Thank you very much! I was looking for a video like this because I have a Russian history test coming soon! спасибо большое

@hrsmp

2 жыл бұрын

It's sad to think how little you must know about the topic if you found this video helpful.

This channel has fantastic content!

another awesome video man

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it.

You could raise a child on your videos and they would learn more than 14 years of history at school. Are you going to cover India and China in the future? Or maybe an overview of the Americas before Columbus?

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

Ha, thanks. I probably will get around to those topics in due time. So far, I have mostly only been posting things that I have had to make as part of my courses. I have existing lectures on India and China, but they are of lesser quality and would need to be brushed up before being published on KZread. I will be teaching Western Civ I this coming semester, so I will be covering the early West and retreading some of the stuff that I have covered over the last few months.

@charlesruggles

6 жыл бұрын

Another pathetic misinformed Russian government propaganda video. Fact: "Rus" does not mean or translate in any context to or as Russia. Russia did not become a statehood until the first Tsardom with Ivan IV. It did not exist before this at all, inarguably beyond Muscovy and its singular principality WITHIN the Kievan Rus. Yes, with the Tsardom it did take over Novgorod but that is it until... a good 250 years later in 1800, and ethnically and be land and heritage for centuries had no control over land and people of the Ruthenia column nor Southeastern Poland - FACT. The initial Rus, which in terminology and latin translates to "Ruthenia" is defined by the former lands known as RUTHENIA (slavic): the column from modern day Lithuania (White); Belarus (Black) and Western Ukraine (Red). The Western Rus, which includes the aforementioned including the eastern portion and south-east Poland, notably comprised a major part of the Rus in land and ethnic population of Rus and at no point in history - factually proven by both existing documentation [ as in from the period, not some of false academics derived from Soviet and modern Russian state interests ], chronicled history, maps etc- was ever "Russian" until the partitioning of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the very end of the 1700s or circa year 1800. Galicia-Volhynia [SE Poland/Western Ukraine/Southern Belarus] was one of the three major principalities (2 of which were non-Russian in a 900-year history) (+as well as original Rus along with Kiev - neither "Russian" in their entire history until the 19th Century - so that's 862- 1800 = over 900 years not Russian empire/Soviet). To label all these lands and their historical people, which were Rus Principalities and land/kingdoms (some founded by Polish/Rus-Varangian-bred Ruriks and Kingdom of Poland! like Galicia-Volhynia/Halych, and then later purely Polish, Lithuanian and Commonwealth --- willingly - there is proof in this statement too) "early Russia" or "Russian Statehood" is false, pure lies and propaganda serving a revised history promoted by Russian Empire to Soviet to current "Statehood!" Why do you think there is a Lithunia, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary etc. If you look at all of these, the overwhelming majority - for near a 1,000 years [year 800-1800] were either as independent principalities, kingdoms OR even longer than "Russia"'s existence - Polish, Lithuanian, or Commonwealth! These are facts that again are totally inarguable. Facts - research them - plenty of proof - zero to the contrary. At minimum can you change and erase existing family trees, actually existent treaties, paper and maps - no. To quick are for foolish ignorant people to accept a damn youtube video. Even with warped titling and contextualizing, there is no excuse. For example a few of the Rurik princes in these western territories - look at their family trees - Polish Princess? The modern Russian State issued a coin in recent claiming these same years, which is B.S. Everything I said can be backed up by fact and evidence, treaties, existing chronicles, map - all inarguable. Poor history, incorrect history and total insult. You cannot hide the truth, worse to intentionally or accidently distort based off of false Russia academics. It as also factual that Soviet purposefully exercised campaigns to erase all Polish/Ruthenian history, which apparently continues today - direct evidence, it's on a coin! Also, like the Third Reich sought and burned around 75% of Polish library, it is fact that tens of millions of Poles and Ukrainians along with their "history" were killed intentionally killed with 2 major holocausts in the last century. FACT. What a shame that false history gets rehashed by misinformed irresponsible video posters - a damn shame, and worst passerbys like in the last comment believe it. I say from a person with heritage and family in Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, and United States who can claim heritage with trace and in tact going back centuries and can prove it as well as with inarguable stone cold fact and historical documentation and proof. It is makes me angry to see false history produced like this, without proper sources and evidence. It exists, it's not here. Pathetic.

@charlesruggles

6 жыл бұрын

hope you just learned some real history - every thing I mentioned - landmass, maps and currently existent (fact, proof) treaties to substantiate everything i said exist. Not unlike the times of the 19th Century empire or Soviet period, there is a mass attempt to overwrite and instill Eastern Europe history as part of the Russian State. This is not true and plenty of facts to discredit this attempt. The beginning year titled in this video by the way "862-" coincide with a recent attempt via coinage issue in 2012 for such an anniversary - that will go down in history as pure and obvious propaganda attempt. Sources - the proof is the pudding. I am not naive or young. I am well-educated and come from an age when sources and substantiation meant something - not the perpetuation of misinformation and incorrect labeling or conceptualization.

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

I am always intrigued by someone who has phantom evidence that no one else knows about. It has also been my experience that someone who claims that their account is "real" and their points are "inarguable" can't possibly be wrong. This should be fun. Too bad that your good education apparently did not include proper grammar and syntax or this would go more quickly. Normally, I wouldn't respond to something this rambling, cranky, and insulting. However, you seem to imply that I am trying to spread misinformation and that really pissed me the fuck off. I strive to be accurate and informative in my videos as much as possible and any mistakes that I make are simply instances of being incorrect and not part of some nefarious scheme to spread Russian narratives. What possible motive would I have for lying about the history of early Russia? I am just trying to make an introductory-level video on the history of Russia (or whatever you would have me call the collection of states in place from the 9th Century forward) and I don't really have any agenda beyond that. Do you always go around and make over-the-top accusations against people you don't know? I am really curious about what your sources are. Are you relying on the Primary Chronicle, which talks about the 9th Century 300 years after the fact? Where can I locate the maps and treaties which prove what you're claiming? It seems like your argument hinges upon having this evidence and interpreting it correctly. Let's take a look and see what you have. I find it perplexing that you think that Russia would have a motive for destroying the history of the Slavic people comparable to what the Nazis attempted to do. I mean, really? Paranoid much? Sure, Russia will aggrandize its role in things, but that is hardly the same thing as trying to erase a people's history and create "living space". As for the libraries destroyed by the Nazis, is there any way of knowing what was lost and does any of what was lost have a direct bearing on this conversation? As to your points, I don't know what narratives are being propagated by the Russian government as opposed to Slavic heritage groups or other interested parties. I can inquire about that with someone I know who studies Soviet-era propaganda. The 862 date would kind of make sense, but I read about that date in the early 2000's in a book written in the 80's or 90's, so that is a pretty bad example. Ruthenia, so far as I can tell from the limited information that I have been able to find, was mostly located to the west of almost all of the major settlements of the Kievan Rus. This indicates that either whatever was there prior to the Varangian invasion/migration was 1) a very minor part peripheral area of Ruthenia, 2) something separate from Ruthenia, or 3) that there were very few sedentary settlements prior to the establishment of Kiev, Novgorod, and other cities. So far as I'm aware, there isn't much archaeological data showing any kind of extensive urbanization in what is now Russia prior to the 9th Century. As for the idea that current scholarship is trying to incorporate the larger picture of Eastern Europe into Russian history, I think that looking for a larger context and using what we know about larger regions to explore the history of specific countries is the trend in pretty much every field at this point. The only problem is that the sources are a lot sketchier than you seem to think. Your claim about nothing before Ivan IV counting as statehood is far from "inarguable" simply because there are a lot of different definitions and criteria for what statehood is. Dating a state from Ivan IV requires that you accept a definition of state as defined by scholars of early modern Europe. Such a definition would exclude things like the Roman Empire, which seems odd to me. Most of the debates over statehood are caught up in definitions and technicalities and are not all that illuminating. If you are pushing for the Ivan IV start date for Russia rather than 862, then I assume that you are demanding that the people be unified before it counts rather than allowing for an original proto-state to form. (This was the most muddled part of your post, so I am just guessing that this is what you were trying to say) If that is the most sinister propaganda that Russia can produce, then it is quite sad. The U.S. National Guard dates itself back to before the foundation of the colonial militia; Germans sometimes refer to the Holy Roman Empire as "German" or "Germany" as if it were the same state as well as the same people going back to the aftermath of Charlemagne; when the Romans discovered that Athens had established its democracy in 508/7 BCE, they decided that the Republic was founded in 509/8 BCE (their early historical records were either lost or simply not kept, which afforded them the luxury of reinventing themselves). The point is, this is a fairly minor grievance when everyone else does the same shit on a regular basis. In conclusion, you are probably technically correct that we should not call the assortment of states in the 9th Century on the Russian plains Russia- but you can surely see why just using the word Russia is useful when dealing with a non-specialist audience and trying to give a quick introduction to a subject as it avoids unnecessary confusion.

@charlesruggles

6 жыл бұрын

Hey idiot- you call it phantom evidence - what a moron - so you are denying the fact that the first Tsardom was created out of Muscovy in the 16th Century (? - the first appearance of any entity labelled or construed a "Russia") and there were no kingdoms of Poland, Lithuania, Galicia-Volhynia, and the Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth that comprised the bulk of Eastern Europe from 800-1800??? OK... yea I these facts do not exist, huh? What an idiot. [All substantiated by ESTABLISHED, WELL-KNOWN data = historical documents, maps, etc - as well as clear genealogical data THAT ANYONE can look and verify] MORON. I think you just proved my point. Everything I said can be verified as fact - anyone is invited to look it up and research. You however have been proven wrong. I watch KZread with this account and rarely comment, this account can also be verified by Google itself as existing for about a decade now and obviously I am a real person checking back and commenting. As far as my grammar, I am commenting, dumped a lot of data - true data and grammatically all considering if you have intelligence to parse a large complex sentence, it is certainly understandable. Apparently you lack the brain power and my assumption was right - you intentionally promoting mistruth in your title and context on youtube. Not the first time I have seen it. Anyone else who has read my statements, again, can certainly do their own research and find concrete fact, geography and timelines. Literally everything I stated can easily be verified online and through numerous academic sources. Your contextualizing and title of video is mistruth. As far as sources, my facts given are based STRICTLY on them unlike your bullcrap - go ahead and take your history from a popular, incorrect video game company. No one could possibly be this stupid if they can actually speak and a make a video, so my suspicion is likely correct - false history poster on youtube. People DO NOT get your history from youtube, period. Take from ESTABLISHED and varied sources by objective parties and hard, real, existent evidence. Don't take your history from a video game like this guy!

As always , Balanced, objective historical survey.

Love your lectures but Nevsky's story is taken from the Eisenstein's movie not history. ))

@dmitryberger2257

5 жыл бұрын

Nothing of sorts happened in actuality, as reflected in actual documents of the time. No ice ( the middle of April), no Mongols, no the entire Livonic order, just a minor border skirmish that later was used for propaganda. Eisenstein was a great artist, but all his movies are pure propaganda from the historic point of view.

Interesting!

No topic, except perhaps aspects of Islamic history, seems to make people blow their tops in rage than Russian/Kievan Rus,Ukrainian,Polish history!

@MadMamluk88

4 жыл бұрын

Kalo Arepo seriously, not to mention anything related to Turkish/Turkic steppe history. Seems like Turks and Slavs are the most combative people in the comments section

@jon9247

3 жыл бұрын

Persian history has so many different variants written by foreigners that any time its mentioned it will immediately piss someone off

@MyRealName148

3 жыл бұрын

Macedonians aren’t Greeks. There I’ll leave that to prove my point

Always thought the "Third Rome" claim was akin to a child saying they know how to tap dance - when they actually don't know anything about tap dancing.

Why is it a ruler sometimes referred to as a "Prince" and not a "King"? As in Prince Novgorod.

@ThersitestheHistorian

5 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure, but I assume that it was usually just a reflection of how much overall power a ruler had and his standing vis-a-vis the aristocrats that he controlled, i.e. kings were the heads of more centralized states than princes. You could also make a case for a king being fully sovereign and independent, whereas a prince might owe some degree of allegiance to someone else.

@ricardoponcefernandez6339

4 жыл бұрын

@@ThersitestheHistorian Late, but the I like the translation of "Knyaz" to "prince" due to the connotations it has, rather than to king or emperor which I think differ a lot from what a kievan (or rus) ruler was. Giving an abridge because im on mobily, I tie down a lot of their authority to their gravitas, potestas and not auctoritas. The rus rulers were, in a sense, fairly egalitarian in contrast with the rest of europe and the middle east. If they werent loved by their populace, they were simply kicked and substitued by another rurikid.

@OkurkaBinLadin

3 жыл бұрын

@Robert Stennett Not dukes :) they are ruling COLLECTIVELY as a family in states, that work together as confederation. So the rank of a "prince" (from latin princeps) is accurate. Atleast in theory, the rank between various princes is defined by age.

Tucker: Why did you invade Ukraine?? Putin:

@ThersitestheHistorian

Ай бұрын

Putin: I thought it was going to be a reenactment of 2014.

Omg loooove dis!!!! Ma boooi

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

Ha, thanks.

It's this supposed to end so abruptly?

@EvilSmonker

9 ай бұрын

He usually makes videos in a similar way to how college classes tailor a day's class; sometimes his videos aren't the best flowing but his content and delivery is some of the best in my opinion.

The link between the church of Moscow and Patriarch of Constantinople did link again, as now there is a Patriarch of the latter in Russia.

Wait, I thought that Kiev is Ukranian? What Rus are you talking about?

Doesn't the steppe go all the way thru europe to france? Thought it was all one big plain

@shorewall

2 жыл бұрын

It is a plain, but it's not all steppe.

@alexmuller6752

2 жыл бұрын

there are lots of mountain ranges in central and eastern europe. so technically yes, if you were to take the scenic route straight to petersburg and then roughly follow the coast down to france

7:37 the elephant in the rus

Before " window to baltic sea , was estonian - finnish People at " saint Petersburg " with german mixt races ! Etc.

@attilatasciko4817

3 жыл бұрын

@Bolthro Veblu < U R 100 % STUPID !!! BŁATY !

@user-on5jn9tn5n

Жыл бұрын

ну ты тупой. :-) зато или даже потому упоротый.

Where is the Great Tartaria? What you can find on old maps...!

@santiagorestrepo6339

4 жыл бұрын

its been 7 months and you have no reply! not even a short new video expanding about tartaria. not everyone seek the truth! most will just repeat like sheep the main stream history narrative

@JoeSmith-sl9bq

Жыл бұрын

It was just a term Europeans used to describe Asia

When you say "Timur the Lame" is that a joke?

@mariobillmeier8175

Жыл бұрын

It was his nickname becouse a battlewound had crippled one of his legs.didnt stop him from killing myriads of people in his campaigns throuout all centralasia.

The ugra river standoff can hardly be called a battle

Are any Eu 4 players here

@DmitriPolkovnik

6 жыл бұрын

The omnissiah - rip Novgorod

@ThersitestheHistorian

6 жыл бұрын

I've thought about playing, but I have limited free time and I'm not sure my computer would run the game properly.

@thomaspaine3394

6 жыл бұрын

Thersites the Historian EU3 is better.

@kafon6368

2 жыл бұрын

@@thomaspaine3394 No, it's not.

@Nik-xi2ri

Ай бұрын

CK3

BRUUUUUUH

Why Belgorod is present on the map of the ancient Rus of Vladimir? It was founded in 16 century.

Love vids. Way u say stuff blatently wrong kills me still. KNEE PURR . ITS PROnounced KNEE PURR river. Not DUH nih per.

@EvilSmonker

9 ай бұрын

It's a silent d like m in mnogo ain't it?

Kevin rus? Keyevan rus? 😄

Rus ended with Mongol invasion. Mongol Russia afterwards is completely different state. Majority of connections with Kievan Rus (including personal family trees, in fact originated by Tatars) were faked.

@stormdancer25

4 жыл бұрын

DNA testing Haplo group don't concur with your opinion.

@user-on5jn9tn5n

Жыл бұрын

@@Echowa623 Tigernán mór Ó Ruairc, son of Ualgarg mór, son of Domnall carrach. Cá Bhfuil Rurik?

@JoeSmith-sl9bq

Жыл бұрын

Are you Ukranian?

@0leandr1

Жыл бұрын

@@JoeSmith-sl9bq No

No, Ivan IV was a disaster. He wiped out the noble families, created the instability, which led to the civil war and general unrest around 1600. jeez!

@OkurkaBinLadin

3 жыл бұрын

True, yet very biased from you. Grozny transformed bickering tribes into single unified state with centralized power and structure. Without him, the later empire simply would not happen.

@JoeSmith-sl9bq

Жыл бұрын

I think a state of bickering tribes is superior to a monolitnic one

@dmitryberger2257

Жыл бұрын

@@OkurkaBinLadin wow, there were replies years ago?!))) Nope, Moscovy was a united centralized state centuries before Ivan IV. his grandfather Ivan the Third competed that task. The Terrible almost ruined it.

ALEXANDER NEWSKI won a battle for Nowgorod against an Swedish army on the river Newa.thats where he got his honourname Newski.the attack of the teutonc knights never happend.its just s product of sowjet propaganda in connection with the famous movie from Eisenstein.The order has no accounts of anything more than a skirmish ,if at all.

@user-on5jn9tn5n

Жыл бұрын

Autor der Livländische Reimchronik in der Zeit um 1278 bis 1279 in Livland gewesen sein muss, vermutlich im Dienste des Deutschen Ordens, wahrscheinlich als Herold. Dadurch war es ihm vergönnt, durch das Land zu reisen und Augenzeuge verschiedener Ereignisse zu werden. He definitely wasn 't Soviet and his last name definitely wasn 't Eisenstein.

It's not even close. Novgorod always was independent from any other govt even Kievan Rus. Alexander Nevsky never ruled Novgorod. He was invited konung for the time of a campain. Whole bunch of dutches was organized around route "from Varyag to Greek" which had been down after Constantinople invasions. Thanx crussaders! Mongol invasion. Actually it freed Rus from the Steps threat. Rus payed "vyhod" - english equivalent of "exit". A dane geld alike. Alexander Nevsky was accustom to collect this money and deliver it to the Step. Bureaucracy wasn't invented by Ivan the IV-d, it was pretty functional during Vasily the Blind and Ivan the III-d reigns and early. Ivan the IV-th broke the ancient "leaf rule of legacy" and introduce the "Oprichnina" similar to the "Order of the Garta" of Edward the IIId, but, according a local circumstances more religious but, yet and yet it was an opportunity for a low-born to reach a pinnacle of power. The cruelty level was obvious for this times of Henry the VIII-th's reformation, for example. And so long and so far..

Slava Ukraini!

@kingstonjames7485

2 жыл бұрын

Slava Zucchini!!!!

@logoman001

Жыл бұрын

Heroyam sala!

@user-on5jn9tn5n

Жыл бұрын

Горилку в студию!

Mate, i find it disgusting that Rus is being appropriated as "Russian history", after all, Muscowy was purely a hybrid state of Finns, Mongols and an uncertain mix of slavs, surely they were slavinized, but historically modern Russia has attained much more from the Finns and the Mongol Empire then it did from slavic Rus. Call it history of Rus, or Ruthenia. You know the names by which only Ukraine and Belarus were called until pure domination by Muscowy, who later appropriated their history and even renamed by Peter the 1st in 1721 in order to lay claim to their lands as well! Rus, is Ukraine/Belarus much more then it is "Russia"!You as a historian must know this! Metropolitan decided to leave Kiev and move to Moscow? HE WAS KIDNAPPED, THEN FORCED TO SIGN THE PATRIARCHATE OVER FROM KIEV TO MOSCOW WHILE IMPRISONED AND TORTURED. COme on man, you really blew the ball on this one. Do you know what the modern Russian language was called up to the early 18th century? MOSCOWIAN CHURCH SLAVONIC, you know what the ancestor of Ukrainian/Belorusian was called? RUSYN OR RUTHENIAN. The true vernacular language of Rus. Ohh man this upsets me greatly, your are literally repeating Russia history that was rewritten in order to benefit the Muscowy Empire. Of course Mongols and Finns are much less prestigious then the history of Kieven Rus. When there was civilization in Ukraine, RUSSIA WAS A FOREST. Novgorod in itself was aligned with the successor to Rus, the Great Kingdom Of Lithuania and Ruthenia/Rus. It was only through sheer invasion and destruction that Novgorod was added to the Muscowy Empire!

@michael_crow

5 жыл бұрын

Yet another radical ukrainian pseudo-historian. Every video on youtube starring the history of Rus' has some of your kind saying that ohoho russians aren't slavs even. Like, boiz, really, for pity's sake, I understand you have a lot of reasons to dislike russia. Even russians themselves have a lot of reasons to dislike it, but it is one thing to dislike something and criticize it properly for what it is and what it has done and it is a completely different thing to say thing that just aren't true. Nobody's trying to defend the positions of radical russian pseudo-historians here, they've done and said a lot of stupid things throughout history themselves, but it is really an absurd to say that russians are not slavs. Or to say that Rus' and Ukraine is the same damn state. History doesn't work this way. Austria and HRE are not the same state. Germany and HRE are not the same state. The damn Netherlands and HRE are not the same damn state either. Rus was Rus. It has its continuation with modern Russia as well as with Ukraine and Belarus. Those tribes who migrated from carpathian mountains all the way East and North are the ancestors of all of these three modern nations. Surely they got to the territory of modern day Russia later than they did to Ukraine, Russia is geographically further Eastward. What a damn surprise, people need more time to get to the lands that are further. But that doesn't mean that those aren't the same people. You guys hate russians so much, you are ready to deny the truth itself just to pretend that you are not connected to them. But you are connected. The same way the Dutch are connected to Germans. Or the French to Italians. Like surely the history of Roman Empire is not the history of France or Spain or Italy even. It encompasses all of them. At least that period when it existed. Do not be as retarded as radical russians. It doesn't make you look any better. Only worse.

@alekshukhevych2644

5 жыл бұрын

@@michael_crowIm not a historian, but I do know the history of my country and I do know the history of Rus. The same people? Dude, Ukrainians are made up of about 8 major Slavic tribes. There are 40 Million Ukrainians. Russians, are made up AT MOST of 3 Slavic tribes, 1 of which is really an early slavinised Finnic tribes. THERE ARE 100 MILLION RUSSIANS..Moscowians appropriated our history, and were even cowardly enough to take our historical name...They even had the audacity to call us " Little Russians".and themselves " Great Russians". Bigotry at its finest...All I am saying, I greatly dislike how the author positions Rus to be strictly a Russian entity..

@alekshukhevych2644

5 жыл бұрын

@Robert StennettHe still calls it " Russian state". Rus in English is RUTHENIA..Russia in Slavic does not equate to long term of Rus like it does in English...

@darrenehhhhhhtill8051

4 жыл бұрын

So russians are a different people but we're ruled by the rus. So shouldnt they be able to be apart of that same history? The rus ruled the moscovy people although they may not come from same bloodline they still claimed the rus as there prince or king. So not blood ancestors but a ruling ancestor.

@tewekdenahom485

3 жыл бұрын

Man shut up