The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Eurasian Parallels: Mongols, Commies, & Pelmeni
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Map of the Mongol Empire at/near its territorial peak.

Map of the various variants of stuffed boiled dumplings (credit).

Exogamous communitarian family systems (in red).

The maximum territorial extent of Communism.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Communism, Cuisine, Humor, Map, Mongolia 
Hide 229 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

  2. Only a fool would eat a dumpling that isn’t either a pierogi or a Pennsylvania Dutch apple dumpling.

    As for the latter, “Apfelklöße,” man, I’m hungry just thinking about it:

  3. Map of the various variants of stuffed boiled dumplings

    Persians and Afghans also have dumplings called Manti/Mantu.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    They were also part of the Mongol Empire, so even better.
  4. As an emigrant couples’ child from Western Ukraine, I fully knew the pleasures of eating pirogis (verenyki), filled usually with potatoes, cheese, sauerkraut and various in-season fruits. Usually accompanied with fried onion bits in butter and sour cream. I was first introduced to pelemeni from a family of Ukrainians from Kharkiv. I remember when my hostess asked whether I needed any vinegar to splash atop my plate full of pelemeni. I tried the vinegar and loved it. Later in life another innovation was brought to my attention, even better than the vinegar. Try your pelemeni floating in a hot bowl of chicken bullion, with some of your favorite liquor – really great, especially when it’s nippy outside.

  5. Dumplings in Chinese are not mantou, but jiaozi. Gyoza came from the Mandarin jiaozi.

    Mantou is a steamed bun, can either be plain or with fillings such as meat, vegetables, custard, or red bean paste.

    The wonton in Guangdong and the hundun in the Yangtze River Delta are dumplings that are cooked in broth. Wonton fillings are usually shrimp and pork, and hundun fillings are usually shepherd’s purse and pork. Sichuanese cook their dumplings in chili oil, which they call hongyou chaoshou. Jiaozi is a primarily northern Chinese, which is usually steamed and/or pan-fried.

    • Replies: @yakushimaru
    When "Mantou" is stuffed, it is called Baozi. But it is also occasionally called, say, Rou Mantou, meat Mantou, but it is archaic, sort of. It might even have an erotic meaning. When it is stuffed with a kind of salty rice, it is Shaomai. Other than this almost singular case, there are Rou Baozi, Cai Baozi which is stuffed with green leafed vegetables, and Dousha Baozi, etc.

    Udon in Japanese, I believe, is not written in Kanji, but if it is, then it might be confused with Chinese Huntun, which is usually spelled Hundun I guess. Udon is actually a kind of noodle.

    When Jiaozi is pan fried, it becomes Guotie.

  6. Why are Mongolians so lactose intolerant?

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Why are Mongolians so lactose intolerant?

    Because they are like the large majority of people in the world:

    https://i0.wp.com/www.armenpogharian.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/map-of-Global-Lactose-Intolerance.png?w=754

    As I understand it, there have been 3 separate "mutations" that produced tolerance: (1) Scandinavia (Sweden), spreading through most of Europe; (2) Niger in the heart of Africa; and (3) northern India. Note that 98% of Japanese and 92% of Chinese are lactose-intolerant.
  7. @AquariusAnon
    Dumplings in Chinese are not mantou, but jiaozi. Gyoza came from the Mandarin jiaozi.

    Mantou is a steamed bun, can either be plain or with fillings such as meat, vegetables, custard, or red bean paste.

    The wonton in Guangdong and the hundun in the Yangtze River Delta are dumplings that are cooked in broth. Wonton fillings are usually shrimp and pork, and hundun fillings are usually shepherd's purse and pork. Sichuanese cook their dumplings in chili oil, which they call hongyou chaoshou. Jiaozi is a primarily northern Chinese, which is usually steamed and/or pan-fried.

    When “Mantou” is stuffed, it is called Baozi. But it is also occasionally called, say, Rou Mantou, meat Mantou, but it is archaic, sort of. It might even have an erotic meaning. When it is stuffed with a kind of salty rice, it is Shaomai. Other than this almost singular case, there are Rou Baozi, Cai Baozi which is stuffed with green leafed vegetables, and Dousha Baozi, etc.

    Udon in Japanese, I believe, is not written in Kanji, but if it is, then it might be confused with Chinese Huntun, which is usually spelled Hundun I guess. Udon is actually a kind of noodle.

    When Jiaozi is pan fried, it becomes Guotie.

  8. @Twinkie

    Map of the various variants of stuffed boiled dumplings
     
    Persians and Afghans also have dumplings called Manti/Mantu.

    They were also part of the Mongol Empire, so even better.

  9. The racial Eurasian populations in the USSR, Russia being ruled by Mongols for 300 years and the cultural oriental influences. When Goebbels said they were fighting the “Mongolen sturm”, there was much truth in that propaganda.

    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    Mongols are far and wide

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#/media/File:Meyers_map.jpg
    , @Korenchkin

    cultural oriental influences
     
    Ah yes, those famous Oriental writers such as Tolstoy and Pushkin, they go right alongside Shimazaki and Confucius
    St. Petersburgs and Moscows architecture has such a strong Asiatic influence, it's a spitting image of Khanbaliq Beijing
    Russian Churches are just like Ulaanbaatar monasteries
    And let's not forget the national drink of the Russian, horse milk
    , @another anon

    When Goebbels said they were fighting the “Mongolen sturm”, there was much truth in that propaganda.

     

    Exactly. Russians will be called Mongols regardless what they are and what they do.

    https://twitter.com/WASBAPPIN/status/1230365684690866176

    Why not reclaim this great heritage? As I said before, drop fake and gay Russian Empire and restore Mongol Empire in its former glory.
    Make the greatest empire that ever existed great again!
    Make whole galaxy into one big Mongolian family!
    Bring stuffed dumplings to the very heavens!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vhbRBz_YDo
    , @siberiancat
    Genetically there is not even a trace of Mongols in the Great Russian gene pool.
    , @RadicalCenter
    As others have commented, there was some truth to his comment, though not as much as he implied.

    But the Germans are no longer in a position to make such observations in a critical manner, that’s for sure. Germany is increasingly full of people far more racially mixed (nonEuropean) and culturally alien / hostile than Russia’s mixed population.

    There will be few “Germans” who are predominantly european genetically, even culturally, soon enough on current trends.

    If he were alive today, Goebbels might find that Russia is less physically dangerous and less culturally Balkanized than Germany and Austria are becoming — and that russians are generally less ashamed of their own culture, less self-hating, less demoralized, and less cowardly than Germans.

    Now I pray that russians will start having more children so that they can preserve their beautiful complex culture, and hold their land and language safe against encroachment. Don’t go down the path of Goebbels’s pathetic faggotized descendants. (But I mean that in a good Christian way ;)

  10. @neutral
    The racial Eurasian populations in the USSR, Russia being ruled by Mongols for 300 years and the cultural oriental influences. When Goebbels said they were fighting the "Mongolen sturm", there was much truth in that propaganda.

    Mongols are far and wide

  11. @songbird
    Why are Mongolians so lactose intolerant?

    Why are Mongolians so lactose intolerant?

    Because they are like the large majority of people in the world:

    As I understand it, there have been 3 separate “mutations” that produced tolerance: (1) Scandinavia (Sweden), spreading through most of Europe; (2) Niger in the heart of Africa; and (3) northern India. Note that 98% of Japanese and 92% of Chinese are lactose-intolerant.

    • Thanks: Swedish Family
    • Replies: @songbird
    I find it hard to wrap my head around.

    I think one would expect Japanese and Chinese to be lactose intolerant, since it seems as though they were very Malthusian, and didn't have a lot of pasture available, or probably even as many draft animals as Europe. I'll bet that the 92% figure for the Chinese would be higher, if it were only the Han.

    But Mongolians had the pasture and four or five different kinds of animals that could supply milk. What's more, they were able to invade Europe, so one would think that there was enough earlier geneflow that they would have had access to the same mutation. One only needs to be heterozygous, and according to analysis of ancient teeth, they practiced dairying for thousands of years.
    , @Europe Europa
    Spain and Greece's level of lactose intolerance appears to be very disproportionately high for Europe, does that indicate a significant level of non-European ancestry?
  12. Note that 98% of Japanese and 92% of Chinese are lactose-intolerant.

    There are degrees of intolerance, at lower levels of which food with dairy can be and is readily consumed. East Asians have various deserts, including shaved ice, that are liberally flavored with dairy (condensed milk). And of course, the Mongols drink Kumis, fermented mare’s milk. One popular drink in South Korea is Milkis, carbonated and flavored milk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkis

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    Much of the milk on the East Asian market contains enzymatic additives (such as Aliazyme) that convert lactose to alcohol and other byproducts, or has been subjected to a filtration process that removes carbohydrates. The kumis milk in Mongolia is naturally lactose-free due to the fermentation process.
  13. @neutral
    The racial Eurasian populations in the USSR, Russia being ruled by Mongols for 300 years and the cultural oriental influences. When Goebbels said they were fighting the "Mongolen sturm", there was much truth in that propaganda.

    cultural oriental influences

    Ah yes, those famous Oriental writers such as Tolstoy and Pushkin, they go right alongside Shimazaki and Confucius
    St. Petersburgs and Moscows architecture has such a strong Asiatic influence, it’s a spitting image of Khanbaliq Beijing
    Russian Churches are just like Ulaanbaatar monasteries
    And let’s not forget the national drink of the Russian, horse milk

    • Replies: @neutral
    While not exactly a Mongolian thing, those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins. The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European. The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians. Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests. The Mongolian influence is part of Russia, the fact that this topic hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true.
    , @AP

    Ah yes, those famous Oriental writers such as Tolstoy and Pushkin, they go right alongside Shimazaki and Confucius
     
    Well, the Russian writer Bulgakov is a descendant of the Tatar tax collector Bulgak and the 19th century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadayev comes for a family that descends from Chagatai, second son of Genghis Khan. The historian Vernadsky concluded that in a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.

    To be sure, Mongol influence on Russian culture is greatly exaggerated by Russophobes but it is not nothing, either. From wiki: "Historians also credit the Mongol regime with an important role in the development of Muscovy as a state. Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as "yam", hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization"
    , @Dmitry
    Yes Russian culture is almost all European culture (including imported communist ideology in the 20th century, which was constructed on hijacked conceptual scaffolding of Hegel).

    Arguments with European countries, have the intensity and absurdity of family arguments. And fortunately seem nowadays quite "fake hostility" as well, when officials buy their houses and properties in Europe.

    As for the mysterious "Asian influence" which there is supposedly. I remember reading from a user in the Sailer forum (Jack?) who wrote that Russia has a "saving face" culture, which he claims is something oriental - i.e. he claims that things a habit of building Potemkin villages to impress outsiders, is East Asian.

    The latter habit exists today to some extent. For example, in terms of prioritization, somehow there are billions of dollars to bury power cables underground in central Moscow, so it looks more like a disneyland, to impress visitors. At the same time, 30 years after beginning to build the first metro station in Chelyabinsk, there are still not funds to complete the first metro station in Chelyabinsk.

    However, the idea that this indicates Russians as representatives of East Asian culture, as opposed to European/Western culture - is nonsense, as aside from the example and the name, the Potemkin village culture (although universal in civilized peoples) is probably most common in Western/European culture.

    There are even regulations in some American cities, so that people in bourgeois areas will cut their lawn regularly, and therefore present a better impression to visitors.

    Also why did Italian cities become so beautiful? Italian city-states were acting like Potemkin villages between each other for centuries.

    Stories about Potemkin are mythical, of course, while this kind of game is far older than him, and at least as old as Ancient Greeks. In Thucydides, describes how the Egestaeans created a tour of their home for Athenian diplomats, where they pretend to be much wealthier than they are, and tricked Alcibiades to believe they can fund the Sicilian Expedition.

  14. @Korenchkin

    cultural oriental influences
     
    Ah yes, those famous Oriental writers such as Tolstoy and Pushkin, they go right alongside Shimazaki and Confucius
    St. Petersburgs and Moscows architecture has such a strong Asiatic influence, it's a spitting image of Khanbaliq Beijing
    Russian Churches are just like Ulaanbaatar monasteries
    And let's not forget the national drink of the Russian, horse milk

    While not exactly a Mongolian thing, those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins. The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European. The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians. Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests. The Mongolian influence is part of Russia, the fact that this topic hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    he oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European.
     
    Putting aside for a second what is an "oriental style despot"(Hongwu Emperor? Qin legalism? Yongle Emperor?), I'm not sure which Tsars exactly fit that despotic pattern - which required an entire structure of bureaucracy and centralization that the Russian empire was not exactly famed for.
    , @Hyperborean

    The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European.
     
    Why should Russian autocracy be considered different from the development of Central and Western European Absolutism?
    , @jony
    The Mongols certainly didn't leave their lactose intolerance in the Russian population.

    Southern and Western Europe got their lactose intolerance from Africa. Central Europe must have gotten it from Huns and Magyars.
    , @Korenchkin

    those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins
     
    You mean the Cathedrals which were designed by Italian Architects?

    The oriental style despots that Russia had
     
    What is oriental about them? Are you seriously pretending that Europe had no absolutist monarchs?

    The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians.
     
    Cossacks were frontiersmen who eventually became an arm of the Russian state
    What is Mongolian about Cossacks other then the fact that they ride a horse? Were American rough riders wigger Mongolians aswell?

    Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests
     
    Source? The vast majority of ethnic Russians with the slanted eye look have Finno-Ugric ancestry, not Mongolian

    hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true
     
    "People disagree with me, therefore I'm right"
    Is this the superior Western wisdom that Slavs lack?
    , @Agathoklis
    The onion domes are not Asiatic in origin but are a native creation influenced by Byzantium which was a legal continuation of Rome. There is nothing more European than that.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Whatever the merit of the rest of your comment, “wigger” is short for “white nigger”, meaning a person who is all or predominantly white European genetically but nonetheless degrades himself trying to act, sound, and look like an African-“American.”

    It seems to make no sense to export the term outside that context to slur russians as “wigger” anythings.
    , @melanf

    those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins
     
    Of course, taking into account that there are many such domes in old churches in Germany

    https://img0.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/c/4/78/279/78279246_4515201_d50692932f.jpg

    https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1537/26343865110_e93de69947.jpg

    https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B0-%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%B3%D1%81%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0-32383970.jpg
  15. @Korenchkin

    cultural oriental influences
     
    Ah yes, those famous Oriental writers such as Tolstoy and Pushkin, they go right alongside Shimazaki and Confucius
    St. Petersburgs and Moscows architecture has such a strong Asiatic influence, it's a spitting image of Khanbaliq Beijing
    Russian Churches are just like Ulaanbaatar monasteries
    And let's not forget the national drink of the Russian, horse milk

    Ah yes, those famous Oriental writers such as Tolstoy and Pushkin, they go right alongside Shimazaki and Confucius

    Well, the Russian writer Bulgakov is a descendant of the Tatar tax collector Bulgak and the 19th century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadayev comes for a family that descends from Chagatai, second son of Genghis Khan. The historian Vernadsky concluded that in a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.

    To be sure, Mongol influence on Russian culture is greatly exaggerated by Russophobes but it is not nothing, either. From wiki: “Historians also credit the Mongol regime with an important role in the development of Muscovy as a state. Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as “yam”, hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization”

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as “yam”, hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization”
     
    I wouldn't note that the innovations in the areas mentioned are an exaggeration of Mongol influence in Russia. The road system (including the development of mail) in itself was an incredible addition to any state structure. The fiscal system, including the collection of taxes, another huge step forward. Halpern, certainly not a Russophobe, reveals in much depth how these innovations helped propel Russia forward as an Eurasian Empire.
    , @Korenchkin

    but it is not nothing
     
    Not nearly enough to call them "Mongolen sturm"
    Especially when it was European Slavs from the RSFSR, UkSSR and BelSSR who were being sent en masse to the frontlines while the Central Asians were used in C tier rear guard divisions due to being useless on the battlefield
    , @RadicalCenter
    I learned from this slender volume:
    “Russia and the Golden Horde: The Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History.”

    Written by Charles J. Halperin, published in 1985 by Indiana University Press.
    , @melanf

    Well, the Russian writer Bulgakov is a descendant of the Tatar tax collector Bulgak and the 19th century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadayev comes for a family that descends from Chagatai
     
    The Bulgakov princes are descended from Gediminas (the ancestor of Lithuanian princes and, respectively, Polish kings).
    https://genealogia.fandom.com/ru/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8
    I really don't think that the writer Bulgakov is a descendant of these princes, but the origin of "Tatar tax collector Bulgak" is completely fantastic.
    The legend about the origin of Chaadaev from Chgatai was born on the basis of the similarity of the surname. But this is a legend that was confirmed recently by genetic research (Chaadaev could not be a descendant of Genghis Khan)

    It is strange that you did not mention the Nobel prize-winning Tatar writer Henrikh Senkevich (who really had Tatar origin)

    From wiki: “Historians also credit the Mongol regime with an important role in the development of Muscovy as a state. Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as “yam”, hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization”
     
    The problem is that wiki which is a pile of garbage, writes nonsense. “Historians also credit.." is just lying. Historians are in this case the visionary Vernadsky, but his views among historians are marginal, to put it mildly.
  16. @neutral
    The racial Eurasian populations in the USSR, Russia being ruled by Mongols for 300 years and the cultural oriental influences. When Goebbels said they were fighting the "Mongolen sturm", there was much truth in that propaganda.

    When Goebbels said they were fighting the “Mongolen sturm”, there was much truth in that propaganda.

    Exactly. Russians will be called Mongols regardless what they are and what they do.

    Why not reclaim this great heritage? As I said before, drop fake and gay Russian Empire and restore Mongol Empire in its former glory.
    Make the greatest empire that ever existed great again!
    Make whole galaxy into one big Mongolian family!
    Bring stuffed dumplings to the very heavens!

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    Why not reclaim this great heritage? As I said before, drop fake and gay Russian Empire and restore Mongol Empire in its former glory.
    Make the greatest empire that ever existed great again!
    Make whole galaxy into one big Mongolian family!
    Bring stuffed dumplings to the very heavens!

     

    Setting aside the democide and destruction they caused, Mongol imperialism nearly led to the extinction (in any practical sense) of the Mongolian ethnos and its absorption by its conquered nationalities. The primary reason Mongolia exists as a state today is due to Freiherr von Ungern-Sternberg's role in the Russian civil war.

    But Mongolians are far from the only ones to have committed that mistake.
  17. @another anon

    When Goebbels said they were fighting the “Mongolen sturm”, there was much truth in that propaganda.

     

    Exactly. Russians will be called Mongols regardless what they are and what they do.

    https://twitter.com/WASBAPPIN/status/1230365684690866176

    Why not reclaim this great heritage? As I said before, drop fake and gay Russian Empire and restore Mongol Empire in its former glory.
    Make the greatest empire that ever existed great again!
    Make whole galaxy into one big Mongolian family!
    Bring stuffed dumplings to the very heavens!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vhbRBz_YDo

    Why not reclaim this great heritage? As I said before, drop fake and gay Russian Empire and restore Mongol Empire in its former glory.
    Make the greatest empire that ever existed great again!
    Make whole galaxy into one big Mongolian family!
    Bring stuffed dumplings to the very heavens!

    Setting aside the democide and destruction they caused, Mongol imperialism nearly led to the extinction (in any practical sense) of the Mongolian ethnos and its absorption by its conquered nationalities. The primary reason Mongolia exists as a state today is due to Freiherr von Ungern-Sternberg’s role in the Russian civil war.

    But Mongolians are far from the only ones to have committed that mistake.

    • Replies: @another anon

    Setting aside the democide and destruction they caused, Mongol imperialism nearly led to the extinction (in any practical sense) of the Mongolian ethnos and its absorption by its conquered nationalities. The primary reason Mongolia exists as a state today is due to Freiherr von Ungern-Sternberg’s role in the Russian civil war.

    But Mongolians are far from the only ones to have committed that mistake.
     
    Mr. Karlin has a plan ready to solve this problem.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/paper-review-artificial-wombs/

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1128787298437533703

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxwnxEPtkoA
    , @songbird
    I tend to think that the modern nation of Mongolia best represents the old power differential between China and the USSR. Or, in other words, that Mao would have annexed it, except for the fact that China had a junior relationship with the USSR.
  18. In light of prior discussion about necessary grassland for feeding mounts, how did Mongols conquer so much territory without grassland?

    • Replies: @songbird
    I assume it involved haying and transporting the hay.

    Of course, they might have just let their horses graze on the crops.
  19. @Hyperborean

    Why not reclaim this great heritage? As I said before, drop fake and gay Russian Empire and restore Mongol Empire in its former glory.
    Make the greatest empire that ever existed great again!
    Make whole galaxy into one big Mongolian family!
    Bring stuffed dumplings to the very heavens!

     

    Setting aside the democide and destruction they caused, Mongol imperialism nearly led to the extinction (in any practical sense) of the Mongolian ethnos and its absorption by its conquered nationalities. The primary reason Mongolia exists as a state today is due to Freiherr von Ungern-Sternberg's role in the Russian civil war.

    But Mongolians are far from the only ones to have committed that mistake.

    Setting aside the democide and destruction they caused, Mongol imperialism nearly led to the extinction (in any practical sense) of the Mongolian ethnos and its absorption by its conquered nationalities. The primary reason Mongolia exists as a state today is due to Freiherr von Ungern-Sternberg’s role in the Russian civil war.

    But Mongolians are far from the only ones to have committed that mistake.

    Mr. Karlin has a plan ready to solve this problem.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/paper-review-artificial-wombs/

  20. @Twinkie

    Note that 98% of Japanese and 92% of Chinese are lactose-intolerant.
     
    There are degrees of intolerance, at lower levels of which food with dairy can be and is readily consumed. East Asians have various deserts, including shaved ice, that are liberally flavored with dairy (condensed milk). And of course, the Mongols drink Kumis, fermented mare’s milk. One popular drink in South Korea is Milkis, carbonated and flavored milk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkis

    Much of the milk on the East Asian market contains enzymatic additives (such as Aliazyme) that convert lactose to alcohol and other byproducts, or has been subjected to a filtration process that removes carbohydrates. The kumis milk in Mongolia is naturally lactose-free due to the fermentation process.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Much of the milk on the East Asian market contains enzymatic additives (such as Aliazyme) that convert lactose to alcohol and other byproducts, or has been subjected to a filtration process that removes carbohydrates.
     
    I’d like to see the source for this claim. Normal milk is widely available and consumed in East Asia. About the only thing different is the type of pasteurization. East Asians typically use higher heat processes.

    The kumis milk in Mongolia is naturally lactose-free due to the fermentation process.
     
    Kumis is mare’s milk fermented to alcohol. Although it is low in lactose, a common recipe adds lactose (usually in powder form) to increase sweetness.

    The most common form of lactose intolerance is gas and bloating, which is minor. As I wrote before there are degrees of intolerance, and the maps showing percentages of lactose intolerance treats it as an “on/off” phenomenon... which is why milk is widely available and is consumed - by itself, in coffee, ice cream, other treats with condensed milk, etc. - in East Asia.
  21. All of them like commieblock highrise developments as well and still build them to a large extent.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Such housing development is also (although in the more competently designed and wealthy version) a desire of "Swedish happiness".

    https://www.facebook.com/BBCArchive/videos/572279669961124/

  22. @neutral
    While not exactly a Mongolian thing, those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins. The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European. The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians. Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests. The Mongolian influence is part of Russia, the fact that this topic hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true.

    he oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European.

    Putting aside for a second what is an “oriental style despot”(Hongwu Emperor? Qin legalism? Yongle Emperor?), I’m not sure which Tsars exactly fit that despotic pattern – which required an entire structure of bureaucracy and centralization that the Russian empire was not exactly famed for.

  23. @AP

    Ah yes, those famous Oriental writers such as Tolstoy and Pushkin, they go right alongside Shimazaki and Confucius
     
    Well, the Russian writer Bulgakov is a descendant of the Tatar tax collector Bulgak and the 19th century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadayev comes for a family that descends from Chagatai, second son of Genghis Khan. The historian Vernadsky concluded that in a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.

    To be sure, Mongol influence on Russian culture is greatly exaggerated by Russophobes but it is not nothing, either. From wiki: "Historians also credit the Mongol regime with an important role in the development of Muscovy as a state. Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as "yam", hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization"

    Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as “yam”, hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization”

    I wouldn’t note that the innovations in the areas mentioned are an exaggeration of Mongol influence in Russia. The road system (including the development of mail) in itself was an incredible addition to any state structure. The fiscal system, including the collection of taxes, another huge step forward. Halpern, certainly not a Russophobe, reveals in much depth how these innovations helped propel Russia forward as an Eurasian Empire.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Also, within an Empire that had a notably large number of nobility comprised of non-Russian ethnicity, 15% was quite a high percentage. Even Riurikid members, as you are apt to point out, were originally Scandinavian in origin. See the Wikipedia entry for an idea of this multi-ethnic makeup of Russia's nobility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_princely_families
  24. @neutral
    While not exactly a Mongolian thing, those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins. The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European. The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians. Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests. The Mongolian influence is part of Russia, the fact that this topic hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true.

    The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European.

    Why should Russian autocracy be considered different from the development of Central and Western European Absolutism?

    • Replies: @neutral
    Theirs was a true absolutism, nothing in Western Europe came close to the total power wielded over the population.
  25. To play along with the game – I would note that both Stalin and Temüjin were “men of iron”.

    • Replies: @another anon

    To play along with the game
     
    Whole world is ready to get into the big game, the empire game.

    https://twitter.com/NeoLibBen/status/1228889865405771777

    You should play along, unless you want to be left behind.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/eomg71/manifest_destiny_intensifies/
  26. @Mr. Hack

    Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as “yam”, hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization”
     
    I wouldn't note that the innovations in the areas mentioned are an exaggeration of Mongol influence in Russia. The road system (including the development of mail) in itself was an incredible addition to any state structure. The fiscal system, including the collection of taxes, another huge step forward. Halpern, certainly not a Russophobe, reveals in much depth how these innovations helped propel Russia forward as an Eurasian Empire.

    Also, within an Empire that had a notably large number of nobility comprised of non-Russian ethnicity, 15% was quite a high percentage. Even Riurikid members, as you are apt to point out, were originally Scandinavian in origin. See the Wikipedia entry for an idea of this multi-ethnic makeup of Russia’s nobility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_princely_families

    • Replies: @stasik
    Rurikids DNA however begs to differ - no traces of Scandinavia whatsoever!
    That old "Northern/Viking origins" trope can finally be put to rest.
  27. @Hyperborean

    The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European.
     
    Why should Russian autocracy be considered different from the development of Central and Western European Absolutism?

    Theirs was a true absolutism, nothing in Western Europe came close to the total power wielded over the population.

    • Replies: @Dacian Julien Soros
    So all those stories about Henry VIII killing his wives, and converting his kingdom to an improvised religion are lies? Perhaps he was concerned with the Magna Carta, Mother of the Free, my house is my castle, outlive the menace of tyranny, fight on the beaches, and other such bull.

    Was he asking a jury before or after he had his subjects quartered?

  28. @Hyperborean
    To play along with the game - I would note that both Stalin and Temüjin were "men of iron".

    To play along with the game

    Whole world is ready to get into the big game, the empire game.

    You should play along, unless you want to be left behind.

    *Manifest Destiny Intensifies* from eu4

  29. @for-the-record
    Why are Mongolians so lactose intolerant?

    Because they are like the large majority of people in the world:

    https://i0.wp.com/www.armenpogharian.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/map-of-Global-Lactose-Intolerance.png?w=754

    As I understand it, there have been 3 separate "mutations" that produced tolerance: (1) Scandinavia (Sweden), spreading through most of Europe; (2) Niger in the heart of Africa; and (3) northern India. Note that 98% of Japanese and 92% of Chinese are lactose-intolerant.

    I find it hard to wrap my head around.

    I think one would expect Japanese and Chinese to be lactose intolerant, since it seems as though they were very Malthusian, and didn’t have a lot of pasture available, or probably even as many draft animals as Europe. I’ll bet that the 92% figure for the Chinese would be higher, if it were only the Han.

    But Mongolians had the pasture and four or five different kinds of animals that could supply milk. What’s more, they were able to invade Europe, so one would think that there was enough earlier geneflow that they would have had access to the same mutation. One only needs to be heterozygous, and according to analysis of ancient teeth, they practiced dairying for thousands of years.

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood

    But Mongolians had the pasture and four or five different kinds of animals that could supply milk. What’s more, they were able to invade Europe, so one would think that there was enough earlier geneflow that they would have had access to the same mutation. One only needs to be heterozygous, and according to analysis of ancient teeth, they practiced dairying for thousands of years
     
    Mongols today aren't the same people who "invaded Europe". Those people (of the Borjigin clan) only surivive today in areas occupied by the Golden Horde, outside Mongolia. Within Mongolia they have disappeared.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622

    The modern-day descendants of Tavan Tolgoi bodies have disappeared from the Mongolian plateau

    We found that 27.8% (15/54) modern-day Mongolians carry the mtDNA haplogroup D4 at about (S9 and S10 Tables). Keyser-Tracqui and colleagues [58] and Kim and colleagues [18] also reported that D4 was found in about 36.96% among Northern Mongolian populations in the Xiongnu age, and in 2 of 3 Xiongnu bodies in the North Eastern Mongolia. This implies that the mtDNA haplogroup D4 is one of the most prevalent haplogroups across the Mongolian plateau from at least the Xiongnu era to the present. In comparison, our unpublished data demonstrated that the Y-haplogroups R1b-M343 and R1a1a-M17 are distributed at 0.0% (0/101) and 0.99% (1/101) in modern-day Mongolians across the Mongolian plateau, respectively (S10 Fig) [31, 32]. Zhong and Colleagues [50] also reported that the modern-day Mongolians who inhabit in the Inner and Outer Mongolia carry the R1b-M343 haplogroup at 8.3% (1/12) (only in Heilongjiang; the province located in the North Eastern part of China) and 0.0%, respectively. Meanwhile, Zhong and colleagues [50] and Katoh and colleagues [59] demonstrated that the R1a1a-M17 was found at 9.1% (2/22), 3.5% (3/85), 6.7% (4/60) and 13.3% (8/60) in modern-day Inner Mongolians, Khalkh, Uriankhai, and Zakhchin Mongolian tribes, respectively. Thus, R1b-M343 is scarcely found in the Mongolian plateau, whereas R1a1a-M17 is widely distributed, although at a relatively low frequency, having a maximum of 13.3% in the Zakhchin tribe [59]. These results demonstrate that modern-day individuals carrying R1b-M343 are hard to find on the Mongolian Plateau, meaning that descendants of R1b-M343-carrying members of the Golden family disappeared from the Mongolian Plateau for unknown reasons.

    Modern-day individuals with the same Y-STR profiles as members of the Golden family have been carefully screened in many studies and in YHRD from modern-day individuals, totaling approximately 154,329 individuals (searched on August 25, 2015). Modern-day individuals matching the Golden family members in Y-STR profiles from Yfiler and PowerPlex Y of YHRD and the literature are mainly distributed in Kalmykia, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China (Fig 3 and S6 Table).

    Coincidentally, the geographical distribution of modern-day individuals matching the Y-haplogroup and haplotype of the Tavan Tolgoi bodies in the regions corresponding to the past Mongol khanates, including the Golden Horde Dynasty and Chagatai Khanate, implies that the modern-day individuals are direct descendants of the Golden family members. The ancestors of Kalmykia are the Oirats, the westernmost tribe of the Mongols. The Oirats also had strong ties with Chagatai Khanate and the Golden Horde, through marriage alliances between Mongol khans and Oirat khatuns, just like the Hongirads [2, 60]. These distributions imply the movement of descendants of the Golden family from Eastern Mongolia to West Eurasia, including Kalmykia, and a possible genealogical connection between Golden family members and the Oirats. By the 9th century, the Shato Turks of the Western Göktürks Khaganate, as ancestors of the Ongud, moved to modern-day Inner Mongolia and eventually were dominated by the Mongol Oirats, later known as Kalmyks, suggesting an anthropological connection of the Ongud with Kalmyks [33, 45, 46, 61, 62]. Taken together, Golden family members from Tavan Tolgoi may have been direct ancestors of R1b-M343-carrying modern-day individuals who live in the territories of the past Mongol khanates.

    Why both R1b-M343 carriers and modern-day individuals with the same Y-STR profile as that of the Golden family members are rarely found in the Mongolian plateau could be explained by the following 2 hypotheses, which are not mutually exclusive. One is large-scale redeployment of descendants of our Golden family members from the Mongolian Plateau to Eastern Europe (Kalmykia and Russia) or Central Asia (Uzbekistan and Tajikistan). Many of the Onguds returned to the ancestral homeland near Central Asia from Eastern Mongolia; this turn of events resulted in a significant decrease in the number of their descendants, including R1b-M343 carriers, in Eastern Mongolia. The other possibility is internecine massacre among direct male descendants of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan and their wives (i.e., among the Golden family). As soon as Genghis Khan died, kingdoms of bekis, including the Ongud, were attacked and eventually toppled by the daughters-in-law and grandsons of Genghis Khan [2, 3]. Most bekis lost power and were killed in a horrendous manner by opponent factions including the Great Khans, such as Ogodei and Mongke [2]. Under such political conditions, most Golden family members, including the lineages of the former rulers of the Ongud or the Hongirad, who were opposed to the faction in power, were likely exterminated [2, 3]. Meanwhile, Golden family members who lived in the Golden Horde, Ilkhanate and Chagatai Khanate where are far apart from the central area of the Mongol Empire were relatively safe from such horrendous massacre.

    Thus, the large-scale movement and slaughter that occurred in the Mongolian plateau could explain at least in part why direct descendants of the Golden family are hard to find in modern-day Mongolia. However, further studies are needed to firmly conclude when and why R1b-M343 carriers, which are distributed mostly in Europe and Central Asia, appeared and then subsequently disappeared from the Mongolian Plateau region
     
    The Mongols who comprised the Golden Family ruling clan and the principal element of the military of the Mongol Empire probably were mixed with Europeans long before there was a Mongol Empire, as a European presence stretched in to Eastern Mongolia and had been there since the Bronze Age.

    Evidence suggests that many Mongoloid and Caucasoid nomadic tribes inhabited the present-day Mongolian plateau over thousands of years [40].
     
  30. @china-russia-all-the-way
    In light of prior discussion about necessary grassland for feeding mounts, how did Mongols conquer so much territory without grassland?

    I assume it involved haying and transporting the hay.

    Of course, they might have just let their horses graze on the crops.

  31. @neutral
    The racial Eurasian populations in the USSR, Russia being ruled by Mongols for 300 years and the cultural oriental influences. When Goebbels said they were fighting the "Mongolen sturm", there was much truth in that propaganda.

    Genetically there is not even a trace of Mongols in the Great Russian gene pool.

    • Agree: Philip Owen
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    According to a DNA test company - For example, in the Ural district, the largest genetic component is Baltic DNA, and then the second genetic component is Eastern European. And then it is Finnish, as the third genetic component and Balkan (including Greek) genetics are quite common. Smaller genetic components are Central Asian, Caucasian nationalities, Jewish and Western European (probably most common Western European input is Swedish or German, although I can't remember what they wrote).
    , @AP
    No, there is a trace. Something like half a percentage.
  32. @neutral
    While not exactly a Mongolian thing, those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins. The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European. The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians. Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests. The Mongolian influence is part of Russia, the fact that this topic hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true.

    The Mongols certainly didn’t leave their lactose intolerance in the Russian population.

    Southern and Western Europe got their lactose intolerance from Africa. Central Europe must have gotten it from Huns and Magyars.

  33. @Hyperborean

    Why not reclaim this great heritage? As I said before, drop fake and gay Russian Empire and restore Mongol Empire in its former glory.
    Make the greatest empire that ever existed great again!
    Make whole galaxy into one big Mongolian family!
    Bring stuffed dumplings to the very heavens!

     

    Setting aside the democide and destruction they caused, Mongol imperialism nearly led to the extinction (in any practical sense) of the Mongolian ethnos and its absorption by its conquered nationalities. The primary reason Mongolia exists as a state today is due to Freiherr von Ungern-Sternberg's role in the Russian civil war.

    But Mongolians are far from the only ones to have committed that mistake.

    I tend to think that the modern nation of Mongolia best represents the old power differential between China and the USSR. Or, in other words, that Mao would have annexed it, except for the fact that China had a junior relationship with the USSR.

  34. @neutral
    While not exactly a Mongolian thing, those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins. The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European. The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians. Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests. The Mongolian influence is part of Russia, the fact that this topic hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true.

    those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins

    You mean the Cathedrals which were designed by Italian Architects?

    The oriental style despots that Russia had

    What is oriental about them? Are you seriously pretending that Europe had no absolutist monarchs?

    The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians.

    Cossacks were frontiersmen who eventually became an arm of the Russian state
    What is Mongolian about Cossacks other then the fact that they ride a horse? Were American rough riders wigger Mongolians aswell?

    Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests

    Source? The vast majority of ethnic Russians with the slanted eye look have Finno-Ugric ancestry, not Mongolian

    hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true

    “People disagree with me, therefore I’m right”
    Is this the superior Western wisdom that Slavs lack?

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    Neutral and his ilk are foreign trolls spreading a bunch of disinfo, hard to tell why they're so afraid of Russians. There is no genetic evidence for a "Mongol" DNA mix in Russians or eastern Slavs, and that's not really saying much since the Mongol Borjigin clan who founded the Mongol empire was not particularly Mongoloid. Genetic evidence revived the older prevailing idea that they were at least primarily Caucasoid, likely descended Mongolia's old Scythian tribes:

    http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/765155.html


    Contemporary European depictions of the Mongols in eastern Europe never portrayed them as Mongoloid:

    Hulegu Khan killing another Mongol named Berke:


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Bataille_du_Terek_%281262%29.jpeg

  35. @AP

    Ah yes, those famous Oriental writers such as Tolstoy and Pushkin, they go right alongside Shimazaki and Confucius
     
    Well, the Russian writer Bulgakov is a descendant of the Tatar tax collector Bulgak and the 19th century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadayev comes for a family that descends from Chagatai, second son of Genghis Khan. The historian Vernadsky concluded that in a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.

    To be sure, Mongol influence on Russian culture is greatly exaggerated by Russophobes but it is not nothing, either. From wiki: "Historians also credit the Mongol regime with an important role in the development of Muscovy as a state. Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as "yam", hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization"

    but it is not nothing

    Not nearly enough to call them “Mongolen sturm”
    Especially when it was European Slavs from the RSFSR, UkSSR and BelSSR who were being sent en masse to the frontlines while the Central Asians were used in C tier rear guard divisions due to being useless on the battlefield

  36. @Korenchkin

    cultural oriental influences
     
    Ah yes, those famous Oriental writers such as Tolstoy and Pushkin, they go right alongside Shimazaki and Confucius
    St. Petersburgs and Moscows architecture has such a strong Asiatic influence, it's a spitting image of Khanbaliq Beijing
    Russian Churches are just like Ulaanbaatar monasteries
    And let's not forget the national drink of the Russian, horse milk

    Yes Russian culture is almost all European culture (including imported communist ideology in the 20th century, which was constructed on hijacked conceptual scaffolding of Hegel).

    Arguments with European countries, have the intensity and absurdity of family arguments. And fortunately seem nowadays quite “fake hostility” as well, when officials buy their houses and properties in Europe.

    As for the mysterious “Asian influence” which there is supposedly. I remember reading from a user in the Sailer forum (Jack?) who wrote that Russia has a “saving face” culture, which he claims is something oriental – i.e. he claims that things a habit of building Potemkin villages to impress outsiders, is East Asian.

    The latter habit exists today to some extent. For example, in terms of prioritization, somehow there are billions of dollars to bury power cables underground in central Moscow, so it looks more like a disneyland, to impress visitors. At the same time, 30 years after beginning to build the first metro station in Chelyabinsk, there are still not funds to complete the first metro station in Chelyabinsk.

    However, the idea that this indicates Russians as representatives of East Asian culture, as opposed to European/Western culture – is nonsense, as aside from the example and the name, the Potemkin village culture (although universal in civilized peoples) is probably most common in Western/European culture.

    There are even regulations in some American cities, so that people in bourgeois areas will cut their lawn regularly, and therefore present a better impression to visitors.

    Also why did Italian cities become so beautiful? Italian city-states were acting like Potemkin villages between each other for centuries.

    Stories about Potemkin are mythical, of course, while this kind of game is far older than him, and at least as old as Ancient Greeks. In Thucydides, describes how the Egestaeans created a tour of their home for Athenian diplomats, where they pretend to be much wealthier than they are, and tricked Alcibiades to believe they can fund the Sicilian Expedition.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    As for the mysterious “Asian influence” which there is supposedly
     
    Clue: have you considered superimposing the various maps that Karlin has so conveniently layed out in front of you? Even the ubiquitous "Russian" pelmeni seem to be a leftover from an Asian past. When I'm in a crunch and can't locate Tiotia Valya's frozen pelmenis, I can conveniently substitute in a bag of Chinese potstickers! :-)
    , @AP

    As for the mysterious “Asian influence” which there is supposedly
     
    Not mysterious, only small. But it had once been very substantial, probably at least until Peter, particularly with respect to governance. Which is as one would expect, given the high rates of intermarriage between Muscovite and Tatar/Mongol elites and that Moscow emerged as the principal power precisely because it was closest to the Mongols and the best pupils (those who resisted, were crushed, to Moscow's benefit - collaboration paid). Pre-Petrine Russian despotism has as much in common with European absolutism as Viking democracy has with Athenian. Not much. Day to day interactions were uncommon (Muscovite princes collected taxes on their own, there weren't Mongols running around Russian lands) so there would be minimal influence beyond the sphere of government.

    Russian word for money "dengy" is Asian, Ukrainian word for money "hroshi" comes from the name of 17th century Polish currency.
    , @anonymous coward

    For example, in terms of prioritization, somehow there are billions of dollars to bury power cables underground in central Moscow, so it looks more like a disneyland, to impress visitors. At the same time, 30 years after beginning to build the first metro station in Chelyabinsk, there are still not funds to complete the first metro station in Chelyabinsk.
     
    Burying cables in central Moscow has an immediate and powerful ROI from tourism, while the Chelyabinsk metro is a white elephant of dubious value. (They'd probably be better served by a decent good old fashioned tramway line.)
  37. @Korenchkin

    those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins
     
    You mean the Cathedrals which were designed by Italian Architects?

    The oriental style despots that Russia had
     
    What is oriental about them? Are you seriously pretending that Europe had no absolutist monarchs?

    The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians.
     
    Cossacks were frontiersmen who eventually became an arm of the Russian state
    What is Mongolian about Cossacks other then the fact that they ride a horse? Were American rough riders wigger Mongolians aswell?

    Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests
     
    Source? The vast majority of ethnic Russians with the slanted eye look have Finno-Ugric ancestry, not Mongolian

    hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true
     
    "People disagree with me, therefore I'm right"
    Is this the superior Western wisdom that Slavs lack?

    Neutral and his ilk are foreign trolls spreading a bunch of disinfo, hard to tell why they’re so afraid of Russians. There is no genetic evidence for a “Mongol” DNA mix in Russians or eastern Slavs, and that’s not really saying much since the Mongol Borjigin clan who founded the Mongol empire was not particularly Mongoloid. Genetic evidence revived the older prevailing idea that they were at least primarily Caucasoid, likely descended Mongolia’s old Scythian tribes:

    http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/765155.html

    Contemporary European depictions of the Mongols in eastern Europe never portrayed them as Mongoloid:

    Hulegu Khan killing another Mongol named Berke:

  38. @siberiancat
    Genetically there is not even a trace of Mongols in the Great Russian gene pool.

    According to a DNA test company – For example, in the Ural district, the largest genetic component is Baltic DNA, and then the second genetic component is Eastern European. And then it is Finnish, as the third genetic component and Balkan (including Greek) genetics are quite common. Smaller genetic components are Central Asian, Caucasian nationalities, Jewish and Western European (probably most common Western European input is Swedish or German, although I can’t remember what they wrote).

  39. @Cicerone
    All of them like commieblock highrise developments as well and still build them to a large extent.

    Such housing development is also (although in the more competently designed and wealthy version) a desire of “Swedish happiness”.

    1963: Tonight Special: Alan Whicker Goes to Sweden

    #OnThisDay 1963: Alan Whicker reported from Sweden's "City of the Future".

    Posted by BBC Archive on Thursday, May 16, 2019

  40. @songbird
    I find it hard to wrap my head around.

    I think one would expect Japanese and Chinese to be lactose intolerant, since it seems as though they were very Malthusian, and didn't have a lot of pasture available, or probably even as many draft animals as Europe. I'll bet that the 92% figure for the Chinese would be higher, if it were only the Han.

    But Mongolians had the pasture and four or five different kinds of animals that could supply milk. What's more, they were able to invade Europe, so one would think that there was enough earlier geneflow that they would have had access to the same mutation. One only needs to be heterozygous, and according to analysis of ancient teeth, they practiced dairying for thousands of years.

    But Mongolians had the pasture and four or five different kinds of animals that could supply milk. What’s more, they were able to invade Europe, so one would think that there was enough earlier geneflow that they would have had access to the same mutation. One only needs to be heterozygous, and according to analysis of ancient teeth, they practiced dairying for thousands of years

    Mongols today aren’t the same people who “invaded Europe”. Those people (of the Borjigin clan) only surivive today in areas occupied by the Golden Horde, outside Mongolia. Within Mongolia they have disappeared.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622

    The modern-day descendants of Tavan Tolgoi bodies have disappeared from the Mongolian plateau

    We found that 27.8% (15/54) modern-day Mongolians carry the mtDNA haplogroup D4 at about (S9 and S10 Tables). Keyser-Tracqui and colleagues [58] and Kim and colleagues [18] also reported that D4 was found in about 36.96% among Northern Mongolian populations in the Xiongnu age, and in 2 of 3 Xiongnu bodies in the North Eastern Mongolia. This implies that the mtDNA haplogroup D4 is one of the most prevalent haplogroups across the Mongolian plateau from at least the Xiongnu era to the present. In comparison, our unpublished data demonstrated that the Y-haplogroups R1b-M343 and R1a1a-M17 are distributed at 0.0% (0/101) and 0.99% (1/101) in modern-day Mongolians across the Mongolian plateau, respectively (S10 Fig) [31, 32]. Zhong and Colleagues [50] also reported that the modern-day Mongolians who inhabit in the Inner and Outer Mongolia carry the R1b-M343 haplogroup at 8.3% (1/12) (only in Heilongjiang; the province located in the North Eastern part of China) and 0.0%, respectively. Meanwhile, Zhong and colleagues [50] and Katoh and colleagues [59] demonstrated that the R1a1a-M17 was found at 9.1% (2/22), 3.5% (3/85), 6.7% (4/60) and 13.3% (8/60) in modern-day Inner Mongolians, Khalkh, Uriankhai, and Zakhchin Mongolian tribes, respectively. Thus, R1b-M343 is scarcely found in the Mongolian plateau, whereas R1a1a-M17 is widely distributed, although at a relatively low frequency, having a maximum of 13.3% in the Zakhchin tribe [59]. These results demonstrate that modern-day individuals carrying R1b-M343 are hard to find on the Mongolian Plateau, meaning that descendants of R1b-M343-carrying members of the Golden family disappeared from the Mongolian Plateau for unknown reasons.

    Modern-day individuals with the same Y-STR profiles as members of the Golden family have been carefully screened in many studies and in YHRD from modern-day individuals, totaling approximately 154,329 individuals (searched on August 25, 2015). Modern-day individuals matching the Golden family members in Y-STR profiles from Yfiler and PowerPlex Y of YHRD and the literature are mainly distributed in Kalmykia, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China (Fig 3 and S6 Table).

    Coincidentally, the geographical distribution of modern-day individuals matching the Y-haplogroup and haplotype of the Tavan Tolgoi bodies in the regions corresponding to the past Mongol khanates, including the Golden Horde Dynasty and Chagatai Khanate, implies that the modern-day individuals are direct descendants of the Golden family members. The ancestors of Kalmykia are the Oirats, the westernmost tribe of the Mongols. The Oirats also had strong ties with Chagatai Khanate and the Golden Horde, through marriage alliances between Mongol khans and Oirat khatuns, just like the Hongirads [2, 60]. These distributions imply the movement of descendants of the Golden family from Eastern Mongolia to West Eurasia, including Kalmykia, and a possible genealogical connection between Golden family members and the Oirats. By the 9th century, the Shato Turks of the Western Göktürks Khaganate, as ancestors of the Ongud, moved to modern-day Inner Mongolia and eventually were dominated by the Mongol Oirats, later known as Kalmyks, suggesting an anthropological connection of the Ongud with Kalmyks [33, 45, 46, 61, 62]. Taken together, Golden family members from Tavan Tolgoi may have been direct ancestors of R1b-M343-carrying modern-day individuals who live in the territories of the past Mongol khanates.

    Why both R1b-M343 carriers and modern-day individuals with the same Y-STR profile as that of the Golden family members are rarely found in the Mongolian plateau could be explained by the following 2 hypotheses, which are not mutually exclusive. One is large-scale redeployment of descendants of our Golden family members from the Mongolian Plateau to Eastern Europe (Kalmykia and Russia) or Central Asia (Uzbekistan and Tajikistan). Many of the Onguds returned to the ancestral homeland near Central Asia from Eastern Mongolia; this turn of events resulted in a significant decrease in the number of their descendants, including R1b-M343 carriers, in Eastern Mongolia. The other possibility is internecine massacre among direct male descendants of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan and their wives (i.e., among the Golden family). As soon as Genghis Khan died, kingdoms of bekis, including the Ongud, were attacked and eventually toppled by the daughters-in-law and grandsons of Genghis Khan [2, 3]. Most bekis lost power and were killed in a horrendous manner by opponent factions including the Great Khans, such as Ogodei and Mongke [2]. Under such political conditions, most Golden family members, including the lineages of the former rulers of the Ongud or the Hongirad, who were opposed to the faction in power, were likely exterminated [2, 3]. Meanwhile, Golden family members who lived in the Golden Horde, Ilkhanate and Chagatai Khanate where are far apart from the central area of the Mongol Empire were relatively safe from such horrendous massacre.

    Thus, the large-scale movement and slaughter that occurred in the Mongolian plateau could explain at least in part why direct descendants of the Golden family are hard to find in modern-day Mongolia. However, further studies are needed to firmly conclude when and why R1b-M343 carriers, which are distributed mostly in Europe and Central Asia, appeared and then subsequently disappeared from the Mongolian Plateau region

    The Mongols who comprised the Golden Family ruling clan and the principal element of the military of the Mongol Empire probably were mixed with Europeans long before there was a Mongol Empire, as a European presence stretched in to Eastern Mongolia and had been there since the Bronze Age.

    Evidence suggests that many Mongoloid and Caucasoid nomadic tribes inhabited the present-day Mongolian plateau over thousands of years [40].

    • Replies: @songbird
    There should still be some level of genetic continuity, in theory, even if they don't have the same mitochondrial or Y-haplotypes.
    , @Twinkie

    The Mongols who comprised the Golden Family ruling clan and the principal element of the military of the Mongol Empire probably were mixed with Europeans long before there was a Mongol Empire, as a European presence stretched in to Eastern Mongolia and had been there since the Bronze Age.
     
    This is nonsense. While Turko-Mongolic peoples mediated bidirectional gene flow between western Eurasia and eastern Eurasia (resulting in minor East Asian ancestry among Eastern Europeans today and a small western Eurasian input among the Chinese), the bulk of Mongol ancestry was East Asian, not western Eurasian (and never European). What little western Eurasian genes they carry are steppe and/or Iranic in origin.
  41. @Dmitry
    Yes Russian culture is almost all European culture (including imported communist ideology in the 20th century, which was constructed on hijacked conceptual scaffolding of Hegel).

    Arguments with European countries, have the intensity and absurdity of family arguments. And fortunately seem nowadays quite "fake hostility" as well, when officials buy their houses and properties in Europe.

    As for the mysterious "Asian influence" which there is supposedly. I remember reading from a user in the Sailer forum (Jack?) who wrote that Russia has a "saving face" culture, which he claims is something oriental - i.e. he claims that things a habit of building Potemkin villages to impress outsiders, is East Asian.

    The latter habit exists today to some extent. For example, in terms of prioritization, somehow there are billions of dollars to bury power cables underground in central Moscow, so it looks more like a disneyland, to impress visitors. At the same time, 30 years after beginning to build the first metro station in Chelyabinsk, there are still not funds to complete the first metro station in Chelyabinsk.

    However, the idea that this indicates Russians as representatives of East Asian culture, as opposed to European/Western culture - is nonsense, as aside from the example and the name, the Potemkin village culture (although universal in civilized peoples) is probably most common in Western/European culture.

    There are even regulations in some American cities, so that people in bourgeois areas will cut their lawn regularly, and therefore present a better impression to visitors.

    Also why did Italian cities become so beautiful? Italian city-states were acting like Potemkin villages between each other for centuries.

    Stories about Potemkin are mythical, of course, while this kind of game is far older than him, and at least as old as Ancient Greeks. In Thucydides, describes how the Egestaeans created a tour of their home for Athenian diplomats, where they pretend to be much wealthier than they are, and tricked Alcibiades to believe they can fund the Sicilian Expedition.

    As for the mysterious “Asian influence” which there is supposedly

    Clue: have you considered superimposing the various maps that Karlin has so conveniently layed out in front of you? Even the ubiquitous “Russian” pelmeni seem to be a leftover from an Asian past. When I’m in a crunch and can’t locate Tiotia Valya’s frozen pelmenis, I can conveniently substitute in a bag of Chinese potstickers! 🙂

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    On a parody of a Braudel style of history book: Spaghetti is from Marco Polo visiting China, and Italians eat a lot of spaghetti... such an "Asian cultural basis" of Italy.
  42. @Mr. Hack

    As for the mysterious “Asian influence” which there is supposedly
     
    Clue: have you considered superimposing the various maps that Karlin has so conveniently layed out in front of you? Even the ubiquitous "Russian" pelmeni seem to be a leftover from an Asian past. When I'm in a crunch and can't locate Tiotia Valya's frozen pelmenis, I can conveniently substitute in a bag of Chinese potstickers! :-)

    On a parody of a Braudel style of history book: Spaghetti is from Marco Polo visiting China, and Italians eat a lot of spaghetti… such an “Asian cultural basis” of Italy.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    So why then did Karlin include this map for our viewing pleasure (4.2) showing the extent of the Khan's empire with a serious description of the sway of pelmeni from East to West, coterminously within the same area? :-)
    , @Lars Porsena
    How do ravioli and tortellini fit into this?
  43. @JohnPlywood

    But Mongolians had the pasture and four or five different kinds of animals that could supply milk. What’s more, they were able to invade Europe, so one would think that there was enough earlier geneflow that they would have had access to the same mutation. One only needs to be heterozygous, and according to analysis of ancient teeth, they practiced dairying for thousands of years
     
    Mongols today aren't the same people who "invaded Europe". Those people (of the Borjigin clan) only surivive today in areas occupied by the Golden Horde, outside Mongolia. Within Mongolia they have disappeared.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622

    The modern-day descendants of Tavan Tolgoi bodies have disappeared from the Mongolian plateau

    We found that 27.8% (15/54) modern-day Mongolians carry the mtDNA haplogroup D4 at about (S9 and S10 Tables). Keyser-Tracqui and colleagues [58] and Kim and colleagues [18] also reported that D4 was found in about 36.96% among Northern Mongolian populations in the Xiongnu age, and in 2 of 3 Xiongnu bodies in the North Eastern Mongolia. This implies that the mtDNA haplogroup D4 is one of the most prevalent haplogroups across the Mongolian plateau from at least the Xiongnu era to the present. In comparison, our unpublished data demonstrated that the Y-haplogroups R1b-M343 and R1a1a-M17 are distributed at 0.0% (0/101) and 0.99% (1/101) in modern-day Mongolians across the Mongolian plateau, respectively (S10 Fig) [31, 32]. Zhong and Colleagues [50] also reported that the modern-day Mongolians who inhabit in the Inner and Outer Mongolia carry the R1b-M343 haplogroup at 8.3% (1/12) (only in Heilongjiang; the province located in the North Eastern part of China) and 0.0%, respectively. Meanwhile, Zhong and colleagues [50] and Katoh and colleagues [59] demonstrated that the R1a1a-M17 was found at 9.1% (2/22), 3.5% (3/85), 6.7% (4/60) and 13.3% (8/60) in modern-day Inner Mongolians, Khalkh, Uriankhai, and Zakhchin Mongolian tribes, respectively. Thus, R1b-M343 is scarcely found in the Mongolian plateau, whereas R1a1a-M17 is widely distributed, although at a relatively low frequency, having a maximum of 13.3% in the Zakhchin tribe [59]. These results demonstrate that modern-day individuals carrying R1b-M343 are hard to find on the Mongolian Plateau, meaning that descendants of R1b-M343-carrying members of the Golden family disappeared from the Mongolian Plateau for unknown reasons.

    Modern-day individuals with the same Y-STR profiles as members of the Golden family have been carefully screened in many studies and in YHRD from modern-day individuals, totaling approximately 154,329 individuals (searched on August 25, 2015). Modern-day individuals matching the Golden family members in Y-STR profiles from Yfiler and PowerPlex Y of YHRD and the literature are mainly distributed in Kalmykia, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China (Fig 3 and S6 Table).

    Coincidentally, the geographical distribution of modern-day individuals matching the Y-haplogroup and haplotype of the Tavan Tolgoi bodies in the regions corresponding to the past Mongol khanates, including the Golden Horde Dynasty and Chagatai Khanate, implies that the modern-day individuals are direct descendants of the Golden family members. The ancestors of Kalmykia are the Oirats, the westernmost tribe of the Mongols. The Oirats also had strong ties with Chagatai Khanate and the Golden Horde, through marriage alliances between Mongol khans and Oirat khatuns, just like the Hongirads [2, 60]. These distributions imply the movement of descendants of the Golden family from Eastern Mongolia to West Eurasia, including Kalmykia, and a possible genealogical connection between Golden family members and the Oirats. By the 9th century, the Shato Turks of the Western Göktürks Khaganate, as ancestors of the Ongud, moved to modern-day Inner Mongolia and eventually were dominated by the Mongol Oirats, later known as Kalmyks, suggesting an anthropological connection of the Ongud with Kalmyks [33, 45, 46, 61, 62]. Taken together, Golden family members from Tavan Tolgoi may have been direct ancestors of R1b-M343-carrying modern-day individuals who live in the territories of the past Mongol khanates.

    Why both R1b-M343 carriers and modern-day individuals with the same Y-STR profile as that of the Golden family members are rarely found in the Mongolian plateau could be explained by the following 2 hypotheses, which are not mutually exclusive. One is large-scale redeployment of descendants of our Golden family members from the Mongolian Plateau to Eastern Europe (Kalmykia and Russia) or Central Asia (Uzbekistan and Tajikistan). Many of the Onguds returned to the ancestral homeland near Central Asia from Eastern Mongolia; this turn of events resulted in a significant decrease in the number of their descendants, including R1b-M343 carriers, in Eastern Mongolia. The other possibility is internecine massacre among direct male descendants of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan and their wives (i.e., among the Golden family). As soon as Genghis Khan died, kingdoms of bekis, including the Ongud, were attacked and eventually toppled by the daughters-in-law and grandsons of Genghis Khan [2, 3]. Most bekis lost power and were killed in a horrendous manner by opponent factions including the Great Khans, such as Ogodei and Mongke [2]. Under such political conditions, most Golden family members, including the lineages of the former rulers of the Ongud or the Hongirad, who were opposed to the faction in power, were likely exterminated [2, 3]. Meanwhile, Golden family members who lived in the Golden Horde, Ilkhanate and Chagatai Khanate where are far apart from the central area of the Mongol Empire were relatively safe from such horrendous massacre.

    Thus, the large-scale movement and slaughter that occurred in the Mongolian plateau could explain at least in part why direct descendants of the Golden family are hard to find in modern-day Mongolia. However, further studies are needed to firmly conclude when and why R1b-M343 carriers, which are distributed mostly in Europe and Central Asia, appeared and then subsequently disappeared from the Mongolian Plateau region
     
    The Mongols who comprised the Golden Family ruling clan and the principal element of the military of the Mongol Empire probably were mixed with Europeans long before there was a Mongol Empire, as a European presence stretched in to Eastern Mongolia and had been there since the Bronze Age.

    Evidence suggests that many Mongoloid and Caucasoid nomadic tribes inhabited the present-day Mongolian plateau over thousands of years [40].
     

    There should still be some level of genetic continuity, in theory, even if they don’t have the same mitochondrial or Y-haplotypes.

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    In the days of strict caste lines, no way. Remember, the Borjigin clan Genghis Khan descended from was an elite tribe. Nobody in Mongolia has the Borjigin Y-DNA marker but several Borjigin-related peoples (such as the Turkic Bashkir or the Hazara) do. Those people are way more West Eurasian than Mongols in Mongolia.
  44. @Dmitry
    On a parody of a Braudel style of history book: Spaghetti is from Marco Polo visiting China, and Italians eat a lot of spaghetti... such an "Asian cultural basis" of Italy.

    So why then did Karlin include this map for our viewing pleasure (4.2) showing the extent of the Khan’s empire with a serious description of the sway of pelmeni from East to West, coterminously within the same area? 🙂

  45. If I get Mr. Karlin right, communism spread just as far as there were peoples generationally inured to “shut up and eat your whatever”.
    – Communist jokes about the food are legion
    (Hungarian emissary in Cuba is fed fried chicken, lobster and schnitzel but unable to get goulash and reports on return: “Nice enough people but terribly backwards; the things they eat – like we did 50 years ago.”)
    – That the noodles spread along the silk road seems to make sense.
    But Mongols on a war footing operated on barz (airdried and crushed cow fitting into a saddle bag) and timed their campaigns to its production cycle (three years).
    As for lactose tolerance, there were no “Mongols” before Temujin (who himself was “of the grey-eyed Kiuts”).

