Post by thediplomat on Jun 11, 2007 12:29:56 GMT 3
...The Mongols, like the Vikings before them, have gotten some pretty awful press. In the Rus' chronicles they are godless Hagarites, the orphans of God; in modern times they become ''Asiatic'' barbarians, the orphans of civilization. The truth is, of course, that the Mongols were the largest, most advanced, and best-led nomadic-force ever to cross the Great Steppe. Theyd efeated teh most sophistciated empries of Eurasia-the Hisi Hsia, Chin, Kara Khitai, Khwarzim, Abbasid, and Sung. They also subordinated a host of minor, more primitive enterprises, among them the Rus' empire in the northwestern corner of Eurasia. The conquest of the Rus' by the Mongols closes what historians call ''The kievan period in Russian history''. The skewed nature of this nomenclature should be suffciently clear to the careful reader by now. We would do better to call this era the Rus'period in East Slavic History.
Terminological quibbles aside, the arrival of Mongols on the scene had a tremendous impact on the history of the region. Not in the thirteenth century when they appeared, but rather in the nineteenth century- about a half millenium after they ahd vanished into the trackless plains of Eurasia. It was then that a number of confused historical philosophers decided that the Mongols had diverted ''Russia'' from its true path of Western development. Thsi interpration was not based on any evdience found in the sources; instead, it arose froma neet to explain in a Euroepan manner. The premise is of course false, but it was far too painful for these Europhilic Russian thinkers to admit. So they looked elsewhere for a scapegoat. The Mongosl proved an esay target: They were not evryw ell liked at the time and had in fact invaded The Rus'. And so it was that the myth of Tatar yoke born.
In actuality teh Mongols had very little general impact on the course of the Rus' history. The Rus'emprie was divided before the Mongols arrived, so it cannot be said that nomads destroyed the Kievan enterprise by themselves. Moreover, the Mongols did not care enough about the Rus' to invest the resources necassary to alter the course of the region's evolution. In comprasion to China, Transoxiana, India, and Persia, Rus' was a complete backwater. The Mongols did not even bother to settle in the region, preferring the southern climes around the Caspian Sea and the comfortable towns of teh ancient central Eurasian empries. Apparently (and the evidence here is hardly clear), the Mongols occasionally sent detachments of tax colelctors to Rus'. They gathered revenue from Rus'pricnes, whow ere in essence subcontractors collecting rents from native Slavic traders and peasants. This tributarys ystem, like all tributary systems, required a certain amount of coercion( teh Mongols destroyed cities to set teh right tone) and a certain amount of coordination ( the Mongols taught the Rus' the ways of imperial administration for this purpose), but itw as hardly the oppressive force described in teh Rus' chronicles or nationalistic Russian historiography.
Beyond teh fiscal drain of Mongol rule( perhaps offset by increased trade within the Pax Mongolica) and the transmission of coercive and administrative techniques, it is difficult to see how teh Mongols could have had anye ffect on the Rus'. Their cultures were radically different: The Rus' were Slavs, and the Mongosl were Altaic. Their religions were different: The Rus' were Christians, and teh Mongols practices shamanism. And their ways of life were at odds: The Rus' were dirt farmers, and teh Mongols were pastoral nomads. The only thing the two groups shared was teh imperial system, so it is hardly suprising that nearly every remnant of Mongol ways in Russian culture has to do with administration, horses, money, trade, and so on. The Mongols were like absentee landlords- as long as you paid your rent to the collector, your were left alone. And usually the tribute arrived on schedule, thanks to the good offices of tiny principality of Moscow...
source: The Russian Moment in World History
www.amazon.com/Russian-Moment-World-History/dp/0691126062/ref=sr_1_1/105-3285715-9254806?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181553232&sr=8-1
Terminological quibbles aside, the arrival of Mongols on the scene had a tremendous impact on the history of the region. Not in the thirteenth century when they appeared, but rather in the nineteenth century- about a half millenium after they ahd vanished into the trackless plains of Eurasia. It was then that a number of confused historical philosophers decided that the Mongols had diverted ''Russia'' from its true path of Western development. Thsi interpration was not based on any evdience found in the sources; instead, it arose froma neet to explain in a Euroepan manner. The premise is of course false, but it was far too painful for these Europhilic Russian thinkers to admit. So they looked elsewhere for a scapegoat. The Mongosl proved an esay target: They were not evryw ell liked at the time and had in fact invaded The Rus'. And so it was that the myth of Tatar yoke born.
In actuality teh Mongols had very little general impact on the course of the Rus' history. The Rus'emprie was divided before the Mongols arrived, so it cannot be said that nomads destroyed the Kievan enterprise by themselves. Moreover, the Mongols did not care enough about the Rus' to invest the resources necassary to alter the course of the region's evolution. In comprasion to China, Transoxiana, India, and Persia, Rus' was a complete backwater. The Mongols did not even bother to settle in the region, preferring the southern climes around the Caspian Sea and the comfortable towns of teh ancient central Eurasian empries. Apparently (and the evidence here is hardly clear), the Mongols occasionally sent detachments of tax colelctors to Rus'. They gathered revenue from Rus'pricnes, whow ere in essence subcontractors collecting rents from native Slavic traders and peasants. This tributarys ystem, like all tributary systems, required a certain amount of coercion( teh Mongols destroyed cities to set teh right tone) and a certain amount of coordination ( the Mongols taught the Rus' the ways of imperial administration for this purpose), but itw as hardly the oppressive force described in teh Rus' chronicles or nationalistic Russian historiography.
Beyond teh fiscal drain of Mongol rule( perhaps offset by increased trade within the Pax Mongolica) and the transmission of coercive and administrative techniques, it is difficult to see how teh Mongols could have had anye ffect on the Rus'. Their cultures were radically different: The Rus' were Slavs, and the Mongosl were Altaic. Their religions were different: The Rus' were Christians, and teh Mongols practices shamanism. And their ways of life were at odds: The Rus' were dirt farmers, and teh Mongols were pastoral nomads. The only thing the two groups shared was teh imperial system, so it is hardly suprising that nearly every remnant of Mongol ways in Russian culture has to do with administration, horses, money, trade, and so on. The Mongols were like absentee landlords- as long as you paid your rent to the collector, your were left alone. And usually the tribute arrived on schedule, thanks to the good offices of tiny principality of Moscow...
source: The Russian Moment in World History
www.amazon.com/Russian-Moment-World-History/dp/0691126062/ref=sr_1_1/105-3285715-9254806?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181553232&sr=8-1