|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on May 10, 2007 6:03:19 GMT 3
Even the word YOU are using, " CossackDOM", illustrates the nature of Cossacks: suffix -dom referring to a rank or position ( dukedom, earldom) or a collection of persons ( officialdom). dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-dom
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on May 10, 2007 21:00:49 GMT 3
Other social groups like serfs, merchants, or nobility were all hereditary. but i told you, within Cossack society there were also serfs, merchants and noblemen, all Cossacks. thats different, they did not become Cossacks, they were militarically organized by the Czar along the Cossack military. Cossackdom was not created by Russia, it was created by Cossacks and the Czar simply accepted it into his realm. Cossacks already existed before they were part of Russia. yes they were Orthodox but it was slightly different from Russian Orthodoxy. according to international law, a group of people who share the same culture, habits etc and considder themselves a distinct group are to be recognized as their own ethnicity. imagine Cossacks would have won the Civil war and established their own Don-Kuban Union, would you still call them Russians then?
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on May 18, 2007 4:36:53 GMT 3
within Cossack society there were also serfs, merchants and noblemen, all Cossacks The very idea of Cossackdom was to carry out the military service for tsar. It was the sole duty of the Cossack. Therefore, if Cossacks were engaged in other things like trading, it was simply limited, marginal, and complementary. As for the "nobles", they were also marginal and showed a trait of the militarty hierarchy. Therefore, the higher the rank, the higher the chances of being accepted as a noble. Noble Cossacks usually lived in cities and tended to mix with other nobles, rather than regular Cossacks. The merging of different estates doesn't make one estate an ethnic group. As for the serfs, most of Cossacks were runaway serfs (who were basically slaves). Doesn't enslaving/enserfing of other Cossacks contradict the very principle of "free" Cossackdom? There were no farmers "within" Cossacks. Most of Cossacks were the farmers who owned their estate lands, but they still carried out the military duty, and remained a military estate. Even the professional Russian army was made up of peasants who returned to their farms after the war. That doesn't mean they were not soldiers because they farmed lands. My point is that Cossacks were an ethnic mishmash of serving military people who, although had a core, always had somebody being accepted in their estate. Their very foundation was a process of continuous acceptance of runaways from both Rus' and other lands. Nikolai Gogol in his monumental "Taras Bulba" depicted a procedure of acceptance into Cossacks: When a person who wished to join Cossacks came into kosh, they first checked him on being an Orthodox Christian. After that, Cossacks tested him on his wit. They made him prepare a porridge for the whole kosh, and then everyone left and didn't show up. One person would remain and watch the new guy's behaviour. If he would get confused, start running and looking for everyone, Cossacks would think he is a weak loser and kick him out. If the guy wouldn't wait for anyone and start eating the porridge, they would accept him as a Cossack. Same goes for peasants, merchants, and nobles. Tsars (who emerged in 15 cent.) didn't "create" these estates, they were there before. Tsars just accepted them. Actually, 7 out of 11 Cossack Hosts (in the eastern Russia) were "created" by the tsar officially. How "slightly"? Cossacks were fighting on both Whites side and Reds side. And even if the Whites would have won, they would unlikely grant Cossacks their own autonomy because imperialists used Cossacks merely as a military tool in their own imperialist interests that advocated "the one and indivisible Russia". Due to their experience after the Russian revolution, they may think they're a somewhat a Russian subgroup now, but before, in the tsarist times, they were simply one of the traditional Russian estates.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on May 18, 2007 18:18:53 GMT 3
let's not confuse the Zaporozhians with the later Imperialist Cossacks who lived under the Czar. after Cossacks became subjects of the Czar the Cossacks were already well seperated from the once runaways and adventuers that made up the original independent Cossacks. in Imperial times it was not possible that a Russian serf could become Cossack and vice versa. you compared Cossacks to the French Foreign Legion but it is not valid comparison, sons of Legionaries are not automatically part of the Legion, also, joining the Foreign Legion is coluntarily. from legal point of view Legionaries are mercenaries, they only become citizens of France after their service, which is mostly the reason people join the Legion. while Cossacks are always Russians by nationality like all other ethnic living in the Russian empire. butt here is indeed another instiution that is almost identical to the Cossack, it is the Bengal Cavalry of the former British empire. to explain it shortly: After Brtiain gained control of parts of India, they established native regiments, the cavalry being called bengal Horse. Britains first major stronghold was Calcutta and large parts of Bengal, so the first cavalry troops were called Bengal Horse. later, when Britian expanded in Idnia, more ethnicites from the Indian subcontinent became subjects of first the British east-idnia company and later the British crown directly. so new native regiments were raised, those of the cavalry also still called Bengal Horse even though they were from different ethnicities than Bengali, like Sikhs, Mahratti and Rajputs. India introduced the concept of "Marcial Races": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Racesthis meant that some ethnicies are by nature, livestyle and tradtion more warliek and made better warriors than others, mostly sendentary, urban ethnics. the cavalry of those Indian Martial Races was collectviely called Bengal Cavalry, after the first of those Regiments. so it can be perfectly compared to Cossackdom, because Cossacks, and ethnics that were also "Cossacks" (in the militarical sense) like Bashkirs, Crimean-Tatars and Kalmyks were basically martial Races as well. Cossacks, bashkirs, tatars and Kalmyks are all horse-based warriors by nature, their entire lifestlye evovles around it like those Indian tribes. also, they existed before they were annexed by the British/Russian Empire. the only difference between Cossacks and all those tribes i mentioned is that they are not a genuine ethnicity but a melting-pot of many ethnicites, mostly Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and Tatar, but are by their lifestyle, tradition and way of live completely different from them. Cossacks are liek Americans, they descend mostly from english (as well as Irish and German) but yet they are in no way related to the English "race" as such, just because they speak the same language, have similar names and similar culture. in fact the cultural difference between Cossacks and other people of the Russian Empire is bigger than the difference of Americans, Canadians and English... about Russian Civil War. yes, Cossacks fought on both sides, but "officially" the Cossack Voiskos were fighting alongside the Whites. in the end, it was just the Cossacks who remained as a White Force, General Wrangel on the Crimea. at least in case of the Don Voisko they were already independent. without the Cossacks the Whites cause would have not survived the first year of the Civil War, teh forces provided by the Cossacks made up around half of the white forces, the Atamans of the Kuban, Don, Orenburg and Zabaikal Voiskos provoided their whole armies to the White cause. and as i described above, as an excerpt from the movie and book, the Cossacks always saw themselves as different from Russians, Poles and Ukrainians, even though some people in the Ukraine also considdered thesmelves Cossacks which is most obvious in the independent Ukraine of 1918 and today (as there was no Voisko in the Ukraine during Imperial Russia.
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on May 18, 2007 23:15:59 GMT 3
let's not confuse the Zaporozhians with the later Imperialist Cossacks who lived under the Czar We're talking about Cossacks in general. Zaporozhian Cossacks are a perfect example of the original Cossackdom, a fluid social militaristic class. Imperial Russia changed many things. With the power of the tsar becoming absolute and universal, the social order became much more solid. Cossacks were also Russia's mercenaries. Their only duty was to serve the state and state paid them with lands. Bengal Cavalry is more comparibale with the "native" soldiers like Bashkirs and Kalmyks who also served Imperial Russia militarily, but not to Cossacks, who, as you said, basically were always ethnic Russians. It's wrong to put Cossacks along with established ethnic groups like Tatars or Kalmyks. "Cossack" (Qazaq) is merely a Turkic social term which existed in Turkic-speaking lands long time ago. There were "cossack" individuals, there were "cossack" groups. "Cossacks" all over the Desht-i Qipchaq, Central Asia frequently formed, and they also broke up. True, Slavic Cossacks are not a genuine ethnicity. But their original bandit-like lifestyle was no different from "Cossacks" of other nations or even simple nomadic Tatars. Basically, their lifestyle, culture, along with their vocabulary, was heavily influenced by the Turkic nomads because they formed as a social group on the border with the Steppe. "officially"? There was no single "official" institution of Cossacks during the Civil war. There were hosts which joined Whites, other hosts that joined Reds. There were never "just the Cossacks" in the White force. Cossacks formed a considerable, but not the only force of the Whites.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on May 18, 2007 23:53:33 GMT 3
Bengal Cavalry is more comparibale with the "native" soldiers like Bashkirs and Kalmyks who also served Imperial Russia militarily, but not to Cossacks, who, as you said, basically were always ethnic Russians. no i didn't said that, didn't you understood my comparison with Americans? also, it is clearly shown that Cossack means both an ethnicity as well as a military profesion, like for example the Gurkhas. the Cossacks are a martial race like those Indians and the Steppe Nomads and Russians are not. Tatars is no way established, Crimean Tatars are different from Volga-Kama Tatars and Lithuanian Tatars and so on. Tatars is a word made up by Russians and taken over by them. yes they are, Ethnicity has nothing to do with blood-relationship as i already pointed out with my comparisons with Bosnians and Americans. in fact Ukrainians and Russians have apart from surenames and language differences much more in common than Cossacks and Russians or Cossacks and Ukrainians. Zaporozhians who mostly came from Ukrainians are the ancestors of the Kuban Cossacks, yet they do not feel any relationship with the Ukrainians. but Kuban Cossacks are for example almost identical to Terek Cossacks who were mostly from Russians. Cossack is not just an instiution, how can you say so, you are a Kazak yourself, there is no difference in meaning between Cossack and Kazakh. or have you forgotten the Russians called you collectively Khirgiz up to the 20th century? no Voisko joined the Reds, only individual Cossacks joined Reds. Cossacks were a thread to Bolshevism and the Reds conducted a de-Cossackisation, recent research has shown that most slaves in Gulags were either German or Cossack. also, durign ww2 teh Volga German ASSR was abolished and Germans deported and never again established, because Germans fought against the Soviet Union, so you can see that not all minorities had their own ASSR. even in the Werhmacht, who theoretically considdered all other ethnics as inferior made distinctions and established Cossack divisions separate from Russian divisions.
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on May 19, 2007 2:56:32 GMT 3
Cossack means both an ethnicity as well as a military profesionYou can't be both. I'm tired of going over in circles. Cossacks are not a "race", they are the Russians. If Russian military class is (obviously ) more warlike than Russian peasants or nobles, it still doesn't make that class a separate ethnicity. By "Tatars" I mean the old generic term for Golden Hordian warriors, predominantly nomadic. They all shared the same culture and Qipchaq language. Majority of today's "Tatars" (Crimean and Volga-Kama Tatars) never were nomads in their history. Heh.. the history of transformations of the word "Tatar" is much more complicated than that. Original Tatars were exterminated by Genghis khan. "Tatar" was a generic all-nomadic term used by Chinese, which was then adopted by Muslims. In the context of the emergence of Slavic Cossacks, by "Tatar" I mean the Turkic-speaking Golden Hordian warriors. You're contradicting your own words: "[Cossacks] are not a genuine ethnicity but a melting-pot of many ethnicites, mostly Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and Tatar"Anyways, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Almost all Russian Cossacks feel that they are Russians, that they're an inseparable part of Russia, and that they will always belong to and defend Russia. As the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy have said, "Russia was created by Cossacks". Therefore, the Russian state and its devoted military guard are inseparable. Obviously, I'm biased towards Cossacks because they were the enemies that my people and other brotherly Turks faced for more than 3 centuries. They were the reason we lost our independence to Russia. Perhaps, as Tolstoy said, they were the reason the strong Russia was created in the first place. Perhaps, from some nationalist points of view, it would be good to advocate the idea that Cossacks are separate from the rest of Russians, so Kazaks could divide et impera the Russia's "fifth column" in Kazakstan. The voisko system wasn't the same after the revolution. There were several pro-Communist voiskos and units formed out of Cossacks. Germans never fought against Soviet Union in the Civil war. If they did, they would never be granted a national autonomy. The reason they were deported was a pre-war suspision that they would collaborate with the Third Reich. One reason to appreciate Werhmacht, heh? There were plenty of Cossack divisions among Soviets, too. And they, too, were "separate" from other Russian divisions In the World War II, Cossacks were used as a military tool by both Soviets and Nazis. Cossacks' antagonism against Soviets was skillfully used by the Nazis. Cossacks on the Parade in Moscow, 1937 Cossacks on the Victory Parade in Moscow, 1945
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on May 19, 2007 2:57:20 GMT 3
Heh, wrong comparison. The history of Kazaks is different than the history of the Russian bandit military class. The name "Kazak" is relatively new to us. It was adopted by the large part of Qipchaq-speaking "nomadic Ozbeks" in the 15-16 cneturies due to the political situation in the khanate. What happened was a split of "nomadic Ozbeks" into two, Kazaks are just the larger part of the original "nomadic Ozbeks". Originally there was no difference. But the evolutions of the name in both cases are completely different. Cossacks are the Russian military estate, and Kazaks are an ethnic group. LOL, you care too much what Russians call other people. Russians call your people "mute" and "dumb" until this day. Have you forgotten?
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on May 19, 2007 17:29:44 GMT 3
You can't be both. of course you can be both, i already provided examples as with the Bengal Cavalry and the Gurkhas. Heh, wrong comparison. The history of Kazaks is different than the history of the Russian bandit military class. The name "Kazak" is relatively new to us. It was adopted by the large part of Qipchaq-speaking "nomadic Ozbeks" in the 15-16 cneturies due to the political situation in the khanate. What happened was a split of "nomadic Ozbeks" into two, Kazaks are just the larger part of the original "nomadic Ozbeks". so here we have it, how would you feel like saying you are an Ozbeg and Kazaks don't exist and that they are all Ozbegs? can't you or don't you want to understand the comparisons with Americans and Bosnians? Cossacks were created by escaping the authority of the Czar of Russia and the King of Poland, only later by circumstances they became part of Russia (because Muscovy should help them against Poland) and lost their autonomy more and more. in Soviet Times there were no Voiskos, there was De-Cossackisation, only shortly before ww2 the name "Cossack" was given to some units because of Budyonny, but look at the pictures you posted, they have no Cholka, they are only Cossacks in name only. a Cherkess uniform doesn't make a Cossack. here you contradict yourself, if you say they were a Czarist institution, how come they were part of the Red Army then? of course during late 19th century until end of Czarist rule did the Cossacks swear allegiance to the Czar and Russia, because the Czar was in name the Ataman of All Cossacks, because the Czars abolished the real Cossack leadership and replaced it with their own leadership, one of the reasons was the increased power of Cossacks and their Ataman after Napoleonic Wars.
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on May 19, 2007 23:07:38 GMT 3
Gurkha is not a profession, it is an ethnic group which was recruited for military service, just like Kalmyks and Bashkirs by Russia. And "Bengal Cavalry" is definitely not an ethnicity, it's a cavalry. The only distinction between Ozbek-Qazaqs (later simply Qazaqs) and Ozbek-Sheybanids in 1500 was that they belonged to different political factions. First supported the Urusid dynasty, second - Sheybanid dynasty. Ozbek-Qazaqs separated from the main khanate and got their "qazaq" name, but, unlike Russian Cossacks, they never served other Ozbeks as a military class. They were the original Ozbeks. Fact is there were Cossack units in Soviet army. Your claims that they weren't Cossacks are your personal speculations. Are you kidding me? ;D Caucasian (or Cherkess, as you call it) national dress with papaha and gazyri was one of the prominent military uniforms of the Russian Cossacks, especially of those Don and Kuban Hosts. Kuban Cossacks, late 19 century. Kuban Cossacks with tsar Nicholas II That's why it's rediculous to call them an ethnic group. They were a military class which borrowed their "uniforms" from the neghbor people. The same goes for Ural Cossacks who's uniform looks like nomadic Tatars'. Cholka is simply a hair bang. Do you see any cholka on the tsarist-era photos above? From the beginning of the thread, I emphasized that Cossacks were a Russian military class, not a class of a particular regime. Today there're Cossacks although tsarist times are long gone. Regimes change, but country remains.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on May 19, 2007 23:44:07 GMT 3
Fact is there were Cossack units in Soviet army. Your claims that they weren't Cossacks are your personal speculations. yes there were Cossacks but from teh pictures alone it is not obvious, they were not allowed to life according to their traditional way of life, hence the Cholka. many pictures are surely made for propagandistic reasons to convince the world that there was no Cossack genocide. Don Cossacks never wore the Cherkesska, Kuban and Terek Cossacks did. the soldiers in the first picture are not Cossacks but Daghestanis. the second picture shows probably Cossacks of the Imperator Konvoy, not from the Steppe. none of both are actually Kuban Cossacks... countries remain but ethnics can be surpressed and annihilated. unless you claim Americans are in fact Englishmen you agree on the seperation bewteen Cossack and Russian. Cossacks were Russian by nationality but not ethnicity.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 20, 2007 23:01:20 GMT 3
I remain totally confused
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on May 20, 2007 23:17:01 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 20, 2007 23:29:58 GMT 3
Actually, most the Cossacks, Caucasians and Türkmäns wore similar clothes.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on May 21, 2007 23:29:57 GMT 3
Cossack dress can be separated in three different groups: Don Cossacks, Caucasian Cossacks (Kuban & Terek) and Siberian Cossacks (the rest).
|
|