  46. What explains the way that Brezhnev would kiss men on the lips? Genghis didn’t do it, did he?

    I know that there were a lot of jokes about him, but I don’t think he was gay, since I swear I have seen a picture of him admiring the derriere of a young woman. But it is not a Russian custom, is it? Or is it?

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    It's called "Socialist fraternal kiss"
    You didn't think Gay Space Communism was just a meme?
    https://external-preview.redd.it/Fvt1Sfb2YLDzL6HVNEpAdI78SutHm7JoFuwccdi22xs.jpg?auto=webp&s=4dfb8f1066eef6ee736e343ed1fe748292d63943
  47. The only difference I see between pelemeni and manti is size. Manti are bigger and are only served in cafes in covered markets (I can’t find them in produkti). Should I notice something else? Then there are Siberian Pelemeni which are as big as Manti but apparently not the same?

  48. @songbird
    What explains the way that Brezhnev would kiss men on the lips? Genghis didn't do it, did he?

    I know that there were a lot of jokes about him, but I don't think he was gay, since I swear I have seen a picture of him admiring the derriere of a young woman. But it is not a Russian custom, is it? Or is it?

    It’s called “Socialist fraternal kiss”
    You didn’t think Gay Space Communism was just a meme?

    • Replies: @songbird
    It's interesting because the Chinese did not do it, even though they were into a lot of crazy things.

    I've looked it up to try to find its origins: there's a rumor that it was based off some Easter ritual in the Orthodox church. Some believe that it dates to the early history of the Christianity and was once common practice. But if all of them were kissing each other one would think it would have caused the early Christians to die out of disease.
  49. @Dmitry
    On a parody of a Braudel style of history book: Spaghetti is from Marco Polo visiting China, and Italians eat a lot of spaghetti... such an "Asian cultural basis" of Italy.

    How do ravioli and tortellini fit into this?

  50. @neutral
    While not exactly a Mongolian thing, those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins. The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European. The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians. Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests. The Mongolian influence is part of Russia, the fact that this topic hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true.

    The onion domes are not Asiatic in origin but are a native creation influenced by Byzantium which was a legal continuation of Rome. There is nothing more European than that.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It's an exotic aesthetic, but this is an exoticism of distant times, rather than distant places: in this case of a pre-neoclassical aesthetics.

    But if you compare to earlier history - of Western gothic architecture - this was far more exotic to neoclassical aesthetics, than anything constructed in Russia (because it was in later centuries).

    How exotic and "alien spaceship" architecture (and wildly beautiful), they used to build in medieval France and England.

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b5/5e/7a/b55e7ac5c5d05efdf301e8658eb5c4a4.jpg

    https://about-france.com/photos5/cathedral.jpg

    https://cdn.thecoolist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Westminster-Abbey-gothic-architecture.jpg

    https://www.nomadepicureans.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/gothic-prague.jpg

  51. @siberiancat
    Genetically there is not even a trace of Mongols in the Great Russian gene pool.

    No, there is a trace. Something like half a percentage.

  52. @Dmitry
    Yes Russian culture is almost all European culture (including imported communist ideology in the 20th century, which was constructed on hijacked conceptual scaffolding of Hegel).

    Arguments with European countries, have the intensity and absurdity of family arguments. And fortunately seem nowadays quite "fake hostility" as well, when officials buy their houses and properties in Europe.

    As for the mysterious "Asian influence" which there is supposedly. I remember reading from a user in the Sailer forum (Jack?) who wrote that Russia has a "saving face" culture, which he claims is something oriental - i.e. he claims that things a habit of building Potemkin villages to impress outsiders, is East Asian.

    The latter habit exists today to some extent. For example, in terms of prioritization, somehow there are billions of dollars to bury power cables underground in central Moscow, so it looks more like a disneyland, to impress visitors. At the same time, 30 years after beginning to build the first metro station in Chelyabinsk, there are still not funds to complete the first metro station in Chelyabinsk.

    However, the idea that this indicates Russians as representatives of East Asian culture, as opposed to European/Western culture - is nonsense, as aside from the example and the name, the Potemkin village culture (although universal in civilized peoples) is probably most common in Western/European culture.

    There are even regulations in some American cities, so that people in bourgeois areas will cut their lawn regularly, and therefore present a better impression to visitors.

    Also why did Italian cities become so beautiful? Italian city-states were acting like Potemkin villages between each other for centuries.

    Stories about Potemkin are mythical, of course, while this kind of game is far older than him, and at least as old as Ancient Greeks. In Thucydides, describes how the Egestaeans created a tour of their home for Athenian diplomats, where they pretend to be much wealthier than they are, and tricked Alcibiades to believe they can fund the Sicilian Expedition.

    As for the mysterious “Asian influence” which there is supposedly

    Not mysterious, only small. But it had once been very substantial, probably at least until Peter, particularly with respect to governance. Which is as one would expect, given the high rates of intermarriage between Muscovite and Tatar/Mongol elites and that Moscow emerged as the principal power precisely because it was closest to the Mongols and the best pupils (those who resisted, were crushed, to Moscow’s benefit – collaboration paid). Pre-Petrine Russian despotism has as much in common with European absolutism as Viking democracy has with Athenian. Not much. Day to day interactions were uncommon (Muscovite princes collected taxes on their own, there weren’t Mongols running around Russian lands) so there would be minimal influence beyond the sphere of government.

    Russian word for money “dengy” is Asian, Ukrainian word for money “hroshi” comes from the name of 17th century Polish currency.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Wow some amazing discovery - Turkisms in the Russian language.

    England must also have some frightening Turkic influence, as they share many of these same words - yogurt, caravan, kiosk, sofa. And in English, they also share the most tasty words - halvah, kefiyeh, lokum, kebab, baklava, shashlyk.

    , @anonymous coward

    Ukrainian word for money “hroshi” comes from the name of 17th century Polish currency.
     
    "Гроши" is also a Russian word that means "small change, pennies, pittance".

    So you see where this is going - Russians considered "17th century Polish currency" worthless as money, preferring a more stable international currency.

    Seems Eastern Europe could never into GDP! Nothing is new under the sun...
  53. @Korenchkin
    It's called "Socialist fraternal kiss"
    You didn't think Gay Space Communism was just a meme?
    https://external-preview.redd.it/Fvt1Sfb2YLDzL6HVNEpAdI78SutHm7JoFuwccdi22xs.jpg?auto=webp&s=4dfb8f1066eef6ee736e343ed1fe748292d63943

    It’s interesting because the Chinese did not do it, even though they were into a lot of crazy things.

    I’ve looked it up to try to find its origins: there’s a rumor that it was based off some Easter ritual in the Orthodox church. Some believe that it dates to the early history of the Christianity and was once common practice. But if all of them were kissing each other one would think it would have caused the early Christians to die out of disease.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    They revive an old Russian custom for its political iconography. It has never any sexual connotation.

    You can read that foreign visitors, in e.g. 17th century texts, thought it was something unusual enough to note this custom. It was an ancient custom to kiss as a greeting after a long time apart, although it's ambiguous in such text if people ever kissed directly on lips or just on cheeks.

    При этом следует заметить, что не только в это время, но и всегда, и мужчины и женщины считают поцелуй знаком приветствия, когда собираются в путь или увидятся после долговременной разлуки.

    https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B_%D0%B8_%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BA%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_(%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82)/%D0%A3%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2_1913/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%82

     

    , @The Big Red Scary
    The standard icon that you would find on the analogion for the feast of the Apostles:

    https://cdn.blessedmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Saints_Peter_and_Paul_Hand-Painted_Byzantine_Icon_0-1.jpg

    Nowadays, the "kiss of peace" is given by bumping cheek bones, right-left-right (what my Protestant mother calls "Russian kissing"). That looks like what is happening in the above icon, and I'm skeptical that early Christian men were routinely kissing each other on the mouth, but the past is a foreign country.
    , @Korenchkin

    Easter ritual in the Orthodox church
     
    It's common in Orthodox countries to kiss dear ones on the cheeks, but not the mouth
  54. Through such remarks we can “prove” that Europe and China are really just part of a greater “continental” culture and mentality.

    Reading this passage brought to mind the imaginary depiction in history books of buildings from the time of Emperor Shomu, all of which featured corridors and whose sleeping chambers had beds. These reflected elements of a court lifestyle whose customs had been directly imported from China. There was an obvious connection between China and Europe, which shared the same practices. The use of corridors reminds me of the layout of buildings in Italy. Japan did not continue in that mold, though, later developing the shinden-zukuri style, and then creating well-known shoin-zukuri style in constructing aristocratic residences.

    […]

    There are some intriguing similarities between China and Europe in connection with buildings, gardens, and cities. Characteristic of the palaces of ancient China-and evident even in the styles of houses through the Qing era-were: (1) access through gates to the north and south but not to the east and west; (3) left-right symmetry; (3) the exclusion of nature, as typified by the location of the central garden in a narrow, confined space; (4) enclosed rooms divided by walls; and (5) small windows and houses built for defense, with cities themselves enclosed within walls. These forms are also prevalent on the Korean peninsula and indeed can be found in locations throughout the Eurasian continent all the way to Europe. As is widely known, the European ideals in houses and palaces reflect a taste for rational and balanced left-right symmetry, with nature excluded, and cities generally surrounded by walls.

    https://www.jfir.or.jp/e/special_study/seminar1/conver_2.htm#5.%20Divergence%20from%20Chinese%20Civilization%20and%20Japan’s%20History%20of%20self-transformation

    Also, democratic Tatars
    https://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/handle/2115/51098

  55. @AP

    As for the mysterious “Asian influence” which there is supposedly
     
    Not mysterious, only small. But it had once been very substantial, probably at least until Peter, particularly with respect to governance. Which is as one would expect, given the high rates of intermarriage between Muscovite and Tatar/Mongol elites and that Moscow emerged as the principal power precisely because it was closest to the Mongols and the best pupils (those who resisted, were crushed, to Moscow's benefit - collaboration paid). Pre-Petrine Russian despotism has as much in common with European absolutism as Viking democracy has with Athenian. Not much. Day to day interactions were uncommon (Muscovite princes collected taxes on their own, there weren't Mongols running around Russian lands) so there would be minimal influence beyond the sphere of government.

    Russian word for money "dengy" is Asian, Ukrainian word for money "hroshi" comes from the name of 17th century Polish currency.

    Wow some amazing discovery – Turkisms in the Russian language.

    England must also have some frightening Turkic influence, as they share many of these same words – yogurt, caravan, kiosk, sofa. And in English, they also share the most tasty words – halvah, kefiyeh, lokum, kebab, baklava, shashlyk.

    • Replies: @AP
    The difference is that these are rather peripheral words, often through an intermediary language (sofa, caravan and kiosk come to English from French, who got it from the Arabs, Persians and Turks, respectively) while "money" is a very central and basic word, taken directly from the Asian overlords.
    , @for-the-record
    Wow some amazing discovery – Turkisms in the Russian language.

    You might find the following article interesting (you can download it for free):

    Turkish loanwords in Russian language
  56. @Agathoklis
    The onion domes are not Asiatic in origin but are a native creation influenced by Byzantium which was a legal continuation of Rome. There is nothing more European than that.

    It’s an exotic aesthetic, but this is an exoticism of distant times, rather than distant places: in this case of a pre-neoclassical aesthetics.

    But if you compare to earlier history – of Western gothic architecture – this was far more exotic to neoclassical aesthetics, than anything constructed in Russia (because it was in later centuries).

    How exotic and “alien spaceship” architecture (and wildly beautiful), they used to build in medieval France and England.

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
    It is not exotic at all. The origin of Europe is in the Mediterranean; specifically, in Greece and Rome, then the Byzantine influence on Russia is not exotic but central to European aesthetics. It is Gothic architecture which is more exotic to Europe. There is nothing in Antiquity which resembles those monstrous Gothic cathedrals. The deep roots of those Gothic cathedrals are from Germanic barbarism not Europe.
  57. @Dmitry
    Wow some amazing discovery - Turkisms in the Russian language.

    England must also have some frightening Turkic influence, as they share many of these same words - yogurt, caravan, kiosk, sofa. And in English, they also share the most tasty words - halvah, kefiyeh, lokum, kebab, baklava, shashlyk.

    The difference is that these are rather peripheral words, often through an intermediary language (sofa, caravan and kiosk come to English from French, who got it from the Arabs, Persians and Turks, respectively) while “money” is a very central and basic word, taken directly from the Asian overlords.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It's a silly picking of an unrepresentative example. "Argument by etymology" - although loved by amateur historians - is often such a comedy.

    For example, the very important word European word "alcohol", is an Arabic word. However, let's say this shows the influence of Arabs on European drinking, or the centrality of Arab culture to European alcoholism? - the transmission of the word shows nothing like this, only that there was some contact historical between the languages, and that a word in one language did not have an equivalent in another, which therefore loaned it.

  58. @songbird
    It's interesting because the Chinese did not do it, even though they were into a lot of crazy things.

    I've looked it up to try to find its origins: there's a rumor that it was based off some Easter ritual in the Orthodox church. Some believe that it dates to the early history of the Christianity and was once common practice. But if all of them were kissing each other one would think it would have caused the early Christians to die out of disease.

    They revive an old Russian custom for its political iconography. It has never any sexual connotation.

    You can read that foreign visitors, in e.g. 17th century texts, thought it was something unusual enough to note this custom. It was an ancient custom to kiss as a greeting after a long time apart, although it’s ambiguous in such text if people ever kissed directly on lips or just on cheeks.

    При этом следует заметить, что не только в это время, но и всегда, и мужчины и женщины считают поцелуй знаком приветствия, когда собираются в путь или увидятся после долговременной разлуки.

    https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B_%D0%B8_%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BA%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_(%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82)/%D0%A3%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2_1913/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%82

    • Replies: @songbird
    That was a Frenchman writing? And he thought it notable? Interesting. I thought the French kissed like that.

    I wonder what explains it being Russian. The stereotype of the world seems to be that there are more affectionate displays as you move south. So, for instance, African men often hold hands, but Germans, who like handshakes, are considered cold.

    I guess if it is seen as a Russian thing, then in the context of Brezhnev kissing foreign leaders, it might be interpreted as a display of dominance. Just as people are said to fight for position, when giving a handshake, I guess greeting with your country's gesture would be a sign of dominance. Like, if Mao got Westerners to bow to him.
  59. @neutral
    While not exactly a Mongolian thing, those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins. The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European. The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians. Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests. The Mongolian influence is part of Russia, the fact that this topic hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true.

    Whatever the merit of the rest of your comment, “wigger” is short for “white nigger”, meaning a person who is all or predominantly white European genetically but nonetheless degrades himself trying to act, sound, and look like an African-“American.”

    It seems to make no sense to export the term outside that context to slur russians as “wigger” anythings.

  60. @neutral
    While not exactly a Mongolian thing, those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins. The oriental style despots that Russia had (both the tsars and Stalin) are much closer to a Mongolian than anything European. The Cossacks are basically wigger Mongolians. Then there is a the undeniable racial influences of the Mongolian conquests. The Mongolian influence is part of Russia, the fact that this topic hits a raw nerve with many Russo-Slav nationalists tells me this is true.

    those onion domes are definitely influenced from Asian and not European origins

    Of course, taking into account that there are many such domes in old churches in Germany

  61. @AP

    Ah yes, those famous Oriental writers such as Tolstoy and Pushkin, they go right alongside Shimazaki and Confucius
     
    Well, the Russian writer Bulgakov is a descendant of the Tatar tax collector Bulgak and the 19th century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadayev comes for a family that descends from Chagatai, second son of Genghis Khan. The historian Vernadsky concluded that in a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.

    To be sure, Mongol influence on Russian culture is greatly exaggerated by Russophobes but it is not nothing, either. From wiki: "Historians also credit the Mongol regime with an important role in the development of Muscovy as a state. Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as "yam", hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization"

    I learned from this slender volume:
    “Russia and the Golden Horde: The Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History.”

    Written by Charles J. Halperin, published in 1985 by Indiana University Press.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Slender, but packed with a lot of information. You can also find related scholarly articles of Halpern's on the internet. I mention his name as a source in comment #23, somebody who never ceases to impress me.
  62. @RadicalCenter
    I learned from this slender volume:
    “Russia and the Golden Horde: The Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History.”

    Written by Charles J. Halperin, published in 1985 by Indiana University Press.

    Slender, but packed with a lot of information. You can also find related scholarly articles of Halpern’s on the internet. I mention his name as a source in comment #23, somebody who never ceases to impress me.

    • Thanks: RadicalCenter
  63. @Dmitry
    They revive an old Russian custom for its political iconography. It has never any sexual connotation.

    You can read that foreign visitors, in e.g. 17th century texts, thought it was something unusual enough to note this custom. It was an ancient custom to kiss as a greeting after a long time apart, although it's ambiguous in such text if people ever kissed directly on lips or just on cheeks.

    При этом следует заметить, что не только в это время, но и всегда, и мужчины и женщины считают поцелуй знаком приветствия, когда собираются в путь или увидятся после долговременной разлуки.

    https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B_%D0%B8_%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BA%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_(%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82)/%D0%A3%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2_1913/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%82

     

    That was a Frenchman writing? And he thought it notable? Interesting. I thought the French kissed like that.

    I wonder what explains it being Russian. The stereotype of the world seems to be that there are more affectionate displays as you move south. So, for instance, African men often hold hands, but Germans, who like handshakes, are considered cold.

    I guess if it is seen as a Russian thing, then in the context of Brezhnev kissing foreign leaders, it might be interpreted as a display of dominance. Just as people are said to fight for position, when giving a handshake, I guess greeting with your country’s gesture would be a sign of dominance. Like, if Mao got Westerners to bow to him.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    People had very different minds 400 years ago, compared to today. It's possible concepts of "personal space", were very different to 21st century people than in 17th century people.

    A problem is that people do not record their own customs (as they do not seem interesting to them), so we can probably only find information on this in foreign texts.

    Probably, kissing on the cheeks would be normal all over Europe, so does the author imply they are kissing on the lips? It's difficult to know.

    As for political leaders like Brezhnev - this kissing is completely fake, political propaganda or iconography. Although it's possible it has seemed less weird to people like Brezhnev, if perhaps they had still such lack of personal space in the village of their childhood in the late 19th century, or early 20th century.

    However, even the 20th century public, for which it is more strange, did not interpret this political iconography as sexual or gay, which shows how our perceptions change.

    For example, Stalin is kissing or embraces babies, and it is one of the main political iconographies he uses to demonstrate how much he loves the countrymen. On the other hand, in the early 21st century, Putin kissed a boy on the chest, in some incompetent try to emulate political leaders of the past, and the now 21st century internet commentators call Putin a pedophile.

    The political leader's gesture or iconography didn't change, but public's interpretation is wildly different only 2-3 generations later in time.

  64. @AP

    Ah yes, those famous Oriental writers such as Tolstoy and Pushkin, they go right alongside Shimazaki and Confucius
     
    Well, the Russian writer Bulgakov is a descendant of the Tatar tax collector Bulgak and the 19th century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadayev comes for a family that descends from Chagatai, second son of Genghis Khan. The historian Vernadsky concluded that in a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.

    To be sure, Mongol influence on Russian culture is greatly exaggerated by Russophobes but it is not nothing, either. From wiki: "Historians also credit the Mongol regime with an important role in the development of Muscovy as a state. Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as "yam", hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization"

    Well, the Russian writer Bulgakov is a descendant of the Tatar tax collector Bulgak and the 19th century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadayev comes for a family that descends from Chagatai

    The Bulgakov princes are descended from Gediminas (the ancestor of Lithuanian princes and, respectively, Polish kings).
    https://genealogia.fandom.com/ru/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8
    I really don’t think that the writer Bulgakov is a descendant of these princes, but the origin of “Tatar tax collector Bulgak” is completely fantastic.
    The legend about the origin of Chaadaev from Chgatai was born on the basis of the similarity of the surname. But this is a legend that was confirmed recently by genetic research (Chaadaev could not be a descendant of Genghis Khan)

    It is strange that you did not mention the Nobel prize-winning Tatar writer Henrikh Senkevich (who really had Tatar origin)

    From wiki: “Historians also credit the Mongol regime with an important role in the development of Muscovy as a state. Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as “yam”, hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization”

    The problem is that wiki which is a pile of garbage, writes nonsense. “Historians also credit..” is just lying. Historians are in this case the visionary Vernadsky, but his views among historians are marginal, to put it mildly.

    • Replies: @AP

    I really don’t think that the writer Bulgakov is a descendant of these princes, but the origin of “Tatar tax collector Bulgak” is completely fantastic.

     

    Three sources confirm Tatar origins of Bulgakovs:

    George Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia, Yale University Press (1943), p. 384

    Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross & the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy, Cornell University Press (1997), p. 23

    Judith Deutsch Kornblatt & Richard F. Gustafson, Russian Religious Thought, Univ of Wisconsin Press (1996), p. 135

    The legend about the origin of Chaadaev from Chgatai was born on the basis of the similarity of the surname. But this is a legend that was confirmed recently by genetic research (Chaadaev could not be a descendant of Genghis Khan)
     
    Link or source?

    Historians are in this case the visionary Vernadsky, but his views among historians are marginal, to put it mildly.
     
    Vernadsky was a specialist of Russian history at Yale, arguably the best university in the world. As such, his views are far less marginal than those of the Soviet historians who might not have liked him because he was a Russian White.

    There is a Russian nobility DNA project:

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public/RussianNobilityDNA/default.aspx?section=yresults

    You can see a strong mix of Tatar origins.
  65. @Dmitry
    Yes Russian culture is almost all European culture (including imported communist ideology in the 20th century, which was constructed on hijacked conceptual scaffolding of Hegel).

    Arguments with European countries, have the intensity and absurdity of family arguments. And fortunately seem nowadays quite "fake hostility" as well, when officials buy their houses and properties in Europe.

    As for the mysterious "Asian influence" which there is supposedly. I remember reading from a user in the Sailer forum (Jack?) who wrote that Russia has a "saving face" culture, which he claims is something oriental - i.e. he claims that things a habit of building Potemkin villages to impress outsiders, is East Asian.

    The latter habit exists today to some extent. For example, in terms of prioritization, somehow there are billions of dollars to bury power cables underground in central Moscow, so it looks more like a disneyland, to impress visitors. At the same time, 30 years after beginning to build the first metro station in Chelyabinsk, there are still not funds to complete the first metro station in Chelyabinsk.

    However, the idea that this indicates Russians as representatives of East Asian culture, as opposed to European/Western culture - is nonsense, as aside from the example and the name, the Potemkin village culture (although universal in civilized peoples) is probably most common in Western/European culture.

    There are even regulations in some American cities, so that people in bourgeois areas will cut their lawn regularly, and therefore present a better impression to visitors.

    Also why did Italian cities become so beautiful? Italian city-states were acting like Potemkin villages between each other for centuries.

    Stories about Potemkin are mythical, of course, while this kind of game is far older than him, and at least as old as Ancient Greeks. In Thucydides, describes how the Egestaeans created a tour of their home for Athenian diplomats, where they pretend to be much wealthier than they are, and tricked Alcibiades to believe they can fund the Sicilian Expedition.

    For example, in terms of prioritization, somehow there are billions of dollars to bury power cables underground in central Moscow, so it looks more like a disneyland, to impress visitors. At the same time, 30 years after beginning to build the first metro station in Chelyabinsk, there are still not funds to complete the first metro station in Chelyabinsk.

    Burying cables in central Moscow has an immediate and powerful ROI from tourism, while the Chelyabinsk metro is a white elephant of dubious value. (They’d probably be better served by a decent good old fashioned tramway line.)

  66. OT: Mass shootings in Germany – 11 dead

    The recent shootings in a town near Frankfurt (and many others – Germany
    even had a mass school shooting a few years ago) reinforce my view that
    Germany (or Germanics, in general) is a failed civilization. Why is it that
    events of this sort never happen in Poland or Czechia? One more recent
    example from Quora: A Czech fellow entered a barbershop in central Berlin,
    and since his German was poor he inquired politely, “Do you speak English?”
    which elicited a loud and violent reaction in German, “We don’t serve refugees
    here, etc. ‘raus!,” and he was grabbed and escorted outside. And he wasn’t even
    Middle-Eastern, he was a Slav. I can’t imagine something like this happening
    in more civilized (i.e., well-behaved, courteous) countries like Poland or France.
    I believe Germany is a failed civilization primarily because of its propensity
    to extreme violence. Note how no country outside of Europe speaks German.
    Both Germany and Russia tried to impose their useless languages on Poland
    back in the 19th century. It’s not a good sign when a large country has little
    soft power, and resorts to force. In this sense Portugal is probably the most successful
    European country thus far. Almost effortlessly it spread its beautiful language,
    music, and culture to a vast territory comprising many countries (Brazil, Angola,
    Mozambique, etc) outside of Europe.

    My thesis has been that the Slavs have demonstrated normal levels of
    violence over the last 1200 years whereas the Germanics have resorted
    to extreme violence all too frequently during that period. The Vikings,
    Berserkers, Vandals, … were perfectly contemptible individuals who engaged
    in mass killings, mass rapes, and mass plunder. But I suppose we are
    supposed to forgive this in the case of the Vikings because northern Europe
    was very primitive a thousand years ago. Germany had a 2:1 population
    advantage relative to Poland then, and it still does today (80 to 40 million)
    which explains the Drang nach Osten and Ostsiedlung but ultimately there
    are only 120 million Germanics (incl. 20 million Scandinavians) and 240
    million Slavs today, so Germany was bound to become the history’s loser,
    with Hitler’s hapless adventure being Germany’s last hurrah.

    It’s perfectly normal for primates like us to be somewhat violent, esp. in
    self-defense. Extreme German violence demonstrated over the last 1200 years
    (and even already noticed by the ancient Romans) is not normal. Because
    of its continuing nature it’s more likely to be due to genetics than
    environment (e.g., damaged or underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, the
    seat of the executive function). I still await a list of countries ranked by
    their historically demonstrated propensity to violence, say averaged over
    the last 1000-1200 years in the case of Europe. I said countries, not
    individuals. The latter typically will adjust the expressed level of violence
    in accordance with the circumstances.

    If anyone is impressed by Germany’s contributions to science and
    technology, my response is that with their large population placed
    in a perfect location in Europe, they were bound to make contributions.
    We’re smart chimps, not dumb chimps. However, we’re wiser now.
    Science in the hands of superior individuals would be a boon to
    mankind but science in the hands of lowly primates like us too
    often is used to dominate, control (e.g., through surveillance),
    and kill others.

    By the way, I’m not an atheist. I’m a panentheist. Moreover, I’m not
    a misanthrope, or even race realist. I consider myself a primate
    realist. And the fact that we seem unable to rise above the level
    of lowly primates has been amply demonstrated by the continuing
    wars, continuing arms race, and continuing criminal behavior.

    • Replies: @Brutiss
    Panentheism isn't pacifist or homosexual, so no you're not.

    Weapons are sacred
    , @Hyperborean
    What part of this:

    Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.
     
    didn't you understand?

    This thread is not the place for your repetitive monologues.

  67. @Anon 2
    OT: Mass shootings in Germany - 11 dead

    The recent shootings in a town near Frankfurt (and many others - Germany
    even had a mass school shooting a few years ago) reinforce my view that
    Germany (or Germanics, in general) is a failed civilization. Why is it that
    events of this sort never happen in Poland or Czechia? One more recent
    example from Quora: A Czech fellow entered a barbershop in central Berlin,
    and since his German was poor he inquired politely, “Do you speak English?”
    which elicited a loud and violent reaction in German, “We don’t serve refugees
    here, etc. ‘raus!,” and he was grabbed and escorted outside. And he wasn’t even
    Middle-Eastern, he was a Slav. I can’t imagine something like this happening
    in more civilized (i.e., well-behaved, courteous) countries like Poland or France.
    I believe Germany is a failed civilization primarily because of its propensity
    to extreme violence. Note how no country outside of Europe speaks German.
    Both Germany and Russia tried to impose their useless languages on Poland
    back in the 19th century. It’s not a good sign when a large country has little
    soft power, and resorts to force. In this sense Portugal is probably the most successful
    European country thus far. Almost effortlessly it spread its beautiful language,
    music, and culture to a vast territory comprising many countries (Brazil, Angola,
    Mozambique, etc) outside of Europe.

    My thesis has been that the Slavs have demonstrated normal levels of
    violence over the last 1200 years whereas the Germanics have resorted
    to extreme violence all too frequently during that period. The Vikings,
    Berserkers, Vandals, ... were perfectly contemptible individuals who engaged
    in mass killings, mass rapes, and mass plunder. But I suppose we are
    supposed to forgive this in the case of the Vikings because northern Europe
    was very primitive a thousand years ago. Germany had a 2:1 population
    advantage relative to Poland then, and it still does today (80 to 40 million)
    which explains the Drang nach Osten and Ostsiedlung but ultimately there
    are only 120 million Germanics (incl. 20 million Scandinavians) and 240
    million Slavs today, so Germany was bound to become the history’s loser,
    with Hitler’s hapless adventure being Germany’s last hurrah.

    It’s perfectly normal for primates like us to be somewhat violent, esp. in
    self-defense. Extreme German violence demonstrated over the last 1200 years
    (and even already noticed by the ancient Romans) is not normal. Because
    of its continuing nature it’s more likely to be due to genetics than
    environment (e.g., damaged or underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, the
    seat of the executive function). I still await a list of countries ranked by
    their historically demonstrated propensity to violence, say averaged over
    the last 1000-1200 years in the case of Europe. I said countries, not
    individuals. The latter typically will adjust the expressed level of violence
    in accordance with the circumstances.

    If anyone is impressed by Germany’s contributions to science and
    technology, my response is that with their large population placed
    in a perfect location in Europe, they were bound to make contributions.
    We’re smart chimps, not dumb chimps. However, we’re wiser now.
    Science in the hands of superior individuals would be a boon to
    mankind but science in the hands of lowly primates like us too
    often is used to dominate, control (e.g., through surveillance),
    and kill others.

    By the way, I’m not an atheist. I’m a panentheist. Moreover, I’m not
    a misanthrope, or even race realist. I consider myself a primate
    realist. And the fact that we seem unable to rise above the level
    of lowly primates has been amply demonstrated by the continuing
    wars, continuing arms race, and continuing criminal behavior.

    Panentheism isn’t pacifist or homosexual, so no you’re not.

    Weapons are sacred

  68. @Dmitry
    It's an exotic aesthetic, but this is an exoticism of distant times, rather than distant places: in this case of a pre-neoclassical aesthetics.

    But if you compare to earlier history - of Western gothic architecture - this was far more exotic to neoclassical aesthetics, than anything constructed in Russia (because it was in later centuries).

    How exotic and "alien spaceship" architecture (and wildly beautiful), they used to build in medieval France and England.

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b5/5e/7a/b55e7ac5c5d05efdf301e8658eb5c4a4.jpg

    https://about-france.com/photos5/cathedral.jpg

    https://cdn.thecoolist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Westminster-Abbey-gothic-architecture.jpg

    https://www.nomadepicureans.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/gothic-prague.jpg

    It is not exotic at all. The origin of Europe is in the Mediterranean; specifically, in Greece and Rome, then the Byzantine influence on Russia is not exotic but central to European aesthetics. It is Gothic architecture which is more exotic to Europe. There is nothing in Antiquity which resembles those monstrous Gothic cathedrals. The deep roots of those Gothic cathedrals are from Germanic barbarism not Europe.

    • Replies: @melanf

    It is Gothic architecture which is more exotic to Europe. There is nothing in Antiquity which resembles those monstrous Gothic cathedrals. The deep roots of those Gothic cathedrals are from Germanic barbarism not Europe.
     
    Well, so far as I remember, the Gothic, arose in romano-speaking Europe (France). And Gothic also dates back to the ancient architectural heritage.
    , @neutral

    The deep roots of those Gothic cathedrals are from Germanic barbarism not Europe
     
    Germans are European.
    , @Dmitry
    "Gothic" just a misleading etymology, as is common in art history. Note that the alternative classification "Romanesque" is a opposite word used to describe the same buildings.

    Gothic architecture emerges in France, among Latin-dialect (French) speaking, wine drinking people, with relatively vast resources (at municipal level). In terms of Kant's later distinction, although it would be anachronistic to use here - he could say its origin is in "Zivilisation", not "Kultur".

    Later Gothic architecture is transmitted to England by Normans, and today in England there is probably the second best Gothic architecture (after France).

    As for how it is perceived by later "classical" (which is misleading - I mean "neo-classical", not real ancient classical) aesthetic. It shows that people in 17th, 18th century - already found earlier generations' art to be wildly exotic.

    This is exoticism of distant times, rather than distant places.

    In Gothic architecture, it looks most to us now (with our post neo-classical mind) like "alien spaceships" - but for a medieval imagination, this was probably just a beautiful way to design a roof.
    https://i.imgur.com/BTYGWUY.jpg


    https://i.imgur.com/6j1JkAI.jpg


    https://i.imgur.com/XVLgoMx.jpg

    And this is just some cute decoration for the corner of buildings

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQGWgA8bdON6JzNjycbWq8i9Tl-qEamlWeUcLywrr-L-lLPk78Z


    https://www.semiestrel.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Himeryi.jpg


    And yet the Gothic architecture is certainly one of the most beautiful ever made, at the same time it is one of the exotic and "foreign" looking ones - as someone else writes above, "the past is the most distant country".

  69. @songbird
    It's interesting because the Chinese did not do it, even though they were into a lot of crazy things.

    I've looked it up to try to find its origins: there's a rumor that it was based off some Easter ritual in the Orthodox church. Some believe that it dates to the early history of the Christianity and was once common practice. But if all of them were kissing each other one would think it would have caused the early Christians to die out of disease.

    The standard icon that you would find on the analogion for the feast of the Apostles:

    Nowadays, the “kiss of peace” is given by bumping cheek bones, right-left-right (what my Protestant mother calls “Russian kissing”). That looks like what is happening in the above icon, and I’m skeptical that early Christian men were routinely kissing each other on the mouth, but the past is a foreign country.

    • Thanks: songbird
  70. @AP

    As for the mysterious “Asian influence” which there is supposedly
     
    Not mysterious, only small. But it had once been very substantial, probably at least until Peter, particularly with respect to governance. Which is as one would expect, given the high rates of intermarriage between Muscovite and Tatar/Mongol elites and that Moscow emerged as the principal power precisely because it was closest to the Mongols and the best pupils (those who resisted, were crushed, to Moscow's benefit - collaboration paid). Pre-Petrine Russian despotism has as much in common with European absolutism as Viking democracy has with Athenian. Not much. Day to day interactions were uncommon (Muscovite princes collected taxes on their own, there weren't Mongols running around Russian lands) so there would be minimal influence beyond the sphere of government.

    Russian word for money "dengy" is Asian, Ukrainian word for money "hroshi" comes from the name of 17th century Polish currency.

    Ukrainian word for money “hroshi” comes from the name of 17th century Polish currency.

    “Гроши” is also a Russian word that means “small change, pennies, pittance”.

    So you see where this is going – Russians considered “17th century Polish currency” worthless as money, preferring a more stable international currency.

    Seems Eastern Europe could never into GDP! Nothing is new under the sun…

    • Replies: @AP

    Seems Eastern Europe could never into GDP! Nothing is new under the sun…
     
    Per capita GDP (PPP), 2018:

    Czech Republic: $37,371
    Slovakia: $35,130
    Lithuania: $34,826
    Poland: $31,939
    Hungary: $31,903
    Latvia: $29,901

    Russia: $29,267
    Romania: $26,447

    Per capita GDP (nominal), 2019:

    Czech Republic: $23,313
    Slovakia: $19,547
    Lithuania: $19,336
    Latvia: $18,171
    Hungary: $17,463
    Poland: $14,901
    Romania: $12,482

    Russia: $11,162

  71. Really absurd, people are pretending that the Mongol conquest of rule of Russia for centuries was irrelevant. Just look at the maps that Karlin posted.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Really absurd, people are pretending that the Mongol conquest of rule of Russia for centuries was irrelevant. Just look at the maps that Karlin posted.
     
    With this level of argumentation (maps that Karlin posted), people will reasonably consider such arguments irrelevant to reality.
  72. @Dmitry
    Wow some amazing discovery - Turkisms in the Russian language.

    England must also have some frightening Turkic influence, as they share many of these same words - yogurt, caravan, kiosk, sofa. And in English, they also share the most tasty words - halvah, kefiyeh, lokum, kebab, baklava, shashlyk.

    Wow some amazing discovery – Turkisms in the Russian language.

    You might find the following article interesting (you can download it for free):

    Turkish loanwords in Russian language

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Russian actually has an unusually low number of Turkic loanwords; even Ukrainian has more turkisms than Russian. (Including the symbol of Ukrainian statehood itself, 'maydan'.)

    There's a peculiarity involved here: when Turkic words enter Russian, they almost always are received as slang and/or low-register words; so there is a fair bit of resistance for Turkic in Russian. It's a well-known Russian literary trope when you take a normal text and replace random words with turkisms resulting in hilarity due to the register switch.

    E.g., http://www.diros.de/mit_humor_ueberall/kazakhsko-russkij-razgovornik.html
  73. @for-the-record
    Wow some amazing discovery – Turkisms in the Russian language.

    You might find the following article interesting (you can download it for free):

    Turkish loanwords in Russian language

    Russian actually has an unusually low number of Turkic loanwords; even Ukrainian has more turkisms than Russian. (Including the symbol of Ukrainian statehood itself, ‘maydan’.)

    There’s a peculiarity involved here: when Turkic words enter Russian, they almost always are received as slang and/or low-register words; so there is a fair bit of resistance for Turkic in Russian. It’s a well-known Russian literary trope when you take a normal text and replace random words with turkisms resulting in hilarity due to the register switch.

    E.g., http://www.diros.de/mit_humor_ueberall/kazakhsko-russkij-razgovornik.html

  74. @Agathoklis
    It is not exotic at all. The origin of Europe is in the Mediterranean; specifically, in Greece and Rome, then the Byzantine influence on Russia is not exotic but central to European aesthetics. It is Gothic architecture which is more exotic to Europe. There is nothing in Antiquity which resembles those monstrous Gothic cathedrals. The deep roots of those Gothic cathedrals are from Germanic barbarism not Europe.

    It is Gothic architecture which is more exotic to Europe. There is nothing in Antiquity which resembles those monstrous Gothic cathedrals. The deep roots of those Gothic cathedrals are from Germanic barbarism not Europe.

    Well, so far as I remember, the Gothic, arose in romano-speaking Europe (France). And Gothic also dates back to the ancient architectural heritage.

  75. @Agathoklis
    It is not exotic at all. The origin of Europe is in the Mediterranean; specifically, in Greece and Rome, then the Byzantine influence on Russia is not exotic but central to European aesthetics. It is Gothic architecture which is more exotic to Europe. There is nothing in Antiquity which resembles those monstrous Gothic cathedrals. The deep roots of those Gothic cathedrals are from Germanic barbarism not Europe.

    The deep roots of those Gothic cathedrals are from Germanic barbarism not Europe

    Germans are European.

    • Replies: @Agathoklis
    For a very long period of European civilisation, Germans were considered barbarians and not part of Greco-Roman culture. It is only with their acculturation into Greco-Roman norms were they begrudgingly accepted. History has demonstrated this was a mistake.
  76. @neutral
    Really absurd, people are pretending that the Mongol conquest of rule of Russia for centuries was irrelevant. Just look at the maps that Karlin posted.

    Really absurd, people are pretending that the Mongol conquest of rule of Russia for centuries was irrelevant. Just look at the maps that Karlin posted.

    With this level of argumentation (maps that Karlin posted), people will reasonably consider such arguments irrelevant to reality.

    • Replies: @neutral
    Yeah its all a coincidence, being ruled for 300 years had no impact on anything...
  77. I thought of another one: Catherine the Great as a reincarnation of Wu Zetian.

    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
  78. @Anon 2
    OT: Mass shootings in Germany - 11 dead

    The recent shootings in a town near Frankfurt (and many others - Germany
    even had a mass school shooting a few years ago) reinforce my view that
    Germany (or Germanics, in general) is a failed civilization. Why is it that
    events of this sort never happen in Poland or Czechia? One more recent
    example from Quora: A Czech fellow entered a barbershop in central Berlin,
    and since his German was poor he inquired politely, “Do you speak English?”
    which elicited a loud and violent reaction in German, “We don’t serve refugees
    here, etc. ‘raus!,” and he was grabbed and escorted outside. And he wasn’t even
    Middle-Eastern, he was a Slav. I can’t imagine something like this happening
    in more civilized (i.e., well-behaved, courteous) countries like Poland or France.
    I believe Germany is a failed civilization primarily because of its propensity
    to extreme violence. Note how no country outside of Europe speaks German.
    Both Germany and Russia tried to impose their useless languages on Poland
    back in the 19th century. It’s not a good sign when a large country has little
    soft power, and resorts to force. In this sense Portugal is probably the most successful
    European country thus far. Almost effortlessly it spread its beautiful language,
    music, and culture to a vast territory comprising many countries (Brazil, Angola,
    Mozambique, etc) outside of Europe.

    My thesis has been that the Slavs have demonstrated normal levels of
    violence over the last 1200 years whereas the Germanics have resorted
    to extreme violence all too frequently during that period. The Vikings,
    Berserkers, Vandals, ... were perfectly contemptible individuals who engaged
    in mass killings, mass rapes, and mass plunder. But I suppose we are
    supposed to forgive this in the case of the Vikings because northern Europe
    was very primitive a thousand years ago. Germany had a 2:1 population
    advantage relative to Poland then, and it still does today (80 to 40 million)
    which explains the Drang nach Osten and Ostsiedlung but ultimately there
    are only 120 million Germanics (incl. 20 million Scandinavians) and 240
    million Slavs today, so Germany was bound to become the history’s loser,
    with Hitler’s hapless adventure being Germany’s last hurrah.

    It’s perfectly normal for primates like us to be somewhat violent, esp. in
    self-defense. Extreme German violence demonstrated over the last 1200 years
    (and even already noticed by the ancient Romans) is not normal. Because
    of its continuing nature it’s more likely to be due to genetics than
    environment (e.g., damaged or underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, the
    seat of the executive function). I still await a list of countries ranked by
    their historically demonstrated propensity to violence, say averaged over
    the last 1000-1200 years in the case of Europe. I said countries, not
    individuals. The latter typically will adjust the expressed level of violence
    in accordance with the circumstances.

    If anyone is impressed by Germany’s contributions to science and
    technology, my response is that with their large population placed
    in a perfect location in Europe, they were bound to make contributions.
    We’re smart chimps, not dumb chimps. However, we’re wiser now.
    Science in the hands of superior individuals would be a boon to
    mankind but science in the hands of lowly primates like us too
    often is used to dominate, control (e.g., through surveillance),
    and kill others.

    By the way, I’m not an atheist. I’m a panentheist. Moreover, I’m not
    a misanthrope, or even race realist. I consider myself a primate
    realist. And the fact that we seem unable to rise above the level
    of lowly primates has been amply demonstrated by the continuing
    wars, continuing arms race, and continuing criminal behavior.

    What part of this:

    Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    didn’t you understand?

    This thread is not the place for your repetitive monologues.

  79. @for-the-record
    Why are Mongolians so lactose intolerant?

    Because they are like the large majority of people in the world:

    https://i0.wp.com/www.armenpogharian.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/map-of-Global-Lactose-Intolerance.png?w=754

    As I understand it, there have been 3 separate "mutations" that produced tolerance: (1) Scandinavia (Sweden), spreading through most of Europe; (2) Niger in the heart of Africa; and (3) northern India. Note that 98% of Japanese and 92% of Chinese are lactose-intolerant.

    Spain and Greece’s level of lactose intolerance appears to be very disproportionately high for Europe, does that indicate a significant level of non-European ancestry?

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Spain and Greece’s level of lactose intolerance appears to be very disproportionately high for Europe, does that indicate a significant level of non-European ancestry?

    Off hand, I would guess it represents a combination of factors:

    1. The mutation presumably originated in northern Europe and spread southwards, hence it is logical that in southern Europe there might remain higher levels of lactose-intolerance (also the case in the Balkans).

    2. A significant level of non-European ancestry in the Iberian peninsula (I have seen figures of around 20% quoted) which is not surprising given the Muslim invasion and occupation that ended only in 1492. Here is a map of the Reconquista in 900, after nearly 200 years of "occupation", with Muslim-controlled areas in green corresponding very closely to the current area of Spain which has such high lactose intolerance.

    http://www.jewishwikipedia.info/wpimages/wpaead2b0b_05_06.jpg

    3. A (primarily) dry, arid landscape that is not very suited to dairy production,

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/91/b3/e4/91b3e47011ec69419293d759e87e83f1.jpg

    hence less reason for the mutation to spread further south. Here are figures for raw cows milk delivered to dairies for 2019 (thousands of tons) --

    Denmark 5,615
    Spain 7,227
    Ireland 8,227
    Netherlands 13,788
    UK 15,325
    France 24,499
    Germany 32,442

    The relatively low level of Spanish milk production is concentrated (80%) in the northern (lactose-tolerant, higher-rainfall) areas of Spain:

    https://es.statista.com/estadisticas/557231/volumen-de-leche-de-vaca-producida-en-espana-por-cc-aa/
  80. @melanf

    Really absurd, people are pretending that the Mongol conquest of rule of Russia for centuries was irrelevant. Just look at the maps that Karlin posted.
     
    With this level of argumentation (maps that Karlin posted), people will reasonably consider such arguments irrelevant to reality.

    Yeah its all a coincidence, being ruled for 300 years had no impact on anything…

    • Replies: @melanf

    Yeah its all a coincidence, being ruled for 300 years had no impact on anything…
     
    I don't know anyone who claims that the Golden Horde didn't affect history. But when we see stories about the "Asian" origin of domes in churches, and stories about the fact that "Mestnichestvo" was borrowed from the Mongols (who did not have a Mestnichestvo).... It's funny, that's all. as well as maps that Carlin posted in the title post.
  81. @Europe Europa
    Spain and Greece's level of lactose intolerance appears to be very disproportionately high for Europe, does that indicate a significant level of non-European ancestry?

    Spain and Greece’s level of lactose intolerance appears to be very disproportionately high for Europe, does that indicate a significant level of non-European ancestry?

    Off hand, I would guess it represents a combination of factors:

    1. The mutation presumably originated in northern Europe and spread southwards, hence it is logical that in southern Europe there might remain higher levels of lactose-intolerance (also the case in the Balkans).

    2. A significant level of non-European ancestry in the Iberian peninsula (I have seen figures of around 20% quoted) which is not surprising given the Muslim invasion and occupation that ended only in 1492. Here is a map of the Reconquista in 900, after nearly 200 years of “occupation”, with Muslim-controlled areas in green corresponding very closely to the current area of Spain which has such high lactose intolerance.

    3. A (primarily) dry, arid landscape that is not very suited to dairy production,

    hence less reason for the mutation to spread further south. Here are figures for raw cows milk delivered to dairies for 2019 (thousands of tons) —

    Denmark 5,615
    Spain 7,227
    Ireland 8,227
    Netherlands 13,788
    UK 15,325
    France 24,499
    Germany 32,442

    The relatively low level of Spanish milk production is concentrated (80%) in the northern (lactose-tolerant, higher-rainfall) areas of Spain:

    https://es.statista.com/estadisticas/557231/volumen-de-leche-de-vaca-producida-en-espana-por-cc-aa/

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    The landscape/climate issue is often overlooked in considering ancient invasions and empires. The Romans expanded in a warm period that suited their agriculture. Arabs and Mongols couldn't fight well in forests. The British needed ports or railways. That is a good map.
  82. @neutral

    The deep roots of those Gothic cathedrals are from Germanic barbarism not Europe
     
    Germans are European.

    For a very long period of European civilisation, Germans were considered barbarians and not part of Greco-Roman culture. It is only with their acculturation into Greco-Roman norms were they begrudgingly accepted. History has demonstrated this was a mistake.

    • LOL: iffen, RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Europe Europa
    Are the English considered to be part of the Germanic world or non-Germanic?
  83. @Agathoklis
    For a very long period of European civilisation, Germans were considered barbarians and not part of Greco-Roman culture. It is only with their acculturation into Greco-Roman norms were they begrudgingly accepted. History has demonstrated this was a mistake.

    Are the English considered to be part of the Germanic world or non-Germanic?

    • Replies: @melanf

    Are the English considered to be part of the Germanic world or non-Germanic?
     
    It depends - the English identify themselves with whom ?

    I was always surprised that books about king Arthur depict Saxons in the same way as Mongol-Tatars depicted in Russian books
    , @Agathoklis
    If you are asking whether the English were Germanic; and therefore, considered barbarians in the Greco-Roman world, the English as an ethnic did not exist at that time, say 50BC to 250AD. But, yes originally they were just some Germanic tribes and so considered barbarians.
    , @neutral
    Some of their language was derived from the Normans (also Aryans) which had some Latin influences, but other than that they are mostly Germanic.
    , @Philip Owen
    Mixed race. More Romano British/Celts in the West and North and South Coast, more Germanic in the East and South East but there was never a siege and conquest of London or York (unlike the Viking times). They just turned up.
    , @Rattus Norwegius
    Germanic.
  84. Linguistics are not a replacement for genetics and cuisine spread doesn’t prove genetic link.

    The dengi-hroshi linguistics some svidomis are doing in the comments is barely above the level of other east euro we wuzists that claim Etruscans, Prussians, Cherusskis as slavic because duh? Look how they all have rus in the title?

    To prove how their neighbours to the east are asiatic despots that can only do bad things, ukies can go as far as to resurrect the spirit of Zadornov.

    If we want to go into the topic of asianists tu quoques, it would be fun to remember where the khazarian, crimean etc. khaganates were located. And also consider whether the culture of turanic israelites ruling over a mutt mass of sub iqers has any similiarity to the current state of a certain proud cossack sich to the south of moscow.

  85. @neutral
    Yeah its all a coincidence, being ruled for 300 years had no impact on anything...

    Yeah its all a coincidence, being ruled for 300 years had no impact on anything…

    I don’t know anyone who claims that the Golden Horde didn’t affect history. But when we see stories about the “Asian” origin of domes in churches, and stories about the fact that “Mestnichestvo” was borrowed from the Mongols (who did not have a Mestnichestvo)…. It’s funny, that’s all. as well as maps that Carlin posted in the title post.

  86. @Europe Europa
    Are the English considered to be part of the Germanic world or non-Germanic?

    Are the English considered to be part of the Germanic world or non-Germanic?

    It depends – the English identify themselves with whom ?

    I was always surprised that books about king Arthur depict Saxons in the same way as Mongol-Tatars depicted in Russian books

  87. @Europe Europa
    Are the English considered to be part of the Germanic world or non-Germanic?

    If you are asking whether the English were Germanic; and therefore, considered barbarians in the Greco-Roman world, the English as an ethnic did not exist at that time, say 50BC to 250AD. But, yes originally they were just some Germanic tribes and so considered barbarians.

  88. @Europe Europa
    Are the English considered to be part of the Germanic world or non-Germanic?

    Some of their language was derived from the Normans (also Aryans) which had some Latin influences, but other than that they are mostly Germanic.

  89. @melanf

    Well, the Russian writer Bulgakov is a descendant of the Tatar tax collector Bulgak and the 19th century Russian philosopher Pyotr Chaadayev comes for a family that descends from Chagatai
     
    The Bulgakov princes are descended from Gediminas (the ancestor of Lithuanian princes and, respectively, Polish kings).
    https://genealogia.fandom.com/ru/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8
    I really don't think that the writer Bulgakov is a descendant of these princes, but the origin of "Tatar tax collector Bulgak" is completely fantastic.
    The legend about the origin of Chaadaev from Chgatai was born on the basis of the similarity of the surname. But this is a legend that was confirmed recently by genetic research (Chaadaev could not be a descendant of Genghis Khan)

    It is strange that you did not mention the Nobel prize-winning Tatar writer Henrikh Senkevich (who really had Tatar origin)

    From wiki: “Historians also credit the Mongol regime with an important role in the development of Muscovy as a state. Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as “yam”, hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system and military organization”
     
    The problem is that wiki which is a pile of garbage, writes nonsense. “Historians also credit.." is just lying. Historians are in this case the visionary Vernadsky, but his views among historians are marginal, to put it mildly.

    I really don’t think that the writer Bulgakov is a descendant of these princes, but the origin of “Tatar tax collector Bulgak” is completely fantastic.

    Three sources confirm Tatar origins of Bulgakovs:

    George Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia, Yale University Press (1943), p. 384

    Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross & the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy, Cornell University Press (1997), p. 23

    Judith Deutsch Kornblatt & Richard F. Gustafson, Russian Religious Thought, Univ of Wisconsin Press (1996), p. 135

    The legend about the origin of Chaadaev from Chgatai was born on the basis of the similarity of the surname. But this is a legend that was confirmed recently by genetic research (Chaadaev could not be a descendant of Genghis Khan)

    Link or source?

    Historians are in this case the visionary Vernadsky, but his views among historians are marginal, to put it mildly.

    Vernadsky was a specialist of Russian history at Yale, arguably the best university in the world. As such, his views are far less marginal than those of the Soviet historians who might not have liked him because he was a Russian White.

    There is a Russian nobility DNA project:

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public/RussianNobilityDNA/default.aspx?section=yresults

    You can see a strong mix of Tatar origins.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Vernadsky was a specialist of Russian history at Yale
     
    And at the same time a great visionary, whose views did not find support in historical science at all. When you copy from Wikipedia stories that " Mestnichestvo” was borrowed from the Mongols, it's funny and only
    , @Mr. Hack
    If you haven't already, you might find the following article by Charles Halperin about George Vernadsky's evolving (and retracting) views on Russian Eurasianism of interest: "George Vernadsky, Eurasianism, the Mongols and Russia". Towards the end of the 19 page review, Halperin spends a good deal of time reviewing Vernadsky's final foray into this topic within his book "The Mongols and Russia". https://www.jstor.org/stable/2497020?read-now=1&seq=1
  90. @anonymous coward

    Ukrainian word for money “hroshi” comes from the name of 17th century Polish currency.
     
    "Гроши" is also a Russian word that means "small change, pennies, pittance".

    So you see where this is going - Russians considered "17th century Polish currency" worthless as money, preferring a more stable international currency.

    Seems Eastern Europe could never into GDP! Nothing is new under the sun...

    Seems Eastern Europe could never into GDP! Nothing is new under the sun…

    Per capita GDP (PPP), 2018:

    Czech Republic: $37,371
    Slovakia: $35,130
    Lithuania: $34,826
    Poland: $31,939
    Hungary: $31,903
    Latvia: $29,901

    Russia: $29,267
    Romania: $26,447

    Per capita GDP (nominal), 2019:

    Czech Republic: $23,313
    Slovakia: $19,547
    Lithuania: $19,336
    Latvia: $18,171
    Hungary: $17,463
    Poland: $14,901
    Romania: $12,482

    Russia: $11,162

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Thank for you your canned response that you produced without even reading the post you're replying to.

    I'm sure the Internet will be fine, after all, what's one more shitpost in that bottomless pit, amirite?
  91. @AP

    Seems Eastern Europe could never into GDP! Nothing is new under the sun…
     
    Per capita GDP (PPP), 2018:

    Czech Republic: $37,371
    Slovakia: $35,130
    Lithuania: $34,826
    Poland: $31,939
    Hungary: $31,903
    Latvia: $29,901

    Russia: $29,267
    Romania: $26,447

    Per capita GDP (nominal), 2019:

    Czech Republic: $23,313
    Slovakia: $19,547
    Lithuania: $19,336
    Latvia: $18,171
    Hungary: $17,463
    Poland: $14,901
    Romania: $12,482

    Russia: $11,162

    Thank for you your canned response that you produced without even reading the post you’re replying to.

    I’m sure the Internet will be fine, after all, what’s one more shitpost in that bottomless pit, amirite?

    • Replies: @AP
    I was just showing you being wrong as usual.
  92. @AP

    I really don’t think that the writer Bulgakov is a descendant of these princes, but the origin of “Tatar tax collector Bulgak” is completely fantastic.

     

    Three sources confirm Tatar origins of Bulgakovs:

    George Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia, Yale University Press (1943), p. 384

    Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross & the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy, Cornell University Press (1997), p. 23

    Judith Deutsch Kornblatt & Richard F. Gustafson, Russian Religious Thought, Univ of Wisconsin Press (1996), p. 135

    The legend about the origin of Chaadaev from Chgatai was born on the basis of the similarity of the surname. But this is a legend that was confirmed recently by genetic research (Chaadaev could not be a descendant of Genghis Khan)
     
    Link or source?

    Historians are in this case the visionary Vernadsky, but his views among historians are marginal, to put it mildly.
     
    Vernadsky was a specialist of Russian history at Yale, arguably the best university in the world. As such, his views are far less marginal than those of the Soviet historians who might not have liked him because he was a Russian White.

    There is a Russian nobility DNA project:

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public/RussianNobilityDNA/default.aspx?section=yresults

    You can see a strong mix of Tatar origins.

    Vernadsky was a specialist of Russian history at Yale

    And at the same time a great visionary, whose views did not find support in historical science at all. When you copy from Wikipedia stories that ” Mestnichestvo” was borrowed from the Mongols, it’s funny and only

    • Replies: @AP
    Here is a source from Cambridge University:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2500544?seq=1

    "The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political Institutions"

    Essentially, for generations Moscow princes spent their formative years in the Tatar capital, learned a lot, and adopted Mongolian political institutions on a wide scale when they returned to Moscow to rule. The entire Muscovite political and military structure in the 14th to early 15th centuries was a parallel to that of the Tatar one.
  93. @melanf

    Vernadsky was a specialist of Russian history at Yale
     
    And at the same time a great visionary, whose views did not find support in historical science at all. When you copy from Wikipedia stories that " Mestnichestvo” was borrowed from the Mongols, it's funny and only

    Here is a source from Cambridge University:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2500544?seq=1

    “The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political Institutions”

    Essentially, for generations Moscow princes spent their formative years in the Tatar capital, learned a lot, and adopted Mongolian political institutions on a wide scale when they returned to Moscow to rule. The entire Muscovite political and military structure in the 14th to early 15th centuries was a parallel to that of the Tatar one.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @melanf

    “The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political Institutions” Donald Ostrowski
     
    https://lenta.ru/articles/2015/10/11/lukin/
    "As for the institutional influence of the Horde on Russia, it was minimal and should not be exaggerated. What institutions could a nomadic society pass on to a more developed settled society? In 1998, a book was published by the American historian Donald Ostrowski, who tried to prove the opposite in it. In fact, all those political institutions that Ostrovsky considered borrowed from the Horde (for example, the so-called decimal organization) existed in Russia even in the pre-Mongol period."
  94. @anonymous coward
    Thank for you your canned response that you produced without even reading the post you're replying to.

    I'm sure the Internet will be fine, after all, what's one more shitpost in that bottomless pit, amirite?

    I was just showing you being wrong as usual.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Read my post again, you stupid git. I never mentioned or even hinted that Russia is rich or richer than Eastern Europe. You, as usual, vomited your stale state-department provided copypasta without even bothering to engage your basic literacy skills, if you have them.
  95. @AP
    Here is a source from Cambridge University:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2500544?seq=1

    "The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political Institutions"

    Essentially, for generations Moscow princes spent their formative years in the Tatar capital, learned a lot, and adopted Mongolian political institutions on a wide scale when they returned to Moscow to rule. The entire Muscovite political and military structure in the 14th to early 15th centuries was a parallel to that of the Tatar one.

    “The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political Institutions” Donald Ostrowski

    https://lenta.ru/articles/2015/10/11/lukin/
    As for the institutional influence of the Horde on Russia, it was minimal and should not be exaggerated. What institutions could a nomadic society pass on to a more developed settled society? In 1998, a book was published by the American historian Donald Ostrowski, who tried to prove the opposite in it. In fact, all those political institutions that Ostrovsky considered borrowed from the Horde (for example, the so-called decimal organization) existed in Russia even in the pre-Mongol period.”

    • Replies: @AP
    Sorry, Harvard/Cambridge scholar is better than Russian Svidomists and/ or Sovok historians who work hard to minimize Tatar or Mongol influence (for similar reasons why Ukrainian Svidomists exaggerate them for Russia).
  96. @AP

    I really don’t think that the writer Bulgakov is a descendant of these princes, but the origin of “Tatar tax collector Bulgak” is completely fantastic.

     

    Three sources confirm Tatar origins of Bulgakovs:

    George Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia, Yale University Press (1943), p. 384

    Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross & the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy, Cornell University Press (1997), p. 23

    Judith Deutsch Kornblatt & Richard F. Gustafson, Russian Religious Thought, Univ of Wisconsin Press (1996), p. 135

    The legend about the origin of Chaadaev from Chgatai was born on the basis of the similarity of the surname. But this is a legend that was confirmed recently by genetic research (Chaadaev could not be a descendant of Genghis Khan)
     
    Link or source?

    Historians are in this case the visionary Vernadsky, but his views among historians are marginal, to put it mildly.
     
    Vernadsky was a specialist of Russian history at Yale, arguably the best university in the world. As such, his views are far less marginal than those of the Soviet historians who might not have liked him because he was a Russian White.

    There is a Russian nobility DNA project:

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public/RussianNobilityDNA/default.aspx?section=yresults

    You can see a strong mix of Tatar origins.

    If you haven’t already, you might find the following article by Charles Halperin about George Vernadsky’s evolving (and retracting) views on Russian Eurasianism of interest: “George Vernadsky, Eurasianism, the Mongols and Russia”. Towards the end of the 19 page review, Halperin spends a good deal of time reviewing Vernadsky’s final foray into this topic within his book “The Mongols and Russia”. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2497020?read-now=1&seq=1

    • Thanks: AP
  97. @melanf

    “The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political Institutions” Donald Ostrowski
     
    https://lenta.ru/articles/2015/10/11/lukin/
    "As for the institutional influence of the Horde on Russia, it was minimal and should not be exaggerated. What institutions could a nomadic society pass on to a more developed settled society? In 1998, a book was published by the American historian Donald Ostrowski, who tried to prove the opposite in it. In fact, all those political institutions that Ostrovsky considered borrowed from the Horde (for example, the so-called decimal organization) existed in Russia even in the pre-Mongol period."

    Sorry, Harvard/Cambridge scholar is better than Russian Svidomists and/ or Sovok historians who work hard to minimize Tatar or Mongol influence (for similar reasons why Ukrainian Svidomists exaggerate them for Russia).

    • Replies: @melanf

    Sorry, Harvard/Cambridge scholar is better than Russian
     
    In regard to the study of Russian history (especially medieval Russian history). Harvard/Cambridge has a scientific level close to zero. In archaeology of ancient Russia these organizations are not engaged in the analysis of written sources, mainly rely on the Russian historians. They did not contribute anything to the study of the history of Ancient Russia.

    However, you can support Harvard/Cambridge by providing an example of a social institution borrowed from the Mongols/Tatars.

  98. @neutral
    The racial Eurasian populations in the USSR, Russia being ruled by Mongols for 300 years and the cultural oriental influences. When Goebbels said they were fighting the "Mongolen sturm", there was much truth in that propaganda.

    As others have commented, there was some truth to his comment, though not as much as he implied.

    But the Germans are no longer in a position to make such observations in a critical manner, that’s for sure. Germany is increasingly full of people far more racially mixed (nonEuropean) and culturally alien / hostile than Russia’s mixed population.

    There will be few “Germans” who are predominantly european genetically, even culturally, soon enough on current trends.

    If he were alive today, Goebbels might find that Russia is less physically dangerous and less culturally Balkanized than Germany and Austria are becoming — and that russians are generally less ashamed of their own culture, less self-hating, less demoralized, and less cowardly than Germans.

    Now I pray that russians will start having more children so that they can preserve their beautiful complex culture, and hold their land and language safe against encroachment. Don’t go down the path of Goebbels’s pathetic faggotized descendants. (But I mean that in a good Christian way 😉

  99. @AP
    Sorry, Harvard/Cambridge scholar is better than Russian Svidomists and/ or Sovok historians who work hard to minimize Tatar or Mongol influence (for similar reasons why Ukrainian Svidomists exaggerate them for Russia).

    Sorry, Harvard/Cambridge scholar is better than Russian

    In regard to the study of Russian history (especially medieval Russian history). Harvard/Cambridge has a scientific level close to zero. In archaeology of ancient Russia these organizations are not engaged in the analysis of written sources, mainly rely on the Russian historians. They did not contribute anything to the study of the history of Ancient Russia.

    However, you can support Harvard/Cambridge by providing an example of a social institution borrowed from the Mongols/Tatars.

    • Replies: @AP
    I trust a scholar from Yale, Harvard or Cambridge (including a Russian one such as Yale’s Vernadsky, a White emigre) to analyze and interpret Russian sources more than I do Sovok or Svidomist ones.

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.
    , @Mr. Hack
    But wait, wasn't Gerge Vernadsky one of the most prominent Russian historians of the 20th century, whose own research was the basis for all of his works? Wasn't he a pupil of and protege of one of the most revered Russian historians of the 19th century, Vasily Klyuchevsky? Certainly, living in the US must have influenced his worldview to a certain extent and allowed him a wider audience of friends and acquaintances than living in a strictly Russian milieu, but his finding a place of employment at Yale didn't in any way change his highly developed Russian worldview.
  100. @melanf

    Sorry, Harvard/Cambridge scholar is better than Russian
     
    In regard to the study of Russian history (especially medieval Russian history). Harvard/Cambridge has a scientific level close to zero. In archaeology of ancient Russia these organizations are not engaged in the analysis of written sources, mainly rely on the Russian historians. They did not contribute anything to the study of the history of Ancient Russia.

    However, you can support Harvard/Cambridge by providing an example of a social institution borrowed from the Mongols/Tatars.

    I trust a scholar from Yale, Harvard or Cambridge (including a Russian one such as Yale’s Vernadsky, a White emigre) to analyze and interpret Russian sources more than I do Sovok or Svidomist ones.

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.

    • Replies: @melanf

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.
     
    Of course this is not true. With (some reservations) was borrowed tactics of the Tatars-the use of detachments of horse archers.
    But the organization of the army was completely different-the nobles were given land to own, but for this they carried out military service. This is a typical method of recruiting troops in medieval Europe, which has nothing to do with the practice of nomads.
  101. @melanf

    Sorry, Harvard/Cambridge scholar is better than Russian
     
    In regard to the study of Russian history (especially medieval Russian history). Harvard/Cambridge has a scientific level close to zero. In archaeology of ancient Russia these organizations are not engaged in the analysis of written sources, mainly rely on the Russian historians. They did not contribute anything to the study of the history of Ancient Russia.

    However, you can support Harvard/Cambridge by providing an example of a social institution borrowed from the Mongols/Tatars.

    But wait, wasn’t Gerge Vernadsky one of the most prominent Russian historians of the 20th century, whose own research was the basis for all of his works? Wasn’t he a pupil of and protege of one of the most revered Russian historians of the 19th century, Vasily Klyuchevsky? Certainly, living in the US must have influenced his worldview to a certain extent and allowed him a wider audience of friends and acquaintances than living in a strictly Russian milieu, but his finding a place of employment at Yale didn’t in any way change his highly developed Russian worldview.

    • Replies: @melanf

    But wait, wasn’t Gerge Vernadsky one of the most prominent Russian historians of the 20th century, whose own research was the basis for all of his works?
     
    Vernadsky wrote interesting books on history (in most cases in Russian, so that the English-speaking public is not familiar with these works) and expressed interesting hypotheses. But his hypotheses (in particular about the creation of the Russian state based on the patterns of the Mongol Empire) were not confirmed at all in further research. At the same time, Vernadsky was cut off (for obvious reasons) from archaeological excavations/work in the archives. He is certainly an interesting author, but it is not correct to refer to him as an exponent of the opinion of the scientific community.
  102. @AP
    I trust a scholar from Yale, Harvard or Cambridge (including a Russian one such as Yale’s Vernadsky, a White emigre) to analyze and interpret Russian sources more than I do Sovok or Svidomist ones.

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.

    Of course this is not true. With (some reservations) was borrowed tactics of the Tatars-the use of detachments of horse archers.
    But the organization of the army was completely different-the nobles were given land to own, but for this they carried out military service. This is a typical method of recruiting troops in medieval Europe, which has nothing to do with the practice of nomads.

    • Replies: @melanf
    Here is the noble warriors of the end of the 15th century (this is a reliable reconstruction-this was confirmed by historians)

    http://www.chen-la.com/gallery-vim/Vasiliy-Birzul/No-Name/No-Name-06.jpg

    http://www.chen-la.com/gallery-vim/Vasiliy-Birzul/No-Name/No-Name-01.jpg

    https://voenflot.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/0033-768x512.jpg

    Tatar warrior of the same era

    https://b.radikal.ru/b13/2002/3c/79d6f94ba009.png

    As you can see there is a difference even at the level of weapons

    , @AP

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.
    Of course this is not true. With (some reservations) was borrowed tactics of the Tatars-the use of detachments of horse archers.
     
    The very fact that Moscow emerged as the geopolitical center of the Rus was a direct result of Mongol rule.

    Nice summary is here:

    https://www.ijors.net/issue5_2_2016/articles/cicek.html

    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
    RUSSIAN STUDIES




    Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow.[16] With the start of the Mongol raids on Kiev and southern towns, thousands of refugees began to arrive in Moscow looking for shelter. Within a short period of time the population of Moscow increased drastically.

    The most important turning point in Moscow’s rise as a power center was the year 1327, when the populace of Tver started a rebellion against their Mongol Khans. Seeing this as an important opportunity, Prince Ivan I of Moscow crashed the rebellion and restored the order with the help of a Mongol contingent. Ivan I was rewarded with iarlyk (ярлык), a status as the tribute collector, for this loyalty to his Khan. After 1328, Moscow started profiting largely from this status. Its princes not only used their position to fill their own coffers; they also annexed further towns as punishment for falling behind on the payment of their tribute.[17]

    Soon Moscow became second only to Sarai in importance during the Mongol period.[18] The Muscovite princes were transformed into permanent hereditary governors of the Russian province of the Mongol Empire. From that moment, the Muscovite princes became the representatives of a central state power and the restorer of the unity inside the Tatar state system. Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt, that the princes of Moscow, by cooperating with their Mongol Khans in the collection of tribute, prospered greatly and thus became grand princes.

    According to Vernadsky, the Mongol influence on Muscovite administrative and military affairs was also profound. It was on the basis of Mongol patterns that the grand dual system of taxation and army organization was developed in Muscovy in the late fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries. For more than 50 years the Khans of the Golden Horde exercised full and direct power over taxation and conscription in eastern Rus’. When the Russian princes recovered authority over them, they continued the Mongol systems. The Turkic origin of the Russian words for treasury (kazna, казна) and treasurer (kaznachei, казначей) suggest that the Muscovite treasury followed a Mongol pattern. The division of the Muscovite army into five large units resembled Mongol practice. The Russians adopted the Tatars’ tactics of envelopment and their system of universal conscription.[36]
    Riasanovsky argues that a number of Mongolian words in the fields of administration and finance entered the Russian language, indicating a degree of influence. For example, the term iarlyk (ярлык), which means in modern Russian a trademark or a customs stamp, comes from a Mongol word signifying a written order of the Khan, especially the Khan’s grant of privileges; similarly, the Russian words denga (деньга), meaning coin, and dengi (деньги), money, derive from Mongolian. According to Riasanovsky, Mongols affected the evolution of Russian military forces and tactics, notably as applied to the cavalry. Similarly, the Mongols deserve at least limited credit for bringing Russia the postal service.[37]

    Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money. Muscovite bureaucratic practices, and perhaps some features of Muscovite bureaucratic jargon, may also derive from the Qipchaq Khanate, as well as selective legal practices such as pravezh (правёж), beating on the shins. Certainly Muscovite diplomatic norms for dealing with steppe states and peoples were modeled on Tatar ways. Finally, the Muscovites had no choice but to study Tatar military tactics and strategies, if only to survive by countering them in battle, but Muscovites also copied Mongol weapons, armaments, horse equipage, and formations.[38]

    Ostrowski saw a direct parallel between the organization of the central and provincial political institutions of Muscovy and the Qipchaq Khanate, embodied in matching organizational charts that demonstrate that the two systems were “direct cognates”. According to Ostrowski, the Muscovite Boyar Council, the division of military and civilian authority that he calls a “dual administration”, the leading Muscovite military and diplomatic officials (the tysiatskii, тысяцкий), the heads of the domestic court administration (the dvorskii, дворский), the provincial administrators (the volosteli, волостели) – all were direct imitations of the political and administrative structure of the Qipchaq Khanate.[39]

    According to Trubetzkoi, a concrete example of the Mongol influence on Russia was the establishment of the postal system. The Mongols, Trubetzkoi argued, brought the network of postal roads and the Mongol system for organizing mail and other means of communication, based on a statewide “postal obligation”, which continued to exist in Russia long after the Tatar Yoke.[40] Figes argued that the Mongols had a sophisticated system of administration and taxation, from which the Russian state would develop its own structures, and this is reflected in the Tatar origins of many words like dengi (деньги), kazna (казна), and tamozhnia (таможня).[41]

    :::::::::::::

    I hadn't noticed that Turkic even had an impact on Russian grammar:

    One highly important colloquial feature of the Russian language of Turkic origin is the use of the word давай which expresses the idea of ‘Let’s…’ or ‘Come on, let’s…’ (Figes, 370-1). Listed below are a few common examples still found commonly in Russian.

    Давай чай попьем. Davai chai popem. ‘Let’s drink some tea.’
    Давай выпьем! Davai vypem! ‘Come on, let’s get drunk!’
    Давай пойдём! Davai poidyom! ‘Come on, let’s go!’

    (In addition, ther eis of course the Russian expression "Ayda" - "Let's go" - which is straight from Turkic)
  103. @Mr. Hack
    But wait, wasn't Gerge Vernadsky one of the most prominent Russian historians of the 20th century, whose own research was the basis for all of his works? Wasn't he a pupil of and protege of one of the most revered Russian historians of the 19th century, Vasily Klyuchevsky? Certainly, living in the US must have influenced his worldview to a certain extent and allowed him a wider audience of friends and acquaintances than living in a strictly Russian milieu, but his finding a place of employment at Yale didn't in any way change his highly developed Russian worldview.

    But wait, wasn’t Gerge Vernadsky one of the most prominent Russian historians of the 20th century, whose own research was the basis for all of his works?

    Vernadsky wrote interesting books on history (in most cases in Russian, so that the English-speaking public is not familiar with these works) and expressed interesting hypotheses. But his hypotheses (in particular about the creation of the Russian state based on the patterns of the Mongol Empire) were not confirmed at all in further research. At the same time, Vernadsky was cut off (for obvious reasons) from archaeological excavations/work in the archives. He is certainly an interesting author, but it is not correct to refer to him as an exponent of the opinion of the scientific community.

    • LOL: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Vernadsky's final Magnum opus, his five volume history of Russia is all available on Amazon or E-Bay (around $400)- I own the first volume. His ubiquitous "Kievan Russia" was (is?) standard fare back in the 70's and 80's when I had the pleasure of studying (upper level) under the guidance of a well known medievalist, Thomas Noonan, at the Universtiy of Minnesota.
  104. @melanf

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.
     
    Of course this is not true. With (some reservations) was borrowed tactics of the Tatars-the use of detachments of horse archers.
    But the organization of the army was completely different-the nobles were given land to own, but for this they carried out military service. This is a typical method of recruiting troops in medieval Europe, which has nothing to do with the practice of nomads.

    Here is the noble warriors of the end of the 15th century (this is a reliable reconstruction-this was confirmed by historians)

    Tatar warrior of the same era

    As you can see there is a difference even at the level of weapons

    • Replies: @AP
    Bows look the same, helmets are similar. Clothes and swords are different.

    Not pictured, but Muscovites adopted the Mongols' habit of wearing silk shirts underneath the armor. This made it much easier and less messy to remove arrows, reducing deaths.
  105. @neutral
    Theirs was a true absolutism, nothing in Western Europe came close to the total power wielded over the population.

    So all those stories about Henry VIII killing his wives, and converting his kingdom to an improvised religion are lies? Perhaps he was concerned with the Magna Carta, Mother of the Free, my house is my castle, outlive the menace of tyranny, fight on the beaches, and other such bull.

    Was he asking a jury before or after he had his subjects quartered?

  106. According the maps, Mongols should have left more genetic traces in Ukraine than in Russia. Tatar admix should be higher in Ukraine. So, why Ukrainians label Russians as “mongrelized Finns”?

    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    According the maps, Mongols should have left more genetic traces in Ukraine than in Russia. Tatar admix should be higher in Ukraine.
     
    Indeed that is true.

    Russia has a higher Finno-Ugric aboriginal admixture, Ukraine has a higher steppe invader admixture.

    In a sense, Ukrainians are right about "mongrelized Finns", though it boggles the mind why you might consider that a bad thing. Especially in light of mystery-meat Ukrainian genetics.
  107. @AP
    I was just showing you being wrong as usual.

    Read my post again, you stupid git. I never mentioned or even hinted that Russia is rich or richer than Eastern Europe. You, as usual, vomited your stale state-department provided copypasta without even bothering to engage your basic literacy skills, if you have them.

    • Troll: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @AP
    It’s funny that you even manage to be wrong when you make claims about what you yourself write.

    Keep up the good work :-)
  108. @aedib
    According the maps, Mongols should have left more genetic traces in Ukraine than in Russia. Tatar admix should be higher in Ukraine. So, why Ukrainians label Russians as “mongrelized Finns”?

    According the maps, Mongols should have left more genetic traces in Ukraine than in Russia. Tatar admix should be higher in Ukraine.

    Indeed that is true.

    Russia has a higher Finno-Ugric aboriginal admixture, Ukraine has a higher steppe invader admixture.

    In a sense, Ukrainians are right about “mongrelized Finns”, though it boggles the mind why you might consider that a bad thing. Especially in light of mystery-meat Ukrainian genetics.

    • Replies: @Aedib
    So, they should not claim to be "whiter than Russians" as usually they do.
  109. @anonymous coward
    Read my post again, you stupid git. I never mentioned or even hinted that Russia is rich or richer than Eastern Europe. You, as usual, vomited your stale state-department provided copypasta without even bothering to engage your basic literacy skills, if you have them.

    It’s funny that you even manage to be wrong when you make claims about what you yourself write.

    Keep up the good work 🙂

  110. @melanf

    But wait, wasn’t Gerge Vernadsky one of the most prominent Russian historians of the 20th century, whose own research was the basis for all of his works?
     
    Vernadsky wrote interesting books on history (in most cases in Russian, so that the English-speaking public is not familiar with these works) and expressed interesting hypotheses. But his hypotheses (in particular about the creation of the Russian state based on the patterns of the Mongol Empire) were not confirmed at all in further research. At the same time, Vernadsky was cut off (for obvious reasons) from archaeological excavations/work in the archives. He is certainly an interesting author, but it is not correct to refer to him as an exponent of the opinion of the scientific community.

    Vernadsky’s final Magnum opus, his five volume history of Russia is all available on Amazon or E-Bay (around $400)- I own the first volume. His ubiquitous “Kievan Russia” was (is?) standard fare back in the 70’s and 80’s when I had the pleasure of studying (upper level) under the guidance of a well known medievalist, Thomas Noonan, at the Universtiy of Minnesota.

  111. @melanf

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.
     
    Of course this is not true. With (some reservations) was borrowed tactics of the Tatars-the use of detachments of horse archers.
    But the organization of the army was completely different-the nobles were given land to own, but for this they carried out military service. This is a typical method of recruiting troops in medieval Europe, which has nothing to do with the practice of nomads.

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.
    Of course this is not true. With (some reservations) was borrowed tactics of the Tatars-the use of detachments of horse archers.

    The very fact that Moscow emerged as the geopolitical center of the Rus was a direct result of Mongol rule.

    Nice summary is here:

    https://www.ijors.net/issue5_2_2016/articles/cicek.html

    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
    RUSSIAN STUDIES

    [MORE]

    Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow.[16] With the start of the Mongol raids on Kiev and southern towns, thousands of refugees began to arrive in Moscow looking for shelter. Within a short period of time the population of Moscow increased drastically.

    The most important turning point in Moscow’s rise as a power center was the year 1327, when the populace of Tver started a rebellion against their Mongol Khans. Seeing this as an important opportunity, Prince Ivan I of Moscow crashed the rebellion and restored the order with the help of a Mongol contingent. Ivan I was rewarded with iarlyk (ярлык), a status as the tribute collector, for this loyalty to his Khan. After 1328, Moscow started profiting largely from this status. Its princes not only used their position to fill their own coffers; they also annexed further towns as punishment for falling behind on the payment of their tribute.[17]

    Soon Moscow became second only to Sarai in importance during the Mongol period.[18] The Muscovite princes were transformed into permanent hereditary governors of the Russian province of the Mongol Empire. From that moment, the Muscovite princes became the representatives of a central state power and the restorer of the unity inside the Tatar state system. Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt, that the princes of Moscow, by cooperating with their Mongol Khans in the collection of tribute, prospered greatly and thus became grand princes.

    According to Vernadsky, the Mongol influence on Muscovite administrative and military affairs was also profound. It was on the basis of Mongol patterns that the grand dual system of taxation and army organization was developed in Muscovy in the late fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries. For more than 50 years the Khans of the Golden Horde exercised full and direct power over taxation and conscription in eastern Rus’. When the Russian princes recovered authority over them, they continued the Mongol systems. The Turkic origin of the Russian words for treasury (kazna, казна) and treasurer (kaznachei, казначей) suggest that the Muscovite treasury followed a Mongol pattern. The division of the Muscovite army into five large units resembled Mongol practice. The Russians adopted the Tatars’ tactics of envelopment and their system of universal conscription.[36]
    Riasanovsky argues that a number of Mongolian words in the fields of administration and finance entered the Russian language, indicating a degree of influence. For example, the term iarlyk (ярлык), which means in modern Russian a trademark or a customs stamp, comes from a Mongol word signifying a written order of the Khan, especially the Khan’s grant of privileges; similarly, the Russian words denga (деньга), meaning coin, and dengi (деньги), money, derive from Mongolian. According to Riasanovsky, Mongols affected the evolution of Russian military forces and tactics, notably as applied to the cavalry. Similarly, the Mongols deserve at least limited credit for bringing Russia the postal service.[37]

    Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money. Muscovite bureaucratic practices, and perhaps some features of Muscovite bureaucratic jargon, may also derive from the Qipchaq Khanate, as well as selective legal practices such as pravezh (правёж), beating on the shins. Certainly Muscovite diplomatic norms for dealing with steppe states and peoples were modeled on Tatar ways. Finally, the Muscovites had no choice but to study Tatar military tactics and strategies, if only to survive by countering them in battle, but Muscovites also copied Mongol weapons, armaments, horse equipage, and formations.[38]

    Ostrowski saw a direct parallel between the organization of the central and provincial political institutions of Muscovy and the Qipchaq Khanate, embodied in matching organizational charts that demonstrate that the two systems were “direct cognates”. According to Ostrowski, the Muscovite Boyar Council, the division of military and civilian authority that he calls a “dual administration”, the leading Muscovite military and diplomatic officials (the tysiatskii, тысяцкий), the heads of the domestic court administration (the dvorskii, дворский), the provincial administrators (the volosteli, волостели) – all were direct imitations of the political and administrative structure of the Qipchaq Khanate.[39]

    According to Trubetzkoi, a concrete example of the Mongol influence on Russia was the establishment of the postal system. The Mongols, Trubetzkoi argued, brought the network of postal roads and the Mongol system for organizing mail and other means of communication, based on a statewide “postal obligation”, which continued to exist in Russia long after the Tatar Yoke.[40] Figes argued that the Mongols had a sophisticated system of administration and taxation, from which the Russian state would develop its own structures, and this is reflected in the Tatar origins of many words like dengi (деньги), kazna (казна), and tamozhnia (таможня).[41]

    :::::::::::::

    I hadn’t noticed that Turkic even had an impact on Russian grammar:

    One highly important colloquial feature of the Russian language of Turkic origin is the use of the word давай which expresses the idea of ‘Let’s…’ or ‘Come on, let’s…’ (Figes, 370-1). Listed below are a few common examples still found commonly in Russian.

    Давай чай попьем. Davai chai popem. ‘Let’s drink some tea.’
    Давай выпьем! Davai vypem! ‘Come on, let’s get drunk!’
    Давай пойдём! Davai poidyom! ‘Come on, let’s go!’

    (In addition, ther eis of course the Russian expression “Ayda” – “Let’s go” – which is straight from Turkic)

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Here, in addition to Vernadsky and Halperin, we see Trubetskoi chiming in support that Muscovite Russia inherited many state and military attributes from the Horde to its historic legacy. I agree that the representations of Mongol and Russian cavalry soldiers look very similar. The Mongol bow was designed to be quicker and deliver a much further range, something that I'm sure wasn't lost on the Muscovite cavalrymen.
    , @melanf

    Nice summary is here:
    https://www.ijors.net/issue5_2_2016/articles/cicek.html
     
    This is a real pseudoscience. I'll show you

    Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow
     
    Moscow was stormed and destroyed during the Mongol invasion. Here is the chronicle " (Mongols) exterminated the entire population from the elderly to infants, burned the city, and burned the surrounding monasteries and villages"

    (Взяша Москву татарове, и воеводу убиша Филипа Нянка за правоверную хрестьянскую веру, а князя Володимера яша руками, сына Юрьева, а люди избиша от старьца и до сущаго младенца; а град и церкви святыя огневи предаша, и манастыри вси и села пожгоша и много именья вземше отъидоша)


    With the start of the Mongol raids on Kiev and southern towns, thousands of refugees began to arrive in Moscow
     
    Refugees from Kiev destroyed by the Mongols, to Moscow destroyed by the Mongols? Funny

    The most important turning point in Moscow’s rise as a power center was the year 1327, when the populace of Tver started a rebellion against their Mongol Khans. Seeing this as an important opportunity, Prince Ivan I of Moscow crashed the rebellion and restored the order with the help of a Mongol contingent.
     
    This is a direct lie. Residents of Tver massacred a detachment of Tatars standing in Tver. After that, the Tatar army (which included the auxiliary troops of Ivan and other princes) destroyed Tver. Of course, the Tatars did not ask Ivan's opinion about whether to punish Tver for the extermination of Tatar soldiers or not.
    This event was not the "most important turning point" - Moscow's struggle with Tver began long before these events, and ended decades later

    Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt, that the princes of Moscow, by cooperating with their Mongol Khans in the collection of tribute, prospered greatly and thus became grand princes.
     
    Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt that the author of this article does not know these evidence completely, and apparently does not understand who the grand princes was.
    He (the author) uses the hypothesis (which cannot be confirmed or refuted using the available narrative sources) that the Moscow princes were enriched by the taxes they collected for the Tatars as Grand Dukes (it was the duty of the grand princes of Vladimir to collect taxes). But at the same time, the author (since he is an ignorant propagandist) reverses the cause and effect-the Moscow princes collected taxes after and becouse they achieved the title of grand princes of Vladimir, and not Vice versa.

    Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money.
     
    This is a strikingly brazen manipulation when borrowed words are passed off as borrowed social institutions.
    That is, if the word dengi (money) is of Tatar origin, then according author the social institution of money is also borrowed from the Tatars. At the same time the fact that money, prince treasury, etc. existed in Russia long before the arrival of the Mongols in Europe ignored in the interests of propaganda.

    Muscovite Boyar Council, the division of military and civilian authority that he calls a “dual administration”, the leading Muscovite military and diplomatic officials (the tysiatskii, тысяцкий), the heads of the domestic court administration (the dvorskii, дворский), the provincial administrators (the volosteli, волостели) – all were direct imitations of the political and administrative structure of the Qipchaq Khanate
     
    the tysiatskii, Boyar Council etc., existed before any contact with the Mongols.

    etc. etc. etc.

    And such a pile of garbage is published in a scientific journal. I (not a historian) can refute almost any suggestion in these slops. This is the "scientific" level

    , @Haruto Rat

    (In addition, ther eis of course the Russian expression “Ayda” – “Let’s go” – which is straight from Turkic)
     
    Somewhat surprisingly, this word is commonly used in Latvian and present also in Lithuanian, despite there being no record of Turkic invasion into Baltics.
  112. @melanf
    Here is the noble warriors of the end of the 15th century (this is a reliable reconstruction-this was confirmed by historians)

    http://www.chen-la.com/gallery-vim/Vasiliy-Birzul/No-Name/No-Name-06.jpg

    http://www.chen-la.com/gallery-vim/Vasiliy-Birzul/No-Name/No-Name-01.jpg

    https://voenflot.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/0033-768x512.jpg

    Tatar warrior of the same era

    https://b.radikal.ru/b13/2002/3c/79d6f94ba009.png

    As you can see there is a difference even at the level of weapons

    Bows look the same, helmets are similar. Clothes and swords are different.

    Not pictured, but Muscovites adopted the Mongols’ habit of wearing silk shirts underneath the armor. This made it much easier and less messy to remove arrows, reducing deaths.

  113. @AP

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.
    Of course this is not true. With (some reservations) was borrowed tactics of the Tatars-the use of detachments of horse archers.
     
    The very fact that Moscow emerged as the geopolitical center of the Rus was a direct result of Mongol rule.

    Nice summary is here:

    https://www.ijors.net/issue5_2_2016/articles/cicek.html

    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
    RUSSIAN STUDIES




    Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow.[16] With the start of the Mongol raids on Kiev and southern towns, thousands of refugees began to arrive in Moscow looking for shelter. Within a short period of time the population of Moscow increased drastically.

    The most important turning point in Moscow’s rise as a power center was the year 1327, when the populace of Tver started a rebellion against their Mongol Khans. Seeing this as an important opportunity, Prince Ivan I of Moscow crashed the rebellion and restored the order with the help of a Mongol contingent. Ivan I was rewarded with iarlyk (ярлык), a status as the tribute collector, for this loyalty to his Khan. After 1328, Moscow started profiting largely from this status. Its princes not only used their position to fill their own coffers; they also annexed further towns as punishment for falling behind on the payment of their tribute.[17]

    Soon Moscow became second only to Sarai in importance during the Mongol period.[18] The Muscovite princes were transformed into permanent hereditary governors of the Russian province of the Mongol Empire. From that moment, the Muscovite princes became the representatives of a central state power and the restorer of the unity inside the Tatar state system. Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt, that the princes of Moscow, by cooperating with their Mongol Khans in the collection of tribute, prospered greatly and thus became grand princes.

    According to Vernadsky, the Mongol influence on Muscovite administrative and military affairs was also profound. It was on the basis of Mongol patterns that the grand dual system of taxation and army organization was developed in Muscovy in the late fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries. For more than 50 years the Khans of the Golden Horde exercised full and direct power over taxation and conscription in eastern Rus’. When the Russian princes recovered authority over them, they continued the Mongol systems. The Turkic origin of the Russian words for treasury (kazna, казна) and treasurer (kaznachei, казначей) suggest that the Muscovite treasury followed a Mongol pattern. The division of the Muscovite army into five large units resembled Mongol practice. The Russians adopted the Tatars’ tactics of envelopment and their system of universal conscription.[36]
    Riasanovsky argues that a number of Mongolian words in the fields of administration and finance entered the Russian language, indicating a degree of influence. For example, the term iarlyk (ярлык), which means in modern Russian a trademark or a customs stamp, comes from a Mongol word signifying a written order of the Khan, especially the Khan’s grant of privileges; similarly, the Russian words denga (деньга), meaning coin, and dengi (деньги), money, derive from Mongolian. According to Riasanovsky, Mongols affected the evolution of Russian military forces and tactics, notably as applied to the cavalry. Similarly, the Mongols deserve at least limited credit for bringing Russia the postal service.[37]

    Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money. Muscovite bureaucratic practices, and perhaps some features of Muscovite bureaucratic jargon, may also derive from the Qipchaq Khanate, as well as selective legal practices such as pravezh (правёж), beating on the shins. Certainly Muscovite diplomatic norms for dealing with steppe states and peoples were modeled on Tatar ways. Finally, the Muscovites had no choice but to study Tatar military tactics and strategies, if only to survive by countering them in battle, but Muscovites also copied Mongol weapons, armaments, horse equipage, and formations.[38]

    Ostrowski saw a direct parallel between the organization of the central and provincial political institutions of Muscovy and the Qipchaq Khanate, embodied in matching organizational charts that demonstrate that the two systems were “direct cognates”. According to Ostrowski, the Muscovite Boyar Council, the division of military and civilian authority that he calls a “dual administration”, the leading Muscovite military and diplomatic officials (the tysiatskii, тысяцкий), the heads of the domestic court administration (the dvorskii, дворский), the provincial administrators (the volosteli, волостели) – all were direct imitations of the political and administrative structure of the Qipchaq Khanate.[39]

    According to Trubetzkoi, a concrete example of the Mongol influence on Russia was the establishment of the postal system. The Mongols, Trubetzkoi argued, brought the network of postal roads and the Mongol system for organizing mail and other means of communication, based on a statewide “postal obligation”, which continued to exist in Russia long after the Tatar Yoke.[40] Figes argued that the Mongols had a sophisticated system of administration and taxation, from which the Russian state would develop its own structures, and this is reflected in the Tatar origins of many words like dengi (деньги), kazna (казна), and tamozhnia (таможня).[41]

    :::::::::::::

    I hadn't noticed that Turkic even had an impact on Russian grammar:

    One highly important colloquial feature of the Russian language of Turkic origin is the use of the word давай which expresses the idea of ‘Let’s…’ or ‘Come on, let’s…’ (Figes, 370-1). Listed below are a few common examples still found commonly in Russian.

    Давай чай попьем. Davai chai popem. ‘Let’s drink some tea.’
    Давай выпьем! Davai vypem! ‘Come on, let’s get drunk!’
    Давай пойдём! Davai poidyom! ‘Come on, let’s go!’

    (In addition, ther eis of course the Russian expression "Ayda" - "Let's go" - which is straight from Turkic)

    Here, in addition to Vernadsky and Halperin, we see Trubetskoi chiming in support that Muscovite Russia inherited many state and military attributes from the Horde to its historic legacy. I agree that the representations of Mongol and Russian cavalry soldiers look very similar. The Mongol bow was designed to be quicker and deliver a much further range, something that I’m sure wasn’t lost on the Muscovite cavalrymen.

  114. Not on topic but …

    I’ve just been No Platformed by the LSE Students Union for wanting to address the Russian Society on engaging Russia through trade. No reason given. No objector identified. I am completely inconsequential and have no record as an extremist.

    • Replies: @Denis
    Damn. How did they break the news without giving a reason?

    "Hey Philip, since you're a russkie lover, we've decided to screw with you and get your address canceled. Don't bother protesting, there's no point, we just felt like it and that's that.

    Sincerely,

    LSE Students Union"

    Seriously, you have no inkling what the reason could be?
  115. @Europe Europa
    Are the English considered to be part of the Germanic world or non-Germanic?

    Mixed race. More Romano British/Celts in the West and North and South Coast, more Germanic in the East and South East but there was never a siege and conquest of London or York (unlike the Viking times). They just turned up.

  116. @anonymous coward

    According the maps, Mongols should have left more genetic traces in Ukraine than in Russia. Tatar admix should be higher in Ukraine.
     
    Indeed that is true.

    Russia has a higher Finno-Ugric aboriginal admixture, Ukraine has a higher steppe invader admixture.

    In a sense, Ukrainians are right about "mongrelized Finns", though it boggles the mind why you might consider that a bad thing. Especially in light of mystery-meat Ukrainian genetics.

    So, they should not claim to be “whiter than Russians” as usually they do.

  117. @Europe Europa
    Are the English considered to be part of the Germanic world or non-Germanic?

    Germanic.

  118. @songbird
    There should still be some level of genetic continuity, in theory, even if they don't have the same mitochondrial or Y-haplotypes.

    In the days of strict caste lines, no way. Remember, the Borjigin clan Genghis Khan descended from was an elite tribe. Nobody in Mongolia has the Borjigin Y-DNA marker but several Borjigin-related peoples (such as the Turkic Bashkir or the Hazara) do. Those people are way more West Eurasian than Mongols in Mongolia.

  119. @Philip Owen
    Not on topic but ...

    I've just been No Platformed by the LSE Students Union for wanting to address the Russian Society on engaging Russia through trade. No reason given. No objector identified. I am completely inconsequential and have no record as an extremist.

    Damn. How did they break the news without giving a reason?

    “Hey Philip, since you’re a russkie lover, we’ve decided to screw with you and get your address canceled. Don’t bother protesting, there’s no point, we just felt like it and that’s that.

    Sincerely,

    LSE Students Union”

    Seriously, you have no inkling what the reason could be?

  120. The closest depiction generally accepted by most historians is the portrait currently in the National Palace Museum in Taipei, Taiwan, which was drawn under the supervision of his grandson Khubilai during the Mongol Yuan dynasty and depicts Genghis Khan with typical Mongol features.

  121. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622

    Although many regard the portrait at the National Palace Museum in Taipei, Taiwan, as the depiction most closely resembles Genghis Khan, all existing portraits, including this one, are essentially arbitrary interpretations of Genghis Khan’s appearance by historians living generations after Genghis Khan’s era [2, 6]. Although the factual nature of the statement is controversial, Persian historian Rashid-al-Din reported in his “Jami’s al-tawarikh” written at the start of the 14th century that most Borjigin ancestors of Genghis Khan were tall, long-bearded, red-haired, and bluish green-eyed, suggesting that the Genghis Khan’s male lineage had some Caucasoid-specific genetic features [44]. He also said that Genghis Khan looked just like his ancestors, but Kublai Khan, his grandson, did not inherit his ancestor’s red hair, implying that the addition of Mongoloid-specific alleles for determining hair color to the genetic makeup of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan was probably from the grandmother or mother of Kublai Khan, that is, the wife or daughter-in-law of Genghis Khan.

    “On” and “gud” from Ongud mean West and plural in ancient Altaic language, respectively, implying that the Ongud is a tribe from Western Asia. In fact, the ancestors of the Ongud are the Shato Turks of the Western Göktürks Khaganate [45, 46]; they moved to Eastern Xinjiang in the 7th century, and were scattered over Northern China and Inner Mongolia in the 9th century [47]. In the Mongolian era, many Ongud peoples were resettled in Khorazm of Western Central Asia, as governors for the Golden Horde Dynasty, and eventually formed part of the Kazakhs and the Mughals [44]. In addition, they also fell under the Chagatai Khanate that was ruled by Chagatai Khan and his descendants and/or successors and extended from the Southern part of the Aral Sea to the Altai Mountains [48]. These suggest the possibility that the Ongud clan may be anthropologically Caucasoid rather than Mongoloid, according to their geographical origin. Therefore, the male bodies carrying R1b-M343 (prevalent in Western Europe) from Tavan Tolgoi, which was located within the territory of the Ongud Kingdom during the early Mongolian era, could be related to the Ongud male lineage, implying that Tavan Tolgoi bodies are genealogically Caucasoid.

  122. @AP

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.
    Of course this is not true. With (some reservations) was borrowed tactics of the Tatars-the use of detachments of horse archers.
     
    The very fact that Moscow emerged as the geopolitical center of the Rus was a direct result of Mongol rule.

    Nice summary is here:

    https://www.ijors.net/issue5_2_2016/articles/cicek.html

    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
    RUSSIAN STUDIES




    Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow.[16] With the start of the Mongol raids on Kiev and southern towns, thousands of refugees began to arrive in Moscow looking for shelter. Within a short period of time the population of Moscow increased drastically.

    The most important turning point in Moscow’s rise as a power center was the year 1327, when the populace of Tver started a rebellion against their Mongol Khans. Seeing this as an important opportunity, Prince Ivan I of Moscow crashed the rebellion and restored the order with the help of a Mongol contingent. Ivan I was rewarded with iarlyk (ярлык), a status as the tribute collector, for this loyalty to his Khan. After 1328, Moscow started profiting largely from this status. Its princes not only used their position to fill their own coffers; they also annexed further towns as punishment for falling behind on the payment of their tribute.[17]

    Soon Moscow became second only to Sarai in importance during the Mongol period.[18] The Muscovite princes were transformed into permanent hereditary governors of the Russian province of the Mongol Empire. From that moment, the Muscovite princes became the representatives of a central state power and the restorer of the unity inside the Tatar state system. Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt, that the princes of Moscow, by cooperating with their Mongol Khans in the collection of tribute, prospered greatly and thus became grand princes.

    According to Vernadsky, the Mongol influence on Muscovite administrative and military affairs was also profound. It was on the basis of Mongol patterns that the grand dual system of taxation and army organization was developed in Muscovy in the late fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries. For more than 50 years the Khans of the Golden Horde exercised full and direct power over taxation and conscription in eastern Rus’. When the Russian princes recovered authority over them, they continued the Mongol systems. The Turkic origin of the Russian words for treasury (kazna, казна) and treasurer (kaznachei, казначей) suggest that the Muscovite treasury followed a Mongol pattern. The division of the Muscovite army into five large units resembled Mongol practice. The Russians adopted the Tatars’ tactics of envelopment and their system of universal conscription.[36]
    Riasanovsky argues that a number of Mongolian words in the fields of administration and finance entered the Russian language, indicating a degree of influence. For example, the term iarlyk (ярлык), which means in modern Russian a trademark or a customs stamp, comes from a Mongol word signifying a written order of the Khan, especially the Khan’s grant of privileges; similarly, the Russian words denga (деньга), meaning coin, and dengi (деньги), money, derive from Mongolian. According to Riasanovsky, Mongols affected the evolution of Russian military forces and tactics, notably as applied to the cavalry. Similarly, the Mongols deserve at least limited credit for bringing Russia the postal service.[37]

    Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money. Muscovite bureaucratic practices, and perhaps some features of Muscovite bureaucratic jargon, may also derive from the Qipchaq Khanate, as well as selective legal practices such as pravezh (правёж), beating on the shins. Certainly Muscovite diplomatic norms for dealing with steppe states and peoples were modeled on Tatar ways. Finally, the Muscovites had no choice but to study Tatar military tactics and strategies, if only to survive by countering them in battle, but Muscovites also copied Mongol weapons, armaments, horse equipage, and formations.[38]

    Ostrowski saw a direct parallel between the organization of the central and provincial political institutions of Muscovy and the Qipchaq Khanate, embodied in matching organizational charts that demonstrate that the two systems were “direct cognates”. According to Ostrowski, the Muscovite Boyar Council, the division of military and civilian authority that he calls a “dual administration”, the leading Muscovite military and diplomatic officials (the tysiatskii, тысяцкий), the heads of the domestic court administration (the dvorskii, дворский), the provincial administrators (the volosteli, волостели) – all were direct imitations of the political and administrative structure of the Qipchaq Khanate.[39]

    According to Trubetzkoi, a concrete example of the Mongol influence on Russia was the establishment of the postal system. The Mongols, Trubetzkoi argued, brought the network of postal roads and the Mongol system for organizing mail and other means of communication, based on a statewide “postal obligation”, which continued to exist in Russia long after the Tatar Yoke.[40] Figes argued that the Mongols had a sophisticated system of administration and taxation, from which the Russian state would develop its own structures, and this is reflected in the Tatar origins of many words like dengi (деньги), kazna (казна), and tamozhnia (таможня).[41]

    :::::::::::::

    I hadn't noticed that Turkic even had an impact on Russian grammar:

    One highly important colloquial feature of the Russian language of Turkic origin is the use of the word давай which expresses the idea of ‘Let’s…’ or ‘Come on, let’s…’ (Figes, 370-1). Listed below are a few common examples still found commonly in Russian.

    Давай чай попьем. Davai chai popem. ‘Let’s drink some tea.’
    Давай выпьем! Davai vypem! ‘Come on, let’s get drunk!’
    Давай пойдём! Davai poidyom! ‘Come on, let’s go!’

    (In addition, ther eis of course the Russian expression "Ayda" - "Let's go" - which is straight from Turkic)

    Nice summary is here:
    https://www.ijors.net/issue5_2_2016/articles/cicek.html

    This is a real pseudoscience. I’ll show you

    Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow

    Moscow was stormed and destroyed during the Mongol invasion. Here is the chronicle ” (Mongols) exterminated the entire population from the elderly to infants, burned the city, and burned the surrounding monasteries and villages

    (Взяша Москву татарове, и воеводу убиша Филипа Нянка за правоверную хрестьянскую веру, а князя Володимера яша руками, сына Юрьева, а люди избиша от старьца и до сущаго младенца; а град и церкви святыя огневи предаша, и манастыри вси и села пожгоша и много именья вземше отъидоша)

    With the start of the Mongol raids on Kiev and southern towns, thousands of refugees began to arrive in Moscow

    Refugees from Kiev destroyed by the Mongols, to Moscow destroyed by the Mongols? Funny

    The most important turning point in Moscow’s rise as a power center was the year 1327, when the populace of Tver started a rebellion against their Mongol Khans. Seeing this as an important opportunity, Prince Ivan I of Moscow crashed the rebellion and restored the order with the help of a Mongol contingent.

    This is a direct lie. Residents of Tver massacred a detachment of Tatars standing in Tver. After that, the Tatar army (which included the auxiliary troops of Ivan and other princes) destroyed Tver. Of course, the Tatars did not ask Ivan’s opinion about whether to punish Tver for the extermination of Tatar soldiers or not.
    This event was not the “most important turning point” – Moscow’s struggle with Tver began long before these events, and ended decades later

    Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt, that the princes of Moscow, by cooperating with their Mongol Khans in the collection of tribute, prospered greatly and thus became grand princes.

    Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt that the author of this article does not know these evidence completely, and apparently does not understand who the grand princes was.
    He (the author) uses the hypothesis (which cannot be confirmed or refuted using the available narrative sources) that the Moscow princes were enriched by the taxes they collected for the Tatars as Grand Dukes (it was the duty of the grand princes of Vladimir to collect taxes). But at the same time, the author (since he is an ignorant propagandist) reverses the cause and effect-the Moscow princes collected taxes after and becouse they achieved the title of grand princes of Vladimir, and not Vice versa.

    Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money.

    This is a strikingly brazen manipulation when borrowed words are passed off as borrowed social institutions.
    That is, if the word dengi (money) is of Tatar origin, then according author the social institution of money is also borrowed from the Tatars. At the same time the fact that money, prince treasury, etc. existed in Russia long before the arrival of the Mongols in Europe ignored in the interests of propaganda.

    Muscovite Boyar Council, the division of military and civilian authority that he calls a “dual administration”, the leading Muscovite military and diplomatic officials (the tysiatskii, тысяцкий), the heads of the domestic court administration (the dvorskii, дворский), the provincial administrators (the volosteli, волостели) – all were direct imitations of the political and administrative structure of the Qipchaq Khanate

    the tysiatskii, Boyar Council etc., existed before any contact with the Mongols.

    etc. etc. etc.

    And such a pile of garbage is published in a scientific journal. I (not a historian) can refute almost any suggestion in these slops. This is the “scientific” level

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    You didn't refute anything, that document is well in line with many of the works published by American historians. Not just Russia but the whole of Europe benefitted and was revolutionized by the cultural exchange. Also, the stuff you cited is fake bullshit.
    , @AP
    You are attacking actual history with Russian svodomism. It's funny to see.



    "Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow"

    Moscow was stormed and destroyed during the Mongol invasion. Here is the chronicle ” (Mongols) exterminated the entire population from the elderly to infants, burned the city, and burned the surrounding monasteries and villages”
     
    If it was destroyed and its entire population exterminated during the invasion (rather than merely sacked) it would not have become the center of northeastern Rus civilization.

    The reality is that Moscow princes benefited enormously from their close century-plus-long collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative. This close cooperation was reflected in the wholesale adoption of successful Tatar political and military culture. They were adept pupils who consolidated power until overthrowing their masters. And later Russian svidomist mythologists would minimize the Mongolian influence.

    Refugees from Kiev destroyed by the Mongols, to Moscow destroyed by the Mongols? Funny
     
    Yes, Russian Svidomism that believes that Moscow was erased by the Mongols is indeed funny and doesn't make sense.

    "Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money. "

    This is a strikingly brazen manipulation when borrowed words are passed off as borrowed social institutions.

    That is, if the word dengi (money) is of Tatar origin, then according author the social institution of money is also borrowed from the Tatars. At the same time the fact that money, prince treasury, etc. existed in Russia long before the arrival of the Mongols in Europe ignored in the interests of propaganda.
     
    Hypersensitive Russian Svidomist historian objects. :-)

    That the post-Mongol Russian word for money is of Tatar origin suggests that the Mongol and post-Mongol Muscovite financial system was borrowed from the Tatars and replaced the pre-Tatar one. Not that money wasn't used before the Tatars arrived.

    Your other objections seem to follow your poor logic regarding money.
  123. @melanf

    Nice summary is here:
    https://www.ijors.net/issue5_2_2016/articles/cicek.html
     
    This is a real pseudoscience. I'll show you

    Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow
     
    Moscow was stormed and destroyed during the Mongol invasion. Here is the chronicle " (Mongols) exterminated the entire population from the elderly to infants, burned the city, and burned the surrounding monasteries and villages"

    (Взяша Москву татарове, и воеводу убиша Филипа Нянка за правоверную хрестьянскую веру, а князя Володимера яша руками, сына Юрьева, а люди избиша от старьца и до сущаго младенца; а град и церкви святыя огневи предаша, и манастыри вси и села пожгоша и много именья вземше отъидоша)


    With the start of the Mongol raids on Kiev and southern towns, thousands of refugees began to arrive in Moscow
     
    Refugees from Kiev destroyed by the Mongols, to Moscow destroyed by the Mongols? Funny

    The most important turning point in Moscow’s rise as a power center was the year 1327, when the populace of Tver started a rebellion against their Mongol Khans. Seeing this as an important opportunity, Prince Ivan I of Moscow crashed the rebellion and restored the order with the help of a Mongol contingent.
     
    This is a direct lie. Residents of Tver massacred a detachment of Tatars standing in Tver. After that, the Tatar army (which included the auxiliary troops of Ivan and other princes) destroyed Tver. Of course, the Tatars did not ask Ivan's opinion about whether to punish Tver for the extermination of Tatar soldiers or not.
    This event was not the "most important turning point" - Moscow's struggle with Tver began long before these events, and ended decades later

    Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt, that the princes of Moscow, by cooperating with their Mongol Khans in the collection of tribute, prospered greatly and thus became grand princes.
     
    Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt that the author of this article does not know these evidence completely, and apparently does not understand who the grand princes was.
    He (the author) uses the hypothesis (which cannot be confirmed or refuted using the available narrative sources) that the Moscow princes were enriched by the taxes they collected for the Tatars as Grand Dukes (it was the duty of the grand princes of Vladimir to collect taxes). But at the same time, the author (since he is an ignorant propagandist) reverses the cause and effect-the Moscow princes collected taxes after and becouse they achieved the title of grand princes of Vladimir, and not Vice versa.

    Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money.
     
    This is a strikingly brazen manipulation when borrowed words are passed off as borrowed social institutions.
    That is, if the word dengi (money) is of Tatar origin, then according author the social institution of money is also borrowed from the Tatars. At the same time the fact that money, prince treasury, etc. existed in Russia long before the arrival of the Mongols in Europe ignored in the interests of propaganda.

    Muscovite Boyar Council, the division of military and civilian authority that he calls a “dual administration”, the leading Muscovite military and diplomatic officials (the tysiatskii, тысяцкий), the heads of the domestic court administration (the dvorskii, дворский), the provincial administrators (the volosteli, волостели) – all were direct imitations of the political and administrative structure of the Qipchaq Khanate
     
    the tysiatskii, Boyar Council etc., existed before any contact with the Mongols.

    etc. etc. etc.

    And such a pile of garbage is published in a scientific journal. I (not a historian) can refute almost any suggestion in these slops. This is the "scientific" level

    You didn’t refute anything, that document is well in line with many of the works published by American historians. Not just Russia but the whole of Europe benefitted and was revolutionized by the cultural exchange. Also, the stuff you cited is fake bullshit.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin

    American historians
     
    Ah yes, the renowned American historians
    https://conteudo.imguol.com.br/c/entretenimento/6f/2017/08/08/giorgio-tsoukalos-apresentador-do-programa-alienigenas-do-passado-no-history-channel-e-famoso-pelo-meme-aliens-1502238696407_v2_450x337.jpg
    , @Korenchkin

    the stuff you cited is fake
     
    "Your sources disagree with my fantasy, so they're fake"
  124. @songbird
    It's interesting because the Chinese did not do it, even though they were into a lot of crazy things.

    I've looked it up to try to find its origins: there's a rumor that it was based off some Easter ritual in the Orthodox church. Some believe that it dates to the early history of the Christianity and was once common practice. But if all of them were kissing each other one would think it would have caused the early Christians to die out of disease.

    Easter ritual in the Orthodox church

    It’s common in Orthodox countries to kiss dear ones on the cheeks, but not the mouth

  125. @JohnPlywood
    You didn't refute anything, that document is well in line with many of the works published by American historians. Not just Russia but the whole of Europe benefitted and was revolutionized by the cultural exchange. Also, the stuff you cited is fake bullshit.

    American historians

    Ah yes, the renowned American historians

  126. @JohnPlywood
    You didn't refute anything, that document is well in line with many of the works published by American historians. Not just Russia but the whole of Europe benefitted and was revolutionized by the cultural exchange. Also, the stuff you cited is fake bullshit.

    the stuff you cited is fake

    “Your sources disagree with my fantasy, so they’re fake”

  127. @JohnPlywood
    Much of the milk on the East Asian market contains enzymatic additives (such as Aliazyme) that convert lactose to alcohol and other byproducts, or has been subjected to a filtration process that removes carbohydrates. The kumis milk in Mongolia is naturally lactose-free due to the fermentation process.

    Much of the milk on the East Asian market contains enzymatic additives (such as Aliazyme) that convert lactose to alcohol and other byproducts, or has been subjected to a filtration process that removes carbohydrates.

    I’d like to see the source for this claim. Normal milk is widely available and consumed in East Asia. About the only thing different is the type of pasteurization. East Asians typically use higher heat processes.

    The kumis milk in Mongolia is naturally lactose-free due to the fermentation process.

    Kumis is mare’s milk fermented to alcohol. Although it is low in lactose, a common recipe adds lactose (usually in powder form) to increase sweetness.

    The most common form of lactose intolerance is gas and bloating, which is minor. As I wrote before there are degrees of intolerance, and the maps showing percentages of lactose intolerance treats it as an “on/off” phenomenon… which is why milk is widely available and is consumed – by itself, in coffee, ice cream, other treats with condensed milk, etc. – in East Asia.

  128. @JohnPlywood

    But Mongolians had the pasture and four or five different kinds of animals that could supply milk. What’s more, they were able to invade Europe, so one would think that there was enough earlier geneflow that they would have had access to the same mutation. One only needs to be heterozygous, and according to analysis of ancient teeth, they practiced dairying for thousands of years
     
    Mongols today aren't the same people who "invaded Europe". Those people (of the Borjigin clan) only surivive today in areas occupied by the Golden Horde, outside Mongolia. Within Mongolia they have disappeared.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622

    The modern-day descendants of Tavan Tolgoi bodies have disappeared from the Mongolian plateau

    We found that 27.8% (15/54) modern-day Mongolians carry the mtDNA haplogroup D4 at about (S9 and S10 Tables). Keyser-Tracqui and colleagues [58] and Kim and colleagues [18] also reported that D4 was found in about 36.96% among Northern Mongolian populations in the Xiongnu age, and in 2 of 3 Xiongnu bodies in the North Eastern Mongolia. This implies that the mtDNA haplogroup D4 is one of the most prevalent haplogroups across the Mongolian plateau from at least the Xiongnu era to the present. In comparison, our unpublished data demonstrated that the Y-haplogroups R1b-M343 and R1a1a-M17 are distributed at 0.0% (0/101) and 0.99% (1/101) in modern-day Mongolians across the Mongolian plateau, respectively (S10 Fig) [31, 32]. Zhong and Colleagues [50] also reported that the modern-day Mongolians who inhabit in the Inner and Outer Mongolia carry the R1b-M343 haplogroup at 8.3% (1/12) (only in Heilongjiang; the province located in the North Eastern part of China) and 0.0%, respectively. Meanwhile, Zhong and colleagues [50] and Katoh and colleagues [59] demonstrated that the R1a1a-M17 was found at 9.1% (2/22), 3.5% (3/85), 6.7% (4/60) and 13.3% (8/60) in modern-day Inner Mongolians, Khalkh, Uriankhai, and Zakhchin Mongolian tribes, respectively. Thus, R1b-M343 is scarcely found in the Mongolian plateau, whereas R1a1a-M17 is widely distributed, although at a relatively low frequency, having a maximum of 13.3% in the Zakhchin tribe [59]. These results demonstrate that modern-day individuals carrying R1b-M343 are hard to find on the Mongolian Plateau, meaning that descendants of R1b-M343-carrying members of the Golden family disappeared from the Mongolian Plateau for unknown reasons.

    Modern-day individuals with the same Y-STR profiles as members of the Golden family have been carefully screened in many studies and in YHRD from modern-day individuals, totaling approximately 154,329 individuals (searched on August 25, 2015). Modern-day individuals matching the Golden family members in Y-STR profiles from Yfiler and PowerPlex Y of YHRD and the literature are mainly distributed in Kalmykia, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China (Fig 3 and S6 Table).

    Coincidentally, the geographical distribution of modern-day individuals matching the Y-haplogroup and haplotype of the Tavan Tolgoi bodies in the regions corresponding to the past Mongol khanates, including the Golden Horde Dynasty and Chagatai Khanate, implies that the modern-day individuals are direct descendants of the Golden family members. The ancestors of Kalmykia are the Oirats, the westernmost tribe of the Mongols. The Oirats also had strong ties with Chagatai Khanate and the Golden Horde, through marriage alliances between Mongol khans and Oirat khatuns, just like the Hongirads [2, 60]. These distributions imply the movement of descendants of the Golden family from Eastern Mongolia to West Eurasia, including Kalmykia, and a possible genealogical connection between Golden family members and the Oirats. By the 9th century, the Shato Turks of the Western Göktürks Khaganate, as ancestors of the Ongud, moved to modern-day Inner Mongolia and eventually were dominated by the Mongol Oirats, later known as Kalmyks, suggesting an anthropological connection of the Ongud with Kalmyks [33, 45, 46, 61, 62]. Taken together, Golden family members from Tavan Tolgoi may have been direct ancestors of R1b-M343-carrying modern-day individuals who live in the territories of the past Mongol khanates.

    Why both R1b-M343 carriers and modern-day individuals with the same Y-STR profile as that of the Golden family members are rarely found in the Mongolian plateau could be explained by the following 2 hypotheses, which are not mutually exclusive. One is large-scale redeployment of descendants of our Golden family members from the Mongolian Plateau to Eastern Europe (Kalmykia and Russia) or Central Asia (Uzbekistan and Tajikistan). Many of the Onguds returned to the ancestral homeland near Central Asia from Eastern Mongolia; this turn of events resulted in a significant decrease in the number of their descendants, including R1b-M343 carriers, in Eastern Mongolia. The other possibility is internecine massacre among direct male descendants of Genghis Khan’s Borjigin clan and their wives (i.e., among the Golden family). As soon as Genghis Khan died, kingdoms of bekis, including the Ongud, were attacked and eventually toppled by the daughters-in-law and grandsons of Genghis Khan [2, 3]. Most bekis lost power and were killed in a horrendous manner by opponent factions including the Great Khans, such as Ogodei and Mongke [2]. Under such political conditions, most Golden family members, including the lineages of the former rulers of the Ongud or the Hongirad, who were opposed to the faction in power, were likely exterminated [2, 3]. Meanwhile, Golden family members who lived in the Golden Horde, Ilkhanate and Chagatai Khanate where are far apart from the central area of the Mongol Empire were relatively safe from such horrendous massacre.

    Thus, the large-scale movement and slaughter that occurred in the Mongolian plateau could explain at least in part why direct descendants of the Golden family are hard to find in modern-day Mongolia. However, further studies are needed to firmly conclude when and why R1b-M343 carriers, which are distributed mostly in Europe and Central Asia, appeared and then subsequently disappeared from the Mongolian Plateau region
     
    The Mongols who comprised the Golden Family ruling clan and the principal element of the military of the Mongol Empire probably were mixed with Europeans long before there was a Mongol Empire, as a European presence stretched in to Eastern Mongolia and had been there since the Bronze Age.

    Evidence suggests that many Mongoloid and Caucasoid nomadic tribes inhabited the present-day Mongolian plateau over thousands of years [40].
     

    The Mongols who comprised the Golden Family ruling clan and the principal element of the military of the Mongol Empire probably were mixed with Europeans long before there was a Mongol Empire, as a European presence stretched in to Eastern Mongolia and had been there since the Bronze Age.

    This is nonsense. While Turko-Mongolic peoples mediated bidirectional gene flow between western Eurasia and eastern Eurasia (resulting in minor East Asian ancestry among Eastern Europeans today and a small western Eurasian input among the Chinese), the bulk of Mongol ancestry was East Asian, not western Eurasian (and never European). What little western Eurasian genes they carry are steppe and/or Iranic in origin.

    • LOL: JohnPlywood
    • Replies: @AP
    Mr. Plywood is some sort of troll, though he is funny at times.
    , @JohnPlywood
    "Steppe/Iranic" is a cute way of saying European, as the nomadic Iranians were Northern Europeans genetically, descended from Corded Ware. You don't have a single piece of evidence to back up anything you're saying and you're speaking from your heart, rather than your mind.

    Anyway, you entirely failed to address the quote in my post from that study. Here's another quote that's going to chap your hide:

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622


    The mixing between Mongoloid and Caucasoid ethnic groups inherent in the genetic structure of modern-day Mongolians was also observed in the Tavan Tolgoi bodies. The Golden family members carried mtDNA haplogroups D4 and CZ, mostly found in Far Eastern and Northeastern Asia, respectively, whereas male members of Golden family carried the Y-haplogroup R1b-M343, dominant in Western Europe [41–43]. That is, although members of Golden family were physically Mongoloid, their molecular genealogy revealed the admixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid ethnic groups. Thus, it is likely that their Mongoloid appearance would have resulted from gradual changes in their appearance from Caucasoid to Mongoloid through generations from their ancestors. Their physical appearance was largely attributed to D4-carrying Mongoloid females who were indigenous peoples of the Mongolian plateau, rather than an R1b-M343-carrying Caucasoid male spouse who had initially moved from Europe to the Mongolian plateau and his male descendants; it is, however, uncertain how and when the admixture between Mongoloid and Caucasoid ethnic groups originated in the Mongolian plateau.
     
    So funny to see your desperate "never European" plea shot down. You're gonna be extra jilted (and hopefully suicidal/homicidal) when we get Silla dynasty DNA and it comes back European.

    The West Eurasian DNA in Mongols is of course European, these Tavan Tolgoi Golden Family elites were paternally European. But not just genetics and appearance, the whole Mongol culture was European.

