Can Russia (Moscow) be considered the successor of Kievan Rus?

Russia (Moscow)

IRINA MIROCHNIK

November 4, 2016 in Moscow, with great celebrations, a 17-meter monument to the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vladimir was opened. The cost of the monument reached 150 million rubles (about 2 million 700 thousand dollars).

In the speeches of the first persons of the Russian Federation, the already familiar theses of the “Russian world” about Slavic unity and historical connection, cultural and political kinship (heredity (?)) of Kievan Rus and modern Russia sounded.

“The new monument is a tribute to our outstanding ancestor. A particularly revered saint , statesman and warrior, spiritual founder of the Russian state “[2], – Putin emphasized. Vladimir is a symbol of the unity of all the peoples of which he is the father, and these are the peoples of historical Russia, and now they live within many states … Monument to the father maybe everywhere where his children live, there is no contradiction in this, but it’s bad if the children forget that they have one father, ”the website of the Television News Service of the Ukrainian channel 1 + 1 reports [5].

For an ordinary Ukrainian who has at least a basic knowledge of national history, natural questions arise about all this: what did the Grand Duke of Kyiv have to do with Moscow and Russia, what kind of “unity” and “paternity” can we talk about, can we consider Russia (Moscow ) the heiress of Kievan Rus?

Can Russia (Moscow) be considered the successor of Kievan Rus?

These are the questions I will try to answer in this write-up.

History, exact science. So, for starters, simply, consider the chronology of historical events. Vladimir Svyatoslavovich (known as Vladimir the Great, Baptist, Saint) was born around 860 in Kyiv (there is evidence that he was born in Volhynia), was the Prince of Novgorod (970-978), died in 1015 on the territory of his house in Berestov (modern Kyiv ) . The Russian official historical science considers 1147 to be the official year of foundation of the city of Moscow.

Although, given the evidence of European historical science and impartial intelligence of Russian and Ukrainian historians, the date of foundation of the city of Moscow should be moved to 1272, when, as a result of the third census of the population, a settlement (not a city!) called Moscow was recorded in the possessions of the Golden Horde. Until now, no European evidence of the “city” of Moscow exists, as well as there is no mention of the Moscow princes, although the family of Yuri Dolgoruky only for the period 1120-1270. city! Daniel (son of Alexander Nevsky) became the first Moscow prince in 1277.

The world-famous historian Kazimir Valyshevsky believed that, in fact, before the Golden Horde census, “this new city was only a derivative camp of immigrants” [1, p.75]. So, between the reign of the Grand Duke of Kyiv and the emergence of Moscow, according to the official (doubtful) Russian historical science, 132 years passed, and according to a more probable chronology – 257 years. Agree, a fairly significant period of time to claim heredity, especially considering that the “founder of the Russian state”[2] the Grand Duke of Kyiv had (and could not have) nothing to do with either Moscow or modern Russia.

Now consider the thesis about Vladimir as a symbol of “the unity of all peoples, of which he is the father” [5]. Guided by the usual logic and social laws, one can affirmatively speak about a certain unity (similarity, identity) of those peoples belonging to a single language group, having a common history, cultural affinity, similarities in economic management and social structure. It is indisputable that the Slavs of the IX-X centuries. had these common features. The main condition for community was and remains linguistic kinship. But was the population of the modern territory of Russia Slavic?

Nestor the Chronicler in his “Tale of Bygone Years” testifies that “only in Russia, the Slavic language: glades, Drevlyans, Novgorodians, Polochans, Dregovichi, northerners, Buzhans … Volhynians. And these are other peoples who give tribute to Russia: Chud, all, Merya, Muroma, Cheremis, Mordvins, Perm, cave, pits, castings, zymogola, Kors, Noroma, Lib – these must have their own language … live in northern countries » [4, p.19].

The toponymy and hydronyms of the “heart” of Moscow and then Russian statehood indicate that the indigenous population of these territories, the basis for the formation of Russians (in the modern sense of this name) were tribes of the Finno-Hungarian language group. Even the name Moscow itself is of Finnish origin. An insignificant admixture of the ruling Slavic (Russian) elite from among the princes (who arrived from the territory of modern Ukraine) and their boyars and warriors could not significantly change either the ethnic or cultural and economic structure of these peoples and territories. Couldn’t the Finno-Hungarian tribes that inhabited the Suzdal land become, after the subjugation of them by the princes of the Kyiv dynasties, Slavs-Rusichs?

This curiosity of Russian historical science is aptly pointed out by the researcher Vladimir Bilinsky “after all, with the advent of the Norman princes ancient people of Kiev – glades, derevyanye, northerners, streets, dulebs – Normans” [1, p.67]. In addition to the lack of cultural, linguistic, ethnic unity, there was no economic, economic unity of the population of the “Zaleshansky land” and the Kyiv lands (except for tribute). Archaeological evidence points to this fact. So, archaeologist Alexy Uvarov, having excavated 772 mounds of the Merya people, did not find a single Kyiv coin in them, in the presence of many Arabic, Tatar, Bukhara and even German coins” [3, p.26].

Based on the data of the archaeologist A.S. Uvarova and anthropologists F.P. Lancet, A.P. Bogdanov, Ukrainian researcher Galina Mogilnitskaya claims that “the land of the Merya people”, on which only in the middle of the 12th century. that, according to the chronicles, paid tribute to the Russian princes. But did Russia and Byzantium ever pay tribute” [3 p.26].

Think for yourself. The first known prince in the territories in which Moscow would later arise was the youngest son of the Kyiv prince Vladimir Monomakh – Yuri Dolgoruky, who was left without a princely throne (in his parental lands), went with a small wife to the land of the Finno-Hungarian tribes (moksha, merya, all, mur, , Meshchera) to the “Zaleshansky land”, where, according to official Russian historiography, he laid the foundation for the Rostov-Suzdal principality. The son of Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky, was the son of a Polovtsian woman – the daughter of Khan Aepa, and had the characteristic appearance of an Asian steppe. Bogolyubsky in the fight against Kyiv constantly supported his relatives – the Polovtsy, who were the main opponent of Russia.

How strong the “national unity” was Andrei Bogolyubsky demonstrated in 1169, when he took Kyiv by storm and brutally devastated it, robbed churches, exterminated many inhabitants, many Kievans were taken prisoner. The actions of the prince and his warriors directly testify that they did not feel any sentiments about kinship with the Slavic (Russian) population, any “unity” with the people of Kiev, just as they did not show Christian virtues.

If you look closely at the history of the formation of the Moscow principality, and later the (Russian) state, you can only notice that it was the emergence of such an entity that became possible only thanks to the protectorate of the khans of the Golden Horde, who contributed (in exchange for a frank collaborator position) to Vladimir-Suzdal, and then to the princes of Moscow in the matter of increasing their territories (within the northern uluses of the Horde).

Indeed, since the 1330s, Moscow princes have almost always been holders of the khan’s label for the right to collect tribute. Being completely in the sphere of influence of the Golden Horde, for almost 250 years, having before itself the only example of an eastern centralized state – the Golden Horde, the top of the Moscow principality followed just such a model of political organization, different from the Ukrainian and Old Russian traditions.

The latter, according to unbiased historians, did not even have time to gain a foothold in Moscow lands, because the non-Slavic population lived there. Thus, the ambassador of Louis IX, William de Rubruck, who visited the headquarters of Khan Sartak in 1253 (located east of the modern city of Voronezh), in his book “Report of brother William Rubruck on his trip to the east in the years 1253 to 1255” directly indicates that the territory future Muscovy is not Rus.

The monk notes that “to the north of the headquarters of Sartak, the people of Moksel live, living in the forests, and conquered during the campaign of Batu” [1, p.120]. At the same time, Rubruk clearly outlines the boundaries of Russia “In the north of this region (Perekop) lies Russia, which has forests everywhere; it stretches from Poland and Hungary to Tanaid (Don)” [see. there].

Thus, modern Moscow officials should solemnly open not a monument to the Great Kyiv Prince, who has nothing to do with their statehood, but a monument to the Great Khan Mengu-Timur, who issued a label for the reign of the first Moscow prince Danil Yaroslavovich. themselves laying the foundation for “Russian statehood”.

The pathetic rhetoric of the first persons of the Russian state about the alleged “paternity” of Vladimir in the creation of modern Russia is reminiscent of the comic fuss of the “sons of Lieutenant Schmidt”, the characters of the famous work of Ilf and Petrov.

List of sources used:

1. Bilinsky V.B. Country Moksel or Muscovy: Historical research. – Book one. – K .: Elena Teliha Publishing House, 2012. – 376 p.

2. A monument to Prince Vladimir was unveiled in Moscow. Lenta. RU [Electronic resource] – Access mode: https://lenta.ru/news/2016/11/04/wl/

3. Mogilnitskaya G.A. Myth-making as a justification for historical looting. – Brovary: Ukrainian idea, 2009. – 184 p.

4. The Tale of Bygone Years: Chronicle (According to the Ipat list) / Per. From Old Russian, afterword, commentary. V.V. Yaremenko. – K .: Sovd. Writer, 1990. – 558s.

5. Privatization of history: in Moscow, the entire Kremlin army opened a monument to Prince Volo of Kyiv dimir. tsn.ua/ [Website]/ – Access mode: http://tsn.ua/svit/privatizaciya-istoriyi-u-moskvi-vsya-kremlivska-rat-vidkrila-pam-yatnik-kiyivskomu-knyazyu-volodimiru-799623. html

[Writer Irina Mirochnik is the President at IMMER Group & Doctor of Philosophy in Law(PhD)]

26-06-2022

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking. You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com ( For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary)