Not a Single Documented Slav has Been Found in the Rurik Dynasty

You must be a Kraut or a Yellowthiefian.

Read Rosenberg.

I don't remember ruriks squatting and being drunk serfs

>spouting retarded /int/ memes

Did they ever manage to excavate his bones and do some dna testing?

If not then this is just pure speculation.

There are zero (0) Germanic lineages among Rurikids. They're all either Finnic (Monomakhoviches) or Slavic (Olgoviches).

>dna
>Slavs

Kill yourself

You guys are really stuck in the 19th century archeology. Has anyone read any paper published in the 10 years? Nobody cares about this x y or z bullshit anymore. I know I am probably triggering you hard but you should take a look at pic related.

Serfs were introduced to Russian society in the 12th century, not before. Besides, most of the Rus's nobility and freemen were Slavic, especially the city-dwellers.

False, it's both an ethnic and linguistic classification.

Of course, since the reign of Oleg, the Rus and it's leaders have sworn by Perun and Veles, as it can be seen in written treaty with the Byzantines in 907 (and so on).

Also, the main paternal line of the Rurikids was of Finno-Baltic descent, they're even distantly related to the Gediminids. The second most prominent paternal line is that of the Olgoviches, who're mainly Slavic in terms of origin.

Basically, the Normanist theory is just that, a theory that hasn't made serious progress since the day of it's creation and it's claims are being constantly refuted by archaeology, comparative methods of research and genetic studies, such as the "Rurikid family tree Project" .

R1a (even I2) is heavily associated with Slavs, at least in Europe, because they're it's main distributors.

Go be Polish somewhere else.

Plebs habitually group themselves in various ways and treat outsiders like subhumans, so it does have impact on society and should be taken into account.

There are no "slavs" or "russians". The varangian Kievan Rus were literally vikings who left scandinavia and then traveled down rivers in eastern europe to establish their settlements there (they called it Gardariki) to rule over the semi-asian chaotic "slavic" (eg slave) tribes residing there. The descendants of these vikings are the ukrainians. The descendants of the mongol hunnic slave barbarians are modern muscovite-"russians".

When eventually the christian faith was introduced into the Byzantine Empire in 380 AD, during holy masses it was required to converse in latin - The greek language then followed later on.

To converse during holy mass in the "barbarian tongues" of states absorbed by the Byzantine Empire was prohibited by order of the pope.

This is why the greeks Cyril [This is where the word "Cyrillic" comes from in the first place] and Methodius introduced a common artifical church language during the 9th century, which was called Glagolitic. This was basically just a continuation of the melting pot of languages that was the balkan region, and with time it too was byzanticised.

This byzantine language as a sign of a multi-ethnic state and its affiliated church language Glagolitia are the actual origin of all languages which are being called "slavic"today.

Almost all eastern european nations within the former sphere of influence of the Byzantine Empire speak some form of the slavonian language, with some regional dialects. The eastern germanic tribes were of course affected by this too.

This is why a great portion of the poles and czechs are nothing but polonized and czechisized germanics [Volksdeutsche].

This too of course reminds one of times where for example germans living in Upper Silesia were polonized.

They don't speak german anymore because they are simply unable to and don't view themselves as germans anymore either.

...

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as slavs, are in fact, ruthenians/eastern germanic descendants of kievan rus, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, east nordids.

Slavs are not a race unto itself, but rather another component of the ethnogenesis of the scandinavian norse germanic people from the migration of the peoples and onward, made historically relevant by the kievan rus settlements in Gardariki by the norsemen who traveled down the Volga and founded both Russia and Ukraine before being christianized by the byzantine empire.

Many eastern germanics speak the artifical glagolithic church language invented by the greek monk Cyrill, which is where the term cyrillics stems from. Before that, they spoke old norse and revered pagan germanic gods.

All the so-called "slavs" are really descendants of eastern germanics. There is objectively no argument to be made against this historical fact.

Thanks for reading, and please refer to them as "eastern germanics" next time you make a "slav" thread.

They're no longer "eastern germanics" because they adapted Slavic language.

Switching your language group doesn't change your race or genetic DNA makeup, you know (even more so when it's an artifical pidgin church meme ""language"" such as glagolithic invented solely for the purpose of mass-converting eastern germanics to judeo--christianity)

Also """"polish""" is part of the indo-germanic language family aswell

WE WUZ ATTILAS SLAVES N SHIT

Also the ancient pagan rugian tribes on cape arkona were germanic aswell

Perun is really an eastern germanic godess, there is abundant evidence for this but deluded pan-slavists deny it to this day lol

More than a part.

I just don't get why Ukies are so assblasted towards Poland and Poles, when the real enemy is eternal Muscovite.
Germans have nothing to do with Germanics.

> indo-germanic language family

Blast off you Turanic dog

The Ukrainian is at it again.

Ironically, the Huns have changed their migratory path after they've suffered one of their first defeats at the hands of the Antae.

He's correct. Everyone knows that moscow only became a thing after the Mongols gave them money and troops

He's not, the Mongols didn't give Moscow anything, they've had to but the rights to tax the other city-states on their behalf.

>it's both an ethnic and linguistic classification
maybe in Bosnia such definition is used

>19th century german pseudoscience

No, it is a globally accepted classification.

Daily reminder that Kievan Rus was founded by Lechites (see Kievan Polans, Radimichi, Vyatichi).

At first Uzbeg did not want to empower Moscow. In 1327, the Baskaki Shevkal, cousin of Uzbeg, arrived in Tver from the Horde, with a large retinue. They took up residence at Aleksander's palace. Rumors spread that Shevkal wanted to occupy the throne for himself and introduce Islam to the city. When, on 15 August 1327, the Mongols tried to take a horse from a deacon named Dyudko, he cried for help and a mob of furious people fell on the Tatars and killed them all. Shevkal and his remaining guards were burnt alive. Thus Uzbeg Khan began backing Moscow as the leading Russian state. Ivan I Kalita was granted the title of grand prince and given the right to collect taxes from other Russian potentates. The Khan also sent Ivan at the head of an army of 50,000 soldiers to punish Tver.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde

"Kievan Rus" is a 19th century construct, the proper name is either Rus' or "Ruskaya Zemla" .

I stand corrected.

" "Kievan Rus" is a 19th century construct " is a construct created by kacaps to hide the fact that even hohols have more to do with kievan rus than them.

Absolutely not. “First, in ancient times, the concept of "Kievan Rus" has never been used. The name of The country and the people was simply the word "Rus". As an ethnic self-designation, it was used already in the treaties of Oleg and Igor with the Greeks 912 and 945. the Byzantines called Rus "Russia" "Russian language" "Russian people" and "the Russian land (ruska zemlya).” The concept of "Kievan Rus" emerged in the historical science of the middle of XIX century in the narrow geographical sense: to denote a small podneprovye region – Kiev region. So it began to use the historian S. M. Soloviev (1820-1879), the author of the famous 29-language "history of Russia from ancient times" (ed. since 1851). He, in particular, to distinguish between "Kiev Rus", "Rus Chernihiv" and "Russia Rostov or Suzdal". This same understanding is found in N. And. Kostomarov ("Russian history in biographies of its main figures", 1872), V. O. Klyuchevsky ("Full course of Russian history", ed. from 1904) and other historians of the second half of XIX – early XX centuries.”

>taking russian propaganda seriously
dafuq are you doin m8?

This.

It's not like Russian niggers changed their identity 90000 times during their history.

>we wuz third rome XD
>we wuz all slavs
>we wuz bolsheviks
>we wuz communists
>we wuz russians again aka turd rome XD

meanwhile czechs and poles:

>we wuz czechs and poles
>we wuz sarmatians and german emperors
>we wuz czechs and poles
>we are czechs and poles

What the fuck is wrong with Russians?

Thank you for your valuable comment, Mr. Redditor.

One can find the same cognitive dissonance laid historical paradigms in Ukrainians as in Romanians, Slovakians, etc. - "nationstates" without any history.

Ironically, it's more objective and better deduced that "Ukrainian historiography".

Although Slovaks have a claim of association to the denizens and state of Great Moravia.