History Time, no, no, no. Thank YOU for all the amazing work you do. Your channel is a gem, so just keep doing your thing and I wish you Godspeed in any and all future endeavors, my brother.

history time video is cool,map is incorrect. Do a video about Croats.I am researching our history and history of all the Veneti people(i hate the word slav) and i can tell for sure that all nations from todays perspective are croatians by blood.to tell you more precise....I2 haplogroup originates from Croatia and every single one of them(nations) were ruled by Croats.that ruling class stayed here for 1600y now and so we are calling ourselves by their name!Hrvati! there is a page on fb....Great Croatia-Bijela Velika Hrvatska.chech it out.all the documents and books and maps ever made considering croatians and croatian brotherhood!even freaking france was founded by Veneti...merovingian dinasty is named after merovech who was veneti for sure.he has kolovrat on his grave! croatianmythology.blogspot.com/2012/09/croatian-pre-christian-mythology.html it is a huge text and it is very well written...but still....during early middle ages there were White Croatia,Green Croatia,Black Croatia,Great Croatia(LARGEST VENETI STATE EVER!) Red Croatia.....i think it would be fair to do a video about us....after all I2 is 25000y old!and one more thing.....our coat of arms,famous "šahovnica"/checkerboard is present across the Europe!we have a copyright on it!to say like this....oldest european calendar is found near Vinkovci who is oldest european city,Vucedol culture...and yet there is šahovnica all over the pottery painted....check out the idol from klicevo(a bit younger then vucedol....dates from 1500-1000bce and have šahovnica and neck tie) so we are first EUROPEAN NATION!AND we moved across europe and helped in foundations of new nations.by that default everyone is speaking warped version of croatian language(i mean veneti nations).greetings from Hrvatska! slava!

vjeran vlahovic, the passion you’re showing for the history of your ppl is admirable and praiseworthy, however there’s an important caveat to what I just said. Beware of the easy and well traveled road which leads from loving your own to hating the others, especially those dastardly neighbors everybody has. The more history you know the easier it gets to rationalize and justify hate, distrust and in the end, the evil actions one has to take for the sake of the ‘greater good’, whatever that may be. Hating the ‘others’ and destroying shit is fun, it comes easy, and it may even prove cathartic, for the destroyers that is, but make no mistake it will unavoidably result in suffering and misery for the generations to come, on all sides, always. Understanding ppl, forgiving their sins, building shit together instead of burning it down comes hard, it’s not fun or especially cathartic but make no mistake it’s the ONLY way forward. I really hope you’ll eventually choose to walk the hard road. Slava Gospodu, milost nama ostalima.

I really hope that you see this, I seriously LOVE your content. You always seem to post about a particular section of history that I am either not familiar with, or was previously completely unaware of. I love it!! Not to mention the actual QUALITY of your videos, so much information about such obscure topics. Keep doing what you’re doing!!!

thank you.but i do not hate others.i simply say that what they are teaching us in schools is not true!do you think that mr Vladimir Vladimirovic Putin would allow the book Velikaya Horvatiya(dr Alexander Mayorov,St Peterburg 2006) to be published if it was not true?you have to be aware that history of Veneti are being manipulated for purpose!we are the white race and there is agenda to mix us with other races....white genocide so called...all of us should unite in one beg state!why?to preserv our heretage and culture for one thing and for the other to preserve humanity. russia is delaying the ww3 and agenda 30 right now.imagine what we can do combined?the pan is to wipe out 95% of worlds population!that is why we need to unite!and what better way for unification is then if people know history?that we share the same blood!

No, history is for any age that wants to learn.

@Aggressive Tubesock You are the first person I've seen gatekeeping history. Get a life

@Aggressive Tubesock If you are young you should focus on building your livelyhood and spend your time wisely so you can get old happily. I can play this game too, there is no reason.

@Aggressive Tubesock Why are you bragging out of nowhere? Seems like you have something to compensate for. Pretty sad to see.

This comment is so wholesome, I think something is wrong with @Aggresive Tubesock to write such a stupid thing

The people of israel are origin khazar turks

Gigachad son of Megachad Olga

Entire Rus period deserves its own series!

They should do a miniseries about each ruler: Rurik & Oleg, Igor & Olga, Sviatoslav and finally Vladimir

Mongol sell out Svietoslav

@@SolidSharkOFFICIAL Pechenegs homeboy

@@hormonuspubertetus5230 There ancestors were iranic nomads after all .

Ive fallen in love with 10th, 11th century Eastern European history recently.

Thanks! It's such a fascinating area.

+History Time 10:50 Иду на вы!

Thanks buddy. I do have the name History Time name locked down, and one podcast uploaded, though it's just the audio to my last video, not specifically a podcast (yet). I'm going to be dedicating some time to making podcasts as soon as I get a chance. It'll be a nice break to not have to make all the maps and such, and do longer episodes. :D

It would be so easy - they have a simple program that you can turn a KZfaq video into MP3 format and just upload it.

Luke Thomas as long as it’s the truth and not kremlin propaganda

They were ultimate badasses. Especially when Anglo-Saxons joined up : )

I wonder if they were all norwegian or mixed with ukrainian/slavic warriors too

Thanks man : )

Omegador Thankyou! Glad you like it

Just don't confuse this people with modern "russians", complete different tribes.

@@idgafatall1562 not at all... russians' ancestry has lot, if not most of their ancestry is from the kievan rus(slavic/baltic/finnic tribes). Yes, the might have more baltic and finnish blood than ukrainians or belarussians, but they still the closest genetically to them anyway(to ukrainians and belarussians, and lithuanians as well, because russians have a lot of baltic blood).

@@morchario No, they not. Learn be4 type here... They did their own DNA research, nothing incoming, so don't tell me things you don't know. They just payed tribute to Kievan Rus, nothing more, no blood mix or other things, don't show how stupid you are. I was born in USSR, don't even try to tell me history of MY land...

@@idgafatall1562 well, if you say that, then nothing I'd say will convince you. Since you think "it's all propoganda". I studied the subject, and I know expert geneticists, and they all agree that russians are a mostly a mix of baltic and slavic people. With some west asian/finnic/uralic/siberian blood. And they are the closest genetically to belarussians, ukarainians and lithuanians. If you don't believe me, go and research it yourself. Become a geneticist, take russians, extract their DNA, then research and study it. Come here with the results. I am waiting!

Yes, that was my understanding of it too, from what I had read.

Thank you! Glad you like it

Captain_Torket Thanks! Glad you like them! The truth is always stranger than fiction :)

You have a very weak grasp on the word verbatim.

He tells you his source in the video, the primary chronicle, guess what the major source for the wikipedia page - the primary chronicle (it mentions other sources like Encyclopedia Britannica but their source was the primary chronicle) so of course it is going to be similar however it IS NOT verbatim, learn what the word means.

More on the way.

What do you want to know? I can enlighten you :)

@@HistoryTime more than a year later and no videos about Kievan Rus :( anyone got great books recomendations about this time period ? anything, novel set in that time period would be super cool also

@@TheXyek I'm just one person. It takes months to research these videos. there are more on the way. They take time.

More videos will come soon, take it easy, I'm a complicated subject

Greetings! Glad you liked it!

+History Time 7:17 Для него, война не была удовольствие, не была обязательство, а образ жизни.

vlad lol its nice having someone go over the history of your forefathers on a public manner!!! Glad you enjoyed it!!! I wish they would let the Albanian story come out with its true colours!! would be so cool!!! Maybe one day!

Is it possible that you can study some Albanian history i mean we are at the heart of European history and no one tells us anything factual about our origins and our Illyrian decent (much contested) coz every thing we are or was apart of us is always contested by our neighbouring countries!! You have the Albanian language that is the oldest indo-europian!! But apart from that they all look at us as inferior to our neighbours i dont if that is coz our politicians are bad and corrupt or coz the world powers just wanna keep and eye shut just so they don't provoke our neighbours!! Ps we make up like 4-5 countries biggest minorities Montenegro,Serbia,Macedonia, Greece and Turkey!!!!

@@rotnem0017 agreed, Albanian history is quite interesting and not covered well at all

I'm actually from the English Midlands, but thanks for the compliment. Ewan McGregor is a top geezer.

A surprise to be sure.

Thanks! History should never be static : ) It is alive.

History Time Your passion shows, you have my support, I look forward to the next video.

Glad you liked it!

The Black Prince probably what makes 500-1600s Eastern European history (in my opinion at least) more interesting is giving how little attention and exposure it gets in the history books. Maybe it’s because of it being pretty much way more isolated and less populated and also under developed compared to other parts of Europe idk?

I always feel a bit sorry for those guys. However, if you're the ruling dynasty of a coalition of steppe tribes, and you go soft over the generations, start to pay mercenaries to do your fighting for you, it's just a matter of time before you fall.

History Time Hard to argue against that logic. Given especially since the Khaganate was founded by a steppe people which had gained its original power by conquering its neighbors like the Bulgars. Becoming a, to use a modern metaphor, bloated empire that relied upon mercenaries inevitable would lead to a defeat by a Sviatoslav-like conqueror. Thank you again, for such interesting, quality, and educational videos!

Thanks! Glad you liked it. Much more on the way.

Glad you liked it! Much more on the way : )

The stereotypical Cossack look? Yeah, it was heavily inspired by Turkic fashion - probably. His overall look was generally a pragmatic look mixing his noble heritage and status as an active general warlord and the hairstyle was somewhat common all over Northern Eurasia. A shaved head with a lock or two left is pretty common from Scandinavia to Manchuria at the time. In fact, there's a haircut named "Manchurian" from China which is essentially the same with the lock being kept at the back instead of the turned to the front.

Thanks! Glad you liked it.

Thanks! Glad you liked it!

Glad you like them!

PlzShoo 1893 I will be making many. Eventually.

Thanks man! Much appreciated

Thanks man. Glad you like the channel!!!

Thanks! Glad you liked it!

Yes the Rus invaded and contributed to the fall of the First Bulgarian Empire.

@@mihailnikoloff2554 it was later paid back in full with Kaloyan the Romanslayer

@chetnoMAN He just smashed another contender for the crown that's all. He was more bulgarian than serb :). He got the crown due to his royal bulgarian ancestry. He was crowned by the Bulgarian patriarch only because he descended from Emperor Smilets of Bulgaria as his mother was Bulgarian and descended from Smilets. The serbs could only get the title tsar from the Bulgarian Patriarch as they never had tsars. Only another tsar or emperor can bestow that title - or the patriarch of that state that has the title. His wife was also Bulgarian. And his son was realistically Bulgarian . In any case his "greatness" didnt last long. His son failed to retain that which was won by his father. So unfortunately for the serbs their claim on stefan dusan's greatness is tenuous at best :) To top it all off the "vassal state" lasted ....wait for it....not even one year .......from august 1330 to march 1331...the puppet Ivan stephen was deposed and ran for the mountains....

@chetnoMANeverything I wrote is true as painful and uncomfortable it is for you to admit.... Now you bring in other stuff that has nothing to do with initial argument. There were no subsequent tsars in Serbia after Dusan as his son lost the crown and the line was broken. As far as what bulgarians did to fight the ottomans. You mean other than fight for every meter of land and every fortress?. The Serbs just had one big battle and capitulated. Bulgarians fought 100s of battles at every fortress and there is more than enough evidence to substantiate it. Momchil voyvoda beat them also on open field battle but eventually capitulated due to no assistance from the byzantines. Serbs were not well fortified and had no choice but open battle. Incidentally bulgarians fought alongside serbs at Kosovo pole. It was not just serbs. And the Serbs paid it back by joining the ottomans against the Christians at nicopolis. The usual backstabbers...

@chetnoMAN btw a sovereign cannot unilaterally elevate church. It can only be done by another patriarch. That is total nonsense. And even if a sovereign has a patriarch that patriarch has no authority to crown him emperor. Only another state that has an emperor can bestow this title. If this were true Simeon the Great and Kaloyan wouldnt have needed the Pope or the patriarch in constantinople to acquire this title. They could have just got it from the bulgarian patriarch. Please get a clue before you further embarrass yourself here.

I will be making many !

Thanks mate! Glad you liked it

Didnt see a video of yours that i didnt like .

I will be doing more in the future

I am really sorry to say, and being ukrainian making my point some kind weaker but why you call that country/empire as "Kievan Rus"? That time was big country called simply "Rus" and no others. Its quite logical, is not? We never heard about Londonic Britain es weird example. When I was studying history at late school (around 1984-86) in USSR there in so-called "history handbooks" was a lot of different "Ruses". Like "Novgorodian Rus", "Moscovian Rus" etc. But this terms did appeard together with term "Kievan Rus" from the middle of XIX century. If not mistaken - evolved by Karamzin, russian state "historian". In fact, of presented scripts, "История Временных Лет" also exists as late copy. During period presented in this video there was some division of country by states called in russian "Земля -> Zemlya = simply Land. So those "Ruses" were called by terms Novgorodskaya Zemlya, Rostovskaya Zemlya (Rostov is in present days Moscow Area, not a southern city)Galichskaya Zemlya etc. Regardless thank you History Time for a great video and as for TheSamuraijim87 as mentioned information was the same new for me and I personally like point of History Time.

Hey Oleh. Thanks for your comment. You make a good point. I'll try and explain my reasoning. Kiev was the capital, and as far as I'm aware it was the largest city of the state. All roads tended to lead to Kiev if that makes sense, a little like Rome during the days of the empire. This is why most historians use the term Kievan Rus. I tend to just go with the consensus of the historical community.

@@olehv.niushko9282 it was Rus. Rus viking too. The language was russianm in a sense.

@@HistoryTimeThere are manuscripts in Novgorod of merchants that state that this or that merchant " WENT TO RUS". By Rus it meant either Kievan, Chernigovian or Perejaslavijan lands. Rus was only Northern Ukraine specifically...Only later on did this term spread onto other lands. For example Novgorod only began to consider themselves as Rus lands in the 14th century!

I will eventually

Thanks! More of these in the pipeline!

Thanks very much! They really did get everywhere!

@@HistoryTime acctually, vikings are made to look better and more important than they acctually where

Best Roman Emperors since the days of Justinian, Maurice and Heraclius.

Apologies... Bulgarians didn't have a very good time in this video... Rest assured I will be covering the glory days of the First Bulgarian Empire asap....

Cant wait !!!

It is history,empires rise and fall. And just one thing Thrakе (south east balkans) Wеrе Bulgarian until 970 whеn the.byzantinеs attackеd us from thе south

Cant wait for thе next vidеo!!!

You should consider covering the Daco-Thracians. They are severely underrepresented and their history is obscured by pro-Helenistic bias in the Western historiography. They must have had a huge impact on the ancient world.

She was an ultimate badass. Not a lady to cross. I imagine her a bit like lady stoneheart for game of thrones fans out there.

don't mess with Olga

I am still mad that thеy didnt add lady stonеhearth in thе show

Olga the Memelord

Why wasn't it considered real history?

@@gandabacha8200 to try and hide truth and real history basically

Are you serious??????

Petter Eliseussen do you have anymore info on your claim about wikipedia

His is a great story. I will tell it for sure. Though there are just so many incredible stories to tell, it will take me a while to get there!

History Time no worries! I’ll be along for the ride and looking forward to the video when you get around to it

Thanks! Glad you liked it!

@@tucrin8717 Maybe they came from Russia, but at the time the Russian people really didn't exist. Once they moved to Kiev, they fully assimilated, just like the Khan's became mostly Chinese once they formed Yuan. Russians came from one of the successor states of the Rus', but over time they lost the Rus' influence once they became Muscovy, they were an entirely different culture and nation. This is where Russian culture comes from.

