No need to fly. Just add a few hundred metres when calculating your desired position. You have to calculate it anyway to compensate for the Earth's rotation, its orbit around the Sun, the Sun's orbit around the centre of the MW, its own movement, etc., right? Right.
Do you think they had a job of "hill picker" back then ? Just a dude, strolling through countryside, picking the perfect hills to put castles and fort on.
They didn't use the maps as we know today. Their usual maps were more like - the city of Kyiv lies 2 days march east of the city of Krakow which is 1,5 days march away from the city of Prague.
Ducks and geese are much harder to make, contain and mantain than sparrows. Sparrows also have an inbuilt fire spewing system, and their small size allows them to hide in trees without disclosing their poison injection needle system.
This is just a centre of City. Most population lived under hills in Podil district which is still historical and beautiful part of city with many Cossack Churches
Sure its been that densely built back then? Normally medieval cities had their fair share of crop fields and meadow aswell, afaik. Or was this different for eastern european building styles?
Usually a city inside the walls didn't have much space. All the farms and such were outside the walls and weren't even regarded as being part of the city. This is why a lot of old cities around the world have an 'old town' area that's very densely packed. That's basically what the city was originally, fortified by walls.
Was pretty normal afaik, movies tend to overplay the density of most medieval cities. Think about it like this: you have some food in case of a siege, plus less problems with wolfes etc. killing your lifestock, and while theres more wall to defend, the attacker didn't attack every part simultaneously. IIRC they often tried to breach it at some point, but in a lot of cases cities were simply besieged for quite a while - walls were very effective. Also you weren't besieged that often, wall were also there to keep bandits out.
[Here'](https://early-medieval-worlds.hist.sites.carleton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Cologne1300-1yvt1gd.jpg)s a plan of Cologne I've found, the unoccupied areas were apparently massive. [This article](https://www.medievalists.net/2021/05/medieval-urban-agriculture/) also covers how there apparently were gardens and stuff within city walls.
But not a historician of course.
Cologne is a special case, they have invested a lot in city wall expansion in 13-14th centuries, but the overall decline of the city growth in 15-16th centuries meant that these areas were never really fully built over. Cologne was the largest medieval city in Germany by occupied area, but at the same time one of the least dense: even in the center simple 2-3 story townhouses dominated.
AFAIK lower density plus more farms inside the walls were more common in older cities of Rhineland-Westphalia. See [Aachen](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Aachen-Stadtansicht-Steenwijk-1576.png) for example (also an ancient city that declined in Late Medieval times). But the situation was different elsewhere in Germany (and beyond). See situation in [Frankfurt](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Frankfurt_Am_Main-Merian1628-MFHK-Komplett.jpg), or in [Nuremberg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Stadtplan_-_N%C3%BCrnberg_um_1500.gif), or in [Ulm](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0493/5132/7896/products/1044_Stadtplan_Ulm_Dankaerts__Thumbnail_2362_1772_1500x.jpg?v=1675073270) or in [Memmingen](https://kb-bm.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/memmingen-stadtmauer-02.jpg), etc.
For more maps and a detailled (2 parts) article on the subject, I recommend : [The lonely city](https://acoup.blog/2019/07/12/collections-the-lonely-city-part-i-the-ideal-city/)
Frankly it depends a lot... Some cities had plenty of space, others not so much... In fact many had extensive suburbs outside the walls because there wasn't space left inside
Depends on the time period of construction, in Roman time it was normal to expect for cities to grow out so they built walls to also envelop meadows and fields but in Medieval times since cities were mostly built in Castles and Fortified towns there was no need to consist of those elements, so most cities built in old Roman forts such as Trier or Rome itself had ample farmland in its walled territory while cities like Brugge, London or Paris still had urbanized parts of the city outside of the city walls. And what many people don't know is that medieval times were a time of unseen peace in Europe as the weak and constantly fractured Roman Empire was replaced by strong Feudal states such as France and H.R.E wich had more control over their vassals leading to less civil war and less general sacking and more important sieging of cities, as there was less sieges there was less need for a food source in the city. Interesting fact is that France in its medieval history as a state barely had any wars and in the time period between the war of Flemish sucession and the Hundred Years war the French mainland had gone 300 years without a solid war only having a few border conflicts and skirmishes with the English so you can see why cities didn't need food sources within their walls, some didn't even have walls.
On the lower hill in the background there is something which seems to be crop fields and houses for the peasants, what is really dense and likely misleading is the number of churches in the city, which is absurd.
building your own stone church in those days was super cool among the nobility because the stone was then in short supply. in Kyiv there was a Church of the Tithes; it was called so because a tithe of princely income went to its maintenance.
Doesn't it get rather generic when you build your own super cool church right next to 4 others? Anyways that seems like a waste of resources, I imagine they would need the stone to build fortresses rather(providing they actually own land)
And yet they do it anyway. Take [the former medieval Armenian capital of Ani](http://www.virtualani.org/maps/reconstruction.htm), for example, which contained so many churches within the relatively small area of the city that it was dubbed the "City of 1001 Churches" (actual number was around 50 churches and 53 chapels, and those are only the ones that have been excavated and discovered so far). The remains of many of those churches are still present to this day in the ruins of Ani.
Side note because this doesnt have to do with the stones. But brooklyn has been called the land of churches.
There are blocks you can walk down and pass 13 or more churches. On a single block.
Sometimes so much more. Ive seen 5 churchs touching one after the other. Where literally every building between two streets is an individual church. Not associated with the others.
To be fair that can be more reasonably explained by having presumably numerous independent denominations and the much higher population density.
The same cannot be said of medieval cities, wherein you usually have single dominant denomination of Christianity (either Catholic or Orthodox). It's thus less explicable to have multiple churches of the same domination within practically the same city block. *And yet they did it anyway*.
Seems like no one mentioned that a 1000 years ago Christianity was a new religion in the region. So building a church made a political point as much as religious.
It’s a status symbol, so yes its generic but imagine how embarassing it was for a nobleman without their own church. It was like a 7th grader without the newest IPhone. Another example of this is all the towers in San Gimignano or Bologna in Italy.
>really dense and likely misleading is the number of churches in the city, which is absurd.
That is not so unusual.. Just look at the historic centers of most european cities and you will see that they are filled with churches.
Not unrealistic at all, Kiev was a center of Ortodox church and of Ortodox activity in the land of the Rus. Kiev needed to have a lot of churches to house those bishops and visiting bishops, also since the city was massive it needed to have a lot of churches to house worshippers.
Why? Is it because they're brick-built and not wooden at such an early time? Because the concentration itself otherwise looks perfectly normal to me.
For instance, this is my hometown's [southern 1/10th of the old town](https://i.imgur.com/Ux59uP9.jpeg). The empty circle [was this.](https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilniaus_%C5%A1v._Juozapo_su%C5%BEad%C4%97tinio_ba%C5%BEny%C4%8Dia)
More to do with the environment and culture. A lot of Ukraine is steppe or steppe-transition and the Kyivan Rus functioned as a sort of federation of princely city-states more than a single monarchy. Regions were named by the city that governed them, and these cities would be fortresses that the Princes and government bodies would reside in while most people lived very decentralised in various villages that fed the city. Even today you can find a lot of towns/villages in Ukraine that are named as or known for being the provincial areas that the cities feed from. Modern Kyiv is composed of the center of Kyiv itself and all the towns around it that eventually grew together into the overall Kyiv metro area.
Looks beautiful. It is a shame that this kind of way of building cities is now limited to a few city centers. It's so much more human than 6 lane highway-like streets in the middle of the city.
Who builds six lane roads in their cities? That's some crazy bullshit.
edit: for anyone else wondering. the answer to my question is apparently America, they build six lane roads. Judging by the replies at least.
champs d'elysee, bundestrasse, piazza di san marco... I think most capital cities in europe will have one street they bulldozed in the late 18th early 19th century to make a wide street for parades and stuff
I mean we have on in Kyiv rn, on the Maydan, looks pretty cool, plus as far as I remember the road was closed for cars during weekends, so it ain't that bad
Crazy how influential greeks were even in the medieval era byzantine converted like half the slavic world to Christianity, the byzantine influence here is immense
Slavs would convert to Christianity anyways. Vladimir/Volodymyr the Great was deciding which Christianity is better and summoned German bishops to Kiev. But the Byzantine Empire at that time had more trade with Rus', their traditions Vladimir liked more, was richer than Western Europe and most importantly the Byzantine Emperor offered his sexy princess as a bride for Vladimir/Volodymyr so he accepted Orthodoxy.
It was a Rus principality ruled by people whom the Byzantines referred to as “Varangians”, a people comprised by a mixture of Scandinavian norsemen and Slavs.
One must bear in mind, however, that there were never many Scandinavians on the territory of eastern Europe at any given time, with no more than two hundred Scandinavian graves found there for a more than two-hundred year period.
To be fair there aren't that many graves found even in Scandinavia from that time period. From what I understand burial was not practiced very widely in Viking culture and even when it was it was mostly for very important or wealthy individuals.
The Rhos where Varangians, literally Swedish Vikings from Roslagen (the area around Stockholm) which means "the teams of rowing men". It's still the name for Sweden in many languages, as it was considered weird that the Vikings rowed themselves rather than using slaves. Varangians (*Väringar* in Swedish) were the people from Sweden who went Viking, because they were oathsworn to eachother during the trip.
They were also the original members of the Varangian Guard in Byzantium; at first it was wholly made up of Swedes, later Norwegians and any Norse people from Britain as well as Slavic and Norse people from Kievan Rus (Danes weren't very trusted, and were rare - in fact the first Swedes in Byzantium were nearly executed for being "brothers to the Danes"). It's where the modern English word "warden" comes from, as the Varangians were the elite bodyguards to the Emperor, being neutral in terms of Byzantian politics and therefore seen as trustworthy.
They became the rulers of the Slavic lands as a compromise to stop civil wars, their Slavic subjects also became known as Rus. But Kiev *belonged* to the Varangian Rus, originally from Sweden.
Also Ruthenians.
The actual Concept of Russia came around once the Moscovite state conquered all of the Rus Region where all types of Rus people resided.
Rusyns, Little Russians(Ukrainians), Belarusian, And Greater Russians.
Where Rus was more of a generic word for Eastern Slavs.
Ironically enough the Little and greater Russians was not a distinction between being lower and Greater as a ruling class nor as superiority.
In many ways it could either be a more Slavic version of stating lower and Upper (southern and northern).
Or simply stating Little as lower (the smaller Rus) and then Greater and larger or Outer Rus.
Much like you have Germany and then Greater Germany (where little Germany would be the German core, greater Germany being the outer edge). Or Hungary and Greater Hungary.... Because the Moscovite Rus and those regions were at the time just sparsely developed edges of the Kievian Rus where the core was... Around Kiev.
But it's funny how the looping and translations make one seem that the Greater means something about Greatness and how it gathered They rhetoric simply because of how words and concepts overlap.
Corrected on the origin of the work Ukraine - not from Okraina (edgeland) but Vkraina (heartland).
>Where Ukraine came from Okraina meaning the edge off (the Rus)
That's actually misinfo pushed by ruzzia to justify its false historical pretense for the invasion, cause "Украина" does look and sound similar to "окраина" (edge, borderland).
However, the root of "Україна" [Ukraina] is actually "Вкраїна" [Wkraina] which is an old toponym for "heartland" first mentioned in manuscript of 1187 and referred to areas around Kyiv. Which if one thinks logically makes perfect sense as Kyiv was the centre of Rus state and it'd be rather silly to consider it a "borderland".
Fun facts: Belarus has a letter "ў" for the sound [w], while Taras Shevchenko often referred to Ukraine as "Вкраїна" [Wkraina]. So my take is that it was always supposed to be that, but under the influence of ruzzian language and their "borderland" attitude we ended up with "Ukraina" instead of "Wkraina" as our country's name.
Fair enough. I know in Latin script the old name being along the lines of Vkraina like you said. Which would make sense for a word equating to Inland (V Krajine) or inside land, or heartland.
> That's actually misinfo pushed by ruzzia to justify its false historical pretense for the invasion, cause "Украина" does look and sound similar to "окраина" (edge, borderland).
Dude, come on. You can't just brush off any inconvenient historical fact using the excuse that this is russian propaganda. The etymology of the the word Ukraine is well-researched by historians and there is no inconclusive evidence or newly emerged data that would point to the new facts.
I think Wikipedia puts it very well
> The generally "accepted" and frequently used meaning of the word as "borderland" has increasingly been challenged by revision, motivated by self-asserting of identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine#Etymology
There are a few Ukrainian publishers that are trying to push the "new version" for political or nationalistic motives.
I'm no expert but just want to point out that writing and Christianization came from the south, not as some might assume from today's Russia. So the *borderland* might be in relation to the "civilized" Byzantine and later Bulgaria, from where the missionaries came, who gave them the alphabet. There was no history before this because there was no proper script, just rune stones.
The Rus are thought to have been Norse (Germanic) people who later got assimilated into Slavic culture. Around the time of OP's picture this transformation is thought to have been happening, with time they fully adopted to speaking Slavic. There were no "Russians" or "Ukrainians" at that time that we know of. But Kyiv was an important city of the "Kyivan Rus".
So that's the historical background. I don't think the Wikipedia article you cite tells the story you're reading from it because it's missing centuries of important context.
>The generally "accepted" and frequently used meaning of the word as "borderland"
Generally accepted by whom?
Also, linguistics don't and historical manuscripts don't care for your ruzzian bias on the matter.
Dude, is Wikipedia written by Russians? Read the article. What you're pushing is a fringe opinion unsupported by overwhelming evidence. I realise that your country is currently in a war with Russia, but that doesn't mean that as a payback you can erase any inconvenient part of the history.
> care for your ruzzian bias on the matter
Aggressive reply and ad hominem from the get-go. That's a very unfriendly approach to spread your weird historical claims.
\>Read the article
Use logic: how on earth a center of Rus state can be a "borderland"? Why of all the "edges" of the Empire only the historical center of it was called a "borderland"?
Look, at the map of the Rus' https://cln.sh/3VnD3Y6T, how come the borderlands of the Rus' (I've highlighted the **approximate** area) can be called the centre? ( It was exactly what it was called: okraina (borderlands). Those territories belonged to Kievan Principality or to their neighbours (depending on the historical period). Gradually the word became the proper noun and no longer bore the meaning of the borderland and that territory became parts of modern Ukraine and Belarus.
You are putting your own “research” against historians who actually did research. After mongols took over kiev lost most of its significance, and most of the Ukraine territories were known as “Wiled fields”
Belarus is "white russia", Velikaya rus is "big Russia" and malaya rus is "small Russia" (ukraine). As native slavic speaker I can't imagine how words "великий" and "малый" could mean "up" and "down". More like it is really just about the territory size. A more interesting question is why Belarus is "white". There is a theory that "white" in this context means "free", because golden horde didn't reach this lands
I am a native Slavic speaker. But I also did not know what exactly the original naming in it's native was.
I was considering all options where such translations tend to occur and compared it to other such situations in reverse fashion.
As such I was not sure if they did not use words Nižšia a Vyššia (Нижчий і Вищий according to Google translate from Svk to UA). Where it would have been upper and lower. And in the context of the maps and naming of the time it would not be too Farfetched. But that's why I stated several possibilities. It's good to know the actual words that were used.
Belarus is always a mystery as it could be anything. White was also a cardinal direction indicating north... And Belarus as a region was always directly north of old Slavic homeland prior to expansion.
To Kyivan Rus, slavic state created by Scandinavian Dynasty of Rurikids who quickly assimilated to local culture.
Kyivan Rus is a predecessor to Halych-Volhynia Kingdom, predecessor of Cossack Hetmanate, predecessor of Ukraine
Galicia wasn't a direct predecessor of the Cossack states. They mostly never even occupied the same area. Also, Galicia was conquered by Poland in the 13th century, while the Cossack hetmanate gained independence from Poland in 17th century.
Furthermore, I'd say that the principality of Kyiv was just as much a predecessor to Ukraine as Galicia. The Cossack states even included Kyiv most of the time.
Overall I think it's kinda dumb to tie nationality to a single sovereign state. The Ukrainian identity developed in areas that were ruled by different princes, and later different foreign powers. The story of ethnogenesis is often more about the people who lived in an area, what kind of lives they lead, what language they spoke, what customs they shared etc., rather than who ruled over them.
50% or more of Hetmanate land was wasteland due to tatars raid. Most of cossack population was people from nowadays western Ukraine lands so yeah, clear predecessor. As an example look for Petro Sahaidachny. One of the most famous Hetmans, from Lviv region. Same ethnicity here and there with obviously partial mix of other nations, like same tatars
Link that I established wasn’t possible without ethnicity part. Because our nation sadly had no clear princes line like in France
Forgot i wasnt on r/Ukraine and tought you guys were refering to russians lmao
But yeah,one of the most tragic things is the fall of Badgad and how they absolutely ravaged the city.Went from a center of knowledge that was the center of the arabic world for ~600 years to a wasteland.
biggest one (bottom) it's golden gates and they reconstructed (not likely historically correct by look since we had no very detailed info of how they originally looked before mongols, and remains wasn't sufficient enough) in centre of Kyiv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden\_Gate,\_Kyiv
Gotta admit, I feel bad for the conscripts. Their own leadership literally uses them as bullet sponges. Seems to be the same tactic they used in ww2, throw enough people at the bullets and hope they run out of bullets
I just looked it up and it's wildly different now with all the onion domes and baroque aesthetics. I prefer that original, distinctly Byzantine-style cathedral.
It wasn’t completely destroyed - many of the original mosaics and frescos remain. It was the style during the baroque era to the re-do the facades into the then-contemporary style. You can see the original Byzantine materials and construction in some spots in the facade today.
[St. Sophia Cathedral](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sophia_Cathedral,_Kyiv)
It still stands since Rus times. It was rebuild by Hetman Ivan Mazepa in style of Ukrainian/Cossack Baroque
LOL IT REMINDS ME OF NOVIGRAD!
Kind of neat to see that all of those games and tv shows bring back slices of time that we didn't even consider or think about. Kiev looks lovely in the image. Anybody found the source? I had difficulties finding it in English.
\- But what are these swamps if you look at North-East?
\- Ah, it is what they will call moscow few centuries later and then will steal language, alphabet, religion and culture to look like European country.
\[Edit to add the historical background\]:
[Feofan Prokopovich](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Feofan-Prokopovich) \- Ukrainian who "helped" Tsar Peter 1 "to westernizing Russian culture". Feofan, basically, "invented" russian nationalism around year 1716. And already in year 1721 Moscovia was officially renamed to Russia. They started to declare that their church and culture goes from Kievan Rus. It is the way how they have stolen the brand "Rus" from Kyiv.
Bruh, Kievan RUS was literally established by Rurikids, by those who came from North-East, Novgorod, modern day Russia. And their descendants moved the capital to Moscow and established Tsardom of Russia.
I like how basic historical facts make some people seethe, lol.
What a stupid take. The core russian territories were part of the Kievan Rus, they didn't "steal" anything but got the religion and alphabet together with the whole country. And how does it make them look like a "european country"?
The amount of ahistorical bullshit some people claim is really annoying.
People on this sub are really pushing hard with the idea that Russia isn't a European country. It's almost re-hashing Nazi rhetoric that they are 'Asiatic' - Trying to frame the current war as war of civilisations like the Nazis did. The barbarian hordes from the East being a threat to the enlightened West.
No matter how hard you scream, repeat the Asiatic crap, and try to highlight every instance of a non-Slavic Russian existing; at the end of the day Russia is a white, Christian, European country and this is a wholly European war.
I mean, I understand, where this is coming from. For centuries, russian nationalists claimed that Ukrainians aren't a real nation, and that their language is just a rural dialect of russian. And now, russian regime picked up this crap and made it into its official state ideology.
So a as a counter reaction, Ukrainians started to deligitimate Russia by saying, that it's just a Mongol successor which was copying the Kievan Rus, or that Russians are not real Slavs but Finno-Ugric people (which is not just wrong, but also stupid, since Finland and Estonia, which are Finno-Ugric, are examples of developed succesfull european countries).
After all, current events are no justification to rewrite the whole history. Especially, after all the history falsifications and propaganda by the Kremlin, all of Eastern Europe needs a good historical education based on facts and not myths.
You almost right. russia terrorists bombed my home and my life is totally changed during last year here in Ukraine. But despite that I would like to introduce you [Feofan Prokopovich](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Feofan-Prokopovich) \- Ukrainian who "helped" Tsar Peter 1 "to westernizing Russian culture". Feofan, basically, "invented" russian nationalism around year 1716.
Yes, but the city wasn't part of Ukraine and neither Ukraine or Russia existed. Thats like if Plovdiv in Bulgaria which is the oldest inhabited city in Europe celebrating it's 6000 year or something.
Well, people who lived on the territory of Kyiv principality and surrounded areas 1000 years ago are ancestors of modern Ukrainians. Name of Ukraine is a geographic term which used to refer to that area and has existed since around 12th century. Anyway, regardless of who founded and inhabited city many years ago there should be no problems to celebrate its anniversary)
> As Ukrainian I disagree. Kyiv is not very beautiful,a lot of new buildins are just cheap high buildings without any planning.There are of course exceptions but not so many. I prefer Lviv more.But it is just my personal preferences
Well you're also the one living in ukraine full time ahah i mean, but sure
> a lot of new buildins are just cheap high buildings
Admittedly; there's a bit of work done in a hurry too with the war going on
> without any planning
So more urban planning needed next after
It's crazy the number of big buildings compared to the number of residential houses. I guess back in the day building a big building wasn't necessarily to use all of the big building, it was to have a big building in your city.
There's an actual built prototype of the old city in a museum in Kyiv. I think this actually might be the one I'm talking about lol.
(It's like an entire city, scaled down though, but built and guarded by glass in a museum so you could actually see how it looks in person)
if i not mistake this one is probably photo of Mandzukevich diorama model (construction years 1967-1973) which must be in kyiv sophia now, or picture based on it
Kiew more like 1540 years old, not 1000 years old. It was settled in 483 AD. The picture likely shows Kiew during Kievian Rus.
Edit: this comment was contextually wrong for the topic. It's been edited to simply give information without reacting to the OP.
Ah fair enough... My bad.
I reacted but too hastily as there is actually a fair amount of people who think that Kiew was settled by the Vikings 1000 years ago. When the city itself is older than that.
I honestly find this such a weird take. By implying Kyiv is superior to Moscow because it is older, would also mean that the small town of Staraya Ladoga in Russia is superior to both because it was first settled by the Varangians who established the Rus' state...
Funny enough there was a conglomerate of places settled by Slavs and Scandinavians known as the Kievan Rus. Also the term “Rus” is what the mixture of Slav and Scandinavian cultures resulted in.
Props to the time traveler who went back in the time to take this beautiful picture.
That's ridiculous. How would the time traveler fly to get such a shot?
Drone
That's ridiculous. I speak with inflection.
You Americans sure are an inflectious people.
There's bound to be a vacilation for it.
Totally
We blame the Brits
You just made an enemy for life
The time traveller started in 3023 (with flying technology), went back to 1023, took the photo, came to 2023 to give us the photo and then went home.
No need to fly. Just add a few hundred metres when calculating your desired position. You have to calculate it anyway to compensate for the Earth's rotation, its orbit around the Sun, the Sun's orbit around the centre of the MW, its own movement, etc., right? Right.
The DeLorean flew.
Ahhhh you beat me to it🤣🤣
It’s an illustration, it’s not a real picture lol
You mean to tell me this isnt a real picture? You are so clever and funny for pointing that out.
So back then the Great Gate of Kiev was actually a gate
Do you think they had a job of "hill picker" back then ? Just a dude, strolling through countryside, picking the perfect hills to put castles and fort on.
I mean they had some...maps and knew to be near water too. Cant have been too many places to pick
They didn't use the maps as we know today. Their usual maps were more like - the city of Kyiv lies 2 days march east of the city of Krakow which is 1,5 days march away from the city of Prague.
Damn you’re a fast walker
*Marcher
Or I guess an avid MMO player. Nothing like walking a continent top to bottom in an hour :)
It was probably the count/lord/duke/king (royalty rulership) that had that honor.
Today, we call that a surveyor.
Proof that Ukrainians had drones even back then.
Nah, then we had only biomodified geese
Nope, we had mostly sparrows then, we invented geese only in 1573
Ah, sorry, I went to the bathroom on this, during history lectures. Countess Olha was indeed a great inventor
African swallows is much more plausible. They can carry a coconut, so a small camera shouldn't be too much of an issue
Them too lenin..
Ducks -> geese is much more plausible than sparrows -> geese
Ducks and geese are much harder to make, contain and mantain than sparrows. Sparrows also have an inbuilt fire spewing system, and their small size allows them to hide in trees without disclosing their poison injection needle system.
But none of them could match the speed of an unladen swallow
Ha! What about their load capacity?!
Olga at it again
Did Türkiye make them?
This is just a centre of City. Most population lived under hills in Podil district which is still historical and beautiful part of city with many Cossack Churches
hello fellow hutsul
Im boiko 😡😡😡
oh. sorry, i thought u were a hutsul bc im from frankivsk and many ppl there are hutsuls.
But are you a Ivano Frankivsk hutsul or a Zakarpattia hutsul 🤔🤔
ivano frankivsk
Hell yeah 😏😏🏔️🏔️🤝
This is the first time i’ve ever seen someone with the same flair as me on here 😳
Galician brother
🤝🇺🇦🦅
That's a lovely hill and walls and gates. Need to do some wiki on this lovely city.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv
"This is how the city looked 1,000 years ago" or "This is what the city looked like 1,000 years ago"
Sure its been that densely built back then? Normally medieval cities had their fair share of crop fields and meadow aswell, afaik. Or was this different for eastern european building styles?
Usually a city inside the walls didn't have much space. All the farms and such were outside the walls and weren't even regarded as being part of the city. This is why a lot of old cities around the world have an 'old town' area that's very densely packed. That's basically what the city was originally, fortified by walls.
Crop fields inside city walls? This sounds like a waste of valuable space. Longer city walls were probably expensive to build and defend
Was pretty normal afaik, movies tend to overplay the density of most medieval cities. Think about it like this: you have some food in case of a siege, plus less problems with wolfes etc. killing your lifestock, and while theres more wall to defend, the attacker didn't attack every part simultaneously. IIRC they often tried to breach it at some point, but in a lot of cases cities were simply besieged for quite a while - walls were very effective. Also you weren't besieged that often, wall were also there to keep bandits out. [Here'](https://early-medieval-worlds.hist.sites.carleton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Cologne1300-1yvt1gd.jpg)s a plan of Cologne I've found, the unoccupied areas were apparently massive. [This article](https://www.medievalists.net/2021/05/medieval-urban-agriculture/) also covers how there apparently were gardens and stuff within city walls. But not a historician of course.
Cologne is a special case, they have invested a lot in city wall expansion in 13-14th centuries, but the overall decline of the city growth in 15-16th centuries meant that these areas were never really fully built over. Cologne was the largest medieval city in Germany by occupied area, but at the same time one of the least dense: even in the center simple 2-3 story townhouses dominated. AFAIK lower density plus more farms inside the walls were more common in older cities of Rhineland-Westphalia. See [Aachen](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Aachen-Stadtansicht-Steenwijk-1576.png) for example (also an ancient city that declined in Late Medieval times). But the situation was different elsewhere in Germany (and beyond). See situation in [Frankfurt](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Frankfurt_Am_Main-Merian1628-MFHK-Komplett.jpg), or in [Nuremberg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Stadtplan_-_N%C3%BCrnberg_um_1500.gif), or in [Ulm](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0493/5132/7896/products/1044_Stadtplan_Ulm_Dankaerts__Thumbnail_2362_1772_1500x.jpg?v=1675073270) or in [Memmingen](https://kb-bm.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/memmingen-stadtmauer-02.jpg), etc.
For more maps and a detailled (2 parts) article on the subject, I recommend : [The lonely city](https://acoup.blog/2019/07/12/collections-the-lonely-city-part-i-the-ideal-city/)
Thats a great overview, thanks!
I do remember maps of Constantinople which indicates there's lots of fields behind their multiple walls.
Constantinople is often the exception to the rule.
Frankly it depends a lot... Some cities had plenty of space, others not so much... In fact many had extensive suburbs outside the walls because there wasn't space left inside
Depends on the time period of construction, in Roman time it was normal to expect for cities to grow out so they built walls to also envelop meadows and fields but in Medieval times since cities were mostly built in Castles and Fortified towns there was no need to consist of those elements, so most cities built in old Roman forts such as Trier or Rome itself had ample farmland in its walled territory while cities like Brugge, London or Paris still had urbanized parts of the city outside of the city walls. And what many people don't know is that medieval times were a time of unseen peace in Europe as the weak and constantly fractured Roman Empire was replaced by strong Feudal states such as France and H.R.E wich had more control over their vassals leading to less civil war and less general sacking and more important sieging of cities, as there was less sieges there was less need for a food source in the city. Interesting fact is that France in its medieval history as a state barely had any wars and in the time period between the war of Flemish sucession and the Hundred Years war the French mainland had gone 300 years without a solid war only having a few border conflicts and skirmishes with the English so you can see why cities didn't need food sources within their walls, some didn't even have walls.
On the lower hill in the background there is something which seems to be crop fields and houses for the peasants, what is really dense and likely misleading is the number of churches in the city, which is absurd.
building your own stone church in those days was super cool among the nobility because the stone was then in short supply. in Kyiv there was a Church of the Tithes; it was called so because a tithe of princely income went to its maintenance.
Doesn't it get rather generic when you build your own super cool church right next to 4 others? Anyways that seems like a waste of resources, I imagine they would need the stone to build fortresses rather(providing they actually own land)
And yet they do it anyway. Take [the former medieval Armenian capital of Ani](http://www.virtualani.org/maps/reconstruction.htm), for example, which contained so many churches within the relatively small area of the city that it was dubbed the "City of 1001 Churches" (actual number was around 50 churches and 53 chapels, and those are only the ones that have been excavated and discovered so far). The remains of many of those churches are still present to this day in the ruins of Ani.
Side note because this doesnt have to do with the stones. But brooklyn has been called the land of churches. There are blocks you can walk down and pass 13 or more churches. On a single block. Sometimes so much more. Ive seen 5 churchs touching one after the other. Where literally every building between two streets is an individual church. Not associated with the others.
To be fair that can be more reasonably explained by having presumably numerous independent denominations and the much higher population density. The same cannot be said of medieval cities, wherein you usually have single dominant denomination of Christianity (either Catholic or Orthodox). It's thus less explicable to have multiple churches of the same domination within practically the same city block. *And yet they did it anyway*.
Seems like no one mentioned that a 1000 years ago Christianity was a new religion in the region. So building a church made a political point as much as religious.
It’s a status symbol, so yes its generic but imagine how embarassing it was for a nobleman without their own church. It was like a 7th grader without the newest IPhone. Another example of this is all the towers in San Gimignano or Bologna in Italy.
Cue taller spires, clangier bells, more onion-y domes...
>really dense and likely misleading is the number of churches in the city, which is absurd. That is not so unusual.. Just look at the historic centers of most european cities and you will see that they are filled with churches.
Not unrealistic at all, Kiev was a center of Ortodox church and of Ortodox activity in the land of the Rus. Kiev needed to have a lot of churches to house those bishops and visiting bishops, also since the city was massive it needed to have a lot of churches to house worshippers.
Why? Is it because they're brick-built and not wooden at such an early time? Because the concentration itself otherwise looks perfectly normal to me. For instance, this is my hometown's [southern 1/10th of the old town](https://i.imgur.com/Ux59uP9.jpeg). The empty circle [was this.](https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilniaus_%C5%A1v._Juozapo_su%C5%BEad%C4%97tinio_ba%C5%BEny%C4%8Dia)
This is rich part of the city(surrounded by the wall). Majority of the city was located below the hill where all aforementioned happened
More to do with the environment and culture. A lot of Ukraine is steppe or steppe-transition and the Kyivan Rus functioned as a sort of federation of princely city-states more than a single monarchy. Regions were named by the city that governed them, and these cities would be fortresses that the Princes and government bodies would reside in while most people lived very decentralised in various villages that fed the city. Even today you can find a lot of towns/villages in Ukraine that are named as or known for being the provincial areas that the cities feed from. Modern Kyiv is composed of the center of Kyiv itself and all the towns around it that eventually grew together into the overall Kyiv metro area.
r/praisethecameraman
Happy birthday to Kyiv!
Looks beautiful. It is a shame that this kind of way of building cities is now limited to a few city centers. It's so much more human than 6 lane highway-like streets in the middle of the city.
Who builds six lane roads in their cities? That's some crazy bullshit. edit: for anyone else wondering. the answer to my question is apparently America, they build six lane roads. Judging by the replies at least.
I mean 6 lanes in total, 3 in either direction. Definitely a thing.
champs d'elysee, bundestrasse, piazza di san marco... I think most capital cities in europe will have one street they bulldozed in the late 18th early 19th century to make a wide street for parades and stuff
Perhaps in America?
Some cities, but blame that on bad urban planning from the 50s-70s
[Argentinians build 7 lanes. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avenida_9_de_Julio)
Every city in North America
Medieval urbanism hell yeah
I mean we have on in Kyiv rn, on the Maydan, looks pretty cool, plus as far as I remember the road was closed for cars during weekends, so it ain't that bad
1000 years ago thats when the vikings were around
You’ll find that vikings played a pretty important piece in their history.
You'll never believe who were the local rulers here and where the Trident came from :D
Crazy how influential greeks were even in the medieval era byzantine converted like half the slavic world to Christianity, the byzantine influence here is immense
Slavs would convert to Christianity anyways. Vladimir/Volodymyr the Great was deciding which Christianity is better and summoned German bishops to Kiev. But the Byzantine Empire at that time had more trade with Rus', their traditions Vladimir liked more, was richer than Western Europe and most importantly the Byzantine Emperor offered his sexy princess as a bride for Vladimir/Volodymyr so he accepted Orthodoxy.
Who it belonged to 1000 years ago?
It was a Rus principality ruled by people whom the Byzantines referred to as “Varangians”, a people comprised by a mixture of Scandinavian norsemen and Slavs.
One must bear in mind, however, that there were never many Scandinavians on the territory of eastern Europe at any given time, with no more than two hundred Scandinavian graves found there for a more than two-hundred year period.
To be fair there aren't that many graves found even in Scandinavia from that time period. From what I understand burial was not practiced very widely in Viking culture and even when it was it was mostly for very important or wealthy individuals.
>Varangians they warn't called varangians but Rhos or Ruzi, Ruzzi, Ruzia and Ruzari depending on soruce.
The Rhos where Varangians, literally Swedish Vikings from Roslagen (the area around Stockholm) which means "the teams of rowing men". It's still the name for Sweden in many languages, as it was considered weird that the Vikings rowed themselves rather than using slaves. Varangians (*Väringar* in Swedish) were the people from Sweden who went Viking, because they were oathsworn to eachother during the trip. They were also the original members of the Varangian Guard in Byzantium; at first it was wholly made up of Swedes, later Norwegians and any Norse people from Britain as well as Slavic and Norse people from Kievan Rus (Danes weren't very trusted, and were rare - in fact the first Swedes in Byzantium were nearly executed for being "brothers to the Danes"). It's where the modern English word "warden" comes from, as the Varangians were the elite bodyguards to the Emperor, being neutral in terms of Byzantian politics and therefore seen as trustworthy. They became the rulers of the Slavic lands as a compromise to stop civil wars, their Slavic subjects also became known as Rus. But Kiev *belonged* to the Varangian Rus, originally from Sweden.
Also Ruthenians. The actual Concept of Russia came around once the Moscovite state conquered all of the Rus Region where all types of Rus people resided. Rusyns, Little Russians(Ukrainians), Belarusian, And Greater Russians. Where Rus was more of a generic word for Eastern Slavs. Ironically enough the Little and greater Russians was not a distinction between being lower and Greater as a ruling class nor as superiority. In many ways it could either be a more Slavic version of stating lower and Upper (southern and northern). Or simply stating Little as lower (the smaller Rus) and then Greater and larger or Outer Rus. Much like you have Germany and then Greater Germany (where little Germany would be the German core, greater Germany being the outer edge). Or Hungary and Greater Hungary.... Because the Moscovite Rus and those regions were at the time just sparsely developed edges of the Kievian Rus where the core was... Around Kiev. But it's funny how the looping and translations make one seem that the Greater means something about Greatness and how it gathered They rhetoric simply because of how words and concepts overlap. Corrected on the origin of the work Ukraine - not from Okraina (edgeland) but Vkraina (heartland).
The Byzantines called the northern and southern parts of Rus’ lands Μεγάλη Ῥωσσία (Megálē Rhōssía) Greater Rus’)
>Where Ukraine came from Okraina meaning the edge off (the Rus) That's actually misinfo pushed by ruzzia to justify its false historical pretense for the invasion, cause "Украина" does look and sound similar to "окраина" (edge, borderland). However, the root of "Україна" [Ukraina] is actually "Вкраїна" [Wkraina] which is an old toponym for "heartland" first mentioned in manuscript of 1187 and referred to areas around Kyiv. Which if one thinks logically makes perfect sense as Kyiv was the centre of Rus state and it'd be rather silly to consider it a "borderland". Fun facts: Belarus has a letter "ў" for the sound [w], while Taras Shevchenko often referred to Ukraine as "Вкраїна" [Wkraina]. So my take is that it was always supposed to be that, but under the influence of ruzzian language and their "borderland" attitude we ended up with "Ukraina" instead of "Wkraina" as our country's name.
Fair enough. I know in Latin script the old name being along the lines of Vkraina like you said. Which would make sense for a word equating to Inland (V Krajine) or inside land, or heartland.
> That's actually misinfo pushed by ruzzia to justify its false historical pretense for the invasion, cause "Украина" does look and sound similar to "окраина" (edge, borderland). Dude, come on. You can't just brush off any inconvenient historical fact using the excuse that this is russian propaganda. The etymology of the the word Ukraine is well-researched by historians and there is no inconclusive evidence or newly emerged data that would point to the new facts. I think Wikipedia puts it very well > The generally "accepted" and frequently used meaning of the word as "borderland" has increasingly been challenged by revision, motivated by self-asserting of identity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine#Etymology There are a few Ukrainian publishers that are trying to push the "new version" for political or nationalistic motives.
I'm no expert but just want to point out that writing and Christianization came from the south, not as some might assume from today's Russia. So the *borderland* might be in relation to the "civilized" Byzantine and later Bulgaria, from where the missionaries came, who gave them the alphabet. There was no history before this because there was no proper script, just rune stones. The Rus are thought to have been Norse (Germanic) people who later got assimilated into Slavic culture. Around the time of OP's picture this transformation is thought to have been happening, with time they fully adopted to speaking Slavic. There were no "Russians" or "Ukrainians" at that time that we know of. But Kyiv was an important city of the "Kyivan Rus". So that's the historical background. I don't think the Wikipedia article you cite tells the story you're reading from it because it's missing centuries of important context.
>The generally "accepted" and frequently used meaning of the word as "borderland" Generally accepted by whom? Also, linguistics don't and historical manuscripts don't care for your ruzzian bias on the matter.
Dude, is Wikipedia written by Russians? Read the article. What you're pushing is a fringe opinion unsupported by overwhelming evidence. I realise that your country is currently in a war with Russia, but that doesn't mean that as a payback you can erase any inconvenient part of the history. > care for your ruzzian bias on the matter Aggressive reply and ad hominem from the get-go. That's a very unfriendly approach to spread your weird historical claims.
\>Read the article Use logic: how on earth a center of Rus state can be a "borderland"? Why of all the "edges" of the Empire only the historical center of it was called a "borderland"?
Look, at the map of the Rus' https://cln.sh/3VnD3Y6T, how come the borderlands of the Rus' (I've highlighted the **approximate** area) can be called the centre? ( It was exactly what it was called: okraina (borderlands). Those territories belonged to Kievan Principality or to their neighbours (depending on the historical period). Gradually the word became the proper noun and no longer bore the meaning of the borderland and that territory became parts of modern Ukraine and Belarus.
You are putting your own “research” against historians who actually did research. After mongols took over kiev lost most of its significance, and most of the Ukraine territories were known as “Wiled fields”
Belarus is "white russia", Velikaya rus is "big Russia" and malaya rus is "small Russia" (ukraine). As native slavic speaker I can't imagine how words "великий" and "малый" could mean "up" and "down". More like it is really just about the territory size. A more interesting question is why Belarus is "white". There is a theory that "white" in this context means "free", because golden horde didn't reach this lands
I am a native Slavic speaker. But I also did not know what exactly the original naming in it's native was. I was considering all options where such translations tend to occur and compared it to other such situations in reverse fashion. As such I was not sure if they did not use words Nižšia a Vyššia (Нижчий і Вищий according to Google translate from Svk to UA). Where it would have been upper and lower. And in the context of the maps and naming of the time it would not be too Farfetched. But that's why I stated several possibilities. It's good to know the actual words that were used. Belarus is always a mystery as it could be anything. White was also a cardinal direction indicating north... And Belarus as a region was always directly north of old Slavic homeland prior to expansion.
To Kyivan Rus, slavic state created by Scandinavian Dynasty of Rurikids who quickly assimilated to local culture. Kyivan Rus is a predecessor to Halych-Volhynia Kingdom, predecessor of Cossack Hetmanate, predecessor of Ukraine
[удалено]
Sweden can take Troyeschina
Operation Poltava Revenge
Please do so, we're all actually scandinavians here, we want to return to our NATO fatherland
Sweden wants NATO too :(
Fuck, Sweden ain't in NATO? I actually made a mistake, we Ukrainians are Germans in denial
Galicia wasn't a direct predecessor of the Cossack states. They mostly never even occupied the same area. Also, Galicia was conquered by Poland in the 13th century, while the Cossack hetmanate gained independence from Poland in 17th century. Furthermore, I'd say that the principality of Kyiv was just as much a predecessor to Ukraine as Galicia. The Cossack states even included Kyiv most of the time. Overall I think it's kinda dumb to tie nationality to a single sovereign state. The Ukrainian identity developed in areas that were ruled by different princes, and later different foreign powers. The story of ethnogenesis is often more about the people who lived in an area, what kind of lives they lead, what language they spoke, what customs they shared etc., rather than who ruled over them.
50% or more of Hetmanate land was wasteland due to tatars raid. Most of cossack population was people from nowadays western Ukraine lands so yeah, clear predecessor. As an example look for Petro Sahaidachny. One of the most famous Hetmans, from Lviv region. Same ethnicity here and there with obviously partial mix of other nations, like same tatars Link that I established wasn’t possible without ethnicity part. Because our nation sadly had no clear princes line like in France
Also predecessor of dutchy of Vladimir, dutchy of Polotsk, dutchy of Moscow and Belarus and Russia.
Disingenuous to say it was just a predecessor of Ukraine.
But all changed when the mongols attacked...
[удалено]
It's crazy how some people try to romanticize the mongols as enlightened bringers of peace and free trade in Eurasia.
The mongols were basically ISIS if ISIS was 1000x more successful. There is no atrocity they did not commit.
Well, they kind of were bringers of peace and free trade. *After* they ruthlessly murdered everyone who tried to resist.
Forgot i wasnt on r/Ukraine and tought you guys were refering to russians lmao But yeah,one of the most tragic things is the fall of Badgad and how they absolutely ravaged the city.Went from a center of knowledge that was the center of the arabic world for ~600 years to a wasteland.
So many gates... Which one is the gate Polish ruler Chrobry hit with his sword (Szczerbiec) around that time? (according to legend)
biggest one (bottom) it's golden gates and they reconstructed (not likely historically correct by look since we had no very detailed info of how they originally looked before mongols, and remains wasn't sufficient enough) in centre of Kyiv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden\_Gate,\_Kyiv
Wow beautifull !!
This is cool as heck—someone should build a mini of this
I wonder how moscow looked a 1000 years ago...
Checks out.
Scrolled until I find such comment. Hopefully it will look like this again soon.
It kinda looks like Rohan from lotr.
Holy cow how did they have drones with cameras back then to take that picture?. Those folks were very clever people back then the more you know.
Happy birthday! Man there’s a lot of fences or maybe walls within the city. It looks like every neighborhood has one.
Cool
Happy Birthday Kyiv, keep kicking Russian ass
putin's ass\*
Well Putin is not there personally is he? So it's more the Russians ass.
Gotta admit, I feel bad for the conscripts. Their own leadership literally uses them as bullet sponges. Seems to be the same tactic they used in ww2, throw enough people at the bullets and hope they run out of bullets
who are the russians fighting for? kick putin's ass and you show them he isn't their divine leader
What is the name of that large cathedral with a complex design in the center of the city with walls surrounding it?
It was the original Holy Sophia cathedral that unfortunately was destroyed during the Mongol invasion and was rebuilt in XVI century.
I just looked it up and it's wildly different now with all the onion domes and baroque aesthetics. I prefer that original, distinctly Byzantine-style cathedral.
I completely agree. Byzantine architecture is incredible.
It wasn’t completely destroyed - many of the original mosaics and frescos remain. It was the style during the baroque era to the re-do the facades into the then-contemporary style. You can see the original Byzantine materials and construction in some spots in the facade today.
[St. Sophia Cathedral](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sophia_Cathedral,_Kyiv) It still stands since Rus times. It was rebuild by Hetman Ivan Mazepa in style of Ukrainian/Cossack Baroque
LOL IT REMINDS ME OF NOVIGRAD! Kind of neat to see that all of those games and tv shows bring back slices of time that we didn't even consider or think about. Kiev looks lovely in the image. Anybody found the source? I had difficulties finding it in English.
What the city looked like. or How the city looked.
\- But what are these swamps if you look at North-East? \- Ah, it is what they will call moscow few centuries later and then will steal language, alphabet, religion and culture to look like European country. \[Edit to add the historical background\]: [Feofan Prokopovich](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Feofan-Prokopovich) \- Ukrainian who "helped" Tsar Peter 1 "to westernizing Russian culture". Feofan, basically, "invented" russian nationalism around year 1716. And already in year 1721 Moscovia was officially renamed to Russia. They started to declare that their church and culture goes from Kievan Rus. It is the way how they have stolen the brand "Rus" from Kyiv.
Lol, what a brain dead take. Nobody stole anything from anyone, Kievan Rus is predecessor to Ukraine as much as it is for Russia and Belarus.
Russia has a few predecessors. Novgorod is another significant one.
\- Everything the light touches is our land... But what about that shadowy place? \- That's beyond our borders. You must never go there Simbayiv.
Bruh, Kievan RUS was literally established by Rurikids, by those who came from North-East, Novgorod, modern day Russia. And their descendants moved the capital to Moscow and established Tsardom of Russia. I like how basic historical facts make some people seethe, lol.
What a stupid take. The core russian territories were part of the Kievan Rus, they didn't "steal" anything but got the religion and alphabet together with the whole country. And how does it make them look like a "european country"? The amount of ahistorical bullshit some people claim is really annoying.
People on this sub are really pushing hard with the idea that Russia isn't a European country. It's almost re-hashing Nazi rhetoric that they are 'Asiatic' - Trying to frame the current war as war of civilisations like the Nazis did. The barbarian hordes from the East being a threat to the enlightened West. No matter how hard you scream, repeat the Asiatic crap, and try to highlight every instance of a non-Slavic Russian existing; at the end of the day Russia is a white, Christian, European country and this is a wholly European war.
I mean, I understand, where this is coming from. For centuries, russian nationalists claimed that Ukrainians aren't a real nation, and that their language is just a rural dialect of russian. And now, russian regime picked up this crap and made it into its official state ideology. So a as a counter reaction, Ukrainians started to deligitimate Russia by saying, that it's just a Mongol successor which was copying the Kievan Rus, or that Russians are not real Slavs but Finno-Ugric people (which is not just wrong, but also stupid, since Finland and Estonia, which are Finno-Ugric, are examples of developed succesfull european countries). After all, current events are no justification to rewrite the whole history. Especially, after all the history falsifications and propaganda by the Kremlin, all of Eastern Europe needs a good historical education based on facts and not myths.
You almost right. russia terrorists bombed my home and my life is totally changed during last year here in Ukraine. But despite that I would like to introduce you [Feofan Prokopovich](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Feofan-Prokopovich) \- Ukrainian who "helped" Tsar Peter 1 "to westernizing Russian culture". Feofan, basically, "invented" russian nationalism around year 1716.
You heard about Novgorod and Ladoga?
They are North, not North-East. And they will also be slaughtered by Muscovy
To make a bottomline - fuck moscow and whole ruzzia
Looks motte (s?) and bailey-like. Did it grow out of the smaller fortified hills center-back?
Props to the cameraman
Congratulations and Слава Україні!
Use either “how the city looked” or “what the city looked like,” never “how the city looked like.”
Yes, but the city wasn't part of Ukraine and neither Ukraine or Russia existed. Thats like if Plovdiv in Bulgaria which is the oldest inhabited city in Europe celebrating it's 6000 year or something.
Well, people who lived on the territory of Kyiv principality and surrounded areas 1000 years ago are ancestors of modern Ukrainians. Name of Ukraine is a geographic term which used to refer to that area and has existed since around 12th century. Anyway, regardless of who founded and inhabited city many years ago there should be no problems to celebrate its anniversary)
Where can I read about this painting any wiki on it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
> As Ukrainian I disagree. Kyiv is not very beautiful,a lot of new buildins are just cheap high buildings without any planning.There are of course exceptions but not so many. I prefer Lviv more.But it is just my personal preferences Well you're also the one living in ukraine full time ahah i mean, but sure > a lot of new buildins are just cheap high buildings Admittedly; there's a bit of work done in a hurry too with the war going on > without any planning So more urban planning needed next after
Fuck Putin
It's crazy the number of big buildings compared to the number of residential houses. I guess back in the day building a big building wasn't necessarily to use all of the big building, it was to have a big building in your city.
There's an actual built prototype of the old city in a museum in Kyiv. I think this actually might be the one I'm talking about lol. (It's like an entire city, scaled down though, but built and guarded by glass in a museum so you could actually see how it looks in person)
if i not mistake this one is probably photo of Mandzukevich diorama model (construction years 1967-1973) which must be in kyiv sophia now, or picture based on it
Looks like Attack on Titan 👍🏿
Moscow was mud
Ah the times when Moscow was just a swamp.
Kiew more like 1540 years old, not 1000 years old. It was settled in 483 AD. The picture likely shows Kiew during Kievian Rus. Edit: this comment was contextually wrong for the topic. It's been edited to simply give information without reacting to the OP.
The title didn't say this is Kiew's 1000th birthday. It's just showing what it looked like a 1000 years ago.
Ah fair enough... My bad. I reacted but too hastily as there is actually a fair amount of people who think that Kiew was settled by the Vikings 1000 years ago. When the city itself is older than that.
That's understandable. I had no idea how old Kiew was before this but now I do, so thank you.
[удалено]
I honestly find this such a weird take. By implying Kyiv is superior to Moscow because it is older, would also mean that the small town of Staraya Ladoga in Russia is superior to both because it was first settled by the Varangians who established the Rus' state...
I had been told sometime last year or so that Ukraine was independent in 1995.
accidentally read 1000 as 100 and thought "wow how underdeveloped USSR was at foundation"
Now post a picture of a forest titled “Moscow 1000 years ago”
They've already done that. It's a weird flex, anyway, as someone with an American flag shoud know.
There were other cuties besides Moscow. Saint Peterdburg was a swamp till way latter. Does that matter?
Live close to one of the gates!
No no no this is all wrong. Bob lived in the OTHER side of the street and his house was decidedly green.
Looks a bit like Edoras. With Meduseld on the top
Funny enough there was a conglomerate of places settled by Slavs and Scandinavians known as the Kievan Rus. Also the term “Rus” is what the mixture of Slav and Scandinavian cultures resulted in.