• This topic has 8 voices and 22 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #342419

    Anonymous

    Have you ever thought about what the reasons were that the Eastern Slavs became the number one power in the east next to the Germans? Is it just because they had so  much more room? But the lands of Poland and the southern Ukraine had a better climate. And the western Slavic civilizations were also more closely associated with western Europe and it's newer inventions and innovations. So why and how did the Orthodox Russians still keep coming out on top? This is a big question.

    #368235

    Anonymous

    Must be Vodka!  ;D

    Anyway, it has a lot to do with numbers, population numbers that is. All the most populous countries of Europe are in same time the most powerful. England, France, Germany, Russia. Thought smaller Catholic Slavic countries are much more developed in Social branch, as quality of life and such stuff, so there's always ups and downs.

    #368236

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Must be Vodka!  ;D

    Anyway, it has a lot to do with numbers, population numbers that is. All the most populous countries of Europe are in same time the most powerful. England, France, Germany, Russia. Thought smaller Catholic Slavic countries are much more developed in Social branch, as quality of life and such stuff, so there's always ups and downs.

    But Poland has 40 million people and added with Czech, Slovakia and Western Ukraine it is the same as German, England or France. And like you said, the western Slavs are more developed because of  being closer to the west. Russia's population was spread very far apart throughout the  last 400 years. But still somehow they were always the ones who counted. This is a mystery or I wouldn't have asked it.

    #368237

    Anonymous

    The reason is simple: Siberia.. and Sibiryaks :D

    #368238

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    The reason is simple: Siberia.. and Sibiryaks :D

    Well truth to be told, people must be tough if they live for hundred of years on -30° temperatures with no problems ;D off topic, would love to visit Sibir, even to live there for some time!

    @Daniel Philipoff, well it's better right you are counted, there's 120-130 million of ethnic Russians ;D western and southern Slavs together still wouldn't outnumber you ;D as for Poland, well, Poland with it's 40 milion was quite a force actually in history, only during ww2 it has been stripped of it's power completely due to Russian and German invasion. But Poland had it's fair share of military history, they even attacked Russia on few examples meaning they were mighty enough to do such thing, as well it had it's commonwealth empire with Lithuania etc.

    1612 – Movie Trailer

    in general i think the comparison between smaller Slavic states and Russia is same as between Germany and smaller Germanic states. Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland are all far better to live in than in Germany and far more richer, however the Germany as being the biggest is the most influential of the ones mentioned.

    #368239

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Have you ever thought about what the reasons were that the Eastern Slavs became the number one power in the east next to the Germans? Is it just because they had so  much more room? But the lands of Poland and the southern Ukraine had a better climate. And the western Slavic civilizations were also more closely associated with western Europe and it's newer inventions and innovations. So why and how did the Orthodox Russians still keep coming out on top? This is a big question.

    Let it be 400 more!

    Isolated countries tend to develope better. Scandinavia for example. Less wars, less loss, less stagnation. You can't expect from the western or southern Slavs to come on the top in their region, when they through the course of the history constantly fought the Germans, French or Turks in proceeding further into the Slavic realm.

    Southern Slavs for example were the center of the Slavic world in the middle ages, Russia was in that time a relatively poor Slavic region under constant threat of occupation (Golden Horde). Most of the culture that came to Russia (Slavic Orthodox religion, cyrillic, old-Slavic language) came from the Southern Slavs (Bulgarians, and after their fall, from the Serbs). With the fall of the South Slavs, the role shifted from the South to the East.

    #368240

    Anonymous

    I don't think that Russia was the big power for 400 years just because it's population when all counted was bigger. After all, it's people were mostly serfs and peasants who were spread out throughout it's vast land. For the first 300 years they never really contibuted to Moscow. They were too far away, too poor but to look after themselves, and there were yet no railroads in order to ship any resourses back to Russia from Sibiria. I still don't understand why and how they could hold power for so long.

    Today, in this modern world of course Russia will continure to be #1.

    #368241

    Anonymous

    400 years? Are you sure? 400 hundred years ago, during 1611, the Polish-Lithuanian Army was occupying Moscow ;)

    This is, of course, very contrary to the movie 1612, which is almost all fiction :P

    #368242

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    400 years? Are you sure? 400 hundred years ago, during 1611, the Polish-Lithuanian Army was occupying Moscow ;)

    This is, of course, very contrary to the movie 1612, which is almost all fiction :P

    Yes, you are right. It's more like 350 years. How about since 1648.

    While the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth remained a union of two nations: of Poland and Lithuania, a sizable population of Orthodox Ruthenians remained ignored. That left them oppressed by the Polish magnates and their wrath was directed at the Poles' Jewish traders, who often ran their estates for them. The advent of the Counter-Reformation further worsened relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Many Orthodox Ukrainians saw the Union of Brest as a threat to their Orthodox faith, and coupled with the frequent abuse of the Orthodox clergy this added a religious dimension to the conflict. This could have been one of the many other frequent Cossack revolts that had been put down by the authorities, but the stature and skill of, and respect for, the seasoned 50-year-old negotiator and warrior Khmelnytsky perhaps made all the difference.

    Initially, Polish authorities took the news of Khmelnytsky's arrival at the Sich and reports about the rebellion quite lightly. The two sides exchanged lists of demands: the Poles asked for Cossacks to surrender the mutinous leader and disband, while Khmelnytsky and the Rada demanded that the Commonwealth restore the Cossacks' ancient rights, stop the advance of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, yield the right to appoint Orthodox leaders of the Sich and of the Registered Cossack regiments, and remove the Commonwealth troops from Ukraine.[10] These demands of Khmelnytsky were taken as an affront by the Polish magnates and an army headed by Stefan Potocki moved in the direction of the Sich. Had the Cossacks stayed at Khortytsia they might have been defeated as in many other rebellions. But this time, instead of waiting for the Poles, Khmelnytsky marched against them. The two armies met on 16 May 1648 at Zhovti Vody, where, aided by the Tatars of Tugay Bey, the Cossacks inflicted their first crushing defeat on the Commonwealth. This was repeated soon after, with the same success, at the Battle of Korsuń on 26 May 1648. What made these Cossack successess different was the diplomatic and military skill of Khmelnytsky:

    #368243

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Yes, you are right. It's more like 350 years. How about since 1648.

    While the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth remained a union of two nations: of Poland and Lithuania, a sizable population of Orthodox Ruthenians remained ignored. That left them oppressed by the Polish magnates and their wrath was directed at the Poles' Jewish traders, who often ran their estates for them. The advent of the Counter-Reformation further worsened relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Many Orthodox Ukrainians saw the Union of Brest as a threat to their Orthodox faith, and coupled with the frequent abuse of the Orthodox clergy this added a religious dimension to the conflict. This could have been one of the many other frequent Cossack revolts that had been put down by the authorities, but the stature and skill of, and respect for, the seasoned 50-year-old negotiator and warrior Khmelnytsky perhaps made all the difference.

    Initially, Polish authorities took the news of Khmelnytsky's arrival at the Sich and reports about the rebellion quite lightly. The two sides exchanged lists of demands: the Poles asked for Cossacks to surrender the mutinous leader and disband, while Khmelnytsky and the Rada demanded that the Commonwealth restore the Cossacks' ancient rights, stop the advance of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, yield the right to appoint Orthodox leaders of the Sich and of the Registered Cossack regiments, and remove the Commonwealth troops from Ukraine.[10] These demands of Khmelnytsky were taken as an affront by the Polish magnates and an army headed by Stefan Potocki moved in the direction of the Sich. Had the Cossacks stayed at Khortytsia they might have been defeated as in many other rebellions. But this time, instead of waiting for the Poles, Khmelnytsky marched against them. The two armies met on 16 May 1648 at Zhovti Vody, where, aided by the Tatars of Tugay Bey, the Cossacks inflicted their first crushing defeat on the Commonwealth. This was repeated soon after, with the same success, at the Battle of Korsuń on 26 May 1648. What made these Cossack successess different was the diplomatic and military skill of Khmelnytsky:

    See here

    #368244

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Yes, you are right. It's more like 350 years. How about since 1648.

    I'd say that's about right. After the Polish Royals failed to deal with Khmelnytskiy, either through negotiations (which would have been preferable) or military force, the Great Commonwealth started to decline.

    It's a pity. I don't think that Khmelnytskiy wanted to break away initially, he just wanted better recognition for his people. With the old aristocratic system there were just nobles and commoners, but Cossacks were clearly something else altogether. Their departure weakened the Commonwealth. With better diplomacy and the creation of at least a Cossack class or something, they would have stayed in the Commonwealth albeit in their own region. It could have been the The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Protectorate of Ukraine. This would have been seriously kick ass as it would have set a good precedent for the Confederation style alliance/cooperation that Slavs should be working towards now.

    Also, an interesting parallel to the Cossack Uprising: the King of England took very lightly the initial calls for independence in the American 13 Colonies. They also broke free! Both stories, and others like them, stand as a lesson to arrogant ruling classes.

    #368245

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    Quote:
    Yes, you are right. It's more like 350 years. How about since 1648.

    I'd say that's about right. After the Polish Royals failed to deal with Khmelnytskiy, either through negotiations (which would have been preferable) or military force, the Great Commonwealth started to decline.

    It's a pity. I don't think that Khmelnytskiy wanted to break away initially, he just wanted better recognition for his people. With the old aristocratic system there were just nobles and commoners, but Cossacks were clearly something else altogether. Their departure weakened the Commonwealth. With better diplomacy and the creation of at least a Cossack class or something, they would have stayed in the Commonwealth albeit in their own region. It could have been the The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Protectorate of Ukraine. This would have been seriously kick ass as it would have set a good precedent for the Confederation style alliance/cooperation that Slavs should be working towards now.

    But your ideas above don't jive with the facts on the ground according to both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica.

    While the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth remained a union of two nations: of Poland and Lithuania, a sizable population of Orthodox Ruthenians remained ignored. That left them oppressed by the Polish magnates and their wrath was directed at the Poles' Jewish traders, who often ran their estates for them. The advent of the Counter-Reformation further worsened relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Many Orthodox Ukrainians saw the Union of Brest as a threat to their Orthodox faith

    So we can see that the Poles were not freeing the Orthodox people of the land called Ukraine, they were inslaving them using the Jews for landlord money collectors.

    #368246

    Anonymous

    I know what the Polish Magnates were unfair. I said that they SHOULD have been fairer and one way that they could have done it.

    #368247

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    I know what the Polish Magnates were unfair. I said that they SHOULD have been fairer and one way that they could have done it.

    And I'm saying that the borderlines of countries should be drawn where one culture ends and another begins. When two large traditional cultures are united politically as one country, then they forever strive against each other. This makes the crack where an enemy can get in and rule over both groups by balancing on their fighting.

    Consider the recent so called "wars" in the middle east. Both Iraq and Afganistan are so called "countries" which contain two large separate traditional cultures. In both Iraq and Afganistan there are Sunnis and Shites. So there enemies can use them against each other and they do. But it is much more difficult to split Iran and divide it in order to destroy it.

    And they are having a harder time with Pakistan where the majority is Sunnies. And now look at what will happen with Syria because the north is more Shite/ect and the south is Sunni. The Sunnis in Syria are being convinced to break with their northern rulers.

    Meanwhile what will the enemies of Egypt do if this latest voting goes well for the Moslem Brotherhood. Egypt will be difficult for outsiders to contol They are mostly all Sunnis.

    So if the Polish and Jews had not been defeated by the Cossacks in 1648 it would have gone worse for the natives/Orthodox. The Poles should just rule over Catholic traditional areas. No group should lord over others beyond reason. It wasn't any better with the Russians ruling over the Catholic areas either. Hopefully the latest nationalistic political tendencies will right all of this wrong throughout the entire world. Wishful thinking, yes I admit it.

    #368248

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    And I'm saying that the borderlines of countries should …. entire world. Wishful thinking, yes I admit it.

    I get what you are saying and I agree. My idea for the "Protectorate of Ukraine" was for a time when empire was a normal way to go, back in the 1600s. However, TODAY, you are right, no group should rule over another. Today's "Slavic Unity" will be cooperation based. Solid homogenous states that voluntarily ally with each other. This is happening to a degree already, but the rift between East Slav and West Slav is still there, unfortunately, but in a slightly different form.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

10 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Lucifer Morningstar
  • Nefario
  • ca$hbunni
  • 'las
  • Tujev
  • slovborg