Blog Russian History Questions

1. Consider why Post-Soviet states would feel eager to lay claim to early Rus' identity. Which modern state do you feel has the strongest claim?

In the instability and conflict following the fall of the Soviet Union from 1989 to 1991, many former Soviet republics regained their national identity by declaring themselves as Estonians, Latvians, or Lithuanians and freeing themselves of the chains of Soviet domination. This uprising of nationalism practically ended the Soviet Union as the drastic loss in power and money spelled its end and heralded the newly formed but shakily organized Russian Federation. The Rus' were people originating from Sweden that invaded what is now Russia during the Dark Ages in Europe and lay waste and plunder to the countryside, establishing a princedom that would be the predecessor to the pre-Petrian Russian principalities. As part of the drive for nationalism during the Mongol occupation, Russian rulers decided to adopt the "Russian" identity as a herald to their ancestral ties, the Vikings, of which the Rus' were related to. Successfully gaining some form of an identity, the Russian principalities slowly weakened the Mongol empire and eliminated all forms of control by the mid-15th century. Post-Soviet states, specifically the Russian Federation itself, would want to lay claim to Rus' ancestry to regain popularity and trust in the people, especially since the Russian government frequently suffers from crime, corruption, and economic issues due to the relative lack of control that was present during the Soviet era. Sweden has the strongest claim because it was the homeland of the Rus' people themselves before they moved into Modern Ukraine and Southwestern Russia and because of the everlasting presence of a strong Swedish identity that must have some substance to it.

A modern state that I would consider to have legitimate claim to the Rus' identity are the Swedes. Despite never having been dominated by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the land of origin of the Rus' is Sweden. Despite this, modern politics and shifts in world power frequently overlook Sweden's powerful national identity that has enabled them to survive during even the toughest times in European history, such as its wars with Russia during the 1600s and 1700s, the rise of European nationalism in the mid-1800s, the World Wars, and the Cold War. Russians, thus, have a somewhat direct lineage to the Swedes despite the huge difference in language structure, Swedish being a North Germanic language and Russian being a Slavic language. However, migration and inter-relations with the local Slavic people during the early Rus' era began a new race of people destined to rule and expand like their forefathers.

Post-Soviet states would want to lay claim to the Rus' identity, such as Russia, during this modern era because of the lack of unity between these Post-soviet states, specifically between the European and Asian states. Also, the rampant corruption, crime, and conflict in post-Soviet Russia brings doubt into the democratic, free market system that defines the Russian Federation. The Rus' people themselves were a powerful entity in the Slavic homeland because of their ability to wage wars over long distances and to establish a polity that would eventually become one of the most powerful states in Europe. It would make sense, therefore, to lay claim to such fame in order to instill pride, trust, and confidence in the ability of the Russian government to maintain order and stability in the midst of a distressing modern world.

In conclusion, the Rus' identity should be directly attributed to Swedes because of their constant presence of a unifying identity that has enabled them to survive the toughest times in European history. However, due to shifts in world power, Swedes are often overlooked in terms of historical attributions and such which are usually given to the Russians post-haste. Thus, modern-day Russia and possibly other post-Soviet states like the Ukraine would herald such a relatively powerful and vigorous people because of the ability of the Rus' to wage long distance wars without hesitation and even establish a semi-state that would grow into the powerful Russian principalities. In the midst of a Russia and post-Soviet world shattered by conflict, crime, corruption, and weak economies, a seemingly vague but powerful unifying force could inspire the modern-day European post-Soviet states to claim a place in history as an equally vigorous and successful nation to rise up in the midst of the mire of a conflicted modern world.

2. Russian identity could be argued to have been formed by military, religious, and political institutions. Which do you think played the most important role to its development and why?

Russian history has been defined by three aspects. Russia's military history has shaped its identities through the conquests of the Rus' people that led to them populating what is now Russia, to the Mongol invasions that posed the greatest challenge in Russian history, to the expansion of the Russian empire under Ivan III, Ivan IV, and Peter the Great, all which led to greater unity and pride from the people in their leaders. Religion has shaped Russian identity because the Orthodox Church maintained a mostly Christian identity even under the Mongol occupation and eventually roused an effective resistance under several princes that ended in a unified sovereignty under Ivan III that effectively ended Mongol rule in 1462. Russian political history has shaped Russia's national identity through the formation of several Russian principalities that claimed total or partial control of the entire Russian homeland. Eventually, this ended in the unification of Russia under Ivan III that led to the Tsardom of Russia that in itself unified the Russian people under an autocratic but effective ruler. However, in retrospect, religion was the most important part in the development of the Russian identity due to the fact that without religion, Russia would not have been a major figure in Christianity that it is now and would have been hampered by the introduction of tribal religions and Islam from the Mongols that could have dis-unified the Russian people.

The Orthodox Christian Church remained a powerful figure to the Russian people even while they were under the occupation of the powerful and fearful Mongol Empire, later the Golden Horde. In time, several Russian princes would mount an effective resistance to Mongol rule that culminated in several famous battles in Russian history like the Battle of Kulikovo, symbolizing the Russians' powerful unity. Also, by the Mongols allowing Orthodox Christianity to remain as the primary religion of the Russian people, they allowed the Russians to further explore their identity by maintaining their education systems, government, and way of life. Without this, Russia would not be as big as it is today and would be more disunited with the onset of Islam introduced by the Mongols spreading into the heart of Russia like an infection. Even the Russian princes that mounted effective campaigns against the Mongols depended on religion to guide them and give them strength against a foe so formidable.

Overall, Russian history has been primarily influenced by three things: military, religion, and politics. Russia's military history has been an influential factor because of the fact that military expansion and conflict were what led to the Rus' people's establishment of a loose state in central Russia, leading to the origins of the Russian people, the throwing off of Mongol rule, and the expansion of the Russian empire to the farthest extents of the Eurasian continent. Religion is influential in Russia because it united them and maintained their uniqueness even under Mongol occupation, thus providing Russians with a way to continue their way of life relatively unmitigated, apart from the regular tributaries and taxes. Political history helped develop the Russian identity through the maintenance of the separate Russian principalities even under Mongol rule. Eventually, they unified under Ivan III and overthrew Mongol rule and established a tsardom that would last for over 400 years and become an effective government body under rulers such as Ivan IV and Peter the Great that shaped Russia into what it is now, a nation of Europe considered a major power even today. However, religion was the greatest factor in the development of the Russian identity because even when princes fell under Mongol attack and their military crushed under the vast hordes of the Mongols, the Orthodox religion, maintained under the Mongols' tolerant rule, united the Russian people even when there failed to be an effective Russian ruler over them. Religion would provide the inspiration for resistance like in the Battle of Kulikovo and a way for the Russian people to continue their way of life unmitigated that has made them into such a strong and resilient people even in the face of certain domination.

3. Why would the Rus', following Peter the Great's reign be divided into the Western and Slavophile camps? What are the aspects that could favor or disfavor one side?

During the early 1700s, Peter the Great began an era of reform and Westernization called the Russian Enlightenment that emphasized the arts and sciences as well as modernization, specifically in the case of Russian laws and the serfs. St. Petersburg is the greatest symbol of this new era, which also began Russia's recognition by Europe as a substantial power that should be noticed and wary of, especially since Russia's territory has increased twofold and had recently fought a long and bloody war with Sweden that was the first time its newly Westernized army fought. Unfortunately, many old and traditional Russians saw Westernization as the destruction of old Russian values and heritage stemming from the Rus' people and were proud of their relative isolation from the problems, wars, and posh of Europe's monarchies. These people who resisted change were the Slavophiles and those who rejected their ideals became reformers. However, change was inevitable and was a long time coming. Division was present because the Slavophiles and reformers disagreed on the principle of how to shape Russian culture, while the Slavophiles had mostly the support of the gentry and the poor, their condition probably would have been worsened had the modernization of Russian law not been achieved. Vice versa, reformers would have been limited in popular support but still enabled Russia to modernize and became a power worthy of recognition by the Western European powers, whom they would fight with some in the War of the Austrian Succession.

Division was rampant between the Slavophiles and the western reformers because they did not agree on how to reform or not reform Russian society, which the Slavophiles were content with. Slavophiles saw Modernization as an opportunity by the aristocracy to increase power and put the serfs under increased bondage. Western reformers, on the other hand, wanted to Westernize Russia to make itself notable to Western Europe and hopefully, to be feared as its army grew to a size challenging even the best armies of Europe. They saw Russia's growing empire and involvement in European affairs as an opportunity to jump upon and they would be largely successful in using it as an advantage.

Slavophiles had the advantage of numbers. Many gentry and serfs did not want reform and even when they seemingly got it, their condition either worsened or stayed the same as indicated by Pugachev's rebellion of 1773. Slavophiles saw Western reform as an opportunity by the aristocracy to increase their power and bondage of the serfs. They also desired the old Russian traditions tracing back to the early Rus' period to remain as a symbol of Russian national identity, which could be destroyed in the midst of Westernization. However, their disadvantage was that they had little vision of the future of Russia if it westernized, which would mean that in the future, serfs would eventually be free as laws continue to be reformed. As the 1800s came along, Western liberalism and thought encouraged the freeing of the serfs, which would occur in 1861. Also, they did not see the improvements in education and the economy that reform brought.

Western reformers had the advantage of vision and superior ideals, relative to the Slavophilic idea of keeping the old Russian traditions. In a quickly modernizing world in the early 1700s, it was important to adopt Western ideas to avoid being left behind in the annals of European history and to have better education to improve everyone's general situation. Their disadvantage was that they mostly did not have popular support, especially during the liberal European movement during the 2nd quarter of the 19th century, which introduced Slavophilia and the hope of a more traditionally-based Russia. Eventually, the Socialist and then Communist party of Russia would jump upon Slavophilia as an opportunity to exert control over the population and promise them a better life that the Russia monarchy could never give them, no matter how many reforms they pasted over another.

Division between Slavophilia and Western reform was present because of the opposite desires of the Russian aristocracy and the general population, specifically the serfs, in how to change Russian society. Slavophiles had the advantage of relative popular support because of their idea of maintaining Russian national identity through tradition, which Europeanization would surely destroy. However, they did not have vision and foresee a future where reform might better their situation and give them freedom, which occurred in 1861. Western reformers had the advantage of that vision as well as the opportunity to show themselves as a powerful nation to Europe after they began making gains in Europe during their war with Sweden. Also, the building of St. Petersburg represented this Europeanization as Peter the Great adopted Western building techniques and architecture to complete his magnificent port city. However, they were limited by lack of popular support and the fact that the serfs were still not freed in the first century of this Russian Enlightenment as exemplified by Pugachev's rebellion in 1773 in an era of liberalization and democratic ideals emerging in France and the United States. Also, their relative slowness to reform were what limited the Russian monarchy in the long run and led to their downfall in 1917.

4. What are the possible advantages and disadvantages of colonization from above versus colonization from below? For the colonization from below, what would cause this phenomenon?

During the expansion of the Russian Empire after the end of Mongol domination, two groups of Russians ventured into central and eastern Russia, peasants and aristocratic ventures using the military. Peasants sought land in central and eastern Russia to obtain a new life away from the gentry and aristocracy. The aristocracy of Russia launched military expeditions beginning with Ivan IV to conquer the rest of modern-day Russia funded by the aristocracy themselves. Soon, the Russian tsardom became an empire that would eventually challenge even the Western European empires of Britain, France, and Germany. An advantage of colonization from above is the availability of money while a disadvantage is that by spreading eastward, communication becomes less and less effective to the point where it becomes almost defunct and isolation is imminent; colonization from below is possible because poor peasants and serfs seek a new life with the advantage of a drive and goal in mind as well as great availability of land towards the east but a disadvantage is the lack of money and possibly adequate supplies that make the journey difficult and often dangerous.

Colonization from above was begun by the Russian aristocracy during the 16th century in order to expand their territory into the defeated and greatly weakened khanates that remained as successors to the original Mongol empire. Using the military effectively, the Russians would reach the Pacific by the mid-1600s, establishing their effective control over all of modern-day Russia. A great advantage was the presence of large amounts of money to fund such expeditions by the aristocracy. A disadvantage was the farther east the Russians went, the harder it was to communicate with the population centers of European Russia, making isolation possible. In the end, it was the most effective due to the excellent use of the military to expand far and wide in a relatively short amount of time.

Colonization from below was encouraged by the oppression and hard conditions peasants and serfs faced in Western Russia. Thus, many families and peasants decided to head eastward to seek a new life and new land to make a comfortable living. A disadvantage of this was the hostile climate of the East as well as the relative lack of money and adequate supplies by the peasants to make such a long and dangerous journey. An advantage was the presence of a drive and willingness to go where no Russian had gone before. Almost similar to the Western expansion associated greatly with American history, the Russians achieved the same thing 300 years earlier, fighting natives and obtaining frontier outposts that stretched all the way to the profitable fishing ports of the pacific.

During the 16th century, Russia undertook a grand expedition to take all of modern-day Russia in order to defeat and subjugate the greatly weakened khanates that succeeded the Mongol Empire of 3 centuries before. Colonization from above and below occurred as both the rich and the poor had different goals on the far east. The poor had the advantage of a drive but a lack of adequate supplies while the rich had the advantage of money and adequate supplies but a disadvantage of the lack of effective communication that could cause isolation from the civilized West. Eventually, both groups made it to the east by 1650 and had an effective control and presence over all of modern-day Russia.