What's in a name: Russia
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2013, 02:34 AM
Re: What's in a name: Russia
There's also a lot in a name when you consider the ideas that come connected with names such as, the aforementioned, Ivan the terrible.

It's consider a vastly miscast translation as formidable or terrifying could be more on key.

Yet even the name Ivan comes to many English speakers as a dreary name despite it being simply a variant of John.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2013, 02:34 AM
Re: What's in a name: Russia
There's also a lot in a name when you consider the ideas that come connected with names such as, the aforementioned, Ivan the terrible.

It's consider a vastly miscast translation as formidable or terrifying could be more on key.

Yet even the name Ivan comes to many English speakers as a dreary name despite it being simply a variant of John.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2013, 09:54 AM
RE: What's in a name: Russia
(05-01-2013 02:26 AM)Janus Wrote:  
(05-01-2013 01:57 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I see, I see. BUT it doesn't change what happened when these Sweds colonized, and were given control of, the area. That being that when the Viking age ended and the flow of migrants from Sweden to Kievan Rus', the Vikings were very much a minority and were effectively bred-out by the majority Slavs.
Point being that it very much didn't result in these Sweds having control of the Slavs, because they quickly became Slavs themselves, more so then Sweds.

Also considering they were invited back I don't think the Slavs held any distaste for them. The fact that Rurik was invited back to govern the Slavs, by the Slavs, says something. Also because they were beaten back across the sea once, one can imagine that they would know they were on thin ice. They wouldn't want to rock the boat so to speak.


Absolutely.
Nevertheless, the country does still de facto carry the name 'land of the Rus'/Varangians/Vikings', and not the name 'land of the Slavs'...! It's Russia, not Slavia...! That was literal! The land really belonged to the Rus'. They actually owned it a few decades after Rurik's initial sensitive steering, as the invited ruler, avoided getting thrown out for a second time. They, the Rus', were the large landowners. They, the Rus', were the large slav(e)owners! They, the Rus', became the nobility and the princes*. And they, the Rus', have been the upper class in Russia ever since. As evidenced 'in your face' by its name...

*Exactly the same period that the feudal concepts of nobility (knights) and princes also took hold and developed in western Europe.
The Rus´ can have retained their name while having become de facto slavic though...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2013, 11:51 AM
RE: What's in a name: Russia
(05-01-2013 09:54 AM)Gaest Wrote:  The Rus´ can have retained their name while having become de facto slavic though...


Not only 'can', but did ! Just watch the news.
The country's name still honors – today – the foreign rulers, and not the indigenous people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2013, 01:55 PM
RE: What's in a name: Russia
(05-01-2013 11:51 AM)Janus Wrote:  
(05-01-2013 09:54 AM)Gaest Wrote:  The Rus´ can have retained their name while having become de facto slavic though...


Not only 'can', but did ! Just watch the news.
The country's name still honors – today – the foreign rulers, and not the indigenous people.
OK, but so what? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: What's in a name: Russia
(05-01-2013 11:51 AM)Janus Wrote:  
(05-01-2013 09:54 AM)Gaest Wrote:  The Rus´ can have retained their name while having become de facto slavic though...


Not only 'can', but did ! Just watch the news.
The country's name still honors – today – the foreign rulers, and not the indigenous people.
Sorry, but persons in the early middle ages didn't subscribe to PC rhetoric.

Who says the Norseman/Vikings did not intermarry with the Slavs? I'm sure there must be genetic evidence of Norse of modern Russians. Similar to how (presumably) people from Normandy may have Norse genes or in northern parts of the UK.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: