Discussions about Russian History > Imperial Russian History
Russia's History vs. the West . . . Comparable?
Tsarfan:
Let's see where this goes . . . .
Elisabeth:
Tsarfan, why don't you repost your earlier post in the "Nicholas: Positive Attributes" thread? It was really interesting and provocative and I'm yearning to attack it line by line. ;) But I don't know how to post between threads yet, I'm afraid!
Tsarfan:
--- Quote ---Russia has a fascinating history, but I'm not so sure its start was any more unsettled than that of more westerly countries.
Take Britain, for instance, which today we tend to think of as one of the most fortunate models of rational political evolution. The Celtic and Saxon cultures were highly evolved, with strong traditions of literature and plastic arts, stable civil law systems, and growing success with central government. This was all cut short by the invasion of the Normans in 1066.
Unlike the Mongol invasions of the Rus, which imposed two centuries of tribute but left indigenous social and political systems intact, the Norman invasions penetrated deeply into Saxon culture, replacing its legal and landholding systems, supplanting its nobility and social system, eventually even changing the course of its language.
And post-Norman England went through repeated civil wars; lived centuries under an intermittent siege mentality with Scotland, France, and Spain coming perilously near successful invasions; saw royal houses come and go; lived through a prolonged series of post-Reformation religious struggles that tore at the fabric of society right down to the lowest levels.
I think the salient differences between a country like Great Britain and Russia have more to do with their modern histories than their earlier histories. Britain has a "national myth" embodying a healthy view of itself because its people acquired a voice in their fates in the early modern era. Modern Brits tend to think of their history as something in which their forebears participated, not as something that was done to them. And that sense derives not from their early history, but from the turn toward participatory government they began to take in the 17th century -- at a time when Peter the Great was forcing his country to turn westward against its nature, was dictating the dress and hairstyles of his people, and was subordinating the Orthodox Church irrevocably to secular authority in order to consolidate autocracy across every element of individual life in Russia.
From another perspective, I think Germany is even more lacking in a "national myth" than is Russia. One of the reasons Naziism was able to create collective fantasies of an "Aryan race", a "third empire", or a "German destiny" was the complete absence of any cohesive national identity in German society. Modern Germans have responded by deciding to join the community of democratic nations and forge their identity going forward, not by canonizing the Kaiser and pining for the return of the Hohenzollerns.
Treated as children for too many centuries, Russians are still leafing through the fairy tale book for the tale that will bring them their deliverance from adult responsibility.
--- End quote ---
Sigh . . . . I don't know why I'm setting myself up for this beating.
Oh, hell. Yes, I do . . . . It's great fun going out on a limb and having you and RichC (and a few others) saw it off behind me. I've always learned best by taking lumps on the noggin.
Elisabeth:
Okay, Tsarfan, I say, sawing off that limb to the best of my ability: I think you’re basically incorrect to assert that "the salient differences between a country like Great Britain and Russia have more to do with their modern histories than their early histories." It’s the timing of Russia’s "early" historical catastrophes that was, to be repetitive, so very catastrophic. Russia was under the Mongol yoke for much of the High Middle Ages and the early (Italian) Renaissance. To take one example of the "comparable" conflicts going on in Britain at this period, it is actually very problematic to equate the Wars of the Roses with such cataclysms as the Mongol invasion or the reign of Ivan the Terrible. During the Wars of the Roses most of the population of England was entirely unaffected by the conflict and even the aristocracy suffered fewer casualties than is commonly believed. When you add together all the months of fighting spread out over several decades you come up with a period lasting not much longer than a year. Compare this to the successive waves of disaster that swept over Russia: the Mongol invasion and yoke, the Black Death, the second half of the reign of Ivan the Terrible and the reign of terror inflicted by the oprichnina; the economic and social devastation then inflicted by Ivan’s Livonian War. It’s true that Ivan IV negotiated to marry Elizabeth Tudor, but it would be somewhat fantastical to imagine that she would ever have accepted. Rather, it shows the tremendous isolation of Russia that this was the first formal English diplomatic mission to visit Muscovy in untold years. To give some impression of this period in Russian history, the Fugger newsletters reported in 1572: "the Muscovite himself [Ivan] ravages and despoils his own land and nation. The folk are pitilessly and cruelly killed in their thousands in all towns and many villages. They freeze to death and perish by violent means. Corn, cattle, and all else which is needed for man’s sustenance is burnt, corn is scattered in the street and the fields and altogether much wanton damage is wrought."
One of my professors in college explained it this way. As you move eastward across Europe the governmental institutions become more basic, more underdeveloped as it were – but they still exist, and in recognizably European form. It is only with the Mongols and later, the reign of Ivan the Terrible that you get these huge, devastating breaks with the West in Russian history – and arguably, Ivan’s was the more damaging. It set Russia up for the Time of Troubles – peasant revolts, foreign invasions, and general anarchy. While Western Europe was developing the nation state and exploring the New World Russia was entirely caught up in its own fratricidal conflicts. (Once again, compare Ivan's reign, which fatally weakened two checks on autocratic power, the Church and the nobility, with, say, Henry VIII's - which actually strengthened the parliament at the expense of the crown.) The succession problem was not even sorted out, and general peace was not established, until 1613.
After this, as RichC put it, Russia was caught in a game of "catch-up" if it wanted to be a European power (and it was not a European power during this period). That meant military power, which in turn meant you needed a figure like Peter the Great to modernize the country rapidly enough to train and support a new and efficient military and naval force. But all this came at a tremendous price. Again, Peter’s reforms came about as a revolution from above, implemented and enforced by the tsarist government, and not as a matter of personal initiative on the part of the boyar class nor, much less, as a matter of national initiative, on par with the Zemskii Sobor of 1613 that elected Michael Romanov. Rather, Peter’s revolution was imposed on the Russian people, with long-term consequences to the detriment of the nation as a whole, including its long-standing sense that somehow change can only be initiated from "above," and that whatever happens, it cannot be the fault of the people, "the children," but only of its "leaders."
So I agree with you (!) that contemporary Russia, in a sense, needs to grow up. I think Russians have a dangerous tendency to view themselves as either victims or victors, with no room in between. They are always "right," even when they are at their most imperial. Worse, the idea that they might actually have been perpetrators of crimes against their own and other peoples is still largely unacceptable to the mass of the Russian population (see RichC’s post about the latest Russian school textbooks in the "News Links" section). As long as they hold to this position, they will continue to be viewed with suspicion by their neighbors, and rightly so. Putin’s meddling in Ukraine and his continuing war with Chechnya show that Russia has not yet given up its imperial ambitions, even in an age which makes those ambitions highly unrealistic and self-defeating.
rskkiya:
I feel that the establishment of *Law* {legal codes} is far more important at this point in examining any differences between Russia and Europe.
England (an example) had the advantage (or disadvantage depending on ones position ) of having experienced aspects of Roman Law - as did much of Europe...
While Russia did not, and of course that's certainly not the "be all/end all' I do think that it might partially start to explain some of the social differences between these diverse nations.
{wimpering in a corner
waiting for a lashing}
rskkiya
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version