|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 12, 2010 10:57:46 GMT -5
it was a combination aayy^
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 12, 2010 15:27:01 GMT -5
What exactly was different? Level of tolerance at a given point in time. There were no Russians in Caucasus prior to 19th Century, and this is how Tolstoy described what happened after the Russian arrival to the region: To enter the villages in the darkness became our usual thing. Russian soldiers were entering the houses one by one under the darkness of the night. This and following scenes were such horror scenes that none of the reporters were courageous enough to report them.They did not. There was no retreating army. Russia destroyed the Circassian militia troops, and then focused on the problem arising from Circassian civilians.
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Apr 12, 2010 16:11:02 GMT -5
? Do you mean the XIX centure? Probably they also didn't want to cooperate. BTW in the 17-18-19th centures Russia was more developed than Ottoman Empire, so Russia had more to offer to its peoples (in general).
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 13, 2010 0:42:00 GMT -5
? Do you mean the XIX centure? I mean between 11th and late 18th Centuries. As the Russians started their modern way of conquering (which included massacring the Civilians and deporting the bulk of the native populations), Turks started to be less and less tolerant as of 19th Century. Importation of the European values and institutions resulted in massacres targeted the Bulgarians, Armenians and Greeks. Thanks to the policies introduced by the Russian Empire in the Balkans, Crimea and Caucasus. Russia was not more developed than Turkey until the Industrial Revolution (late 18th Century). Russia benefited from the Industrial Revolution far more than the Ottoman Empire, and this directly affected the rivalry between two countries, and accelerated the decline of the Ottoman Empire. By the way, there was never a starvation in the Ottoman Empire or in modern day Turkey, on the other hand, in Russia, there were some famines in 1890s 1920s, and 1930s. For example, it is believed that 3-10 million Ukrainans and Crimean Tatars were killed due to the effects of manmade famine.
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Apr 13, 2010 9:53:11 GMT -5
The majority of people from the Balkans always wanted to be free from Otoman Empire and they asked Russia and Europe to help them to liberate themselves, but Russia and Europe were not strong enough to help.
The revolts were less intensive back then because peoples realized they had little chance to win so their revoults would be suppressed with unspeakable cruelty by the Ottomans.
Later on when Russia got strong enough to help the resistance movement in the Balkans intensified.
The policies introduced by the Russian Empire in the Balkans were mostly supported by local population.
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Apr 13, 2010 10:04:27 GMT -5
hellboy,
Yes, I agree
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 14, 2010 2:39:32 GMT -5
The majority of people from the Balkans always wanted to be free from Otoman Empire and they asked Russia and Europe to help them to liberate themselves, but Russia and Europe were not strong enough to help. Russia planted Pan-Slavist ideas particularly in the Balkans via Orthodox Churches. Russia's interest in the Balkans was rather imperial, not much related to the liberation of Balkan peoples. Not so true. Ottoman Empire was relatively tolerant in its hey days. However, I admit that the decline of the empire changed the attitudes of the Ottoman administration over time. Not really supported in Poland, Ukraine, Crimea, Caucasus, Volga-Ural Region, and Central Asia though.
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Apr 15, 2010 12:53:51 GMT -5
You could also say that Balkanians tried to make Russia feel responsible for their liberation (feel that their liberation was Russian duty) because of the same Orthodox religion and the same ethnic origine (Slavic). But besides politics there were a lot of really warm feelings between our peoples and those years (1876-1878 - the war of liberation) were time of high inspiration in our country and society. I read what our famous write Dostoevsky wrote back than - it was really touching... and BTW Russia didn't get anything for itself during that war.
You repeat it many times but where is a proof and what is your criteria for tolerance? Do you call it tolerance that Ottomans didn't always kill those who didn't dare to resist?
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Apr 15, 2010 13:00:50 GMT -5
I am not talking about those regions now. But if you mentioned them (out of context BTW) I could say you are mostly right about Poland - Russian inflience wasn't supported there in general because they saw better life near by (in Western Europe), which Russia couldn't offer them. Ukrainians had very similar identity as Russians. Crimea is Ukrainian now, Caucasus was always deeply divided and Central Asia didn't have separatist intentions during Soviet time at least.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Apr 15, 2010 13:05:07 GMT -5
Ottomans were the most tolerant during their reign out of all Europe - if you read history books written by westerners you would know that.
Compare it to Russians who killed their own people with famines, and sent people to Siberia for death many of whom were Tatars, and Turks. Russia was never advanced economically nor governmentally.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 15, 2010 13:23:23 GMT -5
You could also say that Balkanians tried to make Russia feel responsible for their liberation (feel that their liberation was Russian duty) because of the same Orthodox religion and the same ethnic origine (Slavic). But besides politics there were a lot of really warm feelings between our peoples and those years (1876-1878 - the war of liberation) were time of high inspiration in our country and society. I read what our famous write Dostoevsky wrote back than - it was really touching... and BTW Russia didn't get anything for itself during that war. Russian ambition to liberate was to hide the naughty imperialism. Russia killed and deported millions of Muslim populations in Balkans, Caucasus, Central Asia and Crimea. In a way, Russia still enjoys the gains of the 19th Century. Some reading material for you: www.globaled.org/nyworld/materials/ottoman/turkish.html
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 15, 2010 13:25:20 GMT -5
Ottomans were the most tolerant during their reign out of all Europe - if you read history books written by westerners you would know that. Compare it to Russians who killed their own people with famines, and sent people to Siberia for death many of whom were Tatars, and Turks. Russia was never advanced economically nor governmentally. Good points. +1.
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Apr 15, 2010 13:27:24 GMT -5
Will you quote some of those books? Are you sure there are no books where Ottomans are presented as middle age savages and villians?
Do you know that some history books sometimes just reflect nowadays politics. Since Turkey is western ally now, some westernars try to show their ancestors in positive way.
Do you seriously believe that Russians supressed loyal people?
Then how comes Russia took a lot of former Ottoman territories? and liberate a lot of former Ottoman territories?
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Apr 15, 2010 13:29:39 GMT -5
Russia didn't gain anything from liberation of Balkans.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 15, 2010 13:32:15 GMT -5
I am not talking about those regions now. But if you mentioned them (out of context BTW) I could say you are mostly right about Poland - Russian inflience wasn't supported there in general because they saw better life near by (in Western Europe), which Russia couldn't offer them. Ukrainians had very similar identity as Russians. Crimea is Ukrainian now, Caucasus was always deeply divided and Central Asia didn't have separatist intentions during Soviet time at least. Lithuania, Ukraine and Poland formed the commonwealth until the rise of Russian imperialism. Those never craved for the Russian rule. In fact, they fought against Russia almost on every occasion. That is why perhaps, Stalinist Russia killed millions of Ukrainians, and killed tens of thousands of Polish POWs, even let the Germans suppress the Warsaw revolt when the Red army was only a step away. In Central Asia, imperial Russia never really had the control, and Czarist rule in Central Asia (1870s-1910s) did not last too long. Its successor, namely the Soviet Union was quite oppressive too. It is estimated that Soviets exterminated hundreds of thousands of Turkics and Muslims between 1910s-1950s.
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Apr 15, 2010 14:49:17 GMT -5
Your link is mostly retorics.
It was rather complete supression than peace.
So what? Muslim communities existed in Russia as well. Those who were prosecuted (according to your words), were prosecuted because of their unloyalty, not because of their religion.
BTW there are a lot of churches of different religions in my city. They are always shown to tourists as the signs of our tolerance.
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Apr 15, 2010 14:55:19 GMT -5
Vizier of Oz,
Can you read? havn't you read that Ukraine joined Russia volonterely because of conflict with Poland? (seeking help in the war against Poland)
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 15, 2010 15:20:45 GMT -5
Your link is mostly retorics. Lecture notes. It was peaceful compared to its contemporaries for a long period in time. Of course, it was degenerated and swept off the world stage with the rise of industrial revolution in Europe. Only after Russia started annex Muslim dominated lands in Crimea, Caucasus and Central Asia, which was in fact 3-4 centuries after the Ottoman Turks. Any synagogue or mosque?
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 15, 2010 15:36:44 GMT -5
Vizier of Oz, Can you read? havn't you read that Ukraine joined Russia volonterely because of conflict with Poland? (seeking help in the war against Poland) Voluntarily joining Russia? You are kidding right? Establishment Zaporizhian SichIn later years the Sich became the center of Cossack life south of the borders of Russian Tsardom. The Zaporizhian Host was governed by the Sich Rada and the term Zaporizhian Sich was applied to the "Cossack state".
After the Treaty of Pereyaslav (1654), the Host was split into two, the Hetmanate with its capital at Chyhyryn, and the more autonomous region of Zaporizhia which continued to be centred on the Sich. During this period the Sich changed location several times.
During the reign of the Russian Tsar Peter, cossacks were taken to Russia proper (and new Russian conquests) for the construction of canals and fortification lines. An estimated 20–30 thousand were sent each year to Northern Russia for construction of canals at Lake Ladoga. Hard labour in the cold and unfamiliar climate led to a high level of mortality among the cossacks. Only an estimated 40% returned home.[4]
After the Battle of Poltava the original Sich was destroyed in 1709, and Mazepa's capital - Baturyn - was razed. This is sometimes referred to as the Old Sich (Stara Sich). From 1734 to 1775 a New Sich (Nova Sich) was constructed.
Fear of the independence of the Sich resulted in the Russian Administration first abolishing the Cossack Hetmanate in 1764 and finally totally destroying the Zaporizhian Sich itself by military force in 1775. Destruction of Zaporizhian SichIn May 1775, General Pyotr Tekeli received orders to occupy the main Zaporizhian fortress, the Sich, and to destroy it. The order was given by Grigory Potemkin, who was formally admitted into Cossackdom a few years earlier. Potemkin was given direct orders from Empress Catherine.
On June 5 1775, General Tekeli surrounded the Sich with artillery and infantry. He postponed the assault and even allowed visits while the head of the Host, Petro Kalnyshevsky, was deciding how to react to the Russian ultimatum. Under the guidance of the starshyna Lyakh, a conspiracy was formed among a group of 50 Cossacks to pretend to go fishing in the river Inhul next to the Southern Buh in the Ottoman provinces. The pretext was enough to allow the Russians to let the Cossacks out of the siege, who were joined by numerous others. The fleeing Cossacks travelled to the Danube Delta where they formed a new Danube Sich, as a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire.
When Tekeli realised the escape, there was little left for the remaining Cossacks. The Sich was razed to the ground. Petro Kalnyshevsky was arrested and exiled to the Solovetsky Islands (where he reputedly lived to the age of 112 in the Solovetsky Monastery). All high level starshynas were repressed or exiled. Lower level starshynas who remained and went over to the Russian side were given Army ranks and all the privileges that accompanied them, and allowed to join Hussar and Dragoon regiments. Most of the ordinary Cossacks were made state peasants and serfs.[5] The Ukrainian writer Adrian Kaschenko (1858-1921) [6] and historian Olena Apanovich [7] note that the final abolition of the Zaporizhian Sich, the historic Cossack stronghold perceived as the bastion of the protection of the Ukrainians and their ways of life, had such a strong symbolic effect that the memories of the event remained for the long time in local folklore.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhian_Sich
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Apr 15, 2010 15:40:56 GMT -5
Of course. How could we have them before? Yes to both
|
|