Двач.hk не отвечает.
Вы видите копию треда, сохраненную 18 ноября в 00:12.
Скачать тред: только с превью, с превью и прикрепленными файлами.
Второй вариант может долго скачиваться. Файлы будут только в живых или недавно утонувших тредах. Подробнее
Если вам полезен архив М.Двача, пожертвуйте на оплату сервера.
Вы видите копию треда, сохраненную 18 ноября в 00:12.
Скачать тред: только с превью, с превью и прикрепленными файлами.
Второй вариант может долго скачиваться. Файлы будут только в живых или недавно утонувших тредах. Подробнее
Если вам полезен архив М.Двача, пожертвуйте на оплату сервера.
806 Кб, 800x500Who are good authors (books) for a non-Russian speaker to learn about Russian history?
I would like something going over through the entire Russian history, to get a general grasp, but if you've liked a book talking about a certain time period, post it anyways.
And please, no pozzed shit about how Galician villagers are the real Russians.
I would like something going over through the entire Russian history, to get a general grasp, but if you've liked a book talking about a certain time period, post it anyways.
And please, no pozzed shit about how Galician villagers are the real Russians.
5,5 Мб, mp4,1920x1080, 0:16
3 124155>>152 (OP)
what's the importance of this btw if russian historiography probably suffered and suffers redacted and censorship from imperial, soviet and fsb archive authorities? there is no need to learn fairy tales.
the same to ukrainian historiography with CIA glowies and USA universities support.
learn a trade, learn to code.
what's the importance of this btw if russian historiography probably suffered and suffers redacted and censorship from imperial, soviet and fsb archive authorities? there is no need to learn fairy tales.
the same to ukrainian historiography with CIA glowies and USA universities support.
learn a trade, learn to code.
4 124162>>155
Not really. I wouldn't say our historians are not biased and there is definitely the narrative being told, >>154 like how inevitable rise of Moscow was, but this can be said about anybody. The only outright fabrication we still pushing is Nevsky Battle from 13th century, that just didn't happen, but it's an old lie, from before the Empire. All history is construction of a narrative to explain and justify smt happening today. Life is wild and unpredictable, people will always look for some anchorage would it be science, religion, politics or our past. This being said, >>152 (OP) if you ever read anything about russian history remember: Alexander Nevsky was not a good guy.
Not really. I wouldn't say our historians are not biased and there is definitely the narrative being told, >>154 like how inevitable rise of Moscow was, but this can be said about anybody. The only outright fabrication we still pushing is Nevsky Battle from 13th century, that just didn't happen, but it's an old lie, from before the Empire. All history is construction of a narrative to explain and justify smt happening today. Life is wild and unpredictable, people will always look for some anchorage would it be science, religion, politics or our past. This being said, >>152 (OP) if you ever read anything about russian history remember: Alexander Nevsky was not a good guy.
5 124165 6 124166
7 124176>>154
Thanks.
>>155
I don't have a good answer, but I don't believe Russian FSB is concerned about censoring the history of 17th century.
I've seen people who talk about this, those same people say how Tatars had a great empire that all Russian intelligence services collectivelly decided to eradicate from history.
Proofs? A bunch of Americans looked up old pics and realised Central Asia was not just desert with one yurt and a horse, so they think it's some ancient UFO civilization. This was all fueled because mostly ignorant western Europeans labelled a gigantic part of Asia as a "Great Tartaria", they didn't bother to distinguish between the people and the messy borders, after all, it wasn't a concern to them.
You know, if this is the basis of arguments about censorship of Russian history, then you are off to a very bad start.
My opinion is, some things were added way earlier, not by 3-letter agencies.
>>162
Doesn't surprise me.
I've seen Russians write about this, and I don't dispute, since I've talked to some credible people that researched the Normanist theory, and called it complete horseshit. Russian academy is split into two, pro-Normanist, and anti-Normanist.
There is some discussion to be had if there was a ruling class of Nordics in eastern Europe at all, since there is not much proof of that, physically speaking. What there is, is relevant to trade and contact.
Rurikids seem to belong to i2a1 branch, which is Slavic (though people still dispute this obvious fact, as if the centre of origin being modern Ukraine-Belarus border is not telling enough).
If the entire origin is muddled by old manuscripts written for whatever reason, I don't think Nevsky battle being made up is far fetched, though there is some dispute about that claim, as always.
>>165
>>166
It is interesting that he says they came from Pannonia.
Thanks.
>>155
>what's the importance of this btw if russian historiography probably suffered and suffers redacted and censorship from imperial, soviet and fsb archive authorities?
I don't have a good answer, but I don't believe Russian FSB is concerned about censoring the history of 17th century.
I've seen people who talk about this, those same people say how Tatars had a great empire that all Russian intelligence services collectivelly decided to eradicate from history.
Proofs? A bunch of Americans looked up old pics and realised Central Asia was not just desert with one yurt and a horse, so they think it's some ancient UFO civilization. This was all fueled because mostly ignorant western Europeans labelled a gigantic part of Asia as a "Great Tartaria", they didn't bother to distinguish between the people and the messy borders, after all, it wasn't a concern to them.
You know, if this is the basis of arguments about censorship of Russian history, then you are off to a very bad start.
My opinion is, some things were added way earlier, not by 3-letter agencies.
>>162
>The only outright fabrication we still pushing is Nevsky Battle from 13th century, that just didn't happen, but it's an old lie, from before the Empire
Doesn't surprise me.
I've seen Russians write about this, and I don't dispute, since I've talked to some credible people that researched the Normanist theory, and called it complete horseshit. Russian academy is split into two, pro-Normanist, and anti-Normanist.
There is some discussion to be had if there was a ruling class of Nordics in eastern Europe at all, since there is not much proof of that, physically speaking. What there is, is relevant to trade and contact.
Rurikids seem to belong to i2a1 branch, which is Slavic (though people still dispute this obvious fact, as if the centre of origin being modern Ukraine-Belarus border is not telling enough).
If the entire origin is muddled by old manuscripts written for whatever reason, I don't think Nevsky battle being made up is far fetched, though there is some dispute about that claim, as always.
>>165
>>166
It is interesting that he says they came from Pannonia.
7 124176>>154
Thanks.
>>155
I don't have a good answer, but I don't believe Russian FSB is concerned about censoring the history of 17th century.
I've seen people who talk about this, those same people say how Tatars had a great empire that all Russian intelligence services collectivelly decided to eradicate from history.
Proofs? A bunch of Americans looked up old pics and realised Central Asia was not just desert with one yurt and a horse, so they think it's some ancient UFO civilization. This was all fueled because mostly ignorant western Europeans labelled a gigantic part of Asia as a "Great Tartaria", they didn't bother to distinguish between the people and the messy borders, after all, it wasn't a concern to them.
You know, if this is the basis of arguments about censorship of Russian history, then you are off to a very bad start.
My opinion is, some things were added way earlier, not by 3-letter agencies.
>>162
Doesn't surprise me.
I've seen Russians write about this, and I don't dispute, since I've talked to some credible people that researched the Normanist theory, and called it complete horseshit. Russian academy is split into two, pro-Normanist, and anti-Normanist.
There is some discussion to be had if there was a ruling class of Nordics in eastern Europe at all, since there is not much proof of that, physically speaking. What there is, is relevant to trade and contact.
Rurikids seem to belong to i2a1 branch, which is Slavic (though people still dispute this obvious fact, as if the centre of origin being modern Ukraine-Belarus border is not telling enough).
If the entire origin is muddled by old manuscripts written for whatever reason, I don't think Nevsky battle being made up is far fetched, though there is some dispute about that claim, as always.
>>165
>>166
It is interesting that he says they came from Pannonia.
Thanks.
>>155
>what's the importance of this btw if russian historiography probably suffered and suffers redacted and censorship from imperial, soviet and fsb archive authorities?
I don't have a good answer, but I don't believe Russian FSB is concerned about censoring the history of 17th century.
I've seen people who talk about this, those same people say how Tatars had a great empire that all Russian intelligence services collectivelly decided to eradicate from history.
Proofs? A bunch of Americans looked up old pics and realised Central Asia was not just desert with one yurt and a horse, so they think it's some ancient UFO civilization. This was all fueled because mostly ignorant western Europeans labelled a gigantic part of Asia as a "Great Tartaria", they didn't bother to distinguish between the people and the messy borders, after all, it wasn't a concern to them.
You know, if this is the basis of arguments about censorship of Russian history, then you are off to a very bad start.
My opinion is, some things were added way earlier, not by 3-letter agencies.
>>162
>The only outright fabrication we still pushing is Nevsky Battle from 13th century, that just didn't happen, but it's an old lie, from before the Empire
Doesn't surprise me.
I've seen Russians write about this, and I don't dispute, since I've talked to some credible people that researched the Normanist theory, and called it complete horseshit. Russian academy is split into two, pro-Normanist, and anti-Normanist.
There is some discussion to be had if there was a ruling class of Nordics in eastern Europe at all, since there is not much proof of that, physically speaking. What there is, is relevant to trade and contact.
Rurikids seem to belong to i2a1 branch, which is Slavic (though people still dispute this obvious fact, as if the centre of origin being modern Ukraine-Belarus border is not telling enough).
If the entire origin is muddled by old manuscripts written for whatever reason, I don't think Nevsky battle being made up is far fetched, though there is some dispute about that claim, as always.
>>165
>>166
It is interesting that he says they came from Pannonia.
8 124177>>176
Naturally, all the peoples came from somewhere.
>It is interesting that he says they came from Pannonia
Naturally, all the peoples came from somewhere.
>This is in the "Tale of Bygone Years"
9 124179>>176
No. Not anymore, anti-Normanist theory was disproven decedes ago. It was always on shaky grounds, it's only real argument being "russian aristocracy could never invite a foreigner" but the did. It was Lomonosov ploy back at Elisaveta Petrovna days to win some cloud on anti-german sentiment of the time.
There is actuall historical evidence disproving it. At 16 century second to last of Alexander's line Ivan the 4th was at war with Sweden and also genocided the Norther Land, so he needed a better version of history to justify why he was better than the nords.
>I've seen Russians write about this, and I don't dispute, since I've talked to some credible people that researched the Normanist theory, and called it complete horseshit. Russian academy is split into two, pro-Normanist, and anti-Normanist.
No. Not anymore, anti-Normanist theory was disproven decedes ago. It was always on shaky grounds, it's only real argument being "russian aristocracy could never invite a foreigner" but the did. It was Lomonosov ploy back at Elisaveta Petrovna days to win some cloud on anti-german sentiment of the time.
>I don't think Nevsky battle being made up is far fetched, though there is some dispute about that claim, as always.
There is actuall historical evidence disproving it. At 16 century second to last of Alexander's line Ivan the 4th was at war with Sweden and also genocided the Norther Land, so he needed a better version of history to justify why he was better than the nords.
10 124184>>176
I also added "imperial" before soviet/FSB.
More about retarded stuff that looks a legend or myth that they asked some random foreigner to rule over them like Putin said. There are chronicles written by monks that are also forgeries in West as well.
I also added "imperial" before soviet/FSB.
More about retarded stuff that looks a legend or myth that they asked some random foreigner to rule over them like Putin said. There are chronicles written by monks that are also forgeries in West as well.
11 124185>>184
Well, Rurick wasn't a random guy. He was one of the nordic merc that roamed southern Baltics before germs came and civilized it. Young, strong, capable, with a solid crew and without ties at Novgorod, so he wouldn't be biesed toward one clan or the other, which was the main concern at that time. Novgorod was too far to the North, so nomads didn't bother them, finns always were to themselves type of people, germs didn't yet came and balts were just a bunch of savages with a one metal axe on a thousandof them. The only threat Novgorod had is infighting, so they brought a foriergn forse to mitigate. Again position of knyaz was not that important at the time, veche kicked out of the plenty of Rurick seccessers, until Moscow grew too strong.
Well, Rurick wasn't a random guy. He was one of the nordic merc that roamed southern Baltics before germs came and civilized it. Young, strong, capable, with a solid crew and without ties at Novgorod, so he wouldn't be biesed toward one clan or the other, which was the main concern at that time. Novgorod was too far to the North, so nomads didn't bother them, finns always were to themselves type of people, germs didn't yet came and balts were just a bunch of savages with a one metal axe on a thousandof them. The only threat Novgorod had is infighting, so they brought a foriergn forse to mitigate. Again position of knyaz was not that important at the time, veche kicked out of the plenty of Rurick seccessers, until Moscow grew too strong.
12 124187>>179
>>185
That makes much more sense than my previous viewpoint, ty.
>>185
>Well, Rurick wasn't a random guy. He was one of the nordic merc that roamed southern Baltics before germs came and civilized it. Young, strong, capable, with a solid crew and without ties at Novgorod, so he wouldn't be biesed toward one clan or the other, which was the main concern at that time. Novgorod was too far to the North, so nomads didn't bother them, finns always were to themselves type of people, germs didn't yet came and balts were just a bunch of savages with a one metal axe on a thousandof them. The only threat Novgorod had is infighting, so they brought a foriergn forse to mitigate. Again position of knyaz was not that important at the time, veche kicked out of the plenty of Rurick seccessers, until Moscow grew too strong.
That makes much more sense than my previous viewpoint, ty.
Двач.hk не отвечает.
Вы видите копию треда, сохраненную 18 ноября в 00:12.
Скачать тред: только с превью, с превью и прикрепленными файлами.
Второй вариант может долго скачиваться. Файлы будут только в живых или недавно утонувших тредах. Подробнее
Если вам полезен архив М.Двача, пожертвуйте на оплату сервера.
Вы видите копию треда, сохраненную 18 ноября в 00:12.
Скачать тред: только с превью, с превью и прикрепленными файлами.
Второй вариант может долго скачиваться. Файлы будут только в живых или недавно утонувших тредах. Подробнее
Если вам полезен архив М.Двача, пожертвуйте на оплату сервера.