Propaganda: How the Story of Eastern Europe is Rewritten for Political Gain

The Kievan Rus’ & The Battle for Eastern Europe’s Origin Story

The question of origin runs deep in many national stories. Most modern nations are founded on proud tales of settlement or conquest — many of which aren’t exactly squeaky clean or even true when you dig down. The United States celebrates Columbus with an almost saintly vigour despite the man never actually setting foot on U.S. soil, while modern Britain and its royal pageantry has colonial blood splattered all over it if you go back less than 100 years.

National stories are often created to swell the pride of its population. To make them feel part of a vast, beautiful tapestry that culminates neatly in the modern age. However, a lot of it is complete rubbish. It is propaganda that is designed to feed nationalism, and practically every country on the planet is guilty of it in some way or another.

When it comes to Russia, and before it, the Soviet Union, this national story is complicated and incredibly contentious, with far-reaching ramifications, not least over territorial claims in and around Ukraine.

The Normanism/Anti-Normanism dispute is a historiographical debate that centres on the origins and role of the Norsemen, or Vikings, in forming and developing the states of Eastern Europe that would eventually go on to become Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

The Normanist theory states that the Vikings, or Varangians, played a crucial role in founding the Kievan Rus’, a medieval state seen as a starting point for those nations, while the opposing corner asserts that the development of these Slavic states was an indigenous process, with the Vikings playing a minimal role, if any.

This debate is deeply intertwined with national identity, historical narratives, and the politics of historical interpretation and has been the cause of invasion and territorial expansion for centuries. And if anything, it’s only becoming more contentious.

Origins of the Debate

The roots of the Normanist debate can be traced back to the 18th and 19th centuries when nationalistic movements across Europe were shaping the identities of emerging nations. In Russia, historians like Nikolay Karamzin and later Mikhail Pogodin argued against the Normanist view, which scholars like Gerhard Friedrich Müller supported. They argued that the Russian state and its culture were purely Slavic in origin and development, resisting interpretations that attributed significant influence to the Norsemen.

So, what’s the connection between the Norsemen of Scandinavia and the Normans of Northern France? Well, actually, they’re somewhat the same entity, just further along in history. The Frankish king presented the area that we know as Normandy today to the Viking leader Rollo in 918 AD. His people settled in the area, and the group that emerged, an amalgamation of the native Franks and the Viking newcomers, came to be known as the Normans.

These fearsome warriors spread across Europe and beyond, particularly East, into the depths of Europe.

The Normanism debate is not just academic and has long been wrapped up in nationalistic fervour that sometimes erupts. For many Eastern Europeans, accepting the Normanist theory was seen as diminishing their historical legacy. It was a question of pride and identity. Were the ancestors of modern Eastern Europeans capable of building their own state and culture independently, or were they significantly influenced or even dominated by Norman invaders?

The Kievan Rus’

The fact that a group closely associated with the Vikings had anything to do with the formation of Eastern European states might be news to many of you, and that’s because we don’t know that much about the Kievan Rus’. Like the more traditional Vikings, they left practically no recorded evidence of their activities, and much of what we know about them comes from external sources.

The Kievan Rus’ was a medieval state that existed from the late 9th to the mid-13th Century — a pivotal period in the history of Eastern Europe. This group emerged in the territories of modern-day Belarus, Ukraine, and western Russia and was a federation of Slavic tribes supposedly under the rule of the Varangians, the Norse warriors and traders. The Russian Primary Chronicle, a key historical source written by the monk Nestor in the 12th Century, states that the East Slavic tribes invited the Varangian prince Rurik to rule over them in 862 AD, leading to the establishment of the Rurik dynasty.

The traditional narrative suggests that these Norsemen, led by Rurik and later by other notable figures such as Oleg and Vladimir the Great, played a crucial role in founding and expanding the Kievan Rus’. They established Kyiv as the political and cultural centre, hence the name Kievan Rus’.

The Kievan Rus’ was a true melting pot of Slavic, Norse, and Finno-Ugric cultures. This blend is evident in the artefacts, burial practices, and linguistic traces found throughout the region. The state played an essential role in the spread of Christianity in Eastern Europe, and the conversion of Vladimir the Great to Christianity in 988 AD and his subsequent baptism of the Kievan Rus’ population marked a turning point, aligning the state more closely with Byzantium and the broader Christian world.

The legal code of the Kievan Rus’, the Russkaya Pravda, showed advanced legal thinking and was crucial in the development of the legal traditions in the region. The Kievan Rus’ was also a major player in regional politics and trade. Its strategic location made it a significant transit point between Scandinavia, Byzantium, and the Islamic world. The famous trade route ‘from the Varangians to the Greeks’ was vital in connecting these regions.

The economy was diverse, with agriculture, fishing, hunting, and trade as its pillars. It was a booming society at its peak, but it didn’t last.

Politically, the Kievan Rus’ was always a complex federation of principalities. The power struggles among various princes and the external threats, particularly from the Mongols, led to the fragmentation and eventual decline of the Kievan Rus’ in the mid-13th Century. The sacking of Kyiv by the Mongols in 1240 AD is generally seen as the final nail in the coffin.

Impact of the Kievan Rus’

To understand the importance of this national origin debate, we need to consider just how important Kievan Rus’ was in forming Eastern Europe. Quite simply, it laid the foundation for the future states of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. The concept of ‘Rus’ as a cultural and political identity began here, and the Rurik dynasty continued to be hugely influential in Russian and Ukrainian history for centuries.

In Russia, the Kievan Rus’ is seen as the beginning of Russian statehood and Orthodox Christianity, integral to Russian national identity today. In Ukraine, the Kievan Rus’ is often viewed as the starting point of Ukrainian history, emphasising the ancient roots of Ukrainian culture and statehood.

Now, the fact that the Vikings spread rapidly across Europe and beyond between the 8th and 11th Centuries is widely accepted, as is the fact that they settled throughout the continent and had a profound impact on culture and society. But some areas are far more accepting of this than others.

While we have precious little evidence of Viking activity around Europe, their DNA can be found in practically every country. There’s no question that this marauding horde of feared warriors played a fundamental role in the construction of European society just over 1000 years ago, but the further East you go, the spikier this fact becomes.

The Normanist Theory

One potential hole in the story is the need for more contemporary sources. Much of what is known about the Kievan Rus’ comes from chronicles written years later, leading to questions about the accuracy and bias of these historical accounts. Archaeological evidence has provided some insights, but many aspects of the early history of the Kievan Rus’ remain shrouded in mystery.

Now, this isn’t unique to Eastern Europe. Considering how long and how extensive Viking adventures were, the amount of concrete evidence for this is minuscule compared with other forms of immigration. The Vikings left virtually nothing, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a British historian who denied their existence in the country or the role they played in its development.

This is a problem for those supporting and opposing the Normanist theory — there’s very little evidence either way. Some of the evidence of the link between the Kievan Rus’ and the Vikings comes from Scandinavia, most notably the grave of a woman buried in Sweden who originated from the Kievan Rus’ area, or Sagas written long after the events. Graves found in Kievan Rus’ areas also tend to be Viking in style, while there’s plenty of suggestion of Norse origin to many words used in the region today — including even the word Rus, meaning ‘oarsman rower’ in Old Norse.

Those on the other side will tell you that the word Rus actually means ‘river people’ in Old Slavic or could be linked to the ancient Sarmatian tribe of the Roxolani. They will also say that three early emperors of the Urartian Empire in the Caucasus from the 8th to 6th century BC had their names, Russa I, Russa II and Russa III, carved into cuneiform monuments. So, how could the word possibly have originated in Scandinavia?

To explore this debate more, we need to look at how it has evolved over time. German historian Gerhardt Friedrich Müller caused outrage in 1749 when he gave a speech at the Russian Academy of Sciences outlining the Normanist theory. He had spent close to two decades studying the Russian Primary Chronicle and other sources, but his ideas were seen as borderline heretic.

However, over time, most Russian historians fell behind Müller’s ideas, to such an extent there was even really much of a debate. If anything, it was seen as a matter of pride that Russian history and its people were so diverse. It was not until the late 19th Century and the rise of Imperial Europe did Russian historians began turning against the Normanist theory en masse.

Things got even more contentious through the first half of the 20th Century when any support of the theory was seen as practically supporting fascism and legitimising Germany’s claims over the Slavic people. Of course, the Germans were not the Normans, but at this point, those who wanted to use the debate as a weapon could easily bypass mere facts. To Hitler, the Normans spread around Europe and so were part of modern German identity, while Russians used the term Norman to broadly mean any group from Western Europe.

In the Soviet Union, the history of the Kievan Rus’ was neatly adapted to fit the communist ideology. The Soviet historical narrative emphasised the Slavic origins and downplayed the role of the Varangians. The Kievan Rus’ was portrayed as a precursor to the Soviet Union in terms of its multi-ethnicity and centralised authority — an early Soviet Union, if you will.

During the Soviet era, the Anti-Normanist view was officially endorsed and going against it bought you a one-way ticket to the gulag. It aligned with the ideological narrative that emphasised the unity and historical prowess of the Slavic peoples, and the Soviet regime used history to build a collective identity, and the notion that Eastern Slavic states developed autonomously without significant Norse influence was much more in line with this narrative.

However, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to a re-examination of many historical interpretations, including the Normanist/Anti-Normanist debate. In the post-Soviet era, there was a renewed interest in exploring the diversity of influences on forming Eastern European states, including the Norse. This shift was part of a broader reassessment of national identities following the end of the Cold War.

Modern Consequences

Today, the Anti-Normanist theory continues to find support among some historians and segments of the population in Eastern Europe, often for reasons tied to national pride and identity. However, many modern historians adopt a more nuanced view, acknowledging the complexities that came from indigenous and foreign people, including the Norsemen, coexisting.

The debate over Normanism and anti-Normanism is not just a matter of historical curiosity; it has contemporary relevance in identity politics and nation-building. In countries like Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, where history is often a contentious and politicised topic, interpretations of the past can have implications for current national narratives and foreign policy. How history is understood and taught can influence how people see their nation, their relationships with neighbours, and their national pride and aspirations.

For instance, in Russia, a resurgence of nationalism under Vladimir Putin’s regime has seen a greater emphasis on interpretations of history that underscores Russia’s unique path and great power status. This involves a highly selective approach to the Normanist debate, favouring narratives that highlight the indigenous development of Russian statehood and culture and completely sidestepping factors that seem plainly obvious to anybody not completely brainwashed.

And this is where a debate about what happened over 1000 years ago collides with the modern era. Putin has long claimed that the Russian and Ukrainian people are one, and obviously, he’s the right person to rule over these joint people.

To make this assertion, he’s returning to the Kievan Rus’ age, which ended in the mid-13th Century. It also helps his cause if he can effectively paint a picture of proud Slavic domination during this period, where his descendants built modern Eastern Europe single-handedly rather than under the yolk of the Vikings who had been asked to take control of the Slavic tribes because they were such a rabble at the time.

His claim of ‘one people’ is based on geographical maps from the 12th Century, but even then, the Slavs were a mixture of countless different tribes and were never really a unified people.

Ukraine, on the other hand, looks at this claim with plain absurdity. Since then, Ukraine has been part of the Mongol Empire, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austrian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire — not to mention the short-lived Cossack Hetmanate that emerged in Central Ukraine in the 17th Century. It was, of course, then dragged into the Tsardom of Russia and then the Soviet Union before becoming independent in 1991.

In Ukraine, especially after the 2014 Maidan revolution and subsequent conflict with Russia, there has been a conscious effort to forge a distinct national identity separate from the Russian narrative. This includes reassessing historical narratives and, in some cases, challenging the Soviet-era interpretations that downplayed external influences like those of the Vikings. However, the picture is very mixed in Ukraine today. While most have absolutely no desire to be associated with Russia, many also go against the Normanist theory, choosing instead to create a fabled historic identity which is, in many ways, just as shaky as Russia’s.

Certain parts of Eastern Ukraine feel a much stronger connection to Russia, but to base a 21st-century territorial claim on a medieval state that we don’t know a whole lot about is bordering on ludicrous. Now, obviously, there’s also much more at play here: International prestige, money, arms dealings, and the creeping eastward of NATO, but if you break it down, it all arrives at the complicated and, at times, poisonous question of national identity.

The Endless Debate

The Normanist theory is not about to be proven correct or incorrect anytime soon. Without groundbreaking findings, we’ll still be basing the majority of what we know about the Kievan Rus on external sources written years and sometimes centuries after the events.

Russia has long sought to manipulate this story for its own ends and has, for centuries, used it as a justification to expand its border, not just into Ukraine but other parts of Eastern Europe. The Tsarist families used a variation of the ‘one people’ claim to push Russian borders westward, and the Soviet Union also jumped on the bandwagon in the 20th Century.

You would think that in today’s day and age of information, these kinds of debates might be long settled, but if anything, the opposite is true. Both sides have sunk further into their trenches, with no clear end in sight. When it comes to Russia, a lot of this is probably down to national insecurity. The country didn’t really exist until the 14th or 15th Century and yet has managed to grow to measure 17.1 million km² — around 6,500,000 square miles.

Russia is enormous and includes so many ethnic groups, but it is still cobbled together by stories of greatness and prestige that, over the last couple of hundred years, royal families and governments have increasingly pushed as a way of keeping this vast nation together. Ukraine has its own problems of national identity thanks to its short span as an official unified country.

Everybody in the region claims to be the descendants of the Kievan Rus’ — but who they actually were and where they came from remains one of history’s great mysteries. The battle for historical narrative is often fierce and never more so than in Eastern Europe.

Key Takeaways

• The Normanism/Anti-Normanism debate centers on the Vikings’ role in forming Eastern European states.
• The Kievan Rus’ was a medieval state crucial to the origins of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.
• National narratives often prioritize pride over historical accuracy, fueling contentious debates.
• Modern political tensions in Eastern Europe are influenced by historical interpretations of the Kievan Rus’.
• The debate over the Kievan Rus’ remains unresolved, with both sides using it to bolster national identity.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Normanist/Anti-Normanist debate?

The Normanist/Anti-Normanist debate is a historiographical dispute about the origins and role of the Norsemen, or Vikings, in forming and developing the states of Eastern Europe that would eventually become Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

What is the Normanist theory?

The Normanist theory states that the Vikings, or Varangians, played a crucial role in founding the Kievan Rus’, a medieval state seen as a starting point for Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

What is the Anti-Normanist view?

The Anti-Normanist view asserts that the development of these Slavic states was an indigenous process, with the Vikings playing a minimal role, if any.

What is the Kievan Rus’?

The Kievan Rus’ was a medieval state that existed from the late 9th to the mid-13th Century in the territories of modern-day Belarus, Ukraine, and western Russia. It was a federation of Slavic tribes supposedly under the rule of the Varangians, the Norse warriors and traders.

What is the significance of the Kievan Rus’ in Eastern Europe?

The Kievan Rus’ laid the foundation for the future states of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. It is seen as the beginning of Russian statehood and Orthodox Christianity in Russia, and as the starting point of Ukrainian history and culture in Ukraine.

How has the Normanist/Anti-Normanist debate influenced modern politics?

The debate has contemporary relevance in identity politics and nation-building. In countries like Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, interpretations of the past can have implications for current national narratives and foreign policy.

What role did the Soviet Union play in the Normanist/Anti-Normanist debate?

During the Soviet era, the Anti-Normanist view was officially endorsed. The history of the Kievan Rus’ was adapted to fit the communist ideology, emphasizing the Slavic origins and downplaying the role of the Varangians.

How has the collapse of the Soviet Union affected the Normanist/Anti-Normanist debate?

The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a re-examination of many historical interpretations, including the Normanist/Anti-Normanist debate. There was a renewed interest in exploring the diversity of influences on forming Eastern European states, including the Norse.

What is the current status of the Normanist/Anti-Normanist debate?

The debate is far from settled. Both sides have entrenched positions, and the issue is often used for political gain and to influence national identities and foreign policy.

Why is the Normanist/Anti-Normanist debate important in Eastern Europe?

The debate is important because it touches on national identity, historical narratives, and the politics of historical interpretation. It has been used to justify territorial claims and to shape national pride and aspirations.

Sources

• Original Into the Shadows video: Propaganda: How the Story of Eastern Europe is Rewritten for Political Gain
• Hero image source by Сергій Шведюк / National Guard of Ukraine / openverse, by.

Related Coverage