Factions [Archive]

Emp. Conralius

07-26-2002, 08:43

Quote Originally posted by Prodigy:
Quote:
Come on! Don't make me laugh! Russia? one of the strongest nations around the early period(1100s)? I can see from your nickname that you are either Russian, or you like Russian history. Thats great, but I think this influences your thinking. The early Slavs were nowhere near to being one of the strongest nations in the period. They were just there so other nations could grab their territory. I'm sure they had some victories and some achievements but definitely not enough to say they were the strongest nation in the early period.

That only shows me how little turken00 knows about Eastern Europe history. Why dont you study it before braging nonsense.

I do agree with czaralex. Kievan Rus was the at its zenith between 11th and 12th century. It declined and broke off into separate principalities (fuedal stage) by the end of 12th century. That is probably one of the reasons Mongols had no truble riding through.

[/QUOTE]

Thats all fine in good, but the fact remains: although they were very powerfull in the east, they really had little or no influence in the west, where really the game's sphere of influence is.

I'de have to say that in the start of the game, the Almohads or the Egyptians would be the strongest. Although the Germans have huge armies, they can be attacked from all sides. The coffars of Byzantium are very rich, but their provinces are very spread out with very few garrisons. And the Russian, well you can't even be them in the Ealy Era...

[This message has been edited by Emp. Conralius (edited 07-26-2002).]

Papewaio

07-26-2002, 08:59

Before this heats up into a flame war.

How about posting some facts or at least a reference book that you are using for these beliefs. We all could do with a bit more historical information to feed on while we wait for MTW to go gold.

turken00

07-26-2002, 22:00

The Russians, during the timeline of this game, was not strong. In fact, far from being strong, they were one of the weakest nations during that period. I will state my reasons. 1- No navy or shipbuilding experience. They had no knowledge whatsoever of shipbuilding until the late 1600s, early 1700s. Their rivers and lakes were frozen practically all the time. 2- They were isolated. They didn't have much contact with the rest of the world, which made them a backward country in terms of culture and technology. 3- They had no reliable income. No trade at all, because they had no clear trade routes, because once again of being a landlocked country and the frozen rivers, etc. Nobody would want to trade with them because well they didn't have much to trade. They had to rely on themselves which was just not enough. 4- The early Slavs were practically barbarians. They weren't civilized and they were all uneducated(even the leaders). This meant their armies were not organized either, a bunch of peasants fighting in a disorderly fashion. This could easily be proven by seeing how easily they were destroyed by the Mongols and later on how easily Crimean Tatars and the Ottomans grabbed territory from them.. not to mention the Swedes. I'm sorry if I'm offending any Russians here but thats just the truth. Russia was far from strong until the times of Tzarist Russia, when able rulers like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great reigned. All historians know, that while Europe was living its Renaissance and flourishing in every aspect, the Russians were still trying to move the country out of the Dark Ages and try to make it more "European."

Emp. Conralius

07-27-2002, 00:14

Based on Papewaio's last post, I have this to say. I get in enough trouble as it is with "flame wars" so I'll just sit this one out. And just for the record, I really could care less about Czarest Russia or whatever this topic is becoming.

Boleslaw Wrymouth

07-27-2002, 00:26

Wow, Turken, you are wrong in so many ways. Hopefully a Russian will come in here and correct you in depth, but I'll start.

"1- No navy or shipbuilding experience. They had no knowledge whatsoever of shipbuilding until the late 1600s, early 1700s. Their rivers and lakes were frozen practically all the time."

I suppose the early invasions of Byzantium were accomplished by floating soldiers down on driftwood instead of the fleets historians talk about. Oh, thats right, they could walk on their continually frozen rivers.

"2- They were isolated. They didn't have much contact with the rest of the world, which made them a backward country in terms of culture and technology."

Alright, since you already KNOW they were technologicaly backward why don't you give us some examples. Look into it.

"3- They had no reliable income. No trade at all, because they had no clear trade routes, because once again of being a landlocked country and the frozen rivers, etc. Nobody would want to trade with them because well they didn't have much to trade."

This one is just excellent. The ORIGIN of the Russian states was a Slavic/Viking trading empire. You could find almost every good in the known would in Russia as they shipped them up and down their rivers. Oh, I forgot, they were frozen. Trade wasn't interrupted until the Mongols but they could still trade to the west where, according to you, no one wanted their furs.

"4- The early Slavs were practically barbarians. They weren't civilized and they were all uneducated(even the leaders). This meant their armies were not organized either, a bunch of peasants fighting in a disorderly fashion."

First of all when you say "Slavs" you are talking about a lot of people, including Poles and Bohemians. Second, archaeologists have found so many bits of writing, including such interesting things as childrens lessons and love letters, in early Russia that it is accepted that the average Russian was much more literate than your average Frank or other western European.

"This could easily be proven by seeing how easily they were destroyed by the Mongols"

The Mongols destroyed an army of Poles/Teutons and another huge army of Hungarians. Tell us how backward they were.
The Russians were divided and Mongol rule(if you can even call it that, it was tribute really) was so lax it did nothing to unite them.

"I'm sorry if I'm offending any Russians here but thats just the truth."

I doubt you're offending too many Russians since your post was pure b.s.. You know, you're on the internet...all you have to do is type in a few keywords on google to get a clue.

I'm not Russian and have a limited knowledge of Russian history. I can only wonder what a Russian with good knowledge of Russian history would do with your post.

turken00

07-27-2002, 00:57

Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:
Wow, Turken, you are wrong in so many ways. Hopefully a Russian will come in here and correct you in depth, but I'll start.

"1- No navy or shipbuilding experience. They had no knowledge whatsoever of shipbuilding until the late 1600s, early 1700s. Their rivers and lakes were frozen practically all the time."

I suppose the early invasions of Byzantium were accomplished by floating soldiers down on driftwood instead of the fleets historians talk about. Oh, thats right, they could walk on their continually frozen rivers.

"2- They were isolated. They didn't have much contact with the rest of the world, which made them a backward country in terms of culture and technology."

Alright, since you already KNOW they were technologicaly backward why don't you give us some examples. Look into it.

"3- They had no reliable income. No trade at all, because they had no clear trade routes, because once again of being a landlocked country and the frozen rivers, etc. Nobody would want to trade with them because well they didn't have much to trade."

This one is just excellent. The ORIGIN of the Russian states was a Slavic/Viking trading empire. You could find almost every good in the known would in Russia as they shipped them up and down their rivers. Oh, I forgot, they were frozen. Trade wasn't interrupted until the Mongols but they could still trade to the west where, according to you, no one wanted their furs.

"4- The early Slavs were practically barbarians. They weren't civilized and they were all uneducated(even the leaders). This meant their armies were not organized either, a bunch of peasants fighting in a disorderly fashion."

First of all when you say "Slavs" you are talking about a lot of people, including Poles and Bohemians. Second, archaeologists have found so many bits of writing, including such interesting things as childrens lessons and love letters, in early Russia that it is accepted that the average Russian was much more literate than your average Frank or other western European.

"This could easily be proven by seeing how easily they were destroyed by the Mongols"

The Mongols destroyed an army of Poles/Teutons and another huge army of Hungarians. Tell us how backward they were.
The Russians were divided and Mongol rule(if you can even call it that, it was tribute really) was so lax it did nothing to unite them.

"I'm sorry if I'm offending any Russians here but thats just the truth."

I doubt you're offending too many Russians since your post was pure b.s.. You know, you're on the internet...all you have to do is type in a few keywords on google to get a clue.

I'm not Russian and have a limited knowledge of Russian history. I can only wonder what a Russian with good knowledge of Russian history would do with your post.[/QUOTE]

Wrymouth, you have some good points which I won't deny are correct. Yet, none of your points prove my points wrong. If you want to debate, please do so in a civilized manner. Saying that my opinion is b.s. is not the way to do it. Now, lets get to your first statement. If you're telling me that Russia had anything near to a good fleet in the middle ages then I definitely do not agree with you. One thing I agree with you on though, is your limited knowledge of Russian history. Russia, as I have said before, didn't have the chance to develop a powerful fleet. They were landlocked really.. They didn't have access to the Black Sea, nor to the Baltic. However, when Peter the Great came to power, he had an ambition to develop Russia into a naval superpower, so he sent hundreds of students to Western Europe to learn the arts of shipbuilding and engineering. With that knowledge he ordered the building of massive fleets in Russia. That was the beggining of Russia as a naval power. Before that, the Russians had little or no knowledge of shipbuilding. Oh Wrymouth, you were wondering then how Russia sent soldiers into Byzantium. Well buddy, those are transport ships which anyone could make. I could make one myself in a month without any knowledge of ships. The true power of a fleet is in its warships, which Russia lacked. Your second point... you just said this: "Alright, since you already KNOW they were technologicaly backward why don't you give us some examples. Look into it." I can give you some examples sure.... 1) The Russians implemented the use of gunpowder in their armies much later than the rest of Europe. 2) Their agricultural methods were also thought of as being inferior to the standards of most European nations. 3) Their advances in castle designs and siege weaponry were way behind the rest of Europe.
Now let's get to your third point. You say Russia's origin was of a trade empire. Maybe so. But I doubt many nations would go into the trouble of trading with Russia under harsh conditions just for furs. You seem to disagree that the Russian rivers were mostly frozen all year long, but I can assure you I'm quite sure of this. This is why it made trading difficult and it was neccessary for a land route to be created, which has hard because of the massive distance that had to travelled on foot. As for your fourth point, I find it funny that you think writing love letters makes a nation civilized. The reason why early Russia might have been more literate compared to early Europeans was because Europe was in its Dark Age! After a hundred years Europe improved its literacy rate while Russia became worse and worse. By the 1500s, Russian literacy was a joke compared to European standards. And as your fifth point, you say it all yourself. The Russians were DIVIDED... they could not stand against the Mongols. If the Russians were DIVIDED how in the world could they be one of the strongest nations in the world at that time?? My whole point from the beginning was to prove Russia was not strong, and that they were weak. Saying they were divided just makes my job easier.

[This message has been edited by turken00 (edited 07-26-2002).]

Emp. Conralius

07-27-2002, 01:59

And the winner by knockout...

Boleslaw Wrymouth

07-27-2002, 02:02

"However, when Peter the Great came to power, he had an ambition to develop Russia into a naval superpower, so he sent hundreds of students to Western Europe to learn the arts of shipbuilding and engineering. With that knowledge he ordered the building of massive fleets in Russia. That was the beggining of Russia as a naval power. Before that, the Russians had little or no knowledge of shipbuilding. Oh Wrymouth, you were wondering then how Russia sent soldiers into Byzantium. Well buddy, those are transport ships which anyone could make. I could make one myself in a month without any knowledge of ships."

You could build a modified longship in a month? We are talking about the middle ages on this forum, not arguing whether Russia could build frigates in the 1700's. Longships were fine for their period.

"1) The Russians implemented the use of gunpowder in their armies much later than the rest of Europe."

This is wrong. As soon as firearms of any worth showed up the Russians had them. Siege weaponry is pointless against Tartars but when they headed west they were dragging a lot of cannon behind them. I'll have to look into fortifications but when Boleslaw the Brave knotched his sword on the Golden Gate of Kiev I assume there were walls attached. Traditionally, Russians have been masters at fortifications. I wouldn't know about agriculture.

"Now let's get to your third point. You say Russia's origin was of a trade empire. Maybe so. But I doubt many nations would go into the trouble of trading with Russia under harsh conditions just for furs."

You would be wrong.

"You seem to disagree that the Russian rivers were mostly frozen all year long, but I can assure you I'm quite sure of this. This is why it made trading difficult and it was neccessary for a land route to be created, which has hard because of the massive distance that had to travelled on foot."

A land route had to be created because of the Mongols(Tartars) and because Byzantine trade was drying up. The silk road was a much longer land route through very hostile territory but it did pretty well for itself.

"The reason why early Russia might have been more literate compared to early Europeans was because Europe was in its Dark Age! After a hundred years Europe improved its literacy rate while Russia became worse and worse. By the 1500s, Russian literacy was a joke compared to European standards."

I'm glad to see that you agree with me on one point at least. After the 1500's? I wouldn't know. Since you are making this point the burden is on you to provide a little evidence.

"My whole from the beginning was to prove Russia was not strong, and that they were weak. Saying they were divided just makes my job easier."

My whole point was to try to correct some of your...umm..misunderstandings about the material conditions of life in medieval Russia. I have no desire to get in a flamewar over this and I apologize if my tone was combative but I'm really not sure where you are getting this information. It doesn't take a lot of searching to see that much of it is incorrect. I know this forum isn't very historically inclined (if you had posted this in .com you'd have about 50 responses by now)but people need to be more careful before accepting "accepted wisdom."

Stephen Hummell

07-27-2002, 02:03

Turken won, and the russians sucked in the medieval ages, thats why they were put to the bow by the mongols. They were divided when the mongols came and were undivided when they left.

[This message has been edited by Stephen Hummell (edited 07-26-2002).]

Stephen Hummell

07-27-2002, 02:08

I know nothing of russian history so forgive me I just said that cause i wanna get my posts up.

Boleslaw Wrymouth

07-27-2002, 02:18

Quote Originally posted by Stephen Hummell:
I know nothing of russian history so forgive me I just said that cause i wanna get my posts up.[/QUOTE]

Hehehe Stephen. I'm not even going to touch this. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Emp. Conralius

07-27-2002, 02:20

I really dont see what the big deal is, you cant even be Russia in the Early Era!

Galestrum

07-27-2002, 03:24

Just to attempt to bring some understanding here....hehe (1st time poster)

In order for this discussion to have any meaning, we need to surround the discussion in context. First i dont proclaim to be a Russian histroy authority but i do know a fair bit about the period and time being discussed.

(1) this debate began due to a comment inferring that circa 1087 Russia was "one of the strongest nations" at that time. It would be a gross overestimation to say that 1087 "russia" was among the strongest nations in the TW theatre.

Russia was not even a true "state" in most senses. Russia was populated by various peoples, from the nomadic steepe peoples, to the slavs, fins, and their namesake the RUS, who were in fact vikings.

While certain city states/trade outposts did exist and even relatively flourish, there was hardly an all-powerful central authority in relative total control of "russia". Sure the nomadic people may have served various nobles, etc, like all the steppe peoples they did, fought, moved as they pleased.

Russia was far closer to anglo saxon england type of state than a byzantine, french, or HRE state

(2) the 'russian" attempts upon (incl. their navy)Constantinople failed utterly and the idea of them taking constantinople died a quick death

(3) while russia was founded upon a trade empire system, it was nowhere near as affluent as the Byzantine empire, france, or other euro states/powers

Finally all things considered i would have to say that the assesment of "russian being one of the strongest nations" at the early era would be incorrect

They lacked the (a) wealth (b) central authority & unity (c) overrall military strength to be considered among "the strongest" states of its day circa 1087

If you do think Russia circa 1087 is one of the "strongest" nations at this time, please tell us which nations you believe they were stronger than?

btw "one of the strongest" would probably mean among the top 3 nations for most of us.

in my estimation all (3) of the muslim states, byzantium, poland, france, england, hungary and the HRE were by far "stronger" at this time.

PS there is nothing wrong with a country not being that "strong" at a given point in time, just simply a fact, most countries have had their low and high points throughout history, i find it odd that people refuse to acknowledge that at certain points in time their country wasnt "all that" hehe

anyways later and have a good day

Boleslaw Wrymouth

07-27-2002, 04:01

Galestrum,

Very good post. I agree with everything you said. Just to clear something up, I never stated Russia was the "most powerful" or even a power. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't as backward as some people believe.

That said, this is a good time for me to make an exit from this thread.

czaralex

07-27-2002, 06:49

Quote Originally posted by turken00:
The Russians, during the timeline of this game, was not strong. In fact, far from being strong, they were one of the weakest nations during that period. I will state my reasons. 1- No navy or shipbuilding experience. They had no knowledge whatsoever of shipbuilding until the late 1600s, early 1700s. Their rivers and lakes were frozen practically all the time. 2- They were isolated. They didn't have much contact with the rest of the world, which made them a backward country in terms of culture and technology. 3- They had no reliable income. No trade at all, because they had no clear trade routes, because once again of being a landlocked country and the frozen rivers, etc. Nobody would want to trade with them because well they didn't have much to trade. They had to rely on themselves which was just not enough. 4- The early Slavs were practically barbarians. They weren't civilized and they were all uneducated(even the leaders). This meant their armies were not organized either, a bunch of peasants fighting in a disorderly fashion. This could easily be proven by seeing how easily they were destroyed by the Mongols and later on how easily Crimean Tatars and the Ottomans grabbed territory from them.. not to mention the Swedes. I'm sorry if I'm offending any Russians here but thats just the truth. Russia was far from strong until the times of Tzarist Russia, when able rulers like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great reigned. All historians know, that while Europe was living its Renaissance and flourishing in every aspect, the Russians were still trying to move the country out of the Dark Ages and try to make it more "European."[/QUOTE]

Somebody said earlier that we shoudl put some sources to back up our staments and I completely agree with the idea. My following staments come backed up by info I got in the following )"An Historical Geography of Russia", BY w. h. Parker; "The Russian Primary Chronicale: Laurentian text" by Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor; "Kurs Russkoyi Estorie" "Way of Russian History" by Klyuchevskiy.
Now for the info:
Lands that are now modern Western Russia and former Republics of the Soviet Union, excluding pre-Baltic republics, were weak devided lands settled by weak Slavic tribes. So far Turkman is right, but everything changes in 862, during that year Rurik, a viking comes and conqueres a small trading town called Kiev. Founding the future Kieven Rus. Then Oleg Rurikevich made himself the Grand Knize of Kiev. The first few knize were weak(although Oleg made sacked Constantinopele in the 860's)(this has been said by many Historians, but others think it did not happen, thats why I put it into ()), but that changed in 962, when Grand Knize Svetoslav came to power, after that Russian power spread farther and faster than any nation in Europe at that time. The most important conquest of svetoslav was his taking of the Azov-Don-Volga route to the east, "it was needed for a sure graps of the commerce that thronged the Black sea and converged upon byzantium." Svetoslav also "established on the Volga, which brought in the Volga traffic(trade), hitherto lagrely in the hands of sweedes, Bulgars, and Arabs"
"An attempt to build a political and commercial empire of thee dimentsinons was made by Granp Prince Svyatoslav(962-972). He struck first at the Vyatichians, and next at the Finns. Then the Volga Bulgars were crushed, the Khazars were attacket and their capita, Itil, sacked...."
I could go on for hours, but neither you or I would want that.
Russia was a power from the Baltic to the Black Sea and the largest trading nation in the world after Byzantium. Kiev was the largest city in the world at that time (989-1093) according to the Chronicles.
However, it was in 1093 that the Polovtsi destroyed Kiev, and although it was rebuilt, the capitol was now really in Vladimir-Suzdal. Kieven Russia thus entered into a spiral, which was culminated by the Mongols in 1239.
But from 989-to 1237 was by far the largest nation in Europe. All of modern day European Russia had been settled, and if you look at a map you will see that just Orhangelsiy Oblasty is larger than the Byzantine Empire in its hayday.
From its founding in 862, Russia has alwasy been a strong nation. It still to this day remains the only nation in the world with a history of more than 1000 years that has never been conquered. The Mongols, who were by far the closest to conquereing Russia, never took Novgorod.
PS: Turkoman you are right, I am Russian, but unfortunetelly wrong about your knoweledge of Early Russian History!

czaralex

07-27-2002, 07:03

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
Just to attempt to bring some understanding here....hehe (1st time poster)

In order for this discussion to have any meaning, we need to surround the discussion in context. First i dont proclaim to be a Russian histroy authority but i do know a fair bit about the period and time being discussed.

(1) this debate began due to a comment inferring that circa 1087 Russia was "one of the strongest nations" at that time. It would be a gross overestimation to say that 1087 "russia" was among the strongest nations in the TW theatre.

Russia was not even a true "state" in most senses. Russia was populated by various peoples, from the nomadic steepe peoples, to the slavs, fins, and their namesake the RUS, who were in fact vikings.

While certain city states/trade outposts did exist and even relatively flourish, there was hardly an all-powerful central authority in relative total control of "russia". Sure the nomadic people may have served various nobles, etc, like all the steppe peoples they did, fought, moved as they pleased.

Russia was far closer to anglo saxon england type of state than a byzantine, french, or HRE state

(2) the 'russian" attempts upon (incl. their navy)Constantinople failed utterly and the idea of them taking constantinople died a quick death

(3) while russia was founded upon a trade empire system, it was nowhere near as affluent as the Byzantine empire, france, or other euro states/powers

Finally all things considered i would have to say that the assesment of "russian being one of the strongest nations" at the early era would be incorrect

They lacked the (a) wealth (b) central authority & unity (c) overrall military strength to be considered among "the strongest" states of its day circa 1087

If you do think Russia circa 1087 is one of the "strongest" nations at this time, please tell us which nations you believe they were stronger than?

btw "one of the strongest" would probably mean among the top 3 nations for most of us.

in my estimation all (3) of the muslim states, byzantium, poland, france, england, hungary and the HRE were by far "stronger" at this time.

PS there is nothing wrong with a country not being that "strong" at a given point in time, just simply a fact, most countries have had their low and high points throughout history, i find it odd that people refuse to acknowledge that at certain points in time their country wasnt "all that" hehe

anyways later and have a good day[/QUOTE]

What you said about Kieven Russia not being even Russian, is perheps true, many believe that the true Russia came fromt he Principality of Muscowy, in the 15th Century.
However when you say that "Russia" was distabalized that is false, until the sacking of Kiev in 1093, "Russia was by far the most centralized nation in Europe", W.H. Parker. He backs this up on the fact that most early Russian towns were easily reachable by the river system, thus the centralized "Czar" or at that time Grand Knize was able to move a central army to any point of Russia without diffuculty, thus no feudal problems arrose as they did elswhere in Europe.
Your argument about the navy is almost true, Kiev at that time had a huge merchent marine. Its Navy was non-existent, I agree with this. But Unless you are England, you don't really need a strong navy to be a powerhouse in Europe. Case in point: Soviet Union before Admiral Gorshokov made the Soviet Navy the second greates Navy in the World (behind the USA) Soviet Union was basically without a Navy, yet I think no one will argue that the Soviet Union was by far, and I mean by far the strongest nation in Europe.
When I said Russia was one of the Strongest nations in the world I actually meant second strongest behind Byzantium.
The Arabs had already began their desestereous seperation of the original Muslim empire. ie( Egyptian Sultainate, Turks, almohads) They were not an even close match to the army of 250,000 soldiers the Princes of Russia could supply for the Battle of Kalka river, which Russia lost, but at that time in history the Mongols would have defeated anyone! France, England, and the rest of Western Europe were nothing, until the 12th Century. For God's sake the Normans were able to conquer almsot a third of Western Europe!

czaralex

07-27-2002, 07:27

I missed the comment on all Russian rivers being frozen in the winter. As I was born in Kiev, and lived there for 9 years, traveled all over the former USSR, I can tell you with certainity that the Don or Sourthern Dnieper never freezes, And as those two rivers were the most importaint trading veins before the emergince of Moscow, ice was no problem for the merchants of Kiev.

Galestrum

07-27-2002, 07:31

Czar you obviously have a "stake" in this debate, and i wont say that much of what you said is generally true, but there are certainly somethings which are open for debate

(1)Russia nor even the Roman Empire at its height likely had a standing army or anything resembling a military of 250,000 strong.

It is WELL known that the sizes of medieval armies were often dramatically inflated. If you cut that number down to 20-25,000 you are probably far closer to reality (and still prby overestimating it)

(2) you can make your arguments for russia being the strongest nation, and back it up with "proof", however another scholar could site sources as well and equally disprove you, that is the problem with dark ages/medieval history

(3) the normans you refer to are the same group of people (vikings) that "made" russia so that argument can easily be reversed

(4) i never said you needed ships to be a power (someone else mentioned that) i merely said the russian fleet as it were did not dominate byzantine

(5) i highly doubt kiev was bigger than constantinople, i will look into it, and alot of russia was sparsely populated

Emp. Conralius

07-27-2002, 07:33

oh great, this thread goes from talking about who is the best faction to discussing the friggin' Soviet Union!

Galestrum

07-27-2002, 07:38

furthermore i didnt say it was destabilized, i said it did not have a strong central power (as many nations of the time did not), what i am referring to is political centralization, not being able to take the river downstream to the next town

early russia was very much akin to a large group of allied city states then a "nation" or "empire" thus my position of a lack of strong central authority

and i cannot disagree with you more on you thinking russia 1087 was advanced/powerful as the muslim nations of the time, no christian nation could even begin to compare to the combination of literacy, wealth, influence, knowledge, population, and military strength that the muslim nations enjoyed save byzantium

czaralex

07-27-2002, 08:02

My point on the river system was to be proof that kieven Russia was very much centralized, the rivers allowed the central monarch to travel to any part of his empire and enforce centralized laws. Like Oleg going to punish a minor slavic tribe (Vodivci) for not paying tribute to Kiev. Thus Kieven Russia was more centralized than any nation in Midevil Europe.

czaralex

07-27-2002, 08:17

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
Czar you obviously have a "stake" in this debate, and i wont say that much of what you said is generally true, but there are certainly somethings which are open for debate

(1)Russia nor even the Roman Empire at its height likely had a standing army or anything resembling a military of 250,000 strong.

It is WELL known that the sizes of medieval armies were often dramatically inflated. If you cut that number down to 20-25,000 you are probably far closer to reality (and still prby overestimating it)

(2) you can make your arguments for russia being the strongest nation, and back it up with "proof", however another scholar could site sources as well and equally disprove you, that is the problem with dark ages/medieval history

(3) the normans you refer to are the same group of people (vikings) that "made" russia so that argument can easily be reversed

(4) i never said you needed ships to be a power (someone else mentioned that) i merely said the russian fleet as it were did not dominate byzantine

(5) i highly doubt kiev was bigger than constantinople, i will look into it, and alot of russia was sparsely populated

[/QUOTE]

I heard about the 250,000 army from a Historical show hosted by Klychevskiy, and I consider him to be the best source of Kieven Russian history. Although you are right about the most battles in this time period were rather small, remember Taneberg.
Your second post is completely true, there was a guy at the .com forum who said Finland was the mightiest nation in Europe.
Normans were French Vikings, while Rurik was a Ugric Viking.

czaralex

07-27-2002, 08:19

Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
oh great, this thread goes from talking about who is the best faction to discussing the friggin' Soviet Union![/QUOTE]

Whats your problem with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Stephen Hummell

07-27-2002, 08:26

Quote Originally posted by czaralex:
Whats your problem with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?[/QUOTE]

He's an american and people carry grudges after wars and stuff. In other words he doesn't like communists.

Bishamonten

07-27-2002, 08:44

Oh oh here's where this thread turns into the U.S. vs. the world type of thread.

*Bish runs and hides in his igloo*
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Galestrum

07-27-2002, 08:51

his comment should be taken at face value, as in why the hell are we going on tangents as oppossed to discussing USSR etc etc etc

as far as how/why anyone could have prob with USSR, ask some of the former eastern block countries ;0)

MJDore

07-27-2002, 08:51

lol

czaralex

07-27-2002, 09:09

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
his comment should be taken at face value, as in why the hell are we going on tangents as oppossed to discussing USSR etc etc etc

as far as how/why anyone could have prob with USSR, ask some of the former eastern block countries ;0)[/QUOTE]

What do you mean? Do you perheps think that the Sattalite States didn't enjoy the fifty years of Communism, you can't be serious? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

czaralex

07-27-2002, 09:14

Quote Originally posted by Stephen Hummell:
He's an american and people carry grudges after wars and stuff. In other words he doesn't like communists.[/QUOTE]

You are right, I don't like communists. So I consider the Soviet Union the continuation of the Russian Empire, something which I like, because I am a Russian. And I can't argue about the Greatness of the United States of America in the Middle Ages, for obvious reasons. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

czaralex

07-27-2002, 09:18

Quote Originally posted by Bishamonten:
Oh oh here's where this thread turns into the U.S. vs. the world type of thread.

*Bish runs and hides in his igloo*
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]

You better hope it there is no US verses the world, becuase it will be very painful for the rest of you uncivillized goons.!!!!
(Just in case somebody does take this comment seriously, the following is included: I am just joking! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Galestrum

07-27-2002, 09:43

hopefully in-game they will make kiev worthwhile as it was, otherwise russia will be in the brown stuff hehe

i for one will be playing early era byzantium, and plan on quickly allying myself with the Rus (as in history) and hungary

hopefully rome will once again rise and bring the world under my benevolent rule http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

czaralex

07-27-2002, 09:49

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
hopefully in-game they will make kiev worthwhile as it was, otherwise russia will be in the brown stuff hehe

i for one will be playing early era byzantium, and plan on quickly allying myself with the Rus (as in history) and hungary

hopefully rome will once again rise and bring the world under my benevolent rule http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif[/QUOTE]

Well loking at the fact that in the nation preview they say that Czar is Great. I am guesing they will make Moscow about 5 times more valuble than Kiev, even though Moscow didn't even exist until 1147!

Emp. Conralius

07-27-2002, 09:55

WHOOOOOSHHHHHHHHH!!!! The plane has not yet landed!

czaralex

07-27-2002, 10:18

Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
WHOOOOOSHHHHHHHHH!!!! The plane has not yet landed![/QUOTE]

What do you mean?

Funky Phantom

07-27-2002, 17:49

Quote Originally posted by czaralex:
What do you mean?[/QUOTE]
He means we dont know for certain what the game will be like, we can only speculate, dont get too critical of the game before youve even played the finished thing http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Stephen Hummell

07-27-2002, 23:05

A dude was on here who was in vietnam and somebody says communist and in makes him remember about how Charlie gouged out hernandez's eyes out and then beheaded him and played football with his head.

*No, Hernandez*

Sorry, i'm bored and i got a wedding to go to today, which for a 13yr old is the worst thing in the world.

F18fett

07-28-2002, 00:51

Quote Roman Empire at its height likely had a standing army or anything resembling a military of 250,000 strong.[/QUOTE]

I think the Roman Empire had like 300,000 soldiers at its height, I'm not sure.

Galestrum

07-28-2002, 01:40

yes i have a source(s) that range it anywhere from 365,000 to 500,000, however those were the ideal levels that the empire desired, often many legions were never at full strength, and some legions that had been utterly destroyed remain in the official records for generation after they had become non-existant

in general my point was when medievall account make statements like "our army swelled to 1.5 gazillion men, and our enemies had 10 times that!" they were either unable to count, referring to someone who did not know how to count, or were painting a glorious picture

the greatest medieval states could not muster 250,000 troops, furthermore most people would include the camp followers, servants, etc in the "army" so the actual number of fighting personnel were very much smaller than we are often lead to believe

Galestrum

07-28-2002, 01:44

the actual logistics to field an army that big are considerable even today when we have planes, motorized vehicles, helicopters, well preserved foods, satelite and radio communication etc etc etc

medieval countries had nowhere near the infrastructure rome had, nor the wealth to even begin to put together an army that size

czaralex

07-28-2002, 09:41

Quote Originally posted by Funky Phantom:

Originally posted by czaralex:
What do you mean?
He means we dont know for certain what the game will be like, we can only speculate, dont get too critical of the game before youve even played the finished thing http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[/QUOTE]
Aha, ok thanks, I wasn't actually trying to blast the game!

Stephen Hummell

07-28-2002, 09:46

Nor did medieval armies have men from gaul to the holy land this is why the roman armies were so big, Then they lost 2 legions in a german forest.

Emp. Conralius

07-28-2002, 23:32

Quote Originally posted by Stephen Hummell:
Nor did medieval armies have men from gaul to the holy land this is why the roman armies were so big, Then they lost 2 legions in a german forest.[/QUOTE]

The lost Legions of Varus.....

Stephen Hummell

07-29-2002, 00:05

Of course Emp.

Dom

07-29-2002, 00:32

Russians were THE strongest faction in the region of the pre-mongol era. They have beaten any enemy that they have faced and on the point of Byzantine.... Oleg went on to capture Constantinopole and came up with a method of caturing it, which was putting their ships on wheels and using them to either - get on the walls pretty harmless or - cross the stretch of land, bypassing a river block to get to the vulnerable sections of the wall. This is being debated by historians but what followed is a fact:

This didn't happen, because once Greeks seen what he was up to they have pleaded for a treaty, which was accepted. It granted Russia a recognition from Byzantium, followed by high tributes and most importantly, independence in term of the Cristian Orthodox Church. If he hadn't done so Russia would have been dominated by the Constantinopole as Catholic Europe was influenced by Rome.

And there were many other smaller successful raids on Byzantium by the Russians. They also have conquered vast ammounts of land that were particulary hostile. As for the Navy issue... they have never faced problems crossing the Black sea whenever they needed too. The Navy was as strong as it was required, don't need any better than that.

CzarAlex As on the point that Dnieper never freezes in southern Ukraine... I am from Kherson (this THE most southern point of the river, where it enters Black sea) and have walked across the river in winter many times. And went winter fishing too. Trust me is was frozen solid. And it continues to do so, year in year out http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Regards, Ryurik

Emp. Conralius

07-29-2002, 03:13

Quote Originally posted by Dom:
Russians were THE strongest faction in the region of the pre-mongol era. They have beaten any enemy that they have faced and on the point of Byzantine.... Oleg went on to capture Constantinopole and came up with a method of caturing it, which was putting their ships on wheels and using them to either - get on the walls pretty harmless or - cross the stretch of land, bypassing a river block to get to the vulnerable sections of the wall. This is being debated by historians but what followed is a fact:

This didn't happen, because once Greeks seen what he was up to they have pleaded for a treaty, which was accepted. It granted Russia a recognition from Byzantium, followed by high tributes and most importantly, independence in term of the Cristian Orthodox Church. If he hadn't done so Russia would have been dominated by the Constantinopole as Catholic Europe was influenced by Rome.

And there were many other smaller successful raids on Byzantium by the Russians. They also have conquered vast ammounts of land that were particulary hostile. As for the Navy issue... they have never faced problems crossing the Black sea whenever they needed too. The Navy was as strong as it was required, don't need any better than that.

CzarAlex As on the point that Dnieper never freezes in southern Ukraine... I am from Kherson (this THE most southern point of the river, where it enters Black sea) and have walked across the river in winter many times. And went winter fishing too. Trust me is was frozen solid. And it continues to do so, year in year out http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Regards, Ryurik[/QUOTE]

Yes, your statements are accurate, but are they completely accurate is the question. You totally failed to mention the fact that at the time of the "Russian" raids of Constantinople that, at that ponit in time, they were not known as the Russians, but as Vikings. It was the Vikings who threatened the capitol of Byzantium and they were bribed not to enter.

FYI: It was these Vikings from Sweden who founded Kiev and Moscow (which means "bear's den). Then they settled and eventually becamethe Rus or Russians.

Galestrum

07-29-2002, 03:27

additionaly the raid of 860 which you are referring to did not capture constantinople, and furthermore, the city was ungarrisoned as the tagmata was on campaign

raids on undefended cities and farmsteads hardly makes one a great powerful military

the treaties were not made of fear of the Rus , but to a shift in power form the qhagante to the Rus, thus all that really happened was grating of exclusive trade rights to byzantium, and a recognition of the Rus, which helped them politically back home

after 860 byzantine and "russian" interests were fairly good

also, to think of that area as "russia" is entitrely illusory, that expanse of land was filled with many differnt peoples, turkic, finno-ugrians, vikings, alans, cumans, the pecengs whom EVERY group of people on the black sea dreaded

all those tribes had their own agendas, hardly a unified "nation" at that time, more akin to dark ages europe by far than a nation state

Emp. Conralius

07-29-2002, 06:09

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
additionaly the raid of 860 which you are referring to did not capture constantinople, and furthermore, the city was ungarrisoned as the tagmata was on campaign

raids on undefended cities and farmsteads hardly makes one a great powerful military

the treaties were not made of fear of the Rus , but to a shift in power form the qhagante to the Rus, thus all that really happened was grating of exclusive trade rights to byzantium, and a recognition of the Rus, which helped them politically back home

after 860 byzantine and "russian" interests were fairly good

also, to think of that area as "russia" is entitrely illusory, that expanse of land was filled with many differnt peoples, turkic, finno-ugrians, vikings, alans, cumans, the pecengs whom EVERY group of people on the black sea dreaded

all those tribes had their own agendas, hardly a unified "nation" at that time, more akin to dark ages europe by far than a nation state[/QUOTE]

I totally agree! I couldn't have said it better myself.

czaralex

07-30-2002, 02:27

Quote Originally posted by Dom:
Russians were THE strongest faction in the region of the pre-mongol era. They have beaten any enemy that they have faced and on the point of Byzantine.... Oleg went on to capture Constantinopole and came up with a method of caturing it, which was putting their ships on wheels and using them to either - get on the walls pretty harmless or - cross the stretch of land, bypassing a river block to get to the vulnerable sections of the wall. This is being debated by historians but what followed is a fact:

This didn't happen, because once Greeks seen what he was up to they have pleaded for a treaty, which was accepted. It granted Russia a recognition from Byzantium, followed by high tributes and most importantly, independence in term of the Cristian Orthodox Church. If he hadn't done so Russia would have been dominated by the Constantinopole as Catholic Europe was influenced by Rome.

And there were many other smaller successful raids on Byzantium by the Russians. They also have conquered vast ammounts of land that were particulary hostile. As for the Navy issue... they have never faced problems crossing the Black sea whenever they needed too. The Navy was as strong as it was required, don't need any better than that.

CzarAlex As on the point that Dnieper never freezes in southern Ukraine... I am from Kherson (this THE most southern point of the river, where it enters Black sea) and have walked across the river in winter many times. And went winter fishing too. Trust me is was frozen solid. And it continues to do so, year in year out http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Regards, Ryurik[/QUOTE]

I don't know what to tell you about the freezing of the river in winter in Kherson, because I was never there. But if you are then you would know, but in Kiev, (From 1991-94, the years I can remember living in Kiev, it didn't freeze by where I lived in LevoBerezhonoyi. Ever since they built the dam over in the Dniper, Kievskoye More, it can't freeze, because if it ever did, the Largest city in the Ukraine would be without electricity.
Edit:
I asked my mother after originally posting, this and she told me that the only place it doesn't freeze is in Kiev, because they always need it for the Hydroelectric dam, but you were right that it frezes everywhere else, and so I appologize for my mis-info. I should have factored in the Kievskoyea Sea.

[This message has been edited by czaralex (edited 07-29-2002).]

czaralex

07-30-2002, 02:39

Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
Yes, your statements are accurate, but are they completely accurate is the question. You totally failed to mention the fact that at the time of the "Russian" raids of Constantinople that, at that ponit in time, they were not known as the Russians, but as Vikings. It was the Vikings who threatened the capitol of Byzantium and they were bribed not to enter.

FYI: It was these Vikings from Sweden who founded Kiev and Moscow (which means "bear's den). Then they settled and eventually becamethe Rus or Russians.[/QUOTE]

Actualy Oleg came after Rurik, and after Rurik the Vikings became the Rus, so it was the first Russians that raided Istanbul.

Funky Phantom

07-30-2002, 02:57

Just to add something to the debate about frozen rivers, the worlds climate has changed over the course of history, so it may well be the case that the state of the river today is not the same as the state of the river in medieval times...

Galestrum

07-30-2002, 03:25

heh i was thinking the same thing

Emp. Conralius

07-30-2002, 05:27

Quote Originally posted by czaralex:
Actualy Oleg came after Rurik, and after Rurik the Vikings became the Rus, so it was the first Russians that raided Istanbul.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about Istanbul or Constantinople? They sre very different from each other. Anyways, I wasn't saying that they were not Russians, I was saying that the Emperor of Byzantium wasn't saying "Oh no, the Russian are coming!" At that time, they wee several small "tribes" working independent from each other.

[This message has been edited by Emp. Conralius (edited 07-29-2002).]

Emp. Conralius

07-30-2002, 05:40

Czaralex, it seems your implying that the Russians worked as a unified faction in the Early Middle Ages. Not true, the were actually more like they're ancestors (Swedish Norseman) in the sense that they pillaged, settled, and farmed with a strong central govt., but no X-factor that unified the mini-factions of the Rus people (until they became more organized).

czaralex

07-30-2002, 06:18

Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
Are you talking about Istanbul or Constantinople? They sre very different from each other. Anyways, I wasn't saying that they were not Russians, I was saying that the Emperor of Byzantium wasn't saying "Oh no, the Russian are coming!" At that time, they wee several small "tribes" working independent from each other.

[This message has been edited by Emp. Conralius (edited 07-29-2002).][/QUOTE]

How is Istanbul different from Constintinople, I always thought it was the same city, before the Ottomans conqured it, it was Canstantinople, and then it became the modern Istanbul.
Emp Conralius, you should read "An Historical Georgraphy of Russia" by W.H. Parker, (it is the best "English" version of Russian History that I have read) and you will see that Midevil Russia was the most centralized nation in the world at that time.

