-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You see, mostly religious reason
But bearing in mind it was already the end of 18th century you may have some point. Landlords were already entirely Poles indeed, or were seen a such even having Ruthenian roots long ago in the past. Over 100 years of Cossacks different types of bigger or lesser authonomy had its effect on beginning of the creation of the new nation on the basis of the new ruling class which clashed with old landlords.
Poor Jews were between, used by landlords to exploit peasantry directly, so and most hatred...
Certainly
And four years later the first partition occured. Sometimes I don't understand those times...
I blame the Pope and the Franks!Certainly
And four years later the first partition occured. Sometimes I don't understand those times...
Well, I'd say we were taught different biased histoty classes, if I probably didn't have yours, during commie school times
Unless you had commie books praising Khmelnytsky, alluding him to the Lenin of his time and reverencing him for "reunification" with Mother-Moscow - then no
Well, I'd say we were taught different biased histoty classes, if I probably didn't have yours, during commie school times
However, it didn't work this way. Nobles didn't care if peasant was a Pole or Rusin (as they were called that time till the late 19th century), Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. They despised him anyway, because they were descendants of ancient Sarmatians
In the same time there was for instance another peasant rebellion in Lesser Poland, surpressed cruelly, with the leader Kostka-Napierski eventually impaled.
Bringing national liberation case into the 17th century history is an abuse, at least in reference to peasantry, which has clise to none national identification. Their identification was limited to the nearest church, so they could be easily manipulated by people using certain religious measures in their agenda.
I agree that often the generalized and populized narrative about the Uprising being a national liberation war is, well, not true because of the reasons you stated. They are correct.
However, it doesn't actuallly deny the "national" dimension to the Uprising of Khmelnytsky.
The Uprising happened (and so brutally) because of many things:
- Catholic Church and the Polish Counterreformation exerting pressure on the Orthodox
- failure of Union of Brest and Kyivan clergy seething on Poland (it's a long but interesting story)
- the magnates and nobles have wide priveleges and abusing peasants
- the nobility becoming Polish and Catholic on course of assimilation with Poland which alienated it from locals (not just peasants but other classes as well, especially the aforementioned seething priests)
- peasants being raided and failing to see protection from the nobility (which robbed nobility one of major influence tools on peasantry, providing security and peace to their own estates)
- Cossacks being repressed and deprived of rights they wanted and expanding number of employed Cossacks (one of major issues)
- Denied tour to Tavria and Constantinopole
- Khmelnytsky's own issues and much more that resonated and exploded
- It got rid of nobility that became alienated to Ukraine
- The Uprising included most of territory of Ukraine and resulted in wiping out significant amount of "occupiers" (forgive me for choosing this word, I can't atm find a better one) - mainly among middle class and nobility, which resulted in Ukraine getting rid of Polish and Lithuanian ties at the time. What it also meant, however, is an emergance of new ruling and middle class from the peasantry.
- Cossacks which left a major cultural impact on Ukraine. Zaporozhians, despite later having different history, imprinted a lot of ideals and organization practices on the rest of Ukraine, allowing Cossacks to rule it around century (1648-1763). The very fact that the social justice could be achieved if you fight was a major thing. I think you probably heard about Western Ukraine in later times, when there was fight and/or opposition against Poland, and if you once took notice you could see that they actually had Cossack-like organization and romanticism to them (Sich riflemen, Zaporozhian military names, symbolic references) despite the fact that Western Ukraine never joined Khmelnytsky Uprising.
- Cossacks at the time (and before Uprising) heavily patronized and helped local educational centers, churches and etc. It became a major cornerstone later as it became one of reference points for ideas of autonomy and later independence.
- Cossacks at the time being enemies with Poland and Muscovy was awfully convenient to utilize in nationalism later
I think I don't need to tell you how important it was for Poland that it was defeated and erased from map not too far away from XIX century (with even short revival under Napoleon). The short time between Polish state being erased and the Polish nationalism (in XIX century sense) being born and blooming impacted heavily on Poland, it's desire to be independent, it's strength to muster strength to stand up for having own state and, in the end, ability to be able to fight for independence (many times and, finally, with a victory in 1920).
Similar overlooked thing mattered for Ukraine.
Cossack Host ruled Ukraine until 1763, until Little Russia Collegium finally disbanded it and annexed Ukraine administratively. Before that Cossacks ruled Ukraine with own subset of laws and were on rights of a vassal or march (but, effectively, it was gradually reduced until the middle of XVIII century until Russian Empire annexed Ukraine fully). On the Polish Right bank... well, you probably know about Koliyivshchyna (koliszczyzna).
Thus in XIX century the memory about Cossacks was alive, with people who were alive who could even tell about those times (similar to WWII today). Even in Russian culture there are clear signs that people remembered about it and respected those ties, like in case with Gogol who wrote stories about those times and whose family had Cossack origins, with grandfather being of Hetmans.
That memory being alive at the right time allowed for Ukrainian nationalism to bloom, giving birth to it, and grow. Cossacks became one of refence points in statehood aspirations, nationalism, self-identification, symbols of fight and etc.
The Uprising became national-liberational retroactively, from the point of view of Ukrainian nationalism, and it is often poorly emphasized that it didn't intend to be that but it became it later post-factum. Just like other things we do may matter much later or be seen in different light.
Mainly because they were the stratums of society that worked with the magnates and state and considered as part of oppressors and foreigners.
Although it is important that later the Jews were also used as scapegoats as well.
In Russia Cossacks were alive and well for quite a while, even into the Soviet Union, whether as a class, sub-ethnicity or military organizations (Red Cossacks).
Today there is a rather questionable restoration movement, there are even a few, uhm, "khutors" and "stanitsas" in Saint Petersburg.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, it's all fair.Unless you had commie books praising Khmelnytsky, alluding him to the Lenin of his time and reverencing him for "reunification" with Mother-Moscow - then no
I agree that often the generalized and populized narrative about the Uprising being a national liberation war is, well, not true because of the reasons you stated. They are correct.
However, it doesn't actuallly deny the "national" dimension to the Uprising of Khmelnytsky.
The Uprising happened (and so brutally) because of many things:
What I do want to point out is that in practical results, despite the failure of what it aimed to do, it left an impactful legacy in national dimension:
- Catholic Church and the Polish Counterreformation exerting pressure on the Orthodox
- failure of Union of Brest and Kyivan clergy seething on Poland (it's a long but interesting story)
- the magnates and nobles have wide priveleges and abusing peasants
- the nobility becoming Polish and Catholic on course of assimilation with Poland which alienated it from locals (not just peasants but other classes as well, especially the aforementioned seething priests)
- peasants being raided and failing to see protection from the nobility (which robbed nobility one of major influence tools on peasantry, providing security and peace to their own estates)
- Cossacks being repressed and deprived of rights they wanted and expanding number of employed Cossacks (one of major issues)
- Denied tour to Tavria and Constantinopole
- Khmelnytsky's own issues and much more that resonated and exploded
Lastly, the timeframes play a major role.
- It got rid of nobility that became alienated to Ukraine
- The Uprising included most of territory of Ukraine and resulted in wiping out significant amount of "occupiers" (forgive me for choosing this word, I can't atm find a better one) - mainly among middle class and nobility, which resulted in Ukraine getting rid of Polish and Lithuanian ties at the time. What it also meant, however, is an emergance of new ruling and middle class from the peasantry.
- Cossacks which left a major cultural impact on Ukraine. Zaporozhians, despite later having different history, imprinted a lot of ideals and organization practices on the rest of Ukraine, allowing Cossacks to rule it around century (1648-1763). The very fact that the social justice could be achieved if you fight was a major thing. I think you probably heard about Western Ukraine in later times, when there was fight and/or opposition against Poland, and if you once took notice you could see that they actually had Cossack-like organization and romanticism to them (Sich riflemen, Zaporozhian military names, symbolic references) despite the fact that Western Ukraine never joined Khmelnytsky Uprising.
- Cossacks at the time (and before Uprising) heavily patronized and helped local educational centers, churches and etc. It became a major cornerstone later as it became one of reference points for ideas of autonomy and later independence.
- Cossacks at the time being enemies with Poland and Muscovy was awfully convenient to utilize in nationalism later
I think I don't need to tell you how important it was for Poland that it was defeated and erased from map not too far away from XIX century (with even short revival under Napoleon). The short time between Polish state being erased and the Polish nationalism (in XIX century sense) being born and blooming impacted heavily on Poland, it's desire to be independent, it's strength to muster strength to stand up for having own state and, in the end, ability to be able to fight for independence (many times and, finally, with a victory in 1920).
Similar overlooked thing mattered for Ukraine.
Cossack Host ruled Ukraine until 1763, until Little Russia Collegium finally disbanded it and annexed Ukraine administratively. Before that Cossacks ruled Ukraine with own subset of laws and were on rights of a vassal or march (but, effectively, it was gradually reduced until the middle of XVIII century until Russian Empire annexed Ukraine fully). On the Polish Right bank... well, you probably know about Koliyivshchyna (koliszczyzna).
Thus in XIX century the memory about Cossacks was alive, with people who were alive who could even tell about those times (similar to WWII today). Even in Russian culture there are clear signs that people remembered about it and respected those ties, like in case with Gogol who wrote stories about those times and whose family had Cossack origins, with grandfather being of Hetmans.
That memory being alive at the right time allowed for Ukrainian nationalism to bloom, giving birth to it, and grow. Cossacks became one of refence points in statehood aspirations, nationalism, self-identification, symbols of fight and etc.
The Uprising became national-liberational retroactively, from the point of view of Ukrainian nationalism, and it is often poorly emphasized that it didn't intend to be that but it became it later post-factum. Just like other things we do may matter much later or be seen in different light.
Mainly because they were the stratums of society that worked with the magnates and state and considered as part of oppressors and foreigners.
Although it is important that later the Jews were also used as scapegoats as well.
With one exception from my side.
The Catholic Church, which I personally depise, was never especially hostile toward Orthodox faith, at least in the PLC.
Union of Brześć was definetly the political issue, however the Pope was surely happy to have his influence extended further to east...
The Counterreformation, which is among main reasons of further decline of the PLC, was aimed, well..., against reformed church, not Orthodox one...
BTW: back to the topic. The Deluge was also kinda the civil war in Poland on the basis of the religious conflict. Protestants, which were still pretty numerous, especially in Greater Poland, felt more and more endangered by Vasas counterreformational antics and supported Swedish king...
I primarily meant Zaporozhians and their ways.
The actual Cossacks, as well as Black Sea Host in Kuban which was a descendant from Zaporozhians, indeed survived. But their ideals and cultural impacted wasn't relevant to the rest of Russia that much in terms of society and even culture, it was seen as a quirky part of the Empire. It was always a special... well, caste, soslovie, class with own cultural and ethnical features, until it was destroyed by USSR and state forcefully assimilated and reeducated them and region. That also resulted in Ukrainian minority being almost erased there, leaving only minor cultural trace ("balachka" in Kuban').
Yeah, they are quite cringy cosplayers
But their issue isn't actually a bad one. If they weren't getting political they could achieve more.
Catholic Church mainly undermined relations with Brest.
The fact that made Orthodox furious was that Catholics "stole" the Rus' (actually western, non-Muscovy Rus') metropolitan title. One Union of Brest happened, they were depraved of metropolitan and were seen as dissidents against Unionists - at least until 1621 (I think) when Constantinople granted new metropolitan to Kyiv.
The other thing was that such relations meant that magnates and nobles favored opening of Catholic and, sometimes, Uniate churches and seminaries while restricting Orthodox ones and it worsened with time as assimilation of nobility continued and Counter Reformation made Catholics less tolerant. So it was a problem Orthodoxy had with Catholics, even if indirectly caused.
A reason specifically why Orthodoxy felt more vulnerable is that it was in Poland mostly. Lithuania wasn't nearly as caring about Orthodox churches and enjoyed more liberal attitude as it allowed Protestantism to grow. In fact, Protestants had protection of Lithuania because they led it.
Like many other failures of PLC at the time, it wasn't something intentional but a long-term result of certain policies.
What happened to Protestants in PLC after the Deluge? Were there surviving ones, in Lithuania for example?
Political or not, I don't see how they belong today.I primarily meant Zaporozhians and their ways.
The actual Cossacks, as well as Black Sea Host in Kuban which was a descendant from Zaporozhians, indeed survived. But their ideals and cultural impacted wasn't relevant to the rest of Russia that much in terms of society and even culture, it was seen as a quirky part of the Empire. It was always a special... well, caste, soslovie, class with own cultural and ethnical features, until it was destroyed by USSR and state forcefully assimilated and reeducated them and region. That also resulted in Ukrainian minority being almost erased there, leaving only minor cultural trace ("balachka" in Kuban').
Yeah, they are quite cringy cosplayers
But their issue isn't actually a bad one. If they weren't getting political they could achieve more.
I understand all the romanticism and whatnot (although the image of the "good guy Cossack" is rather irksome, just like the "good guy Knight" and the "good Guy Samurai" and so on), but they could as well be Black Hundreds peppered with some rustic Southern charm. The train has left and this cosplay is completely out of place.
If they want to be some sort of a neighborhood watch, it would be better if the state organized some Soviet-style movements, but not this.
I am slowly turning into a commie. Sad.
I mean, traditions and such are a good thing to support. There is a lot of case for reviving a local identity which was brutally suppressed in Soviet times and just revive traditions for the sake of tourism, history and engagement of local communities. There are plenty of good causes.
But well, those guys that do it aren't that and I perfectly understand.
Speaking of Black Hundreds... Aren't Sorok Sorokov basically that today? They seem to be very similar in spirit, organization, purpose and history.
I don't agree with traditions are good for the sake of traditions or that lost identities should be revived even if it were done in a better way than the cosplayers do.
It is one thing to revive, I don't know, wearing vyshivanka or whatever, or eating pastila made by the special local pre-revolutionary recipe, or "Cossacks lived here and did stuff, only $4.99 for the tickets", but "we are Cossacks now, doing Cossack things" is a bit too shoehorned and too pointless for me.
- 1
I don't think we disagree here
There are some groups like this too, but they weren't anywhere near as noticeable.
The Polish Brothers were expelled.
Calvinists and Lutherans were not oficially directly persecuted (but some pogroms happened...), except open traitors, but they lost any influence, being stripped from offices for good, because the Warsaw Confederation bill was in effect cancelled. So the Protestants were systematically phased out from Poland, and also in Lithuania.
Last edited:
- 1
I merely wished speak of the Deluge in song and rhyme and here I am witnessing rumours of the Swedish invasion's effects on the Cossacks whom have later on joined the Russian Tsarate in their Realpolitik attempt at saving their national identity. What about the Polish national identity I say, what about the unions of Polish boot over foreign peasants with no travel into the country anywhere but the Pommerania region where only good things could be said of the "Common Wealth" of the nation based on the area's Teutonic urbanisation?
Common-wealth was for gentry, stupido. Who ever cared about peasants?
Who ever cared about peasants?
There was one Anarcho-Syndacalist Commune that was very peasant-centric. They took turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer had to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of purely external affairs.
They gave way to the violence inherent in the system.
Only Pancho Villa comes to my mind...
Bearing in mind your Tex-Mex bias, because in the Good Old World dozens of such peasant rebellions occured. And one of them led directly to the tragic weakness of the Commonwealth in the eve of the Deluge.