When talking about "the history of X country" do you usually talk about the history of the people, or the history of the land?Would your History of Turkey include the Hittites and the Greeks, or would it include the Central Asian Turkic states?Would your History of USA include the native Americans, or would it include British politics and the religios wars in Europe?
>>18292942>Samarkand>BukharaThese cities aren't r*ssian
>>18292945Also cuckstantinople? Kek
>>18292945The joke is that none of those cities are founded by Russia, but these are all cities that are in (what Russians consider to be) Russian lands.Thus the question: is the history of Russia moreso the history of the LAND of the Russians, or of the Russians themselves?
>>18292942The latter obviously because of the nature of power shifts and (re)formation of organized states. Though anyone with an IQ over 90 can understand the difference between "x is the oldest city IN the country of y" and, "x is the oldest y-ian city".
>>18292948The only russian cities of the list are moscow and kievThe people is the history not the land they inhabit
>>18292953The people who founded Kiev aren't the people that are now the Russians.
>>18293103The people who founded Kiev all died so it is impossible to talk about "peoples"
>>18293103They were founded by faggot Vikingniggers called "Rus", same as every "East Slavic" city
>>18293113The point is that their state, culture, blood, whatever herritage separated from the one that built Russia, and stayed separate into well after the establishment of the city as its own thing.Similarly to how its difficult to argue that Vienna is an Italian city, despite the Roman connection.