Papewaio

07-30-2002, 06:30

Istanbul isConstantinople

As for the rest I have no idea. But at least I know that http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Emp. Conralius

07-30-2002, 09:40

Quote Originally posted by czaralex:
How is Istanbul different from Constintinople, I always thought it was the same city, before the Ottomans conqured it, it was Canstantinople, and then it became the modern Istanbul.
Emp Conralius, you should read "An Historical Georgraphy of Russia" by W.H. Parker, (it is the best "English" version of Russian History that I have read) and you will see that Midevil Russia was the most centralized nation in the world at that time.[/QUOTE]

Constantinople was the capital of the Byzantine empire. The Byzantines wee an Orthodox Christian power. The, after the Turks took the city, it became a major city in the Ottoman Empire, which was a Islamic power. Constantinople had, at the time, the world's largest church, the city Istanbul, on the other hand, had the world's largest mosque. They are to very different cities. The real connection between them is the fact that one was built over the ruins of the over (when the Turks took the city, most of onstantinople was completly in ruin),

Alex, about the other issue about Russia being a great centralized nation in the Middle Ages is really only a half truth. It really wasn't until the time of the first Czar, Ivan the Terrible, that the Russian duchies and pricipalities came all together. And you should know that this didn't happen until the the early 16th century. I think I'de know, I had to do a 5-page report on Ancient Russia.

Emp. Conralius

07-30-2002, 09:47

Really, this shouldn't be a big deal. Czaralex, you have to admit, the Russians back then weren't all that great....I mean, come on, let's face it. I can understand your natural patriotism toward the nation you are descended from (to my understanding), but it's no reason to take offense to small cracks here and there. I, for one, am originally from Germany, but you don't see me ranting and raving about the HRE.

Prodigy

07-30-2002, 12:09

Or maybe you are not ranting and raving about HRE because they were never "realy" united nor Holy or Great. While Kievskaya Rus under Vladimir the Saint (980-1015) was the most united and centralised one country can be (note not the most, but one of the).
When he came to power of united principalities, he requested Bysantine Church to recognize Kievskaya Rus as Orthodox counry (pagan was geting very unpopular, confusing and unprofitable). They refused, and Vladimir decided to besiege and give some fright to Constantinople, not conquer it. Conquest would lead to total denial of Orthodox religion (and some other problems). This resulted in Rus becoming Orthodox in 989.

Any one who says that Rus was not organised and unified at that time, knows less then he claims, and should reconsider what he studied. Valdimir conquered all local tribes, clans, and principalities, except Pechenegs (who late became part conquered part vassal after launching unseccesfull invasion, including Azov). To show the prosperity of Kiev the population rose (from 300,000 to 1,200,000 in ten years) and so did income.

Some one who claimed that Vikings settled Moscow is wrong. It was found by family of Dolgorukiy, Pecheneg origin. True, Kiev was settled by Viking called Kiiy, but it came to be city only when Goth (Ostrogoth) settled there (and many others).

About Dnieper River, I lived in Kiev (Left Bank) for 12 years and it never froze, partly becuase of the wild steams. But I guess climate was very much different at those times.

------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.

[This message has been edited by Prodigy (edited 07-30-2002).]

Funky Phantom

07-30-2002, 15:32

We need to get a real historian in to settle this dispute :P

Everyones delving into their books and still coming out with opposing views :\

MJDore

07-30-2002, 16:21

History is often like that; it is different depending on your sources!

Galestrum

07-30-2002, 22:03

it also depends on the objectivity of those prefessing the knowledge.

2 people can cite the exact same source, and come o two very different conclusions. Some people use history for their own agenda, others for scholarly pursuits and so on

for instance some people may say country A was the greatest country at that time because of king dunderhead, who reigned for 10 years. yet that would be ridiculous if you are talking about a 400 year period of time

also you may have people debating entirely differnet points, simply because they define the argument differently (politically, economically, influence, etc etc etc)

Emp. Conralius

07-30-2002, 22:36

Quote Originally posted by Prodigy:
Or maybe you are not ranting and raving about HRE because they were never "realy" united nor Holy or Great. While Kievskaya Rus under Vladimir the Saint (980-1015) was the most united and centralised one country can be (note not the most, but one of the).
When he came to power of united principalities, he requested Bysantine Church to recognize Kievskaya Rus as Orthodox counry (pagan was geting very unpopular, confusing and unprofitable). They refused, and Vladimir decided to besiege and give some fright to Constantinople, not conquer it. Conquest would lead to total denial of Orthodox religion (and some other problems). This resulted in Rus becoming Orthodox in 989.

Any one who says that Rus was not organised and unified at that time, knows less then he claims, and should reconsider what he studied. Valdimir conquered all local tribes, clans, and principalities, except Pechenegs (who late became part conquered part vassal after launching unseccesfull invasion, including Azov). To show the prosperity of Kiev the population rose (from 300,000 to 1,200,000 in ten years) and so did income.

Some one who claimed that Vikings settled Moscow is wrong. It was found by family of Dolgorukiy, Pecheneg origin. True, Kiev was settled by Viking called Kiiy, but it came to be city only when Goth (Ostrogoth) settled there (and many others).

About Dnieper River, I lived in Kiev (Left Bank) for 12 years and it never froze, partly becuase of the wild steams. But I guess climate was very much different at those times.

[/QUOTE]

true, but all that stuff you mentioned happened before the game actually starts.

I know when I'm in over my head. I'm gonna gracefully bow out of this one...

Galestrum

07-30-2002, 23:12

just to bring a lil history to light the Kievan Rus in 900-1050's were hardly undefeatable, in fact they lost almost every time they actually fought the Byzantine armies

secondly, the byzantines hardly sought dipolomatic ties with the Rus out of fear of being conquered, but rather having a secure northern border from which they could recruit reliable mercenaries, share in the fur trade etc

byzantium had much greater concerns with the islamic powers, the bulgars, the serbs, and their own occassional civil wars

the following quotes come from The Making of Byzantium 600-1025 M. Whittow

page 257 referring to prince igor's failed attempt on constantinople 941 "it was a suprise attack...to appear when the main Byzantine forces were away on the eastern front. In the event the Rus were defeated with heavy losses"

if you read further on this page and section devoted to the Rus you will see that it was the Byzantines helping develop The Kiev Rus, in both orthodoxy and politically. The relationship helped the Rus of Kiev more than the byzantines. regardless of this kievan-byzantine interests were good more often than not, and both parties benefitted in many ways.

in 970-971 the kiev prince Svyatoslav (son of oleg) fought the byzantines, results from page 261 "After three bloody defeats (in the Balkans) ....he was forced to come to terms"

page 261-62 regarding the Kievan Rus need for help from byzantium, referring to svyatoslavs death

"he was dead within a year in circumstances which underline the weaknesses of the Rus position in Kiev....and hence their need for good relations with byzantium"

svytoslav's son Vladimir would be the Kievan prince that would finally adopt orthodoxy as the russian religion. Vlad converted to orthodoxy to help secure himself politically and as a result of marrying the sister of the byzantine emporer, named anna, sister of emporer Basil, page 371

"In exchange for the hand of the emporer's sister, anna, vladimir promised that he would be baptized, and that he would send a substantial force fo rus to basil's aid"

additionally many of Vladimir's exploits and those prior to him come from a source known as the "Povest" and is considered by many scholars to be as much about creating a russian myth and legitimizing them politically as much as it is historically accurrate. So much of the info derived from this source is highly debateable.

it would be similar to someone quoteing Beowulf or any other national myth making epic poem

have a good day =)

Emp. Conralius

07-30-2002, 23:59

...and the winner by knockout....

Dom

07-31-2002, 00:09

Leaving Igor in Kiev, Oleg attacked the Greeks. He took with him a multitude of Varangians, Slavs, Chuds, Krivichians, Merians, Polianians, Severians, Derevlians, Radimichians, Croats, Dulebians, and Tivercians, who are Torks. All these tribes are known as Great Scythia by the Greeks.

He had defeated them.

In the negotiation of the peace terms, both Byzantine and Russian sides have refered to Russians, and it meant people from Russian lands, so any unstable tribal union theory can be thrown out of the window.

With army composing of so many different tribes it is difficult to argue that Russia was anything but united. They have defeated Constantinopole, but the Igor went to fight the Greeks as well, and won. Then Olga was baptised there and only some 30 years later on her son is baptised and then baptises Rus. Vladimir was brought up in Cristian faith, not turned to it for political gain (although he did receive some.) Russian-Greek armies have put an end to the Khazars, and have divided their lands later on in his rule.

Previous successes of Rus over Byzantium were an insurane from the religious dominace from the Greeks over the russian politics.

As for the Povest Vremmenyh Let and its depiction of the facts, it must be said that its facts have very little discreptancies with the records from other countries.

Having read the original (in church-slavenic Russian) I can say that it was not intended as a poem or the work of literature. Yes it is only natural that it is pro-Rus and has exaggerations in it, but it DOES say as much about known military failings as about successes.

P.S. Russian guys and anyone else who can help - here is my site www.thegreatrata.cjb.net (http://www.thegreatrata.cjb.net) I am trying to get it ready for the MTW, so if you know where I can get the materials, maps, pics, etc, plz email me at konst@ntin.fsnet.co.uk tnx

Regards, Ryurik

Siena

07-31-2002, 00:09

It seems to me that Rus should have been a playable faction in Early Era and then be replaced by Lithuania in High and Late Eras.

Dom

07-31-2002, 00:12

Quote Originally posted by Siena:
It seems to me that Rus should have been a playable faction in Early Era and then be replaced by Lithuania in High and Late Eras.[/QUOTE]

Dude you are deluded. Yes. Yes YOU ARE! I SAID YES!!!

lol, Siena, can you plz not put Lithuania in each and every topic you visit? I'd appreciate that http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Regards, Ryurik

Emp. Conralius

07-31-2002, 00:14

This thread is turning into the Cold War...

Dom

07-31-2002, 00:41

Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
This thread is turning into the Cold War...[/QUOTE]

ROFL

yeah, between three superpowers of Greece Lituahina and a bunch of Ukrainians standing in for the Medieval Rus.

Sweet!

Regards, Ryurik

Siena

07-31-2002, 00:51

lol

Dom,

you are right. I am deluded.

I've got the feeling that it is my mission to use this game as a pretext to teach people as much about Medieval Lithuanian history as I can... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

It is quite funny actually, because in the beginning I did not care at all if Lithuania will be in the game or not. Actually, I hoped this game will be about Ancient World.

However, as I read posts in .com forum, I realized that most of people have no idea what was going on in Eastern Europe in Middle Ages.
They know Russia, they know Byzantium, Mongols, Teutonic Knights and that's about it.
So little by little I got involved explaining what I knew. Also, the more I explained the more I was forced o research and learn.
And, behold - now I cannot stop http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Now I know a lot about Lithuania's history and I cannot comprehend how it can be excluded.

See, my mistake was to come to these forums in the first place...

Appreciate your concern, though, Dom...
Thanks.

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Siena (edited 07-30-2002).]

Dom

07-31-2002, 00:55

Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
Alex, about the other issue about Russia being a great centralized nation in the Middle Ages is really only a half truth. It really wasn't until the time of the first Czar, Ivan the Terrible, that the Russian duchies and pricipalities came all together. And you should know that this didn't happen until the the early 16th century. I think I'de know, I had to do a 5-page report on Ancient Russia.[/QUOTE]

oh yeah, 5-page report makes you an expert. In russian schools they make kids at 15yoa write 5-page reports 2 times a week, I would imagine Alex being as amused as i am...

If a 5-page report made you an expert then you would know why Ivan IV had to RE-UNITE Russia and how he did it. Small matter of Mongol Whorde comes to one's mind.

Regards, Ryurik

Galestrum

07-31-2002, 00:56

you would be highly misrepresenting fact if you think almost any "nation" north of the Med was "unified"

The Rus had "subject" tribes, that paid tribute and followed them on campaigns, but it was hardly as unified as one would think, they were more "allies" than subjects

If you went anywhere in the byzantine empire and asked "what are you?" they would say they were romans. If you asked a peceng, rus, slav, finn, etc etc they would say "oh im a peceng (insert tribal name) from so and so valley, city or other area"

the massive army and attack you refer to i believe would be this event, which i will quote from "A History of the Vikings" by Gwyn Jones one of the most acclaimed historical books of the Viking Age

page 259 "In 907 the Rus were back again, this time under Oleg, the uniter of Novgorod and Kiev, but what shall we say of a fleet of 2,000 vessels, and a force of 80,000 men, and a stratagem of which circumvented the chaining of the Bosporus by putting the ships on wheels and sailing them overland to Constantinople?.....somewhere behind these accretions of fantasy may be found the reality of a Rus-Byzantine confrontation"

on pages 259-60 they actually quote the blowhard language used in the primary chronicle

page 260 describes the Rus-Byzantine relationship

"the Rus would fight the bulgars and entreat the khazars in accord with the needs of Byzantine foreign policy" this was part of the Rus-Byzantine treaty of 945

the Rus were in fact and name a client state of byzantium, doing byzantiums bidding in many ways, while the Rus princes recieved political legitimicay and trade rights among other things.

page 260 yet another greatly exaggerrated Rus attack "prince Igor for no known reason, came across the Black Sea in the early summer of 941 with a fleet said by the primary chronicle to consist of 10,000 ships, but certainly much overestimated by Liudprand of Cremona at 1,000. Whatever their number, they availed him nothing: a cruel reality underlies the tale of their destruction by outpourings of greek fire. "

tribes from russian lands, does NOT mean the people were unified. various kings would claim lands they had absolutely no political control and influence over. Not to mention the Rus had to constantly campaign, bribe, negotiate etc etc etc with these so called "unfied" russians. Maybe by your defintion of a "unified" that works, but if i was a King and i constantly had to kill my "subjects" to get them to "listen" and follow me id say i was not leading a "unified" people

not to mention a large portion of those invaders were from SWEDEN that came for booty as was the viking way, and the other tribes were there for booty as well, not because they bowed down and were like o yes great prince.

additionally calling the Rus, truely russian would be like calling the normans of william the bastard english. The leadership of the "russians" were in fact vikings from Sweden.

At this time circa 850-1050 russia approximated ploitically what all the eurassian powers were, a collective of peoples ruled by a dominate "tribe" but NOT truely unified in all purpose as say Byzantium, The persian empire, the islamic powers, or even the frankish kingdom were

The Huns and the mongols were mostly OTHER tribes, through various reasons, be they subjugation, allaince, or promise of war booty followed a "leadership tribe" for their own gains and reasons and NOT those of merely the leadership tribe.

another note, MANY byzantine AND islamic chroniclers of that era directly refute the assertions made in the primary chronicle

=0

Emp. Conralius

07-31-2002, 01:25

Quote Originally posted by Dom:
oh yeah, 5-page report makes you an expert. In russian schools they make kids at 15yoa write 5-page reports 2 times a week, I would imagine Alex being as amused as i am...

If a 5-page report made you an expert then you would know why Ivan IV had to RE-UNITE Russia and how he did it. Small matter of Mongol Whorde comes to one's mind.

Regards, Ryurik[/QUOTE]

Hey, I didn't say I was an expert. And I can really care less about Russian schooling. What's with you Russian guys, this is all just friendly speculation, not a discussion about which nation's schools are better. THE WAR IS OVER. Get over it. And I find the fact that you even mention that whole 5-page reports a week nonesense amusing. Dom, I have nothing against you, but please be mature about the matter.

Emp. Conralius

07-31-2002, 01:30

Though I am not a admin. or a mod., I'de ike this Flame War about how great, and how not so great Russia was in the middle ages. We can go on for weeks about this stuff! I have noticed that this whole Russian discussion has been going off and on for the 3 pages found in this thread. So let's just stop now, we are wasting too much valuable space in the forum to argue about irrelevent B.S. (no offense).

Galestrum

07-31-2002, 01:50

well, i dont mind stopping the subject, but i never considered this a flame war, and am truly sorry if i offended anyone, i do not recall making any personal attacks.

furthermore, i was merely trying to help illuminate what i thought to be an historical and objective (at least from me) discussion, in which i cited sources and page numbers, not derogatory comments

again my apologies if i somehow offended anyone, i was just trying to help people learn and point them in the right direction, nothing else

Stephen Hummell

07-31-2002, 01:54

Yeah,and I can't post cause i know nothin about Russian history.

Stephen Hummell

07-31-2002, 02:03

Damn russian history. You'd think by the way you guys are acting you've had too much vodka and someone has said somthing about your mother. SHUT UP!!

Dom

07-31-2002, 02:24

Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
And I find the fact that you even mention that whole 5-page reports a week nonesense amusing. Dom, I have nothing against you, but please be mature about the matter.

[/QUOTE]

Funny... I was amused when you mentioned it the first time. This time I'm not.

Regards, Ryurik

Siena

07-31-2002, 02:26

Stephen Hummell,
I think you just saying it because you don't know anything about it.
You would probably gladly discuss your country's history...

I hope you know something about it?

Dom

07-31-2002, 02:44

Quote Originally posted by Siena:
lol

I got to feel that it is my mission to use this game as a pretext to teach people as much about Medieval Lithuanian history as I can... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[/QUOTE]

this is a noble thing to do, but you are taking the wrong approach. Teaching people ain't easy. Best thing to do is to make a game about Lithuania. Damn good game!

Like Oleg Maddox made IL2 Sturmovik. Now tons of Brits and Yankees come out of it enlightened and prolly not so arrogant as they were before they played the game.

An add on is going to be on the Winter War, so they start to take in as much info about Finland as possible, Finnish government should be proud. 10.000 more americans will be able to point out the country on the map now.

Using a game in which Lithuania is not even featured... well not the right thing to do.

And you are mistaken that people know stuff about Eastern Europe or any history at all, once you look at the statements they make. Ignorance is rife, all I can do is to amuse myself and correct wrong statements where I can until people get tired of arguing (they very rarely say they are wrong, alhough some do).

Finally I am going to post some maps of Russia, clear ones, in English.

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/geography/russia878.jpg

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/geography/russia972.jpg

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/geography/russia1054.jpg

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/geography/russia1237.jpg

This one is for you, Siena

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/geography/lithuania.jpg

Here are territories, widely accepted all over the world that are considered to have been under russian control in no difference from how Rome or byzantium have controlled theirs.

Regards, Ryurik

[This message has been edited by Dom (edited 07-30-2002).]

Siena

07-31-2002, 02:58

Dom,

I love you man...
No, really, I love you man...

seriously though - thanks for the map.

I guess it would be interesting to make a game about Lithuania's expansion, but it is difficult to make good game about one country.

See, the irony is that the high point of Lithuania's history would be exactly from 1200 to about 1447.
So making a game about Lithuania would be repeating Medieval Total War and including Lithuania in it.

And CA does not include Lithuania in MTW.

Their loss...

Emp. Conralius

07-31-2002, 03:01

Quote Originally posted by Siena:
Dom,

I love you man...
No, really, I love you man...

seriously though - thanks for the map.

I guess it would be interesting to make a game about Lithuania's expansion, but it is difficult to make good game about one country.

See, the irony is that the high point of Lithuania's history would be exactly from 1200 to about 1447.
So making a game about Lithuania would be repeating Medieval Total War and including Lithuania in it.

And CA does not include Lithuania in MTW.

Their loss...[/QUOTE]

Maybe in the expansion...

Emp. Conralius

07-31-2002, 03:07

I wasn't saying the discussion about ancient Russia wasn't valid, I was just saying that it's becoming out of hand. At one point, we were talking about the USSR. And then, some people (I won't meton any names), started to compare national schooling systems. That's all.

What happened to Steppe Cavalry?

Dom

07-31-2002, 03:10

Control of the territory is control of the territory with all the profits and trouble coming out of it. How the territory was controled is another matter.

ONE THING YOU CAN BE SURE OF IT WAS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! There wasn't a democracy, not even a concept of it!!!

Can you please come up with any proof of that too, cuz it only looks like a mere speculation.

Regards, Ryurik

[This message has been edited by Dom (edited 07-30-2002).]

Dom

07-31-2002, 03:15

sry, messed up, no text

Regards, Ryurik

[This message has been edited by Dom (edited 07-30-2002).]

Galestrum

07-31-2002, 03:41

Dom,

why on earth you feel the need to attempt to insult the US (which has had nothing to do with this discussion) is beyond me?

10.000 more americans will be able to point out the country on the map now.

Ignorance is rife

it sure is.......

MJDore

07-31-2002, 04:11

U have to admit that it was pretty funny though http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif lol

czaralex

07-31-2002, 04:35

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
Dom,

why on earth you feel the need to attempt to insult the US (which has had nothing to do with this discussion) is beyond me?

10.000 more americans will be able to point out the country on the map now.

Ignorance is rife

it sure is.......

