Talk:Kievan Rus'

The modern nations of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine all claim Kievan Rus’ as their cultural ancestor.
Only Ukraine is the cultural successor of Kievan Rus. Back then, there were no states like today's Belarus or Russia. Kyivan Rus is also known as Rus' or the Land of the Cossacks. The Cossacks were Ukrainians. 212.90.63.34 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Would be much better if you could provide reliable sources supporting your claims. 2A00:1FA0:4300:8A1C:17A8:85A7:642:FD95 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe Plokhy’s The Origins of the Slavic Nations talks about in what ways this is true, and the limits in how meaningful it is, in the context of competing national claims. Probably his Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History too. —Michael Z. 03:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Plokhy is arguing that Ukraine is the only cultural successor of Kievan Rus'? Can you provide pages where he makes such claim? Marcelus (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * re: Plokhy is arguing that Ukraine is the only cultural successor of Kievan Rus'?, I don't think that is what Michael was saying this, he's pretty clear in his comment, talks about in what ways this is true, and the limits in how meaningful it is. I'm not seeing anything that indicates he is stating the above.  // Timothy :: talk  09:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Plokhy says "none of the three", which is definitely a non-orthodox position. There are other positions, such as one by Mykhailo Hrushevsky (same link). But it is true that all of them "claim". There is no problem on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article says not a word about this besides the lede, which strikes me as weird. Don't we say that a lede is a summary of article text? And while writing this, I noticed that the article does not have section "Culture". We do have Culture of Kievan Rus'. How about a couple of words here, following Summary style? And speaking about cultural ancestry, it looks like uk-wikipedians don't feel it: we have Культура Древней Руси and Культура Старажытнай Русі, but there is no article uk:Культура Київської Русі. - Altenmann >talk 03:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Compare maps of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' from the 9th to 13th century, the period of it's existance under the name(s), and modern maps of our countries. Geographically, Kievan/Kyivan Rus' was in the place of many sections of modern countries, not entirely composing of any of them. Since Kievan/Kyivan Rus' did not strictly develop into anything we have now, as it was fragmented during & after the Mongolian Invasion, it should be resonable to assume that the people of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' ended up seperated. With the seperation of the people, the culture that was once the entirety of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' would now be in multiple different locations that would eventually go on to be what we have now. I sincerely doubt every single tradition and the generations of people who practiced them somehow migrated over to where Modern Ukraine currently resides.
 * And the comment of the Cossacks... Where is the evidence for this claim? Additionally, what does that have to do with Kievan/Kyivan Rus'? The area was significantly larger than where it is thought the Cossacks originated. Culture could have still been carried by other groups of people as well... Dasymutilla (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But it is misunderstanding of what Kyivan Rus' was. It was like any empire, with an ethnic core which was in Central Ukraine. Only tribe in Central Ukraine called themself Rus', no other slavic tribe called themself Rus', they were conquered by this Ukrainian tribe and payed tribute, war contribution to Kyiv. After Mongol invasion, western Ukrainian will identify themself as Kingdom of Rus', as considering themself as one nation with Central Ukrainians. That's how Kyivan Rus' became Ukraine. 46.118.237.59 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

All of this is off-topic. Talk pages are WP:NOTFORUM. NLeeuw (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Article Incorporation
I suggest the articles Kievan Rus' law, Kievan Rus' ornament, Culture of Kievan Rus', Christianization of Kievan Rus', and Architecture of Kievan Rus' all be incorporated into the main article. I am not about to argue about semantics, and it is my understanding that all articles refer to roughly the same period of the same geographic location. If this suggestion is not agreed with, why does this article not have the extent of information contained in the others? This is especially true for the Culture of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' (by which I refer to the nation mentioned in this article), which would be considerably important information for those seeking the information without warranting confusion. Dasymutilla (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a paper book to put everything into a single text. In Wikipedia we split big subjects into reasonably-sized subtopics. Please read WP:Summary style. - Altenmann >talk 00:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although the ladder section is still being asked. Why is the Culture of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' not even mentioned? The WP:Summary style mentions tying the information to a "parent article", which would be the primary article of whatever sub-topic relates to/came from, which doesn't exist in this article. There is a reference to Culture of Kievan Rus' for "further reading" in the #Society section but the category does not really mention any relation to cultural aspects. It's the same with each of the other articles proposed: Where are the references to the seperate information in the main article? Dasymutilla (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is the Culture of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' not even mentioned? It is: Kievan Rus'. Per WP:TOOLONG, the current article is almost too long with 12,514 words. If it grows beyond 15,000 words, it Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. If you think the current text does not mention enough about culture, you should trim it elsewhere to make room for it. Trimming may only be done if it is unnecessary or WP:UNDUE material. Please be careful. NLeeuw (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Kyivan, not kievan.
Kyivan, not kievan. 217.165.252.232 (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Historical, well established names in English sources cannot be changed, per wikipedia policies. - Altenmann >talk 20:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If I got a euro for every time someone posted a message on this talk page saying it should be Kyivan instead of Kievan, I could buy a train ticket to Kyiv by now. The WP:COMMONNAME is not gonna change any time soon (even though trends have been observed in that direction recently, they are not significant enough yet). NLeeuw (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding the historical, triangular red banner of Kievan Rus according to frescoes from the chronicles to the article
Vbokivs (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That is wp:or. Medieval polities did not have flags in the modern sense.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a banner, though. Shouldn't it be uploaded nonetheless? Vbokivs (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't be. It's just a random banner, nothing indicates it was used by Kievan Rus' princes. On the second picture it's clearly used by two sides. Also those pictures are from 15th century. Marcelus (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ermenrich and Marcelus are correct. Unless you can show a banner, flag or coat of arms to have been used historically, probably in roll of arms / armorial, it is mere speculation to suggest that a simple monocoloured flag used by multiple sides was "the" banner of all of Kievan Rus'. NLeeuw (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not a random banner at all. My sources are the miniatirues from a very significant source called the Primary Chronicle - "Radziwiłł Chronicle" and an icon called «Богоматерь Знамение» (Битва новгородцев с суздальцами). The triangular flag was the most common type of battle flag of Rus (so in the plural the inhabitants of Kievan Rus' were called). The banner marked the middle of the army. It was guarded by banner bearers. From afar it was visible - whether the squad was defeated (the banner fell down) or the battle was successful (the banner ‘stretched like clouds’). The shape of the banner could also be in the form of a trapezoid, and also with three or two triangular wedges of cloth. Vbokivs (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * [[File:Victory of the bogatyr of Russia over the Pecheneg warrior; flight of the Pechenegs from the army of Vladimir Svyatoslavich.png|thumb]]
 * Another fragment from the Primary Chronicle. Vbokivs (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Historical chronicles describe and depict the flags of Russia as triangular red cloths of different lengths. Even if the miniatures are from 15th century, they depict events that happened during Kievan Rus' existence. In Rus, instead of the words ‘flag’ and ‘banner’ the word ‘styag’ was used, because the army was pulled together under it. Nonetheless, it is the same as a flag. Vbokivs (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We need a source that explicitly says that the red triangle was the banner of Rus'.
 * The ru-wiki article actually says that banners of various colours were used, but unfortunately there is no inline citation. Alaexis¿question? 08:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, they appear red in all of the miniatures, why does that not count as a source? Vbokivs (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The colour of the Rus' military banners was predominantly red, but rarely also blue and green. Vbokivs (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was, factually, the symbol that represented Rus'. Vbokivs (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The part about multiple colours you are referring to from the article is related to the beginning of Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov's rule. So it is not about Kievan Rus, but rather Tsardom of Russia. Vbokivs (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Facial_Chronicle_-_b.09,_p.302_-_Battle_of_the_Vozha_River_(1378).png#/media/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Facial_Chronicle_-_b.09,_p.302_-_Battle_of_the_Vozha_River_(1378).png
 * Here is another miniature from the Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible, but it doesn't depict something that happened in the Kievan Rus', but rather a conflict that happened between the Moscow Principality in 1378 and the Golden Horde. They are using that exact red triangular banner because the Rus' army used it even before the Mongol invasion and the Moscow Principality continued this. Vbokivs (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is still all original research. You can’t use your own interpretation of primary source images to add material to Wikipedia. Please review our policies on wp:reliable sources and wp:original research.-Ermenrich (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing other than the last part is my interpretation. I've looked at the miniatures from the chronicles. Vbokivs (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything you've said is original research. You have no source stating that the Rus' used a red triangular banner, only your own observation of primary source images that were made hundreds of years after the end of Kievan Rus.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I was going to write the same: we need scholarly sources that say what this triangle was. - Altenmann >talk 15:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No scholars mention flag of "Kievan Rus". - Altenmann >talk 18:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

On a side note, what did this long narrow triangular banner mean? - Altenmann >talk 18:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "Tasty ice-cream for sale at the shop around the corner! Now at a discount of 23 grivny apiece! Check out our new flavour "Vladislav, Baby Don't Hurt Me!"
 * Seriously though, I haven't got a clue. Seems like the illustrator of the Radziwiłł Chronicle just used the most vivid colour on his palette to paint some but not all of these flags with. Red tends to be best noticeable from a distance in all kinds of weather conditions. It's one of the leading theories of why the Dutch Prince's Flag, originally orange white light-blue, changed to red white dark-blue at sea (which in turn inspired the modern Russian white blue red flag) so that it was better recognisable in the distance, regardless of sun glare, fog, mist, or cloudy skies.
 * Отсечение руки Боголюбского.jpg'' miniature, Andrey Bogolyubsky's left arm is cut off by his assassins, although the texts claim his "right hand" was cut off. A 1965 autopsy of Andrey's body confirmed the left arm showed many cut marks.]]
 * There is no reason to believe the illustrator got everything right. For example, the Radziwiłł Chronicle, Suzdalian Chronicle (Laurentian text) and Kievan Chronicle all agree that shortly before Andrey Bogolyubsky was murdered, "Peter cut off his right hand." Yet, the adjoining illustration shows his left arm being cut off. I kid you not. Read the details at Andrey Bogolyubsky. We really, really can't take these illustrations in the Radziwiłł Chronicle at face value, no matter how beautiful and unique they are. NLeeuw (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the color may be fake, but I don't think the overall shape of these long narrow triangles were invented.... and finally I found these in wp: Pennon and Oriflamme. - Altenmann >talk 22:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree, the color might be fake, and no studies I know of explicably state that it was THE color of Rus' banners. But if it were so so, it would make even more sense that both the Novgorod Republic and the Grand Duchy of Moscow in the future had used red, triangular banners Vbokivs (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey, on the ruwiki article (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Знамя) there is some info. Styag or fringes - a military banner in ancient Russia in the form of a pole with a bundle of horse hair, a wedge of brightly coloured cloth, an animal figure or other object fixed on it. The most important characteristic of a flag is to be clearly visible from afar. And then this image is attached, Червленый стяг XII в.png with the description "Scarlet styag of the Russian druzhina. XII century. Chronicle drawing". Vbokivs (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Used a translator to translate the Russian text. Rus'*, not Russia. Vbokivs (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also found this on the Ruwiki (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Стяг_(знамя): ‘Styag is an Old East Slavic derivation from styagati - “to pull down”. Styag literally means ‘that which pulls down’ (cf. dial. styag - ‘a pole, which is used to pull down hay on a cart’).
 * Later on the styag began to fasten large pieces of brightly coloured fabrics in the shape of a wedge. On the upper end of the styag was set a metal spike. The image of the Life-Giving Cross was stitched on the cloth, and a quiff, coloured with bright paint, was tied under the quiff. The ends of the styag, except for the wedge-shaped form, could have two or three tails, which were called plaits, slopes, klintsy or yalovtsy. During campaigns the flag was removed from its shaft and transported in the wagon together with weapons and armour. The princely druzhina guarded the styag. The styag was put on the shaft only before the battle. In antiquity the styag could be of huge size and its installation required considerable time. In chronicles sometimes occurs the expression ‘do not put up the flag’, which could mean ‘a sudden attack of the enemy’, ‘to be taken by surprise’. The expression ‘to put up the flag’ meant to declare war. During a battle, the flag was usually placed in the centre of the army, on a hill. The fall of the flag caused confusion in the army, so special soldiers - flag bearers - were installed to guard the flag. The enemy, on the contrary, threw the main forces at the flag. The most heated battles took place under the flags. Chronicles, when describing the battle, follow the flag: the flag's braids ‘extend like clouds’ meant a successful course of the battle; defeat was described as ‘the flag undercut’. Vbokivs (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also from the Ruwiki: Styag - a military banner in Kievan Rus' in the form of a pole with a bundle of horse hair, a wedge of brightly colored cloth, an animal figure or other object clearly visible from a distance.
 * If the banner was meant to be visible from a distance, then it makes sense to make it red, since it is the most visible color. Vbokivs (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm not wasting any more time on this pointless conversation. This is all WP:Original research, we are not going to add any flag or banner or standard to this article whatsoever based 21st-century Wikipedians' interpretations of illustrations of chronicles written centuries later. NLeeuw (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here, I found a source: it is a video lecture by the Doctor of Historical Sciences named Medinsky, Vladimir Rostislavovich (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm4EhNpk71U, 24:48)
 * In the case of the national flag, everything is more complicated. There were no national flags before either, but there were princely military banners with symbols. Why were they needed at all? Some philologists still believe that the Russian word styag, or banner, is related to the verb ‘to pull together’. It is as if there is a princely styag and the commanders must pull together their units and rally around it. Therefore, a styag was just a tall pole, on top of which something noticeable or bright was attached, so that it could be seen from distance. Originally, it could be tufts of grass or a horse's tail, but over time, bright pieces of cloth began to be used. What colour does immediately catch the eye? Red, therefore, a princely styag was a tall pole with red ribbons, which eventually became triangular, rectangular or other, more complex shapes. As the strips of fabric grew bigger in size, they began to be embroidered with symbols or images of what was especially dear, such as the image of the Virgin, the face of the Saviour, cherubim and seraphim, the sun and the moon. And the person who carried the banner and was responsible for its safety became very important, because as long as the banner  stood up on the battlefield, it meant that the Prince was alive and his men had to fight to the death.  But if the banner fell, then something happened to the Prince, and in the morality of that time it implied that vassals were thus freed from their vassal oath,  because back then they swore allegiance not to the state, but personally to the Prince. As it was written in the ‘Tale of Igor's Campaign’, "... and Igor's banners fell." Styag was later also called znamya, from the word ‘a sign’ - it was a banner on which something related to faith was embroidered, for example, the face of the Saviour. Znamya, unlike styag, was necessarily consecrated by some church hierarch or a priest before the battle. The one who carried znamya was called znamenosets, or a standard-bearer, the one who carried horugvi in the Cossack troops was horunzhiy, or a cornet, and the one who carried prapor was praporshik, or an ensign, these are all synonyms. All in all, it was a very responsible and important mission.  Banners were mostly red, because it is clearly visible from afar and thence red is considered the commander's colour. However, there is a mystery - do you know what colour Dmitry Donskoy's banners were on Kulikovo Field, as many historians believe? They were black and holy images were embroidered on them with gold and silver thread. Afterwards, in the 19th century, a dispute broke out in society, because if Dmitry Donskoy had black flags, this confirmed that the imperial colours, black-yellow-white, were historical and ancient, but if they were red, then it would be advisable to advocate for the tricolor, i.e. red-blue-white. And so, such a theoretical dispute broke out on this score among historians that they even argued that the chronicler,  describing the Mamai massacre, had made a spelling mistake and in fact the flags were not cherny, or black, but chermny, or scarlet, that is, red. Following this logic, it turns out that the chronicler made a mistake in one piece of text, i.e. missed one letter, four times, and since  this scroll counts about five hundred re-writes of it, all the scribes also, respectively, made a mistake in all five hundred copies.  I don't know, let's assume that this is a historical mystery and perhaps some of Dmitry Donskoy's banners were really black. In any case, it is officially known that after, all the banners of Ivan the Terrible were red. Vbokivs (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The video even depicts an image of the red, triangular flags that fall under the description in the lecture itself that I just forwarded (at 28:09). Vbokivs (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * tl;dr -- You just wasted your and our time preaching to the choir. We know very well there were military banners. But you did not provide any proof that there was an official flag/banner of Kievan Rus as a state. - Altenmann >talk 05:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

In the 14th-century Book of Knowledge of All Kingdoms, the flag of Roxia (Russia) is a red banner with a city/castle on it. See here. Srnec (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not what we are discussing here. (Please remind me, what we are discussing. Maybe I spaced out). Yes, some Russian cities have similar coats of the arms even today. So what? - Altenmann >talk 23:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's just Novgorod. File:Banner of the Novgorod Republic (c. 1385).svg. File:Coat of arms of the Novgorod Republic (c. 1385).svg. NLeeuw (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And that's from suspicious book Book of Knowledge of All Kingdoms, most probably fictional, as the introduction to the modern translation say ([read this for a good laugh). Novgorod Republic didn't have reputably attested flags either. I will have to look into this. - Altenmann >talk 05:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That might be the reason why the banner and coat of arms have been removed from the Novgorod Republic article? Other Wikipedias still feature them (in fact, I recently added them to nl:Republiek Novgorod). NLeeuw (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The slavic tribe of Rus'
This article criticaly overlooked the role of Polanian tribe in Kyivan Rus'. Even if, as this article suggests, vikings were the first to be called "Rus'", Kyivan Rus' was centered around Polanian tribe, Rus' vikings were representatives of Polanian tribe, all their conquerings in Eastern Europe became Polanian conquerings, all tribute they gathered from Northern slavic tribes was coming to Polanian center of Kyiv, and Polanians themself started to call themself Rus' in 852 as the chronicle suggests. Other slavic tribes like Ilmen Slavs or Kriviches never called themself Rus', they were using this name for Polanians, yet you mentioned them like equals. Polanians were basically metropoly of Kyivan Rus'. I'm not sure if anyone here cares about this article, but if you do - please put this as the suggestion. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Kyivan Rus'
The naming has changed. Modern sources tend to use Kyivan Rus. Even Magocsi in his latest works - Ukraina Redux: On Statehood and National Identity - Ukrainian World Congress - Ukrainian World Congress. We should start adopting the change. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * One example proves nothing, I can just as easily find many recent books which use the current title (A History of Russian Economic Thought (2023), Orthodox Mercantilism Political Economy in the Byzantine Commonwealth (2023), The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order (2024) etc). In any case there is no policy that says that only sources published in the last few years should be used when determining the name. Alaexis¿question? 21:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well of those sources which do use "Kyivan", whose write that as "... also known as Kyivan ..." ? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that any of the books I've mentioned predominantly uses "Kyivan Rus"? Alaexis¿question? 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It's our article that uses "... also known as Kyivan Rus". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You still aren't being clear. Why would a source that uses "Kyivan" say "also known as Kyivan"? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The question is - why does the wiki article uses such a wording. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is titled "Kievan Rus'", in accordance with what has been determined to be the most widespread usage. However, "Kyivan Rus'" is used in some sources for the same thing. The phrase "also known as Kyivan Rus'" serves to let people know that these two names refer to the same thing. This is REALLY simple stuff. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't need a source so say "also known as Kyivan Rus". If we have a majority of sources using one name and a minority using the other one, then it's totally legitimate to say X also known as Y. Alaexis¿question? 13:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we have a majority of sources using one name and a minority using the other one But we don't.Even Magocsi has changed his terminology. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And? Magocsi is just one source. You were already given several sources that use Kievan. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

First capital
The article mentions the Varangians, notably Rurik, establishing their center of power in Novgorod by 862 from where they expended Russia southwards. By 882 Kiev was conquered and made capital of Russia. Therefore, the capitals list should include Novgorod for 862 - 882 and only afterwards Kiev. 2A02:8108:8A80:753A:D5A6:4021:71B1:ED37 (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)