In the first part of the material (Kievan Rus. Fables), we began to consider the point of view (in my opinion convincing) of the historian D. Belousov, that the German (Russophobic) version of the story of the emergence of the Russian state in the 9th century, in the "capital" city of Kiev, not wealthy due to the absence of such a city at that time.
A shot from a good cartoon about Ukrainian Cossacks.
The kind, touching attitude of central Russia to innocence (in a good way), funny reprimand and beautiful customs of Little Russia, was used by the latter purely utilitarian (and, strictly speaking, not only by them alone), sometimes crossing all possible facets of decency. This is especially clearly seen in the Soviet party nomenclature, where immigrants from Ukraine, often climbed to the very top.
Partly due to this, the MYTH about Kiev and Kievan Rus was supported and cultivated at the state level. Contrary to the presence of numerous facts refuting it.
Epic epics lead a story …
Why was there no CITY of Kiev in the 9th century?
1) Epics. As everyone should know, folklore is a folk memory passed down orally. Here is a comparative analysis of epics by provinces in the 19th century: Moscow-3, Nizhny Novgorod-6, Saratov-10, Siberia-29, Arkhangelsk-34, Olonets-more than 300 (!), Kiev-0.
Promotional video:
What is even more interesting, folklorist scholars Galakhov A. D. and Miller V., argued that Ilya Muromets was the hero of Olonetsky, Arkhangelsky and Siberian folklore, and not Kyivan folklore (to create a legend about Kyivan Rus, he was later “assigned To Kiev).
Or, for example, the same Ilya asks in Chernigov: is it far from the capital city of Kiev? And he was answered: along a straight path 500 versts (533 km), and along a roundabout more than 1000 (1100 km) (for reference, the distance from Chernigov to Kiev on the Dnieper along a straight line is 127 km). And what kind of Kiev was it about in the epic? Maybe about the Danube Keva, which was part of the Danube Rus?
Russian hero.
2) Architecture. All cities in Russia at that time were built in the same way - defensive structures and a detinets (usually a stone Kremlin) for the prince and the squad were an obligatory attribute even in small towns. Ancient stone walls and the Kremlin were not found in Kiev! In the 17th century there was an oak wall and that's it. All the rest are falsified remakes.
3) Churches. In Kiev there are no remnants of ancient monasteries, princely choirs, churches of that period. All churches "9-10 centuries" shown to tourists, according to the documents - restored ruins of the 13-16 centuries. Sly priests, deliberately lengthen their history, adjusting to the official (German) version of history.
4) Treasures. No valuable treasures were found in the huge capital city, no coins of that period were found - AT ALL (this, by the way, is one of the elements of a more global lie - "the monetary period of Russia").
Another beautiful legend.
5) Population. How many people lived in the "capital" city? In the 17th century, a seemingly ancient, huge city, for some reason was not included in the list of cities with an average population! In the turbulent age of Catherine II, the population of Kiev was a miserable 20,000 people (for comparison, in the not calm Astrakhan - 74,000). In 1894 there were 188,000 people, and in the much younger Odessa - 193,000.
This is probably one of the reasons why, until 1934, the capital of Ukraine was Kharkov. A much larger and more developed city in all respects. Kiev was a provincial city until recently, until the Ukrainian party members got to the resources of the USSR.
6) Science. Probably you will no longer be surprised that the first Kiev Scientific Collegium was founded only in 1632. And the university was founded in 1834 (by translating the Kamenets Lyceum) - later than Kharkov and Kazan. The province - who is there to teach ?!
7) Satellite cities. A prerequisite for large cities of that time was the presence of small towns and monasteries around them, playing the role of guard outposts - a kind of guard circle. A striking example is the scattering of cities, monasteries and forts covering Moscow and St. Petersburg. There is nothing like that in Kiev! This is understandable - he NEVER had a capital status (more precisely, until 1934). And even the famous Zmievy Shafts have no connection to Kiev on the Dnieper.
On boats over land to storm Constantinople.
What kind of town was Kiev in ancient Russia?
Kyoava, a small Khazar border town-outpost on the Dnieper, received a powerful impetus for development due to what is usually (in the German version of our history) attributed to its destruction - the Western campaign of Khan Batu.
I have already written many times (“Genghis Khan and other“Mongol-Tatars”; Mongul and Tartar-the union of two kingdoms) about the shameful, crude forgery called“Mongol invasion”to Russia. I will not repeat myself, I will only say that Batu led mainly Russian regiments to the West (this is confirmed, among other things, by Hungarian and Byzantine chroniclers).
Everything speaks for the fact that it was a religious war, as a response to the next Catholic "Onslaught on the East." Travelers and historians of that time (Marco Polo, for example) describe the Chingizids as Caucasians - Nestorian Christians.
Monument to Batu in Turkey.
For the logistical support of the Western campaign, a small town on the Dnieper, a conveniently located, substandard fortress, was the best suited. It was the role of a warehouse terminal, a hospital and the location of military reserves that could turn a town into a city. True, there is no way to make it the capital of Russia - Gardariki …..
Here is such an interesting and not unfounded version of our common history. And this is not the end of the conversation about ancient Russia! Let me remind you that this is only one of the versions that does not pretend to be an absolute truth.