Thread: Pan - Slavism etc ?

I wanted to ask you what your views are on the other "Slavic" countries and peoples? If you are from one of these countries, is it something you care about?

Which countries / languages are actually included? I don't know much about it.. Is there any organisation or trans-national group for it? Does it have any objectives in particular; is everyone who is Slavic also Russian Orthodox?

I asked because Basil77 made a comment about it not long ago, and also, because I was actually in Belgrade for a short visit a couple of weeks ago (work -- outsourcing software development there..) As usual I didn't see any of the town at all, but in the evening my colleagues and I went out for a meal. The place we ate at (pizzeria) was decorated in a "pan-slavic" theme; there was even a big modern mural of Tito and flags of other Slavic countries and some Russian souvenirs. Frankly I had no idea Tito was still popular there. I also noticed that they were selling "Slavic Power" T-shirts near the hotel I stayed at, and even cigarette lighters with Yugoslavia slogans on them.

I guess this could be specific for Serbia and not something that people in Russia care about though? Or? Is this a big movement or not very important?

I have such feelings about the other Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Sweden Finland, Iceland) If someone did something against them it would be almost as bad as if it was against Sweden. But we have a language in common so perhaps it's different.

Originally Posted by Johanna

But we have a language in common so perhaps it's different.
[/i]

How's that?

Originally Posted by sperk

Originally Posted by Johanna

But we have a language in common so perhaps it's different.

How's that?

Well, I can easily speak with people from all the Scandinavian countries because the languages are so similar that we can understand each other even though we speak "different" languages. So this makes our sense of belonging together stronger. Plus we have lots of shared history and the same religion.

After reading some posts here it is clear to me that speakers of Slavic languages cannot understand the other languages so easily. The grammar and some words are similar, but that doesn't make the languages mutually understandable.

But the Slavic speaking area is so large, that if there is anything to "pan-slavism" then it's really something to watch.... But then, it could also be something that is not really much more than an abstract idea that means little in reality.

But I was surprised to see in Serbia that it seemed like a huge phenomenon there -- even nostalgia for their time as Yugoslavia (means "great Slavia", I think..)


Saw this online: The Easter greeting:

In Serbian: Hristos vaskres! - Vaistinu vaskres!
In Bulgarian: Христос воскресе - Воистино воскресе

Pretty similar! I don't know what it is in Russian and I won't guess...

Originally Posted by Johanna

In Serbian: Hristos vaskres! - Vaistinu vaskres!
In Bulgarian: Христос воскресе - Воистино воскресе
Pretty similar! I don't know what it is in Russian and I won't guess...

It's pretty much the same.
A "church appropriate" version: "Христос воскресе!" - "Воистину воскресе!" (old grammar)
or "modernisied" version: "Христос воскрес!" - "Воистину воскрес!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slav

Originally Posted by Johanna

is everyone who is Slavic also Russian Orthodox?

No. Only Russians, Belorussians, Eastern and Central Ukrainians, Bulgarians and Serbs are Orthodox. Greeks e.g. are also Orthodox, but they are not Slavs. Some Slavic countries (like Poland and Czechs) are Catholic and few South Slavs are even Muslims (it's the result of the former Turkish domination in the Balkans during many centuries).

I have such feelings about the other Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Sweden Finland, Iceland) If someone did something against them it would be almost as bad as if it was against Sweden. But we have a language in common so perhaps it's different.

The ties between Slavic nations differ. E.g. Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians are very close (the language is almost the same, the same religion and common history), Serbs and Bulgars are not so close, but they are Slavic and Orthodox so it makes them also related. BTW the Russian Empire took part in WW1(the results were that it was destroyed by German spy Lenin) for the reasons of "Slavic brotherhood", to protect "our Serbian brothers" who was so stupid to murder Archduke Ferdinand. Relations between Russians and Western slavs are not so good. Poland-Russia relations are historically bad, and Katyn in XX century didn't make them better. Czech are also feeling hurt by Russians for Prague spring in 1968.
There are also such a thing like "feeling of a Slavic language". I.e. if I hear e.g. Czech I don't understand much, but i feel that it's a Slavic language and it makes it somehow relational .

Btw, iteresting fact: according to the chronicles, enthimology of the name "Russia" (Rus) isn't Slavic it's... Scandinavian.

Originally Posted by Повесть Временных лет

И пошли за море к варягам, к руси, ибо так звались те варяги — русь, как другие зовутся шведы, иные же норманны, англы, другие готы, эти же — так..
..Земля наша велика обильна, а наряда в ней нет, да поидете княжить и володеть нами

My attempt to translate this fragment of anсient chronicle:
"They went to the other coast of the [Baltic] sea to the vikings, to Rus, those viking people were called so as others are called Swedes, Normans, Angles and Goths..
[and they asked those vikings:] Our lands are vast and rich, but there is no order there, so come and rule us."
So, according to the chronicles, these viking people, Rus, came to ancient Russia and became the ruling class there, and also gave their name to the whole country.

Originally Posted by Johanna

is everyone who is Slavic also Russian Orthodox?

Orthodox Church has no effective world single directorate (like Catholicism). Officially there are 14 national and historical Orthodoxal churches, which are actually politically independent, plus several self-proclaimed. So Russian Orthodox Church is an organization with a center in Moscow (Moscow Patriarchate).

Interesting information... I temporarily forgot about the Poles being Catholic -- knew this of course, and I am sure they are not the only Catholic Slavic people.

But it sounds like there is too much fragmentation for "Slavism" to become any kind of important movement any time soon. Maybe it's just one of those movements that are temporarily popular and then disappear off the horizon.

Originally Posted by Basil77

[and they asked those vikings:] Our lands are vast and rich, but there is no order there, so come and rule us."

LOL!!!! How about it Putin, do you need a hand? At your service. I have some great ideas...! Or maybe Ukraine if they are still having trouble working out who really won the election...

I had no idea they were invited in that way! How interesting. I knew very well that the Swedish Vikings went to Russia and Ukraine in particular (the Vikings in modern Norway and Denmark went to Britain, France, Iceland and even Canada)

They made lots of "rune stones" where they described their travels and what they encountered. They had a high view of the people they met Eastwards and did not rob them, steal their property etc like they did in England and France, and are still infamous for I remember from school that the Vikings thought the climate and the soil in Russia were excellent. I think they sometimes also travelled through Ukraine to get to Kontantinopel (Istanbul) -- by boat on the rivers.

I had no idea they were invited in that way! How interesting.

This is what was written in my school text book. But today this theory is not accepted by every one. There are many discussions on this subject and opinions differs from totally fantastic to more or less convincing.

Originally Posted by LuxDefensor

This is what was written in my school text book. But today this theory is not accepted by every one. There are many discussions on this subject and opinions differs from totally fantastic to more or less convincing.

I think it's ridiculous that the event that was considered a historical fact for more than thousand years suddenly became a "theory" somehow. Say also that Rurik dynasty founded by the viking konung Rørik and wich was in power since 862 till 1598 is also a "theory". I love modern pseudo-historians who make their "historical research" and as result we see such articles in the Internet or in "yellow" press: "Sensation! Jesus Christ was actually a woman!" or "Julius Cezar and Brutus were homosexual lovers and Brutus murdered Julius because of jealousy". Please, don't make my slippers laugh.

I've read some Fomenko's ravings too

Still, about Rurik (Hrørek, by the way according to Russian wikipedia). There are several historical documents (both Slavonic and Scandinavian) that agree upon the Rurik's origins and even though there ARE some controversions about this theory the arguments of the other side seem rather weak.

The Vikings left plenty of stones (see below) where they documented their travels. The area where I went to school was PACKED with these stones.

Many of them talk about trips to Russia-Ukraine (not sure which one it was actually). Basically they just say things like:

My name is XXX and I raised this stone in commemoration of my trip to "Gårdarike" (=the country of farmhouses ->Russia). We traded and stayed for two years. We brought home many fine furs.

I also know that they founded a city which is now called Novgorod (not sure if that's in Russia or Ukraine) and some other smaller settlements...

They travelled on Dnjepr and some other rivers in that area. It was quite an accomplishment to find navigable rivers all the way from the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea. I am not sure if that's possible any more.

Another interesting thing is that they really liked that area and "behaved themselves" when they went there, As opposed to France, England etc; where they didn't like the natives and robbed them! They had a very low opinion of those people. Not sure why they liked the Russians better, but they did.

But Sweden TOTALLY lost its confidence in respect to Russia after 1709 when Russia beat Sweden in a battle and took Finland and parts of the Baltic states. That was the end of Sweden's "Baltic empire" forever... Ever since then the policy has been "let's mind our own business and stay friendly with neighbouring countries".

Originally Posted by Johanna

I also know that they founded a city which is now called Novgorod

Hardly. Novgorod was populated by Slavs.

Ok...

Maybe I remember it wrong. I didnt check it.
I remember that the city was called Holmgård by the vikings.... From school.... Had to memorise all that stuff, I'm pretty sure of it.

Just checked it in Wikipedia (Swedish) but it doesn't mention who founded it. Probably Russians though, so forget what I said!

Seems like a very interesting city at any rate. I would like to visit it.
It's in Russia not in Ukraine. Wikipedia says it's celebrated its 1000th anniversary. Not bad!

There is also a really large area marked as "The Republic of Novgorod" something completely different, not related to the city.

I think it's ridiculous that the event that was considered a historical fact for more than thousand years suddenly became a "theory" somehow.

Why don't you like the word "theory". Theories are great, they rules! But in history both theories and facts are funny things. There is no way to check them. Just some kind of investigation based on comparing different sources. And about Fomenko - his "theory" is complete rubbish but only because he is a dilettante and knows nothing about methodology of history (I am a dilettante too, I just repeat the words of some scientist from an article I once read). So, they historians construct their theories arranging the "facts" into consistent systems. Imaging for a minute that one day will be proved that "Повесть временных лет" is a fake. Of course there are many other sources but this cronicle is fundamental and all the others were verified by it. It will be crisis
I don't suggest revision of history, I just want to show that history (unlike phisics) is not an experimental sciense. And this is it's curse. It will be revisioned now and then for the sake of different political interests, whether we like it or not. And surely it hapened before and not once.

Originally Posted by Johanna

But I was surprised to see in Serbia that it seemed like a huge phenomenon there -- even nostalgia for their time as Yugoslavia (means "great Slavia", I think..)

Yug - o - slavia. Yug = юг = "south"


So it's more like Southern Slavia.

Originally Posted by Johanna

There is also a really large area marked as "The Republic of Novgorod" something completely different, not related to the city.

You are mistaken. Novgorod was a capital of that republic:

Holmgård is how Vikings referred to Novgorod. Rurik founded a fort nearby and later Novgorod became his capital but the city itself was already there when they came.

Thank you for explaining all this!

Sorry I made some incorrect claims! I don't know Russian geography very well.

And I clearly didn't know this topic very well (particularly the bits about the Vikings which I ought to have known more about...) Thanks for explaining!

Grat map in Basil77s post... I had a foggy memory of having read about Novgorod empire in History.. But I never knew it included half of Finland!

Since we are talking about this; does anyone know whether it is possible today (and in the past) to travel by boat (on the rivers) from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea?

The Vikings were doing that, but as I recall there were a lot of questions about how precisely this worked -- it was believed that they sometimes had to build make-shift wooden "wheels" and push their boats when the rivers where in-navigable. Also, I would assume it could only be done during the warm months; these rivers probably freeze in the winter.

Here is a Swedish map of some of this... The place marked "Sigtuna" was a major Viking town -- I went to school there for 6 years and there were several stones around town raised by Vikings to document their trips to Russia.



One more thing: I think that these movements such as "Slavism", "Scandinavism", and a few others might become more important in the future, as Europe unites more. Perhaps people will identify more with a certain region/people in Europe than with a particular country. What do you think?

Only a few countries are big and important enough to be able to "go it themselves". (Russia is one of them, of course).

(Or else, a much more depressing prospect is that integration means that local culture will just be replaced by dumbed down junk culture and people won't care much about their backgrounds at all.)

Originally Posted by Johanna

One more thing: I think that these movements such as "Slavism", "Scandinavism", and a few others might become more important in the future, as Europe unites more. Perhaps people will identify more with a certain region/people in Europe than with a particular country. What do you think?

Don't underestimate nationalism when economic times get rough!

Europe has made a lot of progress towards unification -- moreso with the Lisbon treaty. However, there are going to be a lot of unexpected consequences and we need to see how it will play out. There are already individual countries that are internally divided like Spain, Italy, and especially Belgium. It's hard to see how Europe could get together and be one big happy family any time soon when a number of its member constituents already have in-house issues. Additionally, look at the irritation at the Greek government and its effect on the EU economy, for example. It's going to make some countries think twice about giving up sovereignty in various areas, I'd imagine.

Of course, Europe is one thing and Scandinavia is another. Perhaps the regional, cultural, philosophical, linguistic, and political differences aren't so great between them and there's a possibility for closer cooperation in that area. You would know better than I would, I think.

Pan-Slavism has its limits too.