4 ms·

Rus is what these people called themselves. They were folks lured to that part of the Mediterranean by promise of work in the Byzantine military as Varangian Gu

Rus is what these people called themselves. They were folks lured to that part of the Mediterranean by promise of work in the Byzantine military as Varangian Guards. A subset of these Norsemen sailed up the Dniper to what is today Kiev and setup Kievan Rus. They ruled over and assimilated the the Slavic, Bulgar, and Turkic peoples of the area. In the Middle Ages, the Mongols came and destroyed Kiev, murdering just about everyone inside, leading to fragmentation into multiple polities like Moscow, the Novgorod Republic, and Vladimir. The Rus ethnonym lives on in the name of the Russians, Rusyns, Ruthenians, Belarussians, and others!

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Bluestein 2y ago
> the Mongols came and destroyed Kiev, murdering just about everyone I wonder to what degree - if any - these poor people served as a "buffer" against the Mongols, saving Europe from the slaughter ...
- ivanhoe 2y ago
  > these poor people served as a "buffer" against the Mongols, saving Europe from the slaughter ... You mean saving Western Europe :) Mongols ran over (and did a lot of slaughter in) the most of Eastern and Central Europe, including Poland, Czechia, parts of todays Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia and Austria. There was no "buffer" that stopped them, they've stopped eventually because their Great Khan died. As the leadership broke down and fights for power arose, they've been forced to return back home.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    > There was no "buffer" that stopped them, they've stopped eventually because their Great Khan died. Basically unstoppable, eh? So, basically, an "accident" of history they did not take over the Mediterranean ...
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      That's not unique to the Mongols. Another easy example would be Alexander of Macedon. History is filled with great empires, many of them expanding, which fell or contracted after the leader passes.
      - Bluestein 2y ago
        Point.- PS. I wonder what - if anything - implications that has for leadership or management - you know, the whole achievement falling apart, missing one individual ... (Or, to project management - low "bus factor", so to speak ...)
    - ivanhoe 2y ago
      Well, they were basically a highly-mobile light cavalry/archers combination, so while they progressed very fast they were not spending much time sieging heavily fortified cities or going into mountains and other hard to cross terrains. Also it took Europeans a while to learn how to fight them efficiently, but eventually they did figure out that European heavy cavalry is a good match for them. So it's not they were "unstoppable", they simply avoided hard targets, and pillaged the villages and other less defended areas, and moved quickly through disorganized European kingdoms fighting each other.
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    Mongols invaded Eastern and Central Europe several times, but they always turned back. There are at least two common explanation for that. First, European countryside was infested with castles. Defeating the king and sacking his capital wasn't enough to pacify the land. Mongols would have had to deal with every local warlord separately, and Europe wasn't worth the trouble. Second, Mongols were getting too far away from the steppe. Their armies could not stay in Europe in the long term due to the lack of large enough pastures.
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      > Defeating the king and sacking his capital wasn't enough to pacify the land So, decentralization, in a way. Nice.-
    - mr_toad 2y ago
      The hills and forests of Western Europe were also unfavourable for their preferred cavalry based tactics. And even the damp weather was against them since they couldn’t use their compound bows in the rain.
      - Bluestein 2y ago
        It really makes sense, on all counts, logistics, weather, terrain, tactics.-
ivanhoe 2y ago
You reversed the timeline a bit. Varangians came primarily from todays Sweden, and were initially going inland into the today's Estonia, Belarus and Russia from north, from the Gulf of Finland, using rivers. The group of them called Rus under the leadership of Rurik created Novgorod in 862. About 20 years later they've also conquered Kiev (some 900km more to the south). They were initially raiders, but over time they've conquered the local Slavs, established their rule and became very important traders, as they've created the trading (and also slave) routes all across the continent from the Baltic in the North down to the Black Sea - using huge rivers like Volga and Dneper - trading in south with Byzantin empire and Abbaside Caliphate. It was one of the main trading routes between West/North Europe and Arab world of that age. And as their presence grown stronger, the Rus started more frequently raiding the Byzantin Empire, sacking even the big Constantinople a few times. To stop these attacks, in 10th century the Byzantines did the same move as king Charles the Simple did in Francia with Normans, they gave Varangian leaders some titles and employed them all as a royal guard. Problem solved. And then, as you've said, the viking era was over, and they assimilated into the Slavic population (just like Bulgars and others did). Another interesting note, the Rus ethnonym also got into many Slavic languages as a word for fair blonde or reddish-blonde hair ("русая" in Russian, "rusa" in Serbian/Croatian, etc.). In Serbian 'rus' was historically used in folk language with a meaning 'red', for instance for skin rush, names of some herbs, etc.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  > traders, as they've created the trading (and also slave) So much so that the word “slave” in Greek and other languages comes from “Slavs”?
  - seanhunter 2y ago
    The ancient Greek word for "Slave" is δοῦλος, pronounced "doulos". I'm struggling to see how that comes from "Slav". The sources I've looked up say the derivation is uncertain, but noone mentions "Slav" as a possible origin[1] [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CE%BB%C... and https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0063:entry=servus-cn https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1... for example

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Bluestein 2y ago

> the Mongols came and destroyed Kiev, murdering just about everyone I wonder to what degree - if any - these poor people served as a "buffer" against the Mongols, saving Europe from the slaughter ...

ivanhoe 2y ago
> these poor people served as a "buffer" against the Mongols, saving Europe from the slaughter ... You mean saving Western Europe :) Mongols ran over (and did a lot of slaughter in) the most of Eastern and Central Europe, including Poland, Czechia, parts of todays Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia and Austria. There was no "buffer" that stopped them, they've stopped eventually because their Great Khan died. As the leadership broke down and fights for power arose, they've been forced to return back home.
- Bluestein 2y ago
  > There was no "buffer" that stopped them, they've stopped eventually because their Great Khan died. Basically unstoppable, eh? So, basically, an "accident" of history they did not take over the Mediterranean ...
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    That's not unique to the Mongols. Another easy example would be Alexander of Macedon. History is filled with great empires, many of them expanding, which fell or contracted after the leader passes.
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      Point.- PS. I wonder what - if anything - implications that has for leadership or management - you know, the whole achievement falling apart, missing one individual ... (Or, to project management - low "bus factor", so to speak ...)
  - ivanhoe 2y ago
    Well, they were basically a highly-mobile light cavalry/archers combination, so while they progressed very fast they were not spending much time sieging heavily fortified cities or going into mountains and other hard to cross terrains. Also it took Europeans a while to learn how to fight them efficiently, but eventually they did figure out that European heavy cavalry is a good match for them. So it's not they were "unstoppable", they simply avoided hard targets, and pillaged the villages and other less defended areas, and moved quickly through disorganized European kingdoms fighting each other.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  Mongols invaded Eastern and Central Europe several times, but they always turned back. There are at least two common explanation for that. First, European countryside was infested with castles. Defeating the king and sacking his capital wasn't enough to pacify the land. Mongols would have had to deal with every local warlord separately, and Europe wasn't worth the trouble. Second, Mongols were getting too far away from the steppe. Their armies could not stay in Europe in the long term due to the lack of large enough pastures.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    > Defeating the king and sacking his capital wasn't enough to pacify the land So, decentralization, in a way. Nice.-
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    The hills and forests of Western Europe were also unfavourable for their preferred cavalry based tactics. And even the damp weather was against them since they couldn’t use their compound bows in the rain.
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      It really makes sense, on all counts, logistics, weather, terrain, tactics.-

ivanhoe 2y ago

You reversed the timeline a bit. Varangians came primarily from todays Sweden, and were initially going inland into the today's Estonia, Belarus and Russia from north, from the Gulf of Finland, using rivers. The group of them called Rus under the leadership of Rurik created Novgorod in 862. About 20 years later they've also conquered Kiev (some 900km more to the south). They were initially raiders, but over time they've conquered the local Slavs, established their rule and became very important traders, as they've created the trading (and also slave) routes all across the continent from the Baltic in the North down to the Black Sea - using huge rivers like Volga and Dneper - trading in south with Byzantin empire and Abbaside Caliphate. It was one of the main trading routes between West/North Europe and Arab world of that age. And as their presence grown stronger, the Rus started more frequently raiding the Byzantin Empire, sacking even the big Constantinople a few times. To stop these attacks, in 10th century the Byzantines did the same move as king Charles the Simple did in Francia with Normans, they gave Varangian leaders some titles and employed them all as a royal guard. Problem solved. And then, as you've said, the viking era was over, and they assimilated into the Slavic population (just like Bulgars and others did). Another interesting note, the Rus ethnonym also got into many Slavic languages as a word for fair blonde or reddish-blonde hair ("русая" in Russian, "rusa" in Serbian/Croatian, etc.). In Serbian 'rus' was historically used in folk language with a meaning 'red', for instance for skin rush, names of some herbs, etc.

rdtsc 2y ago
> traders, as they've created the trading (and also slave) So much so that the word “slave” in Greek and other languages comes from “Slavs”?
- seanhunter 2y ago
  The ancient Greek word for "Slave" is δοῦλος, pronounced "doulos". I'm struggling to see how that comes from "Slav". The sources I've looked up say the derivation is uncertain, but noone mentions "Slav" as a possible origin[1] [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CE%BB%C... and https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0063:entry=servus-cn https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1... for example