The Problem with Russia (in Crusader Kings)

[@tabinekoman]

Paradox be like : Mistake, I spell it DLC opportunity. "Struggle for Rus" DLC

[@screamingeagles2670]

XD, for modern developers a fully fleshed out game is little more than a wasted opportunity to sell DLCs.

[@RageAgainstTheDyingOfTheLight7]

​@@screamingeagles2670this has been Pardox for over 10 years they started this strategy everyone else is a cheap knockoff

[@aliverdiyev2754]

Paradox always has this strategy of selling unfinished games, and then finishing them up by selling DLCs, kinda smart ngl

[@Aliengelato]

This is part of the reason i feel no remorse pirating paradox games and DLC. I used to buy the games and pirate the dlc to keep up some sort of moral code, but the level of greed has gone too far. No mercy.

[@reeceallen583]

​@screamingeagles2670 CK3 was way more flashed out than CK2 at launch. CK2 was barely a game at launch

[@090giver090]

In my opinion CK2 did much better job at depicting the Rus than CK3. Firstly, as you correctly noted, all other Rurikid princes are set to be "tributaries" to the Grand Prince in Kiev. That gives them somewhat more autonomy than standard feudal vassalage but still makes them subservient to the Kiev authority. Secondly CK2 get their very peculiar succession laws much closer to what it was historically. In CK3 it's basic partition (Karling or early Spain style), but in CK2 it's agnatic seniority, where your heir is not your son, but your second eldest sibling. Although actual historic "lestvitsa succession" (called "ladder" or "rota" succession in English translations) was even more nuanced: the throne passed not linearly from father to son (agnatic primogeniture), but laterally from brother to brother (usually to the fourth brother) and then to the eldest son of the eldest brother who had held the throne (that looked like advancing up the succession ladder, hence the name). When the grand prince died, the next most senior prince moved to Kiev and all others moved to the principality next up the ladder. Only those princes whose fathers had held the throne were eligible for placement in the ladder; those whose fathers predeceased their grandfathers were known as izgoi, "excluded" or "orphaned" princes. Some historians argue that it's that complicated system that regularly skipped entire generations of potential successors and generated entire bloodlines of disinherited "izgois" have led to the dissolution and century of feudal warfare in the Rus before Mongol invasion.

[@bewawolf19]

The method of inheritance and more specifically the overthrow of that tradition by Muscovy is also important. It was kickstarted by the mongols using their power to frequently intervene in succession to support a specific candidate in exchange for greater tribute or when they viewed the legimiate heir as disloyal (The Mongols also required the new ruler to travel to what we call the Golden Horde to confirm their succession), but admittedly that is bleeding out of what Crusader Kings covers and more into Europa Universallis.

[@Dmcfar423]

Was thinking about the tributary thing when I saw OPB go back to Ck2 the other day! I think a comparison could have benefitted this video. I’m not sure tributaries should come back in the way they were, but if they come back in some form hopefully they use them to amend the situation in the Rus. The note about succession is very interesting! It’s similar to what went on with Vikings, correct? Like with Cnut’s former kingdoms going to a bunch of brothers back and forth. I wonder if mods remedy either problem. I know Culture Expanded fixes the culture issues, I don’t know if succession expanded has anything like the ladder system or if they’d even like to implement that given the gameplay and immersion challenges. I haven’t played the CCMH playlist in a while but I wonder if there’s anything there for tributaries as well (there used to be I think but it got deprecated) and if it’s used to change the Rus. May ask in the discord at some point about it

[@ziggytheassassin5835]

Its kept watered down in ck3 so they can inevidably make a rus focused dlc to fix it.

[@rvd5014]

@@Dmcfar423 The system of succession to the throne was broken even before the Mongols, and only idiots who listen to Ukrainian fairy tales talk about some Muscovy that ruined something there

[@JosephineMaKoala-ig3yb]

Wow ❤🎉such #GGreat_№🥇#FACT⚡

[@illiaboiko7354]

The worst part is, that many Rus tribes are coded in the game since day one. You, for example, can play as Severians. But only if you create a ruler through the designer. It has been like this since day one, and it is still not fixed.

[@brotherrussia9691]

that seems to be the case with a lot of dead or dying cultures in ck3 unfortunately :/

[@battlez9577]

That depends if it needs to be fixed or not

[@BioTheHuman]

They most likely copied the files from CK2 but never implemented on

[@AmonGus-hw6sp]

@@BioTheHuman They were updated for royal court so clearly not

[@ekesandras1481]

Severian in Russian just means "Northeners", so it never really was an own ethnic group but just a regional variant.

[@Sr_Lobo_92]

I fear the problem is the lack of written sources, that being the main reason for the lack of depth in those regions... Although I feel is a missed opportunity for the 867 start not to have something similar to the Norman culture formation, reflecting the Viking influence in the region

[@historyinbits]

Very true..

[@XVlove]

they MIGHT do it if you play the game and probably require Royal Court, emphasize in might.

[@Someone-lr6gu]

I mean, historically it is pretty known where tribes lived in Eastern Europe

[@Sr_Lobo_92]

@@Someone-lr6gu but probably not at the level of Iberia or France at 867 I guess... and I refer mainly to the 'Russian' part... but I may be wrong

[@ericaeleodora9787]

​@@XVlovenot, saddly You can hibrid with them but either You get a generic culture name or You try diverse norse culture there as gardraki or something like that... By the way is something You must do by royal coirt mecánics, so feel like they didn't think about it enough.

[@Apollo1989V]

The game files have 3 other East Slavic cultures that should exist in place of Rus culture in 867.

[@No.00000]

Cant wait for "Easter european bogaloo" DLC where they just add them

[@АлексейТабаков-ы8в]

@@No.00000 It's probably leftovers from Charlemagne start date cultures in CK2. But I doubt Paradox would add 769 start date (they even throw out entire bookmark selection option in nearly all newly grand strategy games, because most players would just only use the first bookmark and nothing else).

[@historyinbits]

Ah wow, very interesting!

[@keltongillanders5736]

​@@АлексейТабаков-ы8в well why would i start in 1066 when i can start in 867 and have like 200 more years IG to build my empire and experience the game

[@Bantorc]

What cultures?

[@theultimatefreak666]

As your german-speaking writer stressed we do use regions to identify which usually are based on Holy roman-empire era entities far smaller than the cultures in ck3, those cultures are probably based on dialectal groups... Which makes it infuriating that franconian and Saxon aren't split into high- and low- Low-franconian is also the language-family of dutch and Afrikaans quite far from high-franconian which is the one usually thought of when just saying Franconian today. The rhine would make more sense as dutch than as Franconian the way paradox linked culture and language now 😅

[@historyinbits]

Danke fürs Bestätigen :)

[@XVlove]

If you play the game a bit later, the rhine, the mainz, and other german cultures will separate on their own on the later date.

[@sebe2255]

Dutch itself also makes no sense though, as Frisian is very much not a part of the Dutch culture of the game and the Eastern Netherlands should be Saxon. Funnily enough making the Eastern Netherlands Saxon, the Rhineland Dutch and then renaming it Low Franconian would basically fix everything (if you don’t want to add Frisian as a separate culture)

[@Lingist081]

Saxon is related to English and Frisian not Dutch

[@BiglerSakura]

Some more remarkable historical characters: Vsevolod who rules in Pereyaslavl has a son, Vladimir, the future Vladimir Monomachos, as Vsevolod's wife is from a Byzantine, sorry, Eastern Roman princely family. The future wife of Vladimir is Gytha, a daughter of king Harold who lost the battle of Hastings. There is a possibility she was the mother of Jury Dolgoruky ('The Long Reach'), the legendary founder of the city of Moscow. In my playthroughs I sometimes try to arrange that marriage.

[@shashwatsinha2704]

You're quite knowledgeable

[@lettucearsebiscuits8375]

In the More Bookmarks mod, Yuriy Long-Arm and plenty other Rus characters from dates ranging from 1081 to 1337 you might like are present in all their glory.

[@antonaaa3738]

why was he legendary? he was a bitch

[@antonaaa3738]

ah, you are pidoras, nevermind then

[@Basileus1453]

A hegemony system for empires that would allow HRE in 867 and Kievan Rus' for 1066 would actually be a great feature. The historical inaccuracy of these things not existing makes me mad.

[@historyinbits]

Yes, agreed!

[@fnansjy456]

Ireland too for both dates

[@andrewmtula]

The issue with changing Ruthenia to Kievan Rus is that Ruthenia is, although late and foreign, a term used in times depicted by CKIII. Kievan Rus is a term invented by Russian historians in XIX century. It has its pros since Russian princes wouldn't use Latin name for their realm, but the situation is difficult. The only terms used in the Russian chronicles are Rus and Russkaya Zemlya (the Russian land), but this fits much more to the imperial title instead of a kind of anachronistic Russia, not to the kingdom with the capital in Kiev. Interesting fact: in XXI century Russian historians tend to avoid the Kievan Rus term, prefering Drevnerusskoye gosudarstvo (ancient Russian state) because... You know.

[@SunsteelAnorang]

No problem with usage of term "Byzantine Empire" detected

[@historyinbits]

Thank you for the input! We are aware the historiographic debate on this one is quite partisan apparently, even or especially when it comes to the naming. Maybe just “Rus” would be the best solution?

[@n1flung]

@@historyinbits The best option IMO is for Kingdom-tier Principalities to be named according to the "capital city" (i.e. Principality of Kyiv, of Polotsk, of Novgorod etc.) with the one controlled by dynasty head to be called "Grand Principality of ...". Thus, the name "Rus" would be left for Empire-tier title de-jure containing all Kingdom-tier Principalities

[@BiglerSakura]

Or, if that artificial historiographic name of 'Kievan Rus' is used (why not, if they use the 'Byzantine Empire'), then 'Vladimir Rus', 'Novgorodian Rus' etc. should be used in the same context together.

[@benismann]

@@n1flung that's true. Galicia-volhynia can stay as it is, but ruthenia being ruthenia and not kiev/kyiv is weird and inconsistent with all the other kingdoms

[@Артмиш]

Well, there WAS an empire-rank state of Rus in CK2 There was even a decision that if you conquered Nenetsia, Perm, Volga Bulgraia, Crimea, Khazaria, and Alania, you could reform Rus to Russia Also, the Kingdom of Ruthenia in the same CK2 is called like that only in 769 and 867 starts

[@historyinbits]

Yep, good old times!

[@diceshard2436]

People, stop confusing historiography and history. The term "Kievan Rus" is a historiographical construct that was first coined by the Russian historian Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov in 1851 in his work "The History of Russia since Ancient Times." This is just a designation of the historical period of Rus from 882, when Prince Oleg captured Kiev and moved the capital there from Novgorod, to 1097, when at the Lyubech Congress, Prince Vladimir Monomakh of Kiev, in order to stop the endless feudal wars that began after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, gathered all the princes who ruled various lands on feudal rights (Novgorod, Rostov-Suzdal, Chernihiv, Galicia-Volyn, etc.), and established their sovereignty over these lands with the words "Let everyone keep their own land", thereby legally dividing Rus into separate fragmented HRE type principalities. From this moment on, the historiographical (!) period of Kievan Rus ends and the historiographical (!) period of Feudal Separation begins. At the time of the events we are talking about, no one ever said "we live in Kievan Rus" or "we live in the Vladimir Principality of Rus during the Feudal Separation", this is our modern names for historical periods, not even states. And these people themselves called their state simply - Rus. The history of Rus as a state ends with the arrival of the Mongols, and immediately after that begins the period of struggle for the Rus inheritance between two new political entities - the Lithuanian and Moscow principalities. All these names have been extremely politicized since then and are used primarily in propaganda and ideological struggle. Arguing about this has nothing to do with reality, it's like arguing about the truthfulness of English pamphlets about a tiny crazy Napoleon, German orcs in the First World War. So the best you can do to understand reality is reading the chronicles in the original and here's the problem. I don't know any western historian who can read Ancient Russian and that's the reason for your misunderstanding. The sources available to you are late historical sources in Russian, Ukrainian and Polish by various authors that need to be properly understood, because most of them are just propaganda from different times, starting from the 13th century. Only by understanding ideology, all the cliches of propaganda of the time, all the political interests, stereotypes and complexes possessed by the person you are reading, you can dismiss the lies and extract grains of reality from his narrative. But this method is not available to Westerners and often everything is simply taken as a truth and the sources are taken literally

[@igor8770]

Yeah absolutely agree with most of your points. > And these people themselves called their state simply - Rus. were they really? or is it term coined from the outside? and were these people really the same "cuture" (as defined in ck3 framework, I believe culture is a pretty modern concept) or could you divide them based on dialects and/or "cultural pillars"?

[@Libidosha]

Баля я не один так думал... Интересно было бы узнать как было на самом деле

[@crusaderACR]

​@@igor8770 To say culture is a modern concept is crazy You could say they understood it differently, sure, but that it didn't exist?

[@diceshard2436]

​@@igor8770 The state was called Rus without a doubt, that's what it's called in absolutely all the chronicles. Ruthenia, used in the game, is the Latin name of this state, just as Russia is its Greek name, which was later adopted by Ivan III after his marriage to the Byzantine princess Sophia. As for culture, the question of whether all the ancient Eastern Slavs really had the same culture arises when people look at a huge blot on the map that fills half of the entire European Plain, and think that it can't be that on such a huge territory everyone is the same and speaks the same language. However, it is worth understanding 3 points. Firstly, it would be correct to draw the real border of the Slavs exclusively along the rivers, not moving the brush too far from their banks. Before the arrival of the Mongols, the Slavs did not go far from the river and the territories surrounding them were wild and empty, suitable only for hunting and extraction of various rare resources for trade. Secondly, the population of this territory was extremely low, in Italy alone there lived much more people than in the entire territory we are describing. These people were few in number and were in constant communication with each other by river, and this is a very fast and effective connection. And thirdly, there really were differences between the tribes, the chronicler Nestor describes them quite interestingly. Polyans, Krivichs, Radimichs, Ilmen Slovenes - they all differed slightly in economic specialization and, naturally, were divided politically. However, in my opinion, this is not enough to single out each tribe as a separate culture, because the traditions, pagan beliefs, basic way of life, archaeological culture (style of ceramics, tools, buildings) and most importantly the language of these people were the same and there were no cultural problems for their unification during the formation of Rus. The problems were exclusively political and economic in nature, and later, under Vladimir I - the baptizer of Rus, they were also religious. By the dawn of Ancient Rus under Yaroslav the Wise, when the baptism of the population was basically completed and the entire aristocracy and majority of the population of Rus were Christians, it can be stated that it was simply one united people in the medieval feudal understanding of these words, of course. Therefore, within the framework of the game, the allocation of all Slavs into one culture seems to me quite appropriate

[@Kyiv.Knight]

No, Ruricks existence is not a fact. It's more likely, that Vikings went not from the golf of Finland or around that(Dont even remember the river) but from the black sea through Dnipro river

[@elizabethplatz1992]

I believe the reason that Iziaslav's brothers are referred to as "Prince of Ruthenia" rather than referencing their own primary titles has to do with how CK3 generally handles titles and not something specific to the Rurikid situation. Since Iziaslav has a King-tier title and his brothers are only Dukes, they are referred to as "Prince of [Kingdom]". As another example, I started playing as Dyre the Stranger inspired by this video and his brother Sigfrid Halfdansson formed the Kingdom of the Danelaw, at which point my own title changed to "Prince Dyre of the Danelaw" rather than Jarl of Konugardr. This presumably is also why Anna is referred to as "Queen Mother of France" rather than Countess of Valois. Basically, it seems that characters are referred to by their association to the highest tier title possible.

[@historyinbits]

Yes, good point!

[@BiglerSakura]

There is a mod, something like 'Cultures expanded'..., that somehow corrects the cultural situation there at the early start. There is a bunch of Eastern Slavic tribe cultures (Drevlian, Polian, Krivich, Ilmen etc.). A merger of Norse with them should result in the Rus culture.

[@kamilszadkowski8864]

Sounds great, thanks for recomendation.

[@aeonum]

Rurik dynasty of Western Slavs in northern Germany. Rurik's ancestors are Obodrits, not Norwegians. Varangians are a profession, pirates of the North Sea. The Slovic in northern Germany imposed tribute on all surrounding tribes, including the Danes. The displacement of the Slovic from the north of Germany is combined with the arrival of the Rurik's dynasty in Novgorod.

[@BiglerSakura]

@@aeonum a nice idea for a playthrough, actually. An anti-Normannist version. Create a character named Rurik (or Rarog?) in Obodritia, go to Novgorod and kick the Swedish impostor out of there.

[@aeonum]

Piracy in the North Sea attracted many at that time, so it is not surprising that in a gang of pirates on boats there could be many Scandinavian mercenaries, but this does not mean that all Varangians are Scandinavians. the dynasty was Slavic and only the Slavic dynasty could be invited to the Slavic city of Novgorod. The Rurik dynasty did not capture Novgorod, it was the dynasty that was invited to Novgorod. Only relatives can be invited. Rurik's father, the prince of the Obodrits, was married to the daughter of the Novgorod prince Gostomysl. The Gostomysl had no male heirs and they called Rurik and the entire tribe to Novgorod as the LEGAL heir in the female line.

[@georgiykireev9678]

​@@aeonumah yes, which is why Rurik had the very Slavic named brothers Signjotr and Thorvathr (Sineus and Truvor in Russian chronicles)

[@battlez9577]

Having all of Rus be one culture in ck3 lets rurikids inherit each others titles more easily, whether elective or seniority

[@historyinbits]

Good point from a gameplay perspective!!

[@EkimGrigor]

Prince Vseslav of Polotsk is a very interesting character, he is the most distant relative among all the Rurikovich. He fought wars with the rest of the family, conquering most of Russia. He is also called the Sorcerer Prince, the werewolf and the last pagan. He himself is the great-grandson of Vladimir and Rogneda, whom Vladimir married by force, killing her relatives. It was possible to make a VERY interesting character out of him.

[@stanislavmegued554]

The Rurikids also added a spin on seniority succession. According to the congress of Liyubech in 1096 there was established a hierarchical system of thrones. The most prestigious being the one in Kiev. The thrones would be distributed between siblings according to their seniority and upon succession they would all move up a throne. Rough example would be the knyaz of Chernigov being the first in line to inherit Kiev, but he would not keep Chernigov. Instead, knyaz of, let's say, Smolensk would move to rule Chernigov, vacating his own throne for someone lower in the hierarchy. It was like a totem pole, where upon vacation of the upper slot, everyone would move up a slot.

[@getoutahere]

Kievan Rus is modern term, it was just Rus with Nóvgorod as strongest northern region conquering other parts and after changed it's capital, when it became one kingdom Russian culture was created.

[@Bantorc]

Don’t get me wrong, but it’s important to remember in context of video that the state itself wasn’t called “Kievan Rus”, but just “Rus” (I am not using the Kyiv variant because T9 doesn’t know word “Kyivan” and there was practically no academic use for that variant until recent events) Kievan Rus is just a term introduced by historians to differentiate eras of the state. So as author mention in video. The first lawbook was called “Russian Truth” but not “Kievan Russian Truth” Tho it’s not a bad term or anything, it was used for a long time and there is no need to change that. So speaking of cultural names, it is in same way incorrect to call 867 starting date tribes as Russians as calling state as “Kievan Rus”. But if we examine the subject closer we will found out that they are in fact people that would later on call themselves as Russians and we will found out that it is in fact Rus state with capital in Kiev so it is Kievan Rus. I think in both cases it’s is acceptable to call something the way that it wasn’t called in discussed times. So as for example Byzantium wasn’t called Byzantium but Roman Empire, but we all widely use that term bc we are used to it and that makes us understand the subject we are talking about. Rus as a term is a much wider than Kievan Rus, it includes more territories and much longer time periods. Later on “grad prince of Moscow and all Rus” will accept the title of tsar and official name of the state will be Tsardom of Russia where Russia will be Rus spelled on the Greek manner. It was done so Russian tsars could claim Byzantium heritage. So the the term Rus is alive by this day in a form of a Greek word for it.

[@rapturefuturistics1975]

If you speak russian language, you would see the problem with the term "Russia" and why it is wrong to call this medieval state "Russia". In russian, belarusian and ukrainian languages word "Russia" or "Россия" is a term for only Russian state which formed only under Peter the Great in 18th century, while Rus or "Русь" is the name for medieval state in territory of modern Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Ruthenia is a western term for "Rus", but not for Russia. Only Rus lands outside Russia were called Ruthenia (Rus parts of Grand duchy of Lithuania, future Ukraine and Belarus).

[@kerzch672]

The Russian state formed in the 16th century under Ivan the Terrible

[@iamaim2847]

Russia isn't present in starting point, it is just formable empire. It can be formed later. The same as Italy, Spain, Brittain. They all were formed later in history and exist in the game exactly as non-historical possibilities to move the game to. Scandinavia never was an empire if my lessons of history (from EU4 mostly) are correct. Brittain includes all Ireland, which is more than questionable too. Magrib, Carpatia, WestSlavia, Baltia - didn't even exist as unitar countries. Just the game needs to cover all the space with nominal empires. Russian empire as possibility, not historical fact, is pretty on place with such neirbors.

[@ZOMBIEo07]

You have no idea what you are talking about, thats like saying Germany was only formed in 1949. Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine are all direct sucsessors of the Rus state that was broken up by feudalism in 12th century and officially ended as an entity after mongol invasion by 13th century. But the people of the former state saw themselfes as people of the Rus culture. Ruthenia and Russia are just slightly different names for it. Just because it was Moscow that managed to unite the cities again and not Kiev does not mean it was a different state. Kiev at that time was a pile of ruins that was destroyed by mongols and poles. Even before the mongols the power already shifted to Vladimir, a city in the north east that became a de-facto capital of the Rus lands.

[@rapturefuturistics1975]

@@ZOMBIEo07 I have a perfect understanding of what I said. Rus and Russia are two totally different things. Russia and Ruthenia are two different lands. Kievan Rus never was a unified land and people of Rus never had common self-identification except religion. Half of the Rus lands were in a different state and never were a part of Russia until the end of 18th century when Russia annexed lands with Poland. Vladimir could not be the de facto capital of Rus because after the collapse of Rus, most of Rus became a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the eastern lands of Kievan Rus - the future Russia - were under the Mongols.

[@ZOMBIEo07]

@@rapturefuturistics1975 1. Ruthenia is just a latin name the pope used for Rus, simple as that. 2. Rus State without any doubt became a unifed state in the 11th century with common culture, religion, language, common writing system, and laws. 3. Yes, after the mongol invasion western lands were repeatedly attacked by western nations like Poland and Lithuania in hopes of expanding their empires and is one of the main reasons Ukraine (partially annexed up by Poland) and Belorussia (annexed up by Lithuania) exist in the first place. But even inside of those invading nations Rus people were seen as separate people. Thats why Poland went berserk after Ivan declared the Russian Tsardom, because Poland feared that Russia would want to reclaim the russian land that their conquered. 4. 1170 (long before mongol invasion) was the last time the grand prince actually ruled from Kiev, after that Kiev only remained the spiritual capital and in the 13th century all relics were tranported to Vladimir and Kiev lost any relevance.

[@АндрейСварожич]

when Western people try to understand Russian history from the Swedish game 😀

[@malcolmcooke7131]

Major respect on that intro! Taking responsibility and being transparent with your audience is baller shit.

[@malboec]

10:48 A small inaccuracy - the Romanovs came to power in 1613. In 1598, Boris Godunov came to power and became tsar

[@vladimirskala]

Ruthenian was a term that until quite recently used to be applied to my people as well. Today, it's Rusyn or a variety of this term.

[@ErikSemmil]

Мої старі з Полтави себе також називали русинами, не українцями.

[@Karatel_Karas]

​@@ErikSemmilСаме так. Більшість русинів почали називати себе українцями саме через те, що російська, імперська політика хотіла асимілювати русинів зробивши з них "руських", але русини це вчасно зрозуміли й змогли відділитися від східняків просто почавши себе називати українцями (на той час русин й українець вже були словами синонімами). Доречі... Іван Франко проводив саме цю політику перейменування (яке вже відбулося в центрі й сході України) на території підконтрольній австрійській короні, але це використали пізніше поляки вказувавши себе більшістю в різних районах Галичини (приклад: 40% поляки, 30% Українці, 25% русини, 5% інші). В Закарпатті велика частина русинів не змінила самоназву через те, що підпорядковувалася напряму угорській короні й короткоживуча радикальна партія з Галичини не могла прямо впливати на людей по ту сторону Карпат.

[@Apollo1989V]

Culture shouldn’t even by called “Russian” but “Rus”.

[@Gillio66]

Ehh. Rus is also probably an exonym for the people of the region as well. I recommend Dr. Jackson Crawford's interview with Dr. Vicki Grove on the linguistic origins of the Kyivan Rus' names.

[@АлексейТабаков-ы8в]

Why not "East Slavic"?

[@Gillio66]

In-game, that's already the "culture group" that Russian belongs to. East Slavic would be too broad to describe a single culture in my opinion. The More Bookmarks+ mod has a much better variation of known Slavic tribes in the region before the turn of the 9th century.@@АлексейТабаков-ы8в

[@historyinbits]

Interesting debate, thank you!

[@Gillio66]

I'm not sure if my first response actually posted but in my opinion, it would be too broad of a classification. East Slavic is the cultural family Russian belongs to in game. The More Bookmarks+ mod has a very good depiction of the regional tribes at the turn of the 9th century. @@АлексейТабаков-ы8в

[@Saufs0ldat]

Like many areas about which we don't know all that much, it's just not terribly fleshed out. In another timeline, this may have been addressed in a future update or DLC, but given the current political situation, they're probably not going to touch that area until CK4.

[@mytiliss682]

Or make It blatant anti-Russian propaganda

[@000Dragon50000]

Huh, that also explains the similarities between the Druzhina and the House Guard unit you can unlock in the dynasty legacies tree.

[@historyinbits]

Right!

[@benismann]

Unexpected little bone from pdx

[@kamilszadkowski8864]

Yep, unlocking the House Guard from the dynasty legacies is the only way to have something resembling druzhina while playing a Western Slavic ruler. Hopefully, Paradox will address that in the future since usually by the time you unlock the house guard you are outside the timeframe for the western Slavic druzhinas.

[@000Dragon50000]

@@kamilszadkowski8864 Or just conquer your way over there and hybridise, but stay west slavic.

[@kamilszadkowski8864]

@@000Dragon50000 That sir, would be an abomination.

[@adamsubotsky7014]

I'm from Biełaruś - White Rus in sk3 - and I have no problem with naming. But I think pdx could also call Galicia Volhynia "Red Rus". But name Russia for empire so awfully fucking stupid, bc the word itself appeared only in 16-17 centurie. It's should also called Kievan Rus or just Rus, but not Russia. And culture should called rusynian/rusinian because people called themselves rusyny/rusiny

[@alliova]

угу, мене це теж просто неймовірно бісить

[@kamilszadkowski8864]

I would vote for calling the culture Ruthenian just to avoid making it confusing for English speakers as it is an already established term. As for the name Russia for the Empire-level title... it's bad but not even half as bad as "West-Slavia" which is just down right retarded. In the case of Russia, you just have a chance to establish it before it historically happened. But West-Slavia? What the fuck is this shit?

[@fgkuv5232]

​@@alliovaпохрюкай

[@baileygregory9192]

Idk russia not the best name. It should just be rus, as well it makes sense to call it what is the best know historical name (even if not used by the people of the area), ie byzantium. Considering they were called the rus, it makes sense that their empire would be the land of the rus (russia) or another devatipn of it like u suggest

[@Артмиш]

Well, there WAS an empire-rank state of Rus in CK2 There was even a decision that if you conquered Nenetsia, Perm, Volga Bulgraia, Crimea, Khazaria, and Alania, you could reform Rus to Russia Also, the Kingdom of Ruthenia in the same CK2 is called like that only in 769 and 867 starts

[@maestroponasenk5554]

I have never understood the players' dissatisfaction with the absence of Kievan Rus. the developers did the right thing by abandoning this term, since it is not even an exonym, it is an artificial term that was coined by historians of the late modern period, for chronological periodization. on the other hand, it is worth recognizing that the use of the Greek "Russia", for this period, is also not suitable. The ideal option is simply "Rus", as a kingdom, and Vladimir, Kiev, Novgorod Rus for the kingdom. If we talk about culture, then the picture shown in the game obviously does not correspond to reality and I do not understand how to fix it. To better reflect the region, it needs more provinces, trade to grow the emergence of republics and, most importantly, the complete processing of the steppe, because the complex process that covered the border of these regions is avoided in the presence of the game. It is worth paying tribute, the developers tried to reflect the division of Russia by programming the separation of Novgorod and the future Ukraine from the center, which has been moving north to Vladimir since the invasion of the Polovtsians (the confrontation with which is also absent). I also disagree with the author and agree with the paradoxes that the division of Yaroslav's empire into three parts is the right decision, because it reflects the "triumvirate of Yaroslavichs", and de facto, immediately after Yaroslav's death, decentralization begins, which was stopped by Monomakh and his son. It turned out to be a bit messy, I recommend that the author familiarize himself in more detail with the Russian /Soviet historiography on this issue.

[@Fricid]

>later became known as the Kyivan Rus' throughout the high middle ages Kyivan Rus' is a term created in the 19th century by Russian historians to call a period of time, not a state lol

[@iamaim2847]

Exactly. Vologodian Rus, Novgorodian Rus, Kievian Rus, Moscowian Russia, And St.Peterburgian Russia. It was just a name of periods.

[@exter9384]

I find it sad that you never mentioned the principality of Polotsk. It's not that historically important but it's the part of the Rus that Belarus sees as it's medieval "predecessor". So I think it's strange that you mentioned every Rus principality in the game except for Polotsk.

[@historyinbits]

We might have to do a part 2!

[@BiglerSakura]

And it should be Polotsk rather than 'White Rus' for the time of the game start.

[@battlez9577]

Belarus also claims descent from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with how russified the nobles were becoming prior to the union with Poland

[@yamisa8059]

Žywie Biełaruś!⬜🟥⬜

[@FlyLoriens]

@@yamisa8059 as part of mother Russia!

[@BlueHawkPictures17]

15:06 Oh man these pronunciations, that one is basically a russified version of "Elizabeth" but using russian letters it sounds like (Е -> ye)liza(В -> ve)(no 'th' sound -> t)(female -> a)

[@roberthudson3386]

The problem with Russia in Crusader Kings 3 is that within 5 years of starting a game the map is almost inevitably an absolute mess of border gore that will never again regain coherence.

[@PSYCHOpaty4]

Another problem that I have with portraiting Rus is that Galicia-Volunia is a part of Westslavia. It dosen't make sense really, because it was a part of Rus people living there were eastern slavs. In fact, as far as I know, eastern slavs always were here even after collapse of Rus

[@cernel5799]

2:48 "Afterwards, we will talk about Kievan Rus, confusingly referred to as Ruthenia in the game." You could have simply said "We will talk about Russia". Of course, it was not called "Russia" by the "Russians" themselves, but that is true of most things we call. Poland is and was not called as such by the Poles, Italy is and was not called as such by the Italians, and so on, but it is normal to use those names today as well as to refer to the polities of a millennia ago or whenever, like calling Classical or Feudal Japan or China as such (instead of trying to use the names by which they were calling themselves at the time). It makes no sense that anyone would somehow have problems specifically about doing the same thing with Russia. Besides, Russia was actually an used exonym in medieval France (Ruthenia being the preferred alternative in Medieval Latin instead), but, even if it would have not been, it would be still fine to call "Kievan Rus" as just "Russia" because we just do it all the time in any such cases.

[@iliastephnadze]

There aren't many rulers or at all many characters in caucasia but would be very interesting for you to review it

[@historyinbits]

Good idea!

[@hlibushok]

I was pretty surprised when despite mispronouncing a bunch of stuff you managed to pronounce "Russkaya Pravda" as perfectly as a non-native speaker can. Rather than complain about all the mispronunciation I will give some tips: For pronouncing East Slavic words correctly you should first beak them down by syllables instead of immediately trying to pronounce the whole word and likely missing several sounds. The "ia" in East Slavic languages is a single sound (Cyrillic letter "я"). In "Iziaslav" you pronounce the "i" and "a" separately, which makes it sound more like "I-za-yah-slav". You make the same mistake when pronouncing the name "Sviatoslav". The "zh" in transliteration of Slavic languages makes a sound that most English speakers are not familiar with. In Cyrillic it's represented by the letter "ж" and in IPA by the letter "ʒ". Wikipedia has an example of this sound in English as the "si" in "vision" and "allusion". The two o's in "Beloozero" make two separate sounds (Since it's a combination of two words - "Belo" and "Ozero" meaning White Lake), so it would be "Be-lo-o-ze-ro". The "Vse" in "Vsevolod" is a single syllable, but you accidentally add another vowel after the first "V" making it into "Ve-se-vo-lod". Similarly, you make the syllable "Tmu" in "Tmutarakan" into two by splitting off the letter "T". All these corrections probably make me sound very snobbish, but... well... I don't really have a justification for this. Anyways, I can't add much to the history in this video, but from the knowledge I received while Wikipedia rabbit hole diving it seems pretty solid. HOWEWER: I feel like you're wrong about "Kingdom of Ruthenia" being the game's representation of Kievan Rus'. If you go into the De Jure Empires map mode you will immediately notice that the real-life Kievan Rus' borders match perfectly with the borders of the in-game "Tsardom of Russia" (which uses the double-headed eagle as it's CoA). To me it seems that, for some reason, Paradox decided to replace the real historic Rus' with a terribly anachronistic "Russia". That would also explain the usage of the term "Ruthenia" instead of "Rus'" for Iziaslav's kingdom, since in the Early Modern era that term was applied only to Ukraine (and sometimes Belarus), which is the land Iziaslav rules over in the game.

