3 ms·

> The whole founding of Russia starts with locals turning to the vikings in order to protect themselves against the murderous mongols. The founding of russia s

> The whole founding of Russia starts with locals turning to the vikings in order to protect themselves against the murderous mongols. The founding of russia starts with the mongol establishment of 'the muscovy' in the 13th century - moscow being established by the mongol empire as the administrative capital of the russian people. Also, the vikings were just as 'murderous' as the mongols. In actuality, the mongols probably were the least murderous of all the major empire. The most religiously, racially, economically tolerant empire that has ever existed. Look it up. It was an anomoly for its time. > Hence the Emblem of Ukraine sporting a viking ship… It sports the viking ship because the vikings conquered the rus. The vikings conquered 'the rus' and made themselves their rulers. The nonsense about vikings 'protecting' the locals is propaganda established during the 'de-mongolization' period after the fall of the mongol empire and the ascendancy of europe. Had the mongol empire stuck around, it would be the bow and arrow in the emblem of ukraine showing how the mongols 'protected' the rus from the 'murderous' vikings.

GloomyBoots 3y ago
> In actuality, the mongols probably were the least murderous of all the major empire. The most religiously, racially, economically tolerant empire that has ever existed. Look it up. It was an anomoly for its time. This has the scent of sensationalism. You can dig into any empire and find glowing accounts of their tolerance. > It sports the viking ship because the vikings conquered the rus. The vikings were the Rus, and they continued to rule as vassals under the Mongols in Moscow.
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  > This has the scent of sensationalism. You can dig into any empire and find glowing accounts of their tolerance. Dig into it. Given the stereotype of the mongols as bloodthirsty genocidal maniacs, it's surprising that they committed no genocide. Not a single one. And they were rather benevolent and beneficial. Everywhere from the islamic world to the rus to the chinese to the persians to central asia actually benefited from mongol rule. Everywhere the locals got wealthier and were better off. I'm more than happy to be corrected. And please, nothing about baghdad and the fall of the islamic empire. The mongol conquest eventually led to the greater, wealthier and more important islamic ottoman empire. > The vikings were the Rus, and they continued to rule as vassals under the Mongols in Moscow. Yes. But by 'the rus' I'm talking about the slavic peoples ( the eventual 'rus'sians, bela'rus'ians, ukrainians, etc ) that the vikings conquered. In other words, the viking ship is on the ukrainian emblem, not because the vikings protected the ukrainians from the mongols, but because the vikings conquered the ukrainians. The ship would have been on the emblem regardless of whether the mongols invaded or not as it is ukrainian legacy of viking conquest. It's difficult to talk about that era since the conquered took on the name of the conquerors and eventually displaced the conquerors. It would be as if the native americans started calling themselves english or anglos. Which would have caused more confusion than calling them indians.

GloomyBoots 3y ago

> In actuality, the mongols probably were the least murderous of all the major empire. The most religiously, racially, economically tolerant empire that has ever existed. Look it up. It was an anomoly for its time. This has the scent of sensationalism. You can dig into any empire and find glowing accounts of their tolerance. > It sports the viking ship because the vikings conquered the rus. The vikings were the Rus, and they continued to rule as vassals under the Mongols in Moscow.

goodbyesf 3y ago
> This has the scent of sensationalism. You can dig into any empire and find glowing accounts of their tolerance. Dig into it. Given the stereotype of the mongols as bloodthirsty genocidal maniacs, it's surprising that they committed no genocide. Not a single one. And they were rather benevolent and beneficial. Everywhere from the islamic world to the rus to the chinese to the persians to central asia actually benefited from mongol rule. Everywhere the locals got wealthier and were better off. I'm more than happy to be corrected. And please, nothing about baghdad and the fall of the islamic empire. The mongol conquest eventually led to the greater, wealthier and more important islamic ottoman empire. > The vikings were the Rus, and they continued to rule as vassals under the Mongols in Moscow. Yes. But by 'the rus' I'm talking about the slavic peoples ( the eventual 'rus'sians, bela'rus'ians, ukrainians, etc ) that the vikings conquered. In other words, the viking ship is on the ukrainian emblem, not because the vikings protected the ukrainians from the mongols, but because the vikings conquered the ukrainians. The ship would have been on the emblem regardless of whether the mongols invaded or not as it is ukrainian legacy of viking conquest. It's difficult to talk about that era since the conquered took on the name of the conquerors and eventually displaced the conquerors. It would be as if the native americans started calling themselves english or anglos. Which would have caused more confusion than calling them indians.