@@tucrin8717 Muscovy changed the entire dynamic of the culture. Becoming a big power made their leaders corrupt and genocidal. And DNA shouldn't decide legitimacy. They way the people acted should, and for most of history, the Rurik's acted like Ruthenians (don't really know what to call Ukrainians back then) You can see this in Sviatoslav the brave. He was the origin of Cossack culture, with his devastating cavalry, and Cossacks are just about entirely Ukrainian.

@@tucrin8717 Genocide was absolutely not characteristic of the time. He was named Ivan the Terrible for a reason. And the Rurik dynasty originated in the Russian region. Geography cares little for culture, and like I said, modern Russian culture has little to do with the Rus. You will rarely see a Russian who celebrates the Rus, while it is deeply ingrained in Ukrainian culture. Like I said, the Ukrianian cossacks originated from Sviatoslav the Brave. Like I said, Ukrainians idolize the Rus' and it's one of the most celebrated time periods in Ukrainian history.

@@tucrin8717 Genocide as a definition is targeting a culture or group of people and killing them. This didn't exist. Sure, the nobolity would raid villages, but the secret police that existed in Muscovy was nowhere to be seen in any other kingdom.

@@tucrin8717 upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Slav_warrior_from_Solntsev_book.jpg This is a picture of what Sviatoslav the brave would've looked like. Compared to Cossack dress, it's strikingly similar. The Rus' state is a heavy inspiration to everything Ukrainian.

I will be dedicating a video to the Khazars, and they will be mentioned in a lot more videos on the Byzantines.

@I'm Right well, I studied the subject, so I know what I am talking about. Genetic studies proved that ashkenazi jews are mostly middle eastern(50-70%) and the rest is mostly southern european(italian mostly). With almost none(0-5%) eastern european dna, and most have none. Actually, jews are the furthest, genetically, from eastern europeans out of almost all european ethnicities. Plus, only 12% of all jews have khazar ancestry, and usually it's one ancestors, and rarely have more than one. So no, jews aren't khazars. It's funny, because ashkenazi jews already have been in western europe and italy when the khazars existed.

@@morchario From what I have read on the topic, it seems to depend where those DNA studies were done. Since modern Israel's claim to the land it is on depends on DNA studies "proving" they are from at least "the middle east" (which is a very large area compare to the small area of Israel) then not surprisingly that's exactly what they find. However I suspect that if they were wanting to make hereditary claims to land in the formerly Kievan Rus area, then that's what they would find. Let's see what unfolds in that regard in the years to come, shall we?

@@54guy1 ummm no... I studied it... and most studies, no matter where they were done, are proving exactly my point. Have a nice day 😊

He did something similarly nasty. Can't remember what exactly. Maybe someone can enlighten us

Plutarch says that Satrap Bessus was killed by the bent tree method however the more likely story is a simple beheading.

@D B are you 12 years old?

Thank you! Much appreciated. It was actually mentioned on an episode of 'The Real Middle Ages' podcast I listened to a few months back, briefly talked of in Susan Bauer's 'the History of the Medieval World', and a few other books on the Viking age. From what I've read the archaeological evidence seems to suggest that Sviatoslav was the last Rus' leader to keep up Scandinavian traditions as well as Slavic ones. After him the Rus' seem to have been pretty much just Slavic. A mass killing of the warrior elite and the need for replacements does seem to explain this, at least in part. Though of course shifting culture is also a huge prime mover of historical events. So the emperors in this video are Nikephoras Phokas - John Tzmiskes - Basil II Romanos II was before these guys, but you have a point, I probably should have specified that Princess Anna was his daughter and Basil's sister. That whole last bit was really an afterthought, I'm going to tell the full story in a future video so didn't want to go too far into it in case I just end up repeating myself too much. This whole era is so fascinating. for Byzantium I see it as being pretty much the age of the generals, when the imperial seat of power very nearly became a largely symbolic office much like the Abbasid Caliphs, the Popes in Rome, or the English monarchy today, with generals (and sometimes politicians) wielding all the actual power. But of course all this changed for a brief time with Basil II. Video on him coming some time in the next 6 months- its mostly written- just the actual production of the videos takes a long time. It was Emperor John at Dorostolon, though his general Bardas Skleros did much of the groundwork for him. Really appreciate your intelligent feedback and very glad to have you watching!

History Time No worries. I'm going to check out that podcast. It sounds worthwhile. If you're looking at the period as the "age of the generals", consider throwing in John Kourkuas, Romanus Lekapenos, Bardas Skleros and Bardas Phokas, George Maniakes, Isaac Komnenos and Romanos IV. I think however, such a story deserves to have the "Anarchy at Samarra" and the collapse of the Abbasids & Rise of the Buyids, Samanids, Ghaznavids etc told first, as context, because it's all awesome as a tale of intrigue. And no problems, I'm grateful for the epic vids.

slest .9 you actually just proved my point entirely.

slest .9 I'm not Scandinavian, but anyway, I'm not trying to steal your history regardless. I'm aware that there may be many "studies", and I utilize that term in its broadest possible definition, which show that there is no Scandinavian element to the history of Kievan Rus and henceforth Russia, but these are nearly all pre-fabricated ultra nationalist trash, which begin with a predetermined outcome, and work simply to show that outcome, not verify the truth. Most reputable scholarship acknowledges the possibility of some degree of Norse involvement.

slest .9 And Rurik and Oleg never existed? And let's be honest, you've just been spouting your view at me, not providing this information in documented studies, and you also don't address the fact that a lot of the study from within Russia is nationalistically charged. You're evading the issue.

hah really? did u see that with your own eyes? or you have some reliable sources corroborating ths?

Thranduil Oropherion Leo seen Svyatoslav by his own eyes. Did you see him too? Nope? So what are we talking about?

Ukrainian Kozaks copied his hairstyle and so did the Pechenegs . The Pechenegs found him such a good ruler they even copied him, again just like Zaporosti.

Russians trying to twist things so they can change history to suit them.

Bulghars or however the west or you like to call them were always a foreign concept to us. We have always been Bulgarians! As for the proto Bulgarians they weren't that many to begin with. Asparuh created Danube Bulgaria with his tribes numbering at around 30 to 50 thousand the majority of which were proto Bulgarians. Those Bulgarians were the elite force but with the never ending wars with the Romans and the Avars their numbers were dwindling. The proto Bulgarian population got a slight increase when their former masters the Avars were finally conquered and with the expansion/unification with Kuber's tribes(Asparuh's brother, both long dead by now) in Macedonia. Through the centuries they were mostly represented by the ruling/royal family and nobleman/boyars. With the official establishment of Christianity even the richest among boyars were not spared. The Bulgarian empire was now populated in large by Slavs and others (Romans, Magyars, Thracians, Germanics)

Bulgars remained both on Volga and the Danube after Sviatoslav's conquest.

Neutral Fellow here is some Slavic propaganda!!! You guys are never happy with the facts!! Its so boring hearing you guys cry the whole time about petty shit!

Rotnem001 slavic propaganda? The story is about a guy who's father was murdered by a slavic tribe and who then went on a conquering spree. Did you actually watch the video?

kaio shin i was responding to the comment not the video itself? I think you missunderstood

The only version of the text of the treaty you can find is one from the Primary Chronicle, which shows its insignificance for both Byzantines and Igor. The Primary Chronicle was written at best around 1100, at worst it was rewritten and falsified in the second half of the 18th century. Though I usually trust historical sources and surely cannot prove any falsifications, in this case, I'd rather consider many aspects of this book as an offspring of posterior Rus\Muscovite rulers' will. Whatever, even in Russian text, there is no single Slavic name mentioned. The involvement of Scandinavian rulers into Rus politics lasted up to the end of the 11th century. Both Vladimir and his son Jaroslav the Wise got Norwegian help in order to capture Kiev. That was long after Rurik and Igor, and I don't remember any occasions where Bohemian or Polish nobles were seeking help in Scandinavia. Slavicization of Rus happened, but it happened later.

Proudest Son of Terra I doubt cuttthroats need monumental temples, and I also doubt their oaths given to Christians have any values for them. Neither of us can tell whether the book is falsified or not, but I claim it was distorted, consciously or not, and cannot be 100% trusted. There is no Greek text of the treaty, thus, any disputes about it are sensless. By Muscovites I mean guys obsessed with Third Rome and the idea of being Byzantine successors, willing to break any law to prove it. Hiring mercenaries may be a common thing, but hiring armies with support of a King, who is a relative is something different. At the same time, the Rus princes also had influence in Scandinavia, inciting pagan rebellions (Polotskian princes,Sweden,1067) or directly interfering into power struggles. You cannot deny that the Princedoms were integrated into Nothern Europe more than any other region, and there have to be reasons other than pure geography. And yes, I'm biased, don't see anything bad at this.

-"Norseshit variety" -"you shouldn't dabble in history, precise science" you're as biased as I am, thus, "shouldn't dabble in history" either. 1. The Rus text of treaty of 945 almost does not consist of Slavic names. Check the Primary Chronicle. I don't deny the existence of a treaty, I'm talking about its content. 2. The Third Rome idea was generated by rulers and bishops of Muscovite tsardom in late XVth century as a response to the fall of Constantinople. It has nothing to do with the Romanov dynasty or Slavophiles of XIXth century. 3. The Romanovs relied on inviting foreigners in order to rule their empire because otherwise, it would be impossible due to inefficiency, poor education and set of other complex reasons. Read Richard Pipes or Edward Radzinsky if you're interested. 4. Rurukids cannot be treated as rivals to Romanovs at all. If you generate statements like that it means you know little of Russia. We are all children of Rurik, up to every last noble and every last ruler of the smallest county. Same Romanovs are. Even if you mean by Rurikids the Muscovite dynasty, then again, it ended in the late XVIth century and Romanovs were serving them, there was no rivalry. Moreover, no rivalry could be possible at all due to the nature of that country and inability of anyone except the ruler to collect political power and influence. And please, don't say that guys after Godunov where Ivan's real children. 5. The Rus was originally created as a trading company of some Norse "businessmen". Firstly, It was due to control trade routes with Byzantium. Secondly, it had unlimited resources of slaves, fur and "gifts of a forest". Thirdly, it had no state, that's why it was so easy to establish such an entity. If you deny this, please, give me a single normal reason for Rurik to move his capital as far as to Kiev. Note, it's the IXth century. Nobody moves capitals for 1000km. 6. The real slavicization of the elites happened in the second half of the XIth century, together with desintegration processes. It was partly a result of deeds of the hero of this video: due to destruction of Khazars, the Turk hordes moved west, most importantly, to Byzantine borders. They managed to weaken Byzantium, defeating them in Asia Minor (Manzikert, 1071), greatly reducing their needs in slaves and their trade power. After there was no need in a centralized state, the importance of Kiev reduced in times, Grand princes were forced to rely mostly on income from land and partitions happened. And it was no common feudalization process, as in order to start feudalizm, there have to be certain conditions satisfied. 7. By meaning slavicization I mean reducing the importance of vikings (born or invited) in army and bureaucracy together with change of culture of desicion making and shift towards more multiethnical elite. Still don't understand about what we do precisely argue. I understand early elites of the Rus consisting of mostly Norse and being of Norse origin, in many cases culturally and religiously converted from the very beginning. Despite their conversions, their decision making and worldview was of Varangian nature, and they viewed themselves as a part of a Scandinavian world, that's the reason they involved in politics of each other so often. They got converted the same the Normans got converted in Sicily or Northern France, and their original elites are slavs as much as the Normans are Italian. 8. Don't understand why you despise Norsemen so much, but if you understand norse kingdoms as so weak, why didn't the Poles or the Germans involved in their politics as the Rus Princes did? Their lands are closer, aren't they?

