How did the Russians become the most numerous Slavic ethnic group?

[poiuytrewq0987]

Discuss.

[Loki]

Not only the most numerous Slavic ethnic group, but European as well. By far.

Probably because they were furthest to the East of the Slavic folk, and hence had endless lebensraum to expand into, while the others were boxed in. ;)

Modern Russians are also an amalgamation of several smaller Slavic tribes, including Kriviches, Ilmen Slavs, Radimichs, Vyatiches, and others. And of course the early Varangian influence is interesting, if not controversial.

[Guapo]

All Slavic nations are an amalgamation of several smaller Slavic tribes.

[Osweo]

Geography and climate, and the nature of the neighbours.

Their neighbours to the north didn't have the economy to withstand them. The lucrative fur trade lured the Russians up into the taiga, and there they adapted and stayed, mixing to some extent with the earlier Finnic populations. But this is not the major part of the Russian population in terms of raw numbers.

Those neighbours to the east had been softened up by the Horde, and once the titanic struggle with that polity had finally gone in Russia's favour, she steamrolled over to the Pacific in no time at all. That struggle had led to the adoption of several adaptations that were to suit the Russians in spreading into and holding the regions they conquered. The role of Kazachestvo could be stressed - 'Cossackdom'. The effectiveness of such units, coupled with the lack of any major effort and expenditure on behalf of the central administration in supporting them, ensured that the Russians put down roots in the places they penetrated. Having formed originally on the border between the Steppe and the forest zone, the Russian state could rely upon subjects from both habitats to settle in respective regions to the east. Chernozem should be mentioned too. This is the famous 'Black Earth' belt that goes all the way to Mongolia. Once the Tatars had been cowed, the Russian peasants were able to take advantage of this resource as far as it went, all the way to the Altai. Again however, we're not dealing with the numerical centre of gravity.

Most Russians still live in the bounds of the region that was called Rus' in the Tenth Century, near enough. Why is there ONE ethnic group here, and not ten? It's a huge area, even if we don't go past Nizhny Novgorod. I suppose the geopolitics of the early mediaeval period are important here, in homogenising a large area. It was already very monotonous from an environmental point of view, but the trade routes 'From the Varangians to the Greeks' seem to have been the key in bringing it under one state structure, and thence promoting and maintaining homogeneity.

[Tabiti]

Because not all of them are "Slavic";)

[Cail]

Russian would also be waaaay more numerous, if not for the perils of WW2 and fucked-up times of perestroika and post-USSR. Tens of millions of direct casualties of the war, plus backturn in the demography in the 90s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Population_of_Russia.PNG/800px-Population_of_Russia.PNG

Luckily the pattern changes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Russian_Total_Fertility_Rates.PNG

The numbers probably come from breeding, lol. It was absolutely normal for an orthodox patriarchal peasant family to have 9-10 children. My own great-grandmother on the Belarussian side had 7 brothers and sisters (and she was born in USSR already, in the 1922).

[Äike]

Discuss.

The answer is Russian imperialism. Everyone were assimilated and Russified, thus Russians are the most diverse European people.

Example: If the English would have been like the Russians, then the Scottish people and the Welsh people would currently be English, there wouldn't exist such a thing as a Welsh and a Scottish ethnicity.

If the Russians would have acted like the English during their imperialistic days, then modern day Russia would have several hundred small nations.

[Wulfhere]

Another factor in the apparent recent decline in population is Russia's current biggest export - women. I've known two people who have brought Russian women over and married them, and very glad to leave those women are too. Furthermore, they won't argue with you if you expect them to do the cooking, and are very pleasant in general. All that leaves is a bunch of men in Russia, drinking vodka and killing each other.

[Svarog]

It's ridiculous to blame Russian imperialism for their numerous nature, as they have always been the biggest nation in Europe by numbers, travel back to Great Duchy of Moscovy, Kiev Russ or any other of the small pre-Russian Slavic states.


Because not all of them are "Slavic"

This is just stupid, number of non-Slavic people that lives in Russia is minor to the Slavic factor or 'pure or whatever' Russian factor, and beside, what do you consider Slavic anyway? Everyone who speaks Russian as a mother tongue is Slavic.

[Basil]

As far as I know Russia didn't have the largest population in Europe until the 19th century. The population of France in 1700 was 21 million people, the population of Russia in the reign of Peter the First was only 14. It was the glorious rise of the Russian Empire during 1800-1917 and attendant demographic outburst that changed the situation drastically.
Why are the Russians the most numerous Slavic group? That is much easier to answer: Russia was the only sovereign Slavic state for a long time.

[Agrippa]

The answer is relatively simple. The Russian people were kept poor and dependent as simple farmers, living a more "traditional" way of life, without the European Marriage Pattern, the various other factors changing European reproductive behaviour like the state of servants etc.

So when they got enough food to survive in higher numbers, they produced more children and this longer and more intensive than the other countries.

The French in particular were much earlier hit by the "Western disease" of the Demographic change.

Of course, Russia had enough space to feed this masses, but that wasnt the reason for the population growth, which was a sociocultural issue.

Additionally, Russia was of all those still backward (in a positive and negative sense) Eastern Slavic nations by far the largest from the start, because they had an open space to expand in, where they assimilated a lot of pre-Slavic people too of course and where they had little competition in comparison to what many other European nations faced, after they got rid of the Mongols. This lack of a direct competition was not just good for them, as one could see later, but so the Russians, mostly based on the Kiever Rus and the following great princedom of Moscow, could gain control of the wide areas and unite their tribes in what became Russia.

But as I said, one has to look at the birth rates primarily.

[Austrvegr]

Number of Russians:

Early 16th century: 5 mln.
(compare to 11 mln. Italians and 15.5 mln. French)

Early 17th century: 7 mln.

Early 18th century: 15 mln.

Early 19th century: 20 mln.
(compare to 17 mln. Italians and 28 mln. French)

Early 20th century: 55 mln. This is when Russians become Europe's most numerous ethnicity (Germans with 50 mln. come second)

[Austrvegr]

The answer is Russian imperialism. Everyone were assimilated and Russified, thus Russians are the most diverse European people.

Example: If the English would have been like the Russians, then the Scottish people and the Welsh people would currently be English, there wouldn't exist such a thing as a Welsh and a Scottish ethnicity.

If the Russians would have acted like the English during their imperialistic days, then modern day Russia would have several hundred small nations.

LOL. The English are themselves an amalgamation of dozens of ethnicities (Germanic and Celtic), like any other modern nation including Estonians.

The Finnic-speaking population in Central and Northern Russia was very sparse anyway, and the principal reason of the Slavs' demographic success must have been their advanced agriculture, which allowed them to support a much bigger population.

[RoyBatty]

Russian would also be waaaay more numerous, if not for the perils of WW2 and fucked-up times of perestroika and post-USSR. Tens of millions of direct casualties of the war, plus backturn in the demography in the 90s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Population_of_Russia.PNG/800px-Population_of_Russia.PNG


The undeclared US / NATO led opium / heroine war against Russia is responsible for 10's of thousands of deaths per year and addiction misery for millions more.

Russia should deal with this harassment and genocide directed against it by the West.

[Agrippa]

LOL. The English are themselves an amalgamation of dozens of ethnicities (Germanic and Celtic), like any other modern nation including Estonians.

The Finnic-speaking population in Central and Northern Russia was very sparse anyway, and the principal reason of the Slavs' demographic success must have been their advanced agriculture, which allowed them to support a much bigger population.

Well, the Russian agriculture was not more advanced than the Western one, even on the contrary. Just think about all the Western innovations, which were part of the Western package, coming from the core zone of the occidental civilisation like the wind- and water mills, the heavy plow, the three-field rotation, horse collar etc.

Compare with the "European banana":
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12370

Russia has just a great soil in some areas, especially the black earth regions and of course, if you have a country that large, it can work if you just take the better fields and make a rather extensive agriculture too, which wouldnt have worked for populations like those in the Netherlands, which were among the first with intensive, technologically and socially advanced agriculture, trade, industry etc. in the heartlands of the Frankish Empire.

And of course, the Russian farmers were not really know for being that well fed, you can see the modification in the last generations (height increase, debrachycephalisation etc.) too, which came later in the East, than in some Western regions - I'm speaking about the 20th century of course...

[Austrvegr]

I meant the Slavs' advanced ploughing techniques compared to Finns' slash-and-burn in the time when Slavs expanded in Central and Northern Russia starting from the 8th century AD. Black earth regions only started to become accessible from the 16th century when the Russian military thrust into the steppe started and became fully safe for agriculture only in the late 18th century when the Crimean Khanate was destroyed.

[Osweo]

Example: If the English would have been like the Russians, then the Scottish people and the Welsh people would currently be English, there wouldn't exist such a thing as a Welsh and a Scottish ethnicity.

If the Russians would have acted like the English during their imperialistic days, then modern day Russia would have several hundred small nations.
That's rubbish, Karl. Russia STILL has more than a hundred small nations in its territory. Tell me the names of these other lost peoples. I can only think of the Merya, Muroma, Meshchera, and doubt you can think of many more. True, they've been shunted aside, and many have assimilated, but it's not because of any special Russian character trait, like you imply.

Another factor in the apparent recent decline in population is Russia's current biggest export - women. I've known two people who have brought Russian women over and married them, and very glad to leave those women are too. Furthermore, they won't argue with you if you expect them to do the cooking, and are very pleasant in general. All that leaves is a bunch of men in Russia, drinking vodka and killing each other.
I've known many girls in Russia who wouldn't dream of leaving, due to a deep love for the country. It's a certain sort who leave, and they're often from the worst hit regions, economically. :( I actually know of a few who didn't like it abroad, with foreign husbands, and who came back.

[poiuytrewq0987]

I've known many girls in Russia who wouldn't dream of leaving, due to a deep love for the country. It's a certain sort who leave, and they're often from the worst hit regions, economically. :( I actually know of a few who didn't like it abroad, with foreign husbands, and who came back. Indeed. I know a Russian girl who has been married to this American man. He's doing everything to make sure the Russian will always have to rely on him. I've noticed a trend that it's often most lowest quality men who seek out beautiful Russians to marry then treat them like trash afterward. No wonder they have to seek out foreign women because no women near them would ever want to marry them.

[Eldritch]

Another factor in the apparent recent decline in population is Russia's current biggest export - women. I've known two people who have brought Russian women over and married them, and very glad to leave those women are too. Furthermore, they won't argue with you if you expect them to do the cooking, and are very pleasant in general. All that leaves is a bunch of men in Russia, drinking vodka and killing each other.

What I would like to know (but probably will) is how this is supposed to have anything to do with the topic. :rolleyes2: