Talk:Igor, Grand Prince of Kiev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Igor, Grand Prince of Kiev is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Normanist vs antinormanist discussion

Wiglaf, stop flooding East Slavic articles with your Swedish nationalism. If you don't I have to bring an arbitration case against you. The only account of the events in question is contained in Ibn Miskawaih and runs thus:

[The] army of the nation called Rus invaded Albania, where they attacked and seized Berdaa, taking its inhabitants captive. They don’t know defeat, nor does any of them turn back till he slay or be slain.

Your conclusion that Rus is Varangian is a second-hand speculation. We should cite the sources, which speak of the Rus and not of Varangians (or of Swedes, if you put it this way). --Ghirlandajo 10:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please, give a single non-Slavic scholar who does not consider them to be Varangians. The Varangians really make you upset, don't they.--Wiglaf 11:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, you should not shoot the messenger. The people who said that the Rus were Varangians and not Slavs lived in the Middle Ages, see the following quotes:

These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans and Angles, and still others Gotlanders, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichs and the Ves then said to the Rus, "Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come reign as princes, rule over us". Three brothers, with their kinfolk, were selected. They brought with them all the Rus and migrated (The Primary Chronicle).
As for the Rus, they live on an island ...that takes three days to walk round and is covered with thick undergrowth and forests; it is most unhealthy....They harry the Slavs, using ships to reach them; they carry them off as slaves and...sell them. They have no fields but simply live on what they get from the Slav's lands....When a son is born, the father will go up to the newborn baby, sword in hand; throwing it down, he says, "I shall not leave you with any property: You have only what you can provide with this weapon." (Ibn Rustah, according to the National Geographic, March 1985)

Now, why do you insist that I am a nationalist to claim that the Rus were Varangians?--Wiglaf 12:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The RPC is biased as it was written by a partisan of Varangian party. I'm not going to argue whether the Rus were Varangian or not. This argument is 250 years old, and we clearly will not put an end to it on this talk page. Each theory has its own pro and contra, as may be read in the relevant article of the Wiki. The fact is, that the Normanist theory is not the only one. Far from it. Especially here, in Russia, many authorities still reject it. So you have no right to substitute one ethnos for another, just because you identify yourself with the latter, particularly when the source says otherwise. Wikipedia is not meant to promote your personal POV. It is better to cite the source (i.e., Ibn Miskawaih) properly, and then to represent different theories in a specific article (i.e., the Rus' (people)). --Ghirlandajo 19:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oddly, the rejection of the so-called "Normanist theory" is quite limited the former Soviet Union, and this is English-language Wikipedia, i.e. it is not limited to the former Soviet Union. You should note that this article is not supposed to reflect your personal opinions either (substitute one ethnos for another, as you phrase it). Wikipedia is not intended to promote your personal POV, my dear Ghirlandajo.--Wiglaf 19:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When I started this talk page, I put a heading "Swedish nationalism". Then you repeatedly reverted it to "Slavic nationalism". It is bad manners. If you think that quoting a 10th-cent. Arabian author is Slavic nationalism, write your comments under the heading "Slavic nationalism" but don't edit my comments. --Ghirlandajo
I have removed Ghirlandajo's childish "Swedish nationalism" heading.--Wiglaf 21:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
the upshot of the discussion on Rus was that the "Normanist" and the "anti-Normanist" camps are mostly divided by rhetorics. The two theories are not mutually exclusive. It just happens that a small number of Scandinavians settled in the area and eventually became Slavicized, i.e. they ceased to be "Scandinavians" and merged with the local population. The "controversy" is basically confined to the etymology of "Rus", and even there a polygenetic exlpanation is most likely, i.e. association with "rowing" or whatever by the Slavs from early times on. Nobody disputes that the Varangian existed, and nobody disputes that they disappeared. I really don't see where there is any room for controversy except that Russian patriots are uncomfortable that their Motherland may etymologically be named after a suburb of Stockholm. "in 839, the Rus' were Swedes. In 1043, the Rus' were Slavs." pretty much sums up the whole unhappy dicussion. It is just as childish as Hungarian patriots not wanting to be associated with Finns, and Greek patriots at all costs wanting to be associated with Macedon. dab (ᛏ) 19:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree generally with dab that the Norse/Slav dichotomy is largely overstated, though I think he minimizes the very close connection that the early Rus rulers had for Scandinavia (a connection that is very evident from, among other things, the number of Icelandic sagas that refer to or take place in Russia). Generally speaking "anti-Normanism" (in its extreme sense of denying any connection between Rus and the Norse) is a philosophy popularized by Soviet pseudoscience, but the fact that the Rus states were inhabited mostly by Slavs (with a Scandinavian ruling class that rapidly Slavicized but kept up contact with Scandinavia as late as the 12th century) is indisputable. I think accusations of Scandinavian nationalism associated with promoting the "Normanist" view are totally out of place.--Briangotts 22:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] on topic

ok, so for this article, we are disputing over

"In 913 and 944 the Varangians plundered the Arabs in the Caspian Sea".

a statement that is cited as from the PC. The question at this point can only be whether or not it is translated correctly (I.e. we have no way of knowing if the statement is true from sources other than the PC). To decide this, we need the original text. Are you saying it is a mistranslation, Ghirlandajo? What exactly is in the PC? dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The RPC doesn't know anything about Albania or Bardaa, of course. I'm tired of this pointless discourse. If you don't like the way I'm writing articles, I suggest it should it be returned to the state before my alleged POV-interference. Bye. --Ghirlandajo
bye. So, Wiglaf, do we know what is actually in the PC, or what is the source of the statements in this article? dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what sources Ghirlandajo has used but he is known to have taken information (without giving references) from a controversial 18th century Russian scholar called Vasily Tatischev.--Wiglaf 20:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact,

In 913 and 944 the Rus plundered the Arabs in the Caspian Sea and laid siege to the capital of Albania (modern-day Azerbaijan).

what does this have to do with Igor? In 913, he was 2 years old. Are we saying he led the siege in 944? Is this a speculation, or a known fact? We need sources. dab (ᛏ) 20:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are translations of the PC in English, and we could give this article an overhaul, with references. I'll have a look at it tomorrow.--Wiglaf 20:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic name of Constantinople

It is hard for me to contibute anything useful to this discussion between editors who know much more on the topic than I do. However, what's wrong with Slavic name of Constantinople (Tsargrad) mentioned in this particular article. No one is talking about inserting it to every article. However, if there is a context to mention it in WP, there is nothing closer to it than this article. I don't understand why it was completely removed. Having it mentioned as a second name (with Constantinople as the first one) would still be OK, I think. Completely removing it from the middle of the article seems to me unwarranted. Any objections to restore it? -Irpen 03:33, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, using the Slavic name would imply that the attackers used that name for Constantinople, which would be misleading. We know which language these Rus spoke because, after these attacks, in 950, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus wrote that the Rus spoke Old Norse in De Administrando Imperio. You can read a translation here. For instance, he gave the names of the Dniepr cataracts in both Rus and in Slavic. The Rus names:
  • Essoupi (Old Norse vesuppi, "do not sleep")
  • Oulvorsi (Old Norse holmfors, "island rapid")
  • Gelandri (Old Norse gjallandi, "yelling, loudly ringing")
  • Aeifor (Old Norse eiforr, "ever fierce")
  • Varouforos (Old Norse varufors, "cliff rapid" or barufors, "wave rapid")
  • Leanti (Old Norse leandi, "seething", or hlaejandi, "laughing")
  • Stroukoun (Old Norse strukum, "rapid current").
Since we consequently know what language the Rus spoke in 950 and these attacks were before that date, the Slavic name for Constantinople would be misleading. It would be more appropriate to state that it was called Miklagard by the Rus. However, I do think that Tzargrad is relevant as a line in the article on Constantinople.Wiglaf 28 June 2005 05:41 (UTC)
  • anyway, it would be an anachronism. According to Tsargrad, not even the Slavs called Constantinople that before some 400 years later. dab (ᛏ) 28 June 2005 06:07 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. One should learn to read Old Russian and open the RPC before making such sweeping statements or editing articles on Old Russian history. --Ghirlandajo 28 June 2005 09:49 (UTC)
      • wtf? I said "according to Tsargrad", i.e. that's what our Tsargrad article says at the moment. I didn't claim to know first hand. Go to Talk:Tsargrad and dispute the statement there instead of shooting the messenger. Oh, and take a look at Wikipedia:Wikilove and Wikipedia:Assume good faith in passing. It will help you around here if you know these pages. dab (ᛏ) 28 June 2005 09:54 (UTC)

Ok, I'm retracting the "not only the Slavs called it", since the did call it that, as well as other cities. here you are:

Until<l> 14th century it was used mostly as a title of Constantinople (the capital of the Byzantine emperors) and Turnovgrad (the capital of the Bulgarian tsars). Since the fall of the Balkans under Ottoman rule the word has been used exclusively as another name of Constantinople (now Istanbul), because in the vernacular of the Balkan Slavs the Ottoman sultans were called tsars.

i.e. according to our article, the term was not a name reserved for Constantinople until Ottoman times, but applied to Turnovgrad as well. If you know better, go there and improve the article (citing sources of course). dab (ᛏ) 28 June 2005 09:57 (UTC)

[edit] "the Varangians or the Rus" wording

Posted at my talk page: Irpen, you usually seem to be a reasonable person, but now you have to explain in what way the use of the name Varangian on Oleg of Kiev implies Swedish conquests of Finland.--Wiglaf 07:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You probably mean Igor of Kiev, right? Anyway, I am replying here. You insisted on inserting the language "the Varangians or the Rus did something sometime". It may either mean that it is unknown who of the two did that, but I assume you didn't mean that, so you should have phrased it more clearly anyway. What you probably mean, is that this was done by someone for who "the Varangians" and "the Rus" are just alternative names. If you want to make a point about this "sameness", argue that at the Rus' (people) article, which actually included this version anyway. Perhaps you want this version to look stronger but that argument belongs to talk:Rus' (people). This article talks about something done by what is called "Rus'" and there is no need to distribute the normanist/antinormanist argument in a thin layer to every article which mentions "Rus'" in any context. Keeping the discussions at the designated articles is the best way to reach the conclusion and stick to it. As for "Finland", what I meant was that at some point, as you know, it was conquered by Swedes. And when saying so, we should just say "Swedes". Swedes are also Scandinavians, and what you were doing sounded to me similar to inserting "or Scandinavians" to the sentence "Finland was conquered by Swedes or Scandinavians". I was just trying to illustrate the point with an example. Maybe I did not choose the best one. In any case, with your addition, the sentence "the Varangains or the Rus'" sounded odd and also tautologous. So, I removed it. Let's see what others say. I will not revert right now. --Irpen 08:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, silly mistake. I see your point.--Wiglaf 09:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
However, I still think that Varangian should be added to the text, since the people referred to were in all likelyhood Scandinavians, and rus is polysemous. If it weren't polysemous we would not have any debate at Rus' (people).--Wiglaf 10:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caspian expeditions of the Rus

After I split irrelevant details to Caspian expeditions of the Rus, User:Beit Or unleashed a disgusting revert warring campaign. I urge appropriate measures to be applied to stop him from creating POV forks of articles. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The request is particularly amusing from the author of the fork. In plain language, Ghirlandajo's "split" was a revert. This article is little more than a stub, so it's pretty difficult to mask your revert in this fashion. Beit Or 11:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence that either of Caspian expeditions of the Rus has any relation to Igor. It was me who chose to mention it in the article but I see I was wrong. All the details of the expedition do not belong here. Please don't engage in tendentious editing by trying to assign undue weight to certain details whose relation to Igor is not established. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
At least the second campaign undeniably took place in Igor's reign, so it's relevant whether Igor personally participated in it or not. BTW, what's the source for the statement: "It is not clear whether Igor had anything to do with this campaign, or it may have been an independent group of Varangians."? Beit Or 12:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/g/o/Talk%7EIgor%2C_Grand_Prince_of_Kiev_3a17.html"