Norman origin of the theory of Russia

[National_Nord]

NORMANISTS AND ANTI-NORMANISTS
A brief notice in The Tale of Bygone Years became the source for so-called Normanist Controversy. Supporters of so-called "Normanist theory" maintain that the sole reasons why the Old Russian state emerged were of external nature - in particular, that reportedly the Old Russian state acquired its forms not in result of development of internal processes among the East Slavs, but due to a Varangian invasion. The Normanist Controversy is closely linked with the question of the origin of the name "Rus": Normanists are absolutely positive about the Varangian origin of the East Slavs' self-description. Some Normanists use the term


"Varangian Rus", yet still they deny its any East Slavic origin. The "Normanist theory" was introduced in the first half of the 18th century by the German historians - Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738) and Gerhard Friedrich Müller (1705-1783). They both settled in Russia during the reign of Anna Ioannovna, worked for years in the Petersburg Academy of Sciences, and published a lot of works. Müller, in particular, spent many years on studying Siberian archives and became the author of the monumental History of Siberia. In 1761-1767 in Russia also worked another quite respectable German historian, August Ludwig Schlötzer (1735-1809), who studied old Russian chronicles, and The Tale of Bygone Years in particular. It was Schlötzer, who named Nestor as the author of The Tale of Bygone Years. Schlötzer is probably the most remarkable representative of the "Normanist theory".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, in particular in the Ancient Russian History (published in 1766, after the author's death). Both teachings co-existed during the 18th century, although with advantage for the Normanists, to whom belonged Nikolai Karamzin, and Mikhail Pogodin (1800-1875), and Sergei Solovyev, and many other historians, for example the author of many works about the mutual relations between Rus, and Scandinavia, Byzantium and Turkic peoples, Arist (Ernst) Kunik, a Russianized German himself. Some historians assumed ambiguous positions, supporting sometimes one teaching, and sometimes the opposite one. Among them was the greatest perhaps Russian Byzantinist, Vasily Vasilevskiy (1838-1899). Also existed other theories of the foundation of the Old Russian state, among others "Gothic", "Lithuanian", and even "Finnish", but they had no followers, and are merely the result of private and unsystematic researches. Among the leading anti-Normanists found themselves first of all Stepan Gedeonov (1818-1878), the author of the Varangians and Rus, the work published in two volumes in 1876. Among the anti-Normanists were also such conservative historians like Dmitriy Ilovayskiy or Mikhail Moroshkin (1829-1870).
The opposition of the two aforementioned teachings continued in the 20th century; although now the advantage was on the side of the anti-Normanists, it still took another twenty-five years after the October Revolution before the "Normanist theory" was finally discredited. Since then it has been popular only in the United States of America and sometimes in the West European historiography, most notably in Nazi Germany (1933-1945).
The political aspect of the "Normanist theory", to some degree inalienable even from the earliest researches, nowadays comes, even excessively, to the forefront, mostly courtesy of various self-styled historical businessmen. They want to see the Russian state as a product of foreign invaders, very scanty on top of that, who brought with them from abroad what lacked weak, dispersed in vast areas, and vegetating on low cultural level East Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes. If it had been different, few Varangian bands (even the most zealous Normanists do not dare to claim any massive invasion) would not have been able to come to such achievements. Such a theory, of course, would presume solely passive role of the Slavs, incapable to influence their own fates and demonstrate organization skills in the course of foundation of the state. Without Germanic invaders there would be no Slavic state - here is another proof of the racial inferiority of the Slavs in all kinds of comparisons.

Of course, one could simply ignore such rudimentary theories of racial inferiority if it were not for one circumstance: the "Normanist theory" was quite popular among Russian scientists. One can understand German scientist brought up in ideas of racial superiority, but what made the Russians to accept such theory? The answer is quite trivial - the "Normanist theory" was considered scientifically sound and as such it was defended. Discreditation of the "Normanist theory" became possible only as a result of long and thorough researches, after innumerable analyses of the Tale of Bygone Years, Russian and non-Russian written sources, archaeological excavations, and onomastic materials. Nowadays it is known that the legend of inviting Rurik to Novgorod indeed is a political factor, but purely Russian, and of later origin. In 1113 prince Vladimir Monomachus, a ruler famous for his power and wisdom, was "invited" to rule in Kiev; only his rule would guarantee peace among rivalling parties after long and bloody fratricidal fights. But for that Monomachus had not sufficient legal basis, he was a "usurper", and it was necessary to consolidate his position by an additional factor, which was built in a sense on an ancient tradition. Therefore, somewhere between 1116 and 1118 was made the notice about "invitation" of Rurik. With Rurik law and order came to Rus, the same will happen with Monomachus.

On the other hand one cannot ignore inclination to exaggerate among the anti-Normanists, otherwise it would be impossible to deny the very presence of the Normans in Rus or - to a lesser degree - any manifestations of their activities. Some go as far as to denial of the historic existence of Rurik, which might be possible but rather with a low probability. That would be a very strange epoque (after 862), where Rurik did not exist but existed his entire genealogy. It is worth recalling that the whole dynasty of Russian princes, at least since Igor (according to the chronicles - Rurik's son), and then czars till the end of the 16th century bore the name of the Rurikoviches.

Neither written sources nor archaeological excavations testify to Norman origins of the Old Russian state. In the course of long process of developing and achievements of the material culture (agriculture, crafts), East Slavs came to such forms of the economical and social relations, which made more and more possible creation of first tribal unions, and then more complex state organism, which is confirmed by a number of evidence. Just as it happened among the West Slavs, and especially the South Slavs, who did not interact with the Normans. There are only single and scientifically baseless hypotheses of the foundation of the Polish state as a result of Norman invasions, like the one proposed by Franciszek Piekosiński (1844-1906). Rus developed in her own historic and geographic conditions, and within her own circle of neighbours, while, at the period of their animated expansion, Swedish Varangians were penetrating territories of the East Slavs and their Finno-Ugric neighbours. Very dynamic and bellicose, always inclined for military expeditions and trade, they used to sail in many seas, including the Black Sea, and sometimes conquer for a while this or that region (for example Normandy in France or Sicily in Italy). In general, they gladly used to make contacts with local population, and Slavic chieftains and princes often used to hire them for military service and form Varangian bands for military expeditions and protection of merchant caravans, especially among the nomads of the steppes.

Few in numbers, Varangians inevitably assimilated in the foreign environment, and the same happened to them in the Slavic environment, although with time. As they stood on lower level of material culture than the Slavs, Varangians could not influence local population to a significant degree. All has left after them are few geographic and personal names; the latter - names of military commanders and princes - are perhaps the most significant Norman trace in the Slavic world. Askold and Dir, mentioned in the chronicles, could seize power in Kiev through a coup d'état, but that power already existed before. The same could happen in 862 in Novgorod, where the power fell to Varangian Rurik, who earlier settled elsewhere, most probably on the coasts of the Lake Ladoga. So, there was no need to "invite" the prince from Sweden, and in Novgorod itself the state power already existed in some form before his arrival. As to the references to Rurik's brothers, Sineus and Truvor, they are unclear and historians are not unanimous about their origins, not to mention that Medieval chroniclers loved legends, whose heroes were three brothers. Whereas Rurik's descendants quite long, until they got Russianized completely, used Norman names: Igor - Ingvar, Olga - Helga etc. Even Vladimir is sometimes associated with Waldemar, but it is not indisputable either.
M. Arushev

http://www.cozy-corner.com/history_eng/link_books_normanists_antinormanists.htm

[National_Nord]

Who were the Rus?

According to the Russian Primary Chronicle (ca. 1040-1118 AD), the Rus were a group of "Varangians," possibly of Swedish origin, who had a leader named Rurik. Rus appears to be derived from the Finnish word for Sweden, *Rotsi, later Ruotsi, which in turn comes from Old Swedish rother, a word associated with rowing or ships, so that rothskarlar meant "rowers" or "seamen."

Due to civil strife in Russia, the leaders invited Rurik and his Rus kinsmen to come rule over them:

"6370 (862 BC) ...Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against another. They said to themselves, 'Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to the law.' They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Rus: these particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, Angles, and Goths, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, and the Krivichians then said to the people of Rus: 'Our whole land is great and rich, but there is nor order in it. Come to rule and reign over us.' They thus selected three brothers, with their kinfolk, who took with them all the Rus, and migrated. The oldest, Rurik, located himself in Novgorod; the second, Sinaeus, in Beloozero; and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. On account of these Varangians, the district of Novgorod became known as Russian (Rus) land. The present inhabitants of Novgorod are descended from the Varangian race, but aforetime they were Slavs." (Russian Primary Chronicle)


Most of the campaigns of the originally Swedish rulers of Russia, the Rus, are recorded in the Russian Primary Chronicle and in the works of Greek and Arabic chroniclers. The Rus were in contact with Byzantium as early as 838, but did not have the resources to raid the capital at Constantinople prior to that date. The 838 date is supported by a Byzantine account that records that a party of Swedish traders had to turn back to the Greek city because their way north up the Dneiper was blocked by "savage tribes", perhaps the Magyars.

In 860 the Normans, following a successful campaign in the Mediterranean, attacked Constantinople. Though the Normans were the descendants of Vikings, by this date they had been absorbed into the feudal Frankish culture of their new Normandy home. Byzantine forces, particularly the fleet, were also occupied with a campaign against the Arabs to their east. This was the moment when the Rus launched their first assault against Miklagard, the Golden City, led by the Rus leaders Askold and Dir.

The Rus attack in June, 860 is best described in the Greek sermons of the Patriarch Photius. Photius's sermon described the fury of the attack, the terror of the Greeks, and the great loss of life and property outside the City. Photius says that the attack took the Greeks completely by surprise, "like a thunderbolt from heaven." Photius goes on to describe the Rus as a fierce and savage tribe of barbarian people, completely unknown and insignificant until they became famous in this attack. Internal details in the account show that the Rus launched the attack down the Dneiper, originating at Kiev. Various other accounts set the numbers of the attacking Rus force between 200 and 2000 ships. The 200 figure is most likely correct, and these ships would have consisted of small ships, basically a hybrid between a dugout canoe and the familiar clinker-built Viking ship.

Despite the Greeks' being taken by surprise and the fact that Byzantium was inadequately defended in the absence of their fleet with its deadly weapon, Greek Fire, for some reason the Rus did not take the City. The Greek sources attribute this to a miracle, brought about by the singing of hymns to the Virgin and a procession around the City walls, led by the Patriarch, bearing the robe of the Virgin about the City, which apparently resulted in a huge storm which scattered the Rus forces and saved the City. Undoubtedly the detail of the storm is accurate. Russian sources, including the Primary Chronicle, state that the Rus returned to Kiev ignomiously, claiming no victory. Perhaps any plunder that might have been gained in attacking the outlying areas of Byzantium were lost in the flight before the storm.

Between 864 and 867, a party of Rus were sent to Basil I to negotiate a peace after the 860 attack, and many of the members of this embassy specifically requested instruction in Christianity. It is thought that perhaps the Greek claims of the miracle of the Virgin's robe may have impressed the pagan Rus embassy.

This marks the beginning of a period of amicable relationships between the Greeks and the Rus, for this is the point at which the Rus begin taking service in the Byzantine army.

Meanwhile, the failed Rus captains Askold and Dir were put to death by Oleg (Helgi, in Old Norse), the Rus ruler of Novgorod and foster father of Rurik's son Igor (Old Norse Ingvarr). Oleg became ruler in Kiev as well as in Novgorod. With this consolidation of Rus power, Oleg acquired enough power to be able to launch his own attack upon Byzantium in 907, according to the Primary Chronicle. When Oleg's forces arrived in the Golden Horn, they found the sea-lanes closed by the great chain closing the mouth of the Horn. The Rus disembarked, killed the Greek garrison, and mounted their ships on wheels or rollers and let the wind help carry the boats overland to reach the Bosphorus and so come to the City. The Russian Primary Chronicle claims that the Greeks tried to feed Oleg and his men poisoned food, which he shrewdly refused, then the Greeks promised to pay Oleg tribute. Oleg demanded silk sails for his ships and linen sails for his allies' ships, along with wine, gold and fruit. The Chronicle also claims that Oleg hung his shield over the City gate as a sign of victory. However, there is absolutely no corroboration from Greek sources documenting this attack, leading modern historians to believe that the whole tale was made up using details of previous raids on Byzantium in order to create a "hero tale" which glorified Oleg, or else that a small raid by Oleg's men was magnified into a major campaign and victory.

In 907, and later in 911, the Byzantines negotiated a trade treaty with the Rus which put an end to raids aginst Byzantium for many years.

The next attack recorded by the Primary Chronicle is in 941, an attack led by Igor, son of Rurik and foster-son to Oleg. This account is corroborated by a detailed account by Liutprand, later Bishop of Cremona, who happened to be in Byzantium in 949 on a diplomatic mission. Liutprand's step-father had been present for the 941 attack. The Greeks met this threat by quickly equipping a number of older ships and galleys with Greek Fire projectors, and launched these against the Rus. When the fleets met, the seas were clear and calm, perfect for the use of the dangerous Greek Fire. The Rus threw themselves into the sea to drown in great numbers rather than face the flames. Only those men who managed to get their ships to the shore quickly ebough survived, because the Greek ships with their much deeper draught could not follow them into the shallows. A number of captured Rus were later publicly beheaded.

In 944 Igor returned with yet another fleet, including an army of Slavs and Pechinegs as well. The Emperor, hearing advance word of this attack, "paid Danegeld" by offering to pay the Rus tribute. The Rus forces then turned to attack the Caspian area Arabs. During this attack, a great protion of the Rus forces were either posioned as described in the Arabic sources, or more likely contracted a virulemnt epidemic that decimated their forces.

Legend has it that Rurik founded a dynasty that endured until 1598 AD, when Fedor, the son of Ivan IV, died without an heir.

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/varangians.shtml#WhoWereTheRus

[National_Nord]

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5914/varangiantraderoutes.gif (http://img269.imageshack.us/my.php?image=varangiantraderoutes.gif)

[National_Nord]

Rurik and the Vikings

Richard Stevenson

Viking success in the pre-mediaeval period can be attributed to four factors. Firstly, the Vikings had established long distance trade routes, the profits from which were used to finance the vast armies and navies raised by the Scandinavian kings during this period. Secondly, the Vikings maintained naval superiority. Thirdly, their barbaric appearance and methods of attack encouraged the peasant-folk of Europe to believe, at least at first, that they were being attacked by demons - which the peasants believed they could not, and subsequently did not, fight. And, lastly, advanced battle tactics and techniques helped the Vikings overwhelm their enemies. The decline of the Vikings after their rapid ascent to power, was brought about by an unfavourable change in weather patterns, by the conversion of Viking occupied areas, and Scandinavia itself, to Christianity, and by the gradual assimilation of the Vikings into 'Western' culture.

The Vikings came from rich lands which had, up until the first Viking attacks around the Eighth Century AD, been self sufficient in food. These conditions and Viking breeding habits had created a huge abundance of young men, excellent for filling armies. It was traditional for a Viking to leave his land and wealth to one son and to send the rest of his sons off to seek their fortunes by raiding the wealthy lands to the south and west where they could build colonies to grow food for the ever increasing population at home, and also where they could establish trading posts, since, as well as being great warriors, the Vikings were great traders. It was thus that the Vikings set out to conquer Europe around the end of the first millennium AD.

Throughout history, the country that has controlled the seas and oceans has become a major super power. The Portuguese built their empire from their position as the leading sea-faring nation in Europe in the Fifteenth Century. The Spanish, too, built their empire from control of the seas ... and discovered America. The British Empire became the largest in the world - through naval superiority. The Vikings, too, came to dominate most of Europe and parts of America, because they controlled the seas. Except for pirates, who were largely outlawed Vikings anyway, the Norsemen had almost complete control of the seas of northern Europe and the Atlantic Ocean. Since none of the northern European countries of England, Ireland, Scotland, France, or Germany had been threatened from the north seas before, their naval defences were poor. Thus, the Vikings were able to sail out of the oceans at high speeds right up the rivers, before any warning could be given and complete their raids with lightning speed. The Vikings had an ancient history of sea-faring, dating back to pre-historic times. They had developed the art of sea-faring to powerful levels, were not afraid to take to the sea during storms, and had good methods of navigation, using the altitude of the sun to calculate their latitude. Some Viking raids were conducted over land, especially later, when Viking forts and colonies had been established, and particularly in Russia. But, apart from Russia, such colonies and forts could not have been established without first gaining control of the seas.

It was not just control of the seas that led to Viking domination in northern Europe. The Vikings also used to advantage, their hideous appearance. When they first arrived on the shores of England, Ireland and Normandy, the locals thought that they were demons in league with the devil and were too scared to fight, offering them gifts to be left alone. The barbarous methods of attack used by the Vikings backed up the belief that these warriors were supernatural beings. The Vikings would rape the women and slit the throats of all the children, women, and priests. They were even known to gather entire townships together in their cathedrals and burn them. They had a particular hatred for monasteries, and would raid and burn every ecclesiastical building they came across, making sure they killed the monks and nuns. It is thought that the attacks on monasteries and cathedrals were revenge for the Catholic Church's denunciation of the Viking Gods such as Thor. Nevertheless, the brutality of killing unarmed monks and nuns, as well as their other barbarous tactics scared the local folk into believing, at least at first, that these men were receiving help from the devil whom no ordinary man could fight. Thus, resistance was probably weaker than it might have been, allowing the Vikings to gain control of large parts of northern Europe and Russia. The Vikings had other advantageous tactics. For example, they always attacked by surprise, and quickly. Due to the speed of their ships, the Vikings could attack before any warning could be given. They regularly attacked on wet stormy nights when everybody was inside, and visibility was low. They had little regard for the promises they made. For example, they accepted gifts and peace treaties, then rebuilt their armies and attacked again when the enemy let down their guard. These were such highly developed battle tactics, that the Germans, one thousand years later, used these same tactics in their blitzkrieg attacks during World War II. Scandinavia had been a battle ground for many centuries and the art of battle had developed there, more than anywhere else in Europe. It is thought even, that the knights of mediaeval Europe learned their art from the Vikings. The rise of the power and wealth of the Vikings can thus be attributed, amongst other reasons, to battle skills that were far more developed than those employed by other Europeans.

The Viking conquests were funded not only by plunder from previous expeditions, but also from trade. Just as naval superiority has always been a key ingredient in the establishment of a global power, so too has trade. The far reaching Islamic empires of the mediaeval times were built on trade, as were the Dutch, British, French, and American Empires. The Vikings had a vast trading pattern, they traded with such far away places as Tashkent in central Asia, Baghdad, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Byzantium, Russia, France, Germany, Poland, Britain, Iceland, Greenland, and America. The revenues from this trade would have contributed greatly to the financing of the voyages of conquest.

Thus the Vikings were able to spread out across the known world. They established trading posts at Novograd and Kiev in modern day Russia, and in fact, the modern day Russian state owes, at least in part, its establishment to the Swedish Vikings. As well, the Vikings gained control in all of England, in Normandy, parts of Germany, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Iceland, and Greenland. Viking settlements have also been discovered in Newfoundland in North America, and less certain evidence has been found in Massachusetts, Florida, and even Brazil. Attacks were made on Spain and northern Africa, and attempts were made to capture Rome and Byzantium. The colonies of Greenland and America were eventually abandoned as the strength of the Vikings declined. The colony in Newfoundland was attacked by Eskimos and, since the settlers were too far from Greenland to receive speedy assistance, and being out-numbered, the colony was abandoned, and the colonists returned to Greenland. The Vikings had spread out too far. The Greenland colony fell fate to changing weather patterns. Europe, and indeed all of the north Atlantic suffered from a mini ice age between about 1350 AD and 1800 AD. The colder weather meant that Greenland was no longer inhabitable and the colony there died out. It is probable too, that this colder weather played some part in the decline of the power of the Scandinavian countries themselves. Colder weather implies that less food could be produced, hence a smaller population, and less young men to fill the Viking armies. Thus, it can be argued that to at least some small extent, the change in weather patterns was responsible for the decline of the Vikings.

In England, the Vikings not so much declined, as blended in with the rest of the population and became one with them. A Viking called Knud the Great launched in 1014 AD the conquest of all of England. Knud failed to take London and the Saxon King of England agreed to divide the kingdom in two, down the Thames. About a month later the Saxon king died and Knud was proclaimed King of all England. Knud semed to abandon his piratic Viking ways once he was proclaimed king. He converted himself to Christianity and was responsible for bringing Christianity to Denmark. He gave help to the poor, built churches and cathedrals, and married a cultured French princess. The conquering of England seemed to civilise the Vikings and convert them to western ways, rather than the opposite. Thus, the Vikings did not decline, as such, in England, but assimilated themselves into the English culture and became English. Similarly, in France, the Viking Rolion came to power in Normandy through war and plundering. Once king, he began to treat the churches and monasteries with respect and helped the peasants restore the fertility of their land, and in this manner he gained the respect and support of the original inhabitants of Normandy. Eventually he, too, was converted to Christianity and agreed to become a French prince and his kingdom became a province of France. He married a daughter of the King and had his whole army converted to Christianity. So like Knud and his men in England, Rollon and his Viking army also became assimilated into western religion and culture.

In Kiev it was the same story again. The Swedish Viking Rurik, as early as the Tenth Century AD, influenced by the wealth and luxury of the Byzantine Empire, adopted Christianity.<44> His offspring rejected Christianity, however, and it was not until the end of the millennium, that the rulers of Kiev and Novograd again adopted Christianity.

Throughout this period the Norse men in Russia had been marrying Slavs. Archaeological evidence in the burial sites of the Kieven rulers has found that they were always buried in an underground room with gold and other such luxuries including the woman whom they loved (still alive). in each case that woman was Slavic, not Norse. Thus, by the end of the millennium, the rulers of Kiev and Novograd had become partly Slavic in their heritage. Just as the Viking rulers of England and Normandy had become assimilated into Western culture and adopted Roman Catholicism, so to the Eastern Viking rulers became assimilated into Slavic culture and adopted Orthodox Christianity, building churches and Cathedrals throughout the lands.

The Christianisation of Scandinavia brought an end to Viking raids from their homelands. Iceland was converted to Christianity in the year 1000, Greenland in 1001 AD, the conversion of Norway seems to have begun in around 1015 AD though heathen activities persisted there for centuries to come. Knud of England had Denmark converted to Christianity in 1014 AD, not long after conversion to the Roman Catholic faith, The gradual conversion of the Vikings to Christianity coincides with their gradual decline as a global power. Presumably the conservative Christian teachings of community and harmony (one can hardly include 'peace' in Mediaeval Christian teachings) civilise the barbaric Norsemen and encouraged them to adopt a more peaceful life style.

Even had this not been the case, the coming of the second millennium saw a strengthening of English and Continental European fortresses. The English built a navy to patrol their coasts and everywhere huge castles were built together with armies of knights in armour. This strengthening of defences must have been a deterrent at least, to prospective Viking raiders. Paradoxically though, the increase in European defences can be, attributed to the Viking influence itself.

Thus, the once successful Vikings vanished from the world scene. They had adopted much of the culture they had conquered. They were probably content with the trade they had established, and their new religion. The colder weather eventually made changes to their robust life style. At the height of their power, the Vikings maintained huge armies, a successful navy, and had used advanced battle techniques to force their will upon the other Europeans. Yet by the end of the Eleventh Century the Vikings were no longer an historical force.

Bibliography

Arbman, Holger, The Vikings, Alan Binns (translator), Thames and Hudson, London, 1961.
Jones, A History of the Vikings, Oxford University Press, Great Britain, 1973.
Keary, C.F., The Vikings in Western Christendom, T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1941.
Madsen, O., The Vikings, David Macrae (translator), Minerva, Spain, 1976.

http://diemperdidi.info/nordicnotes/vol01/articles/stevensn.html