Russia: The forgotten empire?

[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.

[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.

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.