|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 1, 2008 18:38:18 GMT 3
Considred by whom? Are you familiar with the history of Ukraine at all? If you read any Ukrainian Cossack chronicles they are very nationalistic Ukrainian. And all the Ukrainian folklore, culture, literature etc. is 50% about Zaporozhian Cossacks (about different people in your view). the reason for this, and there was a study about this, just can't remember where, is very simple. Ukrainians were "Cossackified". at the time of the great Bohdan Kmelnitzki uprising, Zaporozhian Cossacks were the leaders of a general Ukrainian uprising against the Polish crown. that means the actual Cossacks were just the elite of a larger Ukrainian movement. therefore Ukrainians have a great emphasize on the Cossacks, because unlike their Crimean tartar allies, originated from amongst them. in fact Zporozhians did not lead an Ukrianian uprising, it was only characterized as such later and ebcause it was actively joined and supported by many Ukrainians. nationalits therefore mphasize on the Zaporozhians as their ancestors and first fighters for an independent Ukraine, which of course is an inaccurate modern interpretation, but the influence of this Cossack uprising on the ukrainian people and mentality was huge, therefore Cossacks are considdered by some as equal to the Polish Ukrainians subjects that joined the Cossack-tatar alliance. first, i never denied that Zaporozhians had mostly Ukrainian origins and all other Cossacks had mostly Russian origins. in the same way no one can't deny that the colonists who broke free from Britian in 1776 were mostly of British origin. but they are no longer and this did not change overnight. in the same way, Cossacks are Cossacks, whether they have mostly Ukrainian or Russian origin is completely irrelevant, you won't find me significant differences between Terek and Kuban Cossacks in the late 19th century to early 20th c and this is water-proof evidence that Cossacks as a whole are distinct from either one ethnicity. BTW Kuban Cossacks were created in 1860, Catherine the great just rehabilitated the Zaporozhians and gave them the new name of Black Sea Cossacks. but there is an unbroken continuity from Zaporozhians to the later Kuban Cossacks. completely inaccurate, you just said that there is no difference between Budenny, a russian from the terek voisko, and an actual Terek Cossack... i'm starting to doubt that you actually want to discuss anything and just repeat the Russian nationalistic viewpoint...everyone's free for his opinion but history is not an opinion but facts. as i said above, Kuban Cossacks are Zaporozhians, they were deported but its still the same people. the Kuban vosiko was newly created but the cossacks of this vosiko didn't suddenly fell from the sky like rain... of course there are, you know Anna Netrebko! ;D while the Zaporozhian Sich was destroyed as an independent Cossack state, Zaporozhians as a people lived on as Black Sea/Kuban Cossacks. your claim was that all Cossacks are Russians but the pure and simple existence of Kuban Cossacks already defeat thsi claim in the first second. i already mentioned the all-Cossack congress of 1917 which you didn't commented on as far as i can see. it is very obvious from simple historical facts that by all international standards, and the overwhelming opinion of the leading Cossacks thesmselves, Cossacks all felt as a single community and in the wake of the chaos of the Czars abdications set out to create their own short-lived states in southern Russia....
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 1, 2008 21:43:21 GMT 3
Well, the difference between us is that while I rely on the basic authentic fiirst hand sources on the history of the Russian Cossacks like the Tale of the Siege of Azov, which say that Cossacks are Russians; or numerous Ukrainian Cossack chronicles of the 17th century like of Simiano Velichko, or Grigorii Grabianka or "History of Ross" were it was clearly stated that Zaporozhians are Ukrainians.
All those sources are primary and the most important sources of the history of Cossackdom. Unfortunately, you reveal the lack of familiarity with them and prefer to rely on some strange modern interpretations.
Secondly, likewise you lack substantial familiarity with Samurai history. You don't know for example that first Samurais where militant groups living on the border with Amishu who later become border protectors and later became a military class in Japan, almost like Cossacks. In fact, it's surprisingly similar to Cossack history. Like Cossack adopter their military art from Tatars, Samurais adopted unique fighting skills including horse riding and horse archery from Amishu. In fact, likewise there is a theory that early samurais actually included substantial numbers of Amishu.
Thirdly, before trying to say something about the things you don't have enough knowledge, try to check at least some basic information. Both Pomors and Ushkuiniks had a unique culture and life style. Pomors still have very unique life style and even there own dialect. Very similar to Cossacks. Russia is quite diverse country in general.
Lastly. I think I repeated many times that I'm talking about Russian Cossacks the cradle of whom is Don river. My family comes from there.
You claim that you're very familiar with Kuban Cossacks history. Yet, you don't know that Kuban Cossacks really had crisis of identity in 1917. Originally Ukrainians they were resettled to the Caucasus and Russified. If you really would be familiar with this phenomenon, you would know that many Kuban cossacks advocated the creation of the unitied state with Petliura and reunification with the "mother Ukraine" during the Russian Civil war and even creation of "the great Urkaine" including Caucasus. at the same time there was another group which was trying to restore the pre revolution status quo. Basically Kuban was divided exactly on the ethnic basis during the Civil war. Those Kuban Cossack who advocated independence and reunification with Urkaine, "chernomortsy" were from the western stanitsas and the descendants of Zaporozhians, on the other hand "lineitsy" who opposed independence, and union with Ukraine and supported White movement were from the eastern statnitsas, descendants of the settlers from Don and Russia.
That clearly proves that a lot of Kuban Cossacks still thought themselves to be Ukrainians in the beginning of the 20th century.
And I also see that you again contradict yourself. I remember in another thread you said that Netrebko is Ukrainian, now you say that she is Zaporozhian. Seems that you're not sure yourself about what you'r trying to prove.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 1, 2008 23:06:24 GMT 3
Well, the difference between us is that while I rely on the basic authentic fiirst hand sources on the history of the Russian Cossacks like the Tale of the Siege of Azov, which say that Cossacks are Russians; or numerous Ukrainian Cossack chronicles of the 17th century like of Simiano Velichko, or Grigorii Grabianka or "History of Ross" were it was clearly stated that Zaporozhians are Ukrainians. that prooves nothing. a neo-nazi would say "i have first hand accounts by Germans themselves who claim that Germans considder thesmelves a Nordic people and descent from Aryans". so i ahve water-proof evidence Germans are Nordics and descend from Aryans... but more seriously, when i brought up Tichy Don, which IS a Historical tale from Cossacks themselves which does clearly state that DON cossacks considdered themselves as Cossacks (as opposed to Ukrainians & Russians) you easily dismissed them. this is a source from a time where concepts like Nationhood and ethnicity exist. the soruces you mention are from a time when there were nations and ethnic groups in a modern way didn't existed, so such references are useless. Sorbs of Saxony call themselves as Germans. the events of the Russian Civil War, destruction of Cossackdom and ultimately the betrayal of Cossacks in Austria are not "modern itnerpretations", contrary to what you seem to believe. the term samurai only came into existence shortly before the sengoku jidai at all. Samurai means servant and they were the retainers of migthy noblemen, samurai without employment were called Ronin, this highlights their status and role in society. the ideas you propose here are ridiculous. not nearly as diverse as the Wehrmacht... noen fo the two groups you mentioned qualify this branch. the group most similar to Imperial Russian Cossacks were the Croats & Grenzer of the Habsburgs. nevertheless, it seems Pomors also survive to thisd ay and it seems "diverse" Russia doesn't recognize them as different.... Kuban Cossacks are Russian Cossacks by nationality. now suddenly you seem to rememebr the evnts of th Russian Civl War as it pleases you... hah, now suddenly you aknowledge them as Ukrainians, just a few sentences before you said they were Russified, before that you said there was no conection between Zaporozhians & Ukrainians at all! continuign any form of discussion here now seems really pointless... i don't see a contradiction here, she is of Ukrainian stock and as i noted before i said Kuban Cossacks mostly descend from Ukrainians....i never questioned origins, its about what Cossacks became.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 1, 2008 23:32:12 GMT 3
Hmm...
At least you could be more honest with yourself. I was always saying that Zaporozhians are Ukranians now you say that I didn't say this. weird...
How than possible to have any discussion at all if you don't really read my posts?
I also don't understand your points about diversity in Russia. Pomors are different it's a fact. And it doesn't need any official recognition.
How can you compare Wermacht with Russia... another weird statement...
And also why do you have to tell me about the later history of samurais? I was telling you about their early history you seem to not to be really familiar with...
Finally by ignoring authentic Cossack chronicles you just show that you actually don't have any ground behind your "theories" those chronicles didn't claim something bizzare like that Cossacks are Ancient egyptians or descendants from Cezar himself; they just reinforce commonly accepted and known facts.
In fact, in all the available encyclopedias and history booksyou can read that Cossacks were a group, social class etc. of people of mainly Ukrainian and Russian ethnicity. It's you who advocates crazy theory that Cossack is an ethnicity by itself... And, unfortunately, for you you seem not to be able to prove it.
Betrayal of Cossacks in Austria and Civil war and also another tragic war between Cossacks in WWII are also facts. And never I questioned the thruthfullness of these facts. The only thing I said is that those Cossacks were misleaded because they thought that Nazist really could bring leberation from Communism. But I can understand their feelings and I can't judge them. I consider the Austrian bertrayal a tragedy. I only think that although WWII is a very complicated subject full of hidden controversies as a general matter Nazist represented the evil side in that war that's it. However, it doesn't mean that Soviets were perfect they did many bad things as well; but yet they were better than Nazists. That's what I think.
In the end you prove yourself wrong again. You say, that one could be Ukrainian and Zaporozhian Cossack at the same time before you repeated several times that Zaporozhian Cossacks aren't Ukrainians and saying that one can't be Russian and Don Cossack at the same time...
Either way you're a wrong or you don't pay attention to the meaning of your statements.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 2, 2008 20:02:21 GMT 3
but why? Austrians are Austrians yet they are German nevertheless, i mean Austrian is not an ethncitiy and i see no poitn why i should not give any weight to Sokholov and his book and the effort of Cossacks to establsih independent (from Russia!) states in the Russian Civil war. Samurai are e phenomenon from ~14th century onwards. of course Samurai didn't simply fell from the sky but the phenomenon called Samurai and what you described is defiantely not the same. prussian & baltic military aristocracy developed from medieval knights that colonized and christianized the pagan east, yet youc an't say a Tuetonic knight is a prussian junker. times change and people with them. as far as i can see Pomors for example just adopted to different living conditions and it seems you believe the same for Cossacks, but it is not the same because Cossacks did not adopted to their new living region but actually copied from the people livign their & their neighbours, they itnegrated into a new culture while abandonign their russian roots and only keeping their language & believe more or less.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 3, 2008 8:06:53 GMT 3
Look, but Cossacks actually didn't abondoned their traditional Russian life style, they remained the farmers! This is what puts them in a very special category compare to surrounding nomadic tribes. In this regard, Pomors are even less traditionally Russian because their involvment in agriculture was minimal. Their economical basis was sea trade and hunting.
In no way Cossacks complitely abondoned their roots. In fact, the constant peasant Russian peasants' influx to Don stopped only after Peter the Great had prohibited Don Cossacks to accept any new serfs to the Voisko and that ended in the Bulavin uprising. So, you see it was actually the Imperial government that wanted to limit Cossackdom from the rest of Russia, not Cossacks themselves.
Cosackdom historically has been playing a very important part in Russian mentality. In fact, it was the only way for many to escape from the limits feudal system. It just accumulated the most fearless and extreme elements of the Russian society.
Cossack culture just proves my point. A lot of Cossack songs are about the love to "Mother Russia" or "Saint mother Russia."
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 3, 2008 19:13:29 GMT 3
those songs are form imperial times.... Cossack males never cultivated anything, it were the female Cossacks that totally cared for the household. every Cossack was a full-time soldier, they had simply no time for agriculture, this is particularly true for the early Cossacks. many foreigners traveling Russia particularly mentioned this.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 3, 2008 22:29:16 GMT 3
Man, this is complitely untrue... What books did you read about Cossacks?
I think If I'm not mistaken you were referring before to some books of Shane O'Rourke. So this author has the whole book about Cossack agriculture called "Warriors and Peasants" where he talks inter alia about "Russian peasant communal culture in Cossack community."
Every Cossack had a piece of land. Rich Cossacks had better land and that's how the difference between "domovitye Kazaki" and "Kazatskaya golytba" developed.
Also, people of different ethnicitied never have songs glorifiying other ethnicities. No Tatars, Bashkir etc. have any songs were they sing that their are roots are in Russia or how they love Russia...
Even ethnicities which were historically Russian allies, like for example Ossetians in Caucasus don't have such songs... Usually everybody just make songs about its own people and its own land.
And Cossacks would never thing such songs if they thought that they "don't have any relation to Russia."
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 5, 2008 0:27:50 GMT 3
of course they do have some songs, the national atnhem that they sing is the anthem of Russia. and i can't believe you still confuse nationality and ethnicity. songs about Russia are not "about another ethnicity". you should read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnogenesisunfortunately it is not very in-depth, the German wiki version is more in-depth and explains different concepts by different ethnologists. i also don't understand your reference to the Cossack farming, even if there are class differences those lands are still not cultivated by Cossack warriors but Cossack women. Shane O'Rourke is btw female and has a chapter on Cossack womean alone. Cossack women are actually the most obvious proove that Cossacks and Russians are separate, Cossack and Russian girls are different as day & night.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 5, 2008 1:10:52 GMT 3
I'm afraid you simply didn't read that book of her, if you trust her that much.
Cossack were farmers most of the time of their history which is natural. There was a period, however, when they received provision and grain from the Moscow authorities but it was relatively short. And also Cossack women never were plowmen, it's simply ridiculous. If Rourke wrote that she contradicts herself, because in the book "Warriors and Peasants" she describes how the land was cultivated by the Cossack males. But, I, actually, dont' find her books particularly good, I just cited her because you seem to be familiar with her books.
And Russian anthem is not a Cossack ethnic song at all. I'm talking about Cossack ethnic songs here. Don Cossacks have their own anthem about Don BTW and even we have our own flag and coat of arms.
|
|
|
Post by mariacatharina on Sept 10, 2008 8:06:26 GMT 3
i cannot agree here. you fell victim of the common self-portrayal of the USSr, but the truth looks more ugly: -- Soviets portray themselves as victims of Nazis, yet it was the Soviets who willingly allied themselves to the Nazis and helped them destroy Poland, killed Polish officers at Katyn, invaded Finland and the Baltic states and surpressed their national identity. you already mentioned what they did to the Kalmyks but they were not the only ones. I have to object!- Sovjet NEVER invaded Finland during ww2. They TRIED to do so - but failed.I think most Finns are very thankful and proud over our fathers/grandfathers (well soon grandfathers fathers) defending our country so well! Actually the Finns invented the sniper war method - guerilla method. And also the MOTTI method (to kill an enemy by a "salami" method) that outnumbered the Finnish army. During the Winter war also the wether was a great help - a lot of the poor Soviet soldiers were from Georgia and they didn't even have proper winter equipment. It was freezing down to 45 degr C. So many of them froze to death. They were not prepared to handle an enemy on skies - disguised in white. All housholds gave their white bedsheets to be made into snow disguise dresses for the Finnish Army. When spring came the Soviets had problems with their equipment sinking into the swamps.. especially the tanks. The Finnish horses played a vital role in the defence - hundred thousends of them died. I remeber a death toll of about 250.000 Finnish horses dying in the war. Also almost a complete generation of Finnish men died fighting for our country. There is hardly a family in Finland without a ww2 victim. I'm a little too tired now to go into details.. I am not used to write about this type of stuff in English either. The total population of Kareila was offered to be evacuated - most people did accept the offer. They had to leave with very short notice in the middle of the winter. I guess you can imagine how tough it was. The people who lost their homes back in Kareila was given new housing, small farms etc. This evacuation is claimed to be the biggest and most succesful evacuation ever. Of course the people who left their homes grieved and it was not easy for them to start a new life. especially as they were scattered and "blended" into the rest of the population. The western nations betrayed the promises they had made to help Finland before Finland was attacked by USSR. Volounteers anyhow came from many nations. Later on when USSR was not anymore allied with Nazi Germany Finland asked their old soldier friends to help. ( The Germans also helped Finland to gain its independence in the Civil war around ww1 by fighting on the "white" side helping to concur the Finns that were "red". Their assistance was of crucial importance at the Tampere battle and Helsinki battle) But the Nazi Germans never had any political power in Finland. They were more or less a "guest-army" Sorry, but I got rather upset reading that somebody believes that USSR invaded Finland! Muujgai
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Sept 10, 2008 11:52:45 GMT 3
Well said. BTW: Any russian government has not ever occupied whole Finland. Even 1809 we joined to Czars Empire as an authonomic independent state, when they saved us from swedes. So, even that was not occupation.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 10, 2008 20:40:14 GMT 3
i didn't thought that my using of the word invasion would create such an outcry. invasion is not the same as occupation. in 1940 Finland was invaded but as maria catharina said it was not sucessful. anyways i disagree that Finland had much cavalry in winter war. Finland had only two Regiments (Häme Cavalry & Uudenmaa Dragoons) in one Cavalrybrigade, all other German allies on the East Front contributed more cavalry, even Italy.
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Sept 11, 2008 1:34:45 GMT 3
i didn't thought that my using of the word invasion would create such an outcry. invasion is not the same as occupation. in 1940 Finland was invaded but as maria catharina said it was not sucessful. anyways i disagree that Finland had much cavalry in winter war. Finland had only two Regiments (Häme Cavalry & Uudenmaa Dragoons) in one Cavalrybrigade, all other German allies on the East Front contributed more cavalry, even Italy. But our cavalry were much better than in other states. Especially Häme Cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 11, 2008 20:21:49 GMT 3
can you tell me about exploits of the Finnish cavalry? btw the Italian Cavalry even successfully charged Soviet infantry in '42.
|
|