"Muscovites" preceded "Russians"

[Reza_Rahmani]

Sorry for spelling error (preceded, not 'preceeded')

Maybe there is a deeper historical basis for the antagonism between Moscow and the rest of Russia.

The Kyivan "Rus Chronicles" which contain the famous "Povist Vremenykh Lit" by Nestor tells very clearly that the Russian nation is descended primarily from Finno-Ugric tribes and not Slavic tribes. These Finno-Ugric tribes are identified as the Chud, Ves, Meria, Muroma, Cheremysy, Mordva, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Zymyhola, Kors, Narova, and Lib. These Finno-Ugric tribes were the indigenous tribes which lived in the area which is now European Russia into which the Slavic tribes of Slovenes and Kryvychi slowly pressed in and eventually became absorbed. It was only because of Kyiv's suzerainty over this small area of today's Russia that the Finno-Ugrians were Slavicized and Christianized and eventually became the heart of what is today Russia, but what was then called at first Suzdalia-Vladimir and later Muscovia. The subsequent rule of the Mongols over this area had according to some Russian historians as much or greater impact on the Russian culture and psyche than did the period of Kyivan rule. These Slavicized Finno-Ugrians at first were called Muscovites during the Mongol rule and later during the reign of Peter I changed their name to Russians.


Reza


[This message has been edited by Reza Rahmani (edited 27 December 2000).]

[Dr_Woland]

You may have something there :-) Of course, Moscow only came to power by accident - had Kiev not been knocked-out by the unexpected arrival of Chenghis-Khan, things may well have been different. Moscow stepped into the power-vacuum.

However, as I was saying in another post, I think you can take this theory too far. If you read Dostoyevsky, Gogol, etc, you will find a deep-rooted hatred of the Russian Capital too - only at their time, this was St Petersburg.

I don't think it is so much EITHER Moscow OR St Petersburg - it is a distrust, and distate, for the extreme centralisation of power which has traditionally characterised the modus operandi of the governance of this country (regardless of the type of Govt in power).

Dr W.

[Dr_Woland]

By the way, there is much that is flawed in that theory, however.

Firstly "Russians" (in what we should properly spell "Kiev" at that time, since it was a Russian area - Ukrainian orthography came a bit later...) were around MUCH earlier than the very earliest claims for Moscow's founding in the C12th. Furthermore, Kiev had its own city-states in the Moscow region from nearly 300 years before - Vladimir, for example, was founded by Grand-Prince Vladimir of Kiev, in the C9th.

I don't think it is historically correct to say that northern settlements like Pskov, Novgorod-The-Great, etc, were "Finno-Ugrian". Whilst there was a great deal of interaction WITH the northern non-slavic trading powers, the peoples of both cities were slavs.

It's important to understand the Viking methodology - the "rape, pillage and burn" theory is based on hearsay only. The Vikings, like the Mongols, were not interested in power for its own sake - and like the Mongols, a good deal of their success is due to this way of working. Provided that Tribute and Trade were forthcoming, Vikings were usually quite content to leave Vassal-kings (the word "vassal" is itself of Scandic origin) in place. Provided the vassal acknowledged his suzerainty to his Viking patrons, all would be well.

Rurik, and his successors, operated this way in northern Russia. Only a generation later than Rurik, the Princes of cities of the area are once again Slavs. Only these Slavs have the back-up of powerful allies in a network of such alliances that stretches from northern Russia to Greenland. It might even be suggested that the Mongols chose to leave northern Russia alone for this reason.

Maybe its not too fanciful to see medieval Kiev as yet another of Russia's long history of over-centralised, over-demanding power-centres... demanding taxes, tithes, and political and military allegiance from its subject states. Ultimately, the provinces rebel... and when Kiev needs help to rebuild post-invasion, none is forthcoming. Instead, they sieze power for themselves - and exactly the same thing happens anew...

Dr W.

[Wendist]

Hello

Reza and Dr.Woland, you two must forgive me for barging in but after having read your posts I am more confused than usual and in need of clarification. Help please.

Reza, what is the bottom line in your post? That Muscovites are not russians but covert Finns?

Dr.Woland, this power thing, is it so very russian? I would think that the people in f.ex. Milan or Glasgow have pretty much the same feelings for Rome and London respectively as Peterburgians have for Moscow.

Finno-Ugric tribes versus Vikings? Are you two guys within the same time-frame at all? If either of you two could give me a hint on were to find some info on this subject it would be much appreciated I assure you.

I have just realised that my dictionary is not as good as it should be. Could anyone please explaine the word suzerainty to me.

Appologies for a somewhat incoherent post.

PS. Nice to have you back Dr.W. DS.

