Russia: The forgotten empire?

[Sheogorath]

I've noticed, throughout the years, that Russia, at least, pre-Soviet Russia (although now it seems the Soviet Union is gradually receding from peoples minds as well), tends to be ignored in the history books. Despite carving out the largest continuous land empire since the Mongols, despite playing a critical role in world history, defeating the man who very nearly succeed in conquering Europe, and being the home of some amazingly brilliant people...

I've mentioned, to various people, that this year is the 300th anniversary of the Battle of Poltava. Invariably, I have been met with a look which can best be described as 'buh?'

Considering the critical role Russian played in European politics from the end of the Great Northern War (another historical tidbit people have never heard of), it seems almost criminal that the history of Russia is discounted, and so often Russia's greatest moments are overshadowed by other nations.

Look at the Napoleonic Wars. Discussing the Battle of Borodino will be met with the same reaction as my mention of Poltava. Mention Waterloo, and people at least say something like, "Oh yeah, that's where that Nelson guy beat Napoleon, right?" At least there's some recognition :blankg:

The Great Game, the Russo-Japanese War, the Crimean War (described in my high school history textbook as 'a conflict between Britain, France, and the Russian Empire' and relegated to an infobox.), all of that tends to get ignored or misrepresented. I believe the Crimean War's description basically summed it up as a one-sided smackdown of Russia, which is sort of like saying Pyrrhus beat the Romans with one hand behind his back. Likewise, those who have heard of the Russo-Japanese war only know of the Battle of Tsushima, and have rarely heard of the land war, in which the Russians gave a much better account of themselves, often being outnumbered and giving the Japanese a run for their money.

Essentially, Russia is almost always treated as a backwards, failing, state, incapable of doing anything without the assistance of its allies.

It would hardly surprise me if Soviet leaders were made to read US history textbooks on their first day in office. No doubt they would say, with a comical Russian accent, "THIS is what they think of us?"

[Watchman]

Essentially, Russia is almost always treated as a backwards, failing, state...That is probably because of that's what it was - socioeconomically retarded. Hint: abolition of serfdom. And even after that the social and economic structures remained grossly archaic, all the way until early Soviet times (and one can justifiably ask if they couldn't have done their moderinising with less suffering and loss of human life...).
Though to be fair, most of Central and Eastern Europe suffered from the same...

...incapable of doing anything without the assistance of its allies.Well, I'll grant you that is patent bollocks.

[seireikhaan]

First- The Mongol Empire was actually larger than the Russian ever was, due to the Mongol conquests of Persia and China.

Second, to the actual topic- the Russians, I think, tend to be ignored at least partly because of their location. Russia is on the periphery of Europe. The Russian Empire never really went after strong, European powers after they dethroned Sweden in the Baltic, and even at that, its arguable that Sweden never had a prayer of surviving a conflict with Russia intact. Further, Russia's absence from the colonial game was undoubtedly a big factor. Russia never was able to extend its influence beyond the Eurasian land mass, which means their impact beyond their sphere in influence is negligible at best. Much like the victors write the history books, those with the greatest cultural impact tend to get to write the history books as well.

[Sheogorath]

That is probably because of that's what it was - socioeconomically retarded. Hint: abolition of serfdom. And even after that the social and economic structures remained grossly archaic, all the way until early Soviet times (and one can justifiably ask if they couldn't have done their moderinising with less suffering and loss of human life...).
Though to be fair, most of Central and Eastern Europe suffered from the same...

That's a rather unfair characterization. The Russian Empire existed in eras other than the late 1800's.

Now, granted, serfdom was a problem, however, it should be pointed out that, despite all of its economic problems, Tsar Nicholas II was something like the 4th richest man in history at the time of his death. Considering the Muscovite (And, by extension, the Russian state) has been around since about 1200 AD, there's something to be said for the fact that the Russian state has lasted as long as it has. Clearly the Russian Empire did not fall into the 'failing state' category until the 20th century, and did so then because of a series of wars.
And even in those wars, the Russians didn't fare too badly to start out. Yes, both the Russo-Japanese War and WWI were disasters for the Russians, however, the greatest territorial shifts were made on the Eastern Front, and prior to the total collapse of their state the Russians had made a pretty decent headway into Germany.
If the Russians had had a leader like Peter the Great during the first world war...well, the Cold War may've just turned into an extension of the Great Game played out in central Europe.


Well, I'll grant you that is patent bollocks.

Glad we agree :P


First- The Mongol Empire was actually larger than the Russian ever was, due to the Mongol conquests of Persia and China.
That's why I said 'since the Mongols'.

I also believe that the Russian and British empires (at their respective heights) were ABOUT equal in total land area. I could be wrong, of course.


Second, to the actual topic- the Russians, I think, tend to be ignored at least partly because of their location. Russia is on the periphery of Europe. The Russian Empire never really went after strong, European powers after they dethroned Sweden in the Baltic,
Napoleon? The Prussians? Austria? The Ottomans? Germany? The Crimean War?


and even at that, its arguable that Sweden never had a prayer of surviving a conflict with Russia intact.
There's quote somewhere from a Swedish general of the era, basically saying that Sweden had to win the war within a year, or Russia would simply overwhelm them.
Charles XII was playing for the quick, smackdown, knockout, win. He came close, but Peter had a long term strategy and was, arguably, a better strategist. Charles was almost certainly a better tactician, but was, ultimately, short sighted. Still a pretty awesome guy, though.


Further, Russia's absence from the colonial game was undoubtedly a big factor. Russia never was able to extend its influence beyond the Eurasian land mass, which means their impact beyond their sphere in influence is negligible at best.

Oh dear. Ever heard of the Great Game? It was basically the Cold War as played out by the British and Russians in Asia. Mostly in Central Asia, but also in China and Korea. I could go on for hours, but read up on some of the pre-Russo-Japanese war politics of Korea. It's really fascinating. Both sides tried some really crazy tricks with the Korean government, typically involving placing their own officials in charge of various Korean governmental bodies.

China's even better. For a long time, something like 1/4 of China was essentially Russian-occupied territory. The Russians came within a hairs-bredth of actually establishing dominance in China because they had (for a European state) a close relationship with China and were, somewhat, considered the lesser evil. If not for superior British monetary power and the Japanese navy, the Russians may well have become the dominant power in Asia.


Much like the victors write the history books, those with the greatest cultural impact tend to get to write the history books as well.

That's pretty much it, in my opinion. Most American history books take the British side of events whenever an American viewpoint isn't available. Hence why the Eastern Front of WWI never gets much attention in such sources.

[Sarmatian]

I have the same feeling as Sheogorath, although I think that's true for "east" in general. Ask someone with almost no knowledge of history who Alexander the Great was, at least he'd probably heard of him. Asking the same person about Cyrus the Great, it would be "Huh? Who the Great?"

Russia's considered as something in between, not really eastern and not really western. Furthermore, it was something big, distant enough not be understood fully but close enough to be a threat. That state of mind was only reinforced with the creation of Soviet Union - it wasn't just something you're uncomfortable about, now it's something outright hostile. The general perception of Russia was and is influenced by bias, parochialism and fear. There's much less of that among historians, but even historians are guilty of it quite often.

Of course, Russia did lag behind the west most of the time, although I wouldn't say the difference was ever so great to justify the term "archaic".

That's why Russia is often seen as something backward and its victories attributed to numerical superiority exclusively.

It's similar situation in science. Names like Lomonosov or Mendeleev will rarely be recognized outside Russia.

Pop culture just reinforce those views. In Civilization IV, Peter the Great is described as a crazy drunk whom Russians buried presumably under the heaviest rock the could find and Catherine the Great as a slut who liked to have sex with animals.

[Sheogorath]

I have the same feeling as Sheogorath, although I think that's true for "east" in general. Ask someone with almost no knowledge of history who Alexander the Great was, at least he'd probably heard of him. Asking the same person about Cyrus the Great, it would be "Huh? Who the Great?"

Russia's considered as something in between, not really eastern and not really western. Furthermore, it was something big, distant enough not be understood fully but close enough to be a threat. That state of mind was only reinforced with the creation of Soviet Union - it wasn't just something you're uncomfortable about, now it's something outright hostile. The general perception of Russia was and is influenced by bias, parochialism and fear. There's much less of that among historians, but even historians are guilty of it quite often.

Of course, Russia did lag behind the west most of the time, although I wouldn't say the difference was ever so great to justify the term "archaic".

That's why Russia is often seen as something backward and its victories attributed to numerical superiority exclusively.

It's similar situation in science. Names like Lomonosov or Mendeleev will rarely be recognized outside Russia.

Pop culture just reinforce those views. In Civilization IV, Peter the Great is described as a crazy drunk whom Russians buried presumably under the heaviest rock the could find and Catherine the Great as a slut who liked to have sex with animals.

Indeed. The same can be said of China, another favorite nation of mine. Most peoples perception of China seems to be locked in 1900, when it was hardly a state at all.

It's not even limited to science, some of the greatest generals in history, the same people who would be known as well as, say, Napoleon in the West, aren't even known. Neither of my parents, for instance (both of whom are college graduates, my dad has multiple degrees.), knew who Suvorov (one of the very few generals to never suffer a defeat on the field) was. Kutusov isn't recognized either. SOME people know Zhukov because he's from WWII, but they only know he was a general, and his amazing accomplishments are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

Although, to be fair, Peter the Great was a bit of a bastard and the Russian people really wanted to make sure he didn't come back. And Catherine was a bit of a whore >_>

But their bad characteristics tend to get exaggerated, even moreso than with Western monarchs. The only similar case I can think of in the west is Henry VIII, who, by my recollection, was generally quite fit and a decent ruler in his early days. You know, before he got fat and started chopping his wives heads off. :tongueg:

[Marshal Murat]

When describing anything east of Germany, it typically falls into the category of "stuff happens, until it gets really cool in WW2".
That's probably the greatest disappointment about the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They contributed so much to the formation of Europe today, but are left out of most textbooks or relegated to foot-notes and it's very disappointing.

[Watchman]

That's a rather unfair characterization. The Russian Empire existed in eras other than the late 1800's.Well... it was kind of worse off before that. Around the latter 1800s they were actually genuinely trying to catch up.

Now, granted, serfdom was a problem, however, it should be pointed out that, despite all of its economic problems, Tsar Nicholas II was something like the 4th richest man in history at the time of his death.Uh, and ? That's very characteristic of the socioeconomically retarded societies where a small ruling class lives in opulence over a vast sea of dire commoner poverty...

Put this way, the great magnates of Poland similarly got filthy rich off the grain export industry - and the piss-poor peasantry did the heavy lifting for it. Which on the side caused an acute skewing of the economic structures, as they were dominated by the interests of the "plantation"-owning upper class.
Russia was somewhat more diversified, but not fundamentally different in that respect.

Considering the Muscovite (And, by extension, the Russian state) has been around since about 1200 AD, there's something to be said for the fact that the Russian state has lasted as long as it has.I don't really see how that's much of a boast. The French state can reasonably legitimately claim to have continuously existed as a political entity since the Migration Period Frankish kingdom, and most European polities are only somewhat younger.

Survival alone is proof of nothing more than itself, and arguably of others not being willing to extert the effort required to extinguish the polity - in this case, largely for geographical reasons. Rather for example Sweden and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth actively meddled in Russian internal politics to the best of their ability for their own benefit, both being perfectly well aware that trying to establish a permanent presence in the deep interior was not a strategically or politically viable proposition.

Clearly the Russian Empire did not fall into the 'failing state' category until the 20th century, and did so then because of a series of wars.Not really. It can be argued that Central and Eastern Europe as a whole, as well as the Mediterranean zone, fell into archaic decay already in the Early Modern period, when they became stuck in stagnant and more than little exploitative socioeconomic patterns, nonexistent developement and - in East-Central Europe at least - variously "despotic" and neo-feudal political structures. Wheareas at the same time "Northern" Europe - in practice more like "Western", though Scandinavia did take a shot at it - went on to turn towards the oceans and down the path that eventually led to the Industrial Revolution.
(Prussia seems to have jumped off the crumbling bandwagon at the last moment...)
Peter the Great did at least introduce proper modern adminstrative practices and a strong central regime into Russia - but this then only ended up leaving the realm stuck with a stifling absolutist monarchy that eventually plain pissed off its subjects to the degree of getting overthrown.

Napoleon?Kept kicking Russian armies around until he made the acute strategic mistake of trying to invade the vast Empire itself, with rather poor preparations to boot. Which ended up costing him his experienced main field army and, in the end, empire.

The Prussians?The only major war between the two I could find a mention of was the Seven Years' War... in which Prussia was fighting most of the major European land powers at once. And even then Russian success was brief.

Austria?From what I've gathered Austria and Russia were by far more often allied against someone else (usually, Prussia, the Ottomans or France) than in a shooting war. Indeed, *did* the two even fight any major wars on opposite sides before WW1 ? And by that point Austria-Hungary was id possible even more ramshackle than Russia, plus also somewhat busy with the Italians...

The Ottomans?In terminal decay since the late 1500s, if not earlier, and wont to get their arses kicked by just about everybody who bothered to try - although the fact that rival European powers often enough sabotaged each others' attempts to carve bits off the crumbling Empire tended to help them survive.

Germany?In WW1, you mean ? Oh yeah, Russia went to that one confidently enough, like everyone. Suffered probably even worse than most too... there's a reason the Germans were on a defensive footing on the Western Front and on the strategic offensive in the East.

The Crimean War?Started as a diplomatic pissing contest over the Holy Land, escalated into a shooting war ? Got Russian armies thoroughly mauled by the Franco-British (and whoever else pitched in) alliance in the Crimea and had the great fortress being built at Bomarsund, Åland, razed into so much a smoking crater by a joint Franco-British naval force...? Would probably have lost Sveaborg too, but the war ended before that.

There's quote somewhere from a Swedish general of the era, basically saying that Sweden had to win the war within a year, or Russia would simply overwhelm them.
Charles XII was playing for the quick, smackdown, knockout, win. He came close, but Peter had a long term strategy and was, arguably, a better strategist. Charles was almost certainly a better tactician, but was, ultimately, short sighted. Still a pretty awesome guy, though.Charles' major strategic mistake is AFAIK generally thought to have been trying to chase after Peter's main field army, which led to the disastrous foray down to Poltava and collapse of the Swedish logistics. It has been suggested he should have beelined for the newly built St. Petersburg, which would also have kept his army closer to the Baltic (and hence the supply lines manageable) and forced Peter to either give battle or yield the apple of his eye without a fight...

'Course, Charles may also just have gotten terminally overconfident due to his previous successes.

Still, at that time the Swedish Empire was also starting to run out of the resources needed to hold onto its territories. The empire had basically been built by developing a very effective adminstration that allowed the extraction and mobilisation of maximum resources from the piss-poor kingdom's meager holdings; by the early 1700s, the resource base was flat out becoming exhausted and the larger rivals were catching up...

[Sarmatian]

Well... it was kind of worse off before that. Around the latter 1800s they were actually genuinely trying to catch up.
Uh, and ? That's very characteristic of the socioeconomically retarded societies where a small ruling class lives in opulence over a vast sea of dire commoner poverty...

??? What was so advanced about other European countries compared to Russia in 1600's and 1700's? What's so bad that it's worse than "archaic"?


Put this way, the great magnates of Poland similarly got filthy rich off the grain export industry - and the piss-poor peasantry did the heavy lifting for it. Which on the side caused an acute skewing of the economic structures, as they were dominated by the interests of the "plantation"-owning upper class.
Russia was somewhat more diversified, but not fundamentally different in that respect.


And? That's how feudalism worked, that's how all of Europe was before industrial revolution. Big, fat, rich land owners and poor peasants who actually worked.


I don't really see how that's much of a boast. The French state can reasonably legitimately claim to have continuously existed as a political entity since the Migration Period Frankish kingdom, and most European polities are only somewhat younger.

It's not just surviving. From a small polity surrounded by bigger, stronger, often more advanced countries to the largest country in the world spanning across almost entire Eurasia, often at war with the strongest countries in the world during that time. Quite a feat, not many countries have done it. Could be said for the Ottomans, too, but their conquests weren't as large or as permanent.


Survival alone is proof of nothing more than itself, and arguably of others not being willing to extert the effort required to extinguish the polity - in this case, largely for geographical reasons. Rather for example Sweden and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth actively meddled in Russian internal politics to the best of their ability for their own benefit, both being perfectly well aware that trying to establish a permanent presence in the deep interior was not a strategically or politically viable proposition.

What are you trying to say with this? That the reason Russia survived is because no one thought it was worth the effort to conquer it?


Not really. It can be argued that Central and Eastern Europe as a whole, as well as the Mediterranean zone, fell into archaic decay already in the Early Modern period, when they became stuck in stagnant and more than little exploitative socioeconomic patterns, nonexistent developement and - in East-Central Europe at least - variously "despotic" and neo-feudal political structures. Wheareas at the same time "Northern" Europe - in practice more like "Western", though Scandinavia did take a shot at it - went on to turn towards the oceans and down the path that eventually led to the Industrial Revolution.

Discovery of America and gradual moving of trade routes from Mediterranean to Atlantic hit eastern Europe and Mediterranean countries heavily. In fact that is when the eastern empires like Russia or Ottoman Empire started to lag behind. Russia was in a bit better position, it had resources in the east but it was cheaper, easier and safer to transport cheap resources by sea from America than from Asia by land. A lot of other issues as well, but a bit too complicated and not really important for this discussion.


Peter the Great did at least introduce proper modern adminstrative practices and a strong central regime into Russia - but this then only ended up leaving the realm stuck with a stifling absolutist monarchy that eventually plain pissed off its subjects to the degree of getting overthrown.

Again, like many other monarchies in Europe ended, nothing special here. Or do you think that French revolution happened because king was universally loved and everyone was rich and had a say in government?



Kept kicking Russian armies around until he made the acute strategic mistake of trying to invade the vast Empire itself, with rather poor preparations to boot. Which ended up costing him his experienced main field army and, in the end, empire.

Where, except at Austerlitz? There two emperors pressed for battle while Kutuzov was strongly opposing it. Suvorov gave French army a run for its money in Italy, while being outnumbered. Even when he was practically cut off because of politics he managed to withdraw and save his army.
Napoleon made a mistake? Alexander made a mistake at Austerlitz, he should have listened to Kutuzov. That's precisely the type of thing I was talking about - bias and parochialism. Napoleon would have won, but he made a mistake. Hitler would have won but he made a mistake. Charles made a mistake. There were no mistakes in Crimean war so that's why France, GB and OE won. Any large conflict won by Russia seems to be on account of its opponent making a mistake. Now, this either makes Russian army the luckiest army in the world or it isn't really how it happened...


The only major war between the two I could find a mention of was the Seven Years' War... in which Prussia was fighting most of the major European land powers at once. And even then Russian success was brief.


It wasn't brief, it was complete and Prussia was subsidized by GB. Frederick contemplated suicide because all was lost and only fate intervened and saved Prussia since when Empress Elizabeth died, pro-Prussian Peter inherited the Russian throne. He immediately signed a white peace with Prussia and put pressure on its opponents.


In terminal decay since the late 1500s, if not earlier, and wont to get their arses kicked by just about everybody who bothered to try - although the fact that rival European powers often enough sabotaged each others' attempts to carve bits off the crumbling Empire tended to help them survive.

In decay but still a powerful country in the 1700's. Definitely not a walk in the park. Only in the second half of 19th century did Ottomans truly stopped being a great power and got relegated to regional power.



In WW1, you mean ? Oh yeah, Russia went to that one confidently enough, like everyone. Suffered probably even worse than most too... there's a reason the Germans were on a defensive footing on the Western Front and on the strategic offensive in the East.


What strategic offensive on the eastern front? Tannenberg's in Germany. What defensive footing on the western front? German army was in France. It was a trench warfare, both sides were in a way on defensive footing and both tried to get on the offensive when they could. It usually ended in disaster for both sides.

But, in general I'd agree that Russian show in the WW1 was pathetic. Of course, Germany and Russia fought in the WW2 as well, when Russians fared a bit better.


Started as a diplomatic pissing contest over the Holy Land, escalated into a shooting war ? Got Russian armies thoroughly mauled by the Franco-British (and whoever else pitched in) alliance in the Crimea and had the great fortress being built at Bomarsund, Åland, razed into so much a smoking crater by a joint Franco-British naval force...? Would probably have lost Sveaborg too, but the war ended before that.

That one, when armies of GB, France and Ottoman Empire outnumbered Russian army and when their combined fleets outnumbered Russian fleet. When both Russian army and navy had their fair share of victories in the Crimea, Far East and North, usually outnumbered. In the end, allied armies made only limited gains but managed to blockade and cripple Russian economy. They got a short term treaty that they were able to enforce for only two decades after it was signed after which everything return to way it was before Crimean War.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This is because we are taught primarily our own history first, and then histories that relate closely. For example, a Canadian history student would be taught Canadian history, and then American and perhaps classical history or modern European history. Likewise, it makes sense for students in the former Eastern Bloc to be taught Russian history.

[PanzerJaeger]

And even in those wars, the Russians didn't fare too badly to start out. Yes, both the Russo-Japanese War and WWI were disasters for the Russians, however, the greatest territorial shifts were made on the Eastern Front, and prior to the total collapse of their state the Russians had made a pretty decent headway into Germany.
If the Russians had had a leader like Peter the Great during the first world war...well, the Cold War may've just turned into an extension of the Great Game played out in central Europe.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. :yes:

While the Germans were rushing France, the Russians were able to make a largely uncontested advance into the Eastern realm of the German Empire. When the Germans did engage, the Russians were soundly defeated at Tannenberg with very minimal German casualties.

The big Russian advances were made against the Austro-Hungarian Empire, their biggest victory of the war being in the Battle of Galatia. In 1915, the Austrians finally decided that their Empire was more important than their pride and yielded effective control of their forces to the German General Staff. The German offensive that followed was devastating and, iirc, the largest gain of the war. The Russians never recovered.


What strategic offensive on the eastern front? Tannenberg's in Germany. What defensive footing on the western front? German army was in France. It was a trench warfare, both sides were in a way on defensive footing and both tried to get on the offensive when they could. It usually ended in disaster for both sides.

I believe he is refering to the Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorlice-Tarnow_Offensive).



As for the general topic, I think Russia gets the attention it deserves. If you go by school history textbooks as the standard, you're setting yourself up for frustration. The problems I have with what is taught and what is not could fill a book. Even then, Russia was always mentioned as a major player when appropriate in mine.

I infer that the OP feels Russia has gotten a bad deal in historical analysis, and that their achievements have been overlooked. There may be some truth to this, but in comparison to other European nations - Russia ranged from completely average to terrible.

The relatively tiny island nation of Britain built the largest empire in the world. France not only built a huge empire as well, but also spawned a military force and leader that almost conquered all of Europe. Prussia and then Germany, surrounded by enemies, built the greatest military force in the world and almost conquered it - twice. (This analysis ignores all the technological achievements of said nations, etc. )

On the other hand, Russia maintained a large, yet relatively unthreatened empire, much of the time. Their society consistently lagged behind the rest of Europe's, and their military did not fare much better. Unlike other European powers, Russia was constantly upset in its efforts to project power beyond its borders. It is true that the two largest efforts to conquer Russia outright failed, but many factors contributed to these failures beyond Russian strength.

I would nominate the Austro-Hungarian and Spanish empires as two important and somewhat forgotten empires (in the general public knowledge).

[Marshal Murat]

What was so advanced about other European countries compared to Russia in 1600's and 1700's? What's so bad that it's worse than "archaic"?

In the 1600s and 1700s, Descartes and Bacon were developing science and learning. Guttenberg was inventing the print press. Newton was understanding gravity. Tycho Brahe and Kepler were figuring out the orbit of planets. Those where the notable stuff happening. People were understanding and learning, questioning and expanding technology and knowledge. That's some serious stuff that occurred in Europe, not in Russia or Poland. So why this discrepancy? Were the Russians "giving the Europeans a head start"? Or were Russia and the Commonwealth simply unable to produce these same geniuses of science and learning, and what caused this dearth of discovery?


It's not just surviving. From a small polity surrounded by bigger, stronger, often more advanced countries to the largest country in the world spanning across almost entire Eurasia, often at war with the strongest countries in the world during that time. Quite a feat, not many countries have done it. Could be said for the Ottomans, too, but their conquests weren't as large or as permanent.

So, exactly how isn't that like France? France had to scratch a home from hostile Romans, and then maintain or grow in the face of multiple Germanic invasions. Even after the waves of barbarians moved by, the Franks were then able to defeat the superior Arabic armies at Tours and Poitiers, defend their homes against repeated English invasions, and continue the expansion.

To say that Russia was surrounded by "bigger, stronger, often more advanced countries" is something of an overstatement. They were faced by the Commonwealth who didn't really worry too much about those uppity Slavs, Swedes who couldn't maintain their growth, and then there were numerous thousands of independent tribes who couldn't care much about anything besides a good meal. They were hardly surrounded. They were able to conquer "almost entire Eurasia", but that's stretching it. How exactly do you "conquer" miles and miles of endless pine forest or tundra? The Chinese, Turks, Kazaks, and Koreans weren't that interested in invading areas of essential nothingness. There were conflicts and wars, I'll admit, but we aren't talking about the British conquering India either. It's not like there were masses of people, great cities of wealth and power, and the most advanced technology. It's a feat, but does it make the Russian empire stand out, I mean, REALLY stand out?


What are you trying to say with this? That the reason Russia survived is because no one thought it was worth the effort to conquer it?
Yeah, for the early part. Then they sort of piggy-backed on the Cossack rebellions against the Commonwealth and sliced Finland off the declining Swedish nation.


Again, like many other monarchies in Europe ended, nothing special here. Or do you think that French revolution happened because king was universally loved and everyone was rich and had a say in government?
There are plenty of European monarchies that lasted beyond the French Revolution, and they were far more liberal than the Romanovs. They knew that giving people some say in government was the way to go. It's the stifiling conservative governments that get overthrown.


Napoleon made a mistake? Alexander made a mistake at Austerlitz, he should have listened to Kutuzov. That's precisely the type of thing I was talking about - bias and parochialism. Napoleon would have won, but he made a mistake. Hitler would have won but he made a mistake. Charles made a mistake. There were no mistakes in Crimean war so that's why France, GB and OE won. Any large conflict won by Russia seems to be on account of its opponent making a mistake. Now, this either makes Russian army the luckiest army in the world or it isn't really how it happened...

Napoleon was and is a great general. From his earliest campaigns in Italy to Austerlitz, he showed the ability to command troops in battle and be successful. There's no mistaking that. When he did end up invading Russia, he was able to "kick around" the Russians at several battles. Strategically, however, the three generals ran into the same problem. You can't conquer Russia by taking land, but by destroying the will to fight. It's not a testament to Russian skill so much as to the ability of Russian troops to take enormous losses and still fight because there are so bloody many Russians!
The Crimean War was an aberration, because the Allies were lucky enough to not have to actually invade Russia.


In decay but still a powerful country in the 1700's. Definitely not a walk in the park. Only in the second half of 19th century did Ottomans truly stopped being a great power and got relegated to regional power.
If that's so, then why weren't the great Russian armed forces able to ever get to Constantinople?
I'd also like to point out, that for all it's modernity, the Russia of 1914 could barely get her armed forces armed, let alone shipped to the fronts in sufficient numbers.

The Russian Empire is something to admire, simply for their ability to stifle progress yet also be able to stay strong. They have one of the largest land empires, but even though Libya controls vast tracts of desert doesn't translate into effective ability to wield regional power.

[seireikhaan]

Napoleon? The Prussians? Austria? The Ottomans? Germany? The Crimean War?
The Ottomans were an empire in decay with severe problems in the Balkans, Persia, and their own inefficiencies and inability to adapt. The Prussians were fighting Austria and France at the same time as Russia. Its no wonder that Russia was managing to push the Prussians back at such disproportionate odds. In the cases of Napoleon and Germany, in both cases, the Russians utterly failed at projecting strength. Only by the incredible attrition of the Motherland and some smart, though ultimately devastating defensive tactics were the Russians able to withstand assault.



There's quote somewhere from a Swedish general of the era, basically saying that Sweden had to win the war within a year, or Russia would simply overwhelm them.
Charles XII was playing for the quick, smackdown, knockout, win. He came close, but Peter had a long term strategy and was, arguably, a better strategist. Charles was almost certainly a better tactician, but was, ultimately, short sighted. Still a pretty awesome guy, though.
I'm well aware that Sweden was a strong regional power for a good while, but the fact simply remains that, sans an incredible knockout punch, they had no chance of defeating Russia. The sheer attrition factor alone, with Russia's much larger base of power, meant that Sweden was pretty well doomed to subservience to Russia should conflict evolve.


Oh dear. Ever heard of the Great Game? It was basically the Cold War as played out by the British and Russians in Asia. Mostly in Central Asia, but also in China and Korea. I could go on for hours, but read up on some of the pre-Russo-Japanese war politics of Korea. It's really fascinating. Both sides tried some really crazy tricks with the Korean government, typically involving placing their own officials in charge of various Korean governmental bodies.
Indeed, I'm aware of it, though I'm by no means advanced in my learning on the subject. However, here's my point- cold wars do not by themselves project influence. That Russia could not defeat Britain in a landwar in Asia does not speak well of their actual might. Yes, this was at the time of Britain's shining peak in history, but logistically, Russia should have not had any problems ousting the Brits from areas such as Afghanistan and Transoxania. Further, you completely ignored the fact that I pointed out that they hadn't extended influence outside of Eurasia- Great game is all Asia. No Russia in Africa, in Australia, the Americas, etc...


China's even better. For a long time, something like 1/4 of China was essentially Russian-occupied territory. The Russians came within a hairs-bredth of actually establishing dominance in China because they had (for a European state) a close relationship with China and were, somewhat, considered the lesser evil. If not for superior British monetary power and the Japanese navy, the Russians may well have become the dominant power in Asia.
First, this is pretty speculative. Second, I would like some sources on just how cozy the Qing dynasty was with Russia; I've never heard of significant "coziness" outside of cordial interaction and trade. And I'd like some dates, too, on when this "long time" was that Russia occupied 1/4 of China.

[Watchman]

??? What was so advanced about other European countries compared to Russia in 1600's and 1700's? What's so bad that it's worse than "archaic"?Quite a bit actually, starting with stuff like adminstration (all the future "big cheeses" had a pretty modern centralised bureaucracy in place by the mid-1600s), economy (trade, banking, urban craftsman and mercantile classes, early industry), technology, abolition of serfdom, you pretty much name it.

East-Central Europe conversely got stuck in the feudal-agrarian serf-state trap.

And? That's how feudalism worked, that's how all of Europe was before industrial revolution. Big, fat, rich land owners and poor peasants who actually worked....you don't actually know what you're talking about, do you ? "Feudalism" (a least said complicated and difficult to define subject, incidentally) for one thing had effectively gone extinct by the early 1600s, replaced by strongly sovereign "territorial states", standing armies and so on. Aristocrats still retained their tax-exemption status (at least on the land they owned), but by and large land ownership was increasingly a commodity to be bought, sold and invested in by whoever now had the money and wanted to get some real estate.
However, on a much more important note the economy was starting to decisively move away from the "Medieval" stage where wealth pretty much irectly equaled land ownerhip, particularly farmland; it was starting to dawn to people on a large scale that trade and industry in fact generated wealth largely independently of pure territory...

Basically, the "bourgeoise" - bankers, merchants, industrialists and so on, the "middle class" was rapidly becoming ascendant.

Again, like many other monarchies in Europe ended, nothing special here. Or do you think that French revolution happened because king was universally loved and everyone was rich and had a say in government?The French revolutiona ctually came from more or less the same source as the American one - the global pissing contest France and the UK had been engaging in for the past century or more had accumulated so much socioeconomic stress in both something had to give sooner or later. For the English, it was the Twelve colonies who got fed up with the rising taxes; for the French, it was the heartland itself, not in the least because the realm still had enough "old stuff" like substantial aristocratic priviledges around to create real ire in the lower classes, and because its domestic economy was more primitive than that of Britain, so the strain was more severe.
Add in some bad policy by the monarchy which largely cost it what "political capital" and public goodwill it had left, and, well... let's just say that a regime is screwed when the better part of the army and disgruntled officer corps up and sides with the rebels.

That's precisely the type of thing I was talking about - bias and parochialism. Napoleon would have won, but he made a mistake. Hitler would have won but he made a mistake.Uh-huh. The great mistake of both was a very fundamental one - embarking on a war of conquest without actually grasping the magnitude of the undertaking and hence grossly overestimating the chances of success. Which, among other things, manifested in patently insufficient preparations and overly optimistic planning, though Hitler could arguably invoke the excuse of plain not having had the resources to prepare properly (the main reason the Germans didn't have winter gear was actually the fact their already severely stretched industrial capacity just wasn't able to meet the demand).
But, then, the man was a lunatic anyway.

In other words, in both cases the assault on Russia was itself the mistake, though Hitler in particular distinguished himself with then further compounding it with further bad decisions down the road...

OTOH, given the black comedy of grotesque errors that was the Soviet response to Barbarossa, it's kind of a given that there was somewhat little worth *merit* in stopping the German onslaught...

They played their hand much better with both Napoleon and Charles XII.

Charles made a mistake.And a big one, too. What's the point of chasing after an enemy that doesn't want to give battle down to the freakin' Ukraine ? Peter could play scorched earth to his heart's content (IIRC that wasn't relly this territory either, so...) and wait until the Swedish army was on its last leg before making his stand. Sound enough strategy, which Charles apparently failed (or refused) to decipher and which duly sounded the death knell of the Swedish Empire.

Any large conflict won by Russia seems to be on account of its opponent making a mistake.It could be argued that *all* wars are won by one side merely making less mistakes than the other, however.

In decay but still a powerful country in the 1700's. Definitely not a walk in the park. Only in the second half of 19th century did Ottomans truly stopped being a great power and got relegated to regional power.You've got to be kidding me. The Ottomans' last show of force was the second siege of Vienna in the 1600s, and they were already by that point hopelessly falling behind the developement curve and internally already in terminally stagnant decay.
By 1700s they no longer had any chance. They just were good enough at defensive warfare (often, AFAIK, conducted by local irregular forces) and holding their fortresses that others found it somewhat difficult to actually wrest territory from them.

That one, when armies of GB, France and Ottoman Empire outnumbered Russian army and when their combined fleets outnumbered Russian fleet. When both Russian army and navy had their fair share of victories in the Crimea, Far East and North, usually outnumbered.'Scuse me, but WTF ? Please elaborate. Because from what I know of it the Russians had a very acute shortage of any meaningful victories, nevermind now at a numerical disadvantage. And bullying the hapless Ottomans Does Not Count, thankyouverymuch.

In the end, allied armies made only limited gains but managed to blockade and cripple Russian economy. They got a short term treaty that they were able to enforce for only two decades after it was signed after which everything return to way it was before Crimean War.Yeah well, there was that little thing called Franco-Prussian War which kind of changed the cast of players. Those two decades weren't exactly uneventful you know.

Is it just me, or does something look rather a lot like apologism here ?

[Marshal Murat]

Is it just me, or does something look rather a lot like apologism here ?
Not necessarily "apologism", we haven't gotten to that part where the kulaks were liquidated.

I understand the OPs original premise, which is that for most parts Russia was intentionally forgotten, and it deserves to be exposed and taught. Which on it's face I agree with. However, to make it the central premise to say that it deserves more exposure than actual significant contributions to humanity, well, that' where we're hitting the block. It's Russia's failure to actually project power beyond it's neighbors, which is really just a sick joke of geography.

[Sarmatian]

In the 1600s and 1700s, Descartes and Bacon were developing science and learning. Guttenberg was inventing the print press. Newton was understanding gravity. Tycho Brahe and Kepler were figuring out the orbit of planets. Those where the notable stuff happening. People were understanding and learning, questioning and expanding technology and knowledge. That's some serious stuff that occurred in Europe, not in Russia or Poland. So why this discrepancy? Were the Russians "giving the Europeans a head start"? Or were Russia and the Commonwealth simply unable to produce these same geniuses of science and learning, and what caused this dearth of discovery?

Russia was lagging behind. I've said that already. On the other hand, in the 1700's especially in the second part and onward Russians had their fair share of contributions to scientific development of Europe. I've already mentioned Lomonosov and Mendeleev. Not just in science, but in culture also. Pushkin, Tolstoy...


So, exactly how isn't that like France? France had to scratch a home from hostile Romans, and then maintain or grow in the face of multiple Germanic invasions. Even after the waves of barbarians moved by, the Franks were then able to defeat the superior Arabic armies at Tours and Poitiers, defend their homes against repeated English invasions, and continue the expansion.


Franks were barbarians originally, at least by the Roman definition and Arabic armies were more like a raiding parties than invasion forces. All in all, France is great nation, I'm not disputing that, but doesn't take away Russia's achievements.


To say that Russia was surrounded by "bigger, stronger, often more advanced countries" is something of an overstatement. They were faced by the Commonwealth who didn't really worry too much about those uppity Slavs, Swedes who couldn't maintain their growth, and then there were numerous thousands of independent tribes who couldn't care much about anything besides a good meal. They were hardly surrounded. They were able to conquer "almost entire Eurasia", but that's stretching it.

Those Swedes managed to defeat armies of European nations quite a few times before they were defeated by backward Russians. Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was one of the biggest states in Europe at its peak. In the XIII or XIV century, Muscovy was a small polity, bordering many times bigger Mongol states, with much larger armies, like Golden Horde for example.


How exactly do you "conquer" miles and miles of endless pine forest or tundra?
The same way you conquer anything else - by taking it and being able to hold it.


The Chinese, Turks, Kazaks, and Koreans weren't that interested in invading areas of essential nothingness. There were conflicts and wars, I'll admit, but we aren't talking about the British conquering India either. It's not like there were masses of people, great cities of wealth and power, and the most advanced technology. It's a feat, but does it make the Russian empire stand out, I mean, REALLY stand out?

Too bad for them. It seems they should have. Actually, when you look upon the world map in the late 19th century (even today) Russian empire does stand out.


There are plenty of European monarchies that lasted beyond the French Revolution, and they were far more liberal than the Romanovs. They knew that giving people some say in government was the way to go. It's the stifiling conservative governments that get overthrown.

I don't see how this is relevant.


Napoleon was and is a great general. From his earliest campaigns in Italy to Austerlitz, he showed the ability to command troops in battle and be successful. There's no mistaking that. When he did end up invading Russia, he was able to "kick around" the Russians at several battles. Strategically, however, the three generals ran into the same problem. You can't conquer Russia by taking land, but by destroying the will to fight. It's not a testament to Russian skill so much as to the ability of Russian troops to take enormous losses and still fight because there are so bloody many Russians!
The Crimean War was an aberration, because the Allies were lucky enough to not have to actually invade Russia.

Didn't say Napoleon was bad general. He was a military genius in my opinion.

In which battles did he kicked Russian around after he invaded? The only truly big battle was Borodino and it is hardly a a great French victory. At best it is a marginal tactical victory but strategic defeat.

BTW, Russia didn't have so much bigger population than France in 1812. Actually, since a lot of Europe was under Napoleon's control at the time, Napoleon actually had a bigger manpower pool.



If that's so, then why weren't the great Russian armed forces able to ever get to Constantinople?
I'd also like to point out, that for all it's modernity, the Russia of 1914 could barely get her armed forces armed, let alone shipped to the fronts in sufficient numbers.

The Russian Empire is something to admire, simply for their ability to stifle progress yet also be able to stay strong. They have one of the largest land empires, but even though Libya controls vast tracts of desert doesn't translate into effective ability to wield regional power.

Because British, French, Austrians and Ottomans opposed them. Russian involvement in the WW1 was disastrous, because of economic and political problems and because army had poor training, bad equipment and pathetic commanders.

Comparing Russia and Lybia is really spot on :dizzy2:


Quite a bit actually, starting with stuff like adminstration (all the future "big cheeses" had a pretty modern centralised bureaucracy in place by the mid-1600s), economy (trade, banking, urban craftsman and mercantile classes, early industry), technology, abolition of serfdom, you pretty much name it.

Even with that true, even though workers were paid in some form of currency, they still remained piss poor and were dependent on those who gave them work. That was true even for those living in cities who worked extremely long hours for pittance of a wage, with which they were able to feed themselves and that's it.

Of course, situation in western European states and in Russia were vastly different. Western Europe was densely populated, with big population centers and ideally placed for trade with the new world. Russia was much bigger and much more sparsely populated.

Even with all that, serfdom wasn't officially abolished by 1789 in France. In Austria it was abolished in 1848. Other western countries had slavery, Britain until 1834 and US even longer...


The French revolutiona ctually came from more or less the same source as the American one - the global pissing contest France and the UK had been engaging in for the past century or more had accumulated so much socioeconomic stress in both something had to give sooner or later. For the English, it was the Twelve colonies who got fed up with the rising taxes; for the French, it was the heartland itself, not in the least because the realm still had enough "old stuff" like substantial aristocratic priviledges around to create real ire in the lower classes, and because its domestic economy was more primitive than that of Britain, so the strain was more severe.

Revolutions usually come after a period of great socioeconomic stress. It's equally true for France, Germany or Russia.


It could be argued that *all* wars are won by one side merely making less mistakes than the other, however.

Precisely my point. In chess, if neither opponent makes a mistake, if both of them play a perfect game, the result will be a draw. Someone has to make a mistake. That doesn't take away the victory from his opponent. Similar in war. You can't say that Russia defeated Revolutionary France, Swedish Empire or Nazi Germany because they all made mistakes and lost in Crimean War or Russo-Japanese war because it was inferior. That just screams bias to me...


You've got to be kidding me. The Ottomans' last show of force was the second siege of Vienna in the 1600s, and they were already by that point hopelessly falling behind the developement curve and internally already in terminally stagnant decay.
By 1700s they no longer had any chance. They just were good enough at defensive warfare (often, AFAIK, conducted by local irregular forces) and holding their fortresses that others found it somewhat difficult to actually wrest territory from them.

No, I'm not. Declining is a process, usually a long one. Even though they were far behind their glory days, Ottomans were considered a great power and defeating them wasn't easy, especially when they were on the defensive and aided by other powers. Their fortifications were quite good as you've said. Fortress Ismail in Bessarabia was considered impregnable before Russians managed to take it.


'Scuse me, but WTF ? Please elaborate. Because from what I know of it the Russians had a very acute shortage of any meaningful victories, nevermind now at a numerical disadvantage. And bullying the hapless Ottomans Does Not Count, thankyouverymuch.

Why stop with the Ottomans? Any Russian victory shouldn't count, that would be fair. :dizzy2:

Siege of Petropavlovsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), Siege of Kars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Kars), Battle of Sinop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sinop), Battle of Kurekdere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kurekdere)... Battle of Balaclava was indecisive, or that doesn't count either? It was a mistake after all, charge of the light brigade and all that...

Also, Franco-British fleet in the North, although it was the largest assembled since the Napoleonic wars didn't manage to score some big success, because of good fortifications and because backward Russian employed some innovative strategies. They used mines for the first time in the history to help their defense at Sveaborg and Kronstadt.

All in all, I'd agree that Crimean War showed the need for reform of the Russian army that became complacent after its victory over Napoleon. On the other hand, losing to an alliance of three great powers with bigger armies and navies isn't what I'd call a catastrophic defeat. Even with all that, defeat was in the end more influenced by economic blockade than by victories in the field. In fact, it showed even greater need for industrialization...


Yeah well, there was that little thing called Franco-Prussian War which kind of changed the cast of players. Those two decades weren't exactly uneventful you know.

Never said they were. Still doesn't change the fact that Crimean War was a temporary setback for Russia and that everything was the way it was before Crimean War after just two decades.


Is it just me, or does something look rather a lot like apologism here ?

:inquisitive:

All in all, I'd say Russia's development was similar to any country not on the Atlantic ocean and without access to Atlantic trade routes. It changes with reforms of Peter the Great who put Russia on the map of Europe as one of the most influential countries. It continues going up and reaches its peak somewhere during the time of Catherine and Napoleonic Wars, when Russia is probably the strongest country in Europe and is experiencing a great scientific and cultural rise. After that they became self satisfied and complacent, they've started lagging behind more industrialized countries in Europe and they weren't prepared to make some very painful reforms. After Crimean War it was evident that something has to be done but even with will to do it, it wasn't easy. Population dispersed over huge territory and the lack of big population centers (most population lived in rural areas) hindered rapid industrialization. I can't even begin to imagine how difficult or expensive it was to build Trans-Siberian railway. In the WW1 it showed that Russia still wasn't industrialized enough to fight in a war of attrition with western European countries. Lack of competent command cadre certainly didn't help, either. After the revolution, industrialization is rapid but with a great cost to human life. Soviet army kept the pace with other armies, it was even leading in some areas but political schemes made it unprepared for Barbarossa. Nevertheless, Red Army managed to absorb the losses, relearn itself and defeat the Nazis. After the war, Soviet Union managed to keep the pace in terms of technology and even be ahead of the west in some areas. They sent the first object into space, first living being, first human being in the space and so on.

During entire 18th, 19th and 20th century, there were some really great minds in Russia and their scientific and cultural contribution to the world is immense. As I've said, lagging behind most of time yes, but archaic or backward... I definitely wouldn't agree with those terms...

[Marshal Murat]

It continues going up and reaches its peak somewhere during the time of Catherine and Napoleonic Wars, when Russia is probably the strongest country in Europe and is experiencing a great scientific and cultural rise.
Russia experienced a "relatively great scientific and cultural rise". There are only so many 19th Century Russians who contributed something significant. How many 19th Century British contributed to science, let alone culture? As has been stated, Russia's army, for all it's strengths, couldn't impact European politics significantly beyond threatening to bludgeon Prussia or Austria over the head with a big stick.


Because British, French, Austrians and Ottomans opposed them. Russian involvement in the WW1 was disastrous, because of economic and political problems and because army had poor training, bad equipment and pathetic commanders.

So you're saying that Russia was able to have excellent commanders and well-trained troops for only one period of time? The Russians seem to be able to swing from total grandeur and the height of imperial power to having terrible commanders and poorly trained soldiers. To me it seems the Russians either had it, or they didn't. If they couldn't maintain an effective military to some extent seems to indicate at some level a state of backwardness that wasn't remedied and therefore indicates a level of archaic thought in Russia as a whole.


The same way you conquer anything else - by taking it and being able to hold it...Comparing Russia and Lybia is really spot on


You don't understand what I'm saying. Complaining about the lack of Russian notoriety because they had one of the largest Eurasian landmasses doesn't say much when that land mass, by you're own admission, is "rural" and without "large population centers". What I'm saying about Libya is that size, whether it's that of the Eurasian landmass or the 4th largest country in Africa, doesn't translate into an effective ability to wield power beyond their borders nor a "place in the sun" or history books and that one has to look at the texture of the territory to be able to determine whether it merits something.

[Sarmatian]

Russia experienced a "relatively great scientific and cultural rise". There are only so many 19th Century Russians who contributed something significant. How many 19th Century British contributed to science, let alone culture? As has been stated, Russia's army, for all it's strengths, couldn't impact European politics significantly beyond threatening to bludgeon Prussia or Austria over the head with a big stick.

Isn't everything relative? This starts to look too much like my brother could beat up your brother type of discussion. I'm not saying that Britain or any other country didn't contribute as much or more. That's impossible to discern and I'm not even gonna try. I'm saying that Russia contributed a lot and not much is known about it, which is kinda a point of this thread. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, it's wrong when you assume that it didn't happen if you don't know about it. A bit crude example but if I have never heard of China, that doesn't mean that those 1.5 billion people don't exist.

Similar for USSR . If you take a look at Afghanistan campaign, it was in many ways similar to American in Vietnam. Opponents of both sides were aided by the other superpower, both have inflicted much greater losses to their opponents than they've suffered, both had trouble fighting guerrilla forces, both were unable to achieve control or political stability and both later withdrew because the political situation at home changed (it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it). The only difference is in the conclusions - in the case of the US it was because of politics, in the case of USSR is because its army is a paper tiger.



So you're saying that Russia was able to have excellent commanders and well-trained troops for only one period of time? The Russians seem to be able to swing from total grandeur and the height of imperial power to having terrible commanders and poorly trained soldiers. To me it seems the Russians either had it, or they didn't. If they couldn't maintain an effective military to some extent seems to indicate at some level a state of backwardness that wasn't remedied and therefore indicates a level of archaic thought in Russia as a whole.

Many nations had ups and downs. France under Napoleon conquered half of Europe and trounced many armies at the beginning of 19th century but it was thoroughly defeated by Prussia half a century later. Is France backward? Or the other way around, Frederich wreaks havoc across Europe, then Prussian armies are beaten by Napoleon. Does that make Prussia backward? Britain, probably the strongest country in the world at the end of 18th beginning of 19th century, loses colonies in America to a bunch of irregulars and is pushed back again in 1812. Backward?

Not unique to Russia in any way.



You don't understand what I'm saying. Complaining about the lack of Russian notoriety because they had one of the largest Eurasian landmasses doesn't say much when that land mass, by you're own admission, is "rural" and without "large population centers". What I'm saying about Libya is that size, whether it's that of the Eurasian landmass or the 4th largest country in Africa, doesn't translate into an effective ability to wield power beyond their borders nor a "place in the sun" or history books and that one has to look at the texture of the territory to be able to determine whether it merits something.

I do. You don't understand what I'm saying - Libya is a desert, Russia is the richest country in terms of mineral resoruces in the world. Coal, petroleum, zinc, nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, copper, iron, aluminum, gold, mercury, asbestos... You name it they've got it and in abundant quantities. There's a huge difference between all that and a desert...

There are common misconception about Russia. Russian winter, human wave, backwardness... It's all there and if you just don't try to look past it, you won't see anything. Anything but those common misconceptions, that is...

[KarlXII]

Russian winter, human wave, backwardness

The Russian Winter was instrumental in the defeat of Russia's enemies. It isn't a misconception.

"Quantity is a quality all it's own". Russia's huge manpower reserves allowed them to lose massive amounts of soldiers and still come back.

In an age of indutrialization and enlightenment, Russia was still practicing fiefdom and leaving it's peasentry starve.

[Marshal Murat]

I'm saying that Russia contributed a lot and not much is known about it, which is kinda a point of this thread. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, it's wrong when you assume that it didn't happen if you don't know about it. A bit crude example but if I have never heard of China, that doesn't mean that those 1.5 billion people don't exist.
If you're not willing to talk about significant cultural and scientific contributions of Russians, then why even post "
It's similar situation in science. Names like Lomonosov or Mendeleev will rarely be recognized outside Russia." They are contributions, but do they deserve "prime-time" space in history books when one has the British Newton, Italian Galileo, Genoan Columbus, or German Einstein? They aren't recognized outside of Russia because it's not common knowledge to have Lomonosov or Mendeleev pop up in history books simply because their contributions aren't as significant as the aforementioned people, not unless you're in a field where they contributed something.
Your sentence about China is something of a fallacy, because we're comparing two scientists (and five composers and three writers) to a nation of 1.5 billion people who've contributed enormously to humanity (Taoism and Confucianism to say the LEAST)


I do. You don't understand what I'm saying - Libya is a desert, Russia is the richest country in terms of mineral resources in the world. Coal, petroleum, zinc, nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, copper, iron, aluminum, gold, mercury, asbestos... You name it they've got it and in abundant quantities. There's a huge difference between all that and a desert...
The difference is that Libya is a desert and will stay one. Russia may have many mineral resources, but you don't see that reflected on the world market let alone in the wealth of an average Russian. If Russia was really that advanced, why would they have to rely on only natural gas sales to Europeans for political pressure. If they have the most mineral resources, they clearly aren't capable of exploiting it for any meaningful purpose now have they? They're in the same rank as Germany, France, Britain, (a fair accomplishment to be honest) all of whom have far fewer "mineral resources" than Russia has. Either Russia is letting everyone stay ahead while they sit on "asbestos", or they don't have the infrastructure due to a previous system of government (Soviet Russians) that the Russians simply haven't been able to move away from.



There are common misconception about Russia. Russian winter, human wave, backwardness... It's all there and if you just don't try to look past it, you won't see anything. Anything but those common misconceptions, that is...

Russian Winter is the most important thing for Russia. Without the "Russian Winter" we'd all be speaking some combination of French and German (Dutch?). Without massive amounts of manpower to throw at enemy forces, the Finnish would've thrown back the Russian invasion in 1940, and the Germans wouldn't have had to spend so much time rounding up Russian prisoners. If it weren't for the "human wave" of hundreds of Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces, then exactly why did the United States keep troops in Germany after World War 2?

I'd also like to ask about this backwardness deal. Why is it Russia who has to face a racist scourge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4755163.stm) where many "foreigners" every year are attacked by Russian nationalist groups. Why do Russians account for many of the Neo-Nazi groups of this world? (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3718255&page=1)"In a country that lost more people defeating the Nazis than any other country, there are now an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 neo-Nazis, half of the world's total. They even have supporters in parliament."
There are only some countries in this world that even support Neo-Nazism, let alone the xenophobic attacks that occur in Russia, and the people in Russia seem apathetic to the violence against people who are simply studying or living in Russia, not actively taking jobs or oppressing "ethnic" Russians if that's even a term.

I don't want to seem anti-Russian (yet I'm commenting on this article, ironic), but you're absolutely pro-Russian stance is just as bad as any one of us who is an Anglophile or Francophile. We're both not entirely correct, the truth it somewhere in the middle. Russia isn't too backward, but it isn't a model of liberal thinking either. Russia has many natural resources, yet are unable to export or expand upon them to influence international policy at all.

:shame:

[CBR]

Maybe we should stick with history and not bring up elements from present day that has little to do with Russia 100+ years ago.


CBR

[Sarmatian]

but you're absolutely pro-Russian stance

My absolutely pro-Russian stance? Because I've said there's much more to Russia than commonly known? Because I said there are general misconception about Russia?

Ok, I see there's not much point in continuing our discussion... Thank you :bow:

[Oleander Ardens]

I agree with CBR that one should keep things in the Monastry where they belong :book:

Especially since Imperial Russia is such a worthwhile topic

BTW: I will leave for a while the Monastry and the Guild (after having done so in the Backroom), it has been a most interesting time with you :2thumbsup:

[al Roumi]

Waow, i just found this thread after the flames -just as well for me i guess.

Surely the problem here is to do with perception, going back to the OP's point that "no-one knows about the pre-USSR Russian empire", I would like to offer the conjecture that he's speaking to people who aren't Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Turkish or any other state on the periphery (or once part of) said empire.

Speaking for myself, I had a joint education in the Uk and France and maaan are they each ethnocentric. Each scoiety and government will pick out what it wants from history, using it as a justification for its own existence.

It's funny how British History textbooks concentrate on Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers and French ones on Orleans, Calais etc.

The crimean war is used to demonstrate the folly of un-meritocratic society and simmilarily, WW2 is seen as a defining event in British culture and is almost a substitute for the constitution we don't have.

In British terms, the age of empire and the great game is somewhat unfashionable. The waters being muddied as they are by slavery, genocide, exploitative and self-serving foreign policy and the general sufusion of jingoist bigotry. No one sensible (i.e. except the BNP and crypto-fascists) wants to hark back to the days when "the sun never set on the British Empire" and when Britain "ruled the waves".

[Sheogorath]

I was going to make a big post pointing out that Medieval Russia was, if anything, more advanced than Europe, but considering the stance of the people arguing I realized it would be pointless. Regardless, go look up Kievan Rus and the Republic of Novogorod on Wikipedia. Not the best source, but decent enough for these purposes.

[Watchman]

More advanced ? In what sense, pray tell ?

[Sheogorath]

Well, if we're talking 800's-1200's, Kiev was a massive trading empire, and the city itself had operable sewers at a time when few Europeans had an operable government. Neither Kiev nor Novogorod had anything like European serfdom, which was only really fully realized in the time of Ivan IV.

Novogorod itself was a republic, although in the Roman fashion where you couldn't vote if you were female, stupid, poor, a child, a foreigner, or people just didn't like you.

Like I said, go look at Wikipedia. Or their sources on those particular pages.

[SwordsMaster]

Marginally relevant cool photoshop of the Siege of Leningrad/St Petersburg (http://englishrussia.com/?p=2720?history)

[al Roumi]

Well, if we're talking 800's-1200's, Kiev was a massive trading empire, and the city itself had operable sewers at a time when few Europeans had an operable government. Neither Kiev nor Novogorod had anything like European serfdom, which was only really fully realized in the time of Ivan IV.

Novogorod itself was a republic, although in the Roman fashion where you couldn't vote if you were female, stupid, poor, a child, a foreigner, or people just didn't like you.

Like I said, go look at Wikipedia. Or their sources on those particular pages.

This may just be a natural occurance of Godwin's law, but i was intrigued to see (on reading the wikipedia page for Novgorod) that many of of it's monuments, indeed most of it's stone built buildings were pulled down during the nazi occupation...

Would it have anything to do with demolishing signs of Slavic development and culture? I'm probably getting carried away with the notion but wouldn't surprise me given the prejudice (to put it mildly) held against Slavs (and Russians in particular) by the 3rd Reich.

This is obviously a very senstive political issue which could be exploited for a range of agendas but anyhoo...

[Sheogorath]

The Germans demolished pretty much anything they could get their hands on in Russia. I believe they did significant damage to Peterhof during the Siege of Leningrad, for example.

[Meneldil]

Well, if we're talking 800's-1200's, Kiev was a massive trading empire, and the city itself had operable sewers at a time when few Europeans had an operable government. Neither Kiev nor Novogorod had anything like European serfdom, which was only really fully realized in the time of Ivan IV.

Novogorod itself was a republic, although in the Roman fashion where you couldn't vote if you were female, stupid, poor, a child, a foreigner, or people just didn't like you.

Like I said, go look at Wikipedia. Or their sources on those particular pages.

I'm not going to deny the fact Russia (or the Russian principalties) knew an important cultural and economical growth during that era, but this was achieved only because Russia became part of the Byzantine cultural and political area, and became the crossroad of trade between northern/eastern Europe and the levant.
But then, according to these standards, it could be argued that the Khazar Khaganate, for example was also more advanced than Europe (for pretty much the same reasons).

Then, in any case, the idea that Europe was a backward place in the 9th century is just as wrong as the view that Russia never brought anything to culture. The Carolingian Empire had a pretty efficient administration. Trade was flourishing, despite the increasing viking threat, and the empire was pretty tolerant (jewish communities were growing, muslims traded in southern France, Avars and Bulgars moved to the eastern fringes of the empire, etc.)

[The Wizard]

Honestly, Russia gets plenty of coverage. For all the backwardness that this country has experienced the past millennium or so, it's sure done quite a bunch of things.


Well, if we're talking 800's-1200's, Kiev was a massive trading empire, and the city itself had operable sewers at a time when few Europeans had an operable government. Neither Kiev nor Novogorod had anything like European serfdom, which was only really fully realized in the time of Ivan IV.

Novogorod itself was a republic, although in the Roman fashion where you couldn't vote if you were female, stupid, poor, a child, a foreigner, or people just didn't like you.

Like I said, go look at Wikipedia. Or their sources on those particular pages.

That's the first time I've heard that, and I hope the last, too. Europe itself was already a vast, heavily forested and barbarous backwater when compared to the Middle East and East Asia, which in the Middle Ages only began its long race to catch up to the best parts of the Old World. To then claim a very rural and backwards region on the fringes of that continent, namely what would become Russia, where the old tribal mode of justice (blood money and the like) remained in power until the turn of the 16th century and where there was no renaissance of the 12th century, was the best part of this redneck country is... whoah. :dizzy2:

[Sheogorath]

I'm not going to deny the fact Russia (or the Russian principalties) knew an important cultural and economical growth during that era, but this was achieved only because Russia became part of the Byzantine cultural and political area, and became the crossroad of trade between northern/eastern Europe and the levant.
But then, according to these standards, it could be argued that the Khazar Khaganate, for example was also more advanced than Europe (for pretty much the same reasons).

Then, in any case, the idea that Europe was a backward place in the 9th century is just as wrong as the view that Russia never brought anything to culture. The Carolingian Empire had a pretty efficient administration. Trade was flourishing, despite the increasing viking threat, and the empire was pretty tolerant (jewish communities were growing, muslims traded in southern France, Avars and Bulgars moved to the eastern fringes of the empire, etc.)

The Khazar Khannate was based mostly in Asia, however, it's people being mostly of Asian-Turkic descent.

The area of France may have been flourishing, but most other places were either in the Muslim sphere of influence, engaged in bloody civil war, or being hounded by Vikings. But there still isn't much comparison between, lets say, Paris and Constantinople. I won't say Russia was the most advanced area in the world, because that would be silly, but Europe's dark age, even if it was coming to an end, was still a dark age. Pretty much anywhere would look better by comparison.

As to Byzantine influence, while their cultural influence was widespread, their direct political influence was concentrated on Kiev. The major northward centers, Novogorod, Vladimir-Suzdal, Pskov, were more influenced by other states and peoples, the Scandinavians and Poles.

Certainly I can't deny that the ties with Eastern Rome were important, because, as you say, the trade was what vitalized Russia in that period. However, accidents of geography (a lot of handy north-south rivers, in this case) are what make states in many cases. Look at Rome. I doubt there was much grand strategic thinking going on when they founded that particular city, Romulus probably didnt say to Remus, "Hey, I bet a thousand years from now the people in this city will own the known world, so let's give them a nice peninsular that's extremely difficult to attack from land."


Honestly, Russia gets plenty of coverage. For all the backwardness that this country has experienced the past millennium or so, it's sure done quite a bunch of things.

That's the first time I've heard that, and I hope the last, too. Europe itself was already a vast, heavily forested and barbarous backwater when compared to the Middle East and East Asia, which in the Middle Ages only began its long race to catch up to the best parts of the Old World. To then claim a very rural and backwards region on the fringes of that continent, namely what would become Russia, where the old tribal mode of justice (blood money and the like) remained in power until the turn of the 16th century and where there was no renaissance of the 12th century, was the best part of this redneck country is... whoah. :dizzy2:

Ladies and gents, EXACTLY the sort of attitude I've been talking about.

[Meneldil]

I won't say Russia was the most advanced area in the world, because that would be silly, but Europe's dark age, even if it was coming to an end, was still a dark age.


The terms 'dark age' is widely understood as 'everything was crappy', while it actually refers to the lack of knowledge and sources about this era. It's not limited to Europe, but to the rest of the 'known world'. Furthermore, it's not really used anymore by historians and had been replaced by 'early middle age' (as we discover more and more things about it).

This era was first coined 'dark' by the 13tth/14th century writers, who wanted to put the emphasis on their own achievements, by presenting the past as an era of backwardness.

The point is pretty moot in any case. I agree that early Russia (namely, Novgorod and Kiev, the rest not so much) was probably more developed than most of Europe. As I said, it was greatly helped by its neighbours, whether greeks, vikings, muslims or nomads (the Khazars, especially, who ruled a flourishing empire).

I also disagree with Baba Ga'on's comment, in that, though Europe definitely knowing any era of social, economical and cultural decline (unlike some other parts of the world) it wasn't a backward and barbaric place. The Roman heritage wasn't entirely lost, the Church wasn't a completely close-minded and intolerant institution yet, and some people understood the need to rediscover the ancient learnings. Muslims, Nomads and Pagans were traveling through Europe, cultural exchanges between the west and the east were quite common. Jews were mostly accepted by the populations. The list goes on.

[Sheogorath]

Well, it seems our disagreements are just on minor points, then.

I do believe, though, that by the time of Kiev the Khazars were in decline...I seem to recall that it was a war with Kiev (or maybe Muscovy later on...) that finally destabilized them to the point of no return.

[Yarema]

This thread is so long i just can't read through it entirely... I'm so lazy, hehe.

The first post mentioned that Russia is sometimes perceived "backwards".
That is hardly surprising, considering the fact that the Soviet propaganda after 1945 did everything it could to make the "west" think Soviet army and Soviet people defeated Germany not because of their superior tactics, best equipment and arms in the world (which are the real reasons for which Russia won), but because of luck and weather (which is false and stupid).

As for the dumb statement "Russia was lucky because it had mighty allies": if someone is smart enough to choose his allies wisely, and clever enough to keep them as allies, than is a proof of his/her intelligence, rather than luck.

[nokhor]

Further, Russia's absence from the colonial game was undoubtedly a big factor.

actually, at the time the spanish conquistadors were overrunning the two continents of the americas with small, modernized armies, the russians were doing the same thing on their eastern border. conquering vast swathes of land with cossack dominated forces. the geographically massive russia that we see today on the maps took only about 2 centuries in the roughly 1000 year history of the state. the russians had some advantages compared to the spaniards though. they didn't have to cross an ocean to get to thier new colonies, and they didn't face any strong native factions comparable to the incas or aztecs during the russian drive to the pacific, until they reached china.

[British Mutt + Viking]

That basically answers the question right there.

Russia has always remained below the radar because it has always been self-contained. From the 13th-to 16th centuries, they were hostages of the Mongols and completely irrelevent to the machinations of Western Europe. Peter the Great raised hell and managed to jump out the water of obscurity high enough for a glimpse, but ultimately the only Western Europeans who cared what he did were the Scandinavians (particularly Sweden) and the eastern Germanic states. By this time, the French, Spanish, and British were looking at entire continents as their prospective lands. Russia had barely consolidated its meagre holdings around Moscow!

This is where the Russians made a fateful decision. Peter the Great had shown the Russians that the west was powerful but Russians could stand up to them, but the Russians also realized that the COSTS AND RISKS of a go-west (and be recognized as significant ) policy were MUCH higher than a go-east policy. Why fight in civilized Germany against people like Frederick of Brandenburg and Louis XIV when the Uzbeks were still using bows and arrows? To conquer a kilometer of German land which would almost certainly be contested by someone cost more than the conquest of a thousand square miles of Asian steppe contested by no one of consequence. Hell, you didn't even have to raise Russian armies to conquer the steppes, just hire the Asians themselves!

Last but not least, conquering civilized people like Germans meant that one had to accept the fact that the Germans were not going to submit to serfdom. To conquer Germany was to risk the socioeconomic structure of the Czarist state. To conquer Uzbekistan was to simply open up more space for the existing serfs to work. Russia's boyars needed open land for the people they already had, not more people with their own ideas of how to run a nation.

[Watchman]

Actually the Germans, Poles etc. were practicing serfdom bigtime themselves, you know. Historians often summarise it as "serfdom begins to the east of the Elbe", which is actually fairly accurate - there's a reason runaway Russian serfs tended to head for the southern and eastern wild frontiers instead of Westwards.

[British Mutt + Viking]

The key to remember is not that serfdom exists but to what scale. It is true that throughout Germany and even into France, serf-like peasant contracts existed. The problem with Russia was that it was virtually all serfs with only a miniscule portion of the population of free tradesmen and free farmers, while in most German states of note, there were thousands of free tradesmen and such. These tradesmen and their free farming cousins are the class of people who accumulate wealth and eventually have enough money to challenge old aristocratic classes. The people who started and drove the Industrial Revolution were not old lords of the realm but entrepeneurs of tradesman and yeoman farming stock. The Junkers of Prussia may have held theoretical powers similar to those of the Russian boyars, but in the end, the Junkers also had to deal with the fact that they were not the only holders of wealth and power in the realm.
Modern industrial economies thrive on middle-classes. They need middle-class people to create the demand for industrial goods and to administrate and service the economy. Russia refused to develop its middle-classes. The result was a nation where only a handful of people had the resources to become scientists and engineers, the people who drive modernization. Russian scientists were as well trained and educated as their colleagues elsewhere, but there were easily a hundred German engineers to every Russian and those hundred Germans could count on a thriving demand for their services while the Russian engineer was mostly without a purpose.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

No.

The Russian Empire has indeed been forgotten.It was made Russia in the first place. We should be able to respect them,despite their mistakes ,they fieleded massive armies agasint Bonaparte and his Grandee Armee.In very much sense,the French and the Russians must be a long lost race that were seperated,but now are reunited again as allies..

[Madae]

Catherine the Great as a slut who liked to have sex with animals.

Never heard that before... Where was this from?

lol, nevermind, I found some information about it. Most of these stories (myths) were created just after her death... by Russians... so I can hardly see how you can blame anyone else for furthering them. It was all in jest then (probably with a little more political umph), and it's all in jest now. Does anyone doubt she had a lot of lovers? Cause it didn't seem like that was open to argument in what I read.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I never had high respect for the Russian Empire's military. I always considered the Russian army to be brave from a individual solider standpoint or even from a certain regimental standpoint, but kinda lousy overall.