Hey guys...

[KLange]

No offense, guys, but here is something that I found while surfing the Internet. It's by a guy named isodore Nahayewsky. Jabroni sound like a sneeze, doesn't he? I just would like to get your opinions on it.

Starting on P. 14: It is worthwhile mentioning that there were
Russian scholars who attributed to the settlers from Ukraine a
preponderant part in the formation of the Muscovite people and its state.
However, recent archeological and anthropological researchers proved a
very limited part which was played by Ukrainian settlers, for instance,
the Russian archeologist Spitsin emphasized that there was no
mass-colonization of Ukrainians to Muscovy at the time of Tartar
invasion, as some Muscovite historians maintained. In Spitsin's opinion
the mass of Ukrainian people have never abandoned their own territory
before the invasion of Asiatic nomads, and especially Mongols or Tartars
in the XIII century. To the contrary, says Spitsin, the
chroniclers give testimony that the Ukrainians always were ready to fight
"infidels." In Spitsin's opinion the Ukrainians would have never changed
their wonderful black soil for the northern sands, marshes, forests and
swamps, the warm climate for a cold. The fact that in Muscovy there
were towns with Ukrainian names, for instance, Pereyaslav, Halich,
Peremyshl, Zvenyhorod, Volodimir, Yuriev, etc., according to Spitsin is
not an argument that they must have been founded by Ukrainian settlers,
because only a town where there was princely residence had a Ukrainian
name and the rest of the towns and villages have no Ukrainian names.
After the Mongol (or Tartar) invasion in 1239/40 for Ukraine and Muscovy
began a "Period of Tartar Yoke" which for Russia lasted until the end of
the XV century, while in Ukraine it was much shorter; therefore, it had
no such influence on Ukraine as it had on structure of Muscovy. Every
Muscovite prince was to be confirmed by the Tartar Khan and was to appear
personally in his Headquarters in Saray to pay him homage. This long
Tartar domination stamped national and historical development of the
Russian people. It is to this centuries-long submission that the
Russians owe their autocratic form of government with all the main
characteristic features of Asiatic Tartars, including the conception of
life which is foreign to the rest of the Slavic peoples. Muscovite
historian Pogodin came up with an idea that during the Tatar invasion
Ukrainian territories along the Dnieper River were depopulated and later
on again repopulated by the Ukrainians from Galicia. However, such a
view cannot be evidenced by the sources; a careful examination of
historical sources, for instance, memories of Missionary John Plano de
Carpini, as well as the testimony of Kievan Archbishop Petro Akerovich
during the Ecumenical Council of Lyons in 1245, prove that after the
Tatar invasion of Ukraine the foregoing trade in her towns and cities was
not interrupted, and although the country was severely devastated the
people themselves were there. Contemporary historical sources prove
that the Tatars were most dangerous to the invaded nations at the moment
of the conquest itself: They perpetrated massacres and wrought frightful
devastations, and their conduct was marked by extreme cruelty. It was
based on policy and governed by method. The Tatars wished to inspire
fear, a feeling of helplessness, of humiliation and submission; they
terrorized the people. On the other hand, it is known form
contemporary sources that the Tatars aiming at the disruption of
organization of the political system, first of all, attacked the upper
classes of society forcing them into submission, but the common people
they preserved, since they needed them for paying tribute and taxes to
the new overlords. It is of interest to mention that the Russian
Bolsheviks follow the same policy in the newly invaded countries. It did
not serve interest of the Tatars to slaughter and exterminate the local
population, as some Russian scholars wish to convince us. From Ukrainian
chronicles it can be seen that the population seeing advancing Tatars,
fled to forests, hills and swamps and after the danger passed they
returned home and rebuilt their ruined homes. There is another
circumstance, worthy of mentioning, before the Tatars invaded Ukraine in
1240 they destroyed all Muscovite principalities, thus no one could have
been attracted to abandon his land and to flee north, where the same
Tatars were overlords until the last quarter of the 15th century.
The author of "Povest" reports that the Kievan prices incorporated many
tribes into their State and among them the ancestors of present-day
Russia. Some scholars maintain that the basins of the upper Volga and
Oka Rivers, from the dawn of history, were subject to a Slavic
colonization by Novhorod from the north, by the Kryvychians from the west
and by the Viatychians from the south. Thus the present Russian
(Muscovite) territories were populated by the Slavs. This theory,
however, cannot be confirmed by information from the sources, since there
is no proof of such a mass migration of Slavs form the south to the
north. The princes of the Kievan dynasty, who ruled the northern
principalities of Rostov-Suzdal and Volodimir on the Klyazma River,
introduce their Slavic language, customs, traditions and Christianity,
but aboriginal tribes maintained such strong resistance that only in the
16th century was the Finnish tongue replaced by the Slavic, thanks to the
missionary activity of the monasteries. When Price Yuriy of Suzdal in
the middle of the 12th century, supported by the Greeks, occupied the
throne of Kiev, his northern officials were not considered by the Kievans
as a "Rus' people." After Yuriy's death an uprising followed and all his
northern dignitaries were either killed or chased away as foreign
intruders. Yuriy's son, Prince Andriy Boholubsky of Rostov-Suzdal,
made a coalition against Kiev, slaughtered its inhabitants, and ruined
the city. No genuine prince of Rus' would have dared to ruin the "Mother
of Rus' Cities," since Kiev was the center of culture and civilization of
all Rus' people. This early antagonism between the Southern Rus'-Ukraine
and the Northern Muscovy-Russia, to a certain extent could be considered
the pre-history of the formation of a new nation, with its capital in
Moscow, in the 15th century. That new State was not a genuine Rus', but
a conglomeration of many non-Slavic tribes under the leadership of the
Kiev dynasty. Commenting the sack of Kiev by Andriy Boholubsky the
Chronicler said, "No mercy was shown to anybody nor any effort at rescue
made from any quarter while the churches were burning, and Christians
were either slaughtered or shackled. Wives were led into captivity and
violently separated from their husbands. Children wept bitterly seeing
their mothers thus treated. A great amount of wealth was carried off,
and the churches were stripped of their icons, the holy crosses, and
their vestments and bells, and floor tiles. And there was in Kiev among
the whole population sobbing and depression and inconsolable sadness and
unceasing tears." Chroniclers recorded that, "many peoples joined
Andriy Boholubsky," for instance, Greeks, Rus' (probably from
Pereyaslav), Latins, Bulgars, Jews, Polovtsians (Andriy's mother was of
Polovtsian origin, and one of his wives was an Ossetian). Prince Andriy
separated his domain from the influence of the south. It was Prince Ivan
Kalita of Moscow (1328-1341), who with the Tatars' help enforced his
influence on some northern principalities. Prince Dimitri Donskoy's
victory over the Tatars on Kulikovo Pole (Plain) in 1380 started the
formation of the Muscovite nation.

It is an established fact that the Kievan Kingdom, its laws and
civilization were created by one nationality: the Ukrainian; while the
Volodimir-Suzdal-Moscow State was the creation of another nationality-
the Muscovite (Russian). The Kievan Period did not pass into the
Volodimir-Moscow Period, but into the Halich-Volynian Period. Therefore,
there never was and in not now such a thing as "an All-Russian
nationality" in Eastern Europe. There are three separate nationalities:
Russian (Muscovite), Bieloruthenian, and Ukrainian. All the attempts of
Czar Peter I, who assumed the name of "Great Russia," and of his
successors of the 18-20th centuries to assimilate Ukrainians by "melting"
them in "one all-Russian pot," failed.

[Ragnvald]

What failed? We are still pretty good together.
We sing each other songs and understand each other without translator.
What do mean they are same or not same?
They live close to each other but in diffrent places, their history is slightly diffrent.
Thousand years ago there were no boarders and people moved freely. This question, same or not same doesn't make sense.
They are undistinguishable by their look, they speak very similar language and have very similar customs, they believe in same God, they use same names, any of them feels himself home in any of the three countries.

[KLange]

Originally posted by Ragnvald
What failed? We are still pretty good together.
We sing each other songs and understand each other without translator.
What do mean they are same or not same?
They live close to each other but in diffrent places, their history is slightly diffrent.
Thousand years ago there were no boarders and people moved freely. This question, same or not same doesn't make sense.
They are undistinguishable by their look, they speak very similar language and have very similar customs, they believe in same God, they use same names, any of them feels himself home in any of the three countries.

That's exactly what I think. Personally, I think that this Isodore Nahayewsky guy is full of crap. Even the University of Toronto's Journal of Ukrainian Historical Studies Review called Nahayewsky's book an "Amateur account". I think that an well-knowledgeable person could be able to easily debunk that stuff. Beside, how hard is it to believe that descendants of the Vyatichi, Krivichi, and Slovenes settled in Vladimir-Suzdal. Even before Kievan Rus, they all lived faily close to V-S, even by the standards of back then. Plus, as their population grew, they naturally had to expand, and there was only one real direction to do so..namely V-S. Plus, modern Belarus was and is no different in terrain from Vladimir-Suzdal, but it didn't prevent large-scale Slavic settlement. There are indeed still quite a few similarities between the sons of Rus..Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.

[Danger-boy]

I agree with you Klange, that Nahuyewsky and Spitsin are full of crap. However, why did you post this crap here?

[KLange]

Originally posted by Danger-boy
I agree with you Klange, that Nahuyewsky and Spitsin are full of crap. However, why did you post this crap here?

Because I wanted it to be refuted by people who know more about the facts. it may sound lame, but it's true.

[Danger-boy]

Originally posted by KLange
Because I wanted it to be refuted by people who know more about the facts. it may sound lame, but it's true.

Since you yourself consider this to be crap and you know it can be refuted, why can't you provide your own arguments to refute it?

[KLange]

[ [/b][/quote]

Since you yourself consider this to be crap and you know it can be refuted, why can't you provide your own arguments to refute it?

[/b][/quote]

Because I thought that there might be people here who know much more about such matters than me.