Oh the horror! What if the Mongols....

[Earl Uhtred]

Originally posted by historycaesar

3. Kiev was a quasi-republic, and Russia was slowly becoming a more democratic state, until the Mongols distroyed this.

Too much is made of the pre-Muscovite 'republics'. There was nothing democratic about them, they were loathsome hereditary oligarchies, doomed to fail before their more efficient neighbours like Carthage before and Venice and Poland after.

As for Byzantine effeminacy, try telling that to Symeon

One thing that keeps me returning to these forums is the worldwide readership and the massive range of historical opinion that you get. My fight to restore pre-Norman values to these isles is a lonely one...

 

[unmerged(6160)]

Originally posted by snuggs
Too much is made of the pre-Muscovite 'republics'. There was nothing democratic about them, they were loathsome hereditary oligarchies, doomed to fail before their more efficient neighbours like Carthage before and Venice and Poland after.

As for Byzantine effeminacy, try telling that to Symeon

One thing that keeps me returning to these forums is the worldwide readership and the massive range of historical opinion that you get. My fight to restore pre-Norman values to these isles is a lonely one...

On the pre-Muscovite "republics", I agree with you they where the Carthage of the North, but they where slowly becoming democracies.

To EB. Thank you for your points, you are quite polite, many others on this board would have freaked out, and not tried to have a polite discussion.

On the pre-Norman fight, fight on, I would love to see a Romano-Celtic-Saxon-Angle Britain, instead of the French-German royal dynasties.

Oh why did the Romans have to leave the lovely isles....

 

[Endre Fodstad]

I believe EB's characteristic of the views on the Kiev Rus contra the later Muscovite russians being a tool of "political history" to hit the hammer right on the head. This is a sad state of affairs because, as Snuggs point out, the "democratic" state of the Kievan states has been severely overstated. Most Kievan princedoms were very much as autocratic as any later czar, and as for militarism, the pre-christian Kiev of the 8-900s and post-Vladimirian christian Kiev had a solid program of conquest and militarization going alongside their trading ventures - fighting and allying with Cumans, Bulgars, Byzantines, Poles, Hungarians etc. The destruction of the Khazar empire, for example, was mostly the work of the Kiev Rus. The failure of the kievan imperial experiment was mostly due to dynastic problems and infighting-something Muscovite russia was not immune to either - but Muscovy came out on top in the end, and Kiev did not.

As for westernization being equaled with democratic movements in the medieval period, that is a very misguided view. The latin christian neighbours of the pre-mongol russians were either monarchies, princely autocracies or nomad confederacies. What the closure of Russia to the west stopped was the potential for technological and social development that was going to change medieval europe to early modern europe, not notions of democracy. Peter the great's developments was an attempt to speed-introduce those advantages, in which Russia had been lagging behind western europe for many, many years.

 

[unmerged(6160)]

Originally posted by Endre Fodstad
Peter the great's developments was an attempt to speed-introduce those advantages, in which Russia had been lagging behind western europe for many, many years.

But unfourtanitly, Peter couldn't create 500 years of invention and science in 60....

 

[unmerged(6473)]

When we characterize the Kievan Russia as "democratic" that is perhaps not entirely appropriate--better surely if we call it "more democratic" than the later Moskva Russia model. And I acknowledge that our calling of Kievan Russia democratic has a lot to do with our contemporary politics. As the philosopher says, it is more relative than absolute that we find the truth in most things.

One person characterizes the Kievan Russia as oligarchies and so forth, and this is probably correct. Still, we call it "democracy". Just like the Mafia government in Russia today--one can say (in theoretical terms) that it is not a true "democracy" and not a true "capitalism" and that it is instead just a corrupt oligarchy. Well, sorry, but for us, the terms "democracy" and "corrupt oligarchy" are used rather interchangeably. In other words, for us these are synonyms (words mean same definition). We apply these terms to the present day as well as to the historical states of such as Kievan Russia.

So, after so many words, I agree that perhaps Kievan Russia was just theiving, corrupt oligarchies, but you will perhaps understand why we tend to call it "democratic" nevertheless.

I would add that much of the propaganda in favor of Kievan Russia during our Gorbachev era originated precisely because the reformist elements wanted to use Kievan Russia as a model to follow. We of course much disagree with this path.

 

[unmerged(6473)]

One more quick point. Somebody points out that the early Kievan Russia was a bit militaristic and even destroyed the Khazar Empire. This is true. I would say that the later Kievan Russia was becoming less militaristic and more democratic than it was in its childhood. One very crucial point which is very often overlooked is what happened to the Khazars. You may remember that they were a very democratic / free, commercial, open, and cosmopolitan civilization. Well, to where did they all go? That is the big key to all of it. When Khazar Empire fell, the Khazars all fled to Kievan Russia like rats fleeing a sinking ship and heading for safety. Other invaders from the East meant that they could not stay where they were. The Khazars of course brought their culture with them, and after the Khazar refugees entered into Kievan Russia life and very greatly prospered, you then of course see Kievan Russia become more and more like Khazar Empire itself--more cosmopolitan, freer, more commercial, and so forth. It is one of the great ironies of our whole history in fact. Kievan Russia beats Khazars, Khazars go to Kiev Rus, then Kiev Rus becomes a new Khazaria!

There is a good western movie where a girl is possessed by an evil spirit and a priest saves her by bringing the spirit into himself (you can tell this because his eyes turn glowing green) and then the priest turns against himself and throws himself out of a high window to his death. Well, when I saw this a few years ago, I thought that this is just what happened with our Kievan Russia and the Khazars.

 

[nalivayko]

New theories (I am going to be lynched for this) say that Russians were Mongols Golden Horde was the military alliance between first Russian Czars (that came into existance long before the fall of Constantinople), Cossacks (yes, who existed way before 15th-16th centuries) and scores of non-Russians west of Volga. The purpose of this alliance was to destroy the feudal power of princes, much like French Kings used Scottish and Swiss mercinaries to break the power of nobility.

These theories do answer some interesting questions, one being: how did nomads, used to operating in steppes, managed to defeat Russians in the heart of their domain (which accidentally happen to be very very woody).

The answers are:

1. There weren't that many of them (100,000-500,000 horsemen) could not feed themselves and their horses in the mid-winter in woods. So, the Mongol army probably amounted to about 30,000.

2. They were familiar to Russian way of fighting during winter, using frozen rivers as roads.

3. Their rulers supported Orthodoxy, which in turn supported them. This explains unexplainbale before attempts to stop Mongols by venturing out of the city with priests ahead of the procession, who carried crosses to stop the invaders. If the invaders were savage nomads, no sane Russian would venture out of the city without the support of the army.

4. In short, the struggle between Mongols and Russians was the struggle between Russian autocrats and Russian nobles. After subjugating Russian princes "Mongols" sent a contingent of their troops to aid Nevsky in defeating Livonian Order and proceeded to cement the borders of the newly born Russia in the west.

That's, of course, is just a theory. Enjoy. Btw, the name Mongols, the theory claims, derives from a Greek word "megalion" - "great".

Russians were divided in Great Russians, White Russians and Small Russians.

In conclusion, all we know about Mongols comes from the studies of Western historians started in 19th century and lies spread by Romanov historians, who wanted to confirm the legitimacy and make their predecessors look like weaklings and savages.

The author of the new theory is Fomenko, his supporters are growing in numbers. Myself, I wasn't entirely convinced, but his books surely point at many inconsistences in history as we know it. Let's just say I've read enough to doubt everything I read in my history books. Until you read the original texts (which could be propaganda just like today) you cannot trust a historian who interpreted them. He could be on a payroll of some country or be hiding some facts that will ruin his own reputation.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

That sounds pretty revisionistic. Let's see what comes of it...
However, the amazing number of inconsistensies in the accepted "history" in regards to mongols(or just about any steppe people) in the west has always been irritating.

If the Fomenko you are referring to is the mathemathican Anatoly T. Fomenko, he is, I'm afraid, based on his previous works, a total fraud. In 2002 "Antiquity in the Middle Ages: Greek and Bible History" came out in english, a history work that claimed all medieval history in the west had been fabricated by monks, and that in fact the entirety of western civilization was based on russian and byzantine civilization. These theories were also "widely accepted"; by conspiratory theorists. Fomenko was debunked by the assembled academic community in both the europe and russia, but that didn't stop a great deal of easily befuddled people for buying the dirt...

Regaring the supposed decline of Kievan Russia in relation to morally and militarily superior Muscovy, well, I'll still claim it's a blatant modern construct and one that is harmful to the academic community - history should not be a tool of government policy. While some Khazarian turks immigrated into Kievan Rus territory, the great majority went either into the minor Khazarian black sea kingdoms, later absorbed by Byzantium and other turkish tribes, or the other states it bordered with.
Kiev was in all probability _less_ commercialized after the failure of the imperial idea and the absorbation of the Khazars than later - for example the Kievantrading links to Constantinople were much reduced in favor of mediterranean trade.
Kiev , Novgorod , Suzdal, pre-conquest Muscovy, Chernigov etc etc were certainly different from the modern Russia, but hardly more or less effeminate, democratic, mafia-run, oligarchic or autocratic than the later russian government.

EF

 

[unmerged(6473)]

I would say that Kievan Russia was definitely a great deal more commercial in its culture than later Russia. Kievan Russia was essentially a commercial colony of the Byzantine Empire. Emphasis was upon trade rather than production, and the ruling class structures fairly reflected this system. Even the introduction of Orthodoxy into Russia from Byzantium can be seen as analogous to for example the introduction of Catholicism from Spain to the Philippines--that is the superstructure reflecting the material base, and the export of imperial idea systems from the conter to the peripheries, and so forth. Back then, Byzantium was the commercial imperial power, and Kievan Russia was its little colony. This relationship and the commercial nature of Kievan Russia became even stronger with the fall of the Khazars (commercial competitors) and their migration into Kievan Russia itself. Kievan Russia remained firmly commercial as long as its Dnepr water-commerce umbilical cord to Byzantium remained intact. When this route was finally and firmly cut by Eastern invasions, then that is when Kievan Russia began "to dry upon the vine" until it collapsed into internal squabbling and outside invasion. Now, I would say that we still very much embrace the patriotic Orthodox today, but still we much understand how it came to us historically. Bottom line, as you say, though, is that Kievan Russia indeed was very different than later Russia. We may emphasis upon this because of our current political bias, but it is still very much the great truth.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

I find your view of Kievan Russia flawed, but then again I'm no expert in the field. I'm very surprised to see you describe it as a colony of Byzantium, though - that's a new one. Influenced, yes. Just as any nation will influence and be influenced by its neighbour. Kiev was quite expansionist and commercial even before the trade with Byzantium got underway - it did not need the greeks for that!

Khazarian immigration into Kiev(closest big russian city) was, as far as I know, minimal. The southern trade didn't diminish until the fourth crusade and was reestablished with latin Byzantium. The decline of Kiev in the 12th century was political, not commercial.

EF

 

[unmerged(5459)]

Originally posted by historycaesar
EB.: I must disagree with you on some points:

1. The Mongols where tyrants, and they imposed on the Russians this sense of tyranity, so when the tsars arose, they acted like tyrants too.

I wouldn't quite call the Mongols tyrants in the terms of dictators as other people have.
The Golden Horde was a very decentralised state, with many of those princes who had surrendered maintaining their lands and administrative systems.
Actually, it was the Khan who created the Post of Prince of RUssia for Ivan I, the thingy of Muscovy to take on a large part of taxation and northern administration.

Yes, they had to cement their rule with their military might, but most likely a lot of RUssian soldiers fought in their armies as well.

Many other people benefited as well. Mongols generally preached religious freedom for example.

 

[unmerged(6473)]

Mongols as decentralized with freedom of worship. Interesting points.

I always understood that we learned our dictatorship, hatred of foreigners and the West, intolerance, and militarism from the Mongols. Let's put it this way: before the Mongol invasion, we were none of those things, after we threw the Mongols out, we were. Maybe it is best to say that the Mongols got us started in the right direction in terms of dictatorship and militarism even though they were themselves not the purest examples of such things. Sufficient perhaps that they were more so of these things than Kievan Russia.

Next, I rechecked my sources to verify that one of the prime reasons for the instability and collapse of the Kievan Russia was the cutting off of the river trade routes to Byzantium. One person says that the reason for the fall of Kievan Russia was political, in the sense that the local princes squabbled and would not cooperate. That is true. But since the very nature of Kievan Russia was commercial, the damage done to the trade with Kievan Russia's biggest trade partner (Byzantium) by the barbarian invasions across the southern rivers must have had a powerful impact. I find such quotes as "the early level of trade (with Byzantium) was never reached again" and "the effect was to strain the entire economic and political structures of the principalities (Kievan Russia)".

Next, I would add that the Mongols learned a lot from the Russians as well and freely intermarried with them. The Orthodox Church was the only institution of Kievan Russia which promoted a Russian patriotic unified response to the Mongol threat, but after the Mongol conquest, the Orthodox Church became a very loyal supporter of the Mongol authority, and in return the Mongols helped the Orthodox Church in suppression of various western-oriented sects (Catholic or Jewish in origin). The Church submitted to the Mongol rule wholly in return for security, prosperity, and the ability to suppress its rivals with state power. Same could be said for the Orthodox Church's ultimate relationship with the Soviet Union, especially in the era of Stalin. We can see the roots of this behavior in far earlier times.

Finally, I mentioned the Khazar emigration to Kievan Russia. One response says that there is no record of this. Well, think carefully about the historical strategic context. Khazar Empire in its time was the greatest commercial power in the whole region. Its whole purpose was commerce, it was cosmopolitan and very free, and the Khazars themselves were Jewish. When Kievan Russian forces under Svyatoslav damaged Khazaria, it was enough to weaken it so much that the eastern barbarian forces were able to overcome the Khazaria from the east. These were the Pechenegs who would be followed in much later years by the Cumans / Polovtsy and the Tatars / Mongols in their westward advances. Anyway, when Khazar Empire collapsed (not all at once necessarily but in dramatic, heavy stages), to where would all of these bright and prosperous traders flee? They were sure not going to stay in northern Caspian area, because it was being totally overrun. They had to be moving to some place. And at the time, the next closest and most prosperous commercial place was of course Kievan Russia. So it is predictable and natural that they would move to there. Not necessarily all at once or even noticeably except with the perspective of many years. But make no doubt that the Khazars did come to Kievan Russia. Look at surnames, look at the even heavier emphasis upon trade and commerce in Kievan Russia culture after these events, as well as the dramatically increasing size of the Jewish population of Kievan Russia. One extra way to tell about the larger number of Jews from Khazaria and their perceived increasing influence in the life of Kievan Russia is in the way that the Orthodox Church of Kievan Russia was all of a sudden becoming almost frantically anti-Jewish, blaming the Jews for all sorts of real or imagined things. For better or worse, the Orthodox Church has a long history of religious and ethnic intolerance, especially against Jews, and some of the earliest and most vicious of these feelings and thoughts came from this late Kievan Russian period when the Khazars were coming in from the east. Some think that this anti-Jewish feeling came from time of Ivan 4 (who did indeed dislike the Jews) but it is clear that these feelings had even deeper historical roots. I think that the Khazar Empire's strength and ultimate collapse had much to do with this.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Wow, E.B, you really write mammoth posts. My turn to go for that:

Let's do the Khazar thing first. I think we may be talking past each other here. Khazar immigration into the surrounding areas with the downfall of their dominon went into most neighbour states, both their fellow turkish/alan tribesmen, Byzantium, Russia and so on. What I'm prepared to argue is that the influence they exercised was minimal. Though a percentage of the immigrants certainly were traders, this was also the case in the other areas, who certainly did not change in outlook through the influx of khazarian jews.
Remember that the jews of western and central europe frequently got kicked out of various kingdoms at intervals. The effect on the states receiving them was often the opposite of commercialism, since the jewish traders and craftsmen somtimes came to dominate trade as a seperate and closed group.

The "cut" trade routes are not a single incident. The steppe peoples cut and the Kievans reestablished the trade several times during the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. Even latin occupation of Constantinople did not check trade for too long. ´
Additionally, one must remember that the chief income of the boyars and princes in medieval russia was not from commerce but from agriculture. This is the case in the entire medieval world, from egypt to england. 11th century Kiev was probably more commercially developed than 11th century england, but the distruption of the trade routes did not have world-shattering effects on the nobility. There was still the agricultural produce and tribute from tribes in one's dominion.

Now we come to the subject of the Mongol impact on Russia. To say that militarism, autocratism and hatred of foreigners was absent in Kievan russia is a serious understatement. Most of russia was ruled by autocracies, and the veche/vezhe or democratic town councils(being democratic in a VERY broad sense) was all but unimportant in making political decisions. The vezhe of Great Novgorod's only real impact on the city's foreign and non-trade policies was the election of the city's prince-and even this title tended to stay in the same families.
What has often been termed democracy is the princes' boyar councils. By tradition, russian princes were required to "heed the word of the old and wise men" of a city(Pravda Ruskaya, 12th cent.) i.e. the nobles. Though Russia never experienced true western feudalism, this council could often influence the prince's decicions - it was not a debating forum, however: final say rested on the prince. The tradition of the boyar council (sometimes called duma)continued into the muscovite period, though it occocionally was checked by very absolutist rulers. Ivan Grozny comes to mind.
Intolerance of foreigners was and old and established tradition in Kievan Russia - you even mention the jew/latin purges yourself. This must be laid at the feet of the Orthodox Church, who was traditionally _very_ hostile toward other religions, especially so after the Great Schism of 1054(one of christendom's lowest moments) in regards to catholics. Most of the early russian church leaders were byzantine priests and bishops - the Russian church had to wait until after the decline of Byzantium to break free - and Byzantiums attitude to westerners can at best be described as negative.

Many of these attitudes were strengthened by the Mongol invasion and vassalage, but one can't say they came from it.
One of the worst results of the invasions was the wholesale export of russian craftsmen and merchants to the east. Large expatriate colonies of russian existed in Samarkand and even China. Kubilai Khan's "golden throne" was probably made by russian craftsmen. This export led to a loss of techical know-how: for example, stone building in russia, while at a high level in 1230, took a 150-year nose dive because of the mongol invasion. Same goes for other luxury crafts. It is characteristic that Ivan IV had to import italian masons and architects to build his palace, something his predecessors had managed with their own people.
That is the real tragedy of the mongol invasion - the halting of development in russia that led to the modernization troubles of the 1600s and 1700s.

I think we may have some trouble in this otherwise enjoyable debate in that we're trying to identify single causes, something that does not really work well in modern histoty. I do hope that I've made my points clear with this post.

EF

 

[unmerged(6473)]

Yes, those are excellent points, and I find very little to contradict in what you are saying there. Perhaps it is just the simple distinction between 100% cause and effect type of history and "dominant force" cause and effect, in which we can say that X had a great impact upon the development of Y, though Y may have other causes as well. Anyway, I already agree with most of what you post here. Have to go quickly now, though.