- 03 Apr 2016 14:21
#14667242
noemon's summary in this thread: no matter who was the first while you agree it was Greeks.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
ThirdTerm wrote:
It's generally assumed that the ancient Slavs were a backward people who could not establish their own kingdom but the Pontic steppe was at the centre of the Yamna culture, which influenced other cultures in South Asia and Central Asia. The idea that the Slavs were conquered by the Vikings is stereotypical and Rurik was probably a local warlord from the area who assumed the Viking identity through cultural influences from Scandinavia. Some Viking settlers may have been in the region as noble guests and artisans but the ruling class was purely Slavic in origin.
It's generally assumed that the ancient Slavs were a backward people who could not establish their own kingdom but the Pontic steppe was at the centre of the Yamna culture, which influenced other cultures in South Asia and Central Asia. The idea that the Slavs were conquered by the Vikings is stereotypical and Rurik was probably a local warlord from the area who assumed the Viking identity through cultural influences from Scandinavia. Some Viking settlers may have been in the region as noble guests and artisans but the ruling class was purely Slavic in origin.Rurik family line was just one out of the many viking families that came to be in the ruling class. And they came to intermarry quickly with local Slavs. So I would not be surprised that the norse blood was quickly mixed with slavic one.
Potemkin wrote:In England, Russia was known back in the 16th century as 'Muscovy'.
The Rus' were Varangians, they were termed as such by the Greeks and the Greeks have absolutely no reason to lie for this, if the genetics are indeed similar(which is a big if) perhaps you should consider the Slavs and the Vikings being one and the same. They look identical anyway.
Most historians tend to agree with the Primary Chronicle that the Varangians organized the native settlements into the political entity of Kievan Rus' in the 880s and gave their name to the land. However, many Russian scholars are opposed to this theory of Germanic influence and have suggested alternative scenarios for this part of Eastern European history. Russian historiography includes a number of Anti-Normanist theories, antagonistic to the Normanist theory of a Scandinavian origin of Varangians. For example, according to Yu. Shilov, Varangians ( Vargi) were supposed to be a tribe of Baltic Slavs without roots to Norse Vikings.[23] While this dispute continues, the event of Rurik's arrival in 862 to what is now Northern Russia on the request of the local peoples, known as the Invitation of the Varangians (Russian: Призвание варягов), continues to be regarded as the traditional starting point of Russian history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians
Götaland and Gotland in southern Sweden now have the highest frequency of haplogroup Q in Europe (5%) and almost all of it belong to the Q1a2b1 (L527) subclade. The Romans reported that the Huns consisted of a small ruling elite and their armies comprised mostly of Germanic warriors. Gotland and Götaland is the presumed homeland of the ancient Goths. In the 1st century CE, some Goths migrated from Sweden to Poland, then in the 2nd century settled on the northern shores of the Black Sea around modern Moldova. The Huns conquered the Goths in the Pontic Steppe in the 4th century, forcing some of them to flee the Dnieper region and settled in the Eastern Roman Empire (Balkans). It would not be improbable that some Goths and Huns moved back to southern Sweden, either before invading the Roman Empire, or after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, displaced by the Slavic migrations to Central Europe. After all, even ancient people kept the nostalgia of their ancestral homeland and knew exactly where their ancestors a few hundreds years earlier came from.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_Q_Y-DNA.shtml
Igor Antunov wrote:The mongols did not really mix with those populations they conquered, outside of Genghis khan himself with his Chinese sex antics (~2 million direct descendants), because the mongols were comparatively tiny/few in number; they had little impact on populations outside of their own heartland. At the height of the contiguous mongol empire there were ~200,000 pure blood mongols, who lorded over 150 million people (after killing ~50 million). So their Asia-wide mixed genetic impact is minimal.
ThirdTerm wrote:The ancient Huns and Mongols mainly belonged to Haplogroup Q1a, which has been identified in Iron Age remains from Hunnic sites in Mongolia and Xinjiang. Haplogroup Q can be found in Eastern Europe at low frequencies (1-4%) and about 2% of Russians also belong to Q, where the Mongols invaded and occupied for several centuries. Moreover, the frequency of the Q1a2b1 (L527) subclade is 5% in southern Sweden and it's thought that the region was once colonised by the ancient Huns, who may have led Viking expeditions in Europe as chieftains.
Political Interest wrote:I have tried to understand Russian national identity but it is not simple at all.
It looks as though a lot of Russian nationalists like to adopt the narrative that the Russian ethnos was conceived within the context of the Mongol Empire. Lev Gumilev believed that the 'Mongol Yoke' was a myth and that the Mongols helped to preserve and protect the Orthodox Slavs from European invaders. As far as I am aware Alexander Dugin also takes this point of view and Gumilev's work has greatly assisted in forming the basis for Neo-Eurasianist ideology. From this point of view the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and now today's Russian Federation were all successors of the same original Muscovian polity that was formed within the context of Mongol rule.
What appears to be undeniable is that regardless of influence from Mongol civilisation the Russian people are a mixture of Eastern Slavs and Finno-Ugric tribes. I don't believe that the Mongols had much influence on Russian genetics and most Russians I have met look no different to other Europeans.
Drawing inspiration from the works of Konstantin Leontyev and Nikolay Danilevsky, Gumilyov regarded Russians as a "super-ethnos" which is kindred to Turkic-Mongol peoples of the Eurasian steppe. Those periods when Russia has been said to conflict with the steppe peoples, Gumilev reinterpreted as the periods of consolidation of Russian power with that of steppe in order to oppose destructive influences from Catholic Europe, that posed a potential threat to integrity of the Russian ethnic group. In accordance with his pan-Asiatic theories, he supported the national movements of Tatars, Kazakhs, and other Turkic peoples, in addition to those of the Mongolians and other East Asians. Unsurprisingly, Gumilev's teachings have enjoyed immense popularity in Central Asian countries. In Kazan, for example, a monument to him was opened in August 2005.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Gumilyov
If people have that impression then they're just […]
^ this is the continuation of the pre-1948 confli[…]
A millennial who went to college in his 30s when […]