@@TheDjubele this is simply not true, you want to claim russian heritage, you are wrong on so many levels, and by this era it is clearly german propaganda, like i am watching nonsense that slavs derived from slaves, that this now russians got nothing to do with old rus because theyy are all muscovites, that scandinavians are more advanced people so much in contrast to us that we even didnt have name for ourselves, btw rus is slavic word for that tribe because others saw us that way, we croats were known before viking era by byzantium, greeks, franks and germans, name was russae crovati, or you think that croats are also sweeds,it means light skin and hair which perfectly describes us, even today in croatia there is surname rus, no my friend ,rus are not sweeds and it is mentioned that they were two different people so that north theory is obsolete, king of dalmacija about viking age was named sviatopolk,i could write a bible here why it is not true, but there are always new lies about us slavs because we are still one of most powerful tribes on earth and thats why west always tried to undermine us because we are powerfull, and it seem that vikings were not what you made documentaries, vikings were not so much germanics as in those raiding parties could be many nations so it could be slavs also, or finnic as modern science interprets ,it doesnt mean that they werent germanic either , all human race had warriors viking is not exception, and expanding tribes likes slavs would be dangerous, there are little viking exploits on the east most is western oriented, so if vikings raided western kingdoms surely they would raid and rus, but didnt, rus used vikings and cooperated with them and knew who tey were and they werent rus they called them varjag, so tell me how come that rus kingdom full slavic is kingdom and vikings at the same times were still tribes, not united , every war party is for itself, and they made kingdom and rest are still tribes, how come kyiev has slavic name and every other rus cities, slavs had cities before vikings so what we learned from you, we had letter you only runes, our word for germans is nijemci which means mute or not know how to write, and is stated that rurik took all his people and made rus, so if thats whats the case than it should be another language in russia, like when normans concuered saxons, language changed drastically by the elite so it would be the same in russia and yet its all slavic language, and what nation in rise calls somebody to rule them over, it doesnt make sense whats so ever that why we believe it is legend ,that north theory, only west is taking them as fact but we all know what west thinks of us ,you believe what you will but rus are almost certainly not norse people

​@@sinisadabic5371 History isn't as black and white as you see it. Slavic people in ancient Rus lands didn't have their state - some people came there and organized a state (a.k.a, negotiated terms with local tribes and integrated their rulers into a single elite). This has nothing to do with German propaganda/ Scandinavian superiority, and btw I never said that slav derives from "slave" - slav derives from "slovo". The fact that Rus state was organized by a small Scandinavian elite doesn't mean that Slavs are inferior or anything like that. It also doesn't necessarily mean that a society should adopt the language of newly-established rulers. In fact, the opposite happens quite regularly: Bulgars in Bulgaria, Mongolians/Jurchen in China, etc. By the way, Rus people managed to integrate ethnically different ruling elites twice - once with Rurik, and once with Lithuanian Princes in the XII-XIV century. Less numerous and technologically disadvantaged Lithuanians united the majority of the Rus princedoms as a sort of confederacy against the Golden Horde, but it didn't make people of Rus learn Lithuanian and didn't make them pagan. On the contrary, this process Ruthenized the Lithuanian ruling class and princely families. And you won't find lots of Lithuanian words in Ukrainian\Belarusian. Instead, the Lithuanian language has lots of Rus words in it. And forming states, especially, in the Middle Ages, has nothing to do with a national idea and\or one nation having to oppress the other. Same as William the Conqueror and his men, the Clan of Rurik organized a state because it had such an opportunity, and it has nothing to do with disintegrity of Viking tribes, as well as doesn't imply that ethnically and culturally different Vikings should be united into a one entity. The single Rus state was organized and existed because of the strong trade of slaves and fur with Byzantium. And it disintegrated into small princedoms once the Khazars, unwisely destroyed by Rus competitors, were pushed out of the steppes by Turkic tribes, which lead to the decline of Byzantium's needs in these resources. And if you're so proud of being Slavic, etc, please, don't confuse Rus with its traditions of self-government with Despotic Russia where human dignity means nothing, and the authoritarian state can kill its people like swine without consequences.

Yеs but not a khan but to tsar(еmperor) Pеtеr of Bulgaria in 927 AD

the bulgarians had tsars not "khans"