|
Post by sarmat on Jun 29, 2008 19:53:47 GMT 3
Looks like you're not really reading what I write. According to you all the Russians are not Slavs, but Vikings, because it were Vikings who created the Russian state and Rus is actually just a Finnish designation for the Vikings. The same thing with Cossacks in your opinion, they still are Turks, because the Name Cossack is Turkic Anyway, as I said I, the outsiders can't decide for Cossacks who they are. As long as Cossacks do consider themselves a part of the Russian ethnos its their business. It's just funny, how people who don't have any relation to the Cossacks what's so ever are trying to determine their destiny... ;D We can take care of ourselfes without aid, thank you for your cooperation ;D
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 29, 2008 20:57:03 GMT 3
Your observation about the "Red Cossacks" outlooks are correct. The point is here that before the war Cossacks were prosectuted for any expression of "Cossackdom" haircut, cossack uniform were free tickets to Gulag. Every Cossack household had shashkas, but after Bolshevik took over shashkas literally were prohibited to keep as a specific "Cossack weapon." All these was called "Decossackisation," so naturally after suddenly Stalin changed his mind regarding Cossacks it was very hard to restore all the authentic Cossack style right away. Besides, the old "Cossack" style still had a lot of association with the Old Imperial Russia. However, despite the stupid uniforms and weapons, many Cossacks in the "Red Cossack" formations were in fact "natural Cossacks". there was other reference made, for example diaries of one of them who could not even properly ride a horse. even Budennys famous Konarmyia including himself were already not Cossack even though i see many believe so... after partial rehabiliation by Stalin, i see no reason why the name Cossack was reintroduced and the uniform partially, but not other stuff like spurs, hairlock, that doesn't make much sense, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 29, 2008 21:04:36 GMT 3
but you keep on repeating inaccuracies and false info... First of all Cossacks actually were the creators of the "Russian state." The very purpose of Cossackdom was service to Russia and protection of its borders for centuries. creator of Russian state? Kievan Rus was not created by them and Russia was created by Ivan III, IV and Peter the Great, mostly without Cosssacks, actually durng Peters rule Zaporozhians allied against him and even Don Cossacks had minor rebellions prior to the Swedish invasion. Cossacks had nothing to do creating Russia. Cossacks existed for almost a cenutry before they even became aprt of Russia. all the original Cossack voiskos were created independently of Russia at all. Zaporozhian Cossacks have zero to do with Russia and it is not their origin. it is well known that the ex-Soviet citizens who fought for Germany fought primarily against Communism but still Cossacks were collected in units independent from Russian units. there was no reason to do so if they were different. in fact the Cossacks refused to become part of Vlassovs Liberation Army when being asked.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 29, 2008 21:08:38 GMT 3
It's just funny, how people who don't have any relation to the Cossacks what's so ever are trying to determine their destiny... ;D Subu'atai apparently has Cossack ancestry as he has claimed and Cossacks fought for Germany in the same way they fought for Russia, therefore i am "related" since they are just a military formation, ethnically not different from the state which employed them... and how many German commanders did they have, can you even count them?
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 29, 2008 23:31:31 GMT 3
Subu'atai apparently has Cossack ancestry as he has claimed and Cossacks fought for Germany in the same way they fought for Russia, therefore i am "related" since they are just a military formation, ethnically not different from the state which employed them... and how many German commanders did they have, can you even count them? ;D Did Subutai say you that he has Cossack ancestry? He has been repeating many times that is of Tatar, Oirat and some Slavic descent. Of course they are military formation. But Cossack ancestry exist as well as samurai ancestry exists in Japan or some descendants of German nobles live in Germany and know about their ancestry. All samurais are Japanese but not all Japanese are samurais. As well, all Cossacks are Russians, but not all Russians are Cossacks. It's very simple
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 29, 2008 23:35:59 GMT 3
there was other reference made, for example diaries of one of them who could not even properly ride a horse. even Budennys famous Konarmyia including himself were already not Cossack even though i see many believe so... after partial rehabiliation by Stalin, i see no reason why the name Cossack was reintroduced and the uniform partially, but not other stuff like spurs, hairlock, that doesn't make much sense, does it? Of course Konarmia was mainly non Cossack, unlike its enemies. A lot of things Stalin did don't make any sense at all. As I said, spurs, shashkas and nagaikas were confiscated, but people remained, despite that many of them were killed or sent to Gulags. Is really a hairlock makes one a Cossack? It would be to simple. We everybody maked hairlock, takes on burka and holds nagaika and he is already a Cossack weird
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 29, 2008 23:42:38 GMT 3
but you keep on repeating inaccuracies and false info... Everything I say about Cossacks here is true First of all Cossacks actually were the creators of the "Russian state." The very purpose of Cossackdom was service to Russia and protection of its borders for centuries. Yeah Cossacks literally didn't establish the Russian state. But the Russia as it exists now was in a large part created by Cossacks. What role played in protection of Russia from its enemies you know very well... Yeah and then they has been living 300 years together with Russia. Simple maths... Also I'm not talking about Zaporozhian Cossacks here. Zaporozhian Cossacks are Ukrainians. So, what? They obviously hated Vlasov because he fought agaisnt Cossacks in the Civil Law. And Cossacks always fought in separate formations. It proves nothing..
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 30, 2008 4:01:18 GMT 3
This discussion has been driven to opinion, both sides have presented their facts
Seperatists and Nationalists
You want one big Russia, I want Russia to end imperialism. Am I a traitor? Perhaps - but my loyalty was never to THAT motherland.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 30, 2008 17:18:51 GMT 3
Of course they are military formation. But Cossack ancestry exist as well as samurai ancestry exists in Japan or some descendants of German nobles live in Germany and know about their ancestry. but Samurai and Cossacks are totally unrelated, how can you possibly compare those? Samurai were an aristocratic class comparable to Junkers in Germany who were obliged to become officers, moreover the term Samurai does not necessarily refer to a warrior as Samurai were also bureaucrats & diplomats. furthermore every minor noble could in theory become a Samurai but Cossacks were separate entity which non-Cossacks couldn't simply join(includign their own separate nobility later on). also Samurai didn't formed their own distinct units, they for example also commanded Ashigaru as officers. it is an important point that Cossacks remained separate in their own Voiskos and there was no exchange in military trades. a Cossack could not join the regular army and Russian peasants could not becoem Cossacks. it is also perfectly comparable to the Habsburg empire. the Habsburgs in the 30 Years War entertained troops called Croats, even thoguh they didn't necessarily were Croats at all but Hungarians etc. but there was a reason those troops were called Croats, because they predominantely were Croats and not random people form the Habsburg empire that were just called Croats for military reasons, as you claim it. then later the Habsburg empire created a distinct frontier region along the border with the Ottoman Empire called 'Militärgrenze' similar to the Cossack Voiskos that existed within the Russian Empire. those regions were administratively not part of the civil administration of the Habsburg emprie and within this region there were special units raised from natives of this region. this was due to the fact that those natives were skilled in particular ways of warfare not typical to western europe and therefore provided a natural warrior class that was completely distinct in origin and culture from the rest of the Habsburg empire, no Tyrolian or Czech peasant could join those units and they were all named according to their historical origin, and they were all Croats. this is exactly the same as with the Cossack Voiskos of Imperial Russia, Russia only made use of what was already there, a distinct (from sedentary Russia) ethnic group of natural warrior people which were integrated as a border protection with a separate administration system. you know, according to your own definition you're not a Cossack at all, you call yourself a Russian and since you do not serve in any military function, you can't claim yourself as Cossack...
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 30, 2008 17:22:47 GMT 3
Is really a hairlock makes one a Cossack? It would be to simple. We everybody maked hairlock, takes on burka and holds nagaika and he is already a Cossack weird the way of riding a horse with a nagaika is strange from western riding schools and cannot simply be copied, only a true horseman from the Steppe can ride a horse this way and more importantly, he wouldn't be able to ride the horse differently.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 30, 2008 17:32:48 GMT 3
Also I'm not talking about Zaporozhian Cossacks here. Zaporozhian Cossacks are Ukrainians. but that doesn't make any sense, Zaporozhians could almost be considdered THE Cossacks. Zaporozhians were mostly Ukrainians when they were created and they still were mostly Ukrainian when they were Kuban Cossacks in 1914. but Kuban and Terek Cossacks are almost exactly the same by any means possible, Kuban Cossacks are closer to Terek Cossacks than Ukrainians and Terek Cossacks are closer to Kuban Cossacks than Russians. eventually all Cossacks are closer to each others than to other Slavic people. the All-Cossack Union of 1917 prooves this. Kuban Cossacks eventually became part of Imperial Russia just like any other Cossack voisko and even Ukriane itself, that prooves nothing. fact remains that they are no less Cossacks than any other voisko and they are totally un-russian at all. even though you probably won't find yourself a dozen Ukrainians who claim thesmelves as Cossacks, the Ukrainians have a significant historical claim over their Cossacks. your whole theory simply doesn't work out at all because of the existance of the Ukrainians... well thats not exactly true. any independent Cossack formation was subordinate to support a larger Russian Army and the organization of a regular Cavalry division of 1914 included 1 Regiment of Dragoons, Uhlans, Hussars and Cossacks each. even the completely independent small partizan units in the Napoleonic wars included detachment of regular Russian Hussars.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 30, 2008 21:36:50 GMT 3
but Samurai and Cossacks are totally unrelated, how can you possibly compare those? Did I say they are related when you put it like this, it's almost like I said that they are blood brothers or something. I just make a comparison to of the similar phenomena don't make up what I didn't say. Cossacks were a military class in Russia and all of them were obliged to serve in the military. Depending on the time period you're talking about Russian peasant escaped to Don up until the 18th century. Yeah and in Byzantine empire there was a group of people called Akrits which protected the border and constantly fought with Turks and Arabs. They had unusual fighting skills compare to the rest of the Greek population, yet they remained Greeks. Also, Russia is a very diverse country. And Cossacks not very unique in this regard. In the North of Russia there were so-called Pomors free and very independent people constantly ingaged in sea expeditions in sea trade. Also until the 15th century there was a band of people called "Ushkuiniki" in the Novgorod republic which were very similar to Cossacks, except that they raided via water channels attacking even Sarai via Volga and who also had a very independent life style and were responsible in the large part for the expansion of the Novgorod republic to the east. All this unique qualities features don't make Pomors, Ushkuiniks or Cossacks, separate ethnic groups; all of them are of Russian ethnic origin. Nonsence. As I clearly stated Cossacks are a social class. A person can be of a certain ethnicity and belong to a special even closed social group. Like nobility or Cossackdom. A Noble and a Cossack are not names for the ethnicities, but are first of all names of the social groups. Hopefully, Cossacks are allowed to create their separate military formations again now. In any case, occupation doesn't change "social/class origin." You may be a stock trader now, but yuor ancestors were nobles at the same time you can be a professor in the university but your ancestors were Cossacks. Nothing is self contradictory there.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 30, 2008 22:01:33 GMT 3
but that doesn't make any sense, Zaporozhians could almost be considdered THE Cossacks. 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). Zaporozhians were mostly Ukrainians when they were created and they still were mostly Ukrainian when they were Kuban Cossacks in 1914. I don't understand why you write that Zaporozhians were actually mostly Ukrainians? Just a paragraph below you wrote that Zaporozhians could almost be considered Cossacks as a separate ethnic group. You contradict yourself. Where is the border line between "were Ukrainians" or "mostly could be consider Cossacks"? Looks like you lost in you own arguments. If you agree that Zaporozhians are Urkainians, what is the point of arguing in the first place? I told you many times that I'm not talking about Ukrainian Cossacks. Kuban Cossack voisko was forcibly created by Catherine the Great. What has remained of Zaporozhians were forcibly removed to Caucasus, were their identity including even fighting techniques substantially changed. And all of them very actually Russified to the great extent. For sure Kuban Cossacks of the 20th century are related to Zaporozhians but definetely they are not identical to them. All Cossacks are closer to each others than to other Slavic people. So, what are you saying by this? All the people of the Southern Russia are closer to each other than the rest of Russians. All the Berliners are closer to each other than the rest of Germany and blah-blah-blah.... Of course Cossacks in the southern Russia are close to each other. Since they live next door to each other for centuries. Kuban Cossacks eventually became part of Imperial Russia just like any other Cossack voisko and even Ukriane itself, that prooves nothing. Kuban voisko became a part of Russia? It was created by the Imperial Russia. I don't know what you're seeking to prove I just said that Zaporozhians were Ukrainians. fact remains that they are no less Cossacks than any other voisko and they are totally un-russian at all. even though you probably won't find yourself a dozen Ukrainians who claim thesmelves as Cossacks, the Ukrainians have a significant historical claim over their Cossacks. your whole theory simply doesn't work out at all because of the existance of the Ukrainians... What is my theory? That Zaporozhians were Ukrainians? It's not a theory it's a fact. Kuban Cossacks are not Zaporozhians of the 16th, 17th and 18th century. Zaporozhian Sