|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 27, 2008 13:17:17 GMT 3
Too bad my level of knowledge regarding the Cossacks is too low for me to contribute to the discussion But I enjoy reading different points of view.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 27, 2008 18:44:11 GMT 3
Before they really were a bunch of outcasts and freedom loving serfs basically from everywhere. Which is simply witnessed by their Turkic name which mean free men. They simply were a social, but not an ethnic group. However, already by the end of the 16th century most of these "free men," were former Russian serfs and were ethnically Russian. Already in the 17th century in the Moscow state, Cossacks are considered as a special class of the Moscovite society. They took the part in Zemsky Sobors i.e. "The Assemblies of the land" in other words in the Russian feudal parlaiments. Note that only "Russian" subjects (not Tatars, Bashkirs etc.)were allowed to take part in these assemblies. Cossacks not only didn't reject participation in the Zamskys Sobors, but actualy were actively taking part in it. Cossacks deputies there are listed together with the deputies from "nobles," "merchants," "peasants," "strelets (riflemen)" and other social groups of the Muscovite state. All these prove that Cossacks from the very early stage of their history considered themselves to be a part of the Muscovite/Russian state and ethnically the same people of this state. Their status in this state later got only more institutionalized with time. Have you also read the "Tale of the Azov siege of the Don Cossacks" in 1641. Cossacks there directly say that they are "natural subjects of the Moscow state," "that they are part of Rus, although they escape from their to Don from slavery." I suggest you to read it. It's a very interesting document. well, you were not able to refute my claims as i can see, how you explain the existence of ethnic "special" troops? anyways, the Cossacks earliest mentioned in the 15th century etc are not Cossacks comparable to the later Cossacks but they were tatar mercenaries more similar to modern kazakh. the earliest Cossacks were those of Zaporozhiye and those of the Don and Volga. all those lived at first independently from any outside rule under their own elected rulers. afterwards they all became directly under czarist rule (partially by their own free will) and then were simply accepted into Russian society as an already existent community and continued as such more or less unchanged. at first they had only vassal status but particularly after some anti-czarist uprisings, the zaporozhians and Volga voiskos dissappeared and were regrouped as other voiskos (Black Sea/Kuban Cossacks & Astrakhan, Ural & Orenburg Cossacks. the Don Cossacks still remained a large autonomous status until after teh napoleonic wars, when their strenght as a result of the Nap Wars became too great and the Czar hismelf made hismelf Ataman of all Cossacks to prevent any further anti-czarist uprisings (Don Cossacks still often rebelled against the Czar before that but never as large in scale as those of the Zaporozhians and Volga Cossacks. i think i have a deja vu writing this but as i mentioned before, even late czarist cenus takers and observers from the Don commented on the Turkic non-slavic appearance of mayn cossacks of the Don when they were there and shane o'rourke in her latest book also wrote that the genetic makeup of cossacks was significantly changed by the mixing with tatar & turkic women. even cossack language & religion is slightly different fromtheir other slavic neighbours. cossack stanitzas were organized differetnly from other russian towns. unlike in the social class society that you propose, Cossacks themselves were divided into free peasants and nobility. a social class based on nobility, peasantry and military caste cannot be divided further into peasants and nobility. this is a strong evidence of a separate culture and ultimately a separate ethnicity. you will certainly also find more common with Australians and english but then why do Australians cosndider themselves different and call Brits as Poms? both russians and Cossacks have such "hate names" for each others. there is more than enough evidence to make a case in favour of Cossacks as a separate identity, particularly considdering the events in the civil war when cossacks tried to create their own independent nation of Kazakia, not even mentioning those numerous, sometimes huge uprisings before the 19th century. you will find no example in history where a "social warrior caste" allied with the enemy like ivan mazeppa durign the Swedish invasion. the ancestors of those were also called Kazaks in the Polish military, and you can't argue that those were just "runaway russians" because they sought the alliance of, again, non-slavic people, the Crimean tatars.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 27, 2008 19:34:24 GMT 3
If you look at Cossack pictures starting from the 18th century, their physical appearance is totally the same with Russians (who BTW have a lot of Turkic blood in general also).
Russians don't have hate name for Cossacks, perhaps you confuse with the name for Ukrainians, which is not really a hate, but a nick name "hohly" which literally means "forelocks" which first was a nick name for Zaporozhians, but then became the nick name for all Ukrainians. But this nick name was never used for Don and Russian Cossacks
The language of Cossacks completely fits in so called "Southern Russian accents" No any substantial difference at all, except this Southern Russian pronunciation.
I've been on Don many times, I know how Cossacks speak and what are their religious beliefs are. Again it's completely the same with the general Russian population.
Claims that Cossacks are not Russians are refuted by Cossacks themselves, just read the "Tale of Azov".
Furthermore if Cossacks were a separate ethnicity they wouldn't be allowed to take part in Zemskies Sobors, nor would they be willing to do it. All the Cossacks were supposed to serve in a Military that what made them a military class.
This stuff relates to the relatively early Cossack history. From then Cossacks always have been an integral part of the Russian history.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 27, 2008 21:41:14 GMT 3
Let me reword it - expansion INTO Siberia The name Cossack itself derives from Turkic. Cossacks were not Russians. The Tsars and Cossacks were also both independent from each other. Cossacks BECAME Russians and Russified Turks eventually but they were Turkic at first. That's my point. Yes, I agree with that. But when the Siberian expansion started, Cossacks were already Slavic. Ermak Vasilii Timoheevich, the conqueror of Siberia, his name doesn't sound very Turkic, does it? He BTW is believed to be born in Akhangesk in the very north of Russia near the White Sea, later he joined the Cossacks as many active and brave Russian people of his time. For Slavic Russians to claim eastward expansion into the steppes is the same thing as Sino Chinese claiming westward expansion into the steppes. Both countries inherited their modern day territories by nomads fighting nomads. Siberia is not really the steppe. It's actually mostly taiga. In fact, in order to get to Sibera, Russians had to conquer Tatar Khanate of Siberia first. Both countries say the same thing, Chinese go "Sure, the Manchus were nomads and could fight other nomads but many of the soldiers in expansion were Han Chinese". Russians go "Sure, the Tatars were nomads and could fight other nomads but many of the soldiers in expansion were Rus Cossacks" Same sh*t, still nomads fighting nomads. Well, actually the soldiers were in expansion were Russians, with Russian Cossacks playing the key role there. Also Qing China was actually a Manchu dynasty but not Chinese and the expansion was conducted by Manchu emperors, unlike the Siberian expansion which was under control of Russian tsars. The key difference here is that Cossacks were not nomades. They were farmers, since most of them originate from the Russian farmers. And this is the key difference between them and real Nomades.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 27, 2008 21:45:16 GMT 3
15th century, 16th century - look at Temujin's quote, they were not Slavs - and yes the Siberian expansion occured in the 16th century 18th century - sure, more then a few generations happened and intermixing/assimilation has occured most of it out of paranoia of another civil war Cossack VS Tsars
You see the time gap?
It's called assimilation Sarmat, you think the Tsars would want the Cossacks to have their own independent state? No, they made sure as hell to assimilate and melt them into a Russian state.
Now they are claiming Cossacks as simply RUSSIANS. Truth is that they owe much to the Cossacks, but at the same time do not wish to admit that Cossacks were not a Russian force. China does the same thing with Dzungaria, East Turkistan and Tibet. Truth is that they owe much to the Manchus, but at the same time do not wish to admit that Manchus were not a Chinese force.
Both Manchus and Cossacks assimilated into China and Russia respectively, and their achievements claimed by the majority though in truth it was done by the minority.
My grandmother herself has every reason to call herself Slav as she looks completely slavic and she admits that many Tatars sadly have become Russified. Her heart is completely Turkic, and has suffered enough of communism to deny herself the truth any longer. Something I inherited from her.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 27, 2008 21:56:40 GMT 3
Well, I myself have all the grounds to say that I also belong to Cossacks. But I say that Cossacks are Russians.
First Cossacks indeed were complitely Tatar, like Ryazan Cossacks in the 14th century. But by the 16 century they were predominantly Slavic. The conquest of Siberia started in the 16th century. If you read my posts I wrote about the "Tale of Azov" were Cossacks write about themselves. They clearly say that we are "from Rus" when on Earh could Dhungars or Mongols say: "We are Chinese or we originate from China" until now they are different people with Chinese.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 27, 2008 22:13:45 GMT 3
Don't you see the obvious assimilation?
Cossacks singing "We are Russians" Manchus DO sing "We are Chinese" It's called assimilation and that includes intermixing as well. This is the reality of things.
Wrong - 18th century and later was when Cossack forces comprised of predominantly Slavs, NOT 16th. Tatars have been intermixing quite a bit sure (in fact a lot), but it wasn't until later that Cossacks started to look completely Slavic. Hell you can take one look at my grandmother's black/white photos when she was younger and you won't think she's even Tatar.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 27, 2008 22:42:32 GMT 3
Well. The tale of Azov was written in the first half of the 17th century and there Cossacks clearly write how they came to Don from Rus. Ermak was from Arkhangelsk, how come he is Tatar? I don't understand what is the point of the assimilation since majority of Cossacks were from Russia and spoke Russian. A lot of them were fluent in other languages including Tatar as well but they always use Russian to communicate with each other.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 27, 2008 22:48:06 GMT 3
If you look at Cossack pictures starting from the 18th century, their physical appearance is totally the same with Russians (who BTW have a lot of Turkic blood in general also). no i have the study from the book, its what official Imperial Russian authorities themselves say. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balachkai can't find any reference to this at all... baltic German nobles also always served in the military of whoever controlled the Baltics, that doesn't make them a military class. the same can be said about many people of many nations, that doesn't mean they are the same, they are only Russian by nationality but not ethnicity. i didn't said they were not part of Russian history, i said they cannot be considdered ethncially Russian. what does it need for you to make a separate ethnicity? like Croats/Bosnians/Serbs, or Hui/Han, irish/northern irish...australians and even north americans were also part of english history and even today they are closest allies. ukraine and belorussia were always part fo russian history but they are still not russians. it just means cossacks are closer to russians than ukrainians but still different.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 27, 2008 22:56:06 GMT 3
Never claimed Yermak was Tatar, he got killed in Siberia actually. And 17th century? Time gap again.
Russia is the home of Nordic/Slavic/Uralic/Altaic peoples - the 4 became Russian. The 4 became assimilated into some hybrid identidy called Russia influenced heavily from the Greek Orthodox Church and the Byzantines. ALL Cossacks were from Russia geographically and spoke Russian but Cossacks were Altaic first and foremost before intermixing and complete Russification.
Ne ways, this is very difficult topic as it's easy to confuse each other's words. Russia is both defined as an ethnicity and a multi-ethnic nation. My point remains however, Russia owes Siberia to the Cossacks, and the Cossacks were Altaic at first with some Slavs they lived alongside. Gradually they started looking more and more Slavic. Cossacks were not Russians - thats the point.
I don't mind Slavs, but when someone tries to claim the glory of those Tatars who expanded for Russia - thats when the tables turn. It was a Cossack, not Rus expansion. Rus merely inherited it, and they should be doing a better job of maintain its people within the borders.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 28, 2008 1:39:32 GMT 3
no i have the study from the book, its what official Imperial Russian authorities themselves say. Yes, but how it contradicts my point? There are a lot of pictures of Cossacks from the 18th century and Napoleonic wars. I'm sure that you saw many of them as well. Is Cossacks physical appearance very different from the Russian one on these pictures? Besides, honestly it would be actually very hard to make a distinction here. Because many of Crimean and Kazan Tatars actually look complitely the same as Russians. Yeah, all the southern Russia speaks in Balachka, that's what I meant. It might be actually the Cossack influence Just try to find the English or German translation of the tale of the siege of Azov, if you want I can provide you with the Russian internet link with the full text in Russian. The point is that every Cossack was obliged to serve in the Military it was his function, Baltic Germans never had such duties as a whole group. I respect your point of view. But I don't understand why it isn't just more natural to conclude that Cossacks are a sub ethnic group of Russians? IMO, the most important would be to determine whether Cossacks themselves want to be considered a separate ethnicity. As long as the majority of them consider themselves Russians I don't think it's justifiable to force them think that they are not Russians. Self determination is the most important that's what I think.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 28, 2008 6:38:44 GMT 3
Never claimed Yermak was Tatar, he got killed in Siberia actually. And 17th century? Time gap again. Russia is the home of Nordic/Slavic/Uralic/Altaic peoples - the 4 became Russian. The 4 became assimilated into some hybrid identidy called Russia influenced heavily from the Greek Orthodox Church and the Byzantines. ALL Cossacks were from Russia geographically and spoke Russian but Cossacks were Altaic first and foremost before intermixing and complete Russification. Ne ways, this is very difficult topic as it's easy to confuse each other's words. Russia is both defined as an ethnicity and a multi-ethnic nation. My point remains however, Russia owes Siberia to the Cossacks, and the Cossacks were Altaic at first with some Slavs they lived alongside. Gradually they started looking more and more Slavic. Cossacks were not Russians - thats the point. I don't mind Slavs, but when someone tries to claim the glory of those Tatars who expanded for Russia - thats when the tables turn. It was a Cossack, not Rus expansion. Rus merely inherited it, and they should be doing a better job of maintain its people within the borders. Unfortunately, I have to disagree. It doesn't make sense at all. The Russian Siberian expansion was organized and funded by the big Russian merchant families from Urals and North of Russia and blessed by the tsars. The Cossacks who took part in the exploration were Russian Cossacks i.e. people who were born in Russia proper, like Ermak from Arkhangelsk, and later join the expeditions organized by the Russian merchants. If you know the name of the famous Russian Siberian explorers, like Semen Dezhnev, who reached Alaska, they all were Russians. Never Tatars made the expansion for the tsars, instead Russians had to fight with Tatars for the control of Siberia and later defend against Tatar raids.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 28, 2008 7:12:24 GMT 3
How many times do I have to repeat this? The Cossacks were not Rus Slavics, they only became them. Currently Russian nationalists are falsely claiming the Cossacks were "all Russians" and now for some reason you're singing their tune - which you didn't a few pages before.
Cossacks were led and funded by Russian merchants yes, including Ermak. People who were born in Russia proper were not just Slavs, as I said before it is the home of Norse (though Norse completely assimilated), Uralic and Altaics as well.
Cossack itself as a word as I mentioned before, is Turkic. First Cossacks were semi-nomadic Turks who have settled in Russia. For centuries they kept their roots independent from Russia - but it was difficult when you're surrounded by mass numbers of Slavs - Cossack ethnicities were independent from Russia, and they should have been given their own independent state rather then the Tsars that inherited it - ending up fighting for it during their civil wars.
Siberian expansion had Turks from both sides, and the Cossacks armed with gunpowder as well as ability to use the colonising tactic "selling guns for land" gained Siberia. Either then the rather isolated Khanate in Siberia, the rest of it was mostly open land.
ALL Cossacks fought for the Tsars, hell even my other ancestry (Dzungar/Kalmyk Mongol) fought for the Tsars against the Ottomans and many Muslim Turks. Does not make us Russian, but allies of the Tsars - of course civil wars occured by both Kalmyks and Cossacks against the Russians when they tried to reduce our level of independence. Ne ways - to conclude, my point of view is that Siberia belongs to the Cossacks, not Russians.
Siberian nationalists who are descendant of these Cossacks also feel they should have their own independent nation and much blood has been spilled over guerilla civil wars - however they are too lacking in numbers (large land, few people) to claim military independence that easily. It was enough however to make the Russians end up planting puppet rulers and continuing their assimilation of Siberia to combat them. For some reason you're acting as if intermixing and assimilation never even existed. If so, I wouldn't even have been born nor my father.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 28, 2008 9:28:42 GMT 3
Well. My point is very simple.
First Russian royal dynasty was established by Vikings, were all Russian rulers Vikings after that?
Current English monarchs are of German origin, are they really German?
Many Kazakh clans directly originate from Mongol clans and still keep those ancient Mongol names although they already vanished in Mongolia. Are those clans still Mongols?
There is the royal Kazakh clan, Tore which descendants directly from Genghiz khan. Are Tore Kazakhs Mongols?
And so on...
Of course first Cossacks were Tatars, but in the 16th century most of the Russian Cossacks were Russian serfs who escaped from their master to Cossack hosts they even were not born in the hosts but got there from their native Russian villages? How can they be Tatars?
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 28, 2008 9:52:59 GMT 3
The first five lines I agree with, therefore Russians are not Norse, English are not German, Kazakhs are not Mongols. That is true.
As for the 6/7th lines -> Do the Han Chinese have proper conquest rights to the territories won by Manchurian Empire and Khalkha Mongols against the Dzungar Khanate since the numbers of Manchurian armies also comprised of hordes of Han Chinese? False!
Same thing in the Cossack expansion, those who are credited with the expansion - Turks including some Slavic Cossacks (In which the Slavs like Kazakhs, English, and Russians - became an independent entity from Russia) should hold their own Siberian state. Hence the Siberian nationalism which I support.
Also your timeframe is mixed up, 16th century was the start of many Russian serfs joining the Cossack forces, progressively from then on the 18th century was when Cossacks became majority Russians. Either way, the Cossacks deserve their own nation and they have fought and died for it.
|
|