Regards Thomas

[Reza_Rahmani]

Here is a view expressed by a Ukrainian I encountered on a list:

HISTORY OF THE UKRAINE-RUSSIA RELATIONS

The word UKRAINA (today's name of the country) appeared in the 12th century. The meaning of the word is "the-country-within", and has described the inner territories of the Ukrainian empire Kyiv Rus'(8th-13th century) without colonies. One of the colonized territories was Moscovia. Moscow (Moskva) itself was founded in 12th century as one of the outward posts of the empire deep in the forests occupied by native Finno-Ugric tribes, the ancestors of modern Russians (80% of the topographic names in the modern Central Russia have the Finno-Ugric roots including the name of the Moskva-river that means "the dirty water").

After separation from Rus' in 13th century the territory of Moscovia became a part of the Tatar-Mongol empire - the Golden Horde. Moscovia and Rus' were never identical (even in the medieval Moscow documents this difference was made) until the Tsar of Moscovia Peter I decided to establish his own empire and to redirect Moscovia expansion to the West. He brought European manners to Moscovia by force and started an active Europe-oriented Moscow policy.

He tried, as he called it, "to hack out the window to Europe" by conducting the Great Northern War (1700-1721) against Sweden, and constructing the new capital city of the future empire - St.Petersburg (1703). But he realized that the "gate to Europe" for Moscovia is situated in Ukraine, which always was in the European political, cultural and economical development context. That is why Tsar Peter chose the policy of liquidation of Ukrainian independence. But not only that. He decided to take the history of the old Ukrainian empire Kyiv Rus' which was famous in Europe.

In 1721 Peter I gave the Moscovite state a new name: Rossiya (Engl. Russia), and proclaimed: "now the Moscovite people will be called the Russian people!" He proclaimed also that Ukraine now is only a province of Moscovia. All the Moscovite rulers that came afterwards have repeated after him including Soviet official history and KGB. They also brought to life an anti-scientific theory that Ukrainian language is nothing more than a dialect (!) of Russian. One with the Russian native tongue can't understand Ukrainian.

Now, as a result of Moscow propaganda, most of the Western historians repeat this myth and the World thinks that there are and there were no other peoples and states in Eastern Europe except Russian (Moscovite), however the facts are proving that this concept is totally untrue...


Definitions, in answer to query:

su·ze·rain
controlling nation: a nation that controls a dependent nation's international affairs but otherwise allows it to control its internal affairs

[Early 19th century. From Old French suserain , of uncertain origin: probably formed from sus "up" (from Latin su(r)sum ) on the model of souverain.]


Finno-Ugric languages, also called Finno-Ugrian languages, group of languages forming a subdivision of the Uralic subfamily of the Ural-Altaic family of languages . The Finno-Ugric group of languages can be divided into two subgroups, Finnic and Ugric. These languages have about 24 million speakers distributed in enclaves scattered in a territory that stretches from Norway east to the Ob River of Siberia and south to the Carpathian Mts. About 10 million of these people speak the Finnic tongues, which include Finnish, native to about 5 million in Finland and about 1 million elsewhere; Karelian, used by close to 100,000 in Karelia in NW Russia; Estonian, the mother tongue of more than 1 million in Estonia; Lapp, native to some 60,000 mainly nomadic people living in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia; Mordovian, spoken by about 1 million in Russia in the neighborhood of the Volga River below its bend; Cheremiss, the mother tongue of 550,000 in the area where the Volga and Kama rivers join (W of the Ural Mountains); and the Permian languages Votyak, native to about 600,000 between the Kama and Vyatka rivers of European Russia, and Zyrian or Komi, spoken by some 400,000 living between the Pechora, Mezen, and Kama rivers (W of the Ural Mountains). The principal member of the Ugric subgroup is Hungarian, with some 13 million speakers, 10 million of whom reside in Hungary and another 3 million in adjacent countries. Ostyak is spoken by about 25,000 in the area of the Ob River of W Siberia, and Vogul is the language of some 5,000 in the neighborhood of the Ob and Irtysh rivers of W Siberia. The Finno-Ugric languages are agglutinative in that they add large numbers of suffixes to an unchanging root (one suffix following the other) to indicate such features as case, number, person, tense, and mood. Derivatives are also frequently formed by suffixes.



The term Rus is a Finnish term for the Swedes, when the Vikings would come down the Dnieper from the Dvina. The Viking by the name of Rurik, thought to be Rurik of Jutland, set himself up at Novgorod. Vladimir Prince of Kiev is descended from him. Rus comes from the Finnish name for Sweden, Ruotsi..... The name Ruosti, it is argued, arose from roosmenn, men of the rowing-way, the people of today's Roslagen, the Rowing-Law, the coastal area of Swedish Uppland. Those were the people known to the Finnish, whether the Vikings came from Denmark, Sweden or Norway.

I am sure that Woland can add to the above.

Reza

[oca]

Wendist,

This is another explanation of the word SUZERAINTY:
From French Suzeraineté (the dominion of a suzerein = Overlordship) A dominant state controlling the foreign relations of a vassal state but allowing it sovereign authority in its internal affairs.

I guess between Dr_W, Reza and Sato we are going to get an education. Or at least our research skills are going to be updated.

[Dr_Woland]

Hello Thomas

First, being without any of my English-lang reference materials here in Moscow (too heavy to bring when I moved) I'm grateful to Oca - who is far too modest himself - for a good definition of suzerainty.

I would agree with you about the "power thing". The only thing I would add is that it is a continuous theme running through Russian history. Whereas many European powers - through Machiavellian methodology, using religion to reinforce "the Divine Right Of Kings" - managed to prevent rebel city-states becoming too powerful, Russia has always had the problem of resentment of the Capital by other areas. There are several possible explanations, and I don't know which I favour - firstly, the impossible size of the country*; second the climate which made even medieval communications impossible for half the year; thirdly, the power of the Boyars ("Barons") which subverted the Grand-Prince's and Tsar's; and finally, the mercurial role of the Church, which tended to play all sides against the middle for its own greater gain.

[* let's remember that "Russia" extended, in effective administrative terms, only as far as the River Ob until C16th+, and really only as far as the Urals as far as most were concerned. So about 1/3rd its present size.]

Another point - we are all rather "stuck" in C19th-21st mindsets - thinking of "nations". Such a concept hardly existed before the C17th. We should rather think of the interactions of city-states of differing levels of power and influence. Venice is a classic example.

In terms of timescale, this is where *I* think we're talking about.... ask Reza for clarification on his side? I would say...

(fasten your seatbelts, the Time Machine is about to depart...)

...sometime in the C9th, there is a legend (by a legend, I mean it cannot be proven with documentation, although I don't intend to undermine it especially) that the peoples of (let's not use country-names - they confuse things, when "countries" didn't exist as such) the areas around where Novgorod, Pskov, Tver, etc are, sent a famous LETTER. This letter was to the Scandinavian overlord Rurik, and is supposed to have said "we have a rich country, but there is no order in it. come and rule it for us".

This legend is widely believed in Russia. Personally I am sceptical - it seems like a face-saving way to accept defeat or surrender. But possibly it is true? In any case, this pitched the northern Slavs (for they were undoubtedly Slavs, and NOT finno-ugrians!) against the rule of Kiev. Kiev's response was to build-up fortress-cities loyal to the southern capital - Vladimir, Suzdal, etc. Moscow appeared rather later, but still had Kiev's support (what a critical mistake the Kievan rulers made there!)

OK, let's move-on 300-400 years.

Kiev has been destroyed by the Mongols - the skew-ball no-one could have anticipated. The Mongols have returned to Mongolia, leaving their military allies the Tartars as their tax-collectors and administrators for Russia, based out of Kazan. Novgorod has become the power-centre for the "rebel" northern city-states, with Pskov and Nizhny-Novgorod as its main allies. And Novgorod is refusing to pay taxes.

Here's the political scene in C12-13th - anyone who wants to gain power in Russia has to juggle THESE balls.... (i) keep the Tartars - and thus the Mongols - happy by paying the taxes on time. They are too powerful to challenge directly right now. (ii) keep the Church happy by building monasteries and coming-up with lots of cash (iii) maintain a strong defence-line in the Baltics - against predatory invasions by Teutonic (="German") groups such as the Knights Of The Sword, and the Knights Of The Holy Cross (based out of Reval (Tallinn) and Riga, respectively).

Moscow has found the way of balancing all of these factors, and has inherited Kiev's power. However, keeping all those people needs CASH and lots of it. Moscow has none of its own. And it eyes the huge trade wealth of Novgorod, which has joined the Hanseatic League, and is trading with Scandinavia especially, and with just-about anyone (Novgorod's museum has coins from this era - showing they were trading with all of Western Europe, Greenland (!), Arabic countries, Egypt, and Cathay). So Moscow launches a huge onslaught on Novgorod, and defeats it with superior force. [As usual, Novgorod negotiates a peace rather than enduring a military catastrophe. :-) ]

Once Moscow has forcibly "united" the city-states of the North, it begins to chip-away at Tartar rule. This process goes on for hundreds of years, as Moscow gains confidence and becomes bolder. At first they pay the tax late. Then they pay less than it should be. Then they don't pay. They attack Kazan and destroy it. (They are able to do so because the Mongol Empire has collapsed from within due to civil wars between rival Mongol factions). They send armies Eastwards to drive-out Mongol factions who have moved towards Russia after the fall of Karakorum.

That's my understanding of how Moscow came to power, basically.

A RADICALLY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION is also possibly valid! The legendary Russian historian Gumilev (son of the poet and officer L. Gumilev and poetess Anna Akhmatova) proposed (in "A History Of the Han Dynasty") that the present Russian people are, in fact, an outpost of a population formed from inter-breeding between Mongols, Tartars, Khanty, Mansy, Russians, Finns, and other Steppe peoples. They are "the last Mongols" in his view. Needless to say, this idea is not very popular in Russia :-) Although it wasn't entirely new - Andrei Bely was playing with these ideas of Russian-Tartar-Mongol inter-breeding in his novel "Petersburg" nearly 80 years earlier.

Dr W.