Subtelny, page 57, quote:"As more and more principalities went their own way, Kiev's wealth, population, and territory shrank until it ranked little higher than other princi- palities. It was at this stage that the city of Kiev and its surrounding lands became referred to as Ruskaia zemlia, the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word"
Current text:"Encompassing a variety of polities and peoples"
Change to:"Conquering and encompassing variety of polities and people's"
Source:Subtelny, page 47 about Oleg the Wise, most of the tribes were conquered and opposed with tribute by Kyivan prince through Varangian-Greek trade route
Current text:"uniting the East Slavic tribes"
Change to:"dominating over East Slavic tribes".
Source:Subtelny, History of Ukraine, page 47, about Oleg
Current text:"According to the Primary Chronicle, the first ruler to unite East Slavic lands into what would become Kievan Rus' was Oleg the Wise (r. 879–912). He extended his control from Novgorod south along the Dnieper river valley to protect trade from Khazar incursions from the east,[11] and took control of the city."
Change to:"
According to the Primary Chronicle, the first rulers of Rus' were two princes Askold and Dir(r. 862-882), who carried out a successful raid on Constantinople. First major territorial expansions of Kyivan state began during Oleg the Wise (r. 879–912). After setting himself up as prince of Kyiv he took control over the Varangian-Greek trade route and used it to gather tribute from the conquered Slavic tribes to the north of Kyiv. [17]
Source:Subtelny History of Ukraine, page 45-46 (about first rulers Askold and Dir), page 47(about Oleg)
Current text:The state began to decline in the late 11th century, gradually disintegrating into various rival regional powers throughout the 12th century
Change to:The state began to decline in the late 11th century, gradually shrinking in population and size as more Principalities went their own way independently from Kyiv
Source:Subtelny, History of Ukraine, page 57, quote:"was the first east slavic state in Eastern Europe"
Source:History of Ukraine, Subtelny, page 57, quote:"As more and more principalities went their own way, Kiev's wealth, population, and territory shrank until it ranked little higher than other princi- palities. It was at this stage that the city of Kiev and its surrounding lands became referred to as Ruskaia zemlia, the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word" 46.200.75.110 (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to ignore the existing sources in the article. E.g., there are sources supporting both "amalgam of principalities" and "uniting the East Slavic tribes".
In case of the "amalgam of principalities", I don't see how the quote from Subtelny supports the change you propose. Subtelny only says that the Kiev land was called Russkaya Zemlya in the narrow sense. It is implied that Russkaya Zemlya in the broad sense included other principalities.
Yes, so I propose to change them. Subtelny says that Kyivan Rus' shrank in size, to the point when only the territory around Kyiv was identified as Kyivan Rus'. There's no statement it became an "amalgam of principalities". Again, this broad sense of Kyivan Rus' didn't exist at this point of time because this principalities weren't identified as Rus'. Is that clear? 46.200.75.110 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This are the pages of a document I listed, here are corresponding pages of actual book:45-46(26-27),47(28),57(38)
Also a few other changes I propose:
Current text:In the northern region around Novgorod were the Ilmen Slavs[36] and neighboring Krivichi, who occupied territories surrounding the headwaters of the West Dvina, Dnieper and Volga rivers. To their north, in the Ladoga and Karelia regions, were the Finnic Chud tribe. In the south, in the area around Kiev, were the Poliane,[37] the Drevliane to the west of the Dnieper, and the Severiane to the east. To their north and east were the Vyatichi, and to their south was forested land settled by Slav farmers, giving way to steppelands populated by nomadic herdsmen.
Change:just swap the text and put Polanians in the first place, as they are the most prominent tribe, so it would be:"In the south, in the area around Kiev, were the Poliane,[37] the Drevliane to the west of the Dnieper, and the Severiane to the east. To their north and east were the Vyatichi, and to their south was forested land settled by Slav farmers, giving way to steppelands populated by nomadic herdsmen.[38]. In the northern region around Novgorod were the Ilmen Slavs[36] and neighboring Krivichi, who occupied territories surrounding the headwaters of the West Dvina, Dnieper and Volga rivers. To their north, in the Ladoga and Karelia regions, were the Finnic Chud tribe."
Source, Subtelny, History of Ukraine, book page 21 quote:"Of these, the most prominent were Polanians, who lived in Central Ukraine, on the banks of Dnieper."
Book page 25 quote:"To one of these processes we have already alluded - the slow amalgama- tion of the numerous, fragmented East Slav communal units... in the area in which Kiev would arise.
Book page 26 quote:"Murky though our knowledge of this period is, it can be assumed that the East Slavs in general and the Polianians in par- ticular were well on the way to laying the foundation for the vast political, commercial, and cultural entity that would be called Kievan Rus'." 46.200.75.110 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is information that is already available in this article with proper citations. The only difference is that 46.200.75.110 wants to emphasise, suggest ot claim that the Polyane were already called Rus' and had already founded Kyivan Rus' before the Varangians arrived and conquered Kyiv in the late 9th century. That flies directly in the face of the literary, linguistic and archaeological evidence that most of these Slavonic, Finno-Ugric or other peoples were tributaries of the Khazar Khaganate when the Varangians (supposedly under Askold and Dir, later under Oleh and/or Ihor) came and took over control, forcing these peoples to stop paying the Khazars and instead pay tribute to them.
The idea that the Polianians in particular were well on the way to laying the foundation for the vast political, commercial, and cultural entity that would be called Kievan Rus' is just anti-Normanism through a backdoor. Granted, the Varangians didn't build the city of Kyiv. But the Polyane didn't establish the network of tribute-paying peoples dependent on the city of Kyiv after the Varangians conquered it.
At Calling of the Varangians, I have outlined how modern scholars such as Paul Magocsi and Janet Martin have reconstructed how Kyivan Rus' was established. It wasn't by invitation, nor did a state already exist; the Varangians began by raiding, then by what we might call wikt:Brandschatzung, and eventually demanding regular tribute of subdued peoples. That might not be a flattering story for the local Slavs, but that's what the evidence says. Similar to how the Romans brought political state structures to much of Europe by conquests in places where there had not been states before. Pretending that there were states before is just wishful thinking and pseudohistory, which is at the core of every anti-Normanist argument.
Incidentally, I've been working on Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv a bit, as well as Kyi dynasty. As Wikipedians, we need to be very careful in trying to separate fact from fiction. We're not here to try and confirm what we already believe; we're here to summarise what reliable sources have concluded, even if that is not what we expected or wanted them to conclude. NLeeuw (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No my friend, it's not even available in the first sentences of the article for an average reader. Essentially, most of my current proposed changes do not even discuss Polanians. The fact that Polanians were called Rus' shouldn't be a mystery either. Whether Rus' as word linguistically came from Polanians or Vikings we will never know for sure and it doesn't really matter. Yes, Polanians did payed tribute to khazars, this is even what khazar elite said about them according to Primary Chronicle:"Evil is this tribute, prince. We have won this tribute with a sabre, but the weapon of these called a sword. This men shall impose tribute upon us and upon other lands."
The fact that you took Subtelny's quote and called it "pure anti normanism" is even all more laughable, because this is what he has to say about this:"There are, therefore, good reasons to view the rise of Kiev not as the exclusive achievement of one ethnic group or another, but as the result of a complex Slavic/Scandinavian interrelationship. Recently, Omeljan Pritsak has taken this point further and argued that the entire question of the ethnic origins of Rus' is irrelevant. In his view, the original Rus' were a multiethnic and multilingual trading company that tried to control the trade routes between the Baltic and the Mediterranean and in the process established the political entity called Kievan Rus'." This shows an unprofessionalism regarding this topic from your side.
Yes, Polanians didn't established a tribute network for the most part, but they owned it as well as the vikings, because they were part of one company/organisation/state established in Central Ukraine through their complex interrelationship and similar interests. And they highly benefited from it, as their lands became or remained the core Kyivan Rus' culture and literature. So I don't make up anything of my own, I just try to bring this article closer to reality. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. All I'm reading so far is some original research based on a selective, personal reading of the Primary Chronicle (PVL), an often highly unreliable, late, biased, and self-contradicting WP:PRIMARY source. Essentially, 46.200.75.110 seems to be making an anti-Normanism argument, claiming that the Polans (eastern) (Polanians, Polyane, Polyanians etc.) were always called Rus', always called themselves Rus', and that the Swedish Varangians who conquered Kyiv around 880 were not Rus'. This hypothesis has already been conclusively disproven and refuted by scholars decades ago, and we do not have to take it seriously. Anthropology of early Kyivan Rus' is extremely complicated and controversial, with the PVL frequently contradicting itself over what the word Rus' even means and to whom it should be applied. A drive-by comment on a talk page saying we should ignore the scholarly consensus because some person on the Internet has a different selective personal reading of the PVL is nothing to take seriously.
Similarly, theories about when and how Kyivan Rus' "declined" or "fell apart" and such should be evaluated skeptically. The traditional argument suggests that this state took 186 years (from 1054 to 1240) to "decline", while others say it wasn't really a "state" until Volodimer' got baptised around 988, so we end up with a state that was only really a "state" for 66 years (conveniently coinciding with the supposedly perfect reigns of Volodimer' and Yaroslav and constituting a "golden age"; all other knyazi were supposedly lesser) of its c. 360-year-long existence from c. 880 to 1240. It might surprise you, but I'm not convinced by the traditional argument. It's a modern myth that pre-Christian Kyivan Rus' and post-Yaroslav Kyivan Rus' were times of constant war, chaos and misery, and that the time in between was a perfect golden age unlike any other. And I'm even less impressed by a drive-by comment suggesting another simplistic personal interpretation of how Kyivan Rus' disappeared. NLeeuw (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no, nothing of what you said correspond to my views or the changes I proposed. Essentially, I have already provided a non Primary source.
Answering to your acquisitions, I do not support anti normanism, as the rise of Kyiv was contributed by both ethnicities.
I do not argue about when Kyivan Rus' declined or how it did, what I say is that it shouldn't be interpreted as disintegration into "an amalgam of principalities", but rather that this principalities have separated from Kyivan Rus' and were no longer part of it. Sorry, the most straightforward example is how we do not call former British colonies "an amalgam of British states".
I personally don't think Rus' was miserable even after it declined and shrank to the size it basically began as, Kyiv was still one of the largest and welthiest cities of a country that still was relevant and had marked huge influence. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One example proves nothing, I can just as easily find many recent books which use the current title (A History of Russian Economic Thought (2023), Orthodox Mercantilism Political Economy in the Byzantine Commonwealth (2023), The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order (2024) etc). In any case there is no policy that says that only sources published in the last few years should be used when determining the name. Alaexis¿question?21:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is titled "Kievan Rus'", in accordance with what has been determined to be the most widespread usage. However, "Kyivan Rus'" is used in some sources for the same thing. The phrase "also known as Kyivan Rus'" serves to let people know that these two names refer to the same thing. This is REALLY simple stuff. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a source so say "also known as Kyivan Rus". If we have a majority of sources using one name and a minority using the other one, then it's totally legitimate to say X also known as Y. Alaexis¿question?13:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions the Varangians, notably Rurik, establishing their center of power in Novgorod by 862 from where they expended Russia southwards. By 882 Kiev was conquered and made capital of Russia.
Therefore, the capitals list should include Novgorod for 862 - 882 and only afterwards Kiev. 2A02:8108:8A80:753A:D5A6:4021:71B1:ED37 (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change Vladimir had been prince of Novgorod when his father Sviatoslav I died in 972. He was forced to flee to Scandinavia in shortly after. In Scandinavia, with the help of his uncle Earl Håkon Sigurdsson, ruler of Norway
to Vladimir had been prince of Novgorod when his father Sviatoslav I died in 972. He was forced to flee to Scandinavia in shortly after. In Scandinavia, with the help of his ally Earl Håkon Sigurdsson, ruler of Norway.
Hakon wasn't a child of Igor and Olga but instead Sigurd and Bergljot. If there is a family relation between the two it is not as close as uncle and nephew. RayquayZzZ (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal seems fine. There seems to be no evidence of Volodimer' Sviatoslavich (Vladimir the Great) having Haakon Sigurdsson as an "uncle". The passage in question lacks a source. In fact, I do not recall ever having heard of Haakon Sigurdsson before, let alone in connection to Volodimer' Sviatoslavich. It is known that Volodimer' was expelled from Novgorod by Yaropolk following internecine conflict in the 970s, and that Volodimer' was exiled to Scandinavia, returning around 980 with warriors from Scandinavia, but the details are vague. I'll look some sources and literature up for details. NLeeuw (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC) PS: I think the proposal is not enough; the whole mention of Håkon Sigurdsson should be removed as unsubstantiated, see my detailed reply below. NLeeuw (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole sentence structure is poor, as if written by someone whose first language is not English. More like:
Vladimir, prince of Novgorod when his father Sviatoslav I died in 972, was soon forced to flee to Scandinavia. With help from his ally, Norway ruler Earl Håkon Sigurdsson, Vladimir assembled a Viking army and defeated his half-brother Yaropolk in the reconquering of Novgorod and Kiev.
Okay, I delved further into it, and I think the whole mention of Haakon Sigurdsson should be removed.
The Primary Chronicle (PVL) claims that in the year 6485 (977), after Yaropolk killed his brother Oleg (apparently reigning as prince in Derevlia), his other brother Volodimer (reigning as prince in Novgorod), [Volodimer] became afraid and fled overseas (za more, usually understood to mean 'across the Baltic Sea', therefore, 'to Scandinavia', most likely Sweden.) 3 years later in 6488 (980), Volodimer with Varangians marched on Novgorod, telling the governors of Yaropolk that he was declaring war on him. That's it. All we've got is 3 words: za more and "Varangians". There is no mention of 'Scandinavia', Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark' etc. let alone that Volodimer got help from a specific "ruler" called Haakon Sigurdsson. Now, we always need to stress that the PVL is not the only source, nor is it always a reliable source (in fact, it often isn't).
Janet L. B. Martin (2007) essentially recounts the same sequence of events: But after his father died (972) and one of his elder brothers killed the other (977), this prince, Vladimir (Volodimer) Sviatoslavich, fled abroad. After several years of exile he now led a band of Varangians (Norsemen) across the Baltic from Scandinavia. His intention was to depose his half-brother Iaropolk and assume the throne of Kiev. Again, that's it. Although his son and successor Yaroslav Volodimerovich would in 1019 marry Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden, daughter of king Olof Skötkonung of Sweden (reigned c. 995–1022), there seems to be no familial or diplomatic link between Volodimer and any royalty or nobility in Norway around 980.
The enwiki page of Haakon Sigurdsson makes the same claim, but it is based on an unreliable source, namely http://www.katolsk.no/biografier/historisk/vladimi1. katolsk.no is the website of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oslo, in other words, the Catholic Church in Norway. It says: Yaropolk deposed and killed Oleg, and when Vladimir feared the same fate, he fled to Sweden. Yaropolk conquered Novgorod in 977 and united all of [Rus'] under his rule. Vladimir also went to his relative Håkon Sigurdsson Ladejarl, Norwegian ruler under Danish rule (c. 970-95). In Scandinavia, he collected as many Viking soldiers as he could, and in 978 he returned to [Rus'] with a large mercenary army. Everything corroborates, except the dates (katolsk.no even contradicts itself here) and the third sentence; where does this "his relative Håkon Sigurdsson Ladejarl" come from? It comes out of nowhere, and is never mentioned again. Moreover, it does not say that Haakon actually provided Volodimer with any soldiers; that is a separate sentence. So even if it happened, Volodimer apparently only travelled to his relative in Norway to say 'hi', and then went on to gather some warriors to return to Rus'.
Church websites aren't necessarily unreliable; especially for dating feast days of saints (which scholarly sources usually don't mention), they may be accurate. But this web bio seems to be written by just a church employee (apparently no:Per Einar Odden. categorised as a 'hagiographer', 'architect' and 'Catholic priest'; I don't see any relevant scholarly qualifications for writing history or genealogy, though), mostly for devotional purposes. It seeks to make a connection between 'Saint Vladimir', Norway, and the Catholic Church in Norway, noting that the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church considers him a saint and also suggesting he has also been to Norway. But the sources mentioned below are a ragbag of dubious texts: Sources : Attwater/John, Attwater/Cumming, Farmer, Butler (VII), Benedictines, Delaney, Bunson, Schauber/Schindler, Gorys, Dammer/Adam, KIR, CE, CSO, Patron Saints SQPN, Infocatho, Bautz, Heiligenlexikon, santiebeati .it, en.wikipedia.org, britannica.com, oca.org, roca.org, mittelalter-genealogie.de, fmg.ac - Compilation and translation: Fr. Per Einar Odden Last updated: 2008-07-05 01:00
fmg.ac is notoriously unreliable and has de facto been blacklisted (I can link to AFDs but can't be bothered now), WP:BRITANNICA should also be avoided if possible (and it doesn't mention Haakon anyway), using 'en.wikipedia.org' in general without providing specific diffs is a huge problem and risks citogenesis, other saints websites and saints dictionaries aren't any more reliable than this website, and so on. Even if some sources are reliable, the lack of inline citations in the katolsk.no bio makes them untraceable. I think we should throw this out as probably false, or at least unsubstantiated. I've been actively reading and writing about Kievan Rus' for over 2 years, and never seen any reliable source mention this Haakon Sigurdsson dude in connection to Volodimer Sviatoslavich. NLeeuw (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: https://maps-huri-ws.net/rusgen/ does not mention any familial ties between Volodimer Sviatoslavich and Haakon Sigurdsson either. If there was one, we could be sure Ostrowski, Raffensperger, Birnbaum and other scholars of Kievan Rus' would have written about it and mapped it. Especially Raffensperger has been making efforts to show these royal familial ties between the reigning families of Rus' and of the rest of Europe. NLeeuw (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a thorough analysis, thanks. I've also checked sources in all relevant languages and haven't found anything about the purported relationship. Alaexis¿question?20:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! This kind of stuff is interesting to look up, but it also takes a lot of time to do it properly. I'm not surprised either that I was the one who first raised this issue over 1.5 years ago on 26 January 2023 when I was doing a verification spree of the entire article. But at the time I couldn't be bothered to completely figure it out yet, so I left behind a long note to be resolved later. I guess nobody else bothered to fix it either, so here I am finally doing it myself. NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Question: @Nederlandse Leeuw: what seems fine to you, the proposal or the way it's currently phrased? M.Bitton (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
But at the time I couldn't be bothered to completely figure it out yet, so I left behind a long note to be resolved later. I guess nobody else bothered to fix it either, so here I am finally doing it myself. NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Done I've rewritten the whole paragraph [1]. NLeeuw (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
.png#/media/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Facial_Chronicle_-_b.09,_p.302_-_Battle_of_the_Vozha_River_(1378).png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}