3 ms·

>Grand Duchy of Moscow pushing Crimean Tatars out of Kyiv? What? i said nothing of sort. >"The process" where Russia entered the game was actually massive (an

by trhway 5y ago

>Grand Duchy of Moscow pushing Crimean Tatars out of Kyiv? What? i said nothing of sort. >"The process" where Russia entered the game was actually massive (and successful) Kozak rebellion against Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in lands that you are alleging were "mostly unpopulated" at the time. The Kozaks - runaway serves, criminals, and just various "free will" people - were there precisely because it was wild unpopulated area. For the language - i stated my personal opinion. You have different, and as a person and as a country you're naturally entitled to speak whatever way you like and think whatever you like about it. Anyway in a few generations the divide will grow large and deep enough that the question will become moot. Enjoy a bit of humor (while about Ukranian, it is naturally applies to almost any language in use by large population) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukonBMs0WM0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukonBMs0WM0 >Anyway, Moscow was an insignificant outpost during Mongol invasion and Grand Duchy of Moscow is what eventually became Tsardom of Russia, not Novgorod. It is the first time i see somebody excludes Novgorod from Russian history. > Doesn't mean I doubt Vladimir the Great existed. Sounds to me like you'd be ok if that dynasty was called "Vladimirovichi" (or "Svyatoslavichi" or "Igorevichi" for the Rurik's grandson or son) instead of "Rurikovichi". I don't see what is the difference though.

trhway 5y ago
>>Anyway, Moscow was an insignificant outpost during Mongol invasion and Grand Duchy of Moscow is what eventually became Tsardom of Russia, not Novgorod. >It is the first time i see somebody excludes Novgorod from Russian history. Surprised to say the least it took me a bit of pondering... Excluding Novgorod from Russian history the way you did is just like excluding Massachusetts from the history of US on the basis that Washington, DC was just a swamp at the time.
caskstrength 5y ago
> i said nothing of sort. Didn't I quote part of your message in my reply that says exactly that? > The Kozaks - runaway serves, criminals, and just various "free will" people - were there precisely because it was wild unpopulated area. They were common people that fled form populated places of Ukraine into unpopulated lower Dnieper areas to establish self governing communities. Obviously, these people needed to come from somewhere, unless you suggest they materialized in Zaporizya (since we are talking about Ukraine) out of thin air. It would also be reasonable to assume that such misfits constitute a significant minority of general population, so in order to have tens of thousands of kozaks you probably need hundreds of thousands of people populating nearby towns and villages. > For the language - i stated my personal opinion. Okay, lets go over your "opinions" one more time to address all points presented: "I'm half Ukranian myself and watch some modern Ukranian TV including in Ukranian..." - the languages are somewhat similar in your opinion and it looks like you can understand both. Okay. "...and i fail to see it as a separate language." - this is where it gets weird and I mentioned several other similar languages and asked for your clarification if you also don't consider them a "real distinct language" (which would also be a very weird opinion, from linguistic standpoint). But I guess this part of you message can still reasonably be considered an opinion. ""funny not-a-true-language" which is very close to the language of Russian peasants" - here you are apparently presenting some historic fact, which is in reality Russian nationalistic fringe talking point and is not supported by scientists from either Russian Empire, Soviet Union or modern Ukraine (I provided links and quotes). In fact, highly educated early 18th century Russian Lomonosov who studied in both Russia and Ukraine and should be able to immediately recognize the "language of Russian peasants" doesn't consider it such. Here it seems you also feel entitled to your own facts, not just opinions. > It is the first time i see somebody excludes Novgorod from Russian history. I don't think stating that Tzardom, Russian Empire and, consecutively, modern Russia is a continuation of Duchy of Moscow, which was and unimportant outpost during Mongol invasion, constitutes "exclusion" of Novgorod from Russian history. I just think that you position "Ukrainian making shit up about Rus since Russia is the obvious uninterrupted continuation of Rus because Mongols turned back hundred kilometers before reaching Novgorod or something" is rather strange. Let's just consider it another opinion and leave it at that. > Sounds to me like you'd be ok if that dynasty was called "Vladimirovichi" (or "Svyatoslavichi" or "Igorevichi" for the Rurik's grandson or son) instead of "Rurikovichi". I don't see what is the difference though. No, I'm totally okay with calling the dynasty whatever. I'm just saying that any person in 2021 who claims to _trace_ his bloodline from Rurik is full of shit.

by trhway 5y ago

trhway 5y ago

>>Anyway, Moscow was an insignificant outpost during Mongol invasion and Grand Duchy of Moscow is what eventually became Tsardom of Russia, not Novgorod. >It is the first time i see somebody excludes Novgorod from Russian history. Surprised to say the least it took me a bit of pondering... Excluding Novgorod from Russian history the way you did is just like excluding Massachusetts from the history of US on the basis that Washington, DC was just a swamp at the time.

caskstrength 5y ago

> i said nothing of sort. Didn't I quote part of your message in my reply that says exactly that? > The Kozaks - runaway serves, criminals, and just various "free will" people - were there precisely because it was wild unpopulated area. They were common people that fled form populated places of Ukraine into unpopulated lower Dnieper areas to establish self governing communities. Obviously, these people needed to come from somewhere, unless you suggest they materialized in Zaporizya (since we are talking about Ukraine) out of thin air. It would also be reasonable to assume that such misfits constitute a significant minority of general population, so in order to have tens of thousands of kozaks you probably need hundreds of thousands of people populating nearby towns and villages. > For the language - i stated my personal opinion. Okay, lets go over your "opinions" one more time to address all points presented: "I'm half Ukranian myself and watch some modern Ukranian TV including in Ukranian..." - the languages are somewhat similar in your opinion and it looks like you can understand both. Okay. "...and i fail to see it as a separate language." - this is where it gets weird and I mentioned several other similar languages and asked for your clarification if you also don't consider them a "real distinct language" (which would also be a very weird opinion, from linguistic standpoint). But I guess this part of you message can still reasonably be considered an opinion. ""funny not-a-true-language" which is very close to the language of Russian peasants" - here you are apparently presenting some historic fact, which is in reality Russian nationalistic fringe talking point and is not supported by scientists from either Russian Empire, Soviet Union or modern Ukraine (I provided links and quotes). In fact, highly educated early 18th century Russian Lomonosov who studied in both Russia and Ukraine and should be able to immediately recognize the "language of Russian peasants" doesn't consider it such. Here it seems you also feel entitled to your own facts, not just opinions. > It is the first time i see somebody excludes Novgorod from Russian history. I don't think stating that Tzardom, Russian Empire and, consecutively, modern Russia is a continuation of Duchy of Moscow, which was and unimportant outpost during Mongol invasion, constitutes "exclusion" of Novgorod from Russian history. I just think that you position "Ukrainian making shit up about Rus since Russia is the obvious uninterrupted continuation of Rus because Mongols turned back hundred kilometers before reaching Novgorod or something" is rather strange. Let's just consider it another opinion and leave it at that. > Sounds to me like you'd be ok if that dynasty was called "Vladimirovichi" (or "Svyatoslavichi" or "Igorevichi" for the Rurik's grandson or son) instead of "Rurikovichi". I don't see what is the difference though. No, I'm totally okay with calling the dynasty whatever. I'm just saying that any person in 2021 who claims to _trace_ his bloodline from Rurik is full of shit.