Talk:Varangians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fringe Finno-Ugric theory

I have reverted the addition of a long section about a fringe Finno-Ugric theory since it lacks all scientific value since it is based on a claim made by a Finnish writer that central Sweden was inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes, even as late as the 9th century AD, when all archaeological evidence, and all documentation, both local and foreign (ranging from runestones to the writings of Roman explorers), clearly shows that Southern and Central Sweden, up to far north of the Roslagen/Uppland area near Stockholm, has been inhabited by Scandinavians, i e Germanic people, since prehistoric times. The Sami people, the only Finno-Ugric people that has inhabited parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula, have never lived even anywhere near the Uppland area, but much further to the north. So a claim based on a theory that has as little scientific value as claiming that Elvis Presley is still alive doesn't belong in the article. Thomas.W (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A response to you given below - RasboKaren (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Banning Finnish language speeded up Swedification of Sweden Proper

User Thomas.W - please do not remove appropriately sourced and important information, based on guesses of ethnical backgrounds of other Wikipedia contributors.

There could not be Medieval "Swedish" sources of the Finnic- and Finno-Ugric-inhabited Kvenland - of course -, since the First ever account written in Swedish came out as late as the 14th century, Eric's Chronicle (presumably written in Turku, Finland).

As a name for a country, Kvenland seems to have gone out of ordinary usage already by the 13th century, unrecognized by scholars by the 14th century. Accordingly, the terms "Kvenland" and "Kven" are not found in Swedish literature.

However, for instance in c. 1157, in his geographical chronicle 'Leiðarvísir og borgarskipan', the Icelandic abbot Níkulás Bergsson described the lands near Norway the following way:

"Closest to Denmark is little Sweden (Svíþjóð), there is Öland (Eyland); then is Gotland; then Hälsingland (Helsingaland); then Värmland (Vermaland); then two Kvenlands (Kvenlönd), and they extend to north of Bjarmia (Bjarmalandi)."

There is other similar written evidence and much archaeological and DNA evidence for the support. My job, however, is not to write a doctoral thesis to you about this. Instead, I have appropriately provided distinguished archaeologists and historians and their works as sources.

A DNA study conducted on the prehistoric skeletal remains of four individuals from Gotland (in Southern Sweden) supports the area having been ethnically interconnected with Finland and Kvenland during the primeval era:

"The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden.

It is widely accepted knowledge that still as late as in the end of the Middle Ages, Skellefteå - formerly Finnish "Heletti" - formed the border of the Finnish- and Swedish-speaking zones in what today is Northern Sweden, and that thereafter too the Finnic language zone has continued shifting much further north.

Simultaneously, Finnish place names have typically been replaced by Swedish names. Of Finnish "Heletti" became Swedish Skellefteå, of Finnish "Kainuunväylä" became Swedish Kalix River, and so on. This development had began centuries before from much further south in the modern-day area of Sweden.

It is also a commonly known fact, that the gradual evanescence of the Finnic language spoken in the area of the modern-day Norrland, Sweden, and the continued shifting further north of the Finnic language zone took place for the most part due to the restrictions and bans imposed against the use of the Finnic language spoken in the modern-day area of Sweden in the past.

In attempts to have the Finnish population of Sweden Proper "Swedified" and assimilated into the mainstream Swedish society, the use of the Finnish language had become strictly prohibited in Sweden Proper before the mid-17th-century.

By the end of the 18th century, a large part of the descendants of all Finnic people historically inhabiting the territories of the modern-day Sweden had become linguistically and culturally assimilated into the Swedish mainstream society. During the previous two centuries, various laws and regulations had been passed to speed up the "Swedification" process of the Finnic people of Sweden Proper, including total banning of the use of the Finnish language.

During the reign of Christina, Queen of Sweden, a proclamation of 1646 called for the burning of houses of all those Finns who did not want to learn Swedish in the area of Sweden Proper. Reading books written in Finnish lead in some cases to imprisonments still in the 18th century.

For clarification, this part could be discussed to a little larger extend in the article itself too, if necessary. The rest of my answer to user "Thomas.W" below: - RasboKaren (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This hodge-podge of oddball claims is as WP:Fringe as it can be and doesn't even merit an answer. What's next on your agenda? Claiming that the Greeks of antiquity were also Finns? Thomas.W (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In the originally 6th or 7th century Widsith - copied in the 10th century Exeter Book - the Samis are called "Scridefinns" (Skiing Finns) and the Kvens and/or Finns are referred to as "Finns": "Caesar ruled the Greeks, Caelic the Finns ... I was with the Greeks and Finns and also with Caesar". RasboKaren (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Just one comment: Gotland is an island in the middle of the Baltic Sea, halfway between the Scandinavian Peninsula and the Baltic countries, so claiming that the 9th century AD population of Roslagen/Uppland north of Stockholm were Finns based on someone claiming that a few prehistoric skeletal remains found on an island far away from not only the Roslagen/Uppland area but the Scandinavian Peninsula as a whole could possibly have been of Finno-Ugric origin is plain silly. And proves that the whole theory is extremely fringe. Thomas.W (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Findings of distinguished Swedish and Finnish scientists were provided to prove your point incorrect. E.g., the prehistoric remains of the people in Gotland were shown to match closest with those of the modern-day Finns. Gotland has been a part of the country of Sweden since the birth of Sweden, and it is a part of Scandinavia as well. In the Viking Age, Sweden did not yet exist.

Currently, the land inhabited by the Svea people ("Swealand") during the 9th century is shown too far up north (without sources too). Accordingly, the map needs to be removed. It is not known how large part of the modern-day area of Sweden was still Kvenland at the time of Rurik's birth. However, closely coinciding with the information provided in Orkneyinga, Hversu Noregr byggdist states that a descendant of Fornjót "ruled over Gothland, Kvenland (Kænlandi), and Finland".

Results published in April, 2012, of a DNA study conducted on the prehistoric skeletal remains of four individuals from Gotland support the area having been ethnically interconnected with Finland and Kvenland during the primeval era, further pointing to the overall information provided in the Orkneyinga and "Hversu" accounts being accurate: "The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden.

A work of Professor Emeritus Matti Klinge is also given as a source for Kvenland having bordered the Coast of Roslagen at the time of Rurik's birth. The Forest Finns are not discussed in the article, although the source about the banning of the Finnish language came from a book which focuses on the Forest Finns. The use of the Finnish language did not become banned from the Forest Finns alone, but all the Finnish-speaking people alike in the area of Sweden Proper, including Kvens, Tornedalians, Birkarls, etc. RasboKaren (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Theory of Dmitry Ilovaysky is a fringe theory. Theory of Vasily Tatishchev is not.

Why should views of a poorly known Russian historian Dmitry Ilovaysky be introduced - e.g. in the Rus' people article -, but not the views of the better known Vasily Tatishchev (just compare the multiple Google search results for Tatishchev over Ilovaysky)?

In his writings, Dmitry Ilovaysky expounded a hypothesis of Azov Rus, which was alleged to have been centered on Sarkel and Tmutarakan. The hypothesis of Ilovaysky has not been shared by other historians. Therefore, this can be called a fringe theory. However, the "Finnish theory" represented by Vasily Tatishchev has been shared by a number of well known historians since the 1700s, including historians who are Rurikid descendants themselves. An unbiased presentation of this view needs to be included. The recently conducted Rurikid DNA studies support the views of these historians, concluding the following:

... "the N1c1 Rurikid princes belong to the so-called “Varangian Branch” in" ... "the so-called “Finno-Ugrian”" "genetic haplogroup N1c1".

Based on the "Family Tree" DNA study, the members of the "Varangian Branch" represented by the "Rurikid princes") are “Finno-Ugrian”. They belong to the "Finno-Ugrian" haplogroup.

The prehistoric remains of the people in Gotland were brought up just because they too were shown to match closest with the modern-day Finns. Gotland has been a part of the country of Sweden since the birth of Sweden, and it is a part of Scandinavia as well. In the Viking Age, Sweden did not yet exist.

According to the closely coinciding information provided in both the medieval Orkneyinga and the 'Hversu Noregr byggdist' accounts, a descendant of Fornjót "ruled over Gothland, Kvenland (Kænlandi), and Finland". Results published in April, 2012, of a DNA study conducted on the prehistoric skeletal remains of four individuals from Gotland support the area having been ethnically interconnected with Finland and Kvenland during the primeval era, further pointing to the overall information provided in the Orkneyinga and "Hversu" accounts being accurate:

"The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden.

A work of Professor Emeritus Matti Klinge is also appropriately given as a source for Kvenland having bordered the Coast of Roslagen at the time of Rurik's birth. Here are a couple of faulty elements in the article, which need fixing:

1. The "imitation" of the 1905 map picturing Europe in 814 needs to be removed, because It has critical inaccuracies, as described before

2. The current Rus' people article continues misusing two Family Tree Rurikid DNA study pages as sources. The pages do not state that Rurik was from "Roslagen" or "Uppland". Tthey cannot be used as sources for the claim.

3. In the current Varangians and the Rus' people articles, the land inhabited by the Svea people ("Svealand") during the 9th century is shown to reach too far up north, and no sources for the claim are shown.

4. The Rurikid dynasty article continues providing a claim supported only by a broken link: "...[North] Germanic speakers (Varangians)." (the last time I removed the broken link was on November, 21, 2012, as can be seen here). RasboKaren (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, to answer your first question: Because Tatishchev lived in the 18th century, in the stone age of the Russian history. Citing him in this context is about the same as writing in the article on the Solar System that Ptolemeus was right over Copernicus since every motion is relative, and the gravitational fields are so weak that general relativity (which still says Earth is rotating) is almost the same as special relativity.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Professor Emeritus Matti Klinge lives and operates now. User Ymblanter: You show no previous edit history in the Varangians, Rus' people and Rurikid dynasty articles, before the revert war waged by user Thomas.W (same as Alterman ?). Hopefully, you are not him - are you? - RasboKaren (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Good for him. Anybody else supporting this fringe theory?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Still the same load of fringe rubbish. Thomas.W (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Webster's "fringe" version

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)

Va*ran"gi*an (?), n. One of the Northmen who founded a dynasty in Russia in the 9th century; also, one of the Northmen composing, at a later date, the imperial bodyguard at Constantinople. Northmen does not mean "Vikings". Northmen might include Slavs, Anglo-Saxons, Frisians, Finns, ancestry of modern Lithuanians and Latvians, etc. etc. For example, the genetic analysis of Yaroslav the Wise does not support any Viking theory. But he really was the stepfather of the son of his Swedish wife and her Norwegian lover according to Norse sagas. When the descendant of his stepson had become a king in Kiev, the legend about Rurik appeared. The daughter of Yaroslav, Anne of Kiev, the Queen of France, had never known any Rurik. She called herself Princess Rugorum (from Rugii, who were not Vikings). Olga of Kiev was called Queen Rugorum as well. See http://www.unavoce.ru/library/taube_premongol.html

Are you saying to us that the 1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary discusses the genetic analysis? Come on.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. See the genetic analysis in Rurik. Sigismund von Herberstein thought that it had been impossible for people of Ladoga to invite any vikings. He thought that they had invited vandals (Vends), i. е. Baltic Slavs. Von Bismark's grandmother was a Vend, for example. BTW, he had never heard a single word in German from her and had to study languages thus, especially Russian.

Right. May be you should finally study what sources are reliable, what is original research, and stop evading your ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The opinion of University of Oslo is a reliable source. Webster's dictionary is a more reliable source, than Britannica Online. Vikings as the only Varangians is the original research (for example, Karamzin explained his original research about Rurikids as Vikings by his heart desire that the Russian ruling dynasty had had nothing common with Khazars. But emperor Nicholas the First had nothing common with the Karamzin's original research heart. The official legal history of the Russian empire recognizing Rus Varangians of very mixed origin (not Vikings only) had the first ruling dynasty of a Khazar Varangian root. (Later Peter V. Golubovsky emphasised that Severians were the major constituent of Khazars. Severians were northmen as well.) Bertran Russel emphasised that Hitler, like Karamzin, was a sentimentalist. This is why Hitler supported the original research of Karamzin. Anne of Kiev considered even Frenchmen as savages. This is why Sigismund von Herberstein thought that savage Vikings could not be invited to rule in Russia. Varangians, Vikings and Ruses were professions initially. For example, there were no Vikings and Norse people among Mordovian Ruses. They were different professions. For example, there is a legend about Charle Magne observing the attack of northmen's ships on a harbour in South Gaul. According to the legend, the emperor told that these northmen had different ships with better capabilities than Khazar Varangians. He predicted great problems with these new people. This means that Vikings and Varangians are different. This is the proven truth supported by universities of Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Ukraine etc. BTW Viking leaders were not of Rugian origin. Rugii were the common layer of aristocracy in the Frankish empire, among Baltic Slavs, in the former Hun empire and in the Khazar state. It was natural for Slavs of the North-West of modern Russia to invite Varangians led by Rugii, for example, to oppose Vikings, because Slavic migration to the area was from the Baltic (Varangian) sea, and local Ruses were used to collaborate with Varangians... Please also read Alexashin's article emphasising von Herberstein's exact theory supported by the majority of German historians just about Vend's aristocracy of the Vandal origin and explaining Voldemar Monomah the First's origin from the love affair of Yaroslav's wife with the future Norwegian king. http://www.perpettum.narod.ru/scanchten01.htm Nobody before Vladimir Monomah had ever heard about Rurik. The Kiev branch of the unknown ruling dynasty (because of the lestvishny inheritance and Svyatoslav's Khazar haircut and his rights to rule Khazars, Bulgarians, Hungarians from Danube as the center of his lands after the death of the Atil branch of his dynasty it was either Ashina dynasty most probably or another Khazar khagan dynasty) , in opinion of Anne of Kiev etc, was founded by Igor the Old. Greeks mentioned him as Inger. The latter was a Khazar name. But Khazars per se were not good seamen. Greeks usually mentioned that Khazar Rugiis (Ruses) led Khazar Varangians. There were no Norse gods, habits, laws etc. in the ancient Rus. See, for example http://clarino2.narod.ru/reg5.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVanova (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your changes since you failed to achieve consensus here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And it is highly unlikely that he ever will get consensus for adding that hodge-podge of fringe theories to the article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The year 6730

«(...)a group of Varangians known as the Rus'[7] settled in Novgorod in 6370 (862) under the leadership of Rurik.» — The year 6730? Oktoberstorm (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It probably refers to the era used in the primary source Kievan Primary Chronicle and this then correlates to 862 in Common Era. I cannot access and check the reference myself, though. I agree it is confusing, and it probably will be best to just write 862 (a prior version of this article says 864) and preferably find a secondary source in English. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The commentary at page 30 of this version of the Chronicle [pg 40 of the pdf file] explains the number as a (sometimes incorrect) calculation based on the years from creation, thought by the author(s) to be 5508 BC, rendering 862 as 6370. Nevertheless the entry should simply say 862, particularly in the lead where the primary source number is confusing. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Varangians or Varyags (Old Norse: Væringjar; Greek: Βάραγγοι, Βαριάγοι, Varangoi, Variagoi) was the name given by Greeks and East Slavs to Vikings

I challenge you. I ask for a PRIME source, older than 1800, stating that Varangians or Varyags was the name given by Greeks and East Slavs to Vikings. Mixing up the therm viking and scnadinavian is an old englsih thing, which has no future. Anyone reading about the first documented viking, where the term viking is actually used, will become very confused, when they learn about Phillippus II of Macedonia, the first documented viking. He was for some time doing piray, and thets the meaning of the word viking. A varangian can not be a pirat at the same time when hes a varangian, and NO prime soure ever mix those terms up, why Wikipedia shouldnt invent this confusion. If you speak about scandinavians, please use that word. Theye were living in Scandinavia before 800 and 1066, and they are still living there. Actually, between 800 and 1066 they were also living in scandinavia. Unless you know that the scandinavian person were a viking and a pirat, please dont call this scandinavian person a viking. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Varag/Vorog

For all purposes I can't figure it our how all of you ignores the fact that Russian and some other related languages has in modern and ancient use word VARAG and VOROG which means ENEMY even in Slavic languages,like Polish which were religious enmies of Bysantium and haven't any contact with them 95.84.132.211 (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Because Max Vasmer didn't even speak fluent Russian. VARYAG and VOROG/VRAG are so different the whole idea is ludicrous. For example, TVOROG is much more similar to VOROG. Does this make cottage cheese an emeny? And then there is a complete lack of evidence, of course. But that's beside the point. The word Varang is commonly used throughout the world. For example, it seems highly unlikely Byzantine Βάραγγοι would be a loanword from Kievan Rus, Byzantines practically had no contact at the time. Especially, if the theory of Byzantium coming into contact with Varangians before Rus is to be trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.38.191.209 (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Varangians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150316192444/http://www.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=4869 to http://www.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=4869
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605024922/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/pappas1.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/pappas1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Varangians=Vikings

"was the name given by Greeks and East Slavs to Vikings"

This state is discussioned. There is not any clear evidens that varangians are Vikings. There also no clear evidens of Vikings in early Rus. In fact, some ancient greek authors split varangians and vikings.

"who between the 9th and 11th centuries ruled the medieval state of Kievan Rus'"

This is a polytical pseudosience myth from middle age, started by Olaf Rudbek.

The only state that is mentioned in russian chronicle is that Rurik (with his fellows Sineus|Sivar and Truvor) came "from variags" because there was no direct ruler among slavens, kriviches, chud and other northen tribes. There are also state: "these variags have called rus, as other are called sweias, urmanas, inglianas, gotlandas". Who was these variags-rus is not totally clear. As to chronicle they are NOT: sweias or urmanas or inglianas, or gotlandas. Baltic see is called Variangian see. There was many nations: Prussians, Estians, Livians, Baltic slavs (Rujans, Obodrits), Frisen, Dans.

Russia middle-age legend says that Rurik is from Prussia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.220.3 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)