    Theee is no evidence of an East Eurasian genetic shift in Eastern Europeans ca. Mongol empire.

  129. @for-the-record
    Spain and Greece’s level of lactose intolerance appears to be very disproportionately high for Europe, does that indicate a significant level of non-European ancestry?

    Off hand, I would guess it represents a combination of factors:

    1. The mutation presumably originated in northern Europe and spread southwards, hence it is logical that in southern Europe there might remain higher levels of lactose-intolerance (also the case in the Balkans).

    2. A significant level of non-European ancestry in the Iberian peninsula (I have seen figures of around 20% quoted) which is not surprising given the Muslim invasion and occupation that ended only in 1492. Here is a map of the Reconquista in 900, after nearly 200 years of "occupation", with Muslim-controlled areas in green corresponding very closely to the current area of Spain which has such high lactose intolerance.

    http://www.jewishwikipedia.info/wpimages/wpaead2b0b_05_06.jpg

    3. A (primarily) dry, arid landscape that is not very suited to dairy production,

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/91/b3/e4/91b3e47011ec69419293d759e87e83f1.jpg

    hence less reason for the mutation to spread further south. Here are figures for raw cows milk delivered to dairies for 2019 (thousands of tons) --

    Denmark 5,615
    Spain 7,227
    Ireland 8,227
    Netherlands 13,788
    UK 15,325
    France 24,499
    Germany 32,442

    The relatively low level of Spanish milk production is concentrated (80%) in the northern (lactose-tolerant, higher-rainfall) areas of Spain:

    https://es.statista.com/estadisticas/557231/volumen-de-leche-de-vaca-producida-en-espana-por-cc-aa/

    The landscape/climate issue is often overlooked in considering ancient invasions and empires. The Romans expanded in a warm period that suited their agriculture. Arabs and Mongols couldn’t fight well in forests. The British needed ports or railways. That is a good map.

  130. @Twinkie

    The Mongols who comprised the Golden Family ruling clan and the principal element of the military of the Mongol Empire probably were mixed with Europeans long before there was a Mongol Empire, as a European presence stretched in to Eastern Mongolia and had been there since the Bronze Age.
     
    This is nonsense. While Turko-Mongolic peoples mediated bidirectional gene flow between western Eurasia and eastern Eurasia (resulting in minor East Asian ancestry among Eastern Europeans today and a small western Eurasian input among the Chinese), the bulk of Mongol ancestry was East Asian, not western Eurasian (and never European). What little western Eurasian genes they carry are steppe and/or Iranic in origin.

    Mr. Plywood is some sort of troll, though he is funny at times.

    • Agree: Twinkie, RadicalCenter
    • LOL: JohnPlywood
  131. @melanf

    Nice summary is here:
    https://www.ijors.net/issue5_2_2016/articles/cicek.html
     
    This is a real pseudoscience. I'll show you

    Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow
     
    Moscow was stormed and destroyed during the Mongol invasion. Here is the chronicle " (Mongols) exterminated the entire population from the elderly to infants, burned the city, and burned the surrounding monasteries and villages"

    (Взяша Москву татарове, и воеводу убиша Филипа Нянка за правоверную хрестьянскую веру, а князя Володимера яша руками, сына Юрьева, а люди избиша от старьца и до сущаго младенца; а град и церкви святыя огневи предаша, и манастыри вси и села пожгоша и много именья вземше отъидоша)


    With the start of the Mongol raids on Kiev and southern towns, thousands of refugees began to arrive in Moscow
     
    Refugees from Kiev destroyed by the Mongols, to Moscow destroyed by the Mongols? Funny

    The most important turning point in Moscow’s rise as a power center was the year 1327, when the populace of Tver started a rebellion against their Mongol Khans. Seeing this as an important opportunity, Prince Ivan I of Moscow crashed the rebellion and restored the order with the help of a Mongol contingent.
     
    This is a direct lie. Residents of Tver massacred a detachment of Tatars standing in Tver. After that, the Tatar army (which included the auxiliary troops of Ivan and other princes) destroyed Tver. Of course, the Tatars did not ask Ivan's opinion about whether to punish Tver for the extermination of Tatar soldiers or not.
    This event was not the "most important turning point" - Moscow's struggle with Tver began long before these events, and ended decades later

    Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt, that the princes of Moscow, by cooperating with their Mongol Khans in the collection of tribute, prospered greatly and thus became grand princes.
     
    Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt that the author of this article does not know these evidence completely, and apparently does not understand who the grand princes was.
    He (the author) uses the hypothesis (which cannot be confirmed or refuted using the available narrative sources) that the Moscow princes were enriched by the taxes they collected for the Tatars as Grand Dukes (it was the duty of the grand princes of Vladimir to collect taxes). But at the same time, the author (since he is an ignorant propagandist) reverses the cause and effect-the Moscow princes collected taxes after and becouse they achieved the title of grand princes of Vladimir, and not Vice versa.

    Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money.
     
    This is a strikingly brazen manipulation when borrowed words are passed off as borrowed social institutions.
    That is, if the word dengi (money) is of Tatar origin, then according author the social institution of money is also borrowed from the Tatars. At the same time the fact that money, prince treasury, etc. existed in Russia long before the arrival of the Mongols in Europe ignored in the interests of propaganda.

    Muscovite Boyar Council, the division of military and civilian authority that he calls a “dual administration”, the leading Muscovite military and diplomatic officials (the tysiatskii, тысяцкий), the heads of the domestic court administration (the dvorskii, дворский), the provincial administrators (the volosteli, волостели) – all were direct imitations of the political and administrative structure of the Qipchaq Khanate
     
    the tysiatskii, Boyar Council etc., existed before any contact with the Mongols.

    etc. etc. etc.

    And such a pile of garbage is published in a scientific journal. I (not a historian) can refute almost any suggestion in these slops. This is the "scientific" level

    You are attacking actual history with Russian svodomism. It’s funny to see.

    “Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow”

    Moscow was stormed and destroyed during the Mongol invasion. Here is the chronicle ” (Mongols) exterminated the entire population from the elderly to infants, burned the city, and burned the surrounding monasteries and villages”

    If it was destroyed and its entire population exterminated during the invasion (rather than merely sacked) it would not have become the center of northeastern Rus civilization.

    The reality is that Moscow princes benefited enormously from their close century-plus-long collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative. This close cooperation was reflected in the wholesale adoption of successful Tatar political and military culture. They were adept pupils who consolidated power until overthrowing their masters. And later Russian svidomist mythologists would minimize the Mongolian influence.

    Refugees from Kiev destroyed by the Mongols, to Moscow destroyed by the Mongols? Funny

    Yes, Russian Svidomism that believes that Moscow was erased by the Mongols is indeed funny and doesn’t make sense.

    “Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money. ”

    This is a strikingly brazen manipulation when borrowed words are passed off as borrowed social institutions.

    That is, if the word dengi (money) is of Tatar origin, then according author the social institution of money is also borrowed from the Tatars. At the same time the fact that money, prince treasury, etc. existed in Russia long before the arrival of the Mongols in Europe ignored in the interests of propaganda.

    Hypersensitive Russian Svidomist historian objects. 🙂

    That the post-Mongol Russian word for money is of Tatar origin suggests that the Mongol and post-Mongol Muscovite financial system was borrowed from the Tatars and replaced the pre-Tatar one. Not that money wasn’t used before the Tatars arrived.

    Your other objections seem to follow your poor logic regarding money.

    • Replies: @melanf


    Moscow was stormed and destroyed during the Mongol invasion. Here is the chronicle ” (Mongols) exterminated the entire population from the elderly to infants, burned the city, and burned the surrounding monasteries and villages”
     
    If it was destroyed and its entire population exterminated during the invasion (rather than merely sacked) it would not have become the center of northeastern Rus civilization.
     
    The Mongols exterminated the population of the defending cities.

    "The population of voluntarily surrendering cities was usually spared .... On the contrary, the population of the cities that resisted the Mongols was usually beaten without exception, with the exception of women and children, as well as artists, artisans and, in general, people with technical knowledge who could be useful to the Mongol army."

    Many cities then resurrected (Kiev for example).

    The reality is that Moscow princes benefited enormously from their close century-plus-long collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative
     
    It's just a lie. The first Prince of Moscow (Daniel, the younger son of Alexander Nevsky) was among the enemies of Khan Tokhta. In 1293, the Tatars ruined Moscow for this, but in 1300, Daniel defeated the Tatars. From the chronicle
    " Danilo Prince of Moscow came to Ryazan with an army and fought at Pereyaslavl, and Danilo won, many Tatars were beaten, and Prince Kostyantin of Ryazan was captured and brought to Moscow."

    Daniel's son Yuri continued his father's policy and started a war against the great Prince appointed by the Khan (Mikhail Tversky). With the help of Tatar troops, the Tver Prince defeated Yuri's supporters, but Yuri in actual captivity at the court of the Khan, marries the Khan's sister. As a result, the Khan appoints Yuri as Grand Prince. Yuri destroys Mikhail Tversky with the hands of the Tatars, but after that Yuri ceases to obey the Khan. In the end, the Khan gives .title of Grand Prince to the Tver princes. But in 1327, the inhabitants of Tver killed (against the will of their Prince) a Tatar detachment, as a result, the Tatars destroed Tver, and the title of Grand Prince passed to the Moscow Prince Ivan (Yuri was killed by that time)
    After that, for 35 years, the Moscow princes receive the title of Grand princes from the khans, pay tribute and do not fight the Horde, but after 1365, Moscow begins to openly conduct an anti-Horde policy (which eventually ends with the defeat of the Horde)

    That is, as you can see, Moscow has been fighting against the Tatars from the very beginning of its independent existence, and the statement about "collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative" is just a lie.
  132. @songbird
    That was a Frenchman writing? And he thought it notable? Interesting. I thought the French kissed like that.

    I wonder what explains it being Russian. The stereotype of the world seems to be that there are more affectionate displays as you move south. So, for instance, African men often hold hands, but Germans, who like handshakes, are considered cold.

    I guess if it is seen as a Russian thing, then in the context of Brezhnev kissing foreign leaders, it might be interpreted as a display of dominance. Just as people are said to fight for position, when giving a handshake, I guess greeting with your country's gesture would be a sign of dominance. Like, if Mao got Westerners to bow to him.

    People had very different minds 400 years ago, compared to today. It’s possible concepts of “personal space”, were very different to 21st century people than in 17th century people.

    A problem is that people do not record their own customs (as they do not seem interesting to them), so we can probably only find information on this in foreign texts.

    Probably, kissing on the cheeks would be normal all over Europe, so does the author imply they are kissing on the lips? It’s difficult to know.

    As for political leaders like Brezhnev – this kissing is completely fake, political propaganda or iconography. Although it’s possible it has seemed less weird to people like Brezhnev, if perhaps they had still such lack of personal space in the village of their childhood in the late 19th century, or early 20th century.

    However, even the 20th century public, for which it is more strange, did not interpret this political iconography as sexual or gay, which shows how our perceptions change.

    For example, Stalin is kissing or embraces babies, and it is one of the main political iconographies he uses to demonstrate how much he loves the countrymen. On the other hand, in the early 21st century, Putin kissed a boy on the chest, in some incompetent try to emulate political leaders of the past, and the now 21st century internet commentators call Putin a pedophile.

    The political leader’s gesture or iconography didn’t change, but public’s interpretation is wildly different only 2-3 generations later in time.

    • Replies: @songbird

    As for political leaders like Brezhnev – this kissing is completely fake, political propaganda or iconography. Although it’s possible it has seemed less weird to people like Brezhnev
     
    This is probably a difficulty for many leaders today. On the one hand, it is desirable not to be perceived as just another man in a suit, in the globohomo mold. But, on the other hand, you don't want to be so idiosyncratic that you are perceived as a weirdo, like Gadaffi, who wanted to set up a tent in NYC.

    This is perhaps why Putin is lucky, in that he has a sort of Slavic face, which is its own differentiator.
  133. @AP
    The difference is that these are rather peripheral words, often through an intermediary language (sofa, caravan and kiosk come to English from French, who got it from the Arabs, Persians and Turks, respectively) while "money" is a very central and basic word, taken directly from the Asian overlords.

    It’s a silly picking of an unrepresentative example. “Argument by etymology” – although loved by amateur historians – is often such a comedy.

    For example, the very important word European word “alcohol”, is an Arabic word. However, let’s say this shows the influence of Arabs on European drinking, or the centrality of Arab culture to European alcoholism? – the transmission of the word shows nothing like this, only that there was some contact historical between the languages, and that a word in one language did not have an equivalent in another, which therefore loaned it.

    • Replies: @AP

    For example, the very important word European word “alcohol”, is an Arabic word. However, let’s say this shows the influence of Arabs on European drinking, or the centrality of Arab culture to European alcoholism?
     
    You actually support my point.

    Alcohol comes not directly from Arabic but through Latin and it originally meant something very different so it could not have meant anything with respect to drinking alcohol.

    Dengi, OTOH, came directly from Tatars and always meant coins or money.

    Alcohol etymology:

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/alcohol

    1540s (early 15c. as alcofol), "fine powder produced by sublimation," from Medieval Latin alcohol "powdered ore of antimony," from Arabic al-kuhul "kohl," the fine metallic powder used to darken the eyelids, from kahala "to stain, paint." The al- is the Arabic definite article, "the."

    Paracelsus (1493-1541) used the word to refer to a fine powder but also a volatile liquid. By 1670s it was being used in English for "any sublimated substance, the pure spirit of anything," including liquids. Sense of "intoxicating ingredient in strong liquor" is first recorded 1753, short for alcohol of wine, which was extended to "the intoxicating element in fermented liquors." In organic chemistry, the word was extended 1850 to the class of compounds of the same type as this.

    So word alcohol as now used (referring to spirits) was invented by Europeans not Arabs. But word dengi as used by Russians was invented by Turkic people and adopted by Russians and used the same way by them.

    , @Ms Karlin-Gerard
    LOL - so because Algebra is an Arabic word then there is no great mathematicians part of European civilisation as Newton, Timoshenko, Euler and Fibonnacci according to the logic of this cretin!

    The British use the Indian word "bungalow" for a single level house, obviously the most common type of house there long before any Briton set foot in India. Word capture is a very common thing without any hint of being derived from anything incorporated from a conquering power
  134. @Dmitry
    It's a silly picking of an unrepresentative example. "Argument by etymology" - although loved by amateur historians - is often such a comedy.

    For example, the very important word European word "alcohol", is an Arabic word. However, let's say this shows the influence of Arabs on European drinking, or the centrality of Arab culture to European alcoholism? - the transmission of the word shows nothing like this, only that there was some contact historical between the languages, and that a word in one language did not have an equivalent in another, which therefore loaned it.

    For example, the very important word European word “alcohol”, is an Arabic word. However, let’s say this shows the influence of Arabs on European drinking, or the centrality of Arab culture to European alcoholism?

    You actually support my point.

    Alcohol comes not directly from Arabic but through Latin and it originally meant something very different so it could not have meant anything with respect to drinking alcohol.

    Dengi, OTOH, came directly from Tatars and always meant coins or money.

    Alcohol etymology:

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/alcohol

    1540s (early 15c. as alcofol), “fine powder produced by sublimation,” from Medieval Latin alcohol “powdered ore of antimony,” from Arabic al-kuhul “kohl,” the fine metallic powder used to darken the eyelids, from kahala “to stain, paint.” The al- is the Arabic definite article, “the.”

    Paracelsus (1493-1541) used the word to refer to a fine powder but also a volatile liquid. By 1670s it was being used in English for “any sublimated substance, the pure spirit of anything,” including liquids. Sense of “intoxicating ingredient in strong liquor” is first recorded 1753, short for alcohol of wine, which was extended to “the intoxicating element in fermented liquors.” In organic chemistry, the word was extended 1850 to the class of compounds of the same type as this.

    So word alcohol as now used (referring to spirits) was invented by Europeans not Arabs. But word dengi as used by Russians was invented by Turkic people and adopted by Russians and used the same way by them.

    • Replies: @Denis
    So if someone buys al-kuhul, they are exemplifying european civilization, but when they buy al-kuhul with dengi, they are exhibiting their asiatic heritage.

    Interesting take.
    , @Ms Karlin-Gerard
    LOL - after I exposed you not being able to speak Russian, the excellent commentator Anonymous Coward exposes your lying and ineptitude again with the groshi drivel (which you embarrassingly deflect over again, under patronage of Karlin).... I see you STILL keep up this fantasy with the pseudo-linguistics!

    Dengi is one of SEVERAL Russian words used for money .
    Same thing with tax that you referred to with the word kazna. You obviously never heard of the word nalogi.... 'hidden" from Russian society by the "N" in the state tax agency, FNS

    Money, currency and tax of course concepts only introduced in ukropia when in Union with Russia
  135. @Agathoklis
    It is not exotic at all. The origin of Europe is in the Mediterranean; specifically, in Greece and Rome, then the Byzantine influence on Russia is not exotic but central to European aesthetics. It is Gothic architecture which is more exotic to Europe. There is nothing in Antiquity which resembles those monstrous Gothic cathedrals. The deep roots of those Gothic cathedrals are from Germanic barbarism not Europe.

    “Gothic” just a misleading etymology, as is common in art history. Note that the alternative classification “Romanesque” is a opposite word used to describe the same buildings.

    Gothic architecture emerges in France, among Latin-dialect (French) speaking, wine drinking people, with relatively vast resources (at municipal level). In terms of Kant’s later distinction, although it would be anachronistic to use here – he could say its origin is in “Zivilisation”, not “Kultur”.

    Later Gothic architecture is transmitted to England by Normans, and today in England there is probably the second best Gothic architecture (after France).

    As for how it is perceived by later “classical” (which is misleading – I mean “neo-classical”, not real ancient classical) aesthetic. It shows that people in 17th, 18th century – already found earlier generations’ art to be wildly exotic.

    This is exoticism of distant times, rather than distant places.

    In Gothic architecture, it looks most to us now (with our post neo-classical mind) like “alien spaceships” – but for a medieval imagination, this was probably just a beautiful way to design a roof.


    And this is just some cute decoration for the corner of buildings

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQGWgA8bdON6JzNjycbWq8i9Tl-qEamlWeUcLywrr-L-lLPk78Z

    And yet the Gothic architecture is certainly one of the most beautiful ever made, at the same time it is one of the exotic and “foreign” looking ones – as someone else writes above, “the past is the most distant country”.

    • Thanks: AP
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Note that the alternative classification “Romanesque” is a opposite word used to describe the same buildings.
     
    I wrote a bit incorrectly on this sentence as I thought these two words were more like a synonym for the art historians, but they are actually used for describing the earlier and later style of Normans' originated architecture.

    Anyway, the point for the argument is still the same - as they use the opposite words (Gothic vs. Roman) to describe the same family of buildings.

    The etymology of the words, does not say anything about some conflict between Goths and Romans. It's simply a misleading etymology in the term "Gothic architecture".

    Romanesque refers to the original 11th century Norman's architecture, and then Gothic is used to describe a more mature version that develops within Romanesque in the 12th century.

    So Durham Cathedral is built by a Norman King William in the 11th century. So later art historians classify it as Romanesque.

    https://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/_assets/media/media/ceiling-of-the-navejpg.jpg?width=1120

    https://i.imgur.com/OiNenXQ.png

    While Salisbury Cathedral is built in the 12th century - so art/architecture historians will call it as "early Gothic".

    https://i.imgur.com/HWovyHK.jpg

    And a crazy Western facade of Rouen Cathedral, is how they can build by the 13th century gothic.

    https://i.imgur.com/NhnNBt5.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/PASldBH.jpg

  136. @AP

    For example, the very important word European word “alcohol”, is an Arabic word. However, let’s say this shows the influence of Arabs on European drinking, or the centrality of Arab culture to European alcoholism?
     
    You actually support my point.

    Alcohol comes not directly from Arabic but through Latin and it originally meant something very different so it could not have meant anything with respect to drinking alcohol.

    Dengi, OTOH, came directly from Tatars and always meant coins or money.

    Alcohol etymology:

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/alcohol

    1540s (early 15c. as alcofol), "fine powder produced by sublimation," from Medieval Latin alcohol "powdered ore of antimony," from Arabic al-kuhul "kohl," the fine metallic powder used to darken the eyelids, from kahala "to stain, paint." The al- is the Arabic definite article, "the."

    Paracelsus (1493-1541) used the word to refer to a fine powder but also a volatile liquid. By 1670s it was being used in English for "any sublimated substance, the pure spirit of anything," including liquids. Sense of "intoxicating ingredient in strong liquor" is first recorded 1753, short for alcohol of wine, which was extended to "the intoxicating element in fermented liquors." In organic chemistry, the word was extended 1850 to the class of compounds of the same type as this.

    So word alcohol as now used (referring to spirits) was invented by Europeans not Arabs. But word dengi as used by Russians was invented by Turkic people and adopted by Russians and used the same way by them.

    So if someone buys al-kuhul, they are exemplifying european civilization, but when they buy al-kuhul with dengi, they are exhibiting their asiatic heritage.

    Interesting take.

    • LOL: Dmitry
    • Replies: @AP
    You are being facetious but..

    So if someone buys al-kuhul, they are exemplifying european civilization
     
    No. But when they are buying alcohol (a spirit beverage), a completely different thing from al-kuhul (a fine metallic powder) they are exemplifying European civilization.

    when they buy...with dengi, they are exhibiting their asiatic heritage.
     
    Yes.
  137. @Denis
    So if someone buys al-kuhul, they are exemplifying european civilization, but when they buy al-kuhul with dengi, they are exhibiting their asiatic heritage.

    Interesting take.

    You are being facetious but..

    So if someone buys al-kuhul, they are exemplifying european civilization

    No. But when they are buying alcohol (a spirit beverage), a completely different thing from al-kuhul (a fine metallic powder) they are exemplifying European civilization.

    when they buy…with dengi, they are exhibiting their asiatic heritage.

    Yes.

    • Replies: @maz10
    I have been following - or rather dropping by as time permitted – this discussion.

    Very informative arguments were brough forward to support various thesis. Of course some have better arguments than others and some are better debaters than fellow commentators.

    You sir with this comment of yours established a whole new set of (sub)standards in this field. At first I though it deserves a LOL but changed my mind to facepalm, but that would not be enough either, in fact even a tenfold facepalm would not suffice.

    Some people shoot themselves in the foot, but that comment of yours was ‘brilliant’ - it was an argumentative equivalent not of shooting oneself in the foot but of blowing ones brains out.

    That said you are not the first one. Prior I already saw Ms. Yaeger committing ‘argumentative suicide’ on another occasion.
  138. @Twinkie

    The Mongols who comprised the Golden Family ruling clan and the principal element of the military of the Mongol Empire probably were mixed with Europeans long before there was a Mongol Empire, as a European presence stretched in to Eastern Mongolia and had been there since the Bronze Age.
     
    This is nonsense. While Turko-Mongolic peoples mediated bidirectional gene flow between western Eurasia and eastern Eurasia (resulting in minor East Asian ancestry among Eastern Europeans today and a small western Eurasian input among the Chinese), the bulk of Mongol ancestry was East Asian, not western Eurasian (and never European). What little western Eurasian genes they carry are steppe and/or Iranic in origin.

    “Steppe/Iranic” is a cute way of saying European, as the nomadic Iranians were Northern Europeans genetically, descended from Corded Ware. You don’t have a single piece of evidence to back up anything you’re saying and you’re speaking from your heart, rather than your mind.

    Anyway, you entirely failed to address the quote in my post from that study. Here’s another quote that’s going to chap your hide:

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622

    The mixing between Mongoloid and Caucasoid ethnic groups inherent in the genetic structure of modern-day Mongolians was also observed in the Tavan Tolgoi bodies. The Golden family members carried mtDNA haplogroups D4 and CZ, mostly found in Far Eastern and Northeastern Asia, respectively, whereas male members of Golden family carried the Y-haplogroup R1b-M343, dominant in Western Europe [41–43]. That is, although members of Golden family were physically Mongoloid, their molecular genealogy revealed the admixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid ethnic groups. Thus, it is likely that their Mongoloid appearance would have resulted from gradual changes in their appearance from Caucasoid to Mongoloid through generations from their ancestors. Their physical appearance was largely attributed to D4-carrying Mongoloid females who were indigenous peoples of the Mongolian plateau, rather than an R1b-M343-carrying Caucasoid male spouse who had initially moved from Europe to the Mongolian plateau and his male descendants; it is, however, uncertain how and when the admixture between Mongoloid and Caucasoid ethnic groups originated in the Mongolian plateau.

    So funny to see your desperate “never European” plea shot down. You’re gonna be extra jilted (and hopefully suicidal/homicidal) when we get Silla dynasty DNA and it comes back European.

    The West Eurasian DNA in Mongols is of course European, these Tavan Tolgoi Golden Family elites were paternally European. But not just genetics and appearance, the whole Mongol culture was European.

    Theee is no evidence of an East Eurasian genetic shift in Eastern Europeans ca. Mongol empire.

    • Troll: Twinkie
  139. @Dmitry
    "Gothic" just a misleading etymology, as is common in art history. Note that the alternative classification "Romanesque" is a opposite word used to describe the same buildings.

    Gothic architecture emerges in France, among Latin-dialect (French) speaking, wine drinking people, with relatively vast resources (at municipal level). In terms of Kant's later distinction, although it would be anachronistic to use here - he could say its origin is in "Zivilisation", not "Kultur".

    Later Gothic architecture is transmitted to England by Normans, and today in England there is probably the second best Gothic architecture (after France).

    As for how it is perceived by later "classical" (which is misleading - I mean "neo-classical", not real ancient classical) aesthetic. It shows that people in 17th, 18th century - already found earlier generations' art to be wildly exotic.

    This is exoticism of distant times, rather than distant places.

    In Gothic architecture, it looks most to us now (with our post neo-classical mind) like "alien spaceships" - but for a medieval imagination, this was probably just a beautiful way to design a roof.
    https://i.imgur.com/BTYGWUY.jpg


    https://i.imgur.com/6j1JkAI.jpg


    https://i.imgur.com/XVLgoMx.jpg

    And this is just some cute decoration for the corner of buildings

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQGWgA8bdON6JzNjycbWq8i9Tl-qEamlWeUcLywrr-L-lLPk78Z


    https://www.semiestrel.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Himeryi.jpg


    And yet the Gothic architecture is certainly one of the most beautiful ever made, at the same time it is one of the exotic and "foreign" looking ones - as someone else writes above, "the past is the most distant country".

    Note that the alternative classification “Romanesque” is a opposite word used to describe the same buildings.

    I wrote a bit incorrectly on this sentence as I thought these two words were more like a synonym for the art historians, but they are actually used for describing the earlier and later style of Normans’ originated architecture.

    Anyway, the point for the argument is still the same – as they use the opposite words (Gothic vs. Roman) to describe the same family of buildings.

    The etymology of the words, does not say anything about some conflict between Goths and Romans. It’s simply a misleading etymology in the term “Gothic architecture”.

    Romanesque refers to the original 11th century Norman’s architecture, and then Gothic is used to describe a more mature version that develops within Romanesque in the 12th century.

    So Durham Cathedral is built by a Norman King William in the 11th century. So later art historians classify it as Romanesque.

    While Salisbury Cathedral is built in the 12th century – so art/architecture historians will call it as “early Gothic”.

    And a crazy Western facade of Rouen Cathedral, is how they can build by the 13th century gothic.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    is built by a Norman King William
     
    It is annoying we can't edit and correct the mistakes we wrote in our comments after 5 minutes - I should have written "initiated" by his men. And wrote also much it is built in the beginning decades of the 12th....
  140. @Dmitry

    Note that the alternative classification “Romanesque” is a opposite word used to describe the same buildings.
     
    I wrote a bit incorrectly on this sentence as I thought these two words were more like a synonym for the art historians, but they are actually used for describing the earlier and later style of Normans' originated architecture.

    Anyway, the point for the argument is still the same - as they use the opposite words (Gothic vs. Roman) to describe the same family of buildings.

    The etymology of the words, does not say anything about some conflict between Goths and Romans. It's simply a misleading etymology in the term "Gothic architecture".

    Romanesque refers to the original 11th century Norman's architecture, and then Gothic is used to describe a more mature version that develops within Romanesque in the 12th century.

    So Durham Cathedral is built by a Norman King William in the 11th century. So later art historians classify it as Romanesque.

    https://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/_assets/media/media/ceiling-of-the-navejpg.jpg?width=1120

    https://i.imgur.com/OiNenXQ.png

    While Salisbury Cathedral is built in the 12th century - so art/architecture historians will call it as "early Gothic".

    https://i.imgur.com/HWovyHK.jpg

    And a crazy Western facade of Rouen Cathedral, is how they can build by the 13th century gothic.

    https://i.imgur.com/NhnNBt5.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/PASldBH.jpg

    is built by a Norman King William

    It is annoying we can’t edit and correct the mistakes we wrote in our comments after 5 minutes – I should have written “initiated” by his men. And wrote also much it is built in the beginning decades of the 12th….

    • Replies: @AP
    Thank you for posting the beautiful pictures.

    Ten minutes might be a better time limit but a time limit is good overall. It makes conversations "honest" - people can't claim they didn't write something later, that they did.
  141. @Dmitry

    is built by a Norman King William
     
    It is annoying we can't edit and correct the mistakes we wrote in our comments after 5 minutes - I should have written "initiated" by his men. And wrote also much it is built in the beginning decades of the 12th....

    Thank you for posting the beautiful pictures.

    Ten minutes might be a better time limit but a time limit is good overall. It makes conversations “honest” – people can’t claim they didn’t write something later, that they did.

  142. @AP
    You are attacking actual history with Russian svodomism. It's funny to see.



    "Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow"

    Moscow was stormed and destroyed during the Mongol invasion. Here is the chronicle ” (Mongols) exterminated the entire population from the elderly to infants, burned the city, and burned the surrounding monasteries and villages”
     
    If it was destroyed and its entire population exterminated during the invasion (rather than merely sacked) it would not have become the center of northeastern Rus civilization.

    The reality is that Moscow princes benefited enormously from their close century-plus-long collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative. This close cooperation was reflected in the wholesale adoption of successful Tatar political and military culture. They were adept pupils who consolidated power until overthrowing their masters. And later Russian svidomist mythologists would minimize the Mongolian influence.

    Refugees from Kiev destroyed by the Mongols, to Moscow destroyed by the Mongols? Funny
     
    Yes, Russian Svidomism that believes that Moscow was erased by the Mongols is indeed funny and doesn't make sense.

    "Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money. "

    This is a strikingly brazen manipulation when borrowed words are passed off as borrowed social institutions.

    That is, if the word dengi (money) is of Tatar origin, then according author the social institution of money is also borrowed from the Tatars. At the same time the fact that money, prince treasury, etc. existed in Russia long before the arrival of the Mongols in Europe ignored in the interests of propaganda.
     
    Hypersensitive Russian Svidomist historian objects. :-)

    That the post-Mongol Russian word for money is of Tatar origin suggests that the Mongol and post-Mongol Muscovite financial system was borrowed from the Tatars and replaced the pre-Tatar one. Not that money wasn't used before the Tatars arrived.

    Your other objections seem to follow your poor logic regarding money.

    Moscow was stormed and destroyed during the Mongol invasion. Here is the chronicle ” (Mongols) exterminated the entire population from the elderly to infants, burned the city, and burned the surrounding monasteries and villages”

    If it was destroyed and its entire population exterminated during the invasion (rather than merely sacked) it would not have become the center of northeastern Rus civilization.

    The Mongols exterminated the population of the defending cities.

    The population of voluntarily surrendering cities was usually spared …. On the contrary, the population of the cities that resisted the Mongols was usually beaten without exception, with the exception of women and children, as well as artists, artisans and, in general, people with technical knowledge who could be useful to the Mongol army.”

    Many cities then resurrected (Kiev for example).

    The reality is that Moscow princes benefited enormously from their close century-plus-long collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative

    It’s just a lie. The first Prince of Moscow (Daniel, the younger son of Alexander Nevsky) was among the enemies of Khan Tokhta. In 1293, the Tatars ruined Moscow for this, but in 1300, Daniel defeated the Tatars. From the chronicle
    Danilo Prince of Moscow came to Ryazan with an army and fought at Pereyaslavl, and Danilo won, many Tatars were beaten, and Prince Kostyantin of Ryazan was captured and brought to Moscow.”

    Daniel’s son Yuri continued his father’s policy and started a war against the great Prince appointed by the Khan (Mikhail Tversky). With the help of Tatar troops, the Tver Prince defeated Yuri’s supporters, but Yuri in actual captivity at the court of the Khan, marries the Khan’s sister. As a result, the Khan appoints Yuri as Grand Prince. Yuri destroys Mikhail Tversky with the hands of the Tatars, but after that Yuri ceases to obey the Khan. In the end, the Khan gives .title of Grand Prince to the Tver princes. But in 1327, the inhabitants of Tver killed (against the will of their Prince) a Tatar detachment, as a result, the Tatars destroed Tver, and the title of Grand Prince passed to the Moscow Prince Ivan (Yuri was killed by that time)
    After that, for 35 years, the Moscow princes receive the title of Grand princes from the khans, pay tribute and do not fight the Horde, but after 1365, Moscow begins to openly conduct an anti-Horde policy (which eventually ends with the defeat of the Horde)

    That is, as you can see, Moscow has been fighting against the Tatars from the very beginning of its independent existence, and the statement about “collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative” is just a lie.

    • Replies: @AP

    The reality is that Moscow princes benefited enormously from their close century-plus-long collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative

    It’s just a lie.
     
    According to Russian svidomist pseudo-historians.

    Actual historians wrote this:

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65998/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Neumann%2C%20I_Europeans%20and%20the%20steppe_Neumann_Europeans_and_the_steppe.pdf

    From this time on, the enrollment of Mongol backing became a routine part of internecine
    struggles. There was nothing new about this: first the nomadic Pechenegs and then the Khipchaks had been drawn on in similar fashion by the Rus’ princes before.

    Now, once more, the appeal to steppe forces became a key factor in the intensification of direct Mongol control with Rus’ political life. There is a causal link between this development and the period of intensified Mongol raids and invasions towards the end of the thirteenth century. At this point, not only were Mongols from the Khipchak Khanate brought in, Rus’ princes who were up against other Rus’ princes with Horde backing actually ventured further field to bring in the backing of Mongols insurgents from the Nogay further south.15 Rus’ princes stood against Rus’ princes, each backed by a Mongol ally.

    In 1304, the grand prince of Vladimir died. Three developments brought about a change in politics. First, the princes of Moscow and Tver’ emerged as the key players in Rus’ politics, among other things as a result of their population increase in the wake of the Mongol invasion, which was again to do with nice strategic location (with Moscow in particular being something of a hub of the river system).

    Secondly, among other things because of the now firmly established principle of primogeniture, these princes headed more clearly organized families, which served as a firm power base. Thirdly, the firm wedding between families and cities meant that the territoriality of this power base was now assured in a much higher degree than before.17 Following decades of struggle between Moscow and Tver’, Moscow emerged victorious and Ivan I was granted the title of grand prince of Vladimir by the Mongols in 1328. From Ivan I onwards, Moscow was the emergent centre of gravity of Rus’ politics, and the home both of the great prince (who underlined his success by adding ‘and of all Russia’ to his princely title) and of the Metropolitan. Moscow remained completely dependent on the Mongols, however, to the point that brothers appealed to Saray and even traveled there in order to settle their succession struggles (Halperin 1987: 58). Moscow took its time fighting down Tver’ competition. In 1353, Novgorod supported the Tver’ bid for the grand principality of Vladimir over the Moscow one by sending envoys to Saray to plead for Tver’s case (Halperin 1987: 51).

    The grand princes of Moscow kept up their brilliance in playing the alliance game. Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372. As summed up by Halperin (1987: 54; for details, see Vernadsky 1953: 207), the special relationship between the Golden Horde and Moscow was strengthened in the middle of the fourteenth century, when the Mongols faced a new challenge to their hegemony. Grand prince Olgerd of Lithuania struck deep into the Tatar orbit by bringing both Tver’ and Riazan’ into his sphere of influence and applying pressure to Novgorod.18 Olgerd’s opposition to Moscow was not rooted in principle, and he played politics by the same rules as everyone else. Thus, with the eye on Moscow, he sent a delegation to the Golden Horde to negotiate a rapprochement. The Mongols, however, had decided, logically, to use Moscow as a counterweight to the growing power of Lithuania. The Muscovites were therefore successful in their attempts to undermine the Lithuanian embassy, and the Mongols, in a fine display of political delicacy, arrested the Lithuanian envoys and handed them over to Moscow. Olgerd was compelled to ransom his emissaries from his enemies.

    The decisive Moscow victory over Tver’ occurred in 1375.19 In 1478, Ivan III subdued Novgorod. Moscow owed its victory to the superior way in which they had played the alliance game vis-à-vis the Mongols compared to other Rus’ polities. From this time on, in order to underline how Moscow was changing the suzeraign system of Rus’ lineages into a polity centred on Moscow, it is customary to refer to this polity as Muscovy. Muscovy was still subservient to the Khipchak Khanate, an would remain so for another hundred years.

    :::::::::::

    Your statements add details and nuances but don't change the story. Ultimately Moscow was more subservient and loyal than others who were more disloyal, and this greater loyalty to the Mongol masters resulted in Moscow taking over northern Rus lands.
  143. @Dmitry
    It's a silly picking of an unrepresentative example. "Argument by etymology" - although loved by amateur historians - is often such a comedy.

    For example, the very important word European word "alcohol", is an Arabic word. However, let's say this shows the influence of Arabs on European drinking, or the centrality of Arab culture to European alcoholism? - the transmission of the word shows nothing like this, only that there was some contact historical between the languages, and that a word in one language did not have an equivalent in another, which therefore loaned it.

    LOL – so because Algebra is an Arabic word then there is no great mathematicians part of European civilisation as Newton, Timoshenko, Euler and Fibonnacci according to the logic of this cretin!

    The British use the Indian word “bungalow” for a single level house, obviously the most common type of house there long before any Briton set foot in India. Word capture is a very common thing without any hint of being derived from anything incorporated from a conquering power

    • Replies: @Ms Karlin-Gerard
    "Tsar" quite interestingly is used by the British to refer to an expert, usually appointed by a government body, to lead improvement on a very specific issue.

    The Indian word "guru" also used, although with not quite the same high standard connotations.

    No reason why such a word as tsar would have a positive meaning in britain
    , @AP

    The British use the Indian word “bungalow” for a single level house, obviously the most common type of house there long before any Briton set foot in India
     
    LOL, Sovok civil "engineer" doesn't even know basic things about houses.

    A bungalow is not any single story house but a specific one of a style that came from India.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungalow

    A bungalow is a small house or cottage that is either single-storey or has a second storey built into a sloping roof (usually with dormer windows),[1] and may be surrounded by wide verandas.[1]

    The style is derived from the thatched huts of Bengali farmers.[1] The British altered the style and built bungalows around British India.[1] The first house in England that was classified as a bungalow was built in 1869.[1] In America it was initially used as a vacation architecture, and was most popular between 1900–1918,[2] especially with the Arts and Crafts movement.[

    ::::::::::::

    It reflects Indian impact on this aspect of British culture (which then spread to the USA). Just as the word "dengi" indicates Tatar impact on Russian culture.
  144. @AP

    For example, the very important word European word “alcohol”, is an Arabic word. However, let’s say this shows the influence of Arabs on European drinking, or the centrality of Arab culture to European alcoholism?
     
    You actually support my point.

    Alcohol comes not directly from Arabic but through Latin and it originally meant something very different so it could not have meant anything with respect to drinking alcohol.

    Dengi, OTOH, came directly from Tatars and always meant coins or money.

    Alcohol etymology:

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/alcohol

    1540s (early 15c. as alcofol), "fine powder produced by sublimation," from Medieval Latin alcohol "powdered ore of antimony," from Arabic al-kuhul "kohl," the fine metallic powder used to darken the eyelids, from kahala "to stain, paint." The al- is the Arabic definite article, "the."

    Paracelsus (1493-1541) used the word to refer to a fine powder but also a volatile liquid. By 1670s it was being used in English for "any sublimated substance, the pure spirit of anything," including liquids. Sense of "intoxicating ingredient in strong liquor" is first recorded 1753, short for alcohol of wine, which was extended to "the intoxicating element in fermented liquors." In organic chemistry, the word was extended 1850 to the class of compounds of the same type as this.

    So word alcohol as now used (referring to spirits) was invented by Europeans not Arabs. But word dengi as used by Russians was invented by Turkic people and adopted by Russians and used the same way by them.

    LOL – after I exposed you not being able to speak Russian, the excellent commentator Anonymous Coward exposes your lying and ineptitude again with the groshi drivel (which you embarrassingly deflect over again, under patronage of Karlin)…. I see you STILL keep up this fantasy with the pseudo-linguistics!

    Dengi is one of SEVERAL Russian words used for money .
    Same thing with tax that you referred to with the word kazna. You obviously never heard of the word nalogi…. ‘hidden” from Russian society by the “N” in the state tax agency, FNS

    Money, currency and tax of course concepts only introduced in ukropia when in Union with Russia

    • Replies: @AP

    LOL – after I exposed you not being able to speak Russian,
     
    Have you learned the Russian word for "watch" yet?
  145. @Ms Karlin-Gerard
    LOL - so because Algebra is an Arabic word then there is no great mathematicians part of European civilisation as Newton, Timoshenko, Euler and Fibonnacci according to the logic of this cretin!

    The British use the Indian word "bungalow" for a single level house, obviously the most common type of house there long before any Briton set foot in India. Word capture is a very common thing without any hint of being derived from anything incorporated from a conquering power

    “Tsar” quite interestingly is used by the British to refer to an expert, usually appointed by a government body, to lead improvement on a very specific issue.

    The Indian word “guru” also used, although with not quite the same high standard connotations.

    No reason why such a word as tsar would have a positive meaning in britain

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    It was American first and is more about absolute power to perform a task rather than expertise.
  146. How about a discussion regarding the Wuhan plague?

  147. @Ms Karlin-Gerard
    LOL - after I exposed you not being able to speak Russian, the excellent commentator Anonymous Coward exposes your lying and ineptitude again with the groshi drivel (which you embarrassingly deflect over again, under patronage of Karlin).... I see you STILL keep up this fantasy with the pseudo-linguistics!

    Dengi is one of SEVERAL Russian words used for money .
    Same thing with tax that you referred to with the word kazna. You obviously never heard of the word nalogi.... 'hidden" from Russian society by the "N" in the state tax agency, FNS

    Money, currency and tax of course concepts only introduced in ukropia when in Union with Russia

    LOL – after I exposed you not being able to speak Russian,

    Have you learned the Russian word for “watch” yet?

  148. @melanf


    Moscow was stormed and destroyed during the Mongol invasion. Here is the chronicle ” (Mongols) exterminated the entire population from the elderly to infants, burned the city, and burned the surrounding monasteries and villages”
     
    If it was destroyed and its entire population exterminated during the invasion (rather than merely sacked) it would not have become the center of northeastern Rus civilization.
     
    The Mongols exterminated the population of the defending cities.

    "The population of voluntarily surrendering cities was usually spared .... On the contrary, the population of the cities that resisted the Mongols was usually beaten without exception, with the exception of women and children, as well as artists, artisans and, in general, people with technical knowledge who could be useful to the Mongol army."

    Many cities then resurrected (Kiev for example).

    The reality is that Moscow princes benefited enormously from their close century-plus-long collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative
     
    It's just a lie. The first Prince of Moscow (Daniel, the younger son of Alexander Nevsky) was among the enemies of Khan Tokhta. In 1293, the Tatars ruined Moscow for this, but in 1300, Daniel defeated the Tatars. From the chronicle
    " Danilo Prince of Moscow came to Ryazan with an army and fought at Pereyaslavl, and Danilo won, many Tatars were beaten, and Prince Kostyantin of Ryazan was captured and brought to Moscow."

    Daniel's son Yuri continued his father's policy and started a war against the great Prince appointed by the Khan (Mikhail Tversky). With the help of Tatar troops, the Tver Prince defeated Yuri's supporters, but Yuri in actual captivity at the court of the Khan, marries the Khan's sister. As a result, the Khan appoints Yuri as Grand Prince. Yuri destroys Mikhail Tversky with the hands of the Tatars, but after that Yuri ceases to obey the Khan. In the end, the Khan gives .title of Grand Prince to the Tver princes. But in 1327, the inhabitants of Tver killed (against the will of their Prince) a Tatar detachment, as a result, the Tatars destroed Tver, and the title of Grand Prince passed to the Moscow Prince Ivan (Yuri was killed by that time)
    After that, for 35 years, the Moscow princes receive the title of Grand princes from the khans, pay tribute and do not fight the Horde, but after 1365, Moscow begins to openly conduct an anti-Horde policy (which eventually ends with the defeat of the Horde)

    That is, as you can see, Moscow has been fighting against the Tatars from the very beginning of its independent existence, and the statement about "collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative" is just a lie.

    The reality is that Moscow princes benefited enormously from their close century-plus-long collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative

    It’s just a lie.

    According to Russian svidomist pseudo-historians.

    Actual historians wrote this:

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65998/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Neumann%2C%20I_Europeans%20and%20the%20steppe_Neumann_Europeans_and_the_steppe.pdf

    From this time on, the enrollment of Mongol backing became a routine part of internecine
    struggles. There was nothing new about this: first the nomadic Pechenegs and then the Khipchaks had been drawn on in similar fashion by the Rus’ princes before.

    Now, once more, the appeal to steppe forces became a key factor in the intensification of direct Mongol control with Rus’ political life. There is a causal link between this development and the period of intensified Mongol raids and invasions towards the end of the thirteenth century. At this point, not only were Mongols from the Khipchak Khanate brought in, Rus’ princes who were up against other Rus’ princes with Horde backing actually ventured further field to bring in the backing of Mongols insurgents from the Nogay further south.15 Rus’ princes stood against Rus’ princes, each backed by a Mongol ally.

    In 1304, the grand prince of Vladimir died. Three developments brought about a change in politics. First, the princes of Moscow and Tver’ emerged as the key players in Rus’ politics, among other things as a result of their population increase in the wake of the Mongol invasion, which was again to do with nice strategic location (with Moscow in particular being something of a hub of the river system).

    Secondly, among other things because of the now firmly established principle of primogeniture, these princes headed more clearly organized families, which served as a firm power base. Thirdly, the firm wedding between families and cities meant that the territoriality of this power base was now assured in a much higher degree than before.17 Following decades of struggle between Moscow and Tver’, Moscow emerged victorious and Ivan I was granted the title of grand prince of Vladimir by the Mongols in 1328. From Ivan I onwards, Moscow was the emergent centre of gravity of Rus’ politics, and the home both of the great prince (who underlined his success by adding ‘and of all Russia’ to his princely title) and of the Metropolitan. Moscow remained completely dependent on the Mongols, however, to the point that brothers appealed to Saray and even traveled there in order to settle their succession struggles (Halperin 1987: 58). Moscow took its time fighting down Tver’ competition. In 1353, Novgorod supported the Tver’ bid for the grand principality of Vladimir over the Moscow one by sending envoys to Saray to plead for Tver’s case (Halperin 1987: 51).

    The grand princes of Moscow kept up their brilliance in playing the alliance game. Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372. As summed up by Halperin (1987: 54; for details, see Vernadsky 1953: 207), the special relationship between the Golden Horde and Moscow was strengthened in the middle of the fourteenth century, when the Mongols faced a new challenge to their hegemony. Grand prince Olgerd of Lithuania struck deep into the Tatar orbit by bringing both Tver’ and Riazan’ into his sphere of influence and applying pressure to Novgorod.18 Olgerd’s opposition to Moscow was not rooted in principle, and he played politics by the same rules as everyone else. Thus, with the eye on Moscow, he sent a delegation to the Golden Horde to negotiate a rapprochement. The Mongols, however, had decided, logically, to use Moscow as a counterweight to the growing power of Lithuania. The Muscovites were therefore successful in their attempts to undermine the Lithuanian embassy, and the Mongols, in a fine display of political delicacy, arrested the Lithuanian envoys and handed them over to Moscow. Olgerd was compelled to ransom his emissaries from his enemies.

    The decisive Moscow victory over Tver’ occurred in 1375.19 In 1478, Ivan III subdued Novgorod. Moscow owed its victory to the superior way in which they had played the alliance game vis-à-vis the Mongols compared to other Rus’ polities. From this time on, in order to underline how Moscow was changing the suzeraign system of Rus’ lineages into a polity centred on Moscow, it is customary to refer to this polity as Muscovy. Muscovy was still subservient to the Khipchak Khanate, an would remain so for another hundred years.

    :::::::::::

    Your statements add details and nuances but don’t change the story. Ultimately Moscow was more subservient and loyal than others who were more disloyal, and this greater loyalty to the Mongol masters resulted in Moscow taking over northern Rus lands.

    • Replies: @melanf

    According to Russian svidomist pseudo-historians....
     
    That is, the authors of medieval Russian Chronicles are "svidomist pseudo-historians" and therefore, instead of Chronicles, in order to study medieval history, people should read articles in American magazines. Of course, the authors of these articles (in American magazines) are completely ignorant of medieval Russian history, but they Express the Рarty Line, and this is the most important thing.

    However, I post below the three fragments of the Russian Chronicles (with the original text in Russian). Please try to refute these fragments. If instead of analyzing sources you copy paste another sample of party propaganda then there is no point in continuing the discussion

    "In the summer of 6801 (1292).. the Tatar army, along with Prince Andrew and Fyodor, who came to Suzdal, and the whole city was captured, and Vladimir was captured .... And they went to Moscow, and Danil (the Moscow Prince) was deceived, and so (the Tatars) captured Moscow..."

    «В лето 6801 (1292).. рать же Татарская съ княземъ Андреемъ и Федоромъ, пришедше въ Суждаль, и градъ весь взяша, такоже и Володимерь взяша и церкови пограбиша.. Тако потом взяша Юрьевъ, и села и люди, и кони, и скоты, и имение все то пограбиша. И поидоша къ Москве, и Московскаго Данила обольстиша, и тако въехаша въ Москву, исътвориша такоже, якоже и Суждалю и Володимерю, и прочимъ городомъ, и взяша Москву всю и волости, и села…» Симеоновская летопись. ПСРЛ. Т. 18, стр. 82


    "(in 1296) Prince Andrey (the great Prince appointed by Khan Tokhta) Came from Tatar and combined troops and wanted to go to Pereyaslavl and then to Moscow and to Tver; but Tver Prince Mikhail and Moscow Prince Danilo gathered troops and did not allow Andrew to go to Pereyaslavl..."

    « (в 1296) Приде Андреи князь ис татаръ и совокупи вои и хоте ити на Переяславль ратью, да от Переяславля к Москве и ко Тфери; слышав же князь Михаило Тферьскыи и Данило Московьскии князь, и совокупивъ вои и пришедше и стаста близъ Юрьева на полчищи, Андреи в Володимери, и тако не даста поити Андрею на Переяславль; бяшеть Иван князь сынъ Дмитриевъ, идя в Ворду, приказалъ Михаилу князю блюсти очины своее и Переяславля; и за мало бою не бысть промежи ими, и взяша миръ и придоша в своя си» ПСРЛ. Т. 1, стр. 484


    Danilo Prince of Moscow came to Ryazan with an army and fought at Pereyaslavl, and Danilo won, many Tatars were exterminated, and Prince Kostyantin of Ryazan was thanks to a trick captured and brought to Moscow.

    «Того же лета [1300] в осенине Данило князь московъскыи приходилъ на Рязань ратью и билися у Переяславля, и Данило одолелъ, много и татаръ избито бысть, и князя рязанского Костянтина некакою хитростью ялъ и приведъ на Москву» Лаврентьевская летопись. ПСРЛ. Т. 1, стр. 486

    , @melanf

    The grand princes of Moscow kept up their brilliance in playing the alliance game. Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372.
     
    O_o! And these slops are published in scientific journals?

    In the course of this Moscow's war against Lithuania and the Tver, Moscow achieved victory solely on its own. Here is your favorite Wikipedia (here, in this case, the events are described without errors):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian%E2%80%93Muscovite_War_(1368%E2%80%931372)
    The Tatars between 1368 and 1372 were rather allies of Lithuania, as they supported the Prince of Tver against Moscow.
    The Treaty that Moscow imposed on Lithuania in 1372 recognized the Grand Duchy of Vladimir as a hereditary possession of the Moscow princes, that is, this Treaty was a direct challenge to the Horde.


    The decisive Moscow victory over Tver’ occurred in 1375. In 1478, Ivan III subdued Novgorod. Moscow owed its victory to the superior way in which they had played the alliance game vis-à-vis the Mongols
     
    In 1375, Moscow defeated Tver, which was in Alliance (against Moscow) with the Horde
    The Treaty that Moscow imposed on the Tver Prince was directed against the Horde. Here is full the text
    https://www.ruistor.ru/bitvy_kulikovskaya_bitva_ist003.html

    The that concerns Horde "and if the Tatars go to war against us (Moscow) or against you, we will fight together in Alliance against Tatars. And if we go to war against the Tatars, you will go to war with us against the Tatars."
    (А пойдут татары на нас или на тебя, биться нам и тебе в союзе против них. И если мы пойдем на них, и тебе с нами в союзе идти на них.)

    I think you shouldn’t waste any more time posting party propaganda here

  149. @Ms Karlin-Gerard
    LOL - so because Algebra is an Arabic word then there is no great mathematicians part of European civilisation as Newton, Timoshenko, Euler and Fibonnacci according to the logic of this cretin!

    The British use the Indian word "bungalow" for a single level house, obviously the most common type of house there long before any Briton set foot in India. Word capture is a very common thing without any hint of being derived from anything incorporated from a conquering power

    The British use the Indian word “bungalow” for a single level house, obviously the most common type of house there long before any Briton set foot in India

    LOL, Sovok civil “engineer” doesn’t even know basic things about houses.

    A bungalow is not any single story house but a specific one of a style that came from India.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungalow

    A bungalow is a small house or cottage that is either single-storey or has a second storey built into a sloping roof (usually with dormer windows),[1] and may be surrounded by wide verandas.[1]

    The style is derived from the thatched huts of Bengali farmers.[1] The British altered the style and built bungalows around British India.[1] The first house in England that was classified as a bungalow was built in 1869.[1] In America it was initially used as a vacation architecture, and was most popular between 1900–1918,[2] especially with the Arts and Crafts movement.[

    ::::::::::::

    It reflects Indian impact on this aspect of British culture (which then spread to the USA). Just as the word “dengi” indicates Tatar impact on Russian culture.

    • Replies: @Ms Karlin-Gerard
    FFS- another injury sustained from laughter at this BS! Of course equipped with the obligatory nonsensical Wikipedia spam posting. I. E. you have zero facts and knowledge to talk about the issue (again)

    derived from the thatched huts of bengali farmers
     
    Thatched roofs were common in Britain during the Tudor period and a long time before it you cretin. In the Victorian period that you refer to, of course houses were having their roofs lined with slate or clay-fired tiles ( in of course more brick or stone clad buildings). Zero surprise of course because all of those things were being quarried or mass produced during that period, no chance of attracting lightning, and no absorption of the rain creating problems but sliding down into your habitat (the gutter)

    As I said, in Britain they refer to a single story house as a bungalow. What exactly are you to dumb to understand?

    How thick to not know that the "storey under the pitch of the roof" is not an Indian farmer characteristic?

    I can't be bothered but I'm sure a " bungalow for sale UK" search would even more expose your insecure, time-wasting bilge.

    What a joke.

    India never conquered UK, making your last point also worthless

  150. @AP

    The reality is that Moscow princes benefited enormously from their close century-plus-long collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative

    It’s just a lie.
     
    According to Russian svidomist pseudo-historians.

    Actual historians wrote this:

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65998/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Neumann%2C%20I_Europeans%20and%20the%20steppe_Neumann_Europeans_and_the_steppe.pdf

    From this time on, the enrollment of Mongol backing became a routine part of internecine
    struggles. There was nothing new about this: first the nomadic Pechenegs and then the Khipchaks had been drawn on in similar fashion by the Rus’ princes before.

    Now, once more, the appeal to steppe forces became a key factor in the intensification of direct Mongol control with Rus’ political life. There is a causal link between this development and the period of intensified Mongol raids and invasions towards the end of the thirteenth century. At this point, not only were Mongols from the Khipchak Khanate brought in, Rus’ princes who were up against other Rus’ princes with Horde backing actually ventured further field to bring in the backing of Mongols insurgents from the Nogay further south.15 Rus’ princes stood against Rus’ princes, each backed by a Mongol ally.

    In 1304, the grand prince of Vladimir died. Three developments brought about a change in politics. First, the princes of Moscow and Tver’ emerged as the key players in Rus’ politics, among other things as a result of their population increase in the wake of the Mongol invasion, which was again to do with nice strategic location (with Moscow in particular being something of a hub of the river system).

    Secondly, among other things because of the now firmly established principle of primogeniture, these princes headed more clearly organized families, which served as a firm power base. Thirdly, the firm wedding between families and cities meant that the territoriality of this power base was now assured in a much higher degree than before.17 Following decades of struggle between Moscow and Tver’, Moscow emerged victorious and Ivan I was granted the title of grand prince of Vladimir by the Mongols in 1328. From Ivan I onwards, Moscow was the emergent centre of gravity of Rus’ politics, and the home both of the great prince (who underlined his success by adding ‘and of all Russia’ to his princely title) and of the Metropolitan. Moscow remained completely dependent on the Mongols, however, to the point that brothers appealed to Saray and even traveled there in order to settle their succession struggles (Halperin 1987: 58). Moscow took its time fighting down Tver’ competition. In 1353, Novgorod supported the Tver’ bid for the grand principality of Vladimir over the Moscow one by sending envoys to Saray to plead for Tver’s case (Halperin 1987: 51).

    The grand princes of Moscow kept up their brilliance in playing the alliance game. Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372. As summed up by Halperin (1987: 54; for details, see Vernadsky 1953: 207), the special relationship between the Golden Horde and Moscow was strengthened in the middle of the fourteenth century, when the Mongols faced a new challenge to their hegemony. Grand prince Olgerd of Lithuania struck deep into the Tatar orbit by bringing both Tver’ and Riazan’ into his sphere of influence and applying pressure to Novgorod.18 Olgerd’s opposition to Moscow was not rooted in principle, and he played politics by the same rules as everyone else. Thus, with the eye on Moscow, he sent a delegation to the Golden Horde to negotiate a rapprochement. The Mongols, however, had decided, logically, to use Moscow as a counterweight to the growing power of Lithuania. The Muscovites were therefore successful in their attempts to undermine the Lithuanian embassy, and the Mongols, in a fine display of political delicacy, arrested the Lithuanian envoys and handed them over to Moscow. Olgerd was compelled to ransom his emissaries from his enemies.

    The decisive Moscow victory over Tver’ occurred in 1375.19 In 1478, Ivan III subdued Novgorod. Moscow owed its victory to the superior way in which they had played the alliance game vis-à-vis the Mongols compared to other Rus’ polities. From this time on, in order to underline how Moscow was changing the suzeraign system of Rus’ lineages into a polity centred on Moscow, it is customary to refer to this polity as Muscovy. Muscovy was still subservient to the Khipchak Khanate, an would remain so for another hundred years.

    :::::::::::

    Your statements add details and nuances but don't change the story. Ultimately Moscow was more subservient and loyal than others who were more disloyal, and this greater loyalty to the Mongol masters resulted in Moscow taking over northern Rus lands.

    According to Russian svidomist pseudo-historians….

    That is, the authors of medieval Russian Chronicles are “svidomist pseudo-historians” and therefore, instead of Chronicles, in order to study medieval history, people should read articles in American magazines. Of course, the authors of these articles (in American magazines) are completely ignorant of medieval Russian history, but they Express the Рarty Line, and this is the most important thing.

    However, I post below the three fragments of the Russian Chronicles (with the original text in Russian). Please try to refute these fragments. If instead of analyzing sources you copy paste another sample of party propaganda then there is no point in continuing the discussion

    In the summer of 6801 (1292).. the Tatar army, along with Prince Andrew and Fyodor, who came to Suzdal, and the whole city was captured, and Vladimir was captured …. And they went to Moscow, and Danil (the Moscow Prince) was deceived, and so (the Tatars) captured Moscow…”

    «В лето 6801 (1292).. рать же Татарская съ княземъ Андреемъ и Федоромъ, пришедше въ Суждаль, и градъ весь взяша, такоже и Володимерь взяша и церкови пограбиша.. Тако потом взяша Юрьевъ, и села и люди, и кони, и скоты, и имение все то пограбиша. И поидоша къ Москве, и Московскаго Данила обольстиша, и тако въехаша въ Москву, исътвориша такоже, якоже и Суждалю и Володимерю, и прочимъ городомъ, и взяша Москву всю и волости, и села…» Симеоновская летопись. ПСРЛ. Т. 18, стр. 82

    (in 1296) Prince Andrey (the great Prince appointed by Khan Tokhta) Came from Tatar and combined troops and wanted to go to Pereyaslavl and then to Moscow and to Tver; but Tver Prince Mikhail and Moscow Prince Danilo gathered troops and did not allow Andrew to go to Pereyaslavl…

    « (в 1296) Приде Андреи князь ис татаръ и совокупи вои и хоте ити на Переяславль ратью, да от Переяславля к Москве и ко Тфери; слышав же князь Михаило Тферьскыи и Данило Московьскии князь, и совокупивъ вои и пришедше и стаста близъ Юрьева на полчищи, Андреи в Володимери, и тако не даста поити Андрею на Переяславль; бяшеть Иван князь сынъ Дмитриевъ, идя в Ворду, приказалъ Михаилу князю блюсти очины своее и Переяславля; и за мало бою не бысть промежи ими, и взяша миръ и придоша в своя си» ПСРЛ. Т. 1, стр. 484

    Danilo Prince of Moscow came to Ryazan with an army and fought at Pereyaslavl, and Danilo won, many Tatars were exterminated, and Prince Kostyantin of Ryazan was thanks to a trick captured and brought to Moscow.

    «Того же лета [1300] в осенине Данило князь московъскыи приходилъ на Рязань ратью и билися у Переяславля, и Данило одолелъ, много и татаръ избито бысть, и князя рязанского Костянтина некакою хитростью ялъ и приведъ на Москву» Лаврентьевская летопись. ПСРЛ. Т. 1, стр. 486

    • Replies: @AP

    That is, the authors of medieval Russian Chronicles are “svidomist pseudo-historians”
     
    No, people like you putting together fragments to make your interpretations are.

    instead of Chronicles, in order to study medieval history, people should read articles in American magazines.
     
    Instead of reading selective fragments put together by Russian Svidomist pseudohistorians to tell their Svidomist fairytales (Sovoks were bad too, in their own way), I prefer conclusions by actual historians at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge etc. Even if those conclusions are summarized in American magazines.

    Please try to refute these fragments.
     
    The problem is not the fragments themselves but the selective use of them by Russian Svidomists painting a fake picture. It's like providing "fragments" from World War II of Soviet soldiers entering Germany and Hungary, and then creating a fairytale about World War II being Soviet aggression against Europe. Or Ukrainian Svidomists using fragments of occasional examples of Banderist resistance to or killing of Germans to present a fake picture of them being implacable enemies of the Nazis. That would be as silly as your attempt to portray Moscow as being a center of resistance against the Tatars, rather than the most loyal servant (even if, at times and at certain moments, disloyal, as your fragments show).

    And the Chroniclers themselves were not objective; as Halperin points out they tried to minimize mentions of contact and collaboration with the Tatars, even whitewashing the extensive use of Turkic language among Muscovites:

    https://www.academia.edu/10357151/Charles_J._Halperin_Russian_and_Mongols._Slavs_and_the_Steppe_in_Medieval_and_Early_Modern_Russia

    ...The number of Russians who learned“Tatar” must have been far greater than that of Tatars who learned Russian.The Russian princes, nobles, merchants or clerics who travelled to or lived in the Horde, or who received Tatar envoys and officials who came to the Russian forest zone, must have had ample incentive to acquire some facility in the Tatar language..

    ...The pervasive silence of the Russian chronicles about bilingualism and the extreme rarity of allusions to translators create a prima facie case that something is amiss. Conceivably bilingualism and translators were too common to require comment, except that sometimes they were mentioned explicitly. Rather it seems plausible that knowledge of “Tatar” was culturally embarrassing. It was the language of the infidel, and no one could earn anycredits toward salvation by mastering it. During the Muscovite civil war Vasilij II was accused of loving the Tatar language more than his own, one of the accusations of pro-Tatar behavior which resulted in his overthrow and blinding"

    :::::::::::::::::::::

    Rather than play your game it is better to just rely on the conclusions of historians who are not Svidomists. In this case, the general consensus is that Moscow achieved its dominance over northeastern Rus based on its loyalty to the Tatars and that the Tatars strongly shaped Moscow's political culture in the 14th to early 15th centuries (though it played no role in other aspects of culture).

    Halperin:

    Although Mongol rule was indirect, it still exerted enormous influence. Muscovite Russia copied Mongol armaments, strategy and tactics, diplomatic ceremonial, chancellery practices, and certain other administrative and fiscal institutions. In Iran, Mongol terminology was well enough known to be satirized in poetry, yet it seems the Russians borrowed more extensively from the Golden Horde than did the Chinese or the Iranians from the Yüan and Ilkhanids.

    Here is a paper supervised by a graduate of MGU's history faculty who completed a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago:

    https://russia-direct.org/profile/dmitry-shlapentokh

    One of the greatest effects of Mongol rule in Russia was the rise of Moscow as not only the preeminent city in Russia but also the central power of a large and expanding empire.

    So Britannica:

    https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Tatar-rule

    As to “Tatar influence,” in the areas of religion and intellectual life, it was practically nonexistent. Control of formal culture by the Orthodox clergy and Muslim divines and limited contact between the Slavic and Turkic populations prevented it. There is no evidence that any single Turkic or Islamic text of religious, philosophical, literary or scholarly content was translated directly into Slavonic or any East Slavic vernacular during the period.

    Concerning the secular culture of the court and counting house, the situation was radically different. These spheres were controlled by very pragmatic princes, merchants, and diplomats. There, Slavs and Tatars elaborated together an international subculture whose language was Turkic and whose administrative techniques and chancellery culture were essentially those of the Golden Horde. Slavic merchants took full part in this culture, and the princes of Muscovy in particular developed their original court culture and chancellery practices within its context. These borrowings, however, were not of a theoretical or ideological nature, and to ascribe later despotism—and its theoretical basis—to “Oriental” influence is to misunderstand the development of Muscovite absolutism.
  151. @AP

    The reality is that Moscow princes benefited enormously from their close century-plus-long collaboration with the Mongolian overlords, at the expense of other Rus princes who were less cooperative

    It’s just a lie.
     
    According to Russian svidomist pseudo-historians.

    Actual historians wrote this:

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65998/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Neumann%2C%20I_Europeans%20and%20the%20steppe_Neumann_Europeans_and_the_steppe.pdf

    From this time on, the enrollment of Mongol backing became a routine part of internecine
    struggles. There was nothing new about this: first the nomadic Pechenegs and then the Khipchaks had been drawn on in similar fashion by the Rus’ princes before.

    Now, once more, the appeal to steppe forces became a key factor in the intensification of direct Mongol control with Rus’ political life. There is a causal link between this development and the period of intensified Mongol raids and invasions towards the end of the thirteenth century. At this point, not only were Mongols from the Khipchak Khanate brought in, Rus’ princes who were up against other Rus’ princes with Horde backing actually ventured further field to bring in the backing of Mongols insurgents from the Nogay further south.15 Rus’ princes stood against Rus’ princes, each backed by a Mongol ally.

    In 1304, the grand prince of Vladimir died. Three developments brought about a change in politics. First, the princes of Moscow and Tver’ emerged as the key players in Rus’ politics, among other things as a result of their population increase in the wake of the Mongol invasion, which was again to do with nice strategic location (with Moscow in particular being something of a hub of the river system).

    Secondly, among other things because of the now firmly established principle of primogeniture, these princes headed more clearly organized families, which served as a firm power base. Thirdly, the firm wedding between families and cities meant that the territoriality of this power base was now assured in a much higher degree than before.17 Following decades of struggle between Moscow and Tver’, Moscow emerged victorious and Ivan I was granted the title of grand prince of Vladimir by the Mongols in 1328. From Ivan I onwards, Moscow was the emergent centre of gravity of Rus’ politics, and the home both of the great prince (who underlined his success by adding ‘and of all Russia’ to his princely title) and of the Metropolitan. Moscow remained completely dependent on the Mongols, however, to the point that brothers appealed to Saray and even traveled there in order to settle their succession struggles (Halperin 1987: 58). Moscow took its time fighting down Tver’ competition. In 1353, Novgorod supported the Tver’ bid for the grand principality of Vladimir over the Moscow one by sending envoys to Saray to plead for Tver’s case (Halperin 1987: 51).

    The grand princes of Moscow kept up their brilliance in playing the alliance game. Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372. As summed up by Halperin (1987: 54; for details, see Vernadsky 1953: 207), the special relationship between the Golden Horde and Moscow was strengthened in the middle of the fourteenth century, when the Mongols faced a new challenge to their hegemony. Grand prince Olgerd of Lithuania struck deep into the Tatar orbit by bringing both Tver’ and Riazan’ into his sphere of influence and applying pressure to Novgorod.18 Olgerd’s opposition to Moscow was not rooted in principle, and he played politics by the same rules as everyone else. Thus, with the eye on Moscow, he sent a delegation to the Golden Horde to negotiate a rapprochement. The Mongols, however, had decided, logically, to use Moscow as a counterweight to the growing power of Lithuania. The Muscovites were therefore successful in their attempts to undermine the Lithuanian embassy, and the Mongols, in a fine display of political delicacy, arrested the Lithuanian envoys and handed them over to Moscow. Olgerd was compelled to ransom his emissaries from his enemies.

    The decisive Moscow victory over Tver’ occurred in 1375.19 In 1478, Ivan III subdued Novgorod. Moscow owed its victory to the superior way in which they had played the alliance game vis-à-vis the Mongols compared to other Rus’ polities. From this time on, in order to underline how Moscow was changing the suzeraign system of Rus’ lineages into a polity centred on Moscow, it is customary to refer to this polity as Muscovy. Muscovy was still subservient to the Khipchak Khanate, an would remain so for another hundred years.

    :::::::::::

    Your statements add details and nuances but don't change the story. Ultimately Moscow was more subservient and loyal than others who were more disloyal, and this greater loyalty to the Mongol masters resulted in Moscow taking over northern Rus lands.

    The grand princes of Moscow kept up their brilliance in playing the alliance game. Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372.

    O_o! And these slops are published in scientific journals?

    In the course of this Moscow’s war against Lithuania and the Tver, Moscow achieved victory solely on its own. Here is your favorite Wikipedia (here, in this case, the events are described without errors):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian%E2%80%93Muscovite_War_(1368%E2%80%931372)
    The Tatars between 1368 and 1372 were rather allies of Lithuania, as they supported the Prince of Tver against Moscow.
    The Treaty that Moscow imposed on Lithuania in 1372 recognized the Grand Duchy of Vladimir as a hereditary possession of the Moscow princes, that is, this Treaty was a direct challenge to the Horde.

    The decisive Moscow victory over Tver’ occurred in 1375. In 1478, Ivan III subdued Novgorod. Moscow owed its victory to the superior way in which they had played the alliance game vis-à-vis the Mongols

    In 1375, Moscow defeated Tver, which was in Alliance (against Moscow) with the Horde
    The Treaty that Moscow imposed on the Tver Prince was directed against the Horde. Here is full the text
    https://www.ruistor.ru/bitvy_kulikovskaya_bitva_ist003.html

    The that concerns Horde “and if the Tatars go to war against us (Moscow) or against you, we will fight together in Alliance against Tatars. And if we go to war against the Tatars, you will go to war with us against the Tatars.
    (А пойдут татары на нас или на тебя, биться нам и тебе в союзе против них. И если мы пойдем на них, и тебе с нами в союзе идти на них.)

    I think you shouldn’t waste any more time posting party propaganda here

  152. @AP
    You are being facetious but..

    So if someone buys al-kuhul, they are exemplifying european civilization
     
    No. But when they are buying alcohol (a spirit beverage), a completely different thing from al-kuhul (a fine metallic powder) they are exemplifying European civilization.

    when they buy...with dengi, they are exhibiting their asiatic heritage.
     
    Yes.

    I have been following – or rather dropping by as time permitted – this discussion.

    Very informative arguments were brough forward to support various thesis. Of course some have better arguments than others and some are better debaters than fellow commentators.

    You sir with this comment of yours established a whole new set of (sub)standards in this field. At first I though it deserves a LOL but changed my mind to facepalm, but that would not be enough either, in fact even a tenfold facepalm would not suffice.

    Some people shoot themselves in the foot, but that comment of yours was ‘brilliant’ – it was an argumentative equivalent not of shooting oneself in the foot but of blowing ones brains out.

    That said you are not the first one. Prior I already saw Ms. Yaeger committing ‘argumentative suicide’ on another occasion.

    • Replies: @AP
    Being autistic must be difficult for you.
    , @anonymous coward
    Friendly reminder: 'AP' is a paid shill. He's here on a paycheck, and his job isn't to argue in good faith, his job is to drown the voices of sanity in a flood of bullshit and party slogans.
  153. @melanf

    According to Russian svidomist pseudo-historians....
     
    That is, the authors of medieval Russian Chronicles are "svidomist pseudo-historians" and therefore, instead of Chronicles, in order to study medieval history, people should read articles in American magazines. Of course, the authors of these articles (in American magazines) are completely ignorant of medieval Russian history, but they Express the Рarty Line, and this is the most important thing.

    However, I post below the three fragments of the Russian Chronicles (with the original text in Russian). Please try to refute these fragments. If instead of analyzing sources you copy paste another sample of party propaganda then there is no point in continuing the discussion

    "In the summer of 6801 (1292).. the Tatar army, along with Prince Andrew and Fyodor, who came to Suzdal, and the whole city was captured, and Vladimir was captured .... And they went to Moscow, and Danil (the Moscow Prince) was deceived, and so (the Tatars) captured Moscow..."

    «В лето 6801 (1292).. рать же Татарская съ княземъ Андреемъ и Федоромъ, пришедше въ Суждаль, и градъ весь взяша, такоже и Володимерь взяша и церкови пограбиша.. Тако потом взяша Юрьевъ, и села и люди, и кони, и скоты, и имение все то пограбиша. И поидоша къ Москве, и Московскаго Данила обольстиша, и тако въехаша въ Москву, исътвориша такоже, якоже и Суждалю и Володимерю, и прочимъ городомъ, и взяша Москву всю и волости, и села…» Симеоновская летопись. ПСРЛ. Т. 18, стр. 82


    "(in 1296) Prince Andrey (the great Prince appointed by Khan Tokhta) Came from Tatar and combined troops and wanted to go to Pereyaslavl and then to Moscow and to Tver; but Tver Prince Mikhail and Moscow Prince Danilo gathered troops and did not allow Andrew to go to Pereyaslavl..."

    « (в 1296) Приде Андреи князь ис татаръ и совокупи вои и хоте ити на Переяславль ратью, да от Переяславля к Москве и ко Тфери; слышав же князь Михаило Тферьскыи и Данило Московьскии князь, и совокупивъ вои и пришедше и стаста близъ Юрьева на полчищи, Андреи в Володимери, и тако не даста поити Андрею на Переяславль; бяшеть Иван князь сынъ Дмитриевъ, идя в Ворду, приказалъ Михаилу князю блюсти очины своее и Переяславля; и за мало бою не бысть промежи ими, и взяша миръ и придоша в своя си» ПСРЛ. Т. 1, стр. 484


    Danilo Prince of Moscow came to Ryazan with an army and fought at Pereyaslavl, and Danilo won, many Tatars were exterminated, and Prince Kostyantin of Ryazan was thanks to a trick captured and brought to Moscow.

    «Того же лета [1300] в осенине Данило князь московъскыи приходилъ на Рязань ратью и билися у Переяславля, и Данило одолелъ, много и татаръ избито бысть, и князя рязанского Костянтина некакою хитростью ялъ и приведъ на Москву» Лаврентьевская летопись. ПСРЛ. Т. 1, стр. 486

    That is, the authors of medieval Russian Chronicles are “svidomist pseudo-historians”

    No, people like you putting together fragments to make your interpretations are.

    instead of Chronicles, in order to study medieval history, people should read articles in American magazines.

    Instead of reading selective fragments put together by Russian Svidomist pseudohistorians to tell their Svidomist fairytales (Sovoks were bad too, in their own way), I prefer conclusions by actual historians at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge etc. Even if those conclusions are summarized in American magazines.

    Please try to refute these fragments.

    The problem is not the fragments themselves but the selective use of them by Russian Svidomists painting a fake picture. It’s like providing “fragments” from World War II of Soviet soldiers entering Germany and Hungary, and then creating a fairytale about World War II being Soviet aggression against Europe. Or Ukrainian Svidomists using fragments of occasional examples of Banderist resistance to or killing of Germans to present a fake picture of them being implacable enemies of the Nazis. That would be as silly as your attempt to portray Moscow as being a center of resistance against the Tatars, rather than the most loyal servant (even if, at times and at certain moments, disloyal, as your fragments show).

    And the Chroniclers themselves were not objective; as Halperin points out they tried to minimize mentions of contact and collaboration with the Tatars, even whitewashing the extensive use of Turkic language among Muscovites:

    https://www.academia.edu/10357151/Charles_J._Halperin_Russian_and_Mongols._Slavs_and_the_Steppe_in_Medieval_and_Early_Modern_Russia

    …The number of Russians who learned“Tatar” must have been far greater than that of Tatars who learned Russian.The Russian princes, nobles, merchants or clerics who travelled to or lived in the Horde, or who received Tatar envoys and officials who came to the Russian forest zone, must have had ample incentive to acquire some facility in the Tatar language..

    …The pervasive silence of the Russian chronicles about bilingualism and the extreme rarity of allusions to translators create a prima facie case that something is amiss. Conceivably bilingualism and translators were too common to require comment, except that sometimes they were mentioned explicitly. Rather it seems plausible that knowledge of “Tatar” was culturally embarrassing. It was the language of the infidel, and no one could earn anycredits toward salvation by mastering it. During the Muscovite civil war Vasilij II was accused of loving the Tatar language more than his own, one of the accusations of pro-Tatar behavior which resulted in his overthrow and blinding”

    :::::::::::::::::::::

    Rather than play your game it is better to just rely on the conclusions of historians who are not Svidomists. In this case, the general consensus is that Moscow achieved its dominance over northeastern Rus based on its loyalty to the Tatars and that the Tatars strongly shaped Moscow’s political culture in the 14th to early 15th centuries (though it played no role in other aspects of culture).

    Halperin:

    Although Mongol rule was indirect, it still exerted enormous influence. Muscovite Russia copied Mongol armaments, strategy and tactics, diplomatic ceremonial, chancellery practices, and certain other administrative and fiscal institutions. In Iran, Mongol terminology was well enough known to be satirized in poetry, yet it seems the Russians borrowed more extensively from the Golden Horde than did the Chinese or the Iranians from the Yüan and Ilkhanids.

    Here is a paper supervised by a graduate of MGU’s history faculty who completed a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago:

    https://russia-direct.org/profile/dmitry-shlapentokh

    One of the greatest effects of Mongol rule in Russia was the rise of Moscow as not only the preeminent city in Russia but also the central power of a large and expanding empire.

    So Britannica:

    https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Tatar-rule

    As to “Tatar influence,” in the areas of religion and intellectual life, it was practically nonexistent. Control of formal culture by the Orthodox clergy and Muslim divines and limited contact between the Slavic and Turkic populations prevented it. There is no evidence that any single Turkic or Islamic text of religious, philosophical, literary or scholarly content was translated directly into Slavonic or any East Slavic vernacular during the period.

    Concerning the secular culture of the court and counting house, the situation was radically different. These spheres were controlled by very pragmatic princes, merchants, and diplomats. There, Slavs and Tatars elaborated together an international subculture whose language was Turkic and whose administrative techniques and chancellery culture were essentially those of the Golden Horde. Slavic merchants took full part in this culture, and the princes of Muscovy in particular developed their original court culture and chancellery practices within its context. These borrowings, however, were not of a theoretical or ideological nature, and to ascribe later despotism—and its theoretical basis—to “Oriental” influence is to misunderstand the development of Muscovite absolutism.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Instead of reading selective fragments put together by Russian Svidomist pseudohistorians to tell their Svidomist fairytales (Sovoks were bad too, in their own way), I prefer conclusions by actual historians at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge etc. Even if those conclusions are summarized in American magazines.
     
    Wonderful. Here is the statement of the "historian" that you posted.
    "Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372."
    This statement contradicts the medieval Chronicles as well as the surviving texts of Moscow's treaties with Lithuania (1372) and Tver (1375). In this conflict (war of Moscow aganist Lithuania and Tver 1368 - 1375), the Golden Horde was a ally of Tver against Moscow (in 1371, the Tver Prince received a label for possession of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir).
    Please analyze the primary sources (i.e. medieval Chronicles) and prove that the Golden Horde was not (in this conflict) an ally of Tver and Lithuania, but on the contrary fought on the side of Moscow (this statement of the American "historian" you quoted here). You can cite any scientific articles, but with an analysis of primary sources, not a collection of party duckspeaсhes

    Here is a collection of Russian Chronicles online for your
    http://padaread.com/?book=53614&pg=13

    But if you can't confirm the statement of your "historian" by analyzing the sources, then what you refer to ("conclusions by actual historians at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge etc") is just propaganda slops.

    That would be as silly as your attempt to portray Moscow as being a center of resistance against the Tatars
     
    A brilliant statement.

    I have already quoted from the Laurentian chronicle above.
    (in 1300) Danilo Prince of Moscow came to Ryazan with an army and fought at Pereyaslavl, and Danilo won, many Tatars were exterminated, and Prince Kostyantin of Ryazan was thanks to a trick captured and brought to Moscow.”

    Please prove to us (by analyzing primary sources) that this event did not occur.
    Here you can download the Laurentian chronicle from this link
    https://imwerden.de/pdf/psrl_tom01_lavrentjevskaya_letopis_1926.pdf
    You can use any research, but only analysis of primary sources and not party propaganda

    Here is a description from the chronicle of the battle between the Novgorod-Moscow army and the Tver-Tatars army in 1315

    "(in 1315) Prince Mikhailo (of Tver) came from the Horde to Russia, leading the Tatars with him, the cursed Taitemer... Prince Mikhailo with the Tartars went to Torzhok; Novgorod with Prince Athanasius came out against them to battle. ..There was a fierce battle, and many good men and boyars of Novgorod were killed"

    (Того же лета поиде князь Михаило изъ Орды в Русь, ведыи с собою Татары, оканьнаго Таитемеря... Тогда же поиде князь Михаило со всею Низовьскою землею и с Татары к Торжку; новгородци же съ княземь Афанасьемь и с новоторжци изидоша противу на поле. Бысть же то попущениемь божиемь: съступившема бо ся полкома обема, бысть сеча зла, и створися немало зла, избиша много добрыхъ муж и бояръ новгородскыхъ)

    Prince Athanasius is the youngest son of Danilo of Moscow, and the representative of his older brother Yuri (Prince of Moscow in 1315)

    Please prove to us (by analyzing primary sources) that this event did not occur
  154. @maz10
    I have been following - or rather dropping by as time permitted – this discussion.

    Very informative arguments were brough forward to support various thesis. Of course some have better arguments than others and some are better debaters than fellow commentators.

    You sir with this comment of yours established a whole new set of (sub)standards in this field. At first I though it deserves a LOL but changed my mind to facepalm, but that would not be enough either, in fact even a tenfold facepalm would not suffice.

    Some people shoot themselves in the foot, but that comment of yours was ‘brilliant’ - it was an argumentative equivalent not of shooting oneself in the foot but of blowing ones brains out.

    That said you are not the first one. Prior I already saw Ms. Yaeger committing ‘argumentative suicide’ on another occasion.

    Being autistic must be difficult for you.

    • Replies: @maz10
    My sincere gratitude – with this reply you only confirmed that I did not err in my initial assessment.
  155. @AP

    That is, the authors of medieval Russian Chronicles are “svidomist pseudo-historians”
     
    No, people like you putting together fragments to make your interpretations are.

    instead of Chronicles, in order to study medieval history, people should read articles in American magazines.
     
    Instead of reading selective fragments put together by Russian Svidomist pseudohistorians to tell their Svidomist fairytales (Sovoks were bad too, in their own way), I prefer conclusions by actual historians at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge etc. Even if those conclusions are summarized in American magazines.

    Please try to refute these fragments.
     
    The problem is not the fragments themselves but the selective use of them by Russian Svidomists painting a fake picture. It's like providing "fragments" from World War II of Soviet soldiers entering Germany and Hungary, and then creating a fairytale about World War II being Soviet aggression against Europe. Or Ukrainian Svidomists using fragments of occasional examples of Banderist resistance to or killing of Germans to present a fake picture of them being implacable enemies of the Nazis. That would be as silly as your attempt to portray Moscow as being a center of resistance against the Tatars, rather than the most loyal servant (even if, at times and at certain moments, disloyal, as your fragments show).

    And the Chroniclers themselves were not objective; as Halperin points out they tried to minimize mentions of contact and collaboration with the Tatars, even whitewashing the extensive use of Turkic language among Muscovites:

    https://www.academia.edu/10357151/Charles_J._Halperin_Russian_and_Mongols._Slavs_and_the_Steppe_in_Medieval_and_Early_Modern_Russia

    ...The number of Russians who learned“Tatar” must have been far greater than that of Tatars who learned Russian.The Russian princes, nobles, merchants or clerics who travelled to or lived in the Horde, or who received Tatar envoys and officials who came to the Russian forest zone, must have had ample incentive to acquire some facility in the Tatar language..

    ...The pervasive silence of the Russian chronicles about bilingualism and the extreme rarity of allusions to translators create a prima facie case that something is amiss. Conceivably bilingualism and translators were too common to require comment, except that sometimes they were mentioned explicitly. Rather it seems plausible that knowledge of “Tatar” was culturally embarrassing. It was the language of the infidel, and no one could earn anycredits toward salvation by mastering it. During the Muscovite civil war Vasilij II was accused of loving the Tatar language more than his own, one of the accusations of pro-Tatar behavior which resulted in his overthrow and blinding"

    :::::::::::::::::::::

    Rather than play your game it is better to just rely on the conclusions of historians who are not Svidomists. In this case, the general consensus is that Moscow achieved its dominance over northeastern Rus based on its loyalty to the Tatars and that the Tatars strongly shaped Moscow's political culture in the 14th to early 15th centuries (though it played no role in other aspects of culture).

    Halperin:

    Although Mongol rule was indirect, it still exerted enormous influence. Muscovite Russia copied Mongol armaments, strategy and tactics, diplomatic ceremonial, chancellery practices, and certain other administrative and fiscal institutions. In Iran, Mongol terminology was well enough known to be satirized in poetry, yet it seems the Russians borrowed more extensively from the Golden Horde than did the Chinese or the Iranians from the Yüan and Ilkhanids.

    Here is a paper supervised by a graduate of MGU's history faculty who completed a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago:

    https://russia-direct.org/profile/dmitry-shlapentokh

    One of the greatest effects of Mongol rule in Russia was the rise of Moscow as not only the preeminent city in Russia but also the central power of a large and expanding empire.

    So Britannica:

    https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Tatar-rule

    As to “Tatar influence,” in the areas of religion and intellectual life, it was practically nonexistent. Control of formal culture by the Orthodox clergy and Muslim divines and limited contact between the Slavic and Turkic populations prevented it. There is no evidence that any single Turkic or Islamic text of religious, philosophical, literary or scholarly content was translated directly into Slavonic or any East Slavic vernacular during the period.

    Concerning the secular culture of the court and counting house, the situation was radically different. These spheres were controlled by very pragmatic princes, merchants, and diplomats. There, Slavs and Tatars elaborated together an international subculture whose language was Turkic and whose administrative techniques and chancellery culture were essentially those of the Golden Horde. Slavic merchants took full part in this culture, and the princes of Muscovy in particular developed their original court culture and chancellery practices within its context. These borrowings, however, were not of a theoretical or ideological nature, and to ascribe later despotism—and its theoretical basis—to “Oriental” influence is to misunderstand the development of Muscovite absolutism.

    Instead of reading selective fragments put together by Russian Svidomist pseudohistorians to tell their Svidomist fairytales (Sovoks were bad too, in their own way), I prefer conclusions by actual historians at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge etc. Even if those conclusions are summarized in American magazines.

    Wonderful. Here is the statement of the “historian” that you posted.
    Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372.”
    This statement contradicts the medieval Chronicles as well as the surviving texts of Moscow’s treaties with Lithuania (1372) and Tver (1375). In this conflict (war of Moscow aganist Lithuania and Tver 1368 – 1375), the Golden Horde was a ally of Tver against Moscow (in 1371, the Tver Prince received a label for possession of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir).
    Please analyze the primary sources (i.e. medieval Chronicles) and prove that the Golden Horde was not (in this conflict) an ally of Tver and Lithuania, but on the contrary fought on the side of Moscow (this statement of the American “historian” you quoted here). You can cite any scientific articles, but with an analysis of primary sources, not a collection of party duckspeaсhes

    Here is a collection of Russian Chronicles online for your
    http://padaread.com/?book=53614&pg=13

    But if you can’t confirm the statement of your “historian” by analyzing the sources, then what you refer to (“conclusions by actual historians at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge etc”) is just propaganda slops.

    That would be as silly as your attempt to portray Moscow as being a center of resistance against the Tatars

    A brilliant statement.

    I have already quoted from the Laurentian chronicle above.
    (in 1300) Danilo Prince of Moscow came to Ryazan with an army and fought at Pereyaslavl, and Danilo won, many Tatars were exterminated, and Prince Kostyantin of Ryazan was thanks to a trick captured and brought to Moscow.”

    Please prove to us (by analyzing primary sources) that this event did not occur.
    Here you can download the Laurentian chronicle from this link
    https://imwerden.de/pdf/psrl_tom01_lavrentjevskaya_letopis_1926.pdf
    You can use any research, but only analysis of primary sources and not party propaganda

    Here is a description from the chronicle of the battle between the Novgorod-Moscow army and the Tver-Tatars army in 1315

    (in 1315) Prince Mikhailo (of Tver) came from the Horde to Russia, leading the Tatars with him, the cursed Taitemer… Prince Mikhailo with the Tartars went to Torzhok; Novgorod with Prince Athanasius came out against them to battle. ..There was a fierce battle, and many good men and boyars of Novgorod were killed

    (Того же лета поиде князь Михаило изъ Орды в Русь, ведыи с собою Татары, оканьнаго Таитемеря… Тогда же поиде князь Михаило со всею Низовьскою землею и с Татары к Торжку; новгородци же съ княземь Афанасьемь и с новоторжци изидоша противу на поле. Бысть же то попущениемь божиемь: съступившема бо ся полкома обема, бысть сеча зла, и створися немало зла, избиша много добрыхъ муж и бояръ новгородскыхъ)

    Prince Athanasius is the youngest son of Danilo of Moscow, and the representative of his older brother Yuri (Prince of Moscow in 1315)

    Please prove to us (by analyzing primary sources) that this event did not occur

    • Replies: @AP

    Please analyze the primary sources...Please prove to us (by analyzing primary sources)
     
    As has already been explained to you, Muscovite primary sources were interested in whitewashing links to the Tatars. According to historian Halperin:

    https://www.academia.edu/10357151/Charles_J._Halperin_Russian_and_Mongols._Slavs_and_the_Steppe_in_Medieval_and_Early_Modern_Russia

    "…The pervasive silence of the Russian chronicles about bilingualism and the extreme rarity of allusions to translators create a prima facie case that something is amiss. Conceivably bilingualism and translators were too common to require comment, except that sometimes they were mentioned explicitly. Rather it seems plausible that knowledge of “Tatar” was culturally embarrassing. It was the language of the infidel, and no one could earn anycredits toward salvation by mastering it."

    What is interesting is that in a previous discussion when it came to Spanish primary sources claiming Aztecs sacrificed 200,000 per year you were correctly suspicious. But when it comes to your own Svidomism you insist on only following the non-objective primary sources and on rejecting conclusions of actual objective historians.


    “Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372.”

    This statement contradicts the medieval Chronicles as well as the surviving texts of Moscow’s treaties with Lithuania (1372) and Tver (1375). In this conflict (war of Moscow aganist Lithuania and Tver 1368 – 1375), the Golden Horde was a ally of Tver against Moscow (in 1371, the Tver Prince received a label for possession of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir).
     

    Actually both the Tver and Muscovite princes received Yarlyks from the Tatars.

    https://www.academia.edu/3597316/Troop_Mobilization_by_the_Muscovite_Grand_Princes_1313-1533_

    In the campaign against Tver’ in 1317,whatever forces Iurii Daniilovich had of his own were strengthened by forces from the princes of Suzdal’ and Tatar troops sent by Khan Uzbek.

    In 1327, the Moscow prince Ivan Daniilovich (who was not yet Grand Prince of Vladimir) went against Tver’ and Kashin with a Tatar army and forces provided by Prince Aleksandr Vasil’evich of Suzdal’.

    Afterthe death of Grand Prince Ivan II in 1359, Khan Nevruz had appointed Dmitrii of Suzdal’ to be grand prince of Vladimir.

    In 1362, Khan Mürid withdrewthe grand princely yarliq from Dmitrii of Suzdal’ and gave it to Dmitrii of Moscow.

    When,in 1363, Mürid found out that Mamai was also supporting Dmitrii of Moscow, he gave the grand princely yarliq back to Dmitrii of Suzdal’.

    Etc. etc. (I am out of time for now)

  156. @maz10
    I have been following - or rather dropping by as time permitted – this discussion.

    Very informative arguments were brough forward to support various thesis. Of course some have better arguments than others and some are better debaters than fellow commentators.

    You sir with this comment of yours established a whole new set of (sub)standards in this field. At first I though it deserves a LOL but changed my mind to facepalm, but that would not be enough either, in fact even a tenfold facepalm would not suffice.

    Some people shoot themselves in the foot, but that comment of yours was ‘brilliant’ - it was an argumentative equivalent not of shooting oneself in the foot but of blowing ones brains out.

    That said you are not the first one. Prior I already saw Ms. Yaeger committing ‘argumentative suicide’ on another occasion.

    Friendly reminder: ‘AP’ is a paid shill. He’s here on a paycheck, and his job isn’t to argue in good faith, his job is to drown the voices of sanity in a flood of bullshit and party slogans.

    • Troll: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Who's actually paying him? I know that my spiel isn't usually as deeply researched as his, but still I waste plenty of time here and feel that I should be on somebody's payroll too, so please provide me with contact info for his Employer? Put up or shut up.
    , @AP
    Friendly reminder: "anonymous coward" has even been identified by this site's host as being wrong almost all of the time about everything.
  157. @anonymous coward
    Friendly reminder: 'AP' is a paid shill. He's here on a paycheck, and his job isn't to argue in good faith, his job is to drown the voices of sanity in a flood of bullshit and party slogans.

    Who’s actually paying him? I know that my spiel isn’t usually as deeply researched as his, but still I waste plenty of time here and feel that I should be on somebody’s payroll too, so please provide me with contact info for his Employer? Put up or shut up.

  158. @anonymous coward
    Friendly reminder: 'AP' is a paid shill. He's here on a paycheck, and his job isn't to argue in good faith, his job is to drown the voices of sanity in a flood of bullshit and party slogans.

    Friendly reminder: “anonymous coward” has even been identified by this site’s host as being wrong almost all of the time about everything.

  159. @melanf

    Instead of reading selective fragments put together by Russian Svidomist pseudohistorians to tell their Svidomist fairytales (Sovoks were bad too, in their own way), I prefer conclusions by actual historians at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge etc. Even if those conclusions are summarized in American magazines.
     
    Wonderful. Here is the statement of the "historian" that you posted.
    "Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372."
    This statement contradicts the medieval Chronicles as well as the surviving texts of Moscow's treaties with Lithuania (1372) and Tver (1375). In this conflict (war of Moscow aganist Lithuania and Tver 1368 - 1375), the Golden Horde was a ally of Tver against Moscow (in 1371, the Tver Prince received a label for possession of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir).
    Please analyze the primary sources (i.e. medieval Chronicles) and prove that the Golden Horde was not (in this conflict) an ally of Tver and Lithuania, but on the contrary fought on the side of Moscow (this statement of the American "historian" you quoted here). You can cite any scientific articles, but with an analysis of primary sources, not a collection of party duckspeaсhes

    Here is a collection of Russian Chronicles online for your
    http://padaread.com/?book=53614&pg=13

    But if you can't confirm the statement of your "historian" by analyzing the sources, then what you refer to ("conclusions by actual historians at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge etc") is just propaganda slops.

    That would be as silly as your attempt to portray Moscow as being a center of resistance against the Tatars
     
    A brilliant statement.

    I have already quoted from the Laurentian chronicle above.
    (in 1300) Danilo Prince of Moscow came to Ryazan with an army and fought at Pereyaslavl, and Danilo won, many Tatars were exterminated, and Prince Kostyantin of Ryazan was thanks to a trick captured and brought to Moscow.”

    Please prove to us (by analyzing primary sources) that this event did not occur.
    Here you can download the Laurentian chronicle from this link
    https://imwerden.de/pdf/psrl_tom01_lavrentjevskaya_letopis_1926.pdf
    You can use any research, but only analysis of primary sources and not party propaganda

    Here is a description from the chronicle of the battle between the Novgorod-Moscow army and the Tver-Tatars army in 1315

    "(in 1315) Prince Mikhailo (of Tver) came from the Horde to Russia, leading the Tatars with him, the cursed Taitemer... Prince Mikhailo with the Tartars went to Torzhok; Novgorod with Prince Athanasius came out against them to battle. ..There was a fierce battle, and many good men and boyars of Novgorod were killed"

    (Того же лета поиде князь Михаило изъ Орды в Русь, ведыи с собою Татары, оканьнаго Таитемеря... Тогда же поиде князь Михаило со всею Низовьскою землею и с Татары к Торжку; новгородци же съ княземь Афанасьемь и с новоторжци изидоша противу на поле. Бысть же то попущениемь божиемь: съступившема бо ся полкома обема, бысть сеча зла, и створися немало зла, избиша много добрыхъ муж и бояръ новгородскыхъ)

    Prince Athanasius is the youngest son of Danilo of Moscow, and the representative of his older brother Yuri (Prince of Moscow in 1315)

    Please prove to us (by analyzing primary sources) that this event did not occur

    Please analyze the primary sources…Please prove to us (by analyzing primary sources)

    As has already been explained to you, Muscovite primary sources were interested in whitewashing links to the Tatars. According to historian Halperin:

    https://www.academia.edu/10357151/Charles_J._Halperin_Russian_and_Mongols._Slavs_and_the_Steppe_in_Medieval_and_Early_Modern_Russia

    “…The pervasive silence of the Russian chronicles about bilingualism and the extreme rarity of allusions to translators create a prima facie case that something is amiss. Conceivably bilingualism and translators were too common to require comment, except that sometimes they were mentioned explicitly. Rather it seems plausible that knowledge of “Tatar” was culturally embarrassing. It was the language of the infidel, and no one could earn anycredits toward salvation by mastering it.”

    What is interesting is that in a previous discussion when it came to Spanish primary sources claiming Aztecs sacrificed 200,000 per year you were correctly suspicious. But when it comes to your own Svidomism you insist on only following the non-objective primary sources and on rejecting conclusions of actual objective historians.

    “Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372.”

    This statement contradicts the medieval Chronicles as well as the surviving texts of Moscow’s treaties with Lithuania (1372) and Tver (1375). In this conflict (war of Moscow aganist Lithuania and Tver 1368 – 1375), the Golden Horde was a ally of Tver against Moscow (in 1371, the Tver Prince received a label for possession of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir).

    Actually both the Tver and Muscovite princes received Yarlyks from the Tatars.

    https://www.academia.edu/3597316/Troop_Mobilization_by_the_Muscovite_Grand_Princes_1313-1533_

    In the campaign against Tver’ in 1317,whatever forces Iurii Daniilovich had of his own were strengthened by forces from the princes of Suzdal’ and Tatar troops sent by Khan Uzbek.

    In 1327, the Moscow prince Ivan Daniilovich (who was not yet Grand Prince of Vladimir) went against Tver’ and Kashin with a Tatar army and forces provided by Prince Aleksandr Vasil’evich of Suzdal’.

    Afterthe death of Grand Prince Ivan II in 1359, Khan Nevruz had appointed Dmitrii of Suzdal’ to be grand prince of Vladimir.

    In 1362, Khan Mürid withdrewthe grand princely yarliq from Dmitrii of Suzdal’ and gave it to Dmitrii of Moscow.

    When,in 1363, Mürid found out that Mamai was also supporting Dmitrii of Moscow, he gave the grand princely yarliq back to Dmitrii of Suzdal’.

    Etc. etc. (I am out of time for now)

    • Replies: @melanf

    As has already been explained to you, Muscovite primary sources were interested in whitewashing links to the Tatars.
     
    1) That is, you have nothing to answer to the fragments of medieval Chronicles laid out above. The propagandists you quoted will not help you - they have not read the Chronicles, since money pays them for other work.

    2) You have no idea about the Russian Chronicles that were conducted in parallel in different principalities. The Tver chroniclers, for example, were extremely hostile to Moscow.

    The pervasive silence of the Russian chronicles about bilingualism
     
    If written sources are "silence about bilingualism" then such as Halperin should not write about what does not exist. Otherwise, you can go far "the pervasive silence of the Catholic texts about orgies that were arranged by Francis of Assisi among the Minorite brothers ..."etc.

    Actually both the Tver and Muscovite princes received Yarlyks from the Tatars
     
    But the fighting against the Tatars (in the war of 1368-1375) was conducted only by the Muscovite army. In 1371, Mamai offered military assistance to Tver, in 1373, Dmitry (Prince of Moscow) with an army stood on the Oka river (to stop Mamai's forces directed at Russia). Since 1374, Moscow and the Horde have been openly at war.
  160. @AP
    Being autistic must be difficult for you.

    My sincere gratitude – with this reply you only confirmed that I did not err in my initial assessment.

    • Replies: @AP
    You are very welcome. Live your best life. Life is hard when you can’t understand what you read because nuances go over your head, as one would expect of you.
  161. @maz10
    My sincere gratitude – with this reply you only confirmed that I did not err in my initial assessment.

    You are very welcome. Live your best life. Life is hard when you can’t understand what you read because nuances go over your head, as one would expect of you.

    • Replies: @maz10
    A midget pretending to be giant is either hilarious or pathetic, maybe both. The same applies to individuals who pretend to tower of others intellectually while demonstrating the opposite through their statements without even realising it. I have wasted enough time on you thus over and out.
  162. Sadly for your argument, Mestnichestvo (the phenomenon if not necessarily the word) already existed in pre-Mongol Russia, perhaps from the end of the 10th century. The princely thrones existed in a certain hierarchy, so when one of them became vacant everyone downstream moved up one position, so e.g. Vladimir to Kiev, Suzdal to Vladimir, Rostov to Suzdal etc. This is the essence of “mestnichestvo”.

  163. @Dmitry
    People had very different minds 400 years ago, compared to today. It's possible concepts of "personal space", were very different to 21st century people than in 17th century people.

    A problem is that people do not record their own customs (as they do not seem interesting to them), so we can probably only find information on this in foreign texts.

    Probably, kissing on the cheeks would be normal all over Europe, so does the author imply they are kissing on the lips? It's difficult to know.

    As for political leaders like Brezhnev - this kissing is completely fake, political propaganda or iconography. Although it's possible it has seemed less weird to people like Brezhnev, if perhaps they had still such lack of personal space in the village of their childhood in the late 19th century, or early 20th century.

    However, even the 20th century public, for which it is more strange, did not interpret this political iconography as sexual or gay, which shows how our perceptions change.

    For example, Stalin is kissing or embraces babies, and it is one of the main political iconographies he uses to demonstrate how much he loves the countrymen. On the other hand, in the early 21st century, Putin kissed a boy on the chest, in some incompetent try to emulate political leaders of the past, and the now 21st century internet commentators call Putin a pedophile.

    The political leader's gesture or iconography didn't change, but public's interpretation is wildly different only 2-3 generations later in time.

    As for political leaders like Brezhnev – this kissing is completely fake, political propaganda or iconography. Although it’s possible it has seemed less weird to people like Brezhnev

    This is probably a difficulty for many leaders today. On the one hand, it is desirable not to be perceived as just another man in a suit, in the globohomo mold. But, on the other hand, you don’t want to be so idiosyncratic that you are perceived as a weirdo, like Gadaffi, who wanted to set up a tent in NYC.

    This is perhaps why Putin is lucky, in that he has a sort of Slavic face, which is its own differentiator.

  164. @AP

    Please analyze the primary sources...Please prove to us (by analyzing primary sources)
     
    As has already been explained to you, Muscovite primary sources were interested in whitewashing links to the Tatars. According to historian Halperin:

    https://www.academia.edu/10357151/Charles_J._Halperin_Russian_and_Mongols._Slavs_and_the_Steppe_in_Medieval_and_Early_Modern_Russia

    "…The pervasive silence of the Russian chronicles about bilingualism and the extreme rarity of allusions to translators create a prima facie case that something is amiss. Conceivably bilingualism and translators were too common to require comment, except that sometimes they were mentioned explicitly. Rather it seems plausible that knowledge of “Tatar” was culturally embarrassing. It was the language of the infidel, and no one could earn anycredits toward salvation by mastering it."

    What is interesting is that in a previous discussion when it came to Spanish primary sources claiming Aztecs sacrificed 200,000 per year you were correctly suspicious. But when it comes to your own Svidomism you insist on only following the non-objective primary sources and on rejecting conclusions of actual objective historians.


    “Whereas Tver’ looked West, to the rising power of Lithuania. Moscow stuck to the Mongols of the Khipchak Khanate. This served them well, for they were able to stave off three attacks by Lithuania and Tver’ between 1368 and 1372.”

    This statement contradicts the medieval Chronicles as well as the surviving texts of Moscow’s treaties with Lithuania (1372) and Tver (1375). In this conflict (war of Moscow aganist Lithuania and Tver 1368 – 1375), the Golden Horde was a ally of Tver against Moscow (in 1371, the Tver Prince received a label for possession of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir).
     

    Actually both the Tver and Muscovite princes received Yarlyks from the Tatars.

    https://www.academia.edu/3597316/Troop_Mobilization_by_the_Muscovite_Grand_Princes_1313-1533_

    In the campaign against Tver’ in 1317,whatever forces Iurii Daniilovich had of his own were strengthened by forces from the princes of Suzdal’ and Tatar troops sent by Khan Uzbek.

    In 1327, the Moscow prince Ivan Daniilovich (who was not yet Grand Prince of Vladimir) went against Tver’ and Kashin with a Tatar army and forces provided by Prince Aleksandr Vasil’evich of Suzdal’.

    Afterthe death of Grand Prince Ivan II in 1359, Khan Nevruz had appointed Dmitrii of Suzdal’ to be grand prince of Vladimir.

    In 1362, Khan Mürid withdrewthe grand princely yarliq from Dmitrii of Suzdal’ and gave it to Dmitrii of Moscow.

    When,in 1363, Mürid found out that Mamai was also supporting Dmitrii of Moscow, he gave the grand princely yarliq back to Dmitrii of Suzdal’.

    Etc. etc. (I am out of time for now)

    As has already been explained to you, Muscovite primary sources were interested in whitewashing links to the Tatars.

    1) That is, you have nothing to answer to the fragments of medieval Chronicles laid out above. The propagandists you quoted will not help you – they have not read the Chronicles, since money pays them for other work.

    2) You have no idea about the Russian Chronicles that were conducted in parallel in different principalities. The Tver chroniclers, for example, were extremely hostile to Moscow.

    The pervasive silence of the Russian chronicles about bilingualism

    If written sources are “silence about bilingualism” then such as Halperin should not write about what does not exist. Otherwise, you can go far “the pervasive silence of the Catholic texts about orgies that were arranged by Francis of Assisi among the Minorite brothers …”etc.

    Actually both the Tver and Muscovite princes received Yarlyks from the Tatars

    But the fighting against the Tatars (in the war of 1368-1375) was conducted only by the Muscovite army. In 1371, Mamai offered military assistance to Tver, in 1373, Dmitry (Prince of Moscow) with an army stood on the Oka river (to stop Mamai’s forces directed at Russia). Since 1374, Moscow and the Horde have been openly at war.

    • Replies: @AP

    That is, you have nothing to answer to the fragments of medieval Chronicles laid out above.
     
    As was explained by Halperin, Chronicles were motivated to whitewash Tatar influence because Tatars were infidels. It is very telling that you insist on using them as a source, rather than using actual (non-Svidomist) historians.

    It is no different than if a Spanish Svidomist pseudo-historian insisting on using Spanish primary sources to claim Aztecs killed 200,000 per year, rather than to cite actual historians who estimate about 20,000 per year.

    The propagandists you quoted will not help you – they have not read the Chronicles, since money pays them for other work.
     
    Who is more likely to be as propagandist here - an American or British academic (or Vernadsky) at a top world university, or a Russian Svidomist motivated to deny ebil Tatar influence. Hmm..

    If written sources are “silence about bilingualism” then such as Halperin should not write about what does not exist.
     
    That is convenient for Russian Svidomists who prefer their fairytales. Sorry, I'll stick with conclusions by historians.

    Charles J. Halperin was born in Brooklyn, New York City on 21 July, 1946. He received an Bachelor of Arts in History from Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, and a PhD in Russian History from Columbia University, where Michael Cherniavsky directed his dissertation.

    Donald Ostrowski is at Harvard.

    Their conclusions beat those of a random Svodimist internet guy like you, or some Svidomist academics from modern Russia (or Sovok ones).

    you can go far “the pervasive silence of the Catholic texts about orgies that were arranged by Francis of Assisi among the Minorite brothers …”etc.

     

    If actual legitimate historians have claimed this than the silence in Catholic texts would indeed mean nothing to disprove those claims.
  165. @AP

    The British use the Indian word “bungalow” for a single level house, obviously the most common type of house there long before any Briton set foot in India
     
    LOL, Sovok civil "engineer" doesn't even know basic things about houses.

    A bungalow is not any single story house but a specific one of a style that came from India.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungalow

    A bungalow is a small house or cottage that is either single-storey or has a second storey built into a sloping roof (usually with dormer windows),[1] and may be surrounded by wide verandas.[1]

    The style is derived from the thatched huts of Bengali farmers.[1] The British altered the style and built bungalows around British India.[1] The first house in England that was classified as a bungalow was built in 1869.[1] In America it was initially used as a vacation architecture, and was most popular between 1900–1918,[2] especially with the Arts and Crafts movement.[

    ::::::::::::

    It reflects Indian impact on this aspect of British culture (which then spread to the USA). Just as the word "dengi" indicates Tatar impact on Russian culture.

    FFS- another injury sustained from laughter at this BS! Of course equipped with the obligatory nonsensical Wikipedia spam posting. I. E. you have zero facts and knowledge to talk about the issue (again)

    derived from the thatched huts of bengali farmers

    Thatched roofs were common in Britain during the Tudor period and a long time before it you cretin. In the Victorian period that you refer to, of course houses were having their roofs lined with slate or clay-fired tiles ( in of course more brick or stone clad buildings). Zero surprise of course because all of those things were being quarried or mass produced during that period, no chance of attracting lightning, and no absorption of the rain creating problems but sliding down into your habitat (the gutter)

    As I said, in Britain they refer to a single story house as a bungalow. What exactly are you to dumb to understand?

    How thick to not know that the “storey under the pitch of the roof” is not an Indian farmer characteristic?

    I can’t be bothered but I’m sure a ” bungalow for sale UK” search would even more expose your insecure, time-wasting bilge.

    What a joke.

    India never conquered UK, making your last point also worthless

    • Replies: @AP
    Thanks for confirming yet again that that Sovok civil "engineer" doesn't even know what a bungalow is.

    Of course, you don't even know the Russian word for "watch" either, so what does one expect?
  166. @Ms Karlin-Gerard
    FFS- another injury sustained from laughter at this BS! Of course equipped with the obligatory nonsensical Wikipedia spam posting. I. E. you have zero facts and knowledge to talk about the issue (again)

    derived from the thatched huts of bengali farmers
     
    Thatched roofs were common in Britain during the Tudor period and a long time before it you cretin. In the Victorian period that you refer to, of course houses were having their roofs lined with slate or clay-fired tiles ( in of course more brick or stone clad buildings). Zero surprise of course because all of those things were being quarried or mass produced during that period, no chance of attracting lightning, and no absorption of the rain creating problems but sliding down into your habitat (the gutter)

    As I said, in Britain they refer to a single story house as a bungalow. What exactly are you to dumb to understand?

    How thick to not know that the "storey under the pitch of the roof" is not an Indian farmer characteristic?

    I can't be bothered but I'm sure a " bungalow for sale UK" search would even more expose your insecure, time-wasting bilge.

    What a joke.

    India never conquered UK, making your last point also worthless

    Thanks for confirming yet again that that Sovok civil “engineer” doesn’t even know what a bungalow is.

    Of course, you don’t even know the Russian word for “watch” either, so what does one expect?

  167. @melanf

    As has already been explained to you, Muscovite primary sources were interested in whitewashing links to the Tatars.
     
    1) That is, you have nothing to answer to the fragments of medieval Chronicles laid out above. The propagandists you quoted will not help you - they have not read the Chronicles, since money pays them for other work.

    2) You have no idea about the Russian Chronicles that were conducted in parallel in different principalities. The Tver chroniclers, for example, were extremely hostile to Moscow.

    The pervasive silence of the Russian chronicles about bilingualism
     
    If written sources are "silence about bilingualism" then such as Halperin should not write about what does not exist. Otherwise, you can go far "the pervasive silence of the Catholic texts about orgies that were arranged by Francis of Assisi among the Minorite brothers ..."etc.

    Actually both the Tver and Muscovite princes received Yarlyks from the Tatars
     
    But the fighting against the Tatars (in the war of 1368-1375) was conducted only by the Muscovite army. In 1371, Mamai offered military assistance to Tver, in 1373, Dmitry (Prince of Moscow) with an army stood on the Oka river (to stop Mamai's forces directed at Russia). Since 1374, Moscow and the Horde have been openly at war.

    That is, you have nothing to answer to the fragments of medieval Chronicles laid out above.

    As was explained by Halperin, Chronicles were motivated to whitewash Tatar influence because Tatars were infidels. It is very telling that you insist on using them as a source, rather than using actual (non-Svidomist) historians.

    It is no different than if a Spanish Svidomist pseudo-historian insisting on using Spanish primary sources to claim Aztecs killed 200,000 per year, rather than to cite actual historians who estimate about 20,000 per year.

    The propagandists you quoted will not help you – they have not read the Chronicles, since money pays them for other work.

    Who is more likely to be as propagandist here – an American or British academic (or Vernadsky) at a top world university, or a Russian Svidomist motivated to deny ebil Tatar influence. Hmm..

    If written sources are “silence about bilingualism” then such as Halperin should not write about what does not exist.

    That is convenient for Russian Svidomists who prefer their fairytales. Sorry, I’ll stick with conclusions by historians.

    Charles J. Halperin was born in Brooklyn, New York City on 21 July, 1946. He received an Bachelor of Arts in History from Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, and a PhD in Russian History from Columbia University, where Michael Cherniavsky directed his dissertation.

    Donald Ostrowski is at Harvard.

    Their conclusions beat those of a random Svodimist internet guy like you, or some Svidomist academics from modern Russia (or Sovok ones).

    you can go far “the pervasive silence of the Catholic texts about orgies that were arranged by Francis of Assisi among the Minorite brothers …”etc.

    If actual legitimate historians have claimed this than the silence in Catholic texts would indeed mean nothing to disprove those claims.

    • Replies: @melanf

    As was explained by Halperin, Chronicles were motivated to whitewash
     
    That is, you can't object to the above cases of battles of Moscow troops against the Tatars in 1300 and 1315 (which are described in the Chronicles).

    Who is more likely to be as propagandist here – an American or British academiс
     
    Quote from Mr. Hack from a nearby discussion https://www.unz.com/akarlin/towards-a-russian-politics-of-memory/#comment-3673546

    Written by one of the world’s foremost authorities on “Russia and the Golden Horde”, Charles J Halpern. Pages 59 – 60:
    "The grand princes of Moscow continued to collect tribute for the Tatars [After Ugra]; In his will, Ivan III allocated tribute (admitedly, smaller sums than before) to Kasomov, the Crimea, Astrakhan, and Kazan."
     
    But this is complete nonsense. Kasimov Tatars were soldiers in the service of Ivan III, what he awarded them was a payment for military service, but undoubtedly, not a tribute.

    Kasimov’s rulers during this period were considered servitors, vassals in relation to the Moscow principality. This was facilitated by the demesnial position of Kasimov, which was considered part of the grand prince’s domain rather than a sovereign splinter of the Golden Horde. Kasimov Chinggisids did not have a large military force in order to create an independent khanate in the steppe capable of competing, for example, with Kazan, and they relied on the strong Moscow principality performing military service for it, receiving money for proper maintenance and obeying the grand prince’s orders
    Статус касимовских чингизидов при василии ii и иване iii по данным письменных источников Несин Михаил Александрович

    So if aan American or British academiс writes that Napoleon defeated Attila at Azincourt and married Cleopatra (Halperin writes about this level) then the writings of such academics are only good for wiping ass with them

  168. @AP

    That is, you have nothing to answer to the fragments of medieval Chronicles laid out above.
     
    As was explained by Halperin, Chronicles were motivated to whitewash Tatar influence because Tatars were infidels. It is very telling that you insist on using them as a source, rather than using actual (non-Svidomist) historians.

    It is no different than if a Spanish Svidomist pseudo-historian insisting on using Spanish primary sources to claim Aztecs killed 200,000 per year, rather than to cite actual historians who estimate about 20,000 per year.

    The propagandists you quoted will not help you – they have not read the Chronicles, since money pays them for other work.
     
    Who is more likely to be as propagandist here - an American or British academic (or Vernadsky) at a top world university, or a Russian Svidomist motivated to deny ebil Tatar influence. Hmm..

    If written sources are “silence about bilingualism” then such as Halperin should not write about what does not exist.
     
    That is convenient for Russian Svidomists who prefer their fairytales. Sorry, I'll stick with conclusions by historians.

    Charles J. Halperin was born in Brooklyn, New York City on 21 July, 1946. He received an Bachelor of Arts in History from Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, and a PhD in Russian History from Columbia University, where Michael Cherniavsky directed his dissertation.

    Donald Ostrowski is at Harvard.

    Their conclusions beat those of a random Svodimist internet guy like you, or some Svidomist academics from modern Russia (or Sovok ones).

    you can go far “the pervasive silence of the Catholic texts about orgies that were arranged by Francis of Assisi among the Minorite brothers …”etc.

     

    If actual legitimate historians have claimed this than the silence in Catholic texts would indeed mean nothing to disprove those claims.

    As was explained by Halperin, Chronicles were motivated to whitewash

    That is, you can’t object to the above cases of battles of Moscow troops against the Tatars in 1300 and 1315 (which are described in the Chronicles).

    Who is more likely to be as propagandist here – an American or British academiс

    Quote from Mr. Hack from a nearby discussion https://www.unz.com/akarlin/towards-a-russian-politics-of-memory/#comment-3673546

    Written by one of the world’s foremost authorities on “Russia and the Golden Horde”, Charles J Halpern. Pages 59 – 60:
    The grand princes of Moscow continued to collect tribute for the Tatars [After Ugra]; In his will, Ivan III allocated tribute (admitedly, smaller sums than before) to Kasomov, the Crimea, Astrakhan, and Kazan.

    But this is complete nonsense. Kasimov Tatars were soldiers in the service of Ivan III, what he awarded them was a payment for military service, but undoubtedly, not a tribute.

    Kasimov’s rulers during this period were considered servitors, vassals in relation to the Moscow principality. This was facilitated by the demesnial position of Kasimov, which was considered part of the grand prince’s domain rather than a sovereign splinter of the Golden Horde. Kasimov Chinggisids did not have a large military force in order to create an independent khanate in the steppe capable of competing, for example, with Kazan, and they relied on the strong Moscow principality performing military service for it, receiving money for proper maintenance and obeying the grand prince’s orders
    Статус касимовских чингизидов при василии ii и иване iii по данным письменных источников Несин Михаил Александрович

    So if aan American or British academiс writes that Napoleon defeated Attila at Azincourt and married Cleopatra (Halperin writes about this level) then the writings of such academics are only good for wiping ass with them

    • Replies: @AP

    That is, you can’t object to the above cases of battles of Moscow troops against the Tatars in 1300 and 1315 (which are described in the Chronicles).
     
    And Muscovites fought alongside the Tatars in other battles and wars. As various sources conclude, Muscovites were more loyal (or less disloyal) towards Tatars than were other Rus principalities, and this is why Moscow came to rule them all.

    Written by one of the world’s foremost authorities on “Russia and the Golden Horde”, Charles J Halpern. Pages 59 – 60:
    “The grand princes of Moscow continued to collect tribute for the Tatars [After Ugra]; In his will, Ivan III allocated tribute (admitedly, smaller sums than before) to Kasomov, the Crimea, Astrakhan, and Kazan.“

    But this is complete nonsense. Kasimov Tatars were soldiers in the service of Ivan III, what he awarded them was a payment for military service, but undoubtedly, not a tribute.

    “Kasimov’s rulers during this period were considered servitors, vassals in relation to the Moscow principality. This was facilitated by the demesnial position of Kasimov, which was considered part of the grand prince’s domain rather than a sovereign splinter of the Golden Horde. Kasimov Chinggisids did not have a large military force in order to create an independent khanate in the steppe capable of competing, for example, with Kazan, and they relied on the strong Moscow principality performing military service for it, receiving money for proper maintenance and obeying the grand prince’s orders”

    Статус касимовских чингизидов при василии ii и иване iii по данным письменных источников Несин Михаил Александрович
     
    So we have two contradictory claims. One written by Charles Halpern, who received PhD in Russian History from Columbia University, where Michael Cherniavsky directed his dissertation and form a book praised by Slavic Review.

    Another is written by Несин Михаил Александрович. A professor at some university in the Russian provinces (Novgorod State University), founded in 1993, that is ranked among the worst universities in Russia and Eastern Europe:

    http://ru.history.vestnik.udsu.ru/authors/author/nesin-mihail-aleksandrovich

    https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/yaroslav-wise-novgorod-state-university#372363

    Which claim is likely to be Svidomist nonsense?

    So if aan American or British academiс writes that Napoleon defeated Attila at Azincourt and married Cleopatra (Halperin writes about this level)
     
    Except that is not Halperin-level. It may Nesin-level, however.
  169. @melanf

    As was explained by Halperin, Chronicles were motivated to whitewash
     
    That is, you can't object to the above cases of battles of Moscow troops against the Tatars in 1300 and 1315 (which are described in the Chronicles).

    Who is more likely to be as propagandist here – an American or British academiс
     
    Quote from Mr. Hack from a nearby discussion https://www.unz.com/akarlin/towards-a-russian-politics-of-memory/#comment-3673546

    Written by one of the world’s foremost authorities on “Russia and the Golden Horde”, Charles J Halpern. Pages 59 – 60:
    "The grand princes of Moscow continued to collect tribute for the Tatars [After Ugra]; In his will, Ivan III allocated tribute (admitedly, smaller sums than before) to Kasomov, the Crimea, Astrakhan, and Kazan."
     
    But this is complete nonsense. Kasimov Tatars were soldiers in the service of Ivan III, what he awarded them was a payment for military service, but undoubtedly, not a tribute.

    Kasimov’s rulers during this period were considered servitors, vassals in relation to the Moscow principality. This was facilitated by the demesnial position of Kasimov, which was considered part of the grand prince’s domain rather than a sovereign splinter of the Golden Horde. Kasimov Chinggisids did not have a large military force in order to create an independent khanate in the steppe capable of competing, for example, with Kazan, and they relied on the strong Moscow principality performing military service for it, receiving money for proper maintenance and obeying the grand prince’s orders
    Статус касимовских чингизидов при василии ii и иване iii по данным письменных источников Несин Михаил Александрович

    So if aan American or British academiс writes that Napoleon defeated Attila at Azincourt and married Cleopatra (Halperin writes about this level) then the writings of such academics are only good for wiping ass with them

    That is, you can’t object to the above cases of battles of Moscow troops against the Tatars in 1300 and 1315 (which are described in the Chronicles).

    And Muscovites fought alongside the Tatars in other battles and wars. As various sources conclude, Muscovites were more loyal (or less disloyal) towards Tatars than were other Rus principalities, and this is why Moscow came to rule them all.

    Written by one of the world’s foremost authorities on “Russia and the Golden Horde”, Charles J Halpern. Pages 59 – 60:
    “The grand princes of Moscow continued to collect tribute for the Tatars [After Ugra]; In his will, Ivan III allocated tribute (admitedly, smaller sums than before) to Kasomov, the Crimea, Astrakhan, and Kazan.“

    But this is complete nonsense. Kasimov Tatars were soldiers in the service of Ivan III, what he awarded them was a payment for military service, but undoubtedly, not a tribute.

    “Kasimov’s rulers during this period were considered servitors, vassals in relation to the Moscow principality. This was facilitated by the demesnial position of Kasimov, which was considered part of the grand prince’s domain rather than a sovereign splinter of the Golden Horde. Kasimov Chinggisids did not have a large military force in order to create an independent khanate in the steppe capable of competing, for example, with Kazan, and they relied on the strong Moscow principality performing military service for it, receiving money for proper maintenance and obeying the grand prince’s orders”

    Статус касимовских чингизидов при василии ii и иване iii по данным письменных источников Несин Михаил Александрович

    So we have two contradictory claims. One written by Charles Halpern, who received PhD in Russian History from Columbia University, where Michael Cherniavsky directed his dissertation and form a book praised by Slavic Review.

    Another is written by Несин Михаил Александрович. A professor at some university in the Russian provinces (Novgorod State University), founded in 1993, that is ranked among the worst universities in Russia and Eastern Europe:

    http://ru.history.vestnik.udsu.ru/authors/author/nesin-mihail-aleksandrovich

    https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/yaroslav-wise-novgorod-state-university#372363

    Which claim is likely to be Svidomist nonsense?

    So if aan American or British academiс writes that Napoleon defeated Attila at Azincourt and married Cleopatra (Halperin writes about this level)

    Except that is not Halperin-level. It may Nesin-level, however.

    • Replies: @melanf


    That is, you can’t object to the above cases of battles of Moscow troops against the Tatars in 1300 and 1315 (which are described in the Chronicles).
     
    And Muscovites fought alongside the Tatars in other battles and wars. As various sources conclude, Muscovites were more loyal (or less disloyal) towards Tatars than were other Rus principalities, and this is why Moscow came to rule them all.
     
    This statement is complete nonsense. The first Moscow Prince (Danila) led a policy hostile to the Horde and fought against the Tatars. His heir (Yuri) actually went to war with the Horde, then managed to somehow charm the Uzbek Khan and will deal with the help of the Khan, with his arch-enemy (the Tver Prince). But then Yuri again began to act against the will of the Khan. Yuri's heir (his younger brother Ivan) and Ivan's sons had no conflicts with the Horde. But Ivan's grandson (Dmitry) consistently pursued an anti-Horde policy and eventually inflicted a crushing defeat on the Horde. Moscow's troops participated several times (as auxiliary power) to the campaigns of the Tatars, but against the Tatars, Moscow has fought a lot more. In General, the Moscow Rurikids were the most disloyal to the Horde among all the princely dynasties (in particular, they were much less loyal than the Tver princes)
    , @melanf

    So we have two contradictory claims. One written by Charles Halpern, who received PhD in Russian History from Columbia University, where Michael Cherniavsky directed his dissertation and form a book praised by Slavic Review.

    Another is written by Несин Михаил Александрович. A professor at some university in the Russian provinces (Novgorod State University), founded in 1993, that is ranked among the worst universities in Russia and Eastern Europe:
     
    Here's a Britannica for you

    " Maḥmud’s brothers, however, fled for sanctuary to Vasily II of Moscow, who set up a puppet khanate for one of them (Kasim) at Gorodets-on-the-Oka (thereafter renamed Kasimov). The khanate of Kasimov was to be a thorn in Kazan’s flesh until the latter’s extinction in 1552. Kasimov itself survived as a political fiction until about 1681, by which time the last khans had abandoned Islam for Christianity."

    Professor at the University of Miami, J.Martin "Medieval Russia, 980-1584
    " Kasim and all subsequent khans of Kasimov were no longer suzerains of Vasily but servants of the Grand Prince of Moscow»

    In principle, I can give a dozen more quotes (English-language authors).
  170. Actually both the Tver and Muscovite princes received Yarlyks from the Tatars

    And as I recall, Vladimir did too at one time in Northern Rus. The Horde was masterful in using the yarlyk as a way to keep the different centers of power throughout Rus separated and engaged in internecine warfare, for the ability to collect taxes opened the way for self aggrandizement for whomever carried this important insignia. Moscow, the last to come to the table, became the most adept at this game of Horde politics, and ended up using this to its own advantage in solidifying its position as the most important center in the North East.

  171. @Ms Karlin-Gerard
    "Tsar" quite interestingly is used by the British to refer to an expert, usually appointed by a government body, to lead improvement on a very specific issue.

    The Indian word "guru" also used, although with not quite the same high standard connotations.

    No reason why such a word as tsar would have a positive meaning in britain

    It was American first and is more about absolute power to perform a task rather than expertise.

  172. @AP
    You are very welcome. Live your best life. Life is hard when you can’t understand what you read because nuances go over your head, as one would expect of you.

    A midget pretending to be giant is either hilarious or pathetic, maybe both. The same applies to individuals who pretend to tower of others intellectually while demonstrating the opposite through their statements without even realising it. I have wasted enough time on you thus over and out.

    • Replies: @AP
    Projection, and you still didn't understand the nature of what was said, and never will.
  173. @maz10
    A midget pretending to be giant is either hilarious or pathetic, maybe both. The same applies to individuals who pretend to tower of others intellectually while demonstrating the opposite through their statements without even realising it. I have wasted enough time on you thus over and out.

    Projection, and you still didn’t understand the nature of what was said, and never will.

  174. @AP

    The organization of the Muscovite state and military were borrowed imitations of Tatar ones.
    Of course this is not true. With (some reservations) was borrowed tactics of the Tatars-the use of detachments of horse archers.
     
    The very fact that Moscow emerged as the geopolitical center of the Rus was a direct result of Mongol rule.

    Nice summary is here:

    https://www.ijors.net/issue5_2_2016/articles/cicek.html

    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
    RUSSIAN STUDIES




    Moscow remained an insignificant town for more than a hundred years after its foundation in 1147. According to Peter Stearns, no town benefited from the Mongol presence more than Moscow.[16] With the start of the Mongol raids on Kiev and southern towns, thousands of refugees began to arrive in Moscow looking for shelter. Within a short period of time the population of Moscow increased drastically.

    The most important turning point in Moscow’s rise as a power center was the year 1327, when the populace of Tver started a rebellion against their Mongol Khans. Seeing this as an important opportunity, Prince Ivan I of Moscow crashed the rebellion and restored the order with the help of a Mongol contingent. Ivan I was rewarded with iarlyk (ярлык), a status as the tribute collector, for this loyalty to his Khan. After 1328, Moscow started profiting largely from this status. Its princes not only used their position to fill their own coffers; they also annexed further towns as punishment for falling behind on the payment of their tribute.[17]

    Soon Moscow became second only to Sarai in importance during the Mongol period.[18] The Muscovite princes were transformed into permanent hereditary governors of the Russian province of the Mongol Empire. From that moment, the Muscovite princes became the representatives of a central state power and the restorer of the unity inside the Tatar state system. Historical evidence demonstrates, without any doubt, that the princes of Moscow, by cooperating with their Mongol Khans in the collection of tribute, prospered greatly and thus became grand princes.

    According to Vernadsky, the Mongol influence on Muscovite administrative and military affairs was also profound. It was on the basis of Mongol patterns that the grand dual system of taxation and army organization was developed in Muscovy in the late fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries. For more than 50 years the Khans of the Golden Horde exercised full and direct power over taxation and conscription in eastern Rus’. When the Russian princes recovered authority over them, they continued the Mongol systems. The Turkic origin of the Russian words for treasury (kazna, казна) and treasurer (kaznachei, казначей) suggest that the Muscovite treasury followed a Mongol pattern. The division of the Muscovite army into five large units resembled Mongol practice. The Russians adopted the Tatars’ tactics of envelopment and their system of universal conscription.[36]
    Riasanovsky argues that a number of Mongolian words in the fields of administration and finance entered the Russian language, indicating a degree of influence. For example, the term iarlyk (ярлык), which means in modern Russian a trademark or a customs stamp, comes from a Mongol word signifying a written order of the Khan, especially the Khan’s grant of privileges; similarly, the Russian words denga (деньга), meaning coin, and dengi (деньги), money, derive from Mongolian. According to Riasanovsky, Mongols affected the evolution of Russian military forces and tactics, notably as applied to the cavalry. Similarly, the Mongols deserve at least limited credit for bringing Russia the postal service.[37]

    Halperin argues that despite the objections of hypersensitive Russian historians, there is a compelling case that Muscovy did indeed borrow a variety of Mongol political and administrative institutions, including the tamga (тамга), the seal for the customs tax as well as the tax itself; kazna (казна), the treasury; iam (ям), the postal system; tarkhan (тархан), grants of fiscal or judicial immunity; and dengi (деньги), money. Muscovite bureaucratic practices, and perhaps some features of Muscovite bureaucratic jargon, may also derive from the Qipchaq Khanate, as well as selective legal practices such as pravezh (правёж), beating on the shins. Certainly Muscovite diplomatic norms for dealing with steppe states and peoples were modeled on Tatar ways. Finally, the Muscovites had no choice but to study Tatar military tactics and strategies, if only to survive by countering them in battle, but Muscovites also copied Mongol weapons, armaments, horse equipage, and formations.[38]

    Ostrowski saw a direct parallel between the organization of the central and provincial political institutions of Muscovy and the Qipchaq Khanate, embodied in matching organizational charts that demonstrate that the two systems were “direct cognates”. According to Ostrowski, the Muscovite Boyar Council, the division of military and civilian authority that he calls a “dual administration”, the leading Muscovite military and diplomatic officials (the tysiatskii, тысяцкий), the heads of the domestic court administration (the dvorskii, дворский), the provincial administrators (the volosteli, волостели) – all were direct imitations of the political and administrative structure of the Qipchaq Khanate.[39]

    According to Trubetzkoi, a concrete example of the Mongol influence on Russia was the establishment of the postal system. The Mongols, Trubetzkoi argued, brought the network of postal roads and the Mongol system for organizing mail and other means of communication, based on a statewide “postal obligation”, which continued to exist in Russia long after the Tatar Yoke.[40] Figes argued that the Mongols had a sophisticated system of administration and taxation, from which the Russian state would develop its own structures, and this is reflected in the Tatar origins of many words like dengi (деньги), kazna (казна), and tamozhnia (таможня).[41]

    :::::::::::::

    I hadn't noticed that Turkic even had an impact on Russian grammar:

    One highly important colloquial feature of the Russian language of Turkic origin is the use of the word давай which expresses the idea of ‘Let’s…’ or ‘Come on, let’s…’ (Figes, 370-1). Listed below are a few common examples still found commonly in Russian.

    Давай чай попьем. Davai chai popem. ‘Let’s drink some tea.’
    Давай выпьем! Davai vypem! ‘Come on, let’s get drunk!’
    Давай пойдём! Davai poidyom! ‘Come on, let’s go!’

    (In addition, ther eis of course the Russian expression "Ayda" - "Let's go" - which is straight from Turkic)

    (In addition, ther eis of course the Russian expression “Ayda” – “Let’s go” – which is straight from Turkic)

    Somewhat surprisingly, this word is commonly used in Latvian and present also in Lithuanian, despite there being no record of Turkic invasion into Baltics.

    • Replies: @AP
    Googletranslate says in Latvian the word means "echo". So it's not the same as the Turkic/Russia Aida which means "let's go."

    This is my impression, not based on any objective data - In Russia I heard the expression used more often in the Urals than in Moscow, perhaps because of the Tatars and Bashkirs around (Moscow has plenty of them too but they are more native to the Urals so perhaps this impacted the local speech more).
  175. On the other hand, what if this pattern emerged from another location, was given to the Mongols, who then spread it around?

  176. @Haruto Rat

    (In addition, ther eis of course the Russian expression “Ayda” – “Let’s go” – which is straight from Turkic)
     
    Somewhat surprisingly, this word is commonly used in Latvian and present also in Lithuanian, despite there being no record of Turkic invasion into Baltics.

    Googletranslate says in Latvian the word means “echo”. So it’s not the same as the Turkic/Russia Aida which means “let’s go.”

    This is my impression, not based on any objective data – In Russia I heard the expression used more often in the Urals than in Moscow, perhaps because of the Tatars and Bashkirs around (Moscow has plenty of them too but they are more native to the Urals so perhaps this impacted the local speech more).

    • Replies: @Haruto Rat

    Googletranslate says
     
    While Google has somewhat improved over the last decade (for what it's worth, it doesn't translate hard rock fans as if it meant durable mineral ventilators anymore :)), it's still mostly wrong on everything in inflected languages or languages that don't have huge volume of texts online (Latvian is both).

    aidā in Latvian-English dictionary
    aidā in Latvian-Lithuanian dictionary

    'Echo' is 'aidas' in Lithuanian (first syllable stressed) and 'atbalss' in Latvian.

    'Aidā' (second syllable stressed) is one of only about a dozen words in Latvian that defy fixed first-syllable stress, and it has no derivatives, so it's certainly a borrowed one. It could of course be a late borrowing from Russian.
  177. @Mr. Hack
    Also, within an Empire that had a notably large number of nobility comprised of non-Russian ethnicity, 15% was quite a high percentage. Even Riurikid members, as you are apt to point out, were originally Scandinavian in origin. See the Wikipedia entry for an idea of this multi-ethnic makeup of Russia's nobility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_princely_families

    Rurikids DNA however begs to differ – no traces of Scandinavia whatsoever!
    That old “Northern/Viking origins” trope can finally be put to rest.

    • Replies: @AP

    Rurikids DNA however begs to differ – no traces of Scandinavia whatsoever!
     
    Nonsense.

    http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~mozhayski/genealogy/teksty/ydna.html

    Thanks to this, i.e. Rurikid project, we can now say that Rurik was a historical person who was born on the Roslagen seashore (slightly north of Stockholm, Sweden). However, he was of Finno-Ugrian descent (haplogroup N1c1 (earlier described as N3a)). Although all of well matching N1c1 Rurikid princes are descended from Yaroslav Mudry (978 – 1054), it seems that his ancestors including Rurik (b. ab. 820 – 876) himself, also belonged to this haplogroup. A group of Swedes, whose ancestors lived in or close to Uppsala, and whose genetic haplotypes are very close to these of the Rurikids, seems to be confirming the theory that Rurik, in fact, originated from Sweden.
  178. @stasik
    Rurikids DNA however begs to differ - no traces of Scandinavia whatsoever!
    That old "Northern/Viking origins" trope can finally be put to rest.

    Rurikids DNA however begs to differ – no traces of Scandinavia whatsoever!

    Nonsense.

    http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~mozhayski/genealogy/teksty/ydna.html

    Thanks to this, i.e. Rurikid project, we can now say that Rurik was a historical person who was born on the Roslagen seashore (slightly north of Stockholm, Sweden). However, he was of Finno-Ugrian descent (haplogroup N1c1 (earlier described as N3a)). Although all of well matching N1c1 Rurikid princes are descended from Yaroslav Mudry (978 – 1054), it seems that his ancestors including Rurik (b. ab. 820 – 876) himself, also belonged to this haplogroup. A group of Swedes, whose ancestors lived in or close to Uppsala, and whose genetic haplotypes are very close to these of the Rurikids, seems to be confirming the theory that Rurik, in fact, originated from Sweden.

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    You are behind the times, as usual. This theory (always circumstantial with no ancient DNA to back it up) was disproven by recent ancient DNA sequences from actual Rurik graves. The Rurikids were Y-DNA haplogroup R1a, and the modern N1 people claiming to be Rurikids are either imposters or false-paternity descendents.

    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38917-Actual-Medieval-Rurikid-DNA-not-from-modern-people-who-claim-descent-from-Rurik

  179. @AP

    That is, you can’t object to the above cases of battles of Moscow troops against the Tatars in 1300 and 1315 (which are described in the Chronicles).
     
    And Muscovites fought alongside the Tatars in other battles and wars. As various sources conclude, Muscovites were more loyal (or less disloyal) towards Tatars than were other Rus principalities, and this is why Moscow came to rule them all.

    Written by one of the world’s foremost authorities on “Russia and the Golden Horde”, Charles J Halpern. Pages 59 – 60:
    “The grand princes of Moscow continued to collect tribute for the Tatars [After Ugra]; In his will, Ivan III allocated tribute (admitedly, smaller sums than before) to Kasomov, the Crimea, Astrakhan, and Kazan.“

    But this is complete nonsense. Kasimov Tatars were soldiers in the service of Ivan III, what he awarded them was a payment for military service, but undoubtedly, not a tribute.

    “Kasimov’s rulers during this period were considered servitors, vassals in relation to the Moscow principality. This was facilitated by the demesnial position of Kasimov, which was considered part of the grand prince’s domain rather than a sovereign splinter of the Golden Horde. Kasimov Chinggisids did not have a large military force in order to create an independent khanate in the steppe capable of competing, for example, with Kazan, and they relied on the strong Moscow principality performing military service for it, receiving money for proper maintenance and obeying the grand prince’s orders”

    Статус касимовских чингизидов при василии ii и иване iii по данным письменных источников Несин Михаил Александрович
     
    So we have two contradictory claims. One written by Charles Halpern, who received PhD in Russian History from Columbia University, where Michael Cherniavsky directed his dissertation and form a book praised by Slavic Review.

    Another is written by Несин Михаил Александрович. A professor at some university in the Russian provinces (Novgorod State University), founded in 1993, that is ranked among the worst universities in Russia and Eastern Europe:

    http://ru.history.vestnik.udsu.ru/authors/author/nesin-mihail-aleksandrovich

    https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/yaroslav-wise-novgorod-state-university#372363

    Which claim is likely to be Svidomist nonsense?

    So if aan American or British academiс writes that Napoleon defeated Attila at Azincourt and married Cleopatra (Halperin writes about this level)
     
    Except that is not Halperin-level. It may Nesin-level, however.

    That is, you can’t object to the above cases of battles of Moscow troops against the Tatars in 1300 and 1315 (which are described in the Chronicles).

    And Muscovites fought alongside the Tatars in other battles and wars. As various sources conclude, Muscovites were more loyal (or less disloyal) towards Tatars than were other Rus principalities, and this is why Moscow came to rule them all.

    This statement is complete nonsense. The first Moscow Prince (Danila) led a policy hostile to the Horde and fought against the Tatars. His heir (Yuri) actually went to war with the Horde, then managed to somehow charm the Uzbek Khan and will deal with the help of the Khan, with his arch-enemy (the Tver Prince). But then Yuri again began to act against the will of the Khan. Yuri’s heir (his younger brother Ivan) and Ivan’s sons had no conflicts with the Horde. But Ivan’s grandson (Dmitry) consistently pursued an anti-Horde policy and eventually inflicted a crushing defeat on the Horde. Moscow’s troops participated several times (as auxiliary power) to the campaigns of the Tatars, but against the Tatars, Moscow has fought a lot more. In General, the Moscow Rurikids were the most disloyal to the Horde among all the princely dynasties (in particular, they were much less loyal than the Tver princes)

    • Replies: @AP

    The first Moscow Prince (Danila) led a policy hostile to the Horde and fought against the Tatars. His heir (Yuri) actually went to war with the Horde, then managed to somehow charm the Uzbek Khan and will deal with the help of the Khan, with his arch-enemy (the Tver Prince). But then Yuri again began to act against the will of the Khan. Yuri’s heir (his younger brother Ivan) and Ivan’s sons had no conflicts with the Horde.
     
    Focus on your bolded statement. Bolded statement one - he married the Khan's sister. Why didn't you mention that? Also Yuri arranged for the Mongols to murder the Tver prince.

    Bolded statement two - "Yuri’s heir (his younger brother Ivan) and Ivan’s sons had no conflicts with the Horde."

    Merely "had no conflicts?"

    Professor Pipes at Harvard (Russia under the Old Regime) writes about Ivan: "an extraordinarily gifted and unscrupulous political manipulator. By one scholar's estimate, he spent most of his reign either tat Saria (the Tatar capital) or en route to or from it, which gives some idea how much time he must have spent intriguing there. An astute businessman (the population nicknamed him Kalita or Moneybag), he amassed what by the standards of the time was a sizable fortune." He collected tolls from trade, lent money to other princes who couldn't pay the Mongols tribute (say, because of a bad harvest) , and then took the other princes' lands if they couldn't pay him back.

    "Ivan'r most serius rival for Mongol favor was the prince of Tver..in 1327, the population of Tver rose against the Mongols and massacred a high-level deputation sent from Sarai to oversee the collection of the tribute. Afer some hesitation, the prince sided with the rebels. As soon as the news reached him, Ivan headed foir Sarai. He returned as the head of a combined Mongol-Rusisan punitive force which so devastaqted Tver and a great deal of central Russia..As a reward for his loyalty, the Mongols invested Ivan with the title Grand Prince, and appointed him Farmer General of the tribute throughout Russia. "

    Moscow benefited from this collaboration, Mongols didn't raid it, so it attracted settlers due to being more peaceful.

    Heh, "had no conflicts", indeed.

  180. @AP

    That is, you can’t object to the above cases of battles of Moscow troops against the Tatars in 1300 and 1315 (which are described in the Chronicles).
     
    And Muscovites fought alongside the Tatars in other battles and wars. As various sources conclude, Muscovites were more loyal (or less disloyal) towards Tatars than were other Rus principalities, and this is why Moscow came to rule them all.

    Written by one of the world’s foremost authorities on “Russia and the Golden Horde”, Charles J Halpern. Pages 59 – 60:
    “The grand princes of Moscow continued to collect tribute for the Tatars [After Ugra]; In his will, Ivan III allocated tribute (admitedly, smaller sums than before) to Kasomov, the Crimea, Astrakhan, and Kazan.“

    But this is complete nonsense. Kasimov Tatars were soldiers in the service of Ivan III, what he awarded them was a payment for military service, but undoubtedly, not a tribute.

    “Kasimov’s rulers during this period were considered servitors, vassals in relation to the Moscow principality. This was facilitated by the demesnial position of Kasimov, which was considered part of the grand prince’s domain rather than a sovereign splinter of the Golden Horde. Kasimov Chinggisids did not have a large military force in order to create an independent khanate in the steppe capable of competing, for example, with Kazan, and they relied on the strong Moscow principality performing military service for it, receiving money for proper maintenance and obeying the grand prince’s orders”

    Статус касимовских чингизидов при василии ii и иване iii по данным письменных источников Несин Михаил Александрович
     
    So we have two contradictory claims. One written by Charles Halpern, who received PhD in Russian History from Columbia University, where Michael Cherniavsky directed his dissertation and form a book praised by Slavic Review.

    Another is written by Несин Михаил Александрович. A professor at some university in the Russian provinces (Novgorod State University), founded in 1993, that is ranked among the worst universities in Russia and Eastern Europe:

    http://ru.history.vestnik.udsu.ru/authors/author/nesin-mihail-aleksandrovich

    https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/yaroslav-wise-novgorod-state-university#372363

    Which claim is likely to be Svidomist nonsense?

    So if aan American or British academiс writes that Napoleon defeated Attila at Azincourt and married Cleopatra (Halperin writes about this level)
     
    Except that is not Halperin-level. It may Nesin-level, however.

    So we have two contradictory claims. One written by Charles Halpern, who received PhD in Russian History from Columbia University, where Michael Cherniavsky directed his dissertation and form a book praised by Slavic Review.

    Another is written by Несин Михаил Александрович. A professor at some university in the Russian provinces (Novgorod State University), founded in 1993, that is ranked among the worst universities in Russia and Eastern Europe:

    Here’s a Britannica for you

    ” Maḥmud’s brothers, however, fled for sanctuary to Vasily II of Moscow, who set up a puppet khanate for one of them (Kasim) at Gorodets-on-the-Oka (thereafter renamed Kasimov). The khanate of Kasimov was to be a thorn in Kazan’s flesh until the latter’s extinction in 1552. Kasimov itself survived as a political fiction until about 1681, by which time the last khans had abandoned Islam for Christianity.”

    Professor at the University of Miami, J.Martin “Medieval Russia, 980-1584
    ” Kasim and all subsequent khans of Kasimov were no longer suzerains of Vasily but servants of the Grand Prince of Moscow»

    In principle, I can give a dozen more quotes (English-language authors).

  181. @AP
    Googletranslate says in Latvian the word means "echo". So it's not the same as the Turkic/Russia Aida which means "let's go."

    This is my impression, not based on any objective data - In Russia I heard the expression used more often in the Urals than in Moscow, perhaps because of the Tatars and Bashkirs around (Moscow has plenty of them too but they are more native to the Urals so perhaps this impacted the local speech more).

    Googletranslate says

    While Google has somewhat improved over the last decade (for what it’s worth, it doesn’t translate hard rock fans as if it meant durable mineral ventilators anymore :)), it’s still mostly wrong on everything in inflected languages or languages that don’t have huge volume of texts online (Latvian is both).

    aidā in Latvian-English dictionary
    aidā in Latvian-Lithuanian dictionary

    ‘Echo’ is ‘aidas’ in Lithuanian (first syllable stressed) and ‘atbalss’ in Latvian.

    ‘Aidā’ (second syllable stressed) is one of only about a dozen words in Latvian that defy fixed first-syllable stress, and it has no derivatives, so it’s certainly a borrowed one. It could of course be a late borrowing from Russian.

  182. @AP

    Rurikids DNA however begs to differ – no traces of Scandinavia whatsoever!
     
    Nonsense.

    http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~mozhayski/genealogy/teksty/ydna.html

    Thanks to this, i.e. Rurikid project, we can now say that Rurik was a historical person who was born on the Roslagen seashore (slightly north of Stockholm, Sweden). However, he was of Finno-Ugrian descent (haplogroup N1c1 (earlier described as N3a)). Although all of well matching N1c1 Rurikid princes are descended from Yaroslav Mudry (978 – 1054), it seems that his ancestors including Rurik (b. ab. 820 – 876) himself, also belonged to this haplogroup. A group of Swedes, whose ancestors lived in or close to Uppsala, and whose genetic haplotypes are very close to these of the Rurikids, seems to be confirming the theory that Rurik, in fact, originated from Sweden.

    You are behind the times, as usual. This theory (always circumstantial with no ancient DNA to back it up) was disproven by recent ancient DNA sequences from actual Rurik graves. The Rurikids were Y-DNA haplogroup R1a, and the modern N1 people claiming to be Rurikids are either imposters or false-paternity descendents.

    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38917-Actual-Medieval-Rurikid-DNA-not-from-modern-people-who-claim-descent-from-Rurik

    • Replies: @AP
    I know you are trolling but your link refers to the Chernihiv branch of the Rurikids who are known not to match the others (this was already mentioned in my link).
  183. @JohnPlywood
    You are behind the times, as usual. This theory (always circumstantial with no ancient DNA to back it up) was disproven by recent ancient DNA sequences from actual Rurik graves. The Rurikids were Y-DNA haplogroup R1a, and the modern N1 people claiming to be Rurikids are either imposters or false-paternity descendents.

    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38917-Actual-Medieval-Rurikid-DNA-not-from-modern-people-who-claim-descent-from-Rurik

    I know you are trolling but your link refers to the Chernihiv branch of the Rurikids who are known not to match the others (this was already mentioned in my link).

  184. @melanf


    That is, you can’t object to the above cases of battles of Moscow troops against the Tatars in 1300 and 1315 (which are described in the Chronicles).
     
    And Muscovites fought alongside the Tatars in other battles and wars. As various sources conclude, Muscovites were more loyal (or less disloyal) towards Tatars than were other Rus principalities, and this is why Moscow came to rule them all.
     
    This statement is complete nonsense. The first Moscow Prince (Danila) led a policy hostile to the Horde and fought against the Tatars. His heir (Yuri) actually went to war with the Horde, then managed to somehow charm the Uzbek Khan and will deal with the help of the Khan, with his arch-enemy (the Tver Prince). But then Yuri again began to act against the will of the Khan. Yuri's heir (his younger brother Ivan) and Ivan's sons had no conflicts with the Horde. But Ivan's grandson (Dmitry) consistently pursued an anti-Horde policy and eventually inflicted a crushing defeat on the Horde. Moscow's troops participated several times (as auxiliary power) to the campaigns of the Tatars, but against the Tatars, Moscow has fought a lot more. In General, the Moscow Rurikids were the most disloyal to the Horde among all the princely dynasties (in particular, they were much less loyal than the Tver princes)

    The first Moscow Prince (Danila) led a policy hostile to the Horde and fought against the Tatars. His heir (Yuri) actually went to war with the Horde, then managed to somehow charm the Uzbek Khan and will deal with the help of the Khan, with his arch-enemy (the Tver Prince). But then Yuri again began to act against the will of the Khan. Yuri’s heir (his younger brother Ivan) and Ivan’s sons had no conflicts with the Horde.

    Focus on your bolded statement. Bolded statement one – he married the Khan’s sister. Why didn’t you mention that? Also Yuri arranged for the Mongols to murder the Tver prince.

    Bolded statement two – “Yuri’s heir (his younger brother Ivan) and Ivan’s sons had no conflicts with the Horde.”

    Merely “had no conflicts?”

    Professor Pipes at Harvard (Russia under the Old Regime) writes about Ivan: “an extraordinarily gifted and unscrupulous political manipulator. By one scholar’s estimate, he spent most of his reign either tat Saria (the Tatar capital) or en route to or from it, which gives some idea how much time he must have spent intriguing there. An astute businessman (the population nicknamed him Kalita or Moneybag), he amassed what by the standards of the time was a sizable fortune.” He collected tolls from trade, lent money to other princes who couldn’t pay the Mongols tribute (say, because of a bad harvest) , and then took the other princes’ lands if they couldn’t pay him back.

    “Ivan’r most serius rival for Mongol favor was the prince of Tver..in 1327, the population of Tver rose against the Mongols and massacred a high-level deputation sent from Sarai to oversee the collection of the tribute. Afer some hesitation, the prince sided with the rebels. As soon as the news reached him, Ivan headed foir Sarai. He returned as the head of a combined Mongol-Rusisan punitive force which so devastaqted Tver and a great deal of central Russia..As a reward for his loyalty, the Mongols invested Ivan with the title Grand Prince, and appointed him Farmer General of the tribute throughout Russia. ”

    Moscow benefited from this collaboration, Mongols didn’t raid it, so it attracted settlers due to being more peaceful.

    Heh, “had no conflicts”, indeed.

    • Replies: @melanf

    he married the Khan’s sister. Why didn’t you mention that?
     
    Strange question. Here is what I wrote in message 142 of this discussion

    "Daniel’s son Yuri continued his father’s policy and started a war against the great Prince appointed by the Khan (Mikhail Tversky). With the help of Tatar troops, the Tver Prince defeated Yuri’s supporters, but Yuri in actual captivity at the court of the Khan, marries the Khan’s sister. As a result, the Khan appoints Yuri as Grand Prince. Yuri destroys Mikhail Tversky with the hands of the Tatars, but after that Yuri ceases to obey the Khan"

    Professor Pipes at Harvard (Russia under the Old Regime...
     
    This Pipes is an Amateur who makes a monstrous number of factual errors. His book is a long-standing object of ridicule.

    He returned as the head of a combined Mongol-Rusisan punitive force which so devastaqted Tver
     
    And this is a direct lie. Tatar troops are commanded by a Tatar commander appointed by the Uzbek Khan. Russian princes played a supporting role in the army. Here's the original source


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Facial_Chronicle_-_b.11%2C_p.007_-_Sergius_of_Radonezh.gif

    Moscow benefited from this collaboration, Mongols didn’t raid it
     
    That's bullshit. Moscow was destroyed by the Horde in 1238, then in 1293, then in 1382

    https://mtdata.ru/u18/photoE1FF/20991862817-0/original.jpg
  185. @AP

    The first Moscow Prince (Danila) led a policy hostile to the Horde and fought against the Tatars. His heir (Yuri) actually went to war with the Horde, then managed to somehow charm the Uzbek Khan and will deal with the help of the Khan, with his arch-enemy (the Tver Prince). But then Yuri again began to act against the will of the Khan. Yuri’s heir (his younger brother Ivan) and Ivan’s sons had no conflicts with the Horde.
     
    Focus on your bolded statement. Bolded statement one - he married the Khan's sister. Why didn't you mention that? Also Yuri arranged for the Mongols to murder the Tver prince.

    Bolded statement two - "Yuri’s heir (his younger brother Ivan) and Ivan’s sons had no conflicts with the Horde."

    Merely "had no conflicts?"

    Professor Pipes at Harvard (Russia under the Old Regime) writes about Ivan: "an extraordinarily gifted and unscrupulous political manipulator. By one scholar's estimate, he spent most of his reign either tat Saria (the Tatar capital) or en route to or from it, which gives some idea how much time he must have spent intriguing there. An astute businessman (the population nicknamed him Kalita or Moneybag), he amassed what by the standards of the time was a sizable fortune." He collected tolls from trade, lent money to other princes who couldn't pay the Mongols tribute (say, because of a bad harvest) , and then took the other princes' lands if they couldn't pay him back.

    "Ivan'r most serius rival for Mongol favor was the prince of Tver..in 1327, the population of Tver rose against the Mongols and massacred a high-level deputation sent from Sarai to oversee the collection of the tribute. Afer some hesitation, the prince sided with the rebels. As soon as the news reached him, Ivan headed foir Sarai. He returned as the head of a combined Mongol-Rusisan punitive force which so devastaqted Tver and a great deal of central Russia..As a reward for his loyalty, the Mongols invested Ivan with the title Grand Prince, and appointed him Farmer General of the tribute throughout Russia. "

    Moscow benefited from this collaboration, Mongols didn't raid it, so it attracted settlers due to being more peaceful.

    Heh, "had no conflicts", indeed.

    he married the Khan’s sister. Why didn’t you mention that?

    Strange question. Here is what I wrote in message 142 of this discussion

    Daniel’s son Yuri continued his father’s policy and started a war against the great Prince appointed by the Khan (Mikhail Tversky). With the help of Tatar troops, the Tver Prince defeated Yuri’s supporters, but Yuri in actual captivity at the court of the Khan, marries the Khan’s sister. As a result, the Khan appoints Yuri as Grand Prince. Yuri destroys Mikhail Tversky with the hands of the Tatars, but after that Yuri ceases to obey the Khan

    Professor Pipes at Harvard (Russia under the Old Regime…

    This Pipes is an Amateur who makes a monstrous number of factual errors. His book is a long-standing object of ridicule.

    He returned as the head of a combined Mongol-Rusisan punitive force which so devastaqted Tver

    And this is a direct lie. Tatar troops are commanded by a Tatar commander appointed by the Uzbek Khan. Russian princes played a supporting role in the army. Here’s the original source

    Moscow benefited from this collaboration, Mongols didn’t raid it

    That’s bullshit. Moscow was destroyed by the Horde in 1238, then in 1293, then in 1382

    • Replies: @AP

    Professor Pipes at Harvard (Russia under the Old Regime…

    This Pipes is an Amateur who makes a monstrous number of factual errors. His book is a long-standing object of ridicule.
     
    By Russian Svidomists? I would not be surprised.

    He returned as the head of a combined Mongol-Rusisan punitive force which so devastaqted Tver

    And this is a direct lie. Tatar troops are commanded by a Tatar commander appointed by the Uzbek Khan. Russian princes played a supporting role in the army. Here’s the original source
     
    Sorry, primary sources are not as reliable as actual historians. Otherwise Aztecs were killing 200,000 per year, per Spanish primary sources (an earlier discussion). We have already seen that Chronicles minimized relationships with Tatars.

    Another source contradicting your claim:

    https://rusmania.com/central/tver-region/tver/history

    In the summer of 1327 Schelkan (sometimes spelled Cholkhan) a cousin of Khan Uzbek, arrived in Tver as the khan’s representative. Schelkan began tormenting the local population who eventually rose up against him. Schelkan and his men sought shelter in his residence, but instead were burnt alive there when the Tver citizens set it alight. It is not known whether this was supported by Aleksandr, but he certainly understood the danger he was now in and fled from Tver fearing the Tatar reprisal. Khan Uzbek ordered Prince Ivan Kalita of Moscow and Aleksandr Vasilievich of Suzdal to send a punitive campaign against Tver, which devastated the city and destroyed the kremlin.

    "Moscow benefited from this collaboration, Mongols didn’t raid it"

    That’s bullshit. Moscow was destroyed by the Horde in 1238, then in 1293, then in 1382
     
    1. If Moscow were destroyed it would not exist.

    2. Reread the passage. It referred to the rule of Ivan Kalita. 1238, 1293 and 1382 did not occur during his rule.
  186. Used statistical method that Karlin likes.
    Let’s count the number of field battles in which the Moscow troops fought against the Tatars in the 13-14 centuries.
    The battle of Kolomna 1238
    Battle of Pereyaslavl 1300
    Battle of Torzhok 1315
    Battle on Pyana River 1377
    Battle of the Vozha River 1378
    Battle of the Bulgars war 1376
    Battle of Kulikovo 1380
    Battle of Volokolamsk 1382

    that 8 battles in 5 of which the Moscow troops defeated the Tatars.

    Lithuanians for the corresponding period fought in 4 or maybe 5 battles against the Tatars (which had a result in the form of a Grand defeat of Vytautas). any other Russian Principality has even smaller achievements.
    So the result is that Moscow was the main enemy of the Horde

    • Replies: @AP
    Your dates are meaningless because they only tell one side of the story. It is like listing all the countries the Soviets invaded in 1944-1945 (Germany, Hungary, Romania) and pretending that Soviets were the prinicipal aggressors during World War II.

    So the result is that Moscow was the main enemy of the Horde
     
    And with such a result, Soviets were main aggressors of World War II and Germans, Hungarians, etc. were victims.

    ::::::::::

    If you want to be truly objective, also list the battles where Moscow and the Tatars fought on the same side. And then compare this ratio to that of the other Rus principalities. Who was more likely to resist, and who was more likely to collaborate. And compare the length of time of collaborations to the time spent in struggles against Mongols.

    Here is your list of Moscow battles against Mongols in 13th-14th centuries:

    The battle of Kolomna 1238 (outlier, 60 years before 14th century, this was when Rus was invaded, should't be included)

    Battle of Pereyaslavl 1300
    Battle of Torzhok 1315

    Battle on Pyana River 1377
    Battle of the Vozha River 1378
    Battle of the Bulgars war 1376
    Battle of Kulikovo 1380
    Battle of Volokolamsk 1382

    You ignore: In 1317 Yuri Danilovich of Moscow led an army along with the Tatar temnik Kavgadi against Tver; In 1327 Tver was sacked by a Muscovite-Tatar army.

    Even worse, five of your eight battles listed occurred in the same six years (1377-1382). I notice your list has a long gap of over 60 years (1315-1377). This is the time when Moscow collaborated most closely with the Mongols, serving as the main collaborators, and the time when it eclipsed Tver (due to Moscow's collaboration) and became the strongest Rus principality.

    So we see Moscow against Tatars in 1238 (this was before the Mongol takeover of Rus, and has no business being listed here alongside other battles), 1300 and 1315. Then over 60 years of close collaboration with Mongols, during which Moscow used Mongols to slaughter Russian people. Then six years of battles against Mongols.

    A story of resistance in the beginning for 15 years, then close collaboration with Mongols for generations (over 60 years) while power was consolidated, and then betrayal of the masters and 6 years of fighting. Not a story that Russian Svidomists like.

  187. @melanf

    he married the Khan’s sister. Why didn’t you mention that?
     
    Strange question. Here is what I wrote in message 142 of this discussion

    "Daniel’s son Yuri continued his father’s policy and started a war against the great Prince appointed by the Khan (Mikhail Tversky). With the help of Tatar troops, the Tver Prince defeated Yuri’s supporters, but Yuri in actual captivity at the court of the Khan, marries the Khan’s sister. As a result, the Khan appoints Yuri as Grand Prince. Yuri destroys Mikhail Tversky with the hands of the Tatars, but after that Yuri ceases to obey the Khan"

    Professor Pipes at Harvard (Russia under the Old Regime...
     
    This Pipes is an Amateur who makes a monstrous number of factual errors. His book is a long-standing object of ridicule.

    He returned as the head of a combined Mongol-Rusisan punitive force which so devastaqted Tver
     
    And this is a direct lie. Tatar troops are commanded by a Tatar commander appointed by the Uzbek Khan. Russian princes played a supporting role in the army. Here's the original source


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Facial_Chronicle_-_b.11%2C_p.007_-_Sergius_of_Radonezh.gif

    Moscow benefited from this collaboration, Mongols didn’t raid it
     
    That's bullshit. Moscow was destroyed by the Horde in 1238, then in 1293, then in 1382

    https://mtdata.ru/u18/photoE1FF/20991862817-0/original.jpg

    Professor Pipes at Harvard (Russia under the Old Regime…

    This Pipes is an Amateur who makes a monstrous number of factual errors. His book is a long-standing object of ridicule.

    By Russian Svidomists? I would not be surprised.

    He returned as the head of a combined Mongol-Rusisan punitive force which so devastaqted Tver

    And this is a direct lie. Tatar troops are commanded by a Tatar commander appointed by the Uzbek Khan. Russian princes played a supporting role in the army. Here’s the original source

    Sorry, primary sources are not as reliable as actual historians. Otherwise Aztecs were killing 200,000 per year, per Spanish primary sources (an earlier discussion). We have already seen that Chronicles minimized relationships with Tatars.

    Another source contradicting your claim:

    https://rusmania.com/central/tver-region/tver/history

    In the summer of 1327 Schelkan (sometimes spelled Cholkhan) a cousin of Khan Uzbek, arrived in Tver as the khan’s representative. Schelkan began tormenting the local population who eventually rose up against him. Schelkan and his men sought shelter in his residence, but instead were burnt alive there when the Tver citizens set it alight. It is not known whether this was supported by Aleksandr, but he certainly understood the danger he was now in and fled from Tver fearing the Tatar reprisal. Khan Uzbek ordered Prince Ivan Kalita of Moscow and Aleksandr Vasilievich of Suzdal to send a punitive campaign against Tver, which devastated the city and destroyed the kremlin.

    “Moscow benefited from this collaboration, Mongols didn’t raid it”

    That’s bullshit. Moscow was destroyed by the Horde in 1238, then in 1293, then in 1382

    1. If Moscow were destroyed it would not exist.

    2. Reread the passage. It referred to the rule of Ivan Kalita. 1238, 1293 and 1382 did not occur during his rule.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Sorry, primary sources are not as reliable as actual historians
     
    Please
    "the lawless Tsar (Uzbek Khan) sent an army to the Russian land in the winter under five temnics (temnics military commanders under 10 000 wariors), and their chief, Fedorchuk, and they killed many people, and took some prisoners; and Tver and all the Tver cities were put to fire. The great Prince Alexander, ....fled to Pskov"
    The story of the killing of Cholhan

    (Убит же был Шевкал в 6835 (1327) году. И, услышав об этом, беззаконный царь зимой послал рать на Русскую землю - пять темников, а воевода у них Федорчук, и убили они множество людей, а иных взяли в плен; а Тверь и все тверские города предали огню. Великий же князь Александр, чтобы не терпеть безбожных преследований, оставив русский великокняжеский престол и все свои наследственные владения, ушел во Псков с княгиней и детьми и остался в Пскове.)

    The defeat of Tver in 1237 is described in various Chronicles, including the Tver chronicle. Even the Tver chronicle does not consider Ivan the commander of the Tatar army. This statement (of Pipes) is a direct lie.

  188. @melanf
    Used statistical method that Karlin likes.
    Let's count the number of field battles in which the Moscow troops fought against the Tatars in the 13-14 centuries.
    The battle of Kolomna 1238
    Battle of Pereyaslavl 1300
    Battle of Torzhok 1315
    Battle on Pyana River 1377
    Battle of the Vozha River 1378
    Battle of the Bulgars war 1376
    Battle of Kulikovo 1380
    Battle of Volokolamsk 1382


    that 8 battles in 5 of which the Moscow troops defeated the Tatars.

    Lithuanians for the corresponding period fought in 4 or maybe 5 battles against the Tatars (which had a result in the form of a Grand defeat of Vytautas). any other Russian Principality has even smaller achievements.
    So the result is that Moscow was the main enemy of the Horde

    Your dates are meaningless because they only tell one side of the story. It is like listing all the countries the Soviets invaded in 1944-1945 (Germany, Hungary, Romania) and pretending that Soviets were the prinicipal aggressors during World War II.

    So the result is that Moscow was the main enemy of the Horde

    And with such a result, Soviets were main aggressors of World War II and Germans, Hungarians, etc. were victims.

    ::::::::::

    If you want to be truly objective, also list the battles where Moscow and the Tatars fought on the same side. And then compare this ratio to that of the other Rus principalities. Who was more likely to resist, and who was more likely to collaborate. And compare the length of time of collaborations to the time spent in struggles against Mongols.

    Here is your list of Moscow battles against Mongols in 13th-14th centuries:

    The battle of Kolomna 1238 (outlier, 60 years before 14th century, this was when Rus was invaded, should’t be included)

    Battle of Pereyaslavl 1300
    Battle of Torzhok 1315

    Battle on Pyana River 1377
    Battle of the Vozha River 1378
    Battle of the Bulgars war 1376
    Battle of Kulikovo 1380
    Battle of Volokolamsk 1382

    You ignore: In 1317 Yuri Danilovich of Moscow led an army along with the Tatar temnik Kavgadi against Tver; In 1327 Tver was sacked by a Muscovite-Tatar army.

    Even worse, five of your eight battles listed occurred in the same six years (1377-1382). I notice your list has a long gap of over 60 years (1315-1377). This is the time when Moscow collaborated most closely with the Mongols, serving as the main collaborators, and the time when it eclipsed Tver (due to Moscow’s collaboration) and became the strongest Rus principality.

    So we see Moscow against Tatars in 1238 (this was before the Mongol takeover of Rus, and has no business being listed here alongside other battles), 1300 and 1315. Then over 60 years of close collaboration with Mongols, during which Moscow used Mongols to slaughter Russian people. Then six years of battles against Mongols.

    A story of resistance in the beginning for 15 years, then close collaboration with Mongols for generations (over 60 years) while power was consolidated, and then betrayal of the masters and 6 years of fighting. Not a story that Russian Svidomists like.

  189. @AP

    Professor Pipes at Harvard (Russia under the Old Regime…

    This Pipes is an Amateur who makes a monstrous number of factual errors. His book is a long-standing object of ridicule.
     
    By Russian Svidomists? I would not be surprised.

    He returned as the head of a combined Mongol-Rusisan punitive force which so devastaqted Tver

    And this is a direct lie. Tatar troops are commanded by a Tatar commander appointed by the Uzbek Khan. Russian princes played a supporting role in the army. Here’s the original source
     
    Sorry, primary sources are not as reliable as actual historians. Otherwise Aztecs were killing 200,000 per year, per Spanish primary sources (an earlier discussion). We have already seen that Chronicles minimized relationships with Tatars.

    Another source contradicting your claim:

    https://rusmania.com/central/tver-region/tver/history

    In the summer of 1327 Schelkan (sometimes spelled Cholkhan) a cousin of Khan Uzbek, arrived in Tver as the khan’s representative. Schelkan began tormenting the local population who eventually rose up against him. Schelkan and his men sought shelter in his residence, but instead were burnt alive there when the Tver citizens set it alight. It is not known whether this was supported by Aleksandr, but he certainly understood the danger he was now in and fled from Tver fearing the Tatar reprisal. Khan Uzbek ordered Prince Ivan Kalita of Moscow and Aleksandr Vasilievich of Suzdal to send a punitive campaign against Tver, which devastated the city and destroyed the kremlin.

    "Moscow benefited from this collaboration, Mongols didn’t raid it"

    That’s bullshit. Moscow was destroyed by the Horde in 1238, then in 1293, then in 1382
     
    1. If Moscow were destroyed it would not exist.

    2. Reread the passage. It referred to the rule of Ivan Kalita. 1238, 1293 and 1382 did not occur during his rule.

    Sorry, primary sources are not as reliable as actual historians

    Please
    “the lawless Tsar (Uzbek Khan) sent an army to the Russian land in the winter under five temnics (temnics military commanders under 10 000 wariors), and their chief, Fedorchuk, and they killed many people, and took some prisoners; and Tver and all the Tver cities were put to fire. The great Prince Alexander, ….fled to Pskov
    The story of the killing of Cholhan

    (Убит же был Шевкал в 6835 (1327) году. И, услышав об этом, беззаконный царь зимой послал рать на Русскую землю – пять темников, а воевода у них Федорчук, и убили они множество людей, а иных взяли в плен; а Тверь и все тверские города предали огню. Великий же князь Александр, чтобы не терпеть безбожных преследований, оставив русский великокняжеский престол и все свои наследственные владения, ушел во Псков с княгиней и детьми и остался в Пскове.)

    The defeat of Tver in 1237 is described in various Chronicles, including the Tver chronicle. Even the Tver chronicle does not consider Ivan the commander of the Tatar army. This statement (of Pipes) is a direct lie.

    • Replies: @AP
    Sorry, you are just demonstrating unreliability of Chronicles as a source. Historians please. Funny how you cannot provide them.

    Historian Janet Martin, History of Medieval Russia 980-1584 Cambridge University Press: “Ivan [Moscow] presented himself to Uzbek and returned with a Tatar force. Joined by prince Aleksandr of Suzdal, Ivan and the Tatars marched against Tver city...”

    Wiki is sourced to Russian historians.

    “ The Tver Uprising of 1327 (Russian: Тверское восстание) was the first major uprising against the Golden Horde by the people of Vladimir. It was brutally suppressed by the joint efforts of the Golden Horde, Muscovy and Suzdal.”

    “The prince of Moscow, Ivan Kalita, a long time rival of the princes of Tver, hastened to take advantage of the uprising in order to assert his supremacy. Ivan allied with the Golden Horde and volunteered to help restore the power of the Mongols over Tver. In return, Öz Beg promised to make Ivan the Grand Duke and reinforced his army with 50,000 Mongol warriors under the command of five Mongol generals.[5] The prince of Suzdal also joined the Russo-Mongol punitive expedition that came to be known as the "Army of Fedorchuk," named after the Tatar commander Fedorchuk. [6]

    In retaliation, the Russo-Mongol army took dozens of captives and burned entire villages to the ground.”
  190. Reread the passage. It referred to the rule of Ivan Kalita. 1238, 1293 and 1382 did not occur during his rule.

    Well, in the reign of Ivan Kalita, the Tatars burned Tver (in 1237) and did not burn Moscow, and in the reign of Dmitry Donskoy, the Tatars burned Moscow (in 1382) and did not burn Tver. And…?

    If you want to be truly objective, also list the battles where Moscow and the Tatars fought on the same side.

    It’s easy. In Bortnevskiy battle (1317) the Tatars were on the side of Moscow. That is, in the 13-14 centuries, Moscow fought in 8 field battles against the Tatars, and in one battle the Tatars acted on the side of Moscow. Сompare.

    • Replies: @AP
    You ignored most of the post.

    It’s easy. In Bortnevskiy battle (1317) the Tatars were on the side of Moscow. That is, in the 13-14 centuries, Moscow fought in 8 field battles against the Tatars
     
    1238 was the initial Mongol invasion, it wasn’t part of the struggle between princes, it doesn’t count.

    You “forgot” 1327 joint Tatar and Muscovite destruction of Tver.

    You ignored periods of periods of peace and collaboration with Mongols, vs periods of war against them.

    And, of course, 5 of those 8 (actually 7) battles occurred within the same 6 years and were in essence part of one struggle.

    So there was an anti-Mongol battle in 1300 and in 1315.

    Then over 60 years of close collaboration with Mongols (including fighting alongside them in 1317 and 1327), during which Moscow used Mongols to slaughter Russian people.

    Then six years of battles against Mongols.

    A story of resistance in the beginning for 15 years, then close collaboration with Mongols for generations (over 60 years) while power was consolidated, and then betrayal of the Mongol masters whom they had served, resulting in 6 years of fighting against Mongols.

    To be sure, it was a very successful strategy.* Not a story that Russian Svidomists like, which is why they ignore historians and focus on stories from Chronicles, ignore certain battles, ignore 60 years of history, etc.

    * The most successful Galician king, Lev, also collaborated closely with the Mongols. Although the victims of this collaboration were mostly Poles, not fellow Rus.
  191. @melanf

    Sorry, primary sources are not as reliable as actual historians
     
    Please
    "the lawless Tsar (Uzbek Khan) sent an army to the Russian land in the winter under five temnics (temnics military commanders under 10 000 wariors), and their chief, Fedorchuk, and they killed many people, and took some prisoners; and Tver and all the Tver cities were put to fire. The great Prince Alexander, ....fled to Pskov"
    The story of the killing of Cholhan

    (Убит же был Шевкал в 6835 (1327) году. И, услышав об этом, беззаконный царь зимой послал рать на Русскую землю - пять темников, а воевода у них Федорчук, и убили они множество людей, а иных взяли в плен; а Тверь и все тверские города предали огню. Великий же князь Александр, чтобы не терпеть безбожных преследований, оставив русский великокняжеский престол и все свои наследственные владения, ушел во Псков с княгиней и детьми и остался в Пскове.)

    The defeat of Tver in 1237 is described in various Chronicles, including the Tver chronicle. Even the Tver chronicle does not consider Ivan the commander of the Tatar army. This statement (of Pipes) is a direct lie.

    Sorry, you are just demonstrating unreliability of Chronicles as a source. Historians please. Funny how you cannot provide them.

    Historian Janet Martin, History of Medieval Russia 980-1584 Cambridge University Press: “Ivan [Moscow] presented himself to Uzbek and returned with a Tatar force. Joined by prince Aleksandr of Suzdal, Ivan and the Tatars marched against Tver city…”

    Wiki is sourced to Russian historians.

    “ The Tver Uprising of 1327 (Russian: Тверское восстание) was the first major uprising against the Golden Horde by the people of Vladimir. It was brutally suppressed by the joint efforts of the Golden Horde, Muscovy and Suzdal.”

    “The prince of Moscow, Ivan Kalita, a long time rival of the princes of Tver, hastened to take advantage of the uprising in order to assert his supremacy. Ivan allied with the Golden Horde and volunteered to help restore the power of the Mongols over Tver. In return, Öz Beg promised to make Ivan the Grand Duke and reinforced his army with 50,000 Mongol warriors under the command of five Mongol generals.[5] The prince of Suzdal also joined the Russo-Mongol punitive expedition that came to be known as the “Army of Fedorchuk,” named after the Tatar commander Fedorchuk. [6]

    In retaliation, the Russo-Mongol army took dozens of captives and burned entire villages to the ground.”

    • Replies: @melanf

    Sorry, you are just demonstrating unreliability of Chronicles as a source. Historians please. Funny how you cannot provide them.
     
    You posted it yourself in the same post

    "50,000 Mongol warriors under the command of five Mongol generals.[5] The prince of Suzdal also joined the Russo-Mongol punitive expedition that came to be known as the “Army of Fedorchuk,” named after the Tatar commander Fedorchuk."

    This Fedorchuk (with 5 other generals) was the commander of the Tatar army. Russian princes with their detachments (in particular Ivan) participated in the campaign as an auxiliary force
    , @melanf

    Sorry, you are just demonstrating unreliability of Chronicles as a source. Historians please. Funny how you cannot provide them.
     
    And where do you think historians can get information if primary sources are "unreliable"? Clairvoyance?

    " History as an academic discipline is based on primary sources, as evaluated by the community of scholars, who report their findings in books, articles and papers. Arthur Marwick says "Primary sources are absolutely fundamental to history."

    this from Wikipedia but the Britannica says the same thing.


    The events of 1327 are described in the Moscow chronicle (a Pro-Moscow primary source) which says that the Tatar army under the command of Tatar generals destroyed Tver.
    The events of 1327 are described by the Tver chronicle (an anti-Moscow primary source) which says that the Tatar army under the command of Tatar generals destroyed Tver.

    The events of 1327 are described by the Novgorod chronicle (a neutral primary source) which says https://c.radikal.ru/c13/2002/ec/611508085b04.png

    There is no single source that would say that Ivan Kalita was the commander of the Tatar army at the destruction of Tver. And this is simply impossible - in the entire history of the Golden Horde, there was not a single case that the main forces of the Horde were given under the command of a Russian Prince.
    So I congratulate you, you have clearly demonstrated the extremely low quality of American russistics.

    PS, if you need historians, please - Anton Gorsky "Moscow and the Horde", Nikolai Borisov "Ivan Kalita". I can give you a dozen more links.

  192. @melanf

    Reread the passage. It referred to the rule of Ivan Kalita. 1238, 1293 and 1382 did not occur during his rule.
     
    Well, in the reign of Ivan Kalita, the Tatars burned Tver (in 1237) and did not burn Moscow, and in the reign of Dmitry Donskoy, the Tatars burned Moscow (in 1382) and did not burn Tver. And...?


    If you want to be truly objective, also list the battles where Moscow and the Tatars fought on the same side.
     
    It's easy. In Bortnevskiy battle (1317) the Tatars were on the side of Moscow. That is, in the 13-14 centuries, Moscow fought in 8 field battles against the Tatars, and in one battle the Tatars acted on the side of Moscow. Сompare.

    You ignored most of the post.

    It’s easy. In Bortnevskiy battle (1317) the Tatars were on the side of Moscow. That is, in the 13-14 centuries, Moscow fought in 8 field battles against the Tatars

    1238 was the initial Mongol invasion, it wasn’t part of the struggle between princes, it doesn’t count.

    You “forgot” 1327 joint Tatar and Muscovite destruction of Tver.

    You ignored periods of periods of peace and collaboration with Mongols, vs periods of war against them.

    And, of course, 5 of those 8 (actually 7) battles occurred within the same 6 years and were in essence part of one struggle.

    So there was an anti-Mongol battle in 1300 and in 1315.

    Then over 60 years of close collaboration with Mongols (including fighting alongside them in 1317 and 1327), during which Moscow used Mongols to slaughter Russian people.

    Then six years of battles against Mongols.

    A story of resistance in the beginning for 15 years, then close collaboration with Mongols for generations (over 60 years) while power was consolidated, and then betrayal of the Mongol masters whom they had served, resulting in 6 years of fighting against Mongols.

    To be sure, it was a very successful strategy.* Not a story that Russian Svidomists like, which is why they ignore historians and focus on stories from Chronicles, ignore certain battles, ignore 60 years of history, etc.

    * The most successful Galician king, Lev, also collaborated closely with the Mongols. Although the victims of this collaboration were mostly Poles, not fellow Rus.

    • Replies: @melanf

    1238 was the initial Mongol invasion, it wasn’t part of the struggle between princes, it doesn’t count.
     
    As you like, it will change absolutely nothing

    You “forgot” 1327 joint Tatar and Muscovite destruction of Tver.
     
    In this campaign there were no field battles (probably there was no siege either, judging by the Chronicles Tver did not resist at all)

    You can make a list of battles+sieges+capture cities. Then the capture of Tver in 1327 will be added to the joint Moscow-Tatar actions, but new items will also be added to the list of Moscow's actions against the Tatars, so nothing will change in the end

    You ignored periods of periods of peace
     
    That is, in listing field battles, I ignore periods of peace. Extremely valuable remark

    And, of course, 5 of those 8 (actually 7) battles occurred within the same 6 years and were in essence part of one struggle.
     
    The only potential competitor is Lithuania, all fights with Tatars (except for blue waters) occurred during the short epic fail of Vytautas.
    , @melanf

    A story of resistance in the beginning for 15 years, then close collaboration with Mongols for generations (over 60 years) while power was consolidated, and then betrayal of the Mongol masters whom they had served, resulting in 6 years of fighting against Mongols.
     
    You don't count well. Danila was hostile to the Horde at least since 1285 (in 1293 the Tatars sacked Moscow for this). Yuri Danilovich was hostile to the Horde until 1316, then he became friends with the Khan, after which he again began to pursue an anti-Horde policy in 1320. In 1327, the Horde transfers the title of "Grand Prince" to the Moscow princes and confirms this decision until 1360 (when the Horde took the title of "Grand Prince" from the Moscow Prince). As far as I know 23+4=27
  193. @AP
    Sorry, you are just demonstrating unreliability of Chronicles as a source. Historians please. Funny how you cannot provide them.

    Historian Janet Martin, History of Medieval Russia 980-1584 Cambridge University Press: “Ivan [Moscow] presented himself to Uzbek and returned with a Tatar force. Joined by prince Aleksandr of Suzdal, Ivan and the Tatars marched against Tver city...”

    Wiki is sourced to Russian historians.

    “ The Tver Uprising of 1327 (Russian: Тверское восстание) was the first major uprising against the Golden Horde by the people of Vladimir. It was brutally suppressed by the joint efforts of the Golden Horde, Muscovy and Suzdal.”

    “The prince of Moscow, Ivan Kalita, a long time rival of the princes of Tver, hastened to take advantage of the uprising in order to assert his supremacy. Ivan allied with the Golden Horde and volunteered to help restore the power of the Mongols over Tver. In return, Öz Beg promised to make Ivan the Grand Duke and reinforced his army with 50,000 Mongol warriors under the command of five Mongol generals.[5] The prince of Suzdal also joined the Russo-Mongol punitive expedition that came to be known as the "Army of Fedorchuk," named after the Tatar commander Fedorchuk. [6]

    In retaliation, the Russo-Mongol army took dozens of captives and burned entire villages to the ground.”

    Sorry, you are just demonstrating unreliability of Chronicles as a source. Historians please. Funny how you cannot provide them.

    You posted it yourself in the same post

    50,000 Mongol warriors under the command of five Mongol generals.[5] The prince of Suzdal also joined the Russo-Mongol punitive expedition that came to be known as the “Army of Fedorchuk,” named after the Tatar commander Fedorchuk.

    This Fedorchuk (with 5 other generals) was the commander of the Tatar army. Russian princes with their detachments (in particular Ivan) participated in the campaign as an auxiliary force

    • Replies: @AP
    An example of how Russian Svidomists invent history by ignoring certain facts. You did not provide the full quotation:

    "“The prince of Moscow, Ivan Kalita, a long time rival of the princes of Tver, hastened to take advantage of the uprising in order to assert his supremacy. Ivan allied with the Golden Horde and volunteered to help restore the power of the Mongols over Tver. In return, Öz Beg promised to make Ivan the Grand Duke and reinforced his army with 50,000 Mongol warriors under the command of five Mongol generals.[5] The prince of Suzdal also joined the Russo-Mongol punitive expedition that came to be known as the “Army of Fedorchuk,” named after the Tatar commander Fedorchuk. [6]"

    So Ivan took the initiative to go to Moscow, Mongol khan reinforced Ivan's army.

    This reminds me of the funny Russian svidomist fantasy about Poles being an auxiliary force at the Vienna Battle of 1683.
  194. @AP
    You ignored most of the post.

    It’s easy. In Bortnevskiy battle (1317) the Tatars were on the side of Moscow. That is, in the 13-14 centuries, Moscow fought in 8 field battles against the Tatars
     
    1238 was the initial Mongol invasion, it wasn’t part of the struggle between princes, it doesn’t count.

    You “forgot” 1327 joint Tatar and Muscovite destruction of Tver.

    You ignored periods of periods of peace and collaboration with Mongols, vs periods of war against them.

    And, of course, 5 of those 8 (actually 7) battles occurred within the same 6 years and were in essence part of one struggle.

    So there was an anti-Mongol battle in 1300 and in 1315.

    Then over 60 years of close collaboration with Mongols (including fighting alongside them in 1317 and 1327), during which Moscow used Mongols to slaughter Russian people.

    Then six years of battles against Mongols.

    A story of resistance in the beginning for 15 years, then close collaboration with Mongols for generations (over 60 years) while power was consolidated, and then betrayal of the Mongol masters whom they had served, resulting in 6 years of fighting against Mongols.

    To be sure, it was a very successful strategy.* Not a story that Russian Svidomists like, which is why they ignore historians and focus on stories from Chronicles, ignore certain battles, ignore 60 years of history, etc.

    * The most successful Galician king, Lev, also collaborated closely with the Mongols. Although the victims of this collaboration were mostly Poles, not fellow Rus.

    1238 was the initial Mongol invasion, it wasn’t part of the struggle between princes, it doesn’t count.

    As you like, it will change absolutely nothing

    You “forgot” 1327 joint Tatar and Muscovite destruction of Tver.

    In this campaign there were no field battles (probably there was no siege either, judging by the Chronicles Tver did not resist at all)

    You can make a list of battles+sieges+capture cities. Then the capture of Tver in 1327 will be added to the joint Moscow-Tatar actions, but new items will also be added to the list of Moscow’s actions against the Tatars, so nothing will change in the end

    You ignored periods of periods of peace

    That is, in listing field battles, I ignore periods of peace. Extremely valuable remark

    And, of course, 5 of those 8 (actually 7) battles occurred within the same 6 years and were in essence part of one struggle.

    The only potential competitor is Lithuania, all fights with Tatars (except for blue waters) occurred during the short epic fail of Vytautas.

  195. @AP
    You ignored most of the post.

    It’s easy. In Bortnevskiy battle (1317) the Tatars were on the side of Moscow. That is, in the 13-14 centuries, Moscow fought in 8 field battles against the Tatars
     
    1238 was the initial Mongol invasion, it wasn’t part of the struggle between princes, it doesn’t count.

    You “forgot” 1327 joint Tatar and Muscovite destruction of Tver.

    You ignored periods of periods of peace and collaboration with Mongols, vs periods of war against them.

    And, of course, 5 of those 8 (actually 7) battles occurred within the same 6 years and were in essence part of one struggle.

    So there was an anti-Mongol battle in 1300 and in 1315.

    Then over 60 years of close collaboration with Mongols (including fighting alongside them in 1317 and 1327), during which Moscow used Mongols to slaughter Russian people.

    Then six years of battles against Mongols.

    A story of resistance in the beginning for 15 years, then close collaboration with Mongols for generations (over 60 years) while power was consolidated, and then betrayal of the Mongol masters whom they had served, resulting in 6 years of fighting against Mongols.

    To be sure, it was a very successful strategy.* Not a story that Russian Svidomists like, which is why they ignore historians and focus on stories from Chronicles, ignore certain battles, ignore 60 years of history, etc.

    * The most successful Galician king, Lev, also collaborated closely with the Mongols. Although the victims of this collaboration were mostly Poles, not fellow Rus.

    A story of resistance in the beginning for 15 years, then close collaboration with Mongols for generations (over 60 years) while power was consolidated, and then betrayal of the Mongol masters whom they had served, resulting in 6 years of fighting against Mongols.

    You don’t count well. Danila was hostile to the Horde at least since 1285 (in 1293 the Tatars sacked Moscow for this). Yuri Danilovich was hostile to the Horde until 1316, then he became friends with the Khan, after which he again began to pursue an anti-Horde policy in 1320. In 1327, the Horde transfers the title of “Grand Prince” to the Moscow princes and confirms this decision until 1360 (when the Horde took the title of “Grand Prince” from the Moscow Prince). As far as I know 23+4=27

    • Replies: @AP

    You don’t count well....Yuri Danilovich was hostile to the Horde until 1316, then he became friends with the Khan, after which he again began to pursue an anti-Horde policy in 1320. In 1327, the Horde transfers the title of “Grand Prince” to the Moscow princes and confirms this decision until 1360 (when the Horde took the title of “Grand Prince” from the Moscow Prince). As far as I know 23+4=27
     
    LOL. It would be 33+4 = 37 by your numbers. In Russian svidomist math 1327 to 1360 is 23 rather than 33 years.

    But you are more wrong than that.

    Yuri came to the Golden Horde in 1315 where by 1317 he married the khan's sister and with Mongols was trying to defeat Tver. In 1320 he did not "pursue an anti-Horde policy" - he diverted tribute from the khan in order to make interest off it, but got caught. He was not fighting the khan or organizing any resistance against him. Indeed, when Yuri was murdered by the Tver prince in 1325 the khan punished the murderer by having him killed. So he was not an enemy of the khan and this was not a period of anti-Mongol resistance.

    After Yuri was Ivan Kalita, who was loyal to the khan throughout his reign and who alongside the Mongols massacred many Russians of Tver, crushing resistance to the Mongols.

    Importantly, Ivan's rule - that is, the rule of the ultimate collaborator - is considered to be the beginning of Russia's unification. Ivan's last act as ruler was to raid and plunder the Russian people of Smolensk, alongside his close Tatar allies, in 1340. His son and successor Simeon continued to be an ally of the Mongols, as did Simeon's successor who died in 1359.

    Conflict between Dmitry Donskoy and the Mongols did not being until 1370. So 1315 to 1370 - 55 years of peace and collaboration with Mongols. War with Mongols ended in 1382,and Moscow once again served the Tatars and even paid back tribute to them. In 1388 according to a Persian historian Muscovites were even fighting against Tamerlane together with their Mongol masters. Donskoy died in 1389, his successor worked with the Horde until 1395.
  196. @melanf

    Sorry, you are just demonstrating unreliability of Chronicles as a source. Historians please. Funny how you cannot provide them.
     
    You posted it yourself in the same post

    "50,000 Mongol warriors under the command of five Mongol generals.[5] The prince of Suzdal also joined the Russo-Mongol punitive expedition that came to be known as the “Army of Fedorchuk,” named after the Tatar commander Fedorchuk."

    This Fedorchuk (with 5 other generals) was the commander of the Tatar army. Russian princes with their detachments (in particular Ivan) participated in the campaign as an auxiliary force

    An example of how Russian Svidomists invent history by ignoring certain facts. You did not provide the full quotation:

    ““The prince of Moscow, Ivan Kalita, a long time rival of the princes of Tver, hastened to take advantage of the uprising in order to assert his supremacy. Ivan allied with the Golden Horde and volunteered to help restore the power of the Mongols over Tver. In return, Öz Beg promised to make Ivan the Grand Duke and reinforced his army with 50,000 Mongol warriors under the command of five Mongol generals.[5] The prince of Suzdal also joined the Russo-Mongol punitive expedition that came to be known as the “Army of Fedorchuk,” named after the Tatar commander Fedorchuk. [6]”

    So Ivan took the initiative to go to Moscow, Mongol khan reinforced Ivan’s army.

    This reminds me of the funny Russian svidomist fantasy about Poles being an auxiliary force at the Vienna Battle of 1683.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Mongol khan reinforced Ivan’s army
     
    "Mongols" (which of course are Tatars, but not Mongols) reinforced Ivan's army with auxiliary forces in the form of an army of 50,000 soldiers? Don't you himself find it funny?

    Below is a description of an event from the Tver chronicle (this chronicle is sharply hostile to the Moscow princes)

    "the lawless Khan, for the winter sent an army to the land of Rus, and the Supreme commander Fedorchyuk with him 5 generals; and many people were killed, and others were taken captive, and Tver and the whole city was burned"


    "Въ лето 6835. И то слышавъ безаконный царь, на зиму посла рать на землю Рускую, а воевода Федорчюкь, 5 темниковъ; и людей множество погубиша, а иныа въ пленъ поведоша, а Тверь и вся гради огнемъ пожгоша. Великий же князь Александрь Михайловичь, не трьпя безбожныхъ крамолы, оставль княжение Руское и вся отечества своа, и иде въ Пъсковъ
    Тверская летопись. ПСРЛ. Т. 15. Стб. 415-416

    In the evening, I will post a scientific translation of the Novgorod chronicle into English describing these events. If you want to continue to argue against the Tver and Novgorod Chronicles referring to Рipes (who is at best a historian specializing in the 20th century, but not a Medievalist) - I do not do psychotherapy.
  197. @melanf

    A story of resistance in the beginning for 15 years, then close collaboration with Mongols for generations (over 60 years) while power was consolidated, and then betrayal of the Mongol masters whom they had served, resulting in 6 years of fighting against Mongols.
     
    You don't count well. Danila was hostile to the Horde at least since 1285 (in 1293 the Tatars sacked Moscow for this). Yuri Danilovich was hostile to the Horde until 1316, then he became friends with the Khan, after which he again began to pursue an anti-Horde policy in 1320. In 1327, the Horde transfers the title of "Grand Prince" to the Moscow princes and confirms this decision until 1360 (when the Horde took the title of "Grand Prince" from the Moscow Prince). As far as I know 23+4=27

    You don’t count well….Yuri Danilovich was hostile to the Horde until 1316, then he became friends with the Khan, after which he again began to pursue an anti-Horde policy in 1320. In 1327, the Horde transfers the title of “Grand Prince” to the Moscow princes and confirms this decision until 1360 (when the Horde took the title of “Grand Prince” from the Moscow Prince). As far as I know 23+4=27

    LOL. It would be 33+4 = 37 by your numbers. In Russian svidomist math 1327 to 1360 is 23 rather than 33 years.

    But you are more wrong than that.

    Yuri came to the Golden Horde in 1315 where by 1317 he married the khan’s sister and with Mongols was trying to defeat Tver. In 1320 he did not “pursue an anti-Horde policy” – he diverted tribute from the khan in order to make interest off it, but got caught. He was not fighting the khan or organizing any resistance against him. Indeed, when Yuri was murdered by the Tver prince in 1325 the khan punished the murderer by having him killed. So he was not an enemy of the khan and this was not a period of anti-Mongol resistance.

    After Yuri was Ivan Kalita, who was loyal to the khan throughout his reign and who alongside the Mongols massacred many Russians of Tver, crushing resistance to the Mongols.

    Importantly, Ivan’s rule – that is, the rule of the ultimate collaborator – is considered to be the beginning of Russia’s unification. Ivan’s last act as ruler was to raid and plunder the Russian people of Smolensk, alongside his close Tatar allies, in 1340. His son and successor Simeon continued to be an ally of the Mongols, as did Simeon’s successor who died in 1359.

    Conflict between Dmitry Donskoy and the Mongols did not being until 1370. So 1315 to 1370 – 55 years of peace and collaboration with Mongols. War with Mongols ended in 1382,and Moscow once again served the Tatars and even paid back tribute to them. In 1388 according to a Persian historian Muscovites were even fighting against Tamerlane together with their Mongol masters. Donskoy died in 1389, his successor worked with the Horde until 1395.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Yuri came to the Golden Horde in 1315 where by 1317 he married the khan’s sister and with Mongols was trying to defeat Tver. In 1320 he did not “pursue an anti-Horde policy” – he diverted tribute from the khan in order to make interest off it, but got caught. He was not fighting the khan or organizing any resistance against him.
     
    Already in 1321, Prince Yuri of Moscow ceased to obey the Horde and did not pay tribute to the Khan's Ambassador. As a result, in 1322, the Khan transferred the title of Grand Prince to Prince Dmitry of Tver and sent Tatar detachments to help Tver (against Moscow). Yuri (who was at this time in Novgorod) continued to call himself the great Prince (contrary to the Khan's order). That is, from 1321 until his death in 1326, Yuri led an anti-Horde policy.

    It would be 33+4 = 37 by your numbers. In Russian svidomist math 1327 to 1360 is 23 rather than 33 years.
     
    Let's count. Moscow pursued a policy hostile to the Horde from at least 1385 (when a coalition of princes with the participation of Danil of Moscow expelled Tatars from the Vladimir Principality) until 1315 (in 1315 or early 1316, Afanasy Danilovich led the Novgorodians in the battle against the Tatars and Tver)

    In 1316-1320 there was a short period of "friendship" between Yuri of Moscow and the Khan. In 1321-1326 Yuri of Moscow again leads a policy hostile to the Horde.
    In 1321-1326, Yuri of Moscow again pursued a policy hostile to the Horde. From 1327 to 1358 Moscow should be in line with the policy of the Horde. In 1358, Prince Ivan the Handsome of Moscow (the father of Dmitry Donskoy) drove out Tatar detachments from his lands (according to the chronicle, these detachments were sent by the Khan, although historians argue on this topic). In any case, from about 1358 Moscow became hostile to the Horde, and from 1374 to 1383 there was an open war with the Horde, which ended with the de facto independence of Moscow (and other Russian principalities) on condition of paying tribute to the Tatars.

    That is, the maximum estimate of the duration of Moscow's "friendship" with the Horde is 35-37 years (this is taking into account Yuri's brief flirtation with the Uzbek Khan). At the same time, Moscow was an Enemy of the Horde (in the 13-14 centuries) for a much longer period
  198. @AP
    An example of how Russian Svidomists invent history by ignoring certain facts. You did not provide the full quotation:

    "“The prince of Moscow, Ivan Kalita, a long time rival of the princes of Tver, hastened to take advantage of the uprising in order to assert his supremacy. Ivan allied with the Golden Horde and volunteered to help restore the power of the Mongols over Tver. In return, Öz Beg promised to make Ivan the Grand Duke and reinforced his army with 50,000 Mongol warriors under the command of five Mongol generals.[5] The prince of Suzdal also joined the Russo-Mongol punitive expedition that came to be known as the “Army of Fedorchuk,” named after the Tatar commander Fedorchuk. [6]"

    So Ivan took the initiative to go to Moscow, Mongol khan reinforced Ivan's army.

    This reminds me of the funny Russian svidomist fantasy about Poles being an auxiliary force at the Vienna Battle of 1683.

    Mongol khan reinforced Ivan’s army

    “Mongols” (which of course are Tatars, but not Mongols) reinforced Ivan’s army with auxiliary forces in the form of an army of 50,000 soldiers? Don’t you himself find it funny?

    Below is a description of an event from the Tver chronicle (this chronicle is sharply hostile to the Moscow princes)

    the lawless Khan, for the winter sent an army to the land of Rus, and the Supreme commander Fedorchyuk with him 5 generals; and many people were killed, and others were taken captive, and Tver and the whole city was burned

    “Въ лето 6835. И то слышавъ безаконный царь, на зиму посла рать на землю Рускую, а воевода Федорчюкь, 5 темниковъ; и людей множество погубиша, а иныа въ пленъ поведоша, а Тверь и вся гради огнемъ пожгоша. Великий же князь Александрь Михайловичь, не трьпя безбожныхъ крамолы, оставль княжение Руское и вся отечества своа, и иде въ Пъсковъ
    Тверская летопись. ПСРЛ. Т. 15. Стб. 415-416

    In the evening, I will post a scientific translation of the Novgorod chronicle into English describing these events. If you want to continue to argue against the Tver and Novgorod Chronicles referring to Рipes (who is at best a historian specializing in the 20th century, but not a Medievalist) – I do not do psychotherapy.

    • Replies: @AP

    “Mongols” (which of course are Tatars, but not Mongols) reinforced Ivan’s army with auxiliary forces in the form of an army of 50,000 soldiers?
     
    Do you even know what the word auxiliary means?

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/auxiliary

    a member of a foreign force serving a nation at war

    It comes form Latin word meaning help.

    Ivan went to the Tatars, and got their help to crush Tver. Numbers of help are irrelevant. In Classic Rome, the Auxilia outnumbered the regular military.

    In the evening, I will post a scientific translation of the Novgorod chronicle into English describing these events
     
    Which still has a lot of fairytales and proves that Russian svidomists rely on fairytales; better to post conclusions from actual historians about these events.

    But you avoid those. You need fairytales.

    Here are Novgorod Chronicles:

    https://faculty.washington.edu/dwaugh/rus/texts/MF1914.pdf

    Some interesting facts:

    Svyatopolk, Volodimir and David and the whole Russian Land to a man went against the Polovets people and defeated them and took their children

    In 1258 the Tartars “ took all Litva land and killed the people "

    If you want to continue to argue against the Tver and Novgorod Chronicles referring to Рipes
     
    In addition to Pipes (Harvard) we also have conclusions by Vernadsky (Yale), Martin (Cambridge), etc. etc.

    We can add Nora Kershaw Chadwick (Cambridge): "Tver was cruelly ravaged by 50,000 Tartars in a punitive expedition led by Ivan of Moscow.

    Also Cambridge History of Russia:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=NtVoAAAAMAAJ&q=ivan+tver+1327&dq=ivan+tver+1327&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_trmguvPnAhXllXIEHZtNBxEQ6AEwCXoECAkQAg

    "Joined as well by Prince Aleksandr Vasil'evich of Suzdal', Ivan launched a campaign against Tver"

    Russian Svidomist doesn't like historians. Russian Svidomist needs Chronicles :-)

    For your education, a nice discourse about how Chronicles were changed to fit various ideologies over time. Published by Cambridge University Press. Not a story retold by a 15th century monk. So not good by Russian Svidomist standards. :-)

    Do any historians support your wild Svidomist claims? And by historians, I don't mean people from some obscure hinterland school.

    Even normal Russian websites support what historians say.

    https://russia.rin.ru/guides_e/6864.html

    " New Moscow prince, the younger brother of Yuri Danilovich, Ivan Kalita made the best use of the circumstances. He headed the dragoon of the Horde against Tver. The land of Tver was devastated,"
  199. @melanf

    Mongol khan reinforced Ivan’s army
     
    "Mongols" (which of course are Tatars, but not Mongols) reinforced Ivan's army with auxiliary forces in the form of an army of 50,000 soldiers? Don't you himself find it funny?

    Below is a description of an event from the Tver chronicle (this chronicle is sharply hostile to the Moscow princes)

    "the lawless Khan, for the winter sent an army to the land of Rus, and the Supreme commander Fedorchyuk with him 5 generals; and many people were killed, and others were taken captive, and Tver and the whole city was burned"


    "Въ лето 6835. И то слышавъ безаконный царь, на зиму посла рать на землю Рускую, а воевода Федорчюкь, 5 темниковъ; и людей множество погубиша, а иныа въ пленъ поведоша, а Тверь и вся гради огнемъ пожгоша. Великий же князь Александрь Михайловичь, не трьпя безбожныхъ крамолы, оставль княжение Руское и вся отечества своа, и иде въ Пъсковъ
    Тверская летопись. ПСРЛ. Т. 15. Стб. 415-416

    In the evening, I will post a scientific translation of the Novgorod chronicle into English describing these events. If you want to continue to argue against the Tver and Novgorod Chronicles referring to Рipes (who is at best a historian specializing in the 20th century, but not a Medievalist) - I do not do psychotherapy.

    “Mongols” (which of course are Tatars, but not Mongols) reinforced Ivan’s army with auxiliary forces in the form of an army of 50,000 soldiers?

    Do you even know what the word auxiliary means?

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/auxiliary

    a member of a foreign force serving a nation at war

    It comes form Latin word meaning help.

    Ivan went to the Tatars, and got their help to crush Tver. Numbers of help are irrelevant. In Classic Rome, the Auxilia outnumbered the regular military.

    In the evening, I will post a scientific translation of the Novgorod chronicle into English describing these events

    Which still has a lot of fairytales and proves that Russian svidomists rely on fairytales; better to post conclusions from actual historians about these events.

    But you avoid those. You need fairytales.

    Here are Novgorod Chronicles:

    https://faculty.washington.edu/dwaugh/rus/texts/MF1914.pdf

    Some interesting facts:

    Svyatopolk, Volodimir and David and the whole Russian Land to a man went against the Polovets people and defeated them and took their children

    In 1258 the Tartars “ took all Litva land and killed the people ”

    If you want to continue to argue against the Tver and Novgorod Chronicles referring to Рipes

    In addition to Pipes (Harvard) we also have conclusions by Vernadsky (Yale), Martin (Cambridge), etc. etc.

    We can add Nora Kershaw Chadwick (Cambridge): “Tver was cruelly ravaged by 50,000 Tartars in a punitive expedition led by Ivan of Moscow.

    Also Cambridge History of Russia:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=NtVoAAAAMAAJ&q=ivan+tver+1327&dq=ivan+tver+1327&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_trmguvPnAhXllXIEHZtNBxEQ6AEwCXoECAkQAg

    “Joined as well by Prince Aleksandr Vasil’evich of Suzdal’, Ivan launched a campaign against Tver”

    Russian Svidomist doesn’t like historians. Russian Svidomist needs Chronicles 🙂

    For your education, a nice discourse about how Chronicles were changed to fit various ideologies over time. Published by Cambridge University Press. Not a story retold by a 15th century monk. So not good by Russian Svidomist standards. 🙂

    Do any historians support your wild Svidomist claims? And by historians, I don’t mean people from some obscure hinterland school.

    Even normal Russian websites support what historians say.

    https://russia.rin.ru/guides_e/6864.html

    ” New Moscow prince, the younger brother of Yuri Danilovich, Ivan Kalita made the best use of the circumstances. He headed the dragoon of the Horde against Tver. The land of Tver was devastated,”

  200. @AP
    Sorry, you are just demonstrating unreliability of Chronicles as a source. Historians please. Funny how you cannot provide them.

    Historian Janet Martin, History of Medieval Russia 980-1584 Cambridge University Press: “Ivan [Moscow] presented himself to Uzbek and returned with a Tatar force. Joined by prince Aleksandr of Suzdal, Ivan and the Tatars marched against Tver city...”

    Wiki is sourced to Russian historians.

    “ The Tver Uprising of 1327 (Russian: Тверское восстание) was the first major uprising against the Golden Horde by the people of Vladimir. It was brutally suppressed by the joint efforts of the Golden Horde, Muscovy and Suzdal.”

    “The prince of Moscow, Ivan Kalita, a long time rival of the princes of Tver, hastened to take advantage of the uprising in order to assert his supremacy. Ivan allied with the Golden Horde and volunteered to help restore the power of the Mongols over Tver. In return, Öz Beg promised to make Ivan the Grand Duke and reinforced his army with 50,000 Mongol warriors under the command of five Mongol generals.[5] The prince of Suzdal also joined the Russo-Mongol punitive expedition that came to be known as the "Army of Fedorchuk," named after the Tatar commander Fedorchuk. [6]

    In retaliation, the Russo-Mongol army took dozens of captives and burned entire villages to the ground.”

    Sorry, you are just demonstrating unreliability of Chronicles as a source. Historians please. Funny how you cannot provide them.

    And where do you think historians can get information if primary sources are “unreliable”? Clairvoyance?

    History as an academic discipline is based on primary sources, as evaluated by the community of scholars, who report their findings in books, articles and papers. Arthur Marwick says “Primary sources are absolutely fundamental to history.”

    this from Wikipedia but the Britannica says the same thing.

    The events of 1327 are described in the Moscow chronicle (a Pro-Moscow primary source) which says that the Tatar army under the command of Tatar generals destroyed Tver.
    The events of 1327 are described by the Tver chronicle (an anti-Moscow primary source) which says that the Tatar army under the command of Tatar generals destroyed Tver.

    The events of 1327 are described by the Novgorod chronicle (a neutral primary source) which says
    There is no single source that would say that Ivan Kalita was the commander of the Tatar army at the destruction of Tver. And this is simply impossible – in the entire history of the Golden Horde, there was not a single case that the main forces of the Horde were given under the command of a Russian Prince.
    So I congratulate you, you have clearly demonstrated the extremely low quality of American russistics.

    PS, if you need historians, please – Anton Gorsky “Moscow and the Horde”, Nikolai Borisov “Ivan Kalita”. I can give you a dozen more links.

    • Replies: @AP

    And where do you think historians can get information if primary sources are “unreliable”? Clairvoyance?
     
    Historians analyze the primary sources. So when a primary source claims 200,000 people were sacrificed a year by Aztecs, we trust a historian who estimates the number at 20,000 rather than the primary source.

    And neutral historians are better than invested ones. I'd be suspicious of Russian historians for the same reason I would be of Ukrainian ones.

    if you need historians, please – Anton Gorsky “Moscow and the Horde”, Nikolai Borisov “Ivan Kalita”. I can give you a dozen more links.
     
    Provide quotes about Tver's sacking in 1327. And you have a proven history of cutting only parts you like to present a fake story. Links would be preferable.
  201. We can add Nora Kershaw Chadwick (Cambridge): “Tver was cruelly ravaged by 50,000 Tartars in a punitive expedition led by Ivan of Moscow.”

    O_o! I congratulate you. This is almost a literal translation of the late Tver version of events (obviously legendary)
    «…с ними же Иван Московский грядяше и вож им на грады тверскыа бываше»

    Only in the Tver legend, the Tatars were commanded by a Tatar General, and Ivan Kalita showed the Tatars the way to Tver, he led them as a guide but not as a commander. This is how myths are born from a hack translation

    • Replies: @AP

    Only in the Tver legend, the Tatars were commanded by a Tatar General, showed the Tatars the way to Tver, he led them as a guide but not as a commander. This is how myths are born from a hack translation
     
    So the Moscow prince Ivan goes to the Tatars, summons them, gets them to attack Tver and guides them to Tver. With his own forces.

    According to Russian Svidomists, this somehow means Moscow wasn't collaborating with Tatars and didn't become principal Rus power based on its close collaboration with Tatars whom it used to slaughter Russians that got in the way of Moscow?
  202. @melanf

    We can add Nora Kershaw Chadwick (Cambridge): “Tver was cruelly ravaged by 50,000 Tartars in a punitive expedition led by Ivan of Moscow."
     
    O_o! I congratulate you. This is almost a literal translation of the late Tver version of events (obviously legendary)
    «…с ними же Иван Московский грядяше и вож им на грады тверскыа бываше»

    Only in the Tver legend, the Tatars were commanded by a Tatar General, and Ivan Kalita showed the Tatars the way to Tver, he led them as a guide but not as a commander. This is how myths are born from a hack translation

    Only in the Tver legend, the Tatars were commanded by a Tatar General, showed the Tatars the way to Tver, he led them as a guide but not as a commander. This is how myths are born from a hack translation

    So the Moscow prince Ivan goes to the Tatars, summons them, gets them to attack Tver and guides them to Tver. With his own forces.

    According to Russian Svidomists, this somehow means Moscow wasn’t collaborating with Tatars and didn’t become principal Rus power based on its close collaboration with Tatars whom it used to slaughter Russians that got in the way of Moscow?

    • Replies: @melanf

    So the Moscow prince Ivan goes to the Tatars, summons them, gets them to attack Tver and guides them to Tver. With his own forces.
     
    This late Tver legend is obviously absurd - the Tatars went to Tver in the winter, along the frozen riverbed of the Volga. Of course, the Tatars knew this road perfectly well, they did not need a guide.

    I have already quoted the early Tver chronicle (this is the most reliable account of events 1327-1328) in this thread:
    "after Learning about this (the murders of the Tatar Ambassador Cholkhan and all the Tatars in the Tver Principality), the lawless Khan sent an army to the Russian land in the winter, the commander Fedorchuk and five generals. And many people were killed, others were taken captive, and Tver and all the cities were burned with fire."
    http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus16/Tversk_let/frametext1.htm

    That is, the role of Ivan was so insignificant that he is not mentioned at all (just as Ivan is not mentioned in connection with these events in the Novgorod chronicle). The Tver chronicle is known from the Tver manuscript of the mid-15th century, and from three manuscripts of the 17th century created in the Western Russian lands. That is, the possibility of any "censorship" in the interests of Moscow is completely excluded


    So the Moscow prince Ivan goes to the Tatars, summons them
     
    The accusations that Ivan "summons" Tatars are completely absurd. There are no such accusations in any primary source, and of course after the inhabitants of Tver burned the Tatar Ambassador Cholkhan and his retinue, and killed all the Tatars in Tver, the destruction of Tver by the Tatars was absolutely inevitable and any actions of the Moscow Prince were in this case irrelevant.
  203. @melanf

    Sorry, you are just demonstrating unreliability of Chronicles as a source. Historians please. Funny how you cannot provide them.
     
    And where do you think historians can get information if primary sources are "unreliable"? Clairvoyance?

    " History as an academic discipline is based on primary sources, as evaluated by the community of scholars, who report their findings in books, articles and papers. Arthur Marwick says "Primary sources are absolutely fundamental to history."

    this from Wikipedia but the Britannica says the same thing.


    The events of 1327 are described in the Moscow chronicle (a Pro-Moscow primary source) which says that the Tatar army under the command of Tatar generals destroyed Tver.
    The events of 1327 are described by the Tver chronicle (an anti-Moscow primary source) which says that the Tatar army under the command of Tatar generals destroyed Tver.

    The events of 1327 are described by the Novgorod chronicle (a neutral primary source) which says https://c.radikal.ru/c13/2002/ec/611508085b04.png

    There is no single source that would say that Ivan Kalita was the commander of the Tatar army at the destruction of Tver. And this is simply impossible - in the entire history of the Golden Horde, there was not a single case that the main forces of the Horde were given under the command of a Russian Prince.
    So I congratulate you, you have clearly demonstrated the extremely low quality of American russistics.

    PS, if you need historians, please - Anton Gorsky "Moscow and the Horde", Nikolai Borisov "Ivan Kalita". I can give you a dozen more links.

    And where do you think historians can get information if primary sources are “unreliable”? Clairvoyance?

    Historians analyze the primary sources. So when a primary source claims 200,000 people were sacrificed a year by Aztecs, we trust a historian who estimates the number at 20,000 rather than the primary source.

    And neutral historians are better than invested ones. I’d be suspicious of Russian historians for the same reason I would be of Ukrainian ones.

    if you need historians, please – Anton Gorsky “Moscow and the Horde”, Nikolai Borisov “Ivan Kalita”. I can give you a dozen more links.

    Provide quotes about Tver’s sacking in 1327. And you have a proven history of cutting only parts you like to present a fake story. Links would be preferable.

    • Replies: @melanf
    Anton Gorsky “Moscow and the Horde”
    https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Istorija_Tserkvi/moskva-i-orda/3
    "The Novgorod first chronicle and the second part of the "Tver" chronicle, which came down as part of the Rogozhsky chronicler and the Tver collection, contain early reliable evidence of the events of uprising....
    Ivan Kalita, having learned about the incident (in Tver), went to the Horde. The Uzbek sent a large army to Tver in the winter of 1327-1328; the Prince of Moscow accompanied this army. The Tver Principality was severely devastated. Alexander Mikhailovich fled .... On the issue of the Grand Principality, the Uzbek made an extraordinary decision: it was divided between two princes. Ivan Kalita got Novgorod and Kostroma, and Suzdal Prince Alexander Vasilyevich-Vladimir and the Volga region
    "

    Nikolai Borisov “Ivan Kalita”
    https://www.rulit.me/books/ivan-kalita-read-57076-44.html
    "The Prince of Moscow was right in his predictions. Already in the autumn of 1327, a messenger (from the Khan) brought a Khan's letter to Moscow with an order to immediately come to the Horde ... In the Horde, Ivan found vigorous military preparations. For a military campaign to Tver (or perhaps to the whole of North-Eastern Russia?) the Khan ordered to collect about 50 thousand horsemen. At the head of the army were five "great Temniks". (The word "Temnik" came from the word "tumen", which meant a detachment of 10 thousand warior) The chronocles the names of some of them – "Fedorchuk, Turlik, the Cjh" . This campaign was named after the first of them and remained in the memory of Russian people under the name of Fedorchk's invasion.
    In addition to Ivan Kalita, in the autumn of 1327, Prince Alexander Vasilievich of Suzdal and his uncle Prince Vasily Alexandrovich came to the Horde with a Declaration of submission. There were probably other Russian rulers. All of them joined the Tatar army, hoping to save their possessions from Tatar. In winter, the army from the Horde moved to Tver. Probably, the Tatars went by the Volga. The frozen river formed a smooth road, wide enough for such a large number of soldiers... The way along the Volga allowed Ivan Kalita and the Suzdal princes to protect their possessions from the devastation that the Horde cavalry carried with them. Undoubtedly, the princes called their squads to help the Tatars. Evasion from participation in the military campaign aganist Tver would be regarded as treason by Tatars.
    "

  204. @AP

    Only in the Tver legend, the Tatars were commanded by a Tatar General, showed the Tatars the way to Tver, he led them as a guide but not as a commander. This is how myths are born from a hack translation
     
    So the Moscow prince Ivan goes to the Tatars, summons them, gets them to attack Tver and guides them to Tver. With his own forces.

    According to Russian Svidomists, this somehow means Moscow wasn't collaborating with Tatars and didn't become principal Rus power based on its close collaboration with Tatars whom it used to slaughter Russians that got in the way of Moscow?

    So the Moscow prince Ivan goes to the Tatars, summons them, gets them to attack Tver and guides them to Tver. With his own forces.

    This late Tver legend is obviously absurd – the Tatars went to Tver in the winter, along the frozen riverbed of the Volga. Of course, the Tatars knew this road perfectly well, they did not need a guide.

    I have already quoted the early Tver chronicle (this is the most reliable account of events 1327-1328) in this thread:
    after Learning about this (the murders of the Tatar Ambassador Cholkhan and all the Tatars in the Tver Principality), the lawless Khan sent an army to the Russian land in the winter, the commander Fedorchuk and five generals. And many people were killed, others were taken captive, and Tver and all the cities were burned with fire.”
    http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus16/Tversk_let/frametext1.htm

    That is, the role of Ivan was so insignificant that he is not mentioned at all (just as Ivan is not mentioned in connection with these events in the Novgorod chronicle). The Tver chronicle is known from the Tver manuscript of the mid-15th century, and from three manuscripts of the 17th century created in the Western Russian lands. That is, the possibility of any “censorship” in the interests of Moscow is completely excluded

    So the Moscow prince Ivan goes to the Tatars, summons them

    The accusations that Ivan “summons” Tatars are completely absurd. There are no such accusations in any primary source, and of course after the inhabitants of Tver burned the Tatar Ambassador Cholkhan and his retinue, and killed all the Tatars in Tver, the destruction of Tver by the Tatars was absolutely inevitable and any actions of the Moscow Prince were in this case irrelevant.

    • Replies: @AP

    This late Tver legend is obviously absurd – the Tatars went to Tver in the winter
     
    Ah, so when Chronicles write something Russian Svidomists don't like, it becomes absurd and primary sources no longer count for much.

    That is, the role of Ivan was so insignificant that he is not mentioned at all
     
    The entire description of this event (destruction of Tver) consisted of one sentence in the Chronicles you like. Leaving out information from such a brief description does not make it insignificant. It is more detailed in the ones you don't like. So you acknowledge that strictly following the primary sources is not the way to go - you interpret and judge, pick which ones you feel are more accurate, etc.

    The problem is whom to trust in their judgment and interpretations - Russian Svidomists from Russia, or objective neutral historians from Harvard or Cambridge or Yale such as Ostrowsky, Halperin, Vernadsky.

    BTW you forgot to add this part: "В тот же год сел Иван Данилович на великом княжении всей Руси, и была тишина великая на 40 лет, и перестали поганые разорять Русскую землю и убивать христиан; и отдохнули и успокоились христиане от великого томления, и от многих опасностей, и от насилия татарского, и была с того времени тишина великая на всей земле."

    This suggests longstanding collaboration.


    The Tver chronicle is known from the Tver manuscript of the mid-15th century
     
    100 years later.

    and from three manuscripts of the 17th century created in the Western Russian lands... That is, the possibility of any “censorship” in the interests of Moscow is completely excluded
     
    Minimizing Rus collaboration with Tatars would not necessarily be excluded. A scholar has already noted the whitewashing of Rus speaking Tatar in the Chronicles.
  205. @AP

    And where do you think historians can get information if primary sources are “unreliable”? Clairvoyance?
     
    Historians analyze the primary sources. So when a primary source claims 200,000 people were sacrificed a year by Aztecs, we trust a historian who estimates the number at 20,000 rather than the primary source.

    And neutral historians are better than invested ones. I'd be suspicious of Russian historians for the same reason I would be of Ukrainian ones.

    if you need historians, please – Anton Gorsky “Moscow and the Horde”, Nikolai Borisov “Ivan Kalita”. I can give you a dozen more links.
     
    Provide quotes about Tver's sacking in 1327. And you have a proven history of cutting only parts you like to present a fake story. Links would be preferable.

    Anton Gorsky “Moscow and the Horde”
    https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Istorija_Tserkvi/moskva-i-orda/3
    The Novgorod first chronicle and the second part of the “Tver” chronicle, which came down as part of the Rogozhsky chronicler and the Tver collection, contain early reliable evidence of the events of uprising….
    Ivan Kalita, having learned about the incident (in Tver), went to the Horde. The Uzbek sent a large army to Tver in the winter of 1327-1328; the Prince of Moscow accompanied this army. The Tver Principality was severely devastated. Alexander Mikhailovich fled …. On the issue of the Grand Principality, the Uzbek made an extraordinary decision: it was divided between two princes. Ivan Kalita got Novgorod and Kostroma, and Suzdal Prince Alexander Vasilyevich-Vladimir and the Volga region

    Nikolai Borisov “Ivan Kalita”
    https://www.rulit.me/books/ivan-kalita-read-57076-44.html
    The Prince of Moscow was right in his predictions. Already in the autumn of 1327, a messenger (from the Khan) brought a Khan’s letter to Moscow with an order to immediately come to the Horde … In the Horde, Ivan found vigorous military preparations. For a military campaign to Tver (or perhaps to the whole of North-Eastern Russia?) the Khan ordered to collect about 50 thousand horsemen. At the head of the army were five “great Temniks”. (The word “Temnik” came from the word “tumen”, which meant a detachment of 10 thousand warior) The chronocles the names of some of them – “Fedorchuk, Turlik, the Cjh” . This campaign was named after the first of them and remained in the memory of Russian people under the name of Fedorchk’s invasion.
    In addition to Ivan Kalita, in the autumn of 1327, Prince Alexander Vasilievich of Suzdal and his uncle Prince Vasily Alexandrovich came to the Horde with a Declaration of submission. There were probably other Russian rulers. All of them joined the Tatar army, hoping to save their possessions from Tatar. In winter, the army from the Horde moved to Tver. Probably, the Tatars went by the Volga. The frozen river formed a smooth road, wide enough for such a large number of soldiers… The way along the Volga allowed Ivan Kalita and the Suzdal princes to protect their possessions from the devastation that the Horde cavalry carried with them. Undoubtedly, the princes called their squads to help the Tatars. Evasion from participation in the military campaign aganist Tver would be regarded as treason by Tatars.

    • Replies: @AP
    Gorsky:

    "Ivan Kalita, having learned about the incident (in Tver), went to the Horde. The Uzbek sent a large army to Tver in the winter of 1327-1328; the Prince of Moscow accompanied this army. The Tver Principality was severely devastated. Alexander Mikhailovich fled …. On the issue of the Grand Principality, the Uzbek made an extraordinary decision: it was divided between two princes. Ivan Kalita got Novgorod and Kostroma, and Suzdal Prince Alexander Vasilyevich-Vladimir and the Volga region”

    So Ivan came to the Tatars, and with them destroyed his rival Tver. No contradiction to the fact that Moscow rose by collaborating with Tatars to destroy Russians.

    Borisov:

    In addition to Ivan Kalita, in the autumn of 1327, Prince Alexander Vasilievich of Suzdal and his uncle Prince Vasily Alexandrovich came to the Horde with a Declaration of submission. There were probably other Russian rulers. All of them joined the Tatar army, hoping to save their possessions from Tatar.
     
    Bolded - a Svidomist interpretation, not a proven fact.

    Eliminating a rival would be a stronger motivator rather than mere self-preservation, given his extensive history of dealing with the Tatars and the nature of his relations over many years.
  206. @AP

    You don’t count well....Yuri Danilovich was hostile to the Horde until 1316, then he became friends with the Khan, after which he again began to pursue an anti-Horde policy in 1320. In 1327, the Horde transfers the title of “Grand Prince” to the Moscow princes and confirms this decision until 1360 (when the Horde took the title of “Grand Prince” from the Moscow Prince). As far as I know 23+4=27
     
    LOL. It would be 33+4 = 37 by your numbers. In Russian svidomist math 1327 to 1360 is 23 rather than 33 years.

    But you are more wrong than that.

    Yuri came to the Golden Horde in 1315 where by 1317 he married the khan's sister and with Mongols was trying to defeat Tver. In 1320 he did not "pursue an anti-Horde policy" - he diverted tribute from the khan in order to make interest off it, but got caught. He was not fighting the khan or organizing any resistance against him. Indeed, when Yuri was murdered by the Tver prince in 1325 the khan punished the murderer by having him killed. So he was not an enemy of the khan and this was not a period of anti-Mongol resistance.

    After Yuri was Ivan Kalita, who was loyal to the khan throughout his reign and who alongside the Mongols massacred many Russians of Tver, crushing resistance to the Mongols.

    Importantly, Ivan's rule - that is, the rule of the ultimate collaborator - is considered to be the beginning of Russia's unification. Ivan's last act as ruler was to raid and plunder the Russian people of Smolensk, alongside his close Tatar allies, in 1340. His son and successor Simeon continued to be an ally of the Mongols, as did Simeon's successor who died in 1359.

    Conflict between Dmitry Donskoy and the Mongols did not being until 1370. So 1315 to 1370 - 55 years of peace and collaboration with Mongols. War with Mongols ended in 1382,and Moscow once again served the Tatars and even paid back tribute to them. In 1388 according to a Persian historian Muscovites were even fighting against Tamerlane together with their Mongol masters. Donskoy died in 1389, his successor worked with the Horde until 1395.

    Yuri came to the Golden Horde in 1315 where by 1317 he married the khan’s sister and with Mongols was trying to defeat Tver. In 1320 he did not “pursue an anti-Horde policy” – he diverted tribute from the khan in order to make interest off it, but got caught. He was not fighting the khan or organizing any resistance against him.

    Already in 1321, Prince Yuri of Moscow ceased to obey the Horde and did not pay tribute to the Khan’s Ambassador. As a result, in 1322, the Khan transferred the title of Grand Prince to Prince Dmitry of Tver and sent Tatar detachments to help Tver (against Moscow). Yuri (who was at this time in Novgorod) continued to call himself the great Prince (contrary to the Khan’s order). That is, from 1321 until his death in 1326, Yuri led an anti-Horde policy.

    It would be 33+4 = 37 by your numbers. In Russian svidomist math 1327 to 1360 is 23 rather than 33 years.

    Let’s count. Moscow pursued a policy hostile to the Horde from at least 1385 (when a coalition of princes with the participation of Danil of Moscow expelled Tatars from the Vladimir Principality) until 1315 (in 1315 or early 1316, Afanasy Danilovich led the Novgorodians in the battle against the Tatars and Tver)

    In 1316-1320 there was a short period of “friendship” between Yuri of Moscow and the Khan. In 1321-1326 Yuri of Moscow again leads a policy hostile to the Horde.
    In 1321-1326, Yuri of Moscow again pursued a policy hostile to the Horde. From 1327 to 1358 Moscow should be in line with the policy of the Horde. In 1358, Prince Ivan the Handsome of Moscow (the father of Dmitry Donskoy) drove out Tatar detachments from his lands (according to the chronicle, these detachments were sent by the Khan, although historians argue on this topic). In any case, from about 1358 Moscow became hostile to the Horde, and from 1374 to 1383 there was an open war with the Horde, which ended with the de facto independence of Moscow (and other Russian principalities) on condition of paying tribute to the Tatars.

    That is, the maximum estimate of the duration of Moscow’s “friendship” with the Horde is 35-37 years (this is taking into account Yuri’s brief flirtation with the Uzbek Khan). At the same time, Moscow was an Enemy of the Horde (in the 13-14 centuries) for a much longer period

    • Replies: @AP

    Already in 1321, Prince Yuri of Moscow ceased to obey the Horde and did not pay tribute to the Khan’s Ambassador. As a result, in 1322, the Khan transferred the title of Grand Prince to Prince Dmitry of Tver and sent Tatar detachments to help Tver (against Moscow). Yuri (who was at this time in Novgorod) continued to call himself the great Prince (contrary to the Khan’s order). That is, from 1321 until his death in 1326, Yuri led an anti-Horde policy.
     
    Yuri was embezzling from his boss, was discovered (ratted out by the Tver prince) and nonviolently punished, but did not openly defy the Tatars or fight them and indeed went to the Tatar capital. Moscow did not revolt but stayed loyal. Along the way to the Tatar masters, Yuri he was murdered by the Tver prince. The Tatars punished this act of murder of Yuri by executing the Tver priunce whop murdered Yuri.

    That is not how an enemy is treated. If Yuri were an enemy of the Tatar khan the khan would not have killed the man who killed him.

    So contrary to Russian Svidomist wishful thinking, the collaboration continued through th end of Ivan's reign, and through that of his successors.

    In 1358, Prince Ivan the Handsome of Moscow (the father of Dmitry Donskoy) drove out Tatar detachments from his lands (according to the chronicle, these detachments were sent by the Khan, although historians argue on this topic)... In any case, from about 1358 Moscow became hostile to the Horde,
     
    Svidomist claims. Objective historian:

    Janet Martin (1995). Medieval Russia, 980–1584. Cambridge University Press.

    Ivan briefly toyed with the idea of abandoning traditional Moscow allegiance to the Mongols and allying himself with Lithuania, a growing power in the west. This policy was quickly abandoned and Ivan asserted his allegiance to the Golden Horde.

    Dmitry Donskoy got the throne in 1359 when he was nine year old. He did not defy the Tatars until 1370, with open war in 1374.

    So Svidomist math = 27 years of collaboration, revised to 33 or 37 years collaboration.

    Reality: Collaboration from 1315 until 1370. 55 years of collaboration. Longer than the existence of the Warsaw Pact.

    And it was precisely during those years of collaboration and because of the collaboration, that Moscow eclipsed the other Rus principalities, consolidating its power, and becoming strong enough to successfully challenge the Tatars later. It was a critical period of European history.

    Somehow Russian Svidomists (or the Soviet "historical" tradition) don't like reality of how the Muscovite state started its road to success :-)
  207. AP says:
    @melanf

    So the Moscow prince Ivan goes to the Tatars, summons them, gets them to attack Tver and guides them to Tver. With his own forces.
     
    This late Tver legend is obviously absurd - the Tatars went to Tver in the winter, along the frozen riverbed of the Volga. Of course, the Tatars knew this road perfectly well, they did not need a guide.

    I have already quoted the early Tver chronicle (this is the most reliable account of events 1327-1328) in this thread:
    "after Learning about this (the murders of the Tatar Ambassador Cholkhan and all the Tatars in the Tver Principality), the lawless Khan sent an army to the Russian land in the winter, the commander Fedorchuk and five generals. And many people were killed, others were taken captive, and Tver and all the cities were burned with fire."
    http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus16/Tversk_let/frametext1.htm

    That is, the role of Ivan was so insignificant that he is not mentioned at all (just as Ivan is not mentioned in connection with these events in the Novgorod chronicle). The Tver chronicle is known from the Tver manuscript of the mid-15th century, and from three manuscripts of the 17th century created in the Western Russian lands. That is, the possibility of any "censorship" in the interests of Moscow is completely excluded


    So the Moscow prince Ivan goes to the Tatars, summons them
     
    The accusations that Ivan "summons" Tatars are completely absurd. There are no such accusations in any primary source, and of course after the inhabitants of Tver burned the Tatar Ambassador Cholkhan and his retinue, and killed all the Tatars in Tver, the destruction of Tver by the Tatars was absolutely inevitable and any actions of the Moscow Prince were in this case irrelevant.

    This late Tver legend is obviously absurd – the Tatars went to Tver in the winter

    Ah, so when Chronicles write something Russian Svidomists don’t like, it becomes absurd and primary sources no longer count for much.

    That is, the role of Ivan was so insignificant that he is not mentioned at all

    The entire description of this event (destruction of Tver) consisted of one sentence in the Chronicles you like. Leaving out information from such a brief description does not make it insignificant. It is more detailed in the ones you don’t like. So you acknowledge that strictly following the primary sources is not the way to go – you interpret and judge, pick which ones you feel are more accurate, etc.

    The problem is whom to trust in their judgment and interpretations – Russian Svidomists from Russia, or objective neutral historians from Harvard or Cambridge or Yale such as Ostrowsky, Halperin, Vernadsky.

    BTW you forgot to add this part: “В тот же год сел Иван Данилович на великом княжении всей Руси, и была тишина великая на 40 лет, и перестали поганые разорять Русскую землю и убивать христиан; и отдохнули и успокоились христиане от великого томления, и от многих опасностей, и от насилия татарского, и была с того времени тишина великая на всей земле.”

    This suggests longstanding collaboration.

    The Tver chronicle is known from the Tver manuscript of the mid-15th century

    100 years later.

    and from three manuscripts of the 17th century created in the Western Russian lands… That is, the possibility of any “censorship” in the interests of Moscow is completely excluded

    Minimizing Rus collaboration with Tatars would not necessarily be excluded. A scholar has already noted the whitewashing of Rus speaking Tatar in the Chronicles.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Ah, so when Chronicles write something Russian Svidomists
     
    Geographical maps (as well as logic) were probably also invented by Russian svidomists. Why did the Tatars need Ivan Kalita as a guide to reach the city of Tver, which stood on the Volga? If you explain this to me, I am ready to discuss the reliability of this late Tver version. If you can't explain this phenomenon, I'm sorry it's just a legend.
    In the same legend, by the way, the Tver Bishop Andrew acts (despite the fact that this Andrew died a few years before the destruction of Tver)

    The entire description of this event (destruction of Tver) consisted of one sentence in the Chronicles you like. Leaving out information from such a brief description does not make it insignificant. It is more detailed in the ones you don’t like
     
    Do you want a more detailed description? No problem

    "In the autumn (1327), Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow went to the Horde.... Then (came to Russia) the great Tatar army, Fedorchuk, Turalyk, Syuga, 5 Temnik, and with them went, by order of the Khan, Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow . And the army captured Tver and Kashin and other cities and volosts, and villages, and all the Principality of Tver ruined..., and Prince Alexander fled from Tver to Pskov... The same summer (Tatars) killed Prince Ivan Yaroslavich of Ryazan. But the great Lord, by his mercy, has protected our blessed Prince Ivan Danilovich and for his sake Moscow and all Moscow Principality from foreigners, from filthy Tatars"

    I'm willing to bet that this is ones you don’t like


    The problem is whom to trust in their judgment and interpretations
     
    There is no problem here-it is necessary to trust those historians who analyze primary sources, and do not write fairy tales about how Ivan Kalita was the commander-in-chief of the Tatar army


    The Tver chronicle is known from the Tver manuscript of the mid-15th century
     
    100 years later.
     
    Oh, what a pity that there is no German Reader, he would explain you that the time of creating a manuscript and the time of creating a text are different things. So we know ancient authors (Tacitus, Herodotus, etc.) from medieval manuscripts


    from three manuscripts of the 17th century created in the Western Russian lands… That is, the possibility of any “censorship” in the interests of Moscow is completely excluded
     
    Minimizing Rus collaboration with Tatars would not necessarily be excluded...
     
    That is, in your opinion, Lithuania and Tver censored the Chronicles in order to hide Moscow's ties with the Tatars? Hmmm a very non trivial point of view
  208. AP says:
    @melanf
    Anton Gorsky “Moscow and the Horde”
    https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Istorija_Tserkvi/moskva-i-orda/3
    "The Novgorod first chronicle and the second part of the "Tver" chronicle, which came down as part of the Rogozhsky chronicler and the Tver collection, contain early reliable evidence of the events of uprising....
    Ivan Kalita, having learned about the incident (in Tver), went to the Horde. The Uzbek sent a large army to Tver in the winter of 1327-1328; the Prince of Moscow accompanied this army. The Tver Principality was severely devastated. Alexander Mikhailovich fled .... On the issue of the Grand Principality, the Uzbek made an extraordinary decision: it was divided between two princes. Ivan Kalita got Novgorod and Kostroma, and Suzdal Prince Alexander Vasilyevich-Vladimir and the Volga region
    "

    Nikolai Borisov “Ivan Kalita”
    https://www.rulit.me/books/ivan-kalita-read-57076-44.html
    "The Prince of Moscow was right in his predictions. Already in the autumn of 1327, a messenger (from the Khan) brought a Khan's letter to Moscow with an order to immediately come to the Horde ... In the Horde, Ivan found vigorous military preparations. For a military campaign to Tver (or perhaps to the whole of North-Eastern Russia?) the Khan ordered to collect about 50 thousand horsemen. At the head of the army were five "great Temniks". (The word "Temnik" came from the word "tumen", which meant a detachment of 10 thousand warior) The chronocles the names of some of them – "Fedorchuk, Turlik, the Cjh" . This campaign was named after the first of them and remained in the memory of Russian people under the name of Fedorchk's invasion.
    In addition to Ivan Kalita, in the autumn of 1327, Prince Alexander Vasilievich of Suzdal and his uncle Prince Vasily Alexandrovich came to the Horde with a Declaration of submission. There were probably other Russian rulers. All of them joined the Tatar army, hoping to save their possessions from Tatar. In winter, the army from the Horde moved to Tver. Probably, the Tatars went by the Volga. The frozen river formed a smooth road, wide enough for such a large number of soldiers... The way along the Volga allowed Ivan Kalita and the Suzdal princes to protect their possessions from the devastation that the Horde cavalry carried with them. Undoubtedly, the princes called their squads to help the Tatars. Evasion from participation in the military campaign aganist Tver would be regarded as treason by Tatars.
    "

    Gorsky:

    “Ivan Kalita, having learned about the incident (in Tver), went to the Horde. The Uzbek sent a large army to Tver in the winter of 1327-1328; the Prince of Moscow accompanied this army. The Tver Principality was severely devastated. Alexander Mikhailovich fled …. On the issue of the Grand Principality, the Uzbek made an extraordinary decision: it was divided between two princes. Ivan Kalita got Novgorod and Kostroma, and Suzdal Prince Alexander Vasilyevich-Vladimir and the Volga region”

    So Ivan came to the Tatars, and with them destroyed his rival Tver. No contradiction to the fact that Moscow rose by collaborating with Tatars to destroy Russians.

    Borisov:

    In addition to Ivan Kalita, in the autumn of 1327, Prince Alexander Vasilievich of Suzdal and his uncle Prince Vasily Alexandrovich came to the Horde with a Declaration of submission. There were probably other Russian rulers. All of them joined the Tatar army, hoping to save their possessions from Tatar.

    Bolded – a Svidomist interpretation, not a proven fact.

    Eliminating a rival would be a stronger motivator rather than mere self-preservation, given his extensive history of dealing with the Tatars and the nature of his relations over many years.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Gorsky:.....
    So Ivan came to the Tatars, and with them destroyed his rival Tver. No contradiction to the fact that Moscow rose by collaborating with Tatars to destroy Russians.
     
    Of course when it was required by the circumstances of the princes of Moscow worked together with the Horde (just like Lithuania, Tver, and Novgorod..). But I have already given you a list: in 7 field battles from 1300 to 1382, Moscow troops fought against the Tatars, and in one field battle (the battle of Bortnev in 1317), a detachment of Tatars acted on the side of Moscow. You can make a list in a different way, include in it for example sieges of cities - this will not change anything. Moscow (as a whole) was the main center of resistance to the Tatars-in contrast to Tver or Lithuania


    All of them joined the Tatar army, hoping to save their possessions from Tatar.
     
    Bolded – a Svidomist interpretation, not a proven fact.
     
    This is the interpretation - true. What the princes thought in the 14th century is unknown to us, so "Ivan wanted to capture the title of Grand Prince" or any other assumption about the motives of actions is also an interpretation
  209. @AP

    This late Tver legend is obviously absurd – the Tatars went to Tver in the winter
     
    Ah, so when Chronicles write something Russian Svidomists don't like, it becomes absurd and primary sources no longer count for much.

    That is, the role of Ivan was so insignificant that he is not mentioned at all
     
    The entire description of this event (destruction of Tver) consisted of one sentence in the Chronicles you like. Leaving out information from such a brief description does not make it insignificant. It is more detailed in the ones you don't like. So you acknowledge that strictly following the primary sources is not the way to go - you interpret and judge, pick which ones you feel are more accurate, etc.

    The problem is whom to trust in their judgment and interpretations - Russian Svidomists from Russia, or objective neutral historians from Harvard or Cambridge or Yale such as Ostrowsky, Halperin, Vernadsky.

    BTW you forgot to add this part: "В тот же год сел Иван Данилович на великом княжении всей Руси, и была тишина великая на 40 лет, и перестали поганые разорять Русскую землю и убивать христиан; и отдохнули и успокоились христиане от великого томления, и от многих опасностей, и от насилия татарского, и была с того времени тишина великая на всей земле."

    This suggests longstanding collaboration.


    The Tver chronicle is known from the Tver manuscript of the mid-15th century
     
    100 years later.

    and from three manuscripts of the 17th century created in the Western Russian lands... That is, the possibility of any “censorship” in the interests of Moscow is completely excluded
     
    Minimizing Rus collaboration with Tatars would not necessarily be excluded. A scholar has already noted the whitewashing of Rus speaking Tatar in the Chronicles.

    Ah, so when Chronicles write something Russian Svidomists

    Geographical maps (as well as logic) were probably also invented by Russian svidomists. Why did the Tatars need Ivan Kalita as a guide to reach the city of Tver, which stood on the Volga? If you explain this to me, I am ready to discuss the reliability of this late Tver version. If you can’t explain this phenomenon, I’m sorry it’s just a legend.
    In the same legend, by the way, the Tver Bishop Andrew acts (despite the fact that this Andrew died a few years before the destruction of Tver)

    The entire description of this event (destruction of Tver) consisted of one sentence in the Chronicles you like. Leaving out information from such a brief description does not make it insignificant. It is more detailed in the ones you don’t like

    Do you want a more detailed description? No problem

    In the autumn (1327), Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow went to the Horde…. Then (came to Russia) the great Tatar army, Fedorchuk, Turalyk, Syuga, 5 Temnik, and with them went, by order of the Khan, Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow . And the army captured Tver and Kashin and other cities and volosts, and villages, and all the Principality of Tver ruined…, and Prince Alexander fled from Tver to Pskov… The same summer (Tatars) killed Prince Ivan Yaroslavich of Ryazan. But the great Lord, by his mercy, has protected our blessed Prince Ivan Danilovich and for his sake Moscow and all Moscow Principality from foreigners, from filthy Tatars

    I’m willing to bet that this is ones you don’t like

    The problem is whom to trust in their judgment and interpretations

    There is no problem here-it is necessary to trust those historians who analyze primary sources, and do not write fairy tales about how Ivan Kalita was the commander-in-chief of the Tatar army

    The Tver chronicle is known from the Tver manuscript of the mid-15th century

    100 years later.

    Oh, what a pity that there is no German Reader, he would explain you that the time of creating a manuscript and the time of creating a text are different things. So we know ancient authors (Tacitus, Herodotus, etc.) from medieval manuscripts

    from three manuscripts of the 17th century created in the Western Russian lands… That is, the possibility of any “censorship” in the interests of Moscow is completely excluded

    Minimizing Rus collaboration with Tatars would not necessarily be excluded…

    That is, in your opinion, Lithuania and Tver censored the Chronicles in order to hide Moscow’s ties with the Tatars? Hmmm a very non trivial point of view

    • Replies: @AP

    Geographical maps (as well as logic) were probably also invented by Russian svidomists. Why did the Tatars need Ivan Kalita as a guide to reach the city of Tver, which stood on the Volga? If you explain this to me, I am ready to discuss the reliability of this late Tver version.
     
    1. Tver choniclers were unaware that Tver stood on the Volga and wrote nonsense that they knew was nonsense. This is the Russian Svidomist assessment.

    2. Tatars didn't have GPS, weren't familiar with local conditions, ice, tributaries, etc. and benefited from loyal native guides.

    In the same legend, by the way, the Tver Bishop Andrew acts (despite the fact that this Andrew died a few years before the destruction of Tver)
     
    Good that you concede that Chronicles are by themselves not reliable.

    It's why historian conclusions are the best. Preferably from neutral sources such as the best universities in the world, not Russian Svidomists.

    “In the autumn (1327), Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow went to the Horde…. Then (came to Russia) the great Tatar army, Fedorchuk, Turalyk, Syuga, 5 Temnik, and with them went, by order of the Khan, Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow . And the army captured Tver and Kashin and other cities and volosts, and villages, and all the Principality of Tver ruined…, and Prince Alexander fled from Tver to Pskov… The same summer (Tatars) killed Prince Ivan Yaroslavich of Ryazan. But the great Lord, by his mercy, has protected our blessed Prince Ivan Danilovich and for his sake Moscow and all Moscow Principality from foreigners, from filthy Tatars”

    I’m willing to bet that this is ones you don’t like
     
    You refused to name this chronicle. Why?

    I already explained, I neither like nor dislike Chronicles, I just rely on objective historians to draw conclusions from them. Tendentious interpretations or emphasizing certain aspects of Chronicles is for Svidomists writing fairytales, like the idea that Moscow didn't rise to power in the 14th century by being the Tatars' most loyal servants (in comparison to local rivals).
  210. @AP
    Gorsky:

    "Ivan Kalita, having learned about the incident (in Tver), went to the Horde. The Uzbek sent a large army to Tver in the winter of 1327-1328; the Prince of Moscow accompanied this army. The Tver Principality was severely devastated. Alexander Mikhailovich fled …. On the issue of the Grand Principality, the Uzbek made an extraordinary decision: it was divided between two princes. Ivan Kalita got Novgorod and Kostroma, and Suzdal Prince Alexander Vasilyevich-Vladimir and the Volga region”

    So Ivan came to the Tatars, and with them destroyed his rival Tver. No contradiction to the fact that Moscow rose by collaborating with Tatars to destroy Russians.

    Borisov:

    In addition to Ivan Kalita, in the autumn of 1327, Prince Alexander Vasilievich of Suzdal and his uncle Prince Vasily Alexandrovich came to the Horde with a Declaration of submission. There were probably other Russian rulers. All of them joined the Tatar army, hoping to save their possessions from Tatar.
     
    Bolded - a Svidomist interpretation, not a proven fact.

    Eliminating a rival would be a stronger motivator rather than mere self-preservation, given his extensive history of dealing with the Tatars and the nature of his relations over many years.

    Gorsky:…..
    So Ivan came to the Tatars, and with them destroyed his rival Tver. No contradiction to the fact that Moscow rose by collaborating with Tatars to destroy Russians.

    Of course when it was required by the circumstances of the princes of Moscow worked together with the Horde (just like Lithuania, Tver, and Novgorod..). But I have already given you a list: in 7 field battles from 1300 to 1382, Moscow troops fought against the Tatars, and in one field battle (the battle of Bortnev in 1317), a detachment of Tatars acted on the side of Moscow. You can make a list in a different way, include in it for example sieges of cities – this will not change anything. Moscow (as a whole) was the main center of resistance to the Tatars-in contrast to Tver or Lithuania

    All of them joined the Tatar army, hoping to save their possessions from Tatar.

    Bolded – a Svidomist interpretation, not a proven fact.

    This is the interpretation – true. What the princes thought in the 14th century is unknown to us, so “Ivan wanted to capture the title of Grand Prince” or any other assumption about the motives of actions is also an interpretation

    • Replies: @AP

    Of course when it was required by the circumstances of the princes of Moscow worked together with the Horde (just like Lithuania, Tver, and Novgorod..). But I have already given you a list: in 7 field battles from 1300 to 1382, Moscow troops fought against the Tatars
     
    5 of the 7 were in one war over a 6 year period at the end of the century.

    Moscow (as a whole) was the main center of resistance to the Tatars-in contrast to Tver or Lithuania
     
    Moscow was the main collaborator until the end of the century, when it was strong enough to challenge the Tatars.
  211. AP says:
    @melanf

    Yuri came to the Golden Horde in 1315 where by 1317 he married the khan’s sister and with Mongols was trying to defeat Tver. In 1320 he did not “pursue an anti-Horde policy” – he diverted tribute from the khan in order to make interest off it, but got caught. He was not fighting the khan or organizing any resistance against him.
     
    Already in 1321, Prince Yuri of Moscow ceased to obey the Horde and did not pay tribute to the Khan's Ambassador. As a result, in 1322, the Khan transferred the title of Grand Prince to Prince Dmitry of Tver and sent Tatar detachments to help Tver (against Moscow). Yuri (who was at this time in Novgorod) continued to call himself the great Prince (contrary to the Khan's order). That is, from 1321 until his death in 1326, Yuri led an anti-Horde policy.

    It would be 33+4 = 37 by your numbers. In Russian svidomist math 1327 to 1360 is 23 rather than 33 years.
     
    Let's count. Moscow pursued a policy hostile to the Horde from at least 1385 (when a coalition of princes with the participation of Danil of Moscow expelled Tatars from the Vladimir Principality) until 1315 (in 1315 or early 1316, Afanasy Danilovich led the Novgorodians in the battle against the Tatars and Tver)

    In 1316-1320 there was a short period of "friendship" between Yuri of Moscow and the Khan. In 1321-1326 Yuri of Moscow again leads a policy hostile to the Horde.
    In 1321-1326, Yuri of Moscow again pursued a policy hostile to the Horde. From 1327 to 1358 Moscow should be in line with the policy of the Horde. In 1358, Prince Ivan the Handsome of Moscow (the father of Dmitry Donskoy) drove out Tatar detachments from his lands (according to the chronicle, these detachments were sent by the Khan, although historians argue on this topic). In any case, from about 1358 Moscow became hostile to the Horde, and from 1374 to 1383 there was an open war with the Horde, which ended with the de facto independence of Moscow (and other Russian principalities) on condition of paying tribute to the Tatars.

    That is, the maximum estimate of the duration of Moscow's "friendship" with the Horde is 35-37 years (this is taking into account Yuri's brief flirtation with the Uzbek Khan). At the same time, Moscow was an Enemy of the Horde (in the 13-14 centuries) for a much longer period

    Already in 1321, Prince Yuri of Moscow ceased to obey the Horde and did not pay tribute to the Khan’s Ambassador. As a result, in 1322, the Khan transferred the title of Grand Prince to Prince Dmitry of Tver and sent Tatar detachments to help Tver (against Moscow). Yuri (who was at this time in Novgorod) continued to call himself the great Prince (contrary to the Khan’s order). That is, from 1321 until his death in 1326, Yuri led an anti-Horde policy.

    Yuri was embezzling from his boss, was discovered (ratted out by the Tver prince) and nonviolently punished, but did not openly defy the Tatars or fight them and indeed went to the Tatar capital. Moscow did not revolt but stayed loyal. Along the way to the Tatar masters, Yuri he was murdered by the Tver prince. The Tatars punished this act of murder of Yuri by executing the Tver priunce whop murdered Yuri.

    That is not how an enemy is treated. If Yuri were an enemy of the Tatar khan the khan would not have killed the man who killed him.

    So contrary to Russian Svidomist wishful thinking, the collaboration continued through th end of Ivan’s reign, and through that of his successors.

    In 1358, Prince Ivan the Handsome of Moscow (the father of Dmitry Donskoy) drove out Tatar detachments from his lands (according to the chronicle, these detachments were sent by the Khan, although historians argue on this topic)… In any case, from about 1358 Moscow became hostile to the Horde,

    Svidomist claims. Objective historian:

    Janet Martin (1995). Medieval Russia, 980–1584. Cambridge University Press.

    Ivan briefly toyed with the idea of abandoning traditional Moscow allegiance to the Mongols and allying himself with Lithuania, a growing power in the west. This policy was quickly abandoned and Ivan asserted his allegiance to the Golden Horde.

    Dmitry Donskoy got the throne in 1359 when he was nine year old. He did not defy the Tatars until 1370, with open war in 1374.

    So Svidomist math = 27 years of collaboration, revised to 33 or 37 years collaboration.

    Reality: Collaboration from 1315 until 1370. 55 years of collaboration. Longer than the existence of the Warsaw Pact.

    And it was precisely during those years of collaboration and because of the collaboration, that Moscow eclipsed the other Rus principalities, consolidating its power, and becoming strong enough to successfully challenge the Tatars later. It was a critical period of European history.

    Somehow Russian Svidomists (or the Soviet “historical” tradition) don’t like reality of how the Muscovite state started its road to success 🙂

    • Replies: @melanf

    Yuri was embezzling from....
     
    Yuri went against the will of the Horde, what his motives were - we will never know. Detachments of Tatars were sent against Yuri (and in support of Tver), so that on 21-26 Yuri was the undisputed enemy of the Horde.. This time there were no battles against the Tatars (in contrast to 1315), but with the Horde supported, Tver Yuri had to fight.

    Svidomist claims. Objective historian blah blah blah
     
    "In the summer of 6866 (1358), a great Ambassador from the Horde, the son of the Khan, named Mamatkhozha, came to the Ryazan land and many evil things were done to him, and from the great Prince Ivan Ivanovich demanding to pass, but the great Prince did not let him into his Fatherland into the Russian land"

    «Въ лето 6866 (1358) выиде посолъ великъ из орды, царевъ сынъ, именемъ Маматхожа, на Рязанскую землю и много въ нихъ зла сътвори, и къ великому князю Ивану Ивановичю присылалъ о разъезде земля Рязаньскиа, князь же великии не впусти его въ свою отчину въ Русскую землю».
    Симеоновская летопись

    Dmitry Donskoy got the throne in 1359 when he was nine year old
     
    So what? In 1360, the Horde deprives Moscow of the title of Grand Prince, but Moscow regains this title using force (as well as the split in the Horde) 3 years later

    "The same year (1363) of Suzdal, Prince Dmitri Kostyantinovich arriv in the city in Volodimer ... and here came Prince Ivan Belozerets, who came from the Murat Horde with thirty Tartars, and so stay in the city of Volodimiri for a week only. When the great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich heard this, he drove Dmitri Kostyantinovich out of Vlodimir,and went to Suzdal, and the army stood for several days near Suzdal, and made peace (on the terms of Moscow)"

    «В лето 6875 (1367)… Того же лета князь ординскыи, именемъ Булатъ Темирь, прииде ратью Татарскою и пограби уездъ даже и до Волги и до Сундовити и села княжи Борисовы. Князь же Дмитреи Костянтиновичь съ Борисомъ и съ Дмитриемъ и съ своими детми, събравъ воя многи, и поидоша противу его на брань. Онъ же окаанныи не ста на брань, но бежа за реку за Пьяну, и тамо множьство Татаръ останочныхъ избиша, а другии въ реце во Пьяне истопоша, и по зажитиемъ множество ихъ побьени быша, имъже несть числа. А Болактемирь оттуду бежа въ орду, гонимъ гневомъ Божиимъ и тамо убьенъ бысть отъ Азиза царя».
    Симеоновская летопись
  212. AP says:
    @melanf

    Gorsky:.....
    So Ivan came to the Tatars, and with them destroyed his rival Tver. No contradiction to the fact that Moscow rose by collaborating with Tatars to destroy Russians.
     
    Of course when it was required by the circumstances of the princes of Moscow worked together with the Horde (just like Lithuania, Tver, and Novgorod..). But I have already given you a list: in 7 field battles from 1300 to 1382, Moscow troops fought against the Tatars, and in one field battle (the battle of Bortnev in 1317), a detachment of Tatars acted on the side of Moscow. You can make a list in a different way, include in it for example sieges of cities - this will not change anything. Moscow (as a whole) was the main center of resistance to the Tatars-in contrast to Tver or Lithuania


    All of them joined the Tatar army, hoping to save their possessions from Tatar.
     
    Bolded – a Svidomist interpretation, not a proven fact.
     
    This is the interpretation - true. What the princes thought in the 14th century is unknown to us, so "Ivan wanted to capture the title of Grand Prince" or any other assumption about the motives of actions is also an interpretation

    Of course when it was required by the circumstances of the princes of Moscow worked together with the Horde (just like Lithuania, Tver, and Novgorod..). But I have already given you a list: in 7 field battles from 1300 to 1382, Moscow troops fought against the Tatars

    5 of the 7 were in one war over a 6 year period at the end of the century.

    Moscow (as a whole) was the main center of resistance to the Tatars-in contrast to Tver or Lithuania

    Moscow was the main collaborator until the end of the century, when it was strong enough to challenge the Tatars.

    • Replies: @melanf


    I have already given you a list: in 7 field battles from 1300 to 1382, Moscow troops fought against the Tatars. Moscow (as a whole) was the main center of resistance to the Tatars-in contrast to Tver or Lithuania

     

    Moscow was the main collaborator until the end of the century, when it was strong enough to challenge the Tatars...
    Moscow ... being the Tatars’ most loyal servants (in comparison to local rivals)


     

    I gave statistics - 7 battles against the Tatars, and one where the Tatars were on the side of Moscow. In this respect, Moscow is many times superior to any other Russian Principality, but also, Moscow is completely superior to Lithuania. That is, as you can see from the statistics, Moscow was the main center of resistance to the Tatars (in comparison to local rivals).
    And this is despite the fact that Lithuania's resources were many times greater than Moscow's, and Lithuania itself is much less vulnerable to Tatars due to its geographical location
  213. AP says:
    @melanf

    Ah, so when Chronicles write something Russian Svidomists
     
    Geographical maps (as well as logic) were probably also invented by Russian svidomists. Why did the Tatars need Ivan Kalita as a guide to reach the city of Tver, which stood on the Volga? If you explain this to me, I am ready to discuss the reliability of this late Tver version. If you can't explain this phenomenon, I'm sorry it's just a legend.
    In the same legend, by the way, the Tver Bishop Andrew acts (despite the fact that this Andrew died a few years before the destruction of Tver)

    The entire description of this event (destruction of Tver) consisted of one sentence in the Chronicles you like. Leaving out information from such a brief description does not make it insignificant. It is more detailed in the ones you don’t like
     
    Do you want a more detailed description? No problem

    "In the autumn (1327), Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow went to the Horde.... Then (came to Russia) the great Tatar army, Fedorchuk, Turalyk, Syuga, 5 Temnik, and with them went, by order of the Khan, Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow . And the army captured Tver and Kashin and other cities and volosts, and villages, and all the Principality of Tver ruined..., and Prince Alexander fled from Tver to Pskov... The same summer (Tatars) killed Prince Ivan Yaroslavich of Ryazan. But the great Lord, by his mercy, has protected our blessed Prince Ivan Danilovich and for his sake Moscow and all Moscow Principality from foreigners, from filthy Tatars"

    I'm willing to bet that this is ones you don’t like


    The problem is whom to trust in their judgment and interpretations
     
    There is no problem here-it is necessary to trust those historians who analyze primary sources, and do not write fairy tales about how Ivan Kalita was the commander-in-chief of the Tatar army


    The Tver chronicle is known from the Tver manuscript of the mid-15th century
     
    100 years later.
     
    Oh, what a pity that there is no German Reader, he would explain you that the time of creating a manuscript and the time of creating a text are different things. So we know ancient authors (Tacitus, Herodotus, etc.) from medieval manuscripts


    from three manuscripts of the 17th century created in the Western Russian lands… That is, the possibility of any “censorship” in the interests of Moscow is completely excluded
     
    Minimizing Rus collaboration with Tatars would not necessarily be excluded...
     
    That is, in your opinion, Lithuania and Tver censored the Chronicles in order to hide Moscow's ties with the Tatars? Hmmm a very non trivial point of view

    Geographical maps (as well as logic) were probably also invented by Russian svidomists. Why did the Tatars need Ivan Kalita as a guide to reach the city of Tver, which stood on the Volga? If you explain this to me, I am ready to discuss the reliability of this late Tver version.

    1. Tver choniclers were unaware that Tver stood on the Volga and wrote nonsense that they knew was nonsense. This is the Russian Svidomist assessment.

    2. Tatars didn’t have GPS, weren’t familiar with local conditions, ice, tributaries, etc. and benefited from loyal native guides.

    In the same legend, by the way, the Tver Bishop Andrew acts (despite the fact that this Andrew died a few years before the destruction of Tver)

    Good that you concede that Chronicles are by themselves not reliable.

    It’s why historian conclusions are the best. Preferably from neutral sources such as the best universities in the world, not Russian Svidomists.

    “In the autumn (1327), Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow went to the Horde…. Then (came to Russia) the great Tatar army, Fedorchuk, Turalyk, Syuga, 5 Temnik, and with them went, by order of the Khan, Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow . And the army captured Tver and Kashin and other cities and volosts, and villages, and all the Principality of Tver ruined…, and Prince Alexander fled from Tver to Pskov… The same summer (Tatars) killed Prince Ivan Yaroslavich of Ryazan. But the great Lord, by his mercy, has protected our blessed Prince Ivan Danilovich and for his sake Moscow and all Moscow Principality from foreigners, from filthy Tatars”

    I’m willing to bet that this is ones you don’t like

    You refused to name this chronicle. Why?

    I already explained, I neither like nor dislike Chronicles, I just rely on objective historians to draw conclusions from them. Tendentious interpretations or emphasizing certain aspects of Chronicles is for Svidomists writing fairytales, like the idea that Moscow didn’t rise to power in the 14th century by being the Tatars’ most loyal servants (in comparison to local rivals).

    • Replies: @melanf

    You refused to name this chronicle. Why?
     
    This Симеоновская летопись (Simeon chronicle)
  214. @AP

    Already in 1321, Prince Yuri of Moscow ceased to obey the Horde and did not pay tribute to the Khan’s Ambassador. As a result, in 1322, the Khan transferred the title of Grand Prince to Prince Dmitry of Tver and sent Tatar detachments to help Tver (against Moscow). Yuri (who was at this time in Novgorod) continued to call himself the great Prince (contrary to the Khan’s order). That is, from 1321 until his death in 1326, Yuri led an anti-Horde policy.
     
    Yuri was embezzling from his boss, was discovered (ratted out by the Tver prince) and nonviolently punished, but did not openly defy the Tatars or fight them and indeed went to the Tatar capital. Moscow did not revolt but stayed loyal. Along the way to the Tatar masters, Yuri he was murdered by the Tver prince. The Tatars punished this act of murder of Yuri by executing the Tver priunce whop murdered Yuri.

    That is not how an enemy is treated. If Yuri were an enemy of the Tatar khan the khan would not have killed the man who killed him.

    So contrary to Russian Svidomist wishful thinking, the collaboration continued through th end of Ivan's reign, and through that of his successors.

    In 1358, Prince Ivan the Handsome of Moscow (the father of Dmitry Donskoy) drove out Tatar detachments from his lands (according to the chronicle, these detachments were sent by the Khan, although historians argue on this topic)... In any case, from about 1358 Moscow became hostile to the Horde,
     
    Svidomist claims. Objective historian:

    Janet Martin (1995). Medieval Russia, 980–1584. Cambridge University Press.

    Ivan briefly toyed with the idea of abandoning traditional Moscow allegiance to the Mongols and allying himself with Lithuania, a growing power in the west. This policy was quickly abandoned and Ivan asserted his allegiance to the Golden Horde.

    Dmitry Donskoy got the throne in 1359 when he was nine year old. He did not defy the Tatars until 1370, with open war in 1374.

    So Svidomist math = 27 years of collaboration, revised to 33 or 37 years collaboration.

    Reality: Collaboration from 1315 until 1370. 55 years of collaboration. Longer than the existence of the Warsaw Pact.

    And it was precisely during those years of collaboration and because of the collaboration, that Moscow eclipsed the other Rus principalities, consolidating its power, and becoming strong enough to successfully challenge the Tatars later. It was a critical period of European history.

    Somehow Russian Svidomists (or the Soviet "historical" tradition) don't like reality of how the Muscovite state started its road to success :-)

    Yuri was embezzling from….

    Yuri went against the will of the Horde, what his motives were – we will never know. Detachments of Tatars were sent against Yuri (and in support of Tver), so that on 21-26 Yuri was the undisputed enemy of the Horde.. This time there were no battles against the Tatars (in contrast to 1315), but with the Horde supported, Tver Yuri had to fight.

    Svidomist claims. Objective historian blah blah blah

    In the summer of 6866 (1358), a great Ambassador from the Horde, the son of the Khan, named Mamatkhozha, came to the Ryazan land and many evil things were done to him, and from the great Prince Ivan Ivanovich demanding to pass, but the great Prince did not let him into his Fatherland into the Russian land

    «Въ лето 6866 (1358) выиде посолъ великъ из орды, царевъ сынъ, именемъ Маматхожа, на Рязанскую землю и много въ нихъ зла сътвори, и къ великому князю Ивану Ивановичю присылалъ о разъезде земля Рязаньскиа, князь же великии не впусти его въ свою отчину въ Русскую землю».
    Симеоновская летопись

    Dmitry Donskoy got the throne in 1359 when he was nine year old

    So what? In 1360, the Horde deprives Moscow of the title of Grand Prince, but Moscow regains this title using force (as well as the split in the Horde) 3 years later

    The same year (1363) of Suzdal, Prince Dmitri Kostyantinovich arriv in the city in Volodimer … and here came Prince Ivan Belozerets, who came from the Murat Horde with thirty Tartars, and so stay in the city of Volodimiri for a week only. When the great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich heard this, he drove Dmitri Kostyantinovich out of Vlodimir,and went to Suzdal, and the army stood for several days near Suzdal, and made peace (on the terms of Moscow)

    «В лето 6875 (1367)… Того же лета князь ординскыи, именемъ Булатъ Темирь, прииде ратью Татарскою и пограби уездъ даже и до Волги и до Сундовити и села княжи Борисовы. Князь же Дмитреи Костянтиновичь съ Борисомъ и съ Дмитриемъ и съ своими детми, събравъ воя многи, и поидоша противу его на брань. Онъ же окаанныи не ста на брань, но бежа за реку за Пьяну, и тамо множьство Татаръ останочныхъ избиша, а другии въ реце во Пьяне истопоша, и по зажитиемъ множество ихъ побьени быша, имъже несть числа. А Болактемирь оттуду бежа въ орду, гонимъ гневомъ Божиимъ и тамо убьенъ бысть отъ Азиза царя».
    Симеоновская летопись

    • Replies: @AP

    Yuri went against the will of the Horde, what his motives were
     
    Embezzling was a fact, not a motive.

    Detachments of Tatars were sent against Yuri (and in support of Tver), so that on 21-26 Yuri was the undisputed enemy of the Horde.
     
    He didn't fight them, and Moscow didn't resist them. Yuri fought the Swedes instead, and then came back to the Horde. After he was killed by the Tver prince, the Tatars executed the Tver prince for the crime of killing Yuri.

    Not an enemy.

    You then quote form the Moscow chronicle, because you are afraid of providing (non-Svidomist) historians' assessments or descriptions.
  215. @AP

    Geographical maps (as well as logic) were probably also invented by Russian svidomists. Why did the Tatars need Ivan Kalita as a guide to reach the city of Tver, which stood on the Volga? If you explain this to me, I am ready to discuss the reliability of this late Tver version.
     
    1. Tver choniclers were unaware that Tver stood on the Volga and wrote nonsense that they knew was nonsense. This is the Russian Svidomist assessment.

    2. Tatars didn't have GPS, weren't familiar with local conditions, ice, tributaries, etc. and benefited from loyal native guides.

    In the same legend, by the way, the Tver Bishop Andrew acts (despite the fact that this Andrew died a few years before the destruction of Tver)
     
    Good that you concede that Chronicles are by themselves not reliable.

    It's why historian conclusions are the best. Preferably from neutral sources such as the best universities in the world, not Russian Svidomists.

    “In the autumn (1327), Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow went to the Horde…. Then (came to Russia) the great Tatar army, Fedorchuk, Turalyk, Syuga, 5 Temnik, and with them went, by order of the Khan, Prince Ivan Danilovich of Moscow . And the army captured Tver and Kashin and other cities and volosts, and villages, and all the Principality of Tver ruined…, and Prince Alexander fled from Tver to Pskov… The same summer (Tatars) killed Prince Ivan Yaroslavich of Ryazan. But the great Lord, by his mercy, has protected our blessed Prince Ivan Danilovich and for his sake Moscow and all Moscow Principality from foreigners, from filthy Tatars”

    I’m willing to bet that this is ones you don’t like
     
    You refused to name this chronicle. Why?

    I already explained, I neither like nor dislike Chronicles, I just rely on objective historians to draw conclusions from them. Tendentious interpretations or emphasizing certain aspects of Chronicles is for Svidomists writing fairytales, like the idea that Moscow didn't rise to power in the 14th century by being the Tatars' most loyal servants (in comparison to local rivals).

    You refused to name this chronicle. Why?

    This Симеоновская летопись (Simeon chronicle)

  216. @AP

    Of course when it was required by the circumstances of the princes of Moscow worked together with the Horde (just like Lithuania, Tver, and Novgorod..). But I have already given you a list: in 7 field battles from 1300 to 1382, Moscow troops fought against the Tatars
     
    5 of the 7 were in one war over a 6 year period at the end of the century.

    Moscow (as a whole) was the main center of resistance to the Tatars-in contrast to Tver or Lithuania
     
    Moscow was the main collaborator until the end of the century, when it was strong enough to challenge the Tatars.

    I have already given you a list: in 7 field battles from 1300 to 1382, Moscow troops fought against the Tatars. Moscow (as a whole) was the main center of resistance to the Tatars-in contrast to Tver or Lithuania

    Moscow was the main collaborator until the end of the century, when it was strong enough to challenge the Tatars…
    Moscow … being the Tatars’ most loyal servants (in comparison to local rivals)

    I gave statistics – 7 battles against the Tatars, and one where the Tatars were on the side of Moscow. In this respect, Moscow is many times superior to any other Russian Principality, but also, Moscow is completely superior to Lithuania. That is, as you can see from the statistics, Moscow was the main center of resistance to the Tatars (in comparison to local rivals).
    And this is despite the fact that Lithuania’s resources were many times greater than Moscow’s, and Lithuania itself is much less vulnerable to Tatars due to its geographical location

    • Replies: @AP

    I gave statistics – 7 battles against the Tatars, and one where the Tatars were on the side of Moscow.
     
    5 of the 7 battles were part of one war and within 6 years of each other. So 3 armed conflicts (1300, 1315, and 1370s-early 1380s). And no battles against Tatars between 1315 and 1377 - over 60 years.

    Moscow is completely superior to Lithuania.
     
    Battle of Irpin River (1320s), Battle of Blue Waters (1362), and Battle of the Vorskla River (1399).

    So equal number of wars as Moscow. And less collaboration than Moscow.

  217. AP says:
    @melanf


    I have already given you a list: in 7 field battles from 1300 to 1382, Moscow troops fought against the Tatars. Moscow (as a whole) was the main center of resistance to the Tatars-in contrast to Tver or Lithuania

     

    Moscow was the main collaborator until the end of the century, when it was strong enough to challenge the Tatars...
    Moscow ... being the Tatars’ most loyal servants (in comparison to local rivals)


     

    I gave statistics - 7 battles against the Tatars, and one where the Tatars were on the side of Moscow. In this respect, Moscow is many times superior to any other Russian Principality, but also, Moscow is completely superior to Lithuania. That is, as you can see from the statistics, Moscow was the main center of resistance to the Tatars (in comparison to local rivals).
    And this is despite the fact that Lithuania's resources were many times greater than Moscow's, and Lithuania itself is much less vulnerable to Tatars due to its geographical location

    I gave statistics – 7 battles against the Tatars, and one where the Tatars were on the side of Moscow.

    5 of the 7 battles were part of one war and within 6 years of each other. So 3 armed conflicts (1300, 1315, and 1370s-early 1380s). And no battles against Tatars between 1315 and 1377 – over 60 years.

    Moscow is completely superior to Lithuania.

    Battle of Irpin River (1320s), Battle of Blue Waters (1362), and Battle of the Vorskla River (1399).

    So equal number of wars as Moscow. And less collaboration than Moscow.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Battle of Irpin River (1320s), Battle of Blue Waters (1362), and Battle of the Vorskla River (1399).
     
    There is an unsolvable contradiction for you. Most historians consider the battle of Irpen to be a late invention (this battle is completely unknown in the Chronicles of the 14th and 15th centuries, and was first mentioned only in the 16th century). But if we assume that this battle really happened, then Prince Fyodor, who ruled in the 14th century in Kiev, is the son of Gediminas. This Prince was engaged in reket and banditry together with the Khan's baskak. In this case Lithuanian collaborationism with Tatars rises to a new level

    And less collaboration than Moscow
     
    Given that in the decisive war with the Horde (1374-1383), Lithuania was a direct ally of the Golden Horde against the anti-Tatar Alliance of the Russian principalities, this statement is, to put it mildly, incorrect. Characteristically, a hundred years later, in a war that destroyed the remnants of the Golden Horde's power over Russia (as well as the remnants of the Golden Horde itself), Lithuania was again a direct ally of the Horde.


    By the way, here are the words of Vytautas said to Khan Tokhtamysh before the battle of Vorskla (according to the Novgorod chronicle):
    "I will put you as a Khan in the Golden Horde, and you will make me the ruler of the Grand principality of Moscow and the entire Russian land."
    Collaborationist Vytautas, Ha

  218. AP says:
    @melanf

    Yuri was embezzling from....
     
    Yuri went against the will of the Horde, what his motives were - we will never know. Detachments of Tatars were sent against Yuri (and in support of Tver), so that on 21-26 Yuri was the undisputed enemy of the Horde.. This time there were no battles against the Tatars (in contrast to 1315), but with the Horde supported, Tver Yuri had to fight.

    Svidomist claims. Objective historian blah blah blah
     
    "In the summer of 6866 (1358), a great Ambassador from the Horde, the son of the Khan, named Mamatkhozha, came to the Ryazan land and many evil things were done to him, and from the great Prince Ivan Ivanovich demanding to pass, but the great Prince did not let him into his Fatherland into the Russian land"

    «Въ лето 6866 (1358) выиде посолъ великъ из орды, царевъ сынъ, именемъ Маматхожа, на Рязанскую землю и много въ нихъ зла сътвори, и къ великому князю Ивану Ивановичю присылалъ о разъезде земля Рязаньскиа, князь же великии не впусти его въ свою отчину въ Русскую землю».
    Симеоновская летопись

    Dmitry Donskoy got the throne in 1359 when he was nine year old
     
    So what? In 1360, the Horde deprives Moscow of the title of Grand Prince, but Moscow regains this title using force (as well as the split in the Horde) 3 years later

    "The same year (1363) of Suzdal, Prince Dmitri Kostyantinovich arriv in the city in Volodimer ... and here came Prince Ivan Belozerets, who came from the Murat Horde with thirty Tartars, and so stay in the city of Volodimiri for a week only. When the great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich heard this, he drove Dmitri Kostyantinovich out of Vlodimir,and went to Suzdal, and the army stood for several days near Suzdal, and made peace (on the terms of Moscow)"

    «В лето 6875 (1367)… Того же лета князь ординскыи, именемъ Булатъ Темирь, прииде ратью Татарскою и пограби уездъ даже и до Волги и до Сундовити и села княжи Борисовы. Князь же Дмитреи Костянтиновичь съ Борисомъ и съ Дмитриемъ и съ своими детми, събравъ воя многи, и поидоша противу его на брань. Онъ же окаанныи не ста на брань, но бежа за реку за Пьяну, и тамо множьство Татаръ останочныхъ избиша, а другии въ реце во Пьяне истопоша, и по зажитиемъ множество ихъ побьени быша, имъже несть числа. А Болактемирь оттуду бежа въ орду, гонимъ гневомъ Божиимъ и тамо убьенъ бысть отъ Азиза царя».
    Симеоновская летопись

    Yuri went against the will of the Horde, what his motives were

    Embezzling was a fact, not a motive.

    Detachments of Tatars were sent against Yuri (and in support of Tver), so that on 21-26 Yuri was the undisputed enemy of the Horde.

    He didn’t fight them, and Moscow didn’t resist them. Yuri fought the Swedes instead, and then came back to the Horde. After he was killed by the Tver prince, the Tatars executed the Tver prince for the crime of killing Yuri.

    Not an enemy.

    You then quote form the Moscow chronicle, because you are afraid of providing (non-Svidomist) historians’ assessments or descriptions.

    • Replies: @melanf

    Embezzling was a fact
     
    Well, since this is a fact, give the primary source (that is, the chronicle) where it is said about the embezzlement of money.

    He didn’t fight them
     
    There were no battles with the Tatars, but Yuri openly disobeyed the Horde, and there were fights with the troops of Tver, supported by the Horde. So Yuri's anti-Ordyn position at this moment is not in doubt
    , @melanf

    You then quote form the Moscow chronicle, because you are afraid of providing (non-Svidomist) historians’ assessments or descriptions.
     
    Quote from AP (post 207 of this discussion):
    "Ah, so when Chronicles write something your don’t like, it becomes absurd and primary sources no longer count for much."

    Yes, funny
  219. @AP

    I gave statistics – 7 battles against the Tatars, and one where the Tatars were on the side of Moscow.
     
    5 of the 7 battles were part of one war and within 6 years of each other. So 3 armed conflicts (1300, 1315, and 1370s-early 1380s). And no battles against Tatars between 1315 and 1377 - over 60 years.

    Moscow is completely superior to Lithuania.
     
    Battle of Irpin River (1320s), Battle of Blue Waters (1362), and Battle of the Vorskla River (1399).

    So equal number of wars as Moscow. And less collaboration than Moscow.

    Battle of Irpin River (1320s), Battle of Blue Waters (1362), and Battle of the Vorskla River (1399).

    There is an unsolvable contradiction for you. Most historians consider the battle of Irpen to be a late invention (this battle is completely unknown in the Chronicles of the 14th and 15th centuries, and was first mentioned only in the 16th century). But if we assume that this battle really happened, then Prince Fyodor, who ruled in the 14th century in Kiev, is the son of Gediminas. This Prince was engaged in reket and banditry together with the Khan’s baskak. In this case Lithuanian collaborationism with Tatars rises to a new level

    And less collaboration than Moscow

    Given that in the decisive war with the Horde (1374-1383), Lithuania was a direct ally of the Golden Horde against the anti-Tatar Alliance of the Russian principalities, this statement is, to put it mildly, incorrect. Characteristically, a hundred years later, in a war that destroyed the remnants of the Golden Horde’s power over Russia (as well as the remnants of the Golden Horde itself), Lithuania was again a direct ally of the Horde.

    By the way, here are the words of Vytautas said to Khan Tokhtamysh before the battle of Vorskla (according to the Novgorod chronicle):
    I will put you as a Khan in the Golden Horde, and you will make me the ruler of the Grand principality of Moscow and the entire Russian land.
    Collaborationist Vytautas, Ha

    • Replies: @AP

    There is an unsolvable contradiction for you. Most historians consider the battle of Irpen to be a late invention (this battle is completely unknown in the Chronicles of the 14th and 15th centuries
     
    You mean most Russian Svidomist pseudo-historians?

    Historians disagree on exact dating: Maciej Stryjkowski provided 1320/21, Aleksandr Ivanovich Rogov argued for 1322, C. S. Rowell for 1323, Feliks Shabuldo for 1324, Romas Batūra for 1325

    Rowell, S. C. (1994). Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-45011-9.

    But if we assume that this battle really happened, then Prince Fyodor, who ruled in the 14th century in Kiev, is the son of Gediminas. This Prince was engaged in reket and banditry together with the Khan’s baskak. In this case Lithuanian collaborationism with Tatars rises to a new level
     
    Collaboration because they defeated the Tatars in a battle?

    Given that in the decisive war with the Horde (1374-1383), Lithuania was a direct ally of the Golden Horde against the anti-Tatar Alliance of the Russian principalities,
     
    1. Lithuania was ambivalent and in civil war, with pro and anti Tatar (Kęstutis) factions competing with each other and Lithuania not being a consistent Horde ally. Why didn't you mention that?

    2. Five short years compared to previous decades of close collaboration between Moscow and the Horde during which Moscow participated in the destruction and massacre of Tver and its lands.

    Also after this war ended, the Moscow ruler once again pledged loyalty to the Khan.

    By the way, here are the words of Vytautas said to Khan Tokhtamysh before the battle of Vorskla (according to the Novgorod chronicle):
    “I will put you as a Khan in the Golden Horde, and you will make me the ruler of the Grand principality of Moscow and the entire Russian land.”
    Collaborationist Vytautas, Ha
     
    Yes. Khan Tokhtamysh fled to exile in Lithuania from the Horde. Plans were for Lithuania to crush the Horde, place Tokhtamysh on their throne, and remove the Horde from Rus lands which would be under Lithuania.

    It's interesting that you wrote what you did when Moscow did something similar in the 1480s but you refused to mention that:

    Characteristically, a hundred years later, in a war that destroyed the remnants of the Golden Horde’s power over Russia (as well as the remnants of the Golden Horde itself), Lithuania was again a direct ally of the Horde.
     
    You forgot to mention that Moscow was allied with other Tatars in that war. Ivan the Great had an alliance with the Crimean Khan, whose people would continue to raid and enslave Rus people for centuries afterward.
  220. @AP

    Yuri went against the will of the Horde, what his motives were
     
    Embezzling was a fact, not a motive.

    Detachments of Tatars were sent against Yuri (and in support of Tver), so that on 21-26 Yuri was the undisputed enemy of the Horde.
     
    He didn't fight them, and Moscow didn't resist them. Yuri fought the Swedes instead, and then came back to the Horde. After he was killed by the Tver prince, the Tatars executed the Tver prince for the crime of killing Yuri.

    Not an enemy.

    You then quote form the Moscow chronicle, because you are afraid of providing (non-Svidomist) historians' assessments or descriptions.

    Embezzling was a fact

    Well, since this is a fact, give the primary source (that is, the chronicle) where it is said about the embezzlement of money.

    He didn’t fight them

    There were no battles with the Tatars, but Yuri openly disobeyed the Horde, and there were fights with the troops of Tver, supported by the Horde. So Yuri’s anti-Ordyn position at this moment is not in doubt

    • Replies: @AP

    Well, since this is a fact, give the primary source (that is, the chronicle) where it is said about the embezzlement of money.
     
    Important thing is what historians say, and they say that Yuri tried to hide tribute from his boss, the Khan. This is called embezzlement.

    Yuri "was now entrusted with the task of gathering all-Russian tribute to the Horde. But Mikhail's son and successor, Dmitry the Terrible Eyes, still opposed him. In 1322, Dmitry, seeking revenge for his father's murder, went to Sarai and persuaded the khan that Yury had appropriated a large portion of the tribute due to the Horde. Yury was summoned to the Horde for a trial but, before any formal investigation, was killed by Dmitry. Eight months later, Dmitry was also executed in the Horde.[1]"

    John Fennell, "Princely Executions in the Horde 1308-1339," Forschungen zur Osteuropaischen Geschichte 38 (1988), 9-19.

    Russian wiki is more specific about the nature of the embezzlement but doesn't give a citation:

    Yuri, instead of taking the Tver tribute to the Horde, took it to his brother in Novgorod and put it into circulation through the intermediary merchants, wanting to get interest.

    :::::::::::::

    At any rate, he stole from his boss but continued to be an employee. Neither he nor his city resisted the Mongols and when he was summoned to the Tatar master he eventually came. When he was killed en route, the Tatar master executed his killer. So clearly he was not an enemy of the Tatars, just a sneaky and greedy servant of theirs.
  221. @AP

    Yuri went against the will of the Horde, what his motives were
     
    Embezzling was a fact, not a motive.

    Detachments of Tatars were sent against Yuri (and in support of Tver), so that on 21-26 Yuri was the undisputed enemy of the Horde.
     
    He didn't fight them, and Moscow didn't resist them. Yuri fought the Swedes instead, and then came back to the Horde. After he was killed by the Tver prince, the Tatars executed the Tver prince for the crime of killing Yuri.

    Not an enemy.

    You then quote form the Moscow chronicle, because you are afraid of providing (non-Svidomist) historians' assessments or descriptions.

    You then quote form the Moscow chronicle, because you are afraid of providing (non-Svidomist) historians’ assessments or descriptions.

    Quote from AP (post 207 of this discussion):
    Ah, so when Chronicles write something your don’t like, it becomes absurd and primary sources no longer count for much.”

    Yes, funny

    • Replies: @AP

    Quote from AP (post 207 of this discussion):
    “Ah, so when Chronicles write something your don’t like, it becomes absurd and primary sources no longer count for much.”

    Yes, funny
     
    Yes, your approach (not mine) is funny indeed.

    I have been consistent in calling for historians' conclusions, not Chronicles.
  222. @melanf

    You then quote form the Moscow chronicle, because you are afraid of providing (non-Svidomist) historians’ assessments or descriptions.
     
    Quote from AP (post 207 of this discussion):
    "Ah, so when Chronicles write something your don’t like, it becomes absurd and primary sources no longer count for much."

    Yes, funny

    Quote from AP (post 207 of this discussion):
    “Ah, so when Chronicles write something your don’t like, it becomes absurd and primary sources no longer count for much.”

    Yes, funny

    Yes, your approach (not mine) is funny indeed.

    I have been consistent in calling for historians’ conclusions, not Chronicles.

  223. AP says:
    @melanf

    Battle of Irpin River (1320s), Battle of Blue Waters (1362), and Battle of the Vorskla River (1399).
     
    There is an unsolvable contradiction for you. Most historians consider the battle of Irpen to be a late invention (this battle is completely unknown in the Chronicles of the 14th and 15th centuries, and was first mentioned only in the 16th century). But if we assume that this battle really happened, then Prince Fyodor, who ruled in the 14th century in Kiev, is the son of Gediminas. This Prince was engaged in reket and banditry together with the Khan's baskak. In this case Lithuanian collaborationism with Tatars rises to a new level

    And less collaboration than Moscow
     
    Given that in the decisive war with the Horde (1374-1383), Lithuania was a direct ally of the Golden Horde against the anti-Tatar Alliance of the Russian principalities, this statement is, to put it mildly, incorrect. Characteristically, a hundred years later, in a war that destroyed the remnants of the Golden Horde's power over Russia (as well as the remnants of the Golden Horde itself), Lithuania was again a direct ally of the Horde.


    By the way, here are the words of Vytautas said to Khan Tokhtamysh before the battle of Vorskla (according to the Novgorod chronicle):
    "I will put you as a Khan in the Golden Horde, and you will make me the ruler of the Grand principality of Moscow and the entire Russian land."
    Collaborationist Vytautas, Ha

    There is an unsolvable contradiction for you. Most historians consider the battle of Irpen to be a late invention (this battle is completely unknown in the Chronicles of the 14th and 15th centuries

    You mean most Russian Svidomist pseudo-historians?

    Historians disagree on exact dating: Maciej Stryjkowski provided 1320/21, Aleksandr Ivanovich Rogov argued for 1322, C. S. Rowell for 1323, Feliks Shabuldo for 1324, Romas Batūra for 1325

    Rowell, S. C. (1994). Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-45011-9.

    But if we assume that this battle really happened, then Prince Fyodor, who ruled in the 14th century in Kiev, is the son of Gediminas. This Prince was engaged in reket and banditry together with the Khan’s baskak. In this case Lithuanian collaborationism with Tatars rises to a new level

    Collaboration because they defeated the Tatars in a battle?

    Given that in the decisive war with the Horde (1374-1383), Lithuania was a direct ally of the Golden Horde against the anti-Tatar Alliance of the Russian principalities,

    1. Lithuania was ambivalent and in civil war, with pro and anti Tatar (Kęstutis) factions competing with each other and Lithuania not being a consistent Horde ally. Why didn’t you mention that?

    2. Five short years compared to previous decades of close collaboration between Moscow and the Horde during which Moscow participated in the destruction and massacre of Tver and its lands.

    Also after this war ended, the Moscow ruler once again pledged loyalty to the Khan.

    By the way, here are the words of Vytautas said to Khan Tokhtamysh before the battle of Vorskla (according to the Novgorod chronicle):
    “I will put you as a Khan in the Golden Horde, and you will make me the ruler of the Grand principality of Moscow and the entire Russian land.”
    Collaborationist Vytautas, Ha

    Yes. Khan Tokhtamysh fled to exile in Lithuania from the Horde. Plans were for Lithuania to crush the Horde, place Tokhtamysh on their throne, and remove the Horde from Rus lands which would be under Lithuania.

    It’s interesting that you wrote what you did when Moscow did something similar in the 1480s but you refused to mention that:

    Characteristically, a hundred years later, in a war that destroyed the remnants of the Golden Horde’s power over Russia (as well as the remnants of the Golden Horde itself), Lithuania was again a direct ally of the Horde.

    You forgot to mention that Moscow was allied with other Tatars in that war. Ivan the Great had an alliance with the Crimean Khan, whose people would continue to raid and enslave Rus people for centuries afterward.

    • Replies: @melanf


    Most historians consider the battle of Irpen to be a late invention (this battle is completely unknown in the Chronicles of the 14th and 15th centuries

     

    You mean most Russian Svidomist pseudo-historians?
     
    Yeh Yeh Russian Svidomist, especially Grushevsky.
    If you want to consider the battle of Irpen a real event, it's worse for you


    Novgorod chronicle
    "(in 1331) (Novgorodians) Bishop Basil (with his entourage) came near Chernigov, and then, because of the machinations of the devil, they met Prince Fyodor of Kiev. And with the Prince was baskak and a detachment of fifty men, all of them together engaged in banditry. But Novgorodians began to prepare for battle; and the Prince got scared and ran away"

    (Поиха Василии владыка от митрополита; яко прииха под Черниговъ, и ту научениемъ дияволим пригнася князь Федор Киевьскыи со баскаком в пятидесят человек розбоем, и новгородци остерегошася и сташа доспев противу себе...; а князь въсприимъ срам и отъиха)

    If we consider the history of the battle of Irpen real, then Fyodor of Kiev is a Lithuanian Prince, brother of Gediminas. That is, then it turns out that the Lithuanian princes not only ruled the subject lands together with the Khan's baskaks (such relations with the Horde were liquidated in the lands of Tver or Moscow for many decades before 1331), but also engaged together with the Tatars in highway robbery, banditry and murder.

    Accordingly, you can calculate using your own method how many decades the unheard-of Lithuanian-Tatar collaborationism lasted. At the same time, all the fighting between the Tatars and Lithuania taken together lasted only a few years.

  224. AP says:
    @melanf

    Embezzling was a fact
     
    Well, since this is a fact, give the primary source (that is, the chronicle) where it is said about the embezzlement of money.

    He didn’t fight them
     
    There were no battles with the Tatars, but Yuri openly disobeyed the Horde, and there were fights with the troops of Tver, supported by the Horde. So Yuri's anti-Ordyn position at this moment is not in doubt

    Well, since this is a fact, give the primary source (that is, the chronicle) where it is said about the embezzlement of money.

    Important thing is what historians say, and they say that Yuri tried to hide tribute from his boss, the Khan. This is called embezzlement.

    Yuri “was now entrusted with the task of gathering all-Russian tribute to the Horde. But Mikhail’s son and successor, Dmitry the Terrible Eyes, still opposed him. In 1322, Dmitry, seeking revenge for his father’s murder, went to Sarai and persuaded the khan that Yury had appropriated a large portion of the tribute due to the Horde. Yury was summoned to the Horde for a trial but, before any formal investigation, was killed by Dmitry. Eight months later, Dmitry was also executed in the Horde.[1]”

    John Fennell, “Princely Executions in the Horde 1308-1339,” Forschungen zur Osteuropaischen Geschichte 38 (1988), 9-19.

    Russian wiki is more specific about the nature of the embezzlement but doesn’t give a citation:

    Yuri, instead of taking the Tver tribute to the Horde, took it to his brother in Novgorod and put it into circulation through the intermediary merchants, wanting to get interest.

    :::::::::::::

    At any rate, he stole from his boss but continued to be an employee. Neither he nor his city resisted the Mongols and when he was summoned to the Tatar master he eventually came. When he was killed en route, the Tatar master executed his killer. So clearly he was not an enemy of the Tatars, just a sneaky and greedy servant of theirs.

    • Replies: @melanf


    Well, since this is a fact, give the primary source (that is, the chronicle) where it is said about the embezzlement of money.
     
    Important thing is what historians say...
     
    That is, the only fact known from the Chronicles is that the great Prince Yuri Danilovich refused to transfer the collected tribute to the Horde. Everything else is hypotheses.
    Historian Lev Cherepnin, for example, believed that Yuri wanted to throw off the power of the Horde and for this reason, he refused to give money to the Khan. This is the same hypothesis as embezzlement of money

    Dear AP if you further lay out the analysis of primary sources I am ready to argue with you, but I will no longer respond to propaganda crowing. So you can continue to conduct a monologue, or invite Gerard as a congenial interlocutor for you
  225. @AP

    There is an unsolvable contradiction for you. Most historians consider the battle of Irpen to be a late invention (this battle is completely unknown in the Chronicles of the 14th and 15th centuries
     
    You mean most Russian Svidomist pseudo-historians?

    Historians disagree on exact dating: Maciej Stryjkowski provided 1320/21, Aleksandr Ivanovich Rogov argued for 1322, C. S. Rowell for 1323, Feliks Shabuldo for 1324, Romas Batūra for 1325

    Rowell, S. C. (1994). Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-45011-9.

    But if we assume that this battle really happened, then Prince Fyodor, who ruled in the 14th century in Kiev, is the son of Gediminas. This Prince was engaged in reket and banditry together with the Khan’s baskak. In this case Lithuanian collaborationism with Tatars rises to a new level
     
    Collaboration because they defeated the Tatars in a battle?

    Given that in the decisive war with the Horde (1374-1383), Lithuania was a direct ally of the Golden Horde against the anti-Tatar Alliance of the Russian principalities,
     
    1. Lithuania was ambivalent and in civil war, with pro and anti Tatar (Kęstutis) factions competing with each other and Lithuania not being a consistent Horde ally. Why didn't you mention that?

    2. Five short years compared to previous decades of close collaboration between Moscow and the Horde during which Moscow participated in the destruction and massacre of Tver and its lands.

    Also after this war ended, the Moscow ruler once again pledged loyalty to the Khan.

    By the way, here are the words of Vytautas said to Khan Tokhtamysh before the battle of Vorskla (according to the Novgorod chronicle):
    “I will put you as a Khan in the Golden Horde, and you will make me the ruler of the Grand principality of Moscow and the entire Russian land.”
    Collaborationist Vytautas, Ha
     
    Yes. Khan Tokhtamysh fled to exile in Lithuania from the Horde. Plans were for Lithuania to crush the Horde, place Tokhtamysh on their throne, and remove the Horde from Rus lands which would be under Lithuania.

    It's interesting that you wrote what you did when Moscow did something similar in the 1480s but you refused to mention that:

    Characteristically, a hundred years later, in a war that destroyed the remnants of the Golden Horde’s power over Russia (as well as the remnants of the Golden Horde itself), Lithuania was again a direct ally of the Horde.
     
    You forgot to mention that Moscow was allied with other Tatars in that war. Ivan the Great had an alliance with the Crimean Khan, whose people would continue to raid and enslave Rus people for centuries afterward.

    Most historians consider the battle of Irpen to be a late invention (this battle is completely unknown in the Chronicles of the 14th and 15th centuries

    You mean most Russian Svidomist pseudo-historians?

    Yeh Yeh Russian Svidomist, especially Grushevsky.
    If you want to consider the battle of Irpen a real event, it’s worse for you

    Novgorod chronicle
    “(in 1331) (Novgorodians) Bishop Basil (with his entourage) came near Chernigov, and then, because of the machinations of the devil, they met Prince Fyodor of Kiev. And with the Prince was baskak and a detachment of fifty men, all of them together engaged in banditry. But Novgorodians began to prepare for battle; and the Prince got scared and ran away

    (Поиха Василии владыка от митрополита; яко прииха под Черниговъ, и ту научениемъ дияволим пригнася князь Федор Киевьскыи со баскаком в пятидесят человек розбоем, и новгородци остерегошася и сташа доспев противу себе…; а князь въсприимъ срам и отъиха)

    If we consider the history of the battle of Irpen real, then Fyodor of Kiev is a Lithuanian Prince, brother of Gediminas. That is, then it turns out that the Lithuanian princes not only ruled the subject lands together with the Khan’s baskaks (such relations with the Horde were liquidated in the lands of Tver or Moscow for many decades before 1331), but also engaged together with the Tatars in highway robbery, banditry and murder.

    Accordingly, you can calculate using your own method how many decades the unheard-of Lithuanian-Tatar collaborationism lasted. At the same time, all the fighting between the Tatars and Lithuania taken together lasted only a few years.

  226. in 1348, the Grand Prince of Lithuania Olgerd
    sent his brother Koryad to the Horde of Khan Chanibek and asked the Khan’s army to help him . And when Prince Semyon of Moscow heard this, he sent his messengers to the Khan…. And when the Khan heard the complaint that Olgerd and his brother were ruining the Khan’s possessions, and the great Prince of the land, then the Khan gave Koryad and other Lithuanian ambassadors into the hands of the great Prince Semyon

    The Tatar army was needed by Olgerd for the war against Moscow

    Original text of the chronicle
    «послал в Орду ко царю Чанибеку брата своего Корьяда и просил рати у царя себе в помочь. И то слышав князь великии Семен, погадав с своею братьею и с бояры, и посла в Орду Федора Глебовича, да Аминя, да Федора Шубачеева ко царю жаловатися на Олгерда. И слышав царь жалобу, оже Олгерд с своею братьею царев улус, а князя великаго отчину испустошил, и выдал царь Корьяда, Михаила и Семена Свислочьскаго, и Аикша киличеем князя великаго, и дал посла своего Тотуя, и посол Тотуи выдалъ Корьяда и дружину его князю великому»

    • Replies: @AP

    ” sent his brother Koryad to the Horde of Khan Chanibek and asked the Khan’s army to help him . And when Prince Semyon of Moscow heard this, he sent his messengers to the Khan…. And when the Khan heard the complaint that Olgerd and his brother were ruining the Khan’s possessions, and the great Prince of the land, then the Khan gave Koryad and other Lithuanian ambassadors into the hands of the great Prince Semyon”
     
    But the Tatars took the side of their loyal Muscovite servants instead.
  227. @AP

    Well, since this is a fact, give the primary source (that is, the chronicle) where it is said about the embezzlement of money.
     
    Important thing is what historians say, and they say that Yuri tried to hide tribute from his boss, the Khan. This is called embezzlement.

    Yuri "was now entrusted with the task of gathering all-Russian tribute to the Horde. But Mikhail's son and successor, Dmitry the Terrible Eyes, still opposed him. In 1322, Dmitry, seeking revenge for his father's murder, went to Sarai and persuaded the khan that Yury had appropriated a large portion of the tribute due to the Horde. Yury was summoned to the Horde for a trial but, before any formal investigation, was killed by Dmitry. Eight months later, Dmitry was also executed in the Horde.[1]"

    John Fennell, "Princely Executions in the Horde 1308-1339," Forschungen zur Osteuropaischen Geschichte 38 (1988), 9-19.

    Russian wiki is more specific about the nature of the embezzlement but doesn't give a citation:

    Yuri, instead of taking the Tver tribute to the Horde, took it to his brother in Novgorod and put it into circulation through the intermediary merchants, wanting to get interest.

    :::::::::::::

    At any rate, he stole from his boss but continued to be an employee. Neither he nor his city resisted the Mongols and when he was summoned to the Tatar master he eventually came. When he was killed en route, the Tatar master executed his killer. So clearly he was not an enemy of the Tatars, just a sneaky and greedy servant of theirs.

    Well, since this is a fact, give the primary source (that is, the chronicle) where it is said about the embezzlement of money.

    Important thing is what historians say…

    That is, the only fact known from the Chronicles is that the great Prince Yuri Danilovich refused to transfer the collected tribute to the Horde. Everything else is hypotheses.
    Historian Lev Cherepnin, for example, believed that Yuri wanted to throw off the power of the Horde and for this reason, he refused to give money to the Khan. This is the same hypothesis as embezzlement of money

    Dear AP if you further lay out the analysis of primary sources I am ready to argue with you, but I will no longer respond to propaganda crowing. So you can continue to conduct a monologue, or invite Gerard as a congenial interlocutor for you

    • Replies: @AP

    That is, the only fact known from the Chronicles is that the great Prince Yuri Danilovich refused to transfer the collected tribute to the Horde. Everything else is hypotheses.
     
    What matters is what historians conclude and who those historians are - neutral observers or Svidomist nationalists or Sovok myth-makers. A specialist from Cambridge or Harvard is probably going to be more objective about this and less likely to promote some myth about brave heroic resistance, than would be a Soviet historian such as Cherepnin who is under specific obligations. What does an English historian from Cambridge care about whether a 14th century Muscovite prince was a Tatar collaborator or a brave heroic resistor? Motivation of a Russian to interpret these events tendentiously would be much stronger.

    I will no longer respond to propaganda crowing
     
    "Propaganda crowing" comes from Soviet or Svidomist pseudo-historians, not from specialists such as Cambridge's Martin.
  228. AP says:
    @melanf
    in 1348, the Grand Prince of Lithuania Olgerd
    " sent his brother Koryad to the Horde of Khan Chanibek and asked the Khan's army to help him . And when Prince Semyon of Moscow heard this, he sent his messengers to the Khan.... And when the Khan heard the complaint that Olgerd and his brother were ruining the Khan's possessions, and the great Prince of the land, then the Khan gave Koryad and other Lithuanian ambassadors into the hands of the great Prince Semyon"

    The Tatar army was needed by Olgerd for the war against Moscow

    Original text of the chronicle
    «послал в Орду ко царю Чанибеку брата своего Корьяда и просил рати у царя себе в помочь. И то слышав князь великии Семен, погадав с своею братьею и с бояры, и посла в Орду Федора Глебовича, да Аминя, да Федора Шубачеева ко царю жаловатися на Олгерда. И слышав царь жалобу, оже Олгерд с своею братьею царев улус, а князя великаго отчину испустошил, и выдал царь Корьяда, Михаила и Семена Свислочьскаго, и Аикша киличеем князя великаго, и дал посла своего Тотуя, и посол Тотуи выдалъ Корьяда и дружину его князю великому»

    ” sent his brother Koryad to the Horde of Khan Chanibek and asked the Khan’s army to help him . And when Prince Semyon of Moscow heard this, he sent his messengers to the Khan…. And when the Khan heard the complaint that Olgerd and his brother were ruining the Khan’s possessions, and the great Prince of the land, then the Khan gave Koryad and other Lithuanian ambassadors into the hands of the great Prince Semyon”

    But the Tatars took the side of their loyal Muscovite servants instead.

  229. AP says:
    @melanf


    Well, since this is a fact, give the primary source (that is, the chronicle) where it is said about the embezzlement of money.
     
    Important thing is what historians say...
     
    That is, the only fact known from the Chronicles is that the great Prince Yuri Danilovich refused to transfer the collected tribute to the Horde. Everything else is hypotheses.
    Historian Lev Cherepnin, for example, believed that Yuri wanted to throw off the power of the Horde and for this reason, he refused to give money to the Khan. This is the same hypothesis as embezzlement of money

    Dear AP if you further lay out the analysis of primary sources I am ready to argue with you, but I will no longer respond to propaganda crowing. So you can continue to conduct a monologue, or invite Gerard as a congenial interlocutor for you

    That is, the only fact known from the Chronicles is that the great Prince Yuri Danilovich refused to transfer the collected tribute to the Horde. Everything else is hypotheses.

    What matters is what historians conclude and who those historians are – neutral observers or Svidomist nationalists or Sovok myth-makers. A specialist from Cambridge or Harvard is probably going to be more objective about this and less likely to promote some myth about brave heroic resistance, than would be a Soviet historian such as Cherepnin who is under specific obligations. What does an English historian from Cambridge care about whether a 14th century Muscovite prince was a Tatar collaborator or a brave heroic resistor? Motivation of a Russian to interpret these events tendentiously would be much stronger.

    I will no longer respond to propaganda crowing

    “Propaganda crowing” comes from Soviet or Svidomist pseudo-historians, not from specialists such as Cambridge’s Martin.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS