This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The dates given for Novgorod and Kiev as capitals in the infobox are not to be trusted, but that Novgorod was the seat of the Rus' before Kiev is certain. For example, Florin Curta, Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300), pp. 275–277, says that "the northwestern region of present-day Russia, specifically the area of modern St. Petersburg, and especially the southern shore of Lake Ladoga [...] is now viewed as the area in which the first urban centers of Eastern Europe emerged, and where the first capital of Rus’ (long before Kiev, of course) was established." Various of our articles (e.g. Oleg of Novgorod and Garðaríki) make the point that Novgorod was the Rus' capital before Kiev. Srnec (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
“Long before Kiev, of course”—what does that mean?
Obviously it wasn’t Kyivan Rus as such before Oleh conquered Kyiv and established a loose federation of princedoms based in Kyiv, in Rus. The territory and state in Novgorod likely weren’t called Rus then either, because we know that during the Kyivan period Rus Land was the area around Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereiaslav. And it is not defined by the Riurykovych line starting with Riuryk, but with the first ruler of Kyiv, Oleh.
I don’t much care whether Novgorod is listed as “capital” while it was Oleh’s seat or not, but let’s just edit the article with a clear picture of the definition of the subject. —MichaelZ. 03:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
This is an interesting but complicated question, which to a certain extent is a matter of arbitration based on semantics.
For one, the very terms Kievan Rus' and Kyivan Rus' are a modern historiographic constructs (first attested in the 19th century), i.e. conventional names in literature which you won't find in the primary sources. It depends very much on the historical context whether we can infer that Rus' refers to Kievan Rus' or not (necessarily). So when Curta says the first capital of Rus’, he may not (necessarily) mean Kievan Rus' (yet). Moreover, unless he mentions Novgorod explicitly (which is not in the quote given), I don't think we can infer that, because that would be WP:SYNTH.
Secondly, there is kind of an unwritten convention to label Rus' principalities according to their capital city, some of which are then alternately named X-an Rus', e.g. Kievan Rus', Turovian Rus', Polotskian Rus', Novgorodian Rus', Vladimir-Suzdalian Rus', Muscovite Rus' (redirects to Grand Duchy of Moscow), or even Lithuanian Rus' (meaning the Rus' areas of the Grand Principality of Lithuania). According to this logic, the city mentioned in the X-an Rus' name is by definition its capital. (As Michael Z. suggested, this would probably start for Kievan Rus' in the year that Oleg/Oleh starts reigning in Kiev/Kyiv, as the monarch's residence can often be identified as the capital.) Consequently, Novgorod cannot be the capital of Kievan Rus' by definition (and thus, the existence of Kievan Rus' coincides with the period of time during which Kiev/Kyiv was the capital of an identifiably Rus' state, i.e. 882–1240). If, for the sake of argument, we assume Novgorod to have been the/a "capital" of a Rus' state between c. 860 and c. 880, then convention dictates we should call that state Novgorodian Rus' (but Novgorodian Rus' is currently a redirect to Novgorod Republic, which did not exist until the 12th century). But I'm not sure if this convention can be applied so strictly.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the evidence we've got for the earliest period, roughly the 850s to 880s, comes almost exclusively from not-too-reliable sources such as the Primary Chronicle and the Novgorod First Chronicle. There is a pretty strong scholarly consensus that the so-called Kievan Rus'#Invitation of the VarangiansRurik, Sineus and Truvor never happened, but is just a founding myth (the idea of three or two founding brothers is a very common motif in mythology, compare Lech, Czech, and Rus', Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv, Romulus and Remus, Senius and Aschius etc.), not least because the Primary and Novgorod First contradict each other here. It might even be that Rurik never existed as a historical person, but even if he did, we can say very little about his realm and his capital(s), if he had any. The Primary alleged that it was at/near Staraya Ladoga, but later at/near Veliky Novgorod. Nor is it clear in the sources where the 'capital' was supposedly located, and what its name was. Rurikovo Gorodische (or Holmgård), 2 kilometres south of modern Novgorod, has been identified by some as the site of this capital, but whether this is the 'predecessor' of modern Novgorod, or just a riverine fortress built by Varangians (to protect their trade routes) separately from the already existing Slavic town of Novgorod, or whether even Gorodische itself was already built by the Ilmen Slavs in the 8th century before the Varangians came along, is unclear. It seems quite a stretch, then, that if, for example, Rurik never existed, and Gorodische already existed as a Slavic fortress, but had nothing in particular to do with the Varangians who would later take over power in Kiev/Kyiv in the 880s, to proclaim "Novgorod" as the "capital" of Kievan Rus' because of what a possibly non-existing person might have done there decades earlier.
For the record, the issues I raise about Novgorod as the first capital of Rus’ are in the interest of historicity. (That is, I'm not an anti-Normanist, even though some of these points would also be made by anti-Normanists in order to discredit the Norman origins of Kievan Rus', which are well-established). Wikipedia should be based on what we can conclude from reliable secondary sources, and I think Wikipedia should be careful to present dubious claims such as these (as they are presented in primary sources such as the Primary Chronicle) as if they are factual. Incidentally, the sections "Origin" and "Invitation of the Varangians" in this article still need to be cleaned up further, as some claims are unsourced, or directly refer to the Primary Chronicle alone, which is not sufficient (except for direct quotations, not interpretations). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I am skeptical that there is such an unwritten convention among a majority of reliable sources, or that it can be said to apply to a supposed “Novgorodian Rus.”[1] I recall reading that the identity of Rus Land during the Kyivan period as Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereiaslav lands was determined by combing the medieval chronicles for mentions of phrases like “went to Rus” and “came from Rus.” —MichaelZ. 14:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
It's good to be skeptical about that; I am uncertain about both as well. That's why we should critically examine what the literature says, and not make assumptions. Regarding the identity of the Rus' land (Русская земля), that is quite a tricky question that I think is best tackled by Halperin (2022) The Rise and Demise of the Myth of the Rus' Land. As the title says, the concept of a Rus' land is essentially a myth: there are no objective criteria by which to identify a certain territory or state or fief (or population, for that matter) as unambiguously Rus'. The definitions of what counted as Rus' land or not in primary sources shifted all the time throughout the Middle Ages and after, depending on the personal perspective/interests of the writer, or the changing circumstances. As an aside, Mellk and I discussed this recently at Talk:Names of Rusʹ, Russia and Ruthenia, where we eventually reached an agreement that whether Русская земля should be translated as Rus' land or Russian land depends on historical context. I suppose that it's possible to construct a Rus' land during the Kyivan period as Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereiaslav lands based on sources from the 11th century, but I'm quite unsure if you would get the same results if you took sources from 10th or the 12th, let alone the 9th or the 13th century. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Interesting, but Magocsi 2010 p. 72 doesn't say when this was supposedly the case, just "initially". Plokhy 2006 p. 34 explicitly argues that Chernihiv and Pereiaslav were not yet central in the early 10th century: Besides, we know very well that neither in 907 nor in 944 could Chernihiv and Pereiaslav be regarded as major centers of the Rurikid realm. The archaeological and historical data, including the Primary Chronicle itself, indicate that until the end of the tenth century the territories around Chernihiv and Pereiaslav either were not settled at all or were beyond the control of the Kyivan princes. The Kyiv–Chernihiv–Pereiaslav "triangle" does not seem to exist until the 11th century. Plokhy continues on p. 35: Does this mean that the Rus' Land, with its centers in Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereiaslav, was a mere figment of someone’s imagination? Apparently, with regard to the tenth and even the early eleventh centuries, it does. By that someone, Plokhy either refers to the author of the Primary Chronicle, or to Nasonov 1951 (who first proposed this "triangle"), or perhaps both.
Halperin 2022 p. 18 states The adaptability of the geographic coordinates of the Rus’ Land established by Nasonov suggests precisely that the myth was primarily and essentially not territorial but political, the state ruled by the Kievan dynasty. Nasonov’s conclusion has not been universally accepted, but even his critics usually admit that in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries the Rus’ Land had two sets of geographic boundaries. This tells us several things: that the Kyiv–Chernihiv–Pereiaslav "triangle" did seem to exist, at least as a widely accepted concept, in later times, but that there is no consensus about whether it has existed from the beginnings of the Rurikid dynasty. Halperin himself takes no stance on the issue, but seems to regard Nasonov's argument plausible; Plokhy rejects it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Halperin p. 7 does say the Rus’ Land retained its earlier meaning of the Kievan triangle, so that twelfth-century chroniclers record princes from Vladimir–Suzdal’ in the Northeast, Novgorod in the North, and Galicia–Volhynia in the Southwest, among others, as going to the Rus’ Land when Kiev is meant. The question is how far back in time this concept goes. If a guy from Novgorod travelling to Kiev/Kyiv in the 12th century is said to be going to the Rus’ Land, that doesn't necessarily mean Novgorod wasn't part of the Rus’ Land in the 9th century (either), let alone that it couldn't have been its capital in the earliest stages, although it does make it somewhat unlikely. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Good stuff. Thank you. —MichaelZ. 21:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I found some other observations relevant to the concept of the "Rus' Land" in an article by Halperin 2016 (wherein he criticises the denial of the 1380 battle of Kulikovo by Tatar historian Nabiev (2010) as pseudo-historical):
Application of the term “Rus’” to Muscovy has always been a bone of contention, especially to Ukrainian historiography. Nasonov and others noted that in Kievan Rus’ “Rus” originally meant the Dnieper (Dniepr’, Dnipro) River triangle of Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereslavl’, not Vladimir–Suzdal’. Nabiev infers there from that the Muscovites were not even “Russian” (258–259, 402 n. 887). But “Rus’” was not an ethnic term, it was a political term. By the late fourteenth century Rus’ meant Moscow, Kolomna, and Serpukhov. Nabiev’s reconstruction of the earliest redaction of the “Zadonshchina” tries to purge the text of references to “Russians” and the “Russian Land” which Zimin retained in his reconstruction, but Nabiev missed “Russian sons” (241, 418–421). Nabiev extols numismatic evidence as objective but fails to note that by the middle of the fifteenth century Vasilii II put “Russian Land” on his coins. Analysis of the word “Rus’” does not speak to the question of ethnicity (Halperin 1975, 1980). Halperin, Charles J. (17 February 2016). "A Tatar interpretation of the battle of Kulikovo Field, 1380: Rustam Nabiev". Nationalities Papers. 44 (1): 4–19. doi:10.1080/00905992.2015.1063594. ISSN0090-5992. S2CID129150302. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The so-called "triangle of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Pereyaslavl" proposed by A. N. Nasonov (1951), which has received a mixed scholarly reception
I've made a map derived from File:Principalities of Kievan Rus' (1054-1132) es.svg that may help to visualise/illustrate the idea of the "triangle of Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl" or "Kyiv–Chernihiv–Pereiaslav triangle", based on this situation from 1132. Perhaps this might merit its own article, it's probably too complicated to discuss here. It cannot "prove" that Novgorod was never the "capital" of Kievan Rus' in its early days (that still remains contested), but it does suggest that the scholars who posit Novgorod on the periphery rather than at the core of the Kievan Rus' state from at least the mid-11th to the early 13th century have got some good evidence in support of it.
Incidentally, the principalities of Halych (1123) and Ryazan (1127/9) on this map were only recently established, and Moscow is not mentioned in any document until the year 1147. The Polatskian appanage Principality of Minsk could have been shown on this map from 1101, but it wouldn't achieve independence from Polatsk (Polotsk) until 1164. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Commons has a map combining three academic sources: 1) after P. P. Tolochko, 2) after A. M. Nasonov, 3) after B. O. Rybakov. —MichaelZ. 19:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Scans of some of the sources can be found online.[2][3] There are also newer renditions in Мельникова Е.А., Петрухин В.Я. (ред.) - Древняя Русь в средневековом мире. Энциклопедия. - 2014. Page 697, which might be online in PDF format somewhere. —MichaelZ. 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh thanks, I must have missed that! I'll add a proper legend with colours. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Put it on ukwiki too. Someone had just dumped the map there recently without translation. I used DeepL, hope it is correct? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems you are bringing Medieval West Europe and modern vision to this problem. The loose feudal entity that would be later called "Kievan Rus'" was ruled according to the Rota system, which means it was ruled not by some monarch and his direct offspring, but by the Rurikides as an extended family, and each Rurikid had potential rights to the Kiev throne. That made such a phenmenon as "independence" of some principality as senseless: they all were to some degree independent, but they all were, to some degree, connected because they were ruled by the members of one big dynasty.
WRT Novgorod, you are right that "Rus'" was a term applied by those time's people to only a part of what is currently called "Kievan Rus'". Moreover, per Zalianyak, citizens of Novgorod strictly separated themselves from Rus' ("I/he went to Rus'") is a phrase that is frequently found in birch bark manuscripts. However, we must clearly separate the Medieval term "Rus'" (a small region of the medieval state that had no universally accepted name during that time) and the modern term "Kievan Rus'" introduced by Russian speaking historians.
The terms may change their meaning with time, and it is dangerous to draw far reaching conclusions from them. I am sure you know what Greater Greece or Lesser Poland meant in the past: if we interpret them literally, that may lead to a significant confusion.
During Medieval time, Novgorod was not considered itself as a part of Rus', but that doesn't automatically put it into periphery of what we currently call "Kievan Rus'". Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
"there are no objective criteria by which to identify a certain territory or state or fief (or population, for that matter) as unambiguously Rus'." What?? No population? The Primarial Chronicle 898 literally says:"The Slavic people and the Rus' people are one. From the Varangians because they were nicknamed Rus, but at first they were Slavs. Although they were called Polanians, they had a slavic language". It basically says that Polanian Land started to call the Rus' Land. That's exactly why when we see in other chronicles when Novgorodians or any one else goes to this region its said that they are going to Rus', because tribe of ruses are living here and their state. Novgorod and other slavic and Finno-Ugric people were a tribute payers to Rus' and a conquered territory. So Rus' is not a myth, it is a population and a state located in Middle Dniepro. Basically comparing Kyivan Rus to Rus' Land is like comparing British Empire and Great Britain. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
It may not have occurred to you, but the Primary Chronicle is a WP:PRIMARY source that cannot be used uncritically. It was written, compiled (in the early 12th century) and edited by many different people in many different times and places with many different views, opinions and agendas (just like most chronicles of the time) that we cannot take at face value.
It can also not be used selectively. You may point to the entry of 898 to assert that Novgorod was paying tribute to Kyiv/Kiev (or 880–882, which says Oleg set himself up as prince in Kyiv, and declared that it should be the mother of Rus' cities (...) He commanded that Novgorod should pay the Varangians tribute to the amount of 300 grivny a year for the preservation of peace.), therefore Kyiv/Kiev had always been the "capital" of "Rus'", which had always been a term for a state located in Middle Dniepro. But someone else (also on this very talk page) can point to the entry of 860–862, which "literally" says On account of these Varangians, the district of Novgorod became known as the land of Rus'. Or the entry of 870–879, which "literally" says On his deathbed, Rurik bequeathed his realm to Oleg. Which "realm"? Oleg would not conquer Kyiv/Kiev until 880–882, as the Primary Chronicle goes on to narrate in the next entry of 880–882. This is why some people claim that there was already a "realm" called "the land of Rus'" in and around Novgorod (or Staraya Ladoga, if you prefer the Hypatian Codex). And so on.
Just like biblical literalism, Primary Chronicle literalism takes us nowhere, because the text contradicts itself all over the place, and many claims in it are simply not true. E.g. the claims of Novgorod as the "original Rus' capital" depend heavily on the historicity of Rurik, which is heavily disputed, and rejected by many scholars. No Rurik = no Rus' state founded by Rurik at Novgorod. My summary of Halperin 2022 that there are no objective criteria by which to identify a certain territory or state or fief (or population, for that matter) as unambiguously Rus' is accurate. Rus' is a political term, and its meaning depends on time, place, and especially whoever uses it and for which purpose. All we have tried to do in this talk page section is find out what scholarly literature thinks it meant during the earliest times, and whether or not anyone except dubious later authors accepted Novgorod as part of (or even the "capital" of) this Rus' (Land) in its narrow sense as widely attested in sources of the 12th century. To summarise what I've found: before the mid-11th century, we probably don't know, as the "triangle of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Pereyaslavl", which seems to define Rus' in these "going to Rus'" passages, did not yet exist in the 10th century and early 11th century, let alone in the late 9th century, when Kievan/Kyivan Rus' was probably founded as a state. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I tried really hard, and I couldn't find the quote that says "The district of Novgorod became known as Rus'". I don't know where did you get that from.
Well, if you don't like this one specifically, we have a bunch of other chronicles and foreign resources, that are pointing at exactly same thing, that Rus' is the territory of Middle Dnieper, where the tribe of ruses was living (in Primarial Chronicle they named "Polanians" at the beginning) . Novgorod can't be capital of Rus' simply because it was not located in Rus', that got its name from Varangians by a legend.
Its weird to say that Oleg conquered Kyiv, because he rather came to rule in it, and at this point Novgorod was the one who was conquered, because it started paying tribute to Rus'. And the chronicle says, before reaching Kyiv, Oleg was not a Rus' prince, neither was Rurik.
I just showed you the quote that states that this "mythical concept" was in fact perfectly existing in 9th century at the beginning, and it's not "mythical" or anything you would like to call it. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
On account of these Varangians, the district of Novgorod became known as the land of Rus'. The present inhabitants of Novgorod are descended from the Varangian race, but aforetime they were Slavs.
От техъ прозвася Руская зем ля, новугородьци, ти суть людье ноугородьци от рода варяжьска. Преже бо беша словени.
I suppose the word "district" cannot be found in the original text. At the first instance, Cross & SW translated новугородьци as "the district of Novgorod", but at second instance, they translated almost the exact same phrase людье ноугородьци as "the people of Novgorod". I'm not sure if the suffix -ци has any special meaning in Old East Slavic? It doesn't seem part of the noun wikt:ru:городъ#Древнерусский itself. Does it indicate a demonym? Then it is better translated as "Novgorodians". That still doesn't make grammatical sense though. Apart from the Laurentian Codex, nobody else uses "Novgorod" twice in this episode. See Calling of the Varangians#Text. This could be a scribal error. Quite interesting. I should look at other translations of Lav. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly. It is literally translated as "And from those the Rus' Land is called, and Novgorodians are from varangian race, before them were Slovenes" So as you can see, Novgorod is never mentioned as Rus' Land, but is always opposed to it, as well as all other Eastern Slavic Principalities that are paying tribute to Rus'. The land of Rus' is pretty concrete defenition. I can add even more quotes like this from Primary Chronicle.
852: "From the first year [of the reign] of this Michael to the first year of Oleg, the Rus' prince, 29 years". As we can see from quote, Oleg only became Rus' Prince when he started to rule in Kyiv. Before that he wasn't considered as Rus' Prince. So he basically, also went from Novgorod or any other place to Rus'.
And also, let's read how the Rus' starts for the author of chronicle.
852:"when Michael began to rule, [our land] began to be called the Land of Rus'. And we learned about this [from the fact] that under this emperor, Rus' came to Caesarograd, as [George] wrote in the Greek chronicle. Therefore, we will start from here and put the numbers." As we can see, for Nestor the Rus' starts when Kyivan Princes Askold and Dir attacked Constantinople, and its at first became to be known that "Polanian Land"(this name was actually only used by Nestor, other sources were always identifying them only as Rus') began to called Rus'. Not when any Rurik came to Novgorod or anything else. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I thought it's pretty obvious? Because "Новгородьци" is literally translated as Novgorodians. So, what I said isn't that of much of "mythical concept", but a true definition. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker of Belarusian, Russian or Ukrainian, let alone an expert on Old Church Slavonic. I had assumed Cross & SW translated correctly, and no reason to doubt it so far. But there is more going on; it appears to be a textual variant, which means it was only added later. The N1L doesn't have it. Whatever the original text was, it probably did not identify Novgorod or its environs with "Rus' (land)".
That doesn't take away from the observation that "Rus' (land)" is a literary invention and political myth, adaptable and exploitable (and has been adapted and exploited) for any political agenda any author might have. In that sense, it is just as contentious as, say, Deutschland or Nederlanden or Italia etc. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, no direct quotation from primary sources, such as the Rus' chronicles, can be sufficient to claim that the Middle Dnipro area around Kyiv has always exclusively meant "Rus'" from the beginning till the end. What we can say, based on secondary scholarly literature, that it applied to that area between the mid-11th century and about 1240. Halperin, Plokhy and others have made plausible arguments that after that, Muscovite bookmen successfully employed a translatio imperii between c. 1340 and c. 1472, so that by 1500, most people believed that "Rus'" meant Suzdalia or more specifically Muscovy, and accepted the Daniilovichi as the legitimate dynastic successors of the Oleh, Volodimerovichi etc. reigning in Kyiv centuries earlier. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I just showed that it was the initial and true meaning of this, right from 9th century, from the beginning. It is a tribe of ruses living in Middle Dnipro region, or you want to say those people are "myth" or something? You make no sense. At 15th century, there was Rus' as a part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus', Samogitia, and Muscovy was just Muscovy. Muscovy don't have any relationship to those ruses anyway. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with that last part. I didn’t say the Rus' people were a myth. I said that the Rus' land is political myth. If you'd like to know why, I would recommend you to read those books by Serhii Plokhy 2006 and Charles J. Halperin 2022, they can better explain what they mean with the word "myth" in this case than I. I think you'll agree with them once you understand what they mean.
By the way, I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by talking to me on this talk page (although you can apparently tell me a few things I didn't know yet). Would you like meto change any text in this or another article? Would you like to do that yourself? In any case, I would recommend that you create an account with a username. I can see your IP address, which shows your location inside Kyiv. (I'd love to visit it some day, after all this reading, writing and talking about it). You will probably want to hide it for privacy reasons. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by that. From Rus' chronicles we get a clear and concrete definition of what Rus' Land means, and it's ties with ethnicity and country. You can't call country a myth, that's insane. How foreigners like Russia were identifying this term is certainly a bunch of political myths, but how does it matter if in the state itself when it was existing there was no such definition? And I don’t understand why the mythical concept created by foreigners is indicated in Wikipedia about the medieval state, and not the real definition when this state was existing. Btw, yes, I visited Kyiv and I was interested learning generally about this disputes about Kyivan Rus. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
From Rus' chronicles we get a clear and concrete definition of what Rus' Land means, and it's ties with ethnicity and country. No, we do not (see Halperin 2016, p. 10). And they are WP:PRIMARY sources that cannot be taken at face value.
You can't call country a myth, that's insane. I'm not saying that. Read Halperin 2022, Plokhy 2006 etc. to understand what they mean with "myth" instead of assuming all sorts of things.
I still don't get what you're doing here. Do you want to help building an encyclopedia, or are you WP:NOTHERE for building an encyclopedia? I'd like to remind you that this talk page is not a WP:FORUM, but a voluntary workplace. I'm not interested in your personal opinions. If you've got something relevant to say about how to improve this or other articles, please do so. Otherwise I suggest you go to a more appropriate place where quoting what the Primary Chronicle supposedly "literally" says is a valid argument. Here it's not. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not assuming "all sorts of thing". Nor I'm not giving you any of my personal opinions. I give an merely and exactly, what chronicles say distinctly and undoubtedly. And that's what they say:"The Slavic people and the Rus people are one. From the Varangians because they were nicknamed Rus, but at first they were Slavs. Although they were called Polanians, they had a Slavic language". While I give distinct, concrete and clear formulations from the chronicle, you just keep ignoring them and calling them a "myth", and refer to some other authors without any explanation, arguments or concreteness.
I have already told how Rus supplement and improve Wikipedia, add what chronicles actually says about Kyivan Rus, which I just showed. Or in your opinion we shouldn't take information from the actual chronicles, but from someone's head? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Look, if you're not willing to learn the rules of Wikipedia (I've linked to several policies and guidelines), nor give a concrete suggestion of how to change the contents of Wikipedia based on WP:SECONDARY reliable sources (WP:RS), nor read any critical examination of the Rus' chroniclers by secondary reliable sources such as Halperin or Plokhy, I'm not interested. You can preach to a wall quoting from the Laurentian Codex all day long for all I care. I'm not wasting any more time with this. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, are you telling me that I need to add new topic on this or other page to change something? Well, right, I read some of Halperin analysis, and I didn't find something special in it. Couldn't you please give me a more proper hint to what I need to see in it? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Then I would like to know what you mean. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Too bad. I can't be bothered to explain it anymore. Bye. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I read Karamzin just like you explained, but you didn't explain what I need to know from here. I guess I need to add new topic. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The Primary Chronicle isn't a reliable source for the 9th or 10th centuries except indirectly when reproducing early material. 'Rus' and the like is used in lots of sources contemporary with that time in eastern Europe and the Islamic world, it's basically a generic term meaning something like 'Norse', used the way westerners used 'Dane' or 'Northman'. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, "novgorodians" is a correct translation of "новугородьци", and I doubt any alternative translation is possible. WRT "The present inhabitants of Novgorod are descended from the Varangian race, but aforetime they were Slavs", it is a pure anachronism. No such a concept as "race" existed during Medieval times, and ethnicity was absolutely unimportant.
" ти суть людье ноугородьци от рода варяжьска. Преже бо беша словени." In a modern interpretation, "от рода варяжьска" should be literally translated as "of Varangian origin". And that sounds totally senseless, because people's origin is something that never changes. It would be more correctly to translate it as "of Varangian family", and "a family" should be understood in the same sense as "mafia family" (or a Patrician family): a group controlled by a chieftain (a.k.a. a Konung), his sons, relatives and heirs (clients). Upon arrival of Varangians to Novgorod, the leaders of Ilmen Slavs plead allegiance to the new rulers, and, most likely, were admitted as junior members to the Varangian (mafia) "family", and became "Varangians" (so they were not considered as "словени" anymore). As for the common people, the chronicle just left them beyond the scope (which was pretty normal in Medieval Europe). Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, "race" is another dubious translation of Cross & SW that I don't favour. Its modern meaning could really confuse people. Although intermarriage will definitely have happened, it seems unlikely that all Slovenes were completely 'replaced' over time after the Varangians came to reign over Novgorod. The hypothesis that the Chronicle only meant that the Slovene elite was replaced by a Varangian elite is plausible, but not explicitly found in the text itself. Such interpretations require RS. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
"Race" has no "unmodern" meaning. It is a pretty recent concept.
" it seems unlikely that all Slovenes were completely 'replaced' over time after the Varangians" - Can you tell me when Frenchmen replaced Anglo-Saxes in England after the battle of Hastings? That never happened.
From Varangian point of view, it would be totally senseless to replace Slavic peasantry: in feudal Europe, peasantry was just a source of a tribute, so it absolutely unimportant which language they speak and which gods they have.
Varangians were, and they remained to be just a military elite, but they coopted some local leaders into their ranks, and, most likely, that was what the chronicle called "ти суть людье ноугородьци от рода варяжьска" (" and now, the people of Novgorod are the members of Varangian family" that is by no means a literal translation, but it is well known that literal translations of Medieval texts are the most inaccurate).
I am not sure what sources to recommend, just general textbooks on Medieval history. What I am saying is equally applicable to Medieval Slovens, Saxes or Bretons. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
This is sort of related: I've begun a draft on textual variants in the Primary Chronicle: User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Textual PVL. This discussion about how Cross & SW have translated "district of Novgorod" very poorly have led me to the conclusion that we need a much better awareness and assessment of the original texts. People are treating Cross & SW's 1930 English translation of the Laurentian Codex as if it's gospel truth, and are quoting it uncritically everywhere on Wikipedia. Especially this passage about the Calling of the Varangians (which I thus published an article about) is regularly quoted from Cross & SW 1930. That just won't do anymore. I haven't found a good English substitute yet, but at least we've got access to much better English-language scholarship about it, and a fully digitised interlinear critical edition of the Primary Chronicle at http://pvl.obdurodon.org/pvl.html. Someone has got to do this. As a historian and as a Wikipedian who has worked on Textual variants in the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible before, I've decided to take up this task. We need to do better than arguing over Kyiv/Kiev, Vladimir/Volodymyr and whether "Rus'" has supposedly always referred to this or that area or whether this or that city has supposedly always been its capital. These are quite trivial issues by comparison. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
These issues are not trivial, because they are tightly linked to Russian and Ukrainian nationalistic ambitions. That is why it is so difficult to discuss these seemingly simple issues without a bias. ("Rus' refers to a small area around Kiev, so Ukraine should be considered as the only true descendant of Kievan Rus' " - "No, Novgorod was the first capital of Kievan Rus', so the Russians have exclusive rights to Kievan Rus' legacy" - of course, all of that is a pure bullshit, but this type bullshit has become a focus of many Internet battles among amateur historians)
With regard to translation, I think it should not be done by linguists alone, for even even if a translation is grammatically correct, it may sound totally senseless and illogical from historian's point of view. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
WRT User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Textual PVL, I have some comments. You translated "черноризца" as "nobleman / black man", which is a literal and incorrect translation. It definitely refers to a person who wore a black phelonion, i.e. it should be translated as "a monk". Paul Siebert (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert I agree with you wholeheartedly. (I didn't mean to say the spelling issue is completely trivial, otherwise I wouldn't have weighed in on it in the first place; just trivial by comparison in my opinion.) And thanks! I already had the feeling that the literal translation couldn't be correct and probably meant something like a monk (because he worked at the Perchesk Monastery under Theodosius), I just couldn't find the proper translation online and left it as such for now. I don't know how well you understand Church Slavonic, but perhaps we could work together on passages which I don't understand? I would appreciate it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
In East Slav tradition, secular clergy was called "white clergy" and monks were called "black clergy", hence "черноризец" = a monk.
I am not sure I am a real expert in Church Slavonic, but if you want, feel free to ping me when you need a second opinion. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion here went off into some interesting tangents, but I think that to decide whether we should add Novgorod as a capital to the infobox of this article) we should ask a simple question: are there sources which unambiguously say that Novgorod was a capital of Kievan Rus. The source provided by u:Srnec talks about Rus', rather than about Kievan Rus. Unless there are scholarly sources which say it I don't think we should add Novgorod to the infobox.
By the way, we also have an article Rus' Khaganate. I don't think the name is justified, but whatever useful content it contains deals with the history of Rus' in the 9th century. I think that Curta talks about that period, so we should write there that Novgorod was the (or possibly a) capital of whatever polity existed then. Alaexis¿question? 17:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I think the answer to that question is "no". Plokhy 2006, for example, elaborates in pages 29–31 that a close examination of the Primary Chronicle seems to suggest that the author(s) understood Kiev/Kyiv to have been conquered by Askold and Dir without Rurik's permission, and so they ruled it as a separate realm rather than a fief from Rurik who allegedly resided in Novgorod (Since Askold and Dir were allegedly members of Rurik’s retinue and established their rule over Kyiv without his consent (Rurik apparently allowed them to go to Constantinople but not to settle in Kyiv), the chronicler did not condemn Oleh’s treacherous murder of the two Varangian warriors.). When Rurik's successor Oleg/Oleh came to Kiev/Kyiv and murdered Askold and Dir, he established his seat in Kyiv [and] proclaimed it “the mother of Rus' cities,” in other words, the capital of Rus'. Novgorod was supposed to pay tribute to the rulers of Kyiv. Plokhy goes on to analyse that at this point, the chronicler applies the term Rus' to Varangians, Slavs, and Polanians alike, whereas previously it had only applied to Varangians.
At pages 40 and 41, Plokhy states: (...) Novgorod, one of the two original centers of the Kyivan state. It appears that neither foreign writers nor Kyivan chroniclers nor the Novgorodians themselves considered their realm to be part of the Rus' Land. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, for his part, regarded Novgorod as part of “outer Rus'.” He had good reason to do so, for the Novgorodians continued to pay tribute to Kyiv up to the beginning of the eleventh century – a tribute from which the Rus' territory around Kyiv was exempt, indicating that the Novgorodians belonged to the category of tribes dependent on the Rus' princes. The author of the Primary Chronicle listed the Novgorod Slovenians as part of Rus', but not of the Rus' Land. The Kyivan chronicler mentions the Slovenians for the last time in his account of the rule of Yaroslav the Wise and then refers to the local population as Novgorodians, but the latter fared no better than the Slovenians when it came to the membership of their territory in the Rus' Land. The Novgorod chroniclers, for their part, referred to their land as the Novgorod country (oblast') and never (prior to the Mongol invasion) confused it with Rus' or the Rus' Land to the south.
The question remains, then, in what sense Novgorod was indeed one of the two original centers of the Kyivan state. Plokhy gives reasons why Kiev/Kyiv was the capital of Rus' from the start, and implies that Novgorod had to pay tribute to Kiev/Kyiv from early on (although Plokhy doesn't say how early exactly) and was always at the periphery of the Rus' state/realm, but not why Novgorod should nevertheless be regarded as one of the two original centers. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Magocsi 2010 p. 65–66 gives no particular importance to Novgorod. He narrates that the Varangians set up several "outposts", including at Gnezdovo and Gorodishche (Scandinavian: Holmgård), later Novgorod, and calls Kyiv the Khazar outpost of Kiev. In other words, these three were just "outposts" along the Route from the Varangians to the Greeks. He regards the Invitation of the Varangians story with suspicion, quoting another historian saying It is now, indeed, widely recognized that the Kiev state was not born ex nihilo with the advent of the Varangians in the 9th century (...) It is equally clear, however, that it was the Scandinavian invaders who in the second half of the ninth century united the scattered tribes of the Eastern Slavs into a single state based on the Baltic–Black Sea waterway, to which they gave their Rus' name. Magocsi then goes on to say: Regardless of the uncertainties surrounding the origin of Rus', with Helgi/Oleh (reigned 878–912) we have a known historical figure credited with building the foundations of a Kievan state. (...) With Oleh's invasion of Kiev and the assassination of Askol'd and Dir in 882, the consolidation of the East Slavic and Finnic tribes under the authority of the Varangian Rus' had begun. Thus, Magocsi implicitly rejects the suggestion that Novgorod was ever the capital of the Kievan state, as everything started in Kiev in 882, and before that all three places were just "outposts" along the rivers. Moreover, by calling Oleh a known historical figure, Magocsi also questions/rejects the existence of Rurik (and if Rurik didn't exist, he couldn't have made "Novgorod" his "capital"). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Both Martin 2004 p. 2 and Martin 2009b p. 1–3 briefly mention the Invitation to the Varangians story and Riurik, in both cases emphasising that this account is a legend, and incorporat[ing] myth and cannot be taken literally, and questioning whether Riurik really existed (and implying that "Riurikid" dynasty may be a misnomer). She never mentions Novgorod nor Gorodische/Holmgård nor the word "capital" in this context; although she does not place any particular emphasis on Kiev either, and mentions no founder / first ruler or founding date, there is no suggestion that Kievan Rus' as a state began anywhere else but in Kiev, reinforced by her usage of the term Kievan throne. Incidentally, Martin 2009b remarks that by 962, the "Riurikid" realm had increased to include the Krivichi (in the region of the Valdai Hills), Poliane and the Drevlians as tribute-paying tribes; that means they weren't at earlier stages. And the Valdai Hills include all of modern Novgorod Oblast, so she is implying that the Rus' state originally did not include Novgorod and environs, so it couldn't have been based there either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Plokhy 2006 p. 131 noted that there was a tendency amongst some post-Soviet Russian historians in the 1990s to solve the problem of the ethnicity of Kyivan Rus' and thus the beginnings of Great Russian history by claiming that in the ninth century ancient Kyiv was conquered by the Novgorodians, who turned it into the capital of a Great Russian state. I suppose this is one way in which, even though Ukraine had just gained its independence from the Soviet Union ("Moscow"), these historians could still claim that Novgorod was superior to Kyiv, and by extension Russia to Ukraine, and that through Novgorod, the legacy of Kievan Rus' really belonged to the Russian Federation. The symbolic appeal that such a narrative may have for the purposes of Russian nationalism is not to be underestimated, but we should be careful to accord it much historic value.
At the same time, Plokhy himself may at times also be in the reverse position of emphasising how Kyivan Kievan Rus' was and denying any significant initial role of Novgorod, while for some unexplained reason conceding that it was one of the two original centers of the Kyivan state. Halperin has noted that Plokhy usually rejects purportedly pseudohistorical views influenced by nationalisms (in this case Russian nationalism), but sometimes himself seems to fail to escape the influence of Ukrainian nationalism. Nevertheless, Plokhy does reject such attempts at construction of modern national identities for Ukraine and Belarus from medieval times just as much, e.g. on p. 46: Our rereading of the sources shows no sign of an identity that might define the population of what is now Ukrainian territory (the Rus' Land per se and Galicia-Volhynia) as a single entity in opposition to a “non-Ukrainian” other. No such identity existed at the time. (...) When it comes to Belarus, historians of that country can and do look to the history of the Krivichians and the Principality of Polatsk for the origins of the modern Belarusian nation. They are probably as justified in doing so as are Ukrainian historians in searching for the origins of “their” polities in the Kyivan Rus' conglomerate, but, once again, no “all-Belarusian” identity existed at the time, even in prototype.
Back on the topic of Novgorod as first Rus' capital, Plokhy writes on p. 137 that when the Muscovite princes in the late 15th century began arguing that Moscow was the rightful heir to the title of Grand Prince of Kiev, they didn't see Novgorod as the dynasty's origin. When in 1471 Ivan III of Moscow addressed the Novgorodians, he did invoke Rurik as the first grand prince in our land (...) And from that Rurik until this day, you have recognized only one ruling clan (rod) of those grand princes, first those of Kyiv, then Grand Prince Vsevolod [III] Yurievich, [and Grand Prince] Dmitrii [Ivanovich Donskoi] of Vladimir. (...) (emphasis by me). Plokhy explains that This statement may be regarded as one of the first expressions of the translatio theory that postulated the transfer of power in the Rus' lands from Kyiv to Vladimir on the Kliazma and then to Moscow. So, contrary to some post-Soviet Russian historians of the 1990s, the Muscovite prince of 1471 did not regard Novgorod but Kyiv as the first capital of Rus', even though he did invoke Rurik as the first in the line of grand princes of (all) Rus'. There is just no connection between Rurik and Novgorod (specifically), even though in this case Ivan III claims Rurik did exist. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Curta, p. 281: The site excavated on a hillock slightly more than a mile south of Novgorod, and now known as "Rurik’s Stronghold," was apparently established ex novo shortly before 900. Curta, p. 283: Around 930, [elite residences just outside Rurik’s Stronghold] merged into a new settlement on the site of present-day Novgorod. Curta, p. 287: the earliest material that could be associated with a Scandinavian presence in Kiev cannot be dated before the 10th century. Curta, p. 289: The chronology offered by the Tale of Bygone Years is completely unreliable. Curta is obviously just one authority, but a good one. The chronology of early Rus' is very uncertain and any two authors will probably have three opinions. I have no strong opinions because this is a bit out of my wheelhouse. That the Novgorod area was the original base of the Rus' is supported by archaeology, the Primary Chronicle and Scandinavian sagas. Whether Novgorod should be called the capital of Kievan Rus' is another question, but I have never understood the term "Kievan Rus" to be exclusive of the earliest history before Kiev was made the centre. As for Hólmgarðr as Novgorod and the Rus' capital, see Tatjana Jackson, Eastern Europe in Icelandic Sagas, p. 75: Hólmgarðr, in the eyes of medieval Scandinavians, was nothing but a designation of the capital of Garðaríki. Srnec (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for looking all that up. Indeed, Curta is a scholar whom I respect, and whose work I have drawn upon before. The points he raises here are interesting and quite plausible. Each of these points could be true, and in fact I am ready to grant them all. But they are also not yet definitive towards establishing "Novgorod" as the first Rus' capital, because they say virtually nothing about the political status of "Rurik's Stronghold" c. 900 to the Rus' state, if there even was such a thing at that time, and if there was, whether it encompassed "Rurik's Stronghold", Kiev, both, or neither.
If the earliest (archaeological?) evidence of Scandinavian presence in Kiev cannot be dated before the 10th century, then that is unfortunate, but doesn't mean they weren't there (which is an argument from silence, which is always weak, but some of my points above amount to the same).
That The chronology offered by the Tale of Bygone Years (Primary Chronicle) is completely unreliable is indeed a well-known fact. When I stated above that the Primary and Novgorod First Chronicle contradict each other on the Invitation to the Varangians, their difference in dating this supposed event is one of those contradictions, and the Novgorod First is considered by some scholars to be more reliable because it is older. Having agreed upon this conclusion, though, what does it tell us about "Novgorod" as the first Rus' capital? Nothing. Because if the argument is that the Varangians established "Rurik's Stronghold" long before they conquered Kiev, there is nobody disputing that, not even both Chronicles. They may differ in dating, but not in sequence of events. It doesn't answer the question of the political significance of the establishment of "Rurik's Stronghold" for the earliest stages of the Kievan Rus' state. To be honest, I had also never really looked into this question very closely before, although I did know there were problems with identifying Rurikovo Gorodische / Holmgård with Novgorod, and that Rurik may never have existed and that the Invitation to the Varangians was probably a founding myth. Nevertheless, it could still be true that a Rurik-like figure or group of figures established this fortress/outpost near later Novgorod as a kind of "capital", which expanded its territorial control southward later, but at the moment our sources and literature do not give a clear indication in that direction. Finally, I should look up that quote of Tatjana Jackson in context, I'm curious what she has to say. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not terribly concerned whether we call Novgorod the first capital or not. I am more concerned with what appears to be the assumption of the edit warrior that Kiev must have always been the capital because we call it Kievan Rus'! Of course, it is possible that that is what the term is supposed to mean, but I have never understood it that way, precisely because it is a late term of art coined by scholars and its boundaries should not be determined by itself. Moreover, many scholars seem to prefer terms like "Rus'" or "Rus' state" without intending to mean anything different. Srnec (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. Like you, I have little patience for edit warriors whose only goal is to emphasise just how Kyivan Kievan Rus' supposedly was, are only interested in changing the spelling and don't bother to read WP:KIEV, or who are trying to alter history because they don't like certain facts. Such people are WP:NOTHERE to actually improve Wikipedia.
As for me, I've always been open to the possibility of Rurikovo Gorodische ("Rurik's Stronghold") / Holmgård / Novgorod being the first/original capital of (Kievan) Rus', and I still am. Before discovering last year that other Rus' principalities were sometimes also alternately called X-ian Rus' by scholars, I had also not seen a reason why having Novgorod as an earlier capital of Kievan Rus' might have been a problem for that conventional historiographic terminology. Even so, you are right: just because we call it Kievan Rus' doesn't necessarily mean its capital always was Kiev. I do see a lot of scholars (e.g. Martin, Magocsi) just say the Rus' or the Rus' state, but about equally often I see them writing the Kievan state, the Kyivan state, the Kiev state, the Kyivan throne, and so on. If anything, they just seem to like to use some variety in their vocabulary to make reading the text more interesting. If there are noticeable preferences and patterns in English-language literature, it's that writers with a Ukrainian background spell it like Kyiv and say something like the Kyivan state more often, while writers with a Russian background spell it like Kiev and prefer terms such as the Rus' state or Old Rus'. I think these preferences would surprise nobody. Precisely for that reason, Kievan Rus' is quite a pretty and clever compromise between the extremes of the terminological spectrum. I'm not that tribal myself, and can dismiss improbable claims regardless of their origin. E.g. the fact that the Primary Chronicle claims that Oleg called Kiev "the Mother of all Rus' cities" seems like a typical invented tradition to me; a nice story, but probably not true. That Plokhy invokes it in support of the view that Oleg made Kiev his capital seems quite a weak argument to me.
Either way, the literature that I/we have been using for writing and improving this and related articles, and of which I've been quoting extensively in this talk page section, does not unambiguously say that Novgorod had ever been the capital of (what later became) Kievan Rus' / the Rus' state. Some scholars outright ignore or omit any mention of Novgorod when examining the origins of the state; although most of them do mention Rurik, they rarely make a connection to Novgorod, and limit themselves to saying the Invitation of the Varangians is not a historically reliable narrative. Plokhy seems the only one really addressing the point implicitly by rejecting the idea of some 1990s Russian post-Soviet historians that "the Novgorodians conquered Kiev", and by indicating Novgorod always paid tribute to Kiev. I do see some popular history books saying that Novgorod was the first capital, but they are less or not WP:RS; they are books without footnotes written by non-scholars, and we can ignore them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Plokhy (2006:30–31) immediately precedes the “mother of Rusʼ cities” statement with “if one assumes that the chronicler’s account indeed reflects certain historical realities,” and qualifies it with “according to the chronicler.” It’s immediately followed by “Novgorod was supposed to pay tribute to the rulers of Kyiv,” concretely supporting Kyiv’s supremacy, but also underlining the political nature by expounding on the chronicler’s use of terminology to reinforce the connection of the (Varangian) Rus, the Slavs, and the Polianians.
Kievan Rus is not a clever compromise. It’s an exonym originally imposed by state-censored scholarship in a colonial power, and later adopted in Western scholarship by students from Kliuchevsky’s tutelage. Citing “writers with a Ukrainian background” is pretty sketchy, if you haven’t compared a survey of usage of the term to a broad list of historians by their family history. This kind of speculation and stereotyping based on ancestry creeps me out when it is casually thrown around as a rationale for Wikipedia editorial policy. There can be no consensus on this.
