Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Novgorod vs. Kievan Russia

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by webbrave
yes, I know a fair amount of it (my mother's family is from Kiev by the way - at least 4 generations), although my speech lacks practice. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
Because you said "personal observation", and well, if you wouldn't know Polish, and my whole family would knew Russian, we would speak Russian in our home while you were our guest.

I admit, i could just ask:D
 
Originally posted by Halibutt
Note the huge amount of sounds you don't have in russian (like [h], [dz], unaccented [o], [dzh], [t'], [d'], and so on, and so forth.
Click to expand...

I am no linguist, but I think that we do have all of those in Russian with the exception of "h" sound that sounds like strong "g" (and is very typical of a Ukrainian speaking Russian). Other than that I don't see any significant phonetical differences.
 
Originally posted by snuggs
There are contemporar references to the people around Kiev (modern day Ukraina) as "Russian" in Byzantine works. How can this be if there were no "Russia" by then?
-

Believe me - and I agree with you btw - the VERY LAST thing I'd ever do is nitpick :D but the Byzantines, self-consciously sat at the centre of Christian civilisation, were notoriously bad at categorising foreigners correctly. When the English were arriving in Constantinople in the late C11, some came via Denmark and the Russian rivers and some through the Med - Byzantine chroniclers often typecast the former as 'Rus' and the latter as 'Franks' just from the direction they arrived from despite the fact they were ethnically identical, just with different travel agents :) Non-nomadic incomers from the North were often labelled Rus whether they were Slavs or Norse, a trend which continued centuries after the Greeks should have known better.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, particularly when Havard's source talks about the "Babylonians" and "Assyrians" at the time of Basil II. Still, a good read, as far as medieval sources go.

Also, there is the problem of translation, since I would assume Psellos was writing in Greek
 
Originally posted by snuggs

Believe me - and I agree with you btw - the VERY LAST thing I'd ever do is nitpick :D but the Byzantines, self-consciously sat at the centre of Christian civilisation, were notoriously bad at categorising foreigners correctly. When the English were arriving in Constantinople in the late C11, some came via Denmark and the Russian rivers and some through the Med - Byzantine chroniclers often typecast the former as 'Rus' and the latter as 'Franks' just from the direction they arrived from despite the fact they were ethnically identical, just with different travel agents :) Non-nomadic incomers from the North were often labelled Rus whether they were Slavs or Norse, a trend which continued centuries after the Greeks should have known better.
Click to expand...

this is true of virtually any book on geography and history written between Herodotus and Darwin;) . However, the very fact that Byzantines are using this name (and they are not the only ones to do so - so do early Slavic sources and the Arabs) seems to indicate that it was in use at the time. Now, they may have been a bit confused who the Rus were, but there were definetely there and this was definetely their name.:)
 
Originally posted by snuggs
Believe me - and I agree with you btw - the VERY LAST thing I'd ever do is nitpick :D but the Byzantines, self-consciously sat at the centre of Christian civilisation, were notoriously bad at categorising foreigners correctly. When the English were arriving in Constantinople in the late C11, some came via Denmark and the Russian rivers and some through the Med - Byzantine chroniclers often typecast the former as 'Rus' and the latter as 'Franks' just from the direction they arrived from despite the fact they were ethnically identical, just with different travel agents :) Non-nomadic incomers from the North were often labelled Rus whether they were Slavs or Norse, a trend which continued centuries after the Greeks should have known better.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know... The Byzantines of the time preferred to refer to all surrounding people as "the Barbarians" :D, be it to the west, east or north. But if they had to refer to the barbarians to the north, up those rivers that run into the north side of the Black Sea they consistently called them "the Rus". I guess that is relevant useable information in this discussion still... :)
 
In Ukraine, the people speak Russian. Travel to a Ukrainian street, home, or workplace, and the people will be speaking Russian. The "Ukrainian language" is a fiction created in the universities--nobody speaks it. It is just a joke, a piece of historical fiction created during the Gorbachev era to add supposed credibility to the anti-Soviet separatist movements. Same goes with the Byelorussian "language" and also with the "languages" of Central Asian republics. In Soviet territory, everybody spoke Russian as a matter of convenience, and this practice continues until the present day. If you want to know what the people of Ukraine speak, then travel there, listen to some ordinary, non-political people (on neither our side nor our enemies) and they will be speaking Russian. Any differences in speech or pronunciation with the rest of the people who speak Russian can be categorized linguistically as dialect rather than a real separate language. Same thing with Serbs and Croats--their language is damned identical, and either side that wants to pretend otherwise is following some fantasy of politics. Actually, we have a great love of the Ukrainian people, most of whom retain loyalty to the USSR and think of themselves as Soviet citizens. There are a few anti-Soviet scoundrels in the goverment and universities, but their time will come--the CIA cannot protect them forever.

Now, let's get back to CK discussions. If there is an ethnic dimension in the game (I have heard strongly that there is), then I would suggest that the Russian lands (Novgorod, Moskva, Kiev, Chernigov, and so forth) should all have "Russian" ethnic identity in the game. It would be a shame to call the southern ones "Ukrainian" as this would introduce a wall of separation which is not historically justified, although certain contemporary political elements might not want to admit this.

Finally, I find it very interesting when one of our fellow posters indicates that the Byzantines were notoriously inaccurate in their description of foreigners. This is an important point, and one which I had failed to consider before. If they were so careless as to confuse the English and French with each other, then perhaps their other descriptions are not correct either.
 
Originally posted by EB.
In Ukraine, the people speak Russian. Travel to a Ukrainian street, home, or workplace, and the people will be speaking Russian. The "Ukrainian language" is a fiction created in the universities--nobody speaks it. It is just a joke, a piece of historical fiction created during the Gorbachev era to add supposed credibility to the anti-Soviet separatist movements. Same goes with the Byelorussian "language" and also with the "languages" of Central Asian republics. In Soviet territory, everybody spoke Russian as a matter of convenience, and this practice continues until the present day. If you want to know what the people of Ukraine speak, then travel there, listen to some ordinary, non-political people (on neither our side nor our enemies) and they will be speaking Russian. Any differences in speech or pronunciation with the rest of the people who speak Russian can be categorized linguistically as dialect rather than a real separate language. (...) Actually, we have a great love of the Ukrainian people, most of whom retain loyalty to the USSR and think of themselves as Soviet citizens. There are a few anti-Soviet scoundrels in the goverment and universities, but their time will come--the CIA cannot protect them forever.
Click to expand...
I'm speachless... I'm so sorry for you, what happened to your head?
BTW, you're American, right?
Cheers
 
Originally posted by Halibutt
I'm speachless... I'm so sorry for you, what happened to your head?
BTW, you're American, right?
Cheers
Click to expand...

I don't remember you reacting this way to milanmax's equally ahistorical posts. Double standard, perhaps?;)
 
Originally posted by Havard
Oh, I know... The Byzantines of the time preferred to refer to all surrounding people as "the Barbarians" :D, be it to the west, east or north. But if they had to refer to the barbarians to the north, up those rivers that run into the north side of the Black Sea they consistently called them "the Rus". I guess that is relevant useable information in this discussion still... :)
Click to expand...

yes, it would be interesting to know who they got this name from. it looks like the first use of "Rus" name predates the first known contacts between Eastern Slavs and Scandinavians. I need to double check the dates... Anyway, the debate on the origins of "Rus" has been going for centuries and is not likely to end anytime soon.
 
Originally posted by webbrave
I don't remember you reacting this way to milanmax's equally ahistorical posts. Double standard, perhaps?;)
Click to expand...
EB. is waaaay more amusing:D

I never before saw someone kicking his credibility down to nothing. I mean, its like someone would start praising third reich or something :rolleyes:



And back on topic. Well, last time i checked, the decision about cultural division was already in place, and pretty much everything east of western slavic/baltic cutural groups was called "eastern slavic". Take that :p

Originally posted by Jaron
So uh, does that mean Novgorod is Russian and Kiev is Ukrainian?

Or are they both Russian NOBILITY wise or what?

I have tried to keep up with this thread but I'm not sure if its about medieval Kiev or Ukranian nationalism :D :D :D
Click to expand...
Now? Or in 1066?
 
I think we may safely assume that the difference between Russian and Ukrainian is similar to the difference between Polish and Czech. The respective nationalities are capable of understanding each other, but the languages are different nonetheless. Now, let's talk about game again. :)
 
Originally posted by EB.
In Ukraine, the people speak Russian. Travel to a Ukrainian street, home, or workplace, and the people will be speaking Russian. The "Ukrainian language" is a fiction created in the universities--nobody speaks it. It is just a joke, a piece of historical fiction created during the Gorbachev era to add supposed credibility to the anti-Soviet separatist movements. Same goes with the Byelorussian "language" and also with the "languages" of Central Asian republics. In Soviet territory, everybody spoke Russian as a matter of convenience, and this practice continues until the present day.
Click to expand...

With the exception of Kazakstan, where almost half of the population is Russian anyways, "common people" in all the Central Asian republics speak their native tongue at home. They do however use Russian as a lingua franca, especially in business. The notable exception to this are the Uzbek Jews who prefer Russian over Uzbeki (which they also speak)

I´d strongly urge you to check your facts before posting...
 
All historians' explanations for the origin of the name 'Rus' smack of desperation. The one vaguely compelling one I've seen is that it derives from a coastal Swedish tribe.
 
Originally posted by snuggs
All historians' explanations for the origin of the name 'Rus' smack of desperation. The one vaguely compelling one I've seen is that it derives from a coastal Swedish tribe.
Click to expand...

there is also one that links it to Ros' river in Northern Russia.
 
I think that the label "Eastern Slavic" is a good enough compromise. This should satisfy both the ones who would want the label "Russian" only and those who want the separate label for "Ukrainian". That would satisfy me in terms of historical accuracy and realism in the game CK.

Next, on what languages are spoken in the republics, I am proceeding on the basis of many years of personal contact with most of the republics and with the collective knowledge of our people. Simple truth is that almost everybody speaks Russian in those republics, even at their homes. You can blame this on the heavy Russification during the Soviet history, but it has helped all of us to have a common language, and this happened to be Russian. The side effect is that the original native languages just died away. Maybe you can dig up some old grandfather who knows a few words or nasty poems in Uzbek, but regular people just do not speak it like they do with Russian. I have not traveled to every individual home, of course, but I have definitely "checked my facts" before commenting upon this issue. Perhaps the confusion is that some would label as a separate "Uzbek language" what is nothing more than grammatical and vocabulary Russian with a few traditional Uzbek nouns tossed in to the mixture--I would not call this a separate language but just a dialect of Russian. I would agree that many in the Baltic republics who are of non-Russian ethnicity do not speak Russian at home, but my position does apply to Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Central Asian republics. Also agreed that the Caucasians speak their own native languages at home, especially the Georgians, though they speak Russian as well in public places.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back