NORMANISTS AND ANTI-NORMANISTS -the end of historic lie.

Our Russian friends are masters of the universe in promoting some lies.

Anti-Normanic (versus Normanic) history of Rus' makes a masterpiece of quasi scientific bs used to create a "Slavic" patriotism in the minds of the Russian people.

Already in the 18th century against the "Normanist theory" stood many outstanding historians, in particular Vasily Tatischev (1686-1750) and Mikhail Lomonosov (1711-1765) - they began so-called "Slavic school", Tatischev in his Russian History, and Lomonosov in a number of polemic pamphlets.

Both teachings co-existed during the 18th century.

Later on anti-Normanists gained more and more support from czars and even from bolsheviks.
The "Normanist theory" was finally discredited in Russia.
Only the proud Eastern Slaves could have founded Rus'.

Today it's DNA proven fact - the founders of Rus' were Finns, with their haplogroup N1cla.

I am definitely a Normanist -

I do not see any reasons to discuss this theme. I am nor Normanist neither anti-, I am Russian, who quite obviously has some Vgling's roots. So what? We can argue about who was true founder of Russia, but in the same time can trace each source of russia. But what can we say about England, for example? Who was the first? And what about France, which has also alot Norman blood?

Oh dear, you've got me wrong Kostik.
Russia does not have anything in common with Kievian Rus'.
I just tried to show a model lie of so called historians.

Not at all, it is you who is wrong. I am neither Normanist nor anti- , I am just Russian (and cannot deny some Viking's impact). I am repeating once again, Russia may trace her roots from different sources at least. But what we should do with Brits or French, who had been mixed wildly? They too have alot of Norman blood and what? And who is Brits, who was the founder of their state? You can choose between Wiliam Plantagenet (who was Norman in fact) or Anglo-Saxonian wariors (who was newcommers also). And what about Holland influence? England was conquered not far long ago, as I remember it correctly in the end of 17-th century. But in the same time you hardly can have any doubts that Russia is a real successor of Kievan Rus, because we have alot of common things, such as language, religion, customs, tales, myths. These things make the nation, and we inherited them from Rus even in much more scale that Ukrainians, because we preserved the main, folk-lore of Rus, the thing which had dissapiared on the territory of Ukraine. They should thank us for the fact that they know who was such persons as Yaroslav, Vladimir or Rurik. Later we saved them from total polanisation, but it ia another story of course, I don't want to reopen your old wounds Borrka, not now.

It's only problem of time to prove DNA autonomy of Kievian Rus'.
But already today there is enough evidence for links between Kievian Polyane and Polish Polanie.They are about the same people.

Moscovites (Great Russians) were civilized by Rus' - nothing wrong about advanced culture civilizing pagans.
They are using "mongolized" Ukrainian language and they took over Kievian myths and tradition.
Last but not least the religion.

However in their mentality and genetical composition Great Russians are close to Mongols or Tartars.
It's turanic civilsation.
Again nothing wrong about that.
No need to deny the obvious facts.

I seem to recall from some historical sources that a lot of the old Rurik/Kievan princes chose to meld with the Polish/Lithuanian Cth. What do you mean when you say 'saved'? That would suggest that it was under threat from Poland, which it clearly wasn't.

Please, don't hold back Con - open some of those old wounds. I'm keen to discuss these issues with you.

Borrka you should clarify your opinion about Russian origin, who are they, Mongols or Finno-Ugric? As I thought, there is some differece between these branches? Honestly, I don't care about my genetics, of course I have some Tartars roots too, nevertheless I have two legs, two hands, one head and quite long 'unmentionable', so do you thing that I am something different?


I don't know eactly what you meant, but as I correctly remember, Kiev jn the South and Novgorod on the North had almost equal significance for Rus.


I want to advise you to see on the geography of Russia. Take a look on the south with open spaces around Kiev, and forests around Moscow on north. I think, it was very difficult for Tartars to penetrate through this forest to the north unlike south. Novgorod for example, hadn't ever seen even one Mongol.

I feel what I feel, the history of Kievan Rus is my own history, so it is mine! I don't care about genetic of people in Russia. Do you remember Dahl? He was Dane, but composed most perfect dictionary of Russian language. Who he was? I think he was Russian.


Of course they had! Unlike you, Poles, Russians never had any difficulties of mixing with other people. But we do this only at condition of adopting our culture. Here is our strength.


Sure enough it was. Otherwise you would be still there.


Do you remember how your ancestors had eaten each other in Kremlin? I have no intention to take into account Katyn, I know that this issue is very painfull for Pole, so let's restrict our discussion by the frames of remote past.

Russia is not a big country in sense of population anymore but still large in square km. So let us agree on this point - in some regions it were Ugrofinic people in others you have mixed heavilly with Tartars.


And I feel Kostik the earth is flat so it has to be flat.

Well, definetly it is your right to think so, nobody will burn you now for such thoughts. But if you want to know real explanation of invitation of Normans on Rus, I could present these causes to you with examples from other countries.

I have a quite good understanding of those events.
But would you pls explain the position of Russian historians - 300 years of ignoring excellent records on Vikings in Kievian Rus' (The Tale of Bygone Years) ?

It is not interesting to discuss anybody's ignorance. I prefer to watch 'The dawn of the Dead' on TV now, film foretelling the future of your west.

At least you are watching American movies Kostik.

I hardly could name Romero's films as american.

This makes no sense. You agree with me, then say it was the Russians who embraced cultures (unlike Poles), which would suggest you don't really agree. Is this some sort of crazy Russian mind bending trick, 'cause it's working man!


Ibid my above comment.


Aye, I do, with fondness. I was actually there too. Poles have a penchant for eating human brains, so we cracked all the Muscovite skulls to satiate our zombie like lust. You can imagine our chagrin when as expected, the Muscovite skull bore a shrivelled walnut sized morass of slime, which presumably resulted from years of rotgut vodka consumption and little indpendant thought process to stimulate growth.

Noting our concerns, a few of my fellow adventurers drew straws and needless to say, after being left with the longest straw, the consumption of my colleagues allowed me vigour sufficient to last nearly 400 years.


You don't need to but can if you wish - I'm sure other members of the PF better than me will be keen to again put you in your place. I'm utterly confident that you will have nothing to add apart from your tiresome accounts rendered in broken English.

What I'm saying is I don't think anyone really cares what you think. You merely serve as a convenient reminder of where you come from and what the world stood on the brink of becoming - shudder.

Do you imply, that you can speak on broken Russian at least?

Do you see that? You are outraged, as I said previously, Russians have much more means to drive Pole crazy, then Poles.