[@benismann]

nah you're fine for correcting them, nothing wrong with that

[@danikt2610]

I agree however the borders of the Empire title "Russia" (according to the game) are NOT accurate as it included the kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia as well. Sorry if I misspelled the kingdom title, it was a while since I played CK3

[@benismann]

@@danikt2610 it used to include that before pdx spilled up the abomination that was the Southern Baltic Sea empire

[@vladprus4019]

@@benismann Honestly, stuff like that is imo the reason why whole Empire-tier title system should be rethinked and heavily limited. The "Empire is just a collection of kingdoms just like kingdom is collection of duchies" is clearly not working for the period and serves more like a gameplay tool to allow rulers of vast realms having larger vassals.

[@Артмиш]

About the CoA, the Empire of Russia (for some reason) have a CoA of Moscow, like it's originated from Moskovia

[@Михаил_Благодарный]

1:04 a good excuse... it would be if you didn’t find fault with the moments of non-historicity in СК; 3.

[@vedranbileta8346]

That article at the very beginning is not saying that Turkification of Anatolia occured before Manzikert. But that the Seljuks started raiding forty years earlier. Raiding and changing ethnic structure are two different things. The Huns were raiding the Roman Empire decades before Attila's invasion... If you are not historians, then perhaps you should find some to join your team

[@historyinbits]

How are “migratory Turkish groups” raiding?

[@zheka7691]

Never in its history kyivan rus was a monoethnic state. Having just one cultire for the entire thing and naming it russian is not only historically wrong, its very vague oversimplification and also weird since during character creation you can chose actual eastern Slavic cultures like vohlynian, polesian, tyverian etc.

[@александрморозов-ж1б]

This is a very controversial statement. According to this logic, we should divide the inhabitants of all states into cultures according to the city or region where they live. But I agree that for that historical period, it is a mistake to use exclusively Russian culture until at least 1066 of the starting date. Still, if you divide them according to your logic, then into tribes that are already in the game as dead cultures like Ilmen or Seversky.

[@konplayz]

There is no historical evidence for these “cultures” existing

[@mytiliss682]

​@@александрморозов-ж1бRussian historians often refer to Kulikovo battle as consolidation point of Russians in political view. When it happened on cultural level is debatable. I find It pointless since people of those time used their tribe and later religion for self-identification. Though they shared, or at least pretended to share same language, which is basis of any culture.

[@александрморозов-ж1б]

@@mytiliss682 Russian Russian culture had long been folded by the time of the Kulikovo Battle, and this battle is rather the unification of all Russian principalities near Moscow into more or less one state.

[@lordcharlesthomas]

*Kievan Rus

[@Odoxon7522]

To fix the abomination in eastern Europe and Byzantium, I recommend the mod "Culture Expanded". It adds many new and accurate eastern Slavic cultures. It also adds more cultures in the British Isles and other areas.

[@Ciech_mate]

Hi there I actually mentioned this in my first Rus video, thank you for making sure this gains traction.

[@Jiří_01]

The last Ryurikovichi ruler was Vasiliy IV from the Shujskiy house. It is just writen down weird in the internet especially on wikipedia bc Fyodor was just the last Ruler of the moscow house. You forgot to mention one of the most important character in the 1066 start. Vladimir II "Monomach" ( son of Vsevolod of pereyaslavl)He was one of the most important Rulers from the Kievan Rus.

[@BiglerSakura]

The Paradox' approach with renaming cities into the modern local languages is quite superficial as it is just an homage to the current political agenda. The modern Ukrainian language has undergone vowel shifts etc. since the times of the medieval eastern Slavic language and doesn't reflect the original pronunciation of the name 'Kiev' any better than the modern Russian.

[@zheka7691]

'doesn't reflect the original pronunciation of the name 'Kiev' any better than the modern Russian" Well, that means that russian variants doesnt represent the original prononciation any better than ukrainian since russian language undergone vowel shifts etc. So why should it not be the ukrainian one?

[@BiglerSakura]

@@zheka7691 It's not just about the 'Kiev/Kyiv' choice, there is e.g. 'Lvov/Lviv' in which 'o' is definitely closer to the original if we check it with other Slavic languages. However, the recent switch from the long-established traditional historical terminology (like 'Kievan Rus' being in use in the English-speaking academic circles) is driven by politics rather than linguistics. Anyways, the room for discussion in this topic is practically infinite. Like why 'Constantinople' is not 'Istanbul' in the game :)

[@zheka7691]

​@@BiglerSakura Hey, i respect your opinion. I'm all for discussion, but both arguments you used aren't convincing. What I'm saying is that long-established traditional historical terminology is a vague argument, Traditional historical terminology in case of mentioned Lviv is what? it was not long ago when long established name for this city was German "Lemberg". And everyone was fine with accepting its changed names in the past, but for some reason oppose accepting Ukrainian name today. Not to mention that "close to original pronunciation" is also weird argument considering that Ukrainian language is direct descendant of Ruthenian and mentioned development is natural. Besides, we cannot be sure what was the original name of Lviv at the moment of its foundation by Ruthenians because we cannot tell when exactly Ruthenians replaced old sound with "i" in genitive case of the word "lev". You should also know that it was not "o" that was replaced, it was a different sound that was more similar to "e" in case of Lviv, so I'm not sure if "o" in Polish would be closer to possible original variant than Ukrainian "i". However, it is believed that this process of merging old vowel with "i" begun around 13century between Carpathians and Prypiat river (western Ukraine) and later slowly spread to other dialects to the east. Lviv was founded during the same period in 13century so it very well might have been called "Lviv" by local people back then, before Poles took control of Galicia. It is also interesting that this feature is not unique to Ukrainian language, it is also common in south-western Belarussian dialect, in the area which was part of Galicia-Vohlyina in the past. We do not have any document which can prove what was the "original pronunciation", so all of it is just speculation. To conclude, i think all this is quite irrelevant. History changes all the time and there is no reason to stick to "long-established" or "traditional" variants or dig down to find the one and only original name when you have modern name used by local people who are descendants of those who founded the city. Thinking about this and about your Constantinople remark, i wonder if any British counties have old English names, which definitely closer to original pronunciation but definitely different from long-established traditional terminology. Could`ve been a great argument to show how these things can easily contradict each other thus - irrelevant and aren't necessary to follow.

[@ДімаБогданов-ъ8ш]

​@@BiglerSakura>'Lvov/Lviv' is closer to 'o' if we check other Slavic languages Well, if we do check other Slavic languages, we would learn that -ів (-iv), -ów are possessive adjectives, and ó in polish represents [u] the same sound that that developed into i in Ukrainian, like in Kraków/Krakiv, Kijów/Kyiv as towns of Krak or Kyi, and it transforms into [o] when conjugated into some cases. When in Russian possessive adjectives formed with -ov/-ev, and they did not preserved this alteration of a vowel under conjugation.

[@CPTE5069]

Kyiv was not pronounced as Kiev by East Slavic speakers. Instead, it was "Къeвь" and was pronounced as K' yev' as opposed to Ky - yiv (Ukrainian) or Ki - yev (Russian).

[@Bravebear333]

Rus' in fact was never Kievan, it's a historiographic term no one used back then. It was referred as simply Rus' with a center in Kyiv. Rus' mostly consisted of territories inside the triangle of Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl, and other lands like Novgorod were called differently, not as Rus'.

[@AaSs-ln9mm]

Strange question about why call it Rutenia and not Kievan Rus. You see, word "Kievan Rus" was invented way later, than Rutenia. Like centuries later. By Russian historian, who use it to name not a state, but specific time frame. It is like Victorian England. Did you have Carolingian France in this game? No. Did it bother you?

[@N3rdDak]

Another fantastic video, friends!

[@historyinbits]

Thank you 🤗

[@mr.morningstar9906]

As always, love you guys and your work! Great listens for my commute

[@unnamedshadow1866]

Surprised they didnt divide the Russian Cultures like they did in EU4. White and Black Ruthenians should be the base Cultures, and Novgorod should be on the process of developing their own Novgorodian Culture. And through Events or Personal Conquests you can unlock Muscovite and Ryazanian.

[@KrivMih]

In fact, there were two dialects at that time. Severny - Novgorod. Yuzhny - Kiev. Because of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, there were divisions into other dialects. This is already the 15th-18th century. Russian is a mixture of northern and southern dialects. Ukrainian is a mixture of the southern and Polish languages. Belarusian is a mixture of Baltic and southern.

[@RESIST_DIGITAL_ID_UK]

Yes, technically Ruthenia is an exonym for the rest of the Rus, but in practice, it was actually the name for the newly formed catholic kingdom formed in the west of Ukraine at the time. The fact that an exonym is used refers to the fact that it joined the catholic sphere of influence rather than the orthodox one, so the name that catholic Europe referred to it as is the one that stuck.

[@georgek2317]

You are making crazy good videos. Please keep doing that.

[@historyinbits]

Thank you, we appreciate the positive feedback! Glad to have you as a viewer!

[@PolkaCzeBrazh]

As a Russian, I confirm the author s words This is a wonderful research work! All items have been discussed before me, I will not say anything new Paradoxes could have worked out this place better And, of course, what is happening in history does not all fit into the framework of the game If you are interested, now in connection with the situation in Ukraine, they want to abandon the term Kievan Rus in favor of Ancient Rus in schools

[@historyinbits]

Alright, Ancient Rus? Very interesting to hear that

[@iamaim2847]

The only poin I'd argue is Ruthenia. It is latin interpretation, it is very alien for locals. Like calling USA Civitates Foederatae Americae.

[@ИванРедькин-ж6ь]

I will say as a Russian history teacher - the big problem is that Rus' is not a single state, it is a union of principalities, power was transferred from the prince not to his son, but to the eldest in the family, so the most logical move is to make an addition about Rus'

[@numbers-stations]

There was also no Latgalian culture in all of modern day Latvia. There was Curonian, Semigallian, Selonian and Latgalian. From all these tribal cultures plus assimilated Livs the Latvians evolved. Today large part of Latgalians speak different kind of Latvian than other Latvians in three other regions.

[@GeoffreyBronson]

I got the Vladimir's Second Choice achievement last night and it's one of the most irritating achievements I've ever done. They don't tell you that you also need to convert the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia alongside the Russian Empire. That would have saved me two generations of playtime as I was ignoring the small nations that lived there once I had all of Russia. I almost lost it all to my Nephew's rebellion in the last 5 years before I got the achievement too. Glad I got it but boy was it a pain that they didn't explain that.

[@jjohnson1680]

Florin Curta was my professor in college, one of the classes I took from him was on medieval Russian history.

[@historyinbits]

Fascinating, where and when was that?

[@mihanoslife6015]

The biggest issue with Russia/Ruthenia etc. is the fact that it wasn't a state. It wasn't even close to being feudal or even somehow united. They were much more like an alliance of smaller principalities which were called after their capital city. This way, we have many city-states. So many, in fact, that historians tend to simplify this amount to just Ruthenia - the land of all Eastern Slavic peoples

[@Virkand]

"Kieven Rus" is NOT a country, its a time period. The country was called Rus Lands or the Lands of the Rus.The slavic people there spoke "proto Russian" or "old Russian tongue" and shared nearly the same culture.

[@thfrussia6717]

Yes the expanding Rus with the capital in Novgorod trying to unite the Slavic tribes captured Kyiv and made it its new capital. And they just got that term Kievan Rus from nowhere like Rus is Kyiv.

[@jakmon3682]

Раздал по фактам всем разрабам парадоксов, однозначно лайк!

[@abrvalg321]

Pretty much it. In 1066 you can talk about 14 (or how many tribes I forgot), Unified russian culture didn't exist. Earlies you can point at would be 1480 or so. Same thing about polish culture, czech, south slavic.

[@kamilszadkowski8864]

Unfortunately, Western Europe is always portrayed with much more detail in comparison to Central and Eastern Europe. Not just in CK3. I guess it's just how things are and it is not going to change anytime soon. When it comes to cultures I don't think I would even portray Polabians Slavs as one culture as different Polabian states and tribes were vastly different from each other despite being so similar at the same time. But I guess that is where the divergent and hybrid cultures step in as in-game mechanics. Regarding the video, I am a bit surprised that you didn't bring up the elephant in the room. Namely that Ruthenia/Kievan Rus was not a feudal state. Definitely not feudal in a Western style. Even a short description of how the ruling system looked like or what were the names of the most important offices would be very interesting. 11:52 *"Russkaya Pravda does not reflect Roman law, but rather bears visible similarities to the Norse jurisprudence"* --- This sentence seems to imply that the Russkaya Pravda was influenced by the Norse founders of Kievan Rus, and although this very much could be the case I just have to point out that all the "barbaric" legal codes from Lex Burgundionum through Lex Ripuaria, Lex Longobardi to Lex Saxonum and finally ending on Russkaya Pravda they are all surprisingly similar to each other despite the difference in time of publishing. Pravda seems even a bit archaic in certain parts in comparison to the earlier barbaric codifications. It seems that Barbaric Europe outside of the Midetrenian influences was much more similar in terms of laws and customs than we are willing to admit. This is however a topic for a different discussion. Also, this raised my eyebrow: *"This is a cool homage to the medieval russian concept of druzhina"* (8:04). Druzhina definitely isn't a strictly Ruthenian concept (sorry using the term "Russian" when referring to medieval Eastern Slavs seems wrong to me). Druzhinas can be found all over the Slavic world. Also contrary to what you've said in the video druzhina doesn't just refer to a ruler's entourage or retinue. Druzhinas existed in many forms some even served as elite guards dedicated to the gods themselves. Like the druzhina of Svatevit consisting of 300 armed horsemen guarding the temple of Arkona on the Rugia (Rugen) island. You will have to dig deeper into the topic of druzhina if you ever plan to cover Poland, the Pomeranians, or the Polabians. But otherwise a great video as always guys. Love your work.

[@benismann]

"Namely that Ruthenia/Kievan Rus was not a feudal state." So are we making it a clan? Or tribal? There're not that many gov types in ck3, and if u were to mention that every time u talk about anything outside of western europe in the game... that would be kinda ew

[@kamilszadkowski8864]

@@benismann Well, this channel is just as much about history as it is about gaming. I don't see anything wrong with digging a little bit deeper and evaluating how compatible a country/region is with the way CK3 portrays feudalism. I personally think that even the little quirks and differences are very interesting. And yes, it goes without saying that CK3's gov types are limited, and even the feudal government type doesn't fit the larger picture in general. It doesn't have to be explained every single time. But I would love if History in Bits when evaluating countries made space (if possible) for a little section on how the CK3 gov types had to be modified or what additions would it take to portray the government system of a particular political entity more accurately. I mean this specific topic is were history and gameplay meet and makes room for interesting discussion in the comment section which I and I am sure many others enjoy just as much as watching the video.

[@historyinbits]

Hey man, we are working right now on a video on “east central europe” talking about Poland and Hungary (and a little bit about Bohemia) - seeing as you are a regular member of the community, I wanted to ask if you’d like to contact us on Discord so you can give your opinion on what we have so far on Poland :)

[@historyinbits]

And thanks for the valuable input as always!!

[@kamilszadkowski8864]

@@historyinbits Wow, what can I say? It would be a pleasure!

[@Nickleby-je4qd]

I don't see any problem with a single Russian culture in 1066 to be fair. It has long been established (by Zaliznyak, for example) that the tribes of the Eastern Slavs spoke similar idioms before the unification of the Rurikovichs. Afterwards, these tribes adopted a new political community: Rus, the Russian land, etc. This can be seen from the chronicles, this is emphasized by all the chroniclers. The same Zaliznyak writes about the formation of a certain koine - the Old Russian language, although in each land (Kiev, Chernigov, Polotsk, etc. the dialect could differ). From this point of view, everything is done correctly in the game. Another thing is that in 867 they should have simply added different cultures according to the number of tribes: Krivichi, Polyan, Drevlyan, Vyatichi. The emergence of a certain Seversk culture is completely incomprehensible. The fragmentation of old rus realm into different political entities has brought the emergence of new eastern slavic cultures. Yet this starts to be visible in 14th century onwards

[@Noobmaster-of3xk]

Something that is very ineresting is just how influcence the Scadinavias had in the region for a long time with helping to overthrow and help ivade as vangarigias agaist their foes or for a bit of cash And how many Scadinavian kings needed to get support in Russia in order to reclaim or claim their throne in Scadanivaia I orther words they were very good at trolling each other

[@XVlove]

I don't know if it is locked behind Royal Court or not, but if you play the game on either start date, there is a chance the culture might diverge itself at a later date, and popped cultures like Ruthenian and I forget what else in Russia, or in Germany, Rhenish, Mainz, etc and many other cultures. If you decided to hybrid or diverge, you might get a "unique" default name for the culture.

[@historyinbits]

Well that could be a feature for an alt-hist special :)

[@vutka1631]

it was Kiev back in the days

[@Cooli167]

The Upcoming Co-Rulership Feature might be a thing that could fix the issue of the Three Brothers technically holding the realm. Each has their Prince title, and the Empire title is shared.

[@GladioVirga]

My complain about the Rus in CK is the lack of the "seniority" inheritance law. The Rus had "Лестничое Право" (The Rota system), in this system the throne was passed from the older brother to the younger brother. It's similar to the seniority law in Bohemia and that's why I think it's weird it wasn't implementent for the Rus

[@kot32222]

Btw using "More Bookmarks+" mod you get much more culture groups at least in Rus' (i only played that region with this mod so i'm not sure about other regions) with "Russian" culture forming by it's own. Not sure on which terms, but basically with expanding and uniting de jure lands of Russian Empire. There is even west slavic pagans and east slavic pagans Highly recommend this mod for your future playthrough guys It adds bunch of different features. It's like a mod compilation

[@IgorS.]

7:31, realy strange pronunciation. "Druzhina" shouldn't be pronounced as "druZina". "Zh" is pronounced like the first letter in "Geneva" or like Czech ž and Polish ż, ź.

[@historyinbits]

Thanks for the tip!

[@7DaysChanel_VandenReich]

I am Russian and I am creating my own mod about Rus. Here are my notes. There’s a lot of text. Please avoid any political topics. I quickly skimmed through your sources because I don’t have time to read them in full, and I will point out two remarks: 1. In "The Rise of Russia in the Early Medieval World" by Brewminate, it is written, "So in 862, he founded Novgorod, Russia’s first important city", which is incorrect. Rus' already existed for a long time, and Rurik was invited to rule Rus' because they couldn't choose a ruler from among the locals. Also, Novgorod already existed, as the chronicles mention the death of a Novgorod elder in 859, when Novgorod was already a major city. 2. Be careful with the maps. At 10:17, a map of Kievan Rus' is shown according to Ukrainian conspiracy theories that deny Rurik and Novgorod. According to the labels on the left, the map shows that Rus' in the 7th century was just the city of Kiev, in 882 Kievan Rus' was the territory around Kiev, and by 1052 Kievan Rus' expanded by capturing other territories, including Novgorod. However, in reality, Kiev was conquered (liberated from the Khazars) and annexed to Rus' in 882, and the capital was moved to Kiev. About the cultures of Rus': 1. The correct culture is "Russian", which emerged in the 7th century as a result of the unification of Slavic tribes. Nowadays, we call it "Antient Russian" to distinguish it from modern Russian culture, but back then it was simply "Russian" culture. A simple confirmation of this is the documents of Kievan Rus', in which people call themselves Russians "rѹсьскыи", which in modern Russian is written as "русские". 2. Language. Throughout the territory of Rus, there was one language - "Russian" ("Antient Russian" to us), which had many dialects, but in general, two people from different parts of Rus' could easily understand each other. Again, in the documents of Kievan Rus', it is written as "rѹсьскъ ꙗзыкъ", which in modern Russian is written as "русский язык". I note the difference from the Ukrainian language "українська мова" and the Belarusian language "беларуская мова". 3. Another confirmation that the culture and language were Russian is the name of the first code of laws in Rus - "Ruska Pravda" ("Правда рѹсьскаꙗ" - in modern Russian "Русская правда"), which was written by the Kievan Prince Yaroslav the Wise in 1016. And the main historical book of Rus' - "The Tale of Bygone Years", written in 1110s in Antient Russian language. 4. In the 15th century, the Antient Russian language split into Old Russian (which was in the Russian Tsardom) and West Russian (which was in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) languages. Later, in the early 19th century, the Old Russian language became the modern Russian language, while the West Russian language split into the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. 5. In Transcarpathia, there is also the Rusyn people with their Rusyn culture and language. Some say it is a dialect of the Ukrainian language, while others claim it is an independent language. In 1918-1920 they had their own state, which was later divided between Czechoslovakia and Poland. In Slovakia, there is still Rusyn autonomy, and in Serbia, the Rusyn language is official in the Vojvodina region.

[@DaveSkylark111]

Perhaps the locals moved away from the rivers circa 800 ad because they didn’t like getting raided by Vikings anymore.

[@alphaomega8373]

I am totally satisfied with the game and continue playing it, hope they change nothing.

[@Т1000-м1и]

1,25X speed type video

[@knightla1126]

The title predicted the future XD

[@lenterlaak]

you should play with the expanded culture mod. it ads all the cultures your missing in eastern Europe...

[@christopherfilip6949]

Well, that's why I play with Cultures Expanded mod, since the cultures in the base game are simply lacking in many ways (i.e. the absence of different east slavic cultures, non-existent Albanians, and so on)

[@Fenrir_Lokisson]

Albanians are Greeks who converted to Islam.

[@fabianauer1986]

​@@Fenrir_Lokissonalbanian was always its own language

[@xxxair5153]

Russia is Rus in the Greek manner (Ρωσία)

[@nicbahtin4774]

There's a history video on the russian language by Arzamas that goes in depth on this period if that helps.

[@Clabilinus]

Ah, westerns… it’s so fun to see a critique of russian (for the moment in the game) stuff in CK3. It’s hard to explain but actually it’s historically correct decision to name that’s culture and Empire Title as Russian and Russia. Also it’s very difficult with the naming and translating through centuries of Rus. You see, originally in the chronicles our old land (in these good old bloody feudal times) was called as a «Русская/Руськая/Роуськая земля» - “Russian land/Land of the Rus”, anytimes just calling «Русь». It’s very matter fact that is originally (in our East Slavic languages) “Rus” not a name of country or region, it’s an plural form for name of people who live in the Rus-land/land of the Rus. And a land which called on the base of its people getting -ia ending. Like Estonia, Latvia, Czechia, Mongolia and more more more… I don’t exactly know but it seems a Greek manner to name countries like this. And yeah, the name of Russia was taken by greek missionaries in the 12 or 13 centuries. The Ruthenia it’s a Latin variation of greek one. The long rivalry between Poland/Lithuania and Moscow leave a mark on this discussion. The polish “figures” made a propaganda that a Ruthenia in their own and forget about Moscow, it’s not Rus, it’s asian state. While technically Moscow principality was the only one survived Russian (in old meaning) formation with Rurikid dynasty on the throne. Is there Galician Rus survived? Ukraine pretending to be successor of this principality. No it’s not survived. Moscow conquered Russian ones surround her. So the name of “Russia” for other globe moved more northern and eastern. As a Russian, it’s not simple to translate this language, take this in attention, i made my best. Hope I did not introduce me like an idiot

[@historyinbits]

Thank you for your perspective!

[@Oleg-t5o9q]

Согласен, как украинец я не виже ничего плохо в термине Русский/Руський. Проблема в том что многие иностранци и не только не различают что Русский/Руський в в 9,10,11,12 веках и в 17,18 и до сегодня не имеют почти ничего общего кроме название которое перекочевало.

[@kindlingking]

​@@Oleg-t5o9qпочему не имеют ничего общего? На смену одним русским людям пришли другие откуда-то ещё?

[@fozerion]

Ukraine is succesor of Rus' because later there was Volhyn-Galycian Knyazivstvo that used Ruska Pravda and than a lot of other smaller non-independent formations. Also, name Rus' was used as name of people who lived in modern Ukraine and Bialorus.

[@vaprolord5124]

Хотелось бы сделать поправку, в реальности Киевская Русь не называлась Киевской, это название было введено в науку, как обозначение периода, когда Киев был лидирующим городом

[@douglasgabriel5228]

For me the problem is the succession, they didnt make the "rotation between the princes"

[@dmitriysmirnoff8636]

Yes, you are right. I'm positive that by this time in my region the ancient tribal identity still existed. There was no unified Russian culture yet. At least in my region at the time of Manzikert, there was a slavic tribe of Vyatich, which later became part of unified Russian identity.

[@oluzanforanium3734]

18:54 - Его сын - THE Владимир Мономах. Он даже получает претензию на Византийскую Империю после смерти его матери

[@ИсторическийПарадокс]

Great video! I have always been surprised by the inheritance system in Russia in the game, in fact, we see the Confederate Partition system, when the eldest son inherits the main title, just like in ordinary European states of that time, but this is completely wrong. Since a huge number of civil wars were connected with the fact that Rurikovich, the eldest in the entire family, inherited, that is, it would be more logical to introduce House Seniority. It also seems inappropriate to me that the three Yaroslavich brothers are in terrible relations with each other. Of course, the brothers were in a difficult relationship, but it is difficult to say about some kind of hatred for the brothers of the younger Vsevolod Pereyaslavsky, it is assumed that this was introduced for a greater balance of the game. Nevertheless, the political configuration of the region in fact always leads to the fact that the descendants of Iziaslav unite Russia in their hands. I would also like to see more independence of the Novgorod land in politics, of course, it will receive its more or less independence much later, namely in 1136, but even then, the veche in the city played a huge role, For example, Gleb Svyatoslavich was kicked out of the reign by the Novgorodians. So, it would be much cooler if elections were already working in the game there, as in Scandinavia. And of course, the presence of the Polovtsians in the game as one single state surprised me back in Crusader Kings 2, in the game they become a more formidable force that is able to conquer the whole of southern Russia, which does not correspond to reality at all, there are too many dangerous neighbors in the game. Nevertheless, despite all these and other disadvantages, I like the work the game developers have done, for example, the characters got into the characters brilliantly.

[@amalekh]

Ah yes, "Kyivan Rus", great history video

[@Ma_ksi]

Very interesting

[@historyinbits]

Glad you think so!

[@chinchillasquad]

In 'druzhina,' the 'zh' is pronounced like the 's' in 'measure,' not like a regular 'z.' So, it’s 'druzhina,' not 'druzina

[@iamaim2847]

yea, that ZH is very confusing, english speakers never can read it.

[@hollandsgloriepotverdorie9605]

this is why culture and ethinicities expanded exist 👍

[@fungamesforgames2680]

It is a pity that you did not disclose the topic of "Rota system" (lestvitsa system) in your video. That was important at that time in Rus... Paradox need make new system of getting title.

[@inspector_beyond]

I do hope Paradox would update this region in future, but it does show that it's mostly comprised of leftover from CK2 (especially that in game files there are Ilmenian, Severian and Volhynian cultures). As Russian myself, here's what I think: -Russian culture as it stands out in this game would de facto exist only after formation of Kyivan Rus and after Christinisation by Vladimir The Great (also know as Krasnoye Solntse, aka The Red Sun in folklore stories, although that's a bit debatable if it's representation of him or not). Before that though, the culture map should be splintered in various tribes, that's shown in many pictures that was shown in the video. The reason being is that modern Russian culture, speaking in game terms and mechanics, diverged from Kyivan Russian as Moskovite (same thing happened with modern Ukrainian and Belarussian cultures, but they diverged when ruled Poland-Lithuania, not Mongols) when Principality of Moscow was a tributary vassal under Mongols, like many other similar Principalities, in exception of Novgorod, which had it's unique form of government. So, Paradox should splinter the cultures in earliest start date, but remain Russian after Vladimir converted Rus to Christianity. Of cource, things that I mentioned are oversimplified, but I did it as to fit it more into CK3 gameplay, but keep it more historical. Also, I have to note the pronounciations. For a german-speaker, you did pretty well. THe only note I can really criticize is the reading of "zh" combo. It's suppose to be read as "J" in French or "Ž" in Western Slavic languages. I know it's kinda a low priortiy thing, but I wonder how a reasearched topic wouldn't had notations on how to pronounce the names. Most modern butchering of a name by English speakers would be Khruschev. Khruschev would actually be [Hrushchyov], while it usually degrades to Kruschev in English speaking world. (Sorry for the rant, just kinda angers me)

[@gerthner]

I know that this video is more about real history investigation, but anyway. Honestly, install the More Bookmarks+ mod and More Cultural Names submod. Original CK2 had a 769AD starting date with many cultures in the region, following an event chain that led to orthodoxy conversion & creation of a united Rus culture. I think we're going to have this as a DLC for CK3 later on with new date introductions. Anyhow, as of right now, just play the mod. Original cultures & religions representation in the game is beyond meme level.

[@ryanrusch3976]

Usually when there is no source listed for a wikipedia article there is no source

[@Geyskuy-ogurchik]

I honestly would like to have a discussion about history of Ruthenia bc entire video was wrong( of course I mean in Discors but only if you can)

[@javikus]

Очень интересный ролик про Русь или Россию (Греческая вариация названия Руси, которую используем мы, современные русские ещё со времён так называемой "Киевской Руси", периода нашей средневековой истории, где княжества соперничали между собой, что в некотором итоге сохранилось несознательно и ныне)

[@David-yj2yk]

Так звана "Росія", насправді походить від Московії, а свою теперішню назву "Росія", Московія просто вкрала у Русі.

[@javikus]

@@David-yj2yk Не искажай историю современными учебниками украины. Москва - один из городов Руси. Московия - название региона, подконтрольного Москве. А Московское княжество - одно из княжеств Руси периода Удельной Руси, когда Рюриковичи достаточно раздробились, что было даже явление "безземельных князей", которые обладали статусом князя, но собственной земли не имели. Ну а кому везло - дробили княжества из тех, что уже существовали. А то, что ты сказал - бред сивой кобылы, ведь у тебя нет ни доказательств этого, никакой строгой аргументации, кроме лозунгов про-национальных активистов, имеющих больше с политикой общего, нежели с историей.

[@David-yj2yk]

@@javikus Московія виникла як держава внаслідок експансії Монгольської імперії. Її землі входили до складу Монгольської імперії, а правителі та населення Московії служили цій імперії. Згодом, коли Монгольська імперія ослабла і розпалася, Московія здобула незалежність. Правителі Московії прагнули відмежуватися від своєї ганебної історії, тому змінили назву держави на Російську імперію. Вони запозичили цю назву у Русі, яка мала репутацію могутньої держави в регіоні.

[@СергейДимнев]

​@@javikusзабавно. В 16 веке православные западной украины, входившей тогда в речь Посполитую, называли "Московию" - Россией. Нерабы этот факт не любят вспоминать

[@javikus]

@@СергейДимнев Я не отрицал, что "православные кочевники" называли Московию Россией :)

[@justdirt]

The issue with overanalyzing these games is their scale. While I would absolutely love for every area to be as detailed as Western Europe in 1047 or Iberia in 867, that level of detail is hard to put into the game all at once. Now, I have my problems with paradox. I wish they had a whole team solely dedicated to researching regions and adding more flavor to all of them. But its very easy to just ask for 100k+ more words to be written and also for that amount of words to be historically accurate. Hopefully, with some future dlc or free update, Eastern Europe gets an overhaul like how Jerusalem and the Byzantines are in chapter 3

[@lordedmundblackadder9321]

If I remember correctly, CK2 had most of the Rus be tributary states of Kyiv.

[@jamesread4469]

The kievin Rus was not an empire like in Europe it was a multiple number of princes that bowed to the Prince of Kiev. It was not centralised. Kievin Rus also was not a centiralised state when fighting the Mongols and was a multiple of states at that time with each city dealing with the Mongols independently. A centrilized Russian state didnt happen until Ivan the terrible who claimed the title Tzar which means king of kings but even at this point the City states were still independent and would be so until the collapes of Novgorad. The greaist problem I have with the game is Russian was not a people until much much later.

[@williamsmith281]

Kiev* Kievan Rus* One war shouldn't change how we spell things in English.

[@blinkrush6101]

Could you do one for the Maghreb?

[@Bvc1986]

12:23 there was the problem of Izyaslav, who was the elder brother, but died earlier. the Polotsk rulers considered themselves independent of Kyiv

[@RemoM7]

Russia for me in my opinion is so boring. They need to expend so much more to the game