There is a lot of academic discussion of current trends in historiography going on right now. Pretty sure two concurrent trends are that more historians of Ukraine have non-Ukrainian surnames, and more historians of Russia and Ukraine spell it Kyivan Rus. —MichaelZ. 22:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I don't think we can assume the Primary Chronicle to be correct about Oleg/Oleh actually calling Kiev/Kyiv the "mother of Rusʼ cities"; it reads too much like an invented tradition to be believable. My point is that there are other more compelling reasons for regarding Kiev/Kyiv as having been the first and only capital of what we regard today as Kievan/Kyivan Rus', namely
(A) no obvious reason in our literature to look for any other city (e.g. to Magocsi, the "outpost" near Gnezdovo is just as important/insignificant as the Gorodische/Holmgård "outpost" near Novgorod); (B) a strong connection between Oleg/Oleh as a known historical figure and Kiev/Kyiv as the residence of him and his princely dynasty (apart from the "mother of Rusʼ cities" tradition, which I do not believe to be authentic); (C) the fact that while virtually every scholar casts doubt on Rurik and the Invitation of the Varangians as a legend / founding myth, nobody seems to doubt that Oleg/Oleh existed and had Kiev/Kyiv as his residence; and (D) the fact that from very early on (although we don't know how early exactly) Novgorod paid tribute to Kiev/Kyiv, and was seen as, and regarded itself, as outside of or on the periphery of the Rus' land, rather than at its centre, which one would expect if it regarded itself as a/the (original/first) capital of Rus'. I think that summarises all the arguments we have exchanged here pretty well (if I do say so myself). Therefore, I think we should not consider Novgorod the first capital, and not mention it as such in the infobox.
Well, of course Kievan Rus' was invented in Imperial Russian historiography with a political purpose, but it has been accepted widely by scholars in this field, including Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian ones (even if these latter two groups prefer the spelling Kyivan, which appears to be slowly gaining traction, but let's not get into that discussion again). What I have said about the frequency and spelling is admittedly anecdotal, and I do not presume it to be representative. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I mainly agree with your ABCD, I was only enlarging on Plokhy’s presentation of the “mother” statement. —MichaelZ. 00:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
And we probably needn’t burn the concept of a category of “Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian” scholars in this field into our brains. Does that imply everyone else is in the category of “Russian and pro-Russian”? Good scholarship doesn’t work that way. Let’s just not. —MichaelZ. 00:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Leeuw, "mother of Rusʼ cities" is a literal translation of the Greek term "Metropolia" (metropole).
"of course Kievan Rus' was invented in Imperial Russian historiography with a political purpose". This statement is ambiguous. Whereas the term "Kievan Rus'" is a late invention, the state is not. Similar to Byzantine Empire, Kievan Rus' did exist, although it was not called as such. To the best of my knowledge, most early Medieval states had a loose structure (and most of them were short-lived), but that doesn't automatically mean they were later artificial constructs.
Michael, your words about "“Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian”/“Russian and pro-Russian”" are absolutely correct. I am glad we agree at least in that. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
This is an interesting problem. It is clear that this article's scope has always been pre-Mongol Rus conceived of as a unity . The title 'Kievan Rus' was convenient mostly, but if too much weight is placed on the 'Kievan' element then the article is creating a different concept that is smaller and less significant. On the other hand, it is increasingly understood today that the term 'Rus/Rhos' in the 'Viking Age' is simply what the Byzantines and Arabs call Norsemen. So the 'Rus' would include all the Norse of eastern Europe. Archaeology shows that Staraia Ladoga's foundations were in the mid 8th century, and it stands to reason that the north would be more important earlier one when Kiev itself is still a Khazar trading post. So there is case for renaming the article. On the other hand, sources that are strictly 10th century make it clear that there is a significant Rus population group on the Volga that is not subsumed within the Riurikid propaganda-history that forms the basis of traditional Russian and UKrainian historical frameworks that backdate the politics of the 11th and 12th century to the earlier period. This approach to understanding the Rus is widespread in contemporary historiography. There has to be an article that can handle Rus as 'Norse eastern Europeans', which we have at Rus'_people, but also if the Volga Rus and Dnieper Rus are completely distinct in terms of politics and organisation, one centred on Baghdad trade networks the other on Constantinople, there is a case for Dnieper Rus article that is independent of the Volga Rus article. The closest we have for the latter I think is a separate article for Rus' Khaganate. Note that Staraia Ladoga could also have served as part of a Volga Rus khaganate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry but everything that you are saying here seems to be little more than WP:OR. We require reliable sources rather than speculation; we are not in the business of making up concepts and articles as we go along.
As for the so-called "Rus' Khaganate", that is just a hypothetical state that we know virtually nothing about, that may never have existed, and has nothing to do with Novgorod. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that reaction. What did I say that's 'OR'? I believe you are confusing being familiar with recent research in WP:Reliable sources with 'original research', which I'm afraid is a common confusion, but you'd have to be more specific for me to be sure. I was trying to weigh up the benefits and cons of taking this article in the various proposed directions, and so regarding Rus' Khaganate it's the closest thing we have to the Volga Vikings (the existence of whom are not in serious doubt), so leaves the possibility that 'Kievan Rus' is a workable synonym for Dnieper Vikings and the so-called 'Grand Principality' of Rus existing in the 11th century that's backprojected back into the earlier centuries by the Primary Chronicle etc and thus has come to encompass them. But it leaves a lingering niggle about Novgorod since its imagined era as 'capital' goes back to the era before the disappearance of the Volga Rus, reinforcing the idea that the Riurikid polity and Rus cannot be narrowed to the Dnieper. The problem is still the same in that this article is mirroring the role of Rus people (look at the Slavic and Norse names provided for each!) while placing what in that context is undue stress on Kiev due to that city's ideological importance in & around the 11th century and in later political tradition, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I’m not seeing any clear “case for renaming the article” in any of that. If you have a proposal for making specific edits or changing the scope, please state it in simple terms. —MichaelZ. 19:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Kyiv not Kiev
The capital of the Kievan/Kyivan rus is called “Kyiv”. “Kiev” is the Russian spelling which is incorrect. 2601:204:CF01:2880:100A:6F2B:3563:7A11 (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
With respect, that link leads to a restatement of a decision with no rationale on a WP:vote over a proposal with no rationale. It’s the deferral of a substantive response to anon’s valid statement about the English style used in this article. The situation should be improved so we can make a valid response explaining this article’s non-conformance with Wikipedia’s guidelines and with general English style c. 2023 in the subject of history. —MichaelZ. 16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no point in repeating this discussion every few weeks or so. There is consensus on the common name. Even though it looks likely the common name in English-language sources about pre-1991 history will change in the future (trends have been observed), that is not yet the case. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Unclear exactly what you mean. Of course it will be repeated because it’s based on a bad decision that doesn’t conform to guidelines.
The FAQ at talk:Kyiv summarizes that “both are common names in use, but according to consensus in the last discussion the title Kyiv satisfies more of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.” Nothing of the sort can be said about the terrible “in historical articles” vote.
That is not yet the case – show the evidence supporting your statement of supposed fact, please. From searching reliable sources, I am reasonably confident that Kyiv is used in sources on history significantly more than it was used in general when the main article was renamed. I think it may be used more in academic and history sources than it is used in the overall corpus today. —MichaelZ. 00:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
(And anyway, the link you directed anon to does not say what you are saying, so just posting that link is an inadequate response because it does not address their rationale. It just says we VOTEd, so there.) —MichaelZ. 00:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Kyiv, not Kiev. Kyivan Rus’, not Kievan Rus’. End of Kyivan Rus’ was in 1392, not in 1240.
It’s Kyiv and Kyivan Rus’. Forward.ops (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
About spelling, Please look at the very top of this talk page. - Altenmann>talk 16:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
About 1392: It’s the true year when Kyivan Rus’ is stopped exist. That’s the year when Kingdom Galicia-Volhynia was annexed by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland. That’s the true and real end of Ruthenia. Forward.ops (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
If you like to be so precise, then please note that there was no such state "Kievan Rus". This term was invented by Russian historians in 19th century for their nationalistic purposes, to lay ideological justification for "gathering of Russian lands" by Muscovite tsars. - Altenmann>talk 15:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Of course there was: this article is about it. That the name wasn’t in use in Medieval Rus is something else, but it is the common name today. (Of course, Russian historians in the 21st centuries have a different opinion about it, and now invented “Ancient Russian State” or whatever.)
But I challenge you to demonstrate that a substantial majority of reliable modern sources use “Kiev” and not Kyiv, per WP:MODERNPLACENAME. —MichaelZ. 15:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The author(s) are consistently using Russian forms of even unique Ukrainian names. Examples: Grivna instead of Hryvnia, Chernigov instead of Chernihiv, Kiev instead of Kyiv, Dnieper instead of Dnipro.
This caused doubts about the objectivity and credibility of this text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.234.80 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
These words are used in English language. It is unfortunate for Ukrainian nationalist feelings that they came into English via Russian, but this has nothing to do with credibility of Wikipedia. - Altenmann>talk 14:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
This words are wrong. It’s should called in the Ukrainian language but not in Russian. Forward.ops (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
That’s completely wrong because Kyivan Rus’ is Ukraine and not muscovy. So it’s should be Kyiv, not Kiev. Chernihiv, not Chernigov. Dnipro, not Dnieper. I just want to be people would know the true and real history with the real names, not some muscovite one. Forward.ops (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Ik, thanks. Forward.ops (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:MODERNPLACENAME tells us to use the modern name, but “Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same.”
It does not appear that the older name is used in a substantial majority of reliable modern sources. —MichaelZ. 15:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Even "Ancient Rus" has greater usage than "Kyivan Rus". Mellk (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
That doesn’t appear to be true. But it’s the direct translation of Russian drevniaia Rus, and probably appears in many abstracts translated from Russian, perhaps by non-idiomatic writers of English, as well as non-expert sources. So what? —MichaelZ. 19:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't appear to be true. Really? You are going by raw numbers on Google Books and Google Scholar, and the number of results for "Ancient Rus" is greater. "Kyivan Rus" is the direct translation of Ukrainian Kyivska Rus and "probably" appears in many "non-expert sources". So what? Mellk (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
No. The term “ancient Rus” is a non-idiomatic calque from Russian. It generally doesn’t appear in good English history writing except when referring specifically to the term, for example:
“The outdated concept of Ancient Rus as the cradle of “three brotherly peoples”, ie Russians, . . . ”[20]
“So, in Putin’s narrative, “Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus”, bound by “spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and hav[ing]”[21]
While Kyivan Rus is increasingly used in good English writing, along with Kyiv, in history and other subjects.
I’m surprised that you didn’t discern the difference. —MichaelZ. 20:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, this article should use the spelling Kyiv for the city, because the 2021 decision is opposed to MODERNPLACENAME. —MichaelZ. 20:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
MOS:GEO essentially says the same thing, although it is more vague than MODERNPLACENAME: “A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)). An exception may be made when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context.”
Know that the name Kyiv was never mentioned in English until centuries after Kyivan Rus ceased to exist, and was never spelled “Kiev” until the very end of the seventeenth century. —MichaelZ. 22:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
The big red template at the top of this talk page says that “we use the spellings for the medieval state and its capital that are the common names in English-language historiography, which are Kievan Rus' and Kiev.” These are two dubious assertions and should be supported with firm evidence or deleted.
Guidelines tell us to normally use the name and spelling used in the main article title, i.e. Kyiv not “Kiev.” WP:MODERNPLACENAME tells us to use the modern name, but “Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same.” This is not the case for Kyiv, and probably not the case for Kyivan Rus either. —MichaelZ. 15:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:MODERNPLACENAME says we should use modern names "for articles discussing the present." Alaexis¿question? 21:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
And I quoted what it says about other articles. It does not say to use old names in articles about the past just because. It makes it conditional.
But that’s beside the point. The point is the statement that the names we have been using in this article “are the common names in English-language historiography.” This is false, and should be removed from the red box. If no one has anything to say about that, then I’ll correct the text in the box. —MichaelZ. 22:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Don't touch the box. The box reflects consensus. If you think consensus has changed, go thru RM. Then the box will be irrelevant and its removal uncontroversial. If you feel the box should be removed during an RM, I have no objection to taking it down while an RM is open. Srnec (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
No. The statements I refer to not only cannot be determined by consensus as they are false assertions of fact, they were not determined by consensus, and they do not come from the consensus decisions referred to in the box. —MichaelZ. 05:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
It's all irrelevant. You want the page moved. There is a process for that. What is complaining about the template going to do? Srnec (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
No, I want to correct the temolate’s text. As I’m having trouble conveying it to you, I’ll just do it. —MichaelZ. 18:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I don’t see anything supporting that “Kiev” is the common name. —MichaelZ. 19:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
You don’t? Really? 734 to 2913? 8950 to 81300? 17800 to 21700? Are you looking at different numbers than the ones you quoted?—Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
[Sigh.] The name “Kiev.” —MichaelZ. 19:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Here are searches from 2020–present (from the year of the Kyiv RM).
The spelling Kiev is not the common name in current usage. This was established in the September 2020 decision already found there is more than one common name, and policies “recommend using the more recent name when deciding between two common names.”
But the red box says that “Kiev” is the common name “in English-language historiography,” an assertion for which there is zero evidence. Maybe the above search engines can let us test this. Three of them let us limit the result by subject.
So since 2020 publications in the subject area of history indexed by Brill and JSTOR use Kiev some more (+9% and +9%), while those in Google books a bit less (-9%) than all of their indexed publications. Totals:
All sources:
Kyiv (all): 459 + 2032 + 411 = 2,902
Kiev (all): 836 + 2,514 + 295 = 3,645
Kiev / (Kyiv + Kiev) (all) = 0.56
History sources:
Kyiv (history): 165 + 740 + 151 = 1,056
Kiev (history): 467 + 1,314 + 75 = 1,856
Kiev / (Kyiv + Kiev) (history) = 0.64
Kiev usage in history subjects is 8% higher than generally in this fraction of sources (which are less than one percent of the sources in Google Scholar). Does this difference pass the threshold of “a substantial majority of reliable modern sources,” when considering that we moved the article Kyiv when usage of the name was significantly lower?
I don’t believe there is a significant difference in usage “in English-language historiography.” The assertion in the red box above is false.
There is no reason to make an exception to using the main article’s spelling Kyiv for history subjects or in the text of this article. —MichaelZ. 20:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
This article (and the text you object to) is not about the usage of Kiev vs Kyiv. It’s about Kievan Rus vs Kyivan Rus. There it’s pretty obvious that Kievan Rus is (still) much more common. As Srnec has said, if you want to move the article, which has a name based on the consensus of the editors here on common English usage, then you need to start an RM, not try to change things on the article without doing that.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, we’re in partial agreement. I removed the part about the usage of Kiev vs Kyiv.[22] —MichaelZ. 23:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Most of the recent threads in the talk page and last few archived talk pages are about names. If only if all this effort was instead directed at actually improving the article. Mellk (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Naming is one of the things we have to get right. When concerns are voiced regularly it often means we haven’t done so. In this case, the article is not in sync with current sources. —MichaelZ. 13:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
These 'concerns' mostly come from IPs and other newly created SPAs that do not understand the policies and are not willing to understand/follow them. Mellk (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
As the “Kyiv in other articles” consensus without any rationale becomes more obsolete due to changing usage—and therefore more in opposition to the policies—more people will continue to be right in pointing out the problem. Resisting needed change by denigrating the people pointing out the need for it will only get you so far. —MichaelZ. 15:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure exactly how many times you have repeated this but it is getting to the point of being disruptive. Mellk (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Done Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
_es.svg){kind=link}