It's a schizophrenic bot, don't respond to it. Reading Russian history from foreign authors is a shitty idea with the exception of Imperial Russian navy (by Jane, Fred T., 1899) and Nestor Chronicles (by August Ludwig von Schlözer, in 5 vol., 1802-1809), and a few others. I could make you a list of quality literature, but I'm busy with work at the moment.
>Nicholas V. Riasanovsky
I don’t think Mr Riasanovsky is a foreigner.
>Nicholas
Not Nikolai
>Valentine
Not Valentinovitch
>Riasanovsky
Not Riasanovskyj
>Immigrated to the U.S. in 1938
Not Russian
I remembered his name, but I'm not familiar with his work.
I take you seriously when you say Russians themselves write the best Russian history because I believe you.
My issue is that I was looking for a single volume general history, because I don’t have time to read multiple volumes. And from Russian authors I couldn’t find anything in my library like this, and when I looked I found very few translations. So I settle for what I’ve got anyway. I can already see the western essence of this text because he’s always quick to disregard the views of “soviet historians” in favour of western historians
There was never such a state as Kievan Rus' (much less Kievan Russia, lol). All these prefixes Novgorodian-, Kievan-, Vladimiro-Suzdal-, Moscow Rus' etc. were developed by the professors of the universities of the Russian Empire so that students could better orient themselves in the confusing history of their country. The prefixes denote only the epoch of Rus' associated with the historical capital. The inhabitants of Rus', called their country simply Rus'. Rus' (in transcription - Roos') - with a softened letter "s" - is the correct sound pronunciation of this name. Nowhere in annals any other name except Rus' and later Russia (Rossia) is not mentioned. If your history textbook does not begin with an explanation of this, and the name Kievan Rus' is used out of the context of the era, you can throw that textbook away.
Who is the successor of Rus'? Russia(Rossia), Ukraine(Ookraina) and Belarus(Belaroos' or Belaroossia ). Whether it is equal or unequal, however, is a matter for protracted debate from which modern Russia 100% will emerge victorious.
> I can already see the western essence of this text because he’s always quick to disregard the views of “soviet historians” in favour of western historians
Thank you for providing information.
dude, russian history should be studied only from foreign authors. There has never been a normal historical school in Russia. all academic history was created (and exists now) under the strong ideological influence of the state. so read western authors.
>historical school in Russia
What are you talking about, VPN-pidorashka?
Russia has Karamzin and Artsybashev who wrote their historical multivolumes on scrolls and annals given to them by Catherine II. I don't recommend them to him because it's a year or two's reading and he's asking for a simple book.
Fuck off back to your /b/-"porasha", you stupid uneducated animal.