[/QUOTE]

First of all I want to say that I now live in the US, then I want to say that Dom is completely true. Most people I know in America are sure to death that US fought USSR in WWII. And I have even heard from one girl that it was the HAWAINS who attacked Pearl Harbor.

czaralex

07-31-2002, 04:48

Quote Originally posted by Prodigy:
Or maybe you are not ranting and raving about HRE because they were never "realy" united nor Holy or Great. While Kievskaya Rus under Vladimir the Saint (980-1015) was the most united and centralised one country can be (note not the most, but one of the).
When he came to power of united principalities, he requested Bysantine Church to recognize Kievskaya Rus as Orthodox counry (pagan was geting very unpopular, confusing and unprofitable). They refused, and Vladimir decided to besiege and give some fright to Constantinople, not conquer it. Conquest would lead to total denial of Orthodox religion (and some other problems). This resulted in Rus becoming Orthodox in 989.

Any one who says that Rus was not organised and unified at that time, knows less then he claims, and should reconsider what he studied. Valdimir conquered all local tribes, clans, and principalities, except Pechenegs (who late became part conquered part vassal after launching unseccesfull invasion, including Azov). To show the prosperity of Kiev the population rose (from 300,000 to 1,200,000 in ten years) and so did income.

Some one who claimed that Vikings settled Moscow is wrong. It was found by family of Dolgorukiy, Pecheneg origin. True, Kiev was settled by Viking called Kiiy, but it came to be city only when Goth (Ostrogoth) settled there (and many others).

About Dnieper River, I lived in Kiev (Left Bank) for 12 years and it never froze, partly becuase of the wild steams. But I guess climate was very much different at those times.

[/QUOTE]

Actually Moscow was settled by Vikings in 1147, but by the time it was fortifed in 1156 it was in the control of Yuri Dolgorukiy. And I still want to believe in the fairy tale of Kiy, Chech, Hariv, Lebedi settling Kiev. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

vyanvotts

07-31-2002, 04:49

LOL, HAWAINS attacking pearl harbour, thats hilarious, so she must think the U.S.A was at war with HAWAII hehe

Galestrum

07-31-2002, 04:56

wow you found ONE girl in a country of 280,000 million people that said that

with such an overwhelming fact as that backing you up i guess i have nothing more to add

i wonder, if I used such "facts" as that about other countries, would it be quite so funny

i am certain if i made the same observation, about say Russia, this forum would rail against me the likes which have never been seen

czaralex

07-31-2002, 04:56

Quote Originally posted by Dom:
oh yeah, 5-page report makes you an expert. In russian schools they make kids at 15yoa write 5-page reports 2 times a week, I would imagine Alex being as amused as i am...

If a 5-page report made you an expert then you would know why Ivan IV had to RE-UNITE Russia and how he did it. Small matter of Mongol Whorde comes to one's mind.

Regards, Ryurik[/QUOTE]

Dom, you forgot to mention that it was five pages in 45 minutes! I still have horrors when I remember what they made us do. Thats why I love American Schools, has there been an invention better than multiple choice questions? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Galestrum

07-31-2002, 05:02

it also makes me question why you left the obviously, vastly superior russia for the US

perhaps you went there to lead them out of the dark ages? or to hold their hands, pat their heads and tell them everything will be ok?

it saddens me that the very same people claiming aggrieved status then go on to insult another unconnected country

in russian, english, or any language that is known as hypocricy

czaralex

07-31-2002, 05:08

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
wow you found ONE girl in a country of 280,000 million people that said that

with such an overwhelming fact as that backing you up i guess i have nothing more to add

i wonder, if I used such "facts" as that about other countries, would it be quite so funny

i am certain if i made the same observation, about say Russia, this forum would rail against me the likes which have never been seen[/QUOTE]

Galestrum, I am not making fun saying that America is bad, far from it I believe it is the greatest country in the world right now. But you have to admit, the knowledge of Histroy is not existent in 85% of Americans.
At least it is like that in Des Moines, IA, maybe in other states or cities it is different, but I doubt it, looking at the Jay Leno show. How many Americans don't know the capitol of the US for God's sake? Most know it is Washington, but than ask them what does DC stand for, and they will tell you "I am not good under pressure!".
PS: You are right about that every country has idiots, but it is upseting that the most industrialized and civilized nation in the world has so many of them. I mean, if lets say a 40 year old man in Samalia doesn't know the capitol of Switzerland, thats ok. He won't learn it on the bark of the tree he just climbed, but when a middle class girl in the twelfth grade in a Public School (who by the way has a 3.0 GPA) told me when I told her I was originally from Kiev, that I have done good to eliminate my Switzarian accent, you got to admit that this is sad.

czaralex

07-31-2002, 05:21

As for the power of Kieven Russia in the Dark Ages and Midevil Times, this can be arged. Russians will say that we were the top dogs of the time, and others will bring us down. Example: I see that the 907AD "trip" by Oleg to Canstantinople was done by Russians, and won Russia the recognation of its "statehood" by the most powerful nation in the world at that time, as well as trading privaleges. Others see this as a lost war of the Varangian prince Oleg, where a city state confidaration of Russians was brought under the control of Byzantium. I will never agree with the latter (unless Knize Oleg comes to me and says, "Yep, Alex, the Byzantines whipped us up bad", and the "others" wont agree with the former.
PS: I do agree with EmpCornelius (sorry if I misspelled) that this time period was not a high point in Russian History. But this is not because Russia was weak, but because Russian had so many HIGH points that even the 862-1237 period, which might be the Golden Age for other cultures, is looked down as a low point in Russia's storied History.

Emp. Conralius

07-31-2002, 05:25

Quote Originally posted by czaralex:
Galestrum, I am not making fun saying that America is bad, far from it I believe it is the greatest country in the world right now. But you have to admit, the knowledge of Histroy is not existent in 85% of Americans.
At least it is like that in Des Moines, IA, maybe in other states or cities it is different, but I doubt it, looking at the Jay Leno show. How many Americans don't know the capitol of the US for God's sake? Most know it is Washington, but than ask them what does DC stand for, and they will tell you "I am not good under pressure!".
PS: You are right about that every country has idiots, but it is upseting that the most industrialized and civilized nation in the world has so many of them. I mean, if lets say a 40 year old man in Samalia doesn't know the capitol of Switzerland, thats ok. He won't learn it on the bark of the tree he just climbed, but when a middle class girl in the twelfth grade in a Public School (who by the way has a 3.0 GPA) told me when I told her I was originally from Kiev, that I have done good to eliminate my Switzarian accent, you got to admit that this is sad.[/QUOTE]
**drunk and ranting*
so you're saying Americans are stupid, huh? *hickup* Well you won't be talkin' much longer comrad! *hickup*

Kraxis

07-31-2002, 05:28

District of Columbia....

Aha!!! The secret connection between the US and the cocain cartels!

Galestrum

07-31-2002, 05:29

if the americans are SO dumb, uneducated so on and so on, i find it hard that you can in your words say they are the most industrialized and civilized nation.

being a nation of retards like you and your fellow russian friends are portraying them as is simply unfair and contrary to them being civilized and industrialized-your words

additionally and i mean not a word of what i am saying here, but i could make a nice little story up about modern russia, that it is full of corrupt people, ran by the mob, and is in a horrible economic situation, so on and on and on and then say something retarded & unfounded like "all russians are idiots" or something similarly untrue and generalized and simplified

now tell me, how would you respond to something like that? how would that make YOU feel?

OR how about i bring many of the european comedy shows on the air waves and based on a comedy skit, make a damning and degrading comment(s) about them and their nation?

But that would be ridiculous and unfounded, yet it is OK for you to do that very thing? i am sorry i just really fail to see the even handed moral judegment that goes along with this line of reasoning

furthermore, i have been to america and know a little bit about american history and culture myself. the history of america and their culture is very different than that of europe

europeans always think of themselves, at least loosely as a group unto themselves, they have much history with eachother, and interaction thus they have that mindset

The US has throughout it's history generally stood apart from the world, they are more inidvidual thinking than many cultures

additionally it is hardly comparable to compare countries like the US with certain other countries, for instance, with the exception of Russia, the US is prby larger in landmass than all of europe

the state of texas would be a very large european country

furthermore you know alot about russian history and that of areas in that area and maybe more. but how much did you know about US histroy before you went there?

people here say i cant beleive US doesnt know such and such country, or battle from 1200, or this king therefore they, the US in this case is ignorant.

i wonder, if someone from the US asked you what was the significance of Bulls run, saratoga, the whiskey rebellion, the james madison presidency, point out the state delaware and so on

how many russians would be right on? or any other country for that matter? hmmmmmmm

i have been lucky enough in my life to meet many people of differing cultures and nations, and i have noticed one truth, and that is they all have their faults and they share for all intents and purposes the same faults

and that is because they are all human

czaralex

07-31-2002, 05:46

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
it also makes me question why you left the obviously, vastly superior russia for the US

perhaps you went there to lead them out of the dark ages? or to hold their hands, pat their heads and tell them everything will be ok?

it saddens me that the very same people claiming aggrieved status then go on to insult another unconnected country

in russian, english, or any language that is known as hypocricy[/QUOTE]

First of all I left Ukraine, because it was that just Ukraine, and not the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic or even the Malorusiy province of the Russian Empire. And because my father got in to a lot of problems with the Russian Mafia.
Secondly, I admit that US is better than Russia at the moment. And it is better because of liberalism coming to Russia. (I am not a communist, so I don't want people to start trashing me about a realy fu#$%^ up economic system that I don't believe in, I am a supporter of totalitarism, countries like Russia need the "Iron Hand", it doesn't metter if the man suppliying it is called Grand Knize, Czar, Emperor, General Secratery, or even the President) But Galestrum, if you look closely at our situation in US today, you will see the same sparks of Liberalism that were seen in USSR in 1985, there they were called Glasnosti, here it is called ACLU. So I am very afraid that my second home is/will turn into the same situation that my first home turned into. And this is a problem that US has faced before, FDR's "Republic of Soup Kitchens", Johnson's "Great Society http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif ", and Clinton's " Everybody equal crap". In the past Americans were educated and cared about their country. For every idiot FDR, Johnson, and Carter, were Eisenhower, Nixon, and (my favorite) Ronald Reagen. Unfortunetely todays generation doesn't give a f@#$, and you know it! You obvioulsy know history, look at what happened to every great nation that had gone Liberalisticly crazy: Ancient Rome, the absolute power of the Emperors was wrong, the Liberal power of the Senate was right, result 476AD. (While the Eastern Roman empire held its absolutism, and survived another almost 1000 years.) France of the Borbons, need I tell anyone about what happened after the Tennis Court Oath. France of Napoleon III, need I tell anyone about the French Comune. And of coarse the greatest murders done by Liberalism,Russian Empire and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
I am afraid because people in the US who don't care to know the name of their capitol, won't care if thier coutry is slowly destroying itself, until it is way to late.

Galestrum

07-31-2002, 05:47

also czar i posted the name of the books and the pages i got that information from, you can read for yourself, maybe even learn something, or at the very least enjoy some good reading as you appear to like to learn/read/and have fun with history

in my posts regarding the issue, i did not imply kiev and the rus were part of the empire, but they were in effect what historians called a client-state. the byzantines during that time were the more dominant of the two in that relationship, that is not up for debate, i am sorry

it would be the equivalent of me saying poland, or georgia had as much influence as russia in the USSR days....it is just not true no matter how much you want to argue about it.

i never said anything like russia was trampled and bowed down before the great byzantines, etc. The Rus got some very important things from the byzantines, and the byzantines benefitted as well from a fairly secure northern border and ally

the battles which i quoted arent made up just for laughs, they did happen and those were the results and circumstances surrounding them. now if you want to put more stock on the primary chroncile of a dark age people over that of all the established nations of the med and middle east, that is your perogative

Galestrum

07-31-2002, 05:51

i am sorry to hear of your family's plight, and almost eerie that mentioned the russian mob in a prior reply =/

Dom

07-31-2002, 05:54

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
Dom,

why on earth you feel the need to attempt to insult the US (which has had nothing to do with this discussion) is beyond me?

10.000 more americans will be able to point out the country on the map now.

Ignorance is rife

it sure is.......

[/QUOTE]

Err, it was a part of different discussion between me and Siena, and it does fit into context.

And if it insults you... well be insulted

Galestrum

07-31-2002, 05:58

no it just goes to show your misplaced arrogance in yourself, and the proof that ignorance is rife within you

Stephen Hummell

07-31-2002, 06:09

Just because I don't know about medieval russian history doesn't mean I'm dumb. I know alot about western medieval history, particulary english history. And I'm 13.

Dom

07-31-2002, 06:10

LoL, dude watch the TV news and your TV programs and hear what they say about american ppl. If they are not saying that americans are getting fatter, dumber and lazier, then I stand corrected.

On the other hand this is exactly the sort of people that are needed at the moment. and, unlike Alex, I do not believe it will lead to downfall of USofA. The elite of the society is not covered in the understanding of "ppl". It will only make it stronger and in the meantime, will give me something to smile about.

BTW this is way off topic, next time plz do not back up your arguement saying I did 5-page report on Ancient Russia so I'd know. I have written 5-page timed essays and lots of them and i am still not quite sure.

If you are on some sort of crusade to discredit russian history (based on your 5 page report) then do not whine when it hits close to home.

Regards, Ryurik

[This message has been edited by Dom (edited 07-31-2002).]

vyanvotts

07-31-2002, 06:12

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
no it just goes to show your misplaced arrogance in yourself, and the proof that ignorance is rife within you[/QUOTE]

arn't you just taking this a little to seriously now? your just going way over the top, maybe you should calm down a little? :s

czaralex

07-31-2002, 06:13

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
if the americans are SO dumb, uneducated so on and so on, i find it hard that you can in your words say they are the most industrialized and civilized nation.

being a nation of retards like you and your fellow russian friends are portraying them as is simply unfair and contrary to them being civilized and industrialized-your words

additionally and i mean not a word of what i am saying here, but i could make a nice little story up about modern russia, that it is full of corrupt people, ran by the mob, and is in a horrible economic situation, so on and on and on and then say something retarded & unfounded like "all russians are idiots" or something similarly untrue and generalized and simplified

now tell me, how would you respond to something like that? how would that make YOU feel?

OR how about i bring many of the european comedy shows on the air waves and based on a comedy skit, make a damning and degrading comment(s) about them and their nation?

But that would be ridiculous and unfounded, yet it is OK for you to do that very thing? i am sorry i just really fail to see the even handed moral judegment that goes along with this line of reasoning

furthermore, i have been to america and know a little bit about american history and culture myself. the history of america and their culture is very different than that of europe

europeans always think of themselves, at least loosely as a group unto themselves, they have much history with eachother, and interaction thus they have that mindset

The US has throughout it's history generally stood apart from the world, they are more inidvidual thinking than many cultures

additionally it is hardly comparable to compare countries like the US with certain other countries, for instance, with the exception of Russia, the US is prby larger in landmass than all of europe

the state of texas would be a very large european country

furthermore you know alot about russian history and that of areas in that area and maybe more. but how much did you know about US histroy before you went there?

people here say i cant beleive US doesnt know such and such country, or battle from 1200, or this king therefore they, the US in this case is ignorant.

i wonder, if someone from the US asked you what was the significance of Bulls run, saratoga, the whiskey rebellion, the james madison presidency, point out the state delaware and so on

how many russians would be right on? or any other country for that matter? hmmmmmmm

i have been lucky enough in my life to meet many people of differing cultures and nations, and i have noticed one truth, and that is they all have their faults and they share for all intents and purposes the same faults

and that is because they are all human[/QUOTE]

What you say is true, but also false, let me try to explain. What you think of Americans is based on the achievements of US, and these are great achievenments. But somehow( and I don't know how) these achievenmtnes are not reflective of the masses. I have gone to US schools for a long time now, and I went to Russian school for a time. And let me tell you my opnion of how they compare. ( I think I have the right to compare since I have experienced both) In US, and I go to "Central Academy" where the best students from all around Des Moines are sent by their scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Scills( I include that not to show off, but to show that I am not talking about people that are the worst of the worst, but the best of the best) There are maybe 10 people in this select group who are very smart. In Russia in my school No. 272 in Kiev, (also very selective because the only reason I got in was because my Grandfather was assistant Minister of Trasnportation in Ukraininan CCR.) there was also about five very smart people. So you are right to say that every nation has smart and dumb people. US has more very smart people than most other nations, but the problem starts when you get to the main body of the school. The problem is that very few Americans, very few know the answers to these questions" In my AP (Advanced Placement) US History Class we had people not sure which side of the Civil War was fighting for the freedom of slaves, and this is a AP class, the best of the best. While in Russia, before I left anyway( I don't know the effect of the dismemberment of USSR, and the resulting economic spiral has caused on the educational inforsturcture)there were not as many very smart people, but we din't have a single person who didn't know which side was for what int the Civil War of 1917-1921 or even 1598-1613.
I fully meant what I said about US being the best and the most industrialized and civilized nation in the world" but unfortunetely that doesn't reflect the people I have met in US. They are very good people and they are my friends, but they are not to Historically bright, hell my best friend couldn't find Russia on the map, because it was a pre-1991 map.
PS: Nobody has the right to portray US as a dumb nation especilly some one who immegrated to the it, like me! I don't think thats what I am doing. But I think that it is fair to say that the Russian Educatinal system is much better than American. I don't know anything about the European educational system, so I don't say anything about it. But when I start talking to fellow foreigners, I don't have to explain everytime that I am from Kiev, which is now in the Ukraine, and that Ukraine was one of the republics of the Soviet Union, which was a nation that fought with the US in the Cold War. The Cold War was.... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Stephen Hummell

07-31-2002, 06:14

Sorry czar, i should read your whole post before i reply.

[This message has been edited by Stephen Hummell (edited 07-31-2002).]

Dom

07-31-2002, 06:16

Quote Originally posted by Stephen Hummell:
Just because I don't know about medieval russian history doesn't mean I'm dumb. I know alot about western medieval history, particulary english history. And I'm 13. [/QUOTE]

Having nothing to say doesn't mean you have to say it. Unless you want to up your post count.

P.S. and well done on knowing a lot of Medieveal History at 13. Hope it will do you some good.

Regards, Ryruik

vyanvotts

07-31-2002, 06:19

Quote Originally posted by Dom:

P.S. and well done on knowing a lot of Medieveal History at 13. Hope it will do you some good.

Regards, Ryruik[/QUOTE]

wait...is this sarcastic or genuine?

czaralex

07-31-2002, 06:24

Quote Originally posted by Galestrum:
also czar i posted the name of the books and the pages i got that information from, you can read for yourself, maybe even learn something, or at the very least enjoy some good reading as you appear to like to learn/read/and have fun with history

in my posts regarding the issue, i did not imply kiev and the rus were part of the empire, but they were in effect what historians called a client-state. the byzantines during that time were the more dominant of the two in that relationship, that is not up for debate, i am sorry

it would be the equivalent of me saying poland, or georgia had as much influence as russia in the USSR days....it is just not true no matter how much you want to argue about it.

i never said anything like russia was trampled and bowed down before the great byzantines, etc. The Rus got some very important things from the byzantines, and the byzantines benefitted as well from a fairly secure northern border and ally

the battles which i quoted arent made up just for laughs, they did happen and those were the results and circumstances surrounding them. now if you want to put more stock on the primary chroncile of a dark age people over that of all the established nations of the med and middle east, that is your perogative[/QUOTE]

No doubt about the fact that Byzantium was the "big brother" of the relationship until 1448 when the title ofMetropoliton of Russian Orthodox Church was given to a Russian.
I don't know where I implied that you made up any information let alone a battle, I obviously see that you know your history. If I did, I appologize.
Now I understand that the Primary Chronicle can be doubted, but I think that Sylvestr wouldn't lie, I mean have you ever seen a Prior lie http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif !!!

czaralex

07-31-2002, 06:41

The thing you have to understand about Russians, ( I don't like to put words in side of other peoples mouthes, so I don't speak for Dom, but for just me) I went through pioners, and started comsomol, I have a family line that have been fighting for Russia for Centuries, thus I have to fight whereever I hear my motherland lowered from its rightful high place. Now I understand that you will laugh at me, because I see that my figting on the comp at the org, is not exectly the same as my Grandfather runing for "For Stalin, For Motherland, Forward" during the battle of Stalingrad, when he was 18 years old. But my parents took away my chance of being in the Russian army, but I thank them for this, becaue fighting for the drug profits of Kremlin Warlords is not what I call my patriotic duty.
So I defend Russia so very strongly, because like someone ( I think Siena) said all we have is the greatness of our history to talk about. But that same history gives encouragment, Russia survived the Mongols, the Poles, the Sweedes, the French, and The Fritzes(Sorry to the German members of this community, its that pioners thing again http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif ) and it will survive the Mob, coming back stronger than ever.