Wonder why.
I mean, I know why, but
Even their understanding of the Vikings is incredibly western, most barely know about how prominent the Varangians were in Eastern Rome because they only read Latin sources. It begins and ends with Ragnar and some Marvel superheroes (and the Nazis, obviously).
Also Varangians weren't exactly this prominent in Byzantium, they were kept apart from rest of society (which often hated them because it's their axes that were chopping up the citizens heads in every significant riot) and they weren't even kingmaking as much as one could expect from a Byzantine throne bickering.
Wonder how many of the Viking stans are even aware who and what "The Rus" were. Ya know, Rurik and co
"Based vikings ruling over the Russian savages" is often accompanied by "and then the savages took the worst from Mongols and became an asiatic horde and that's how Russia was born" which also don't prevent them from praising Mongols themselves.
Common opinion in polish internet and not only, i once heard that even from actual medieval history professor ex cathedra in university, just without the loud said slurs, those were only implied in his case.
Oh right, I forgot about the whole "haha stoopid russkies couldn't even organise themselves and needed GLORIOUS NORDIC UBERMENSCH to rule them!"
Do these people also claim Vladimir chose orthodox Christianity because other religions forbid alcohol?
Do these people also claim Vladimir chose orthodox Christianity because other religions forbid alcohol?
Some of them do, although even polish history books (and said professor) have more sober look on it, probably because it mirrors reasons Poland (and most other european pagan countries) adopted this or that version of christianity.
Are Mongols really portrayed as evil in the west?
I honestly can’t even recall portrayals of Mongols in mainstream western media.
In old western historiography, up to like 40-50 years ago Mongols were often portrayed as wild savages, "scourge of god" etc. Socialist historiography was more neutral on them (like Lev Gumilev or Stanisław Kałużyński). Recently westerners did close to a 180 on them though, as part of the historical revision trend going for at least 3 decades (most of that trend is actually not that bad, for example new critical look on ancient roman sources, still a lot worse than marxist view but a lot better than uncritically quoting Suetonius for example). From the top of my head read anything by John Man or Justin Marozzi.
Iirc he was antisemite and proponent of central Asian nationalism? Something like that. Still, i think he did first proper marxist analysis of history of the nomads.
Aye, he's the one who proposed the whole "Ashkenazim are akschually khazars and thus not real Jews". He also blamed these jew-khazars for various things, i.e. introducing alcohol drinking to ancient Rus
Wew, i do know he had some bad takes about Khazars, but not that he coined that vile theory.
Having as a core value the act of taking by force stuff produced by others for yourself is in general quite cringe, be it in the east or in the west.
Something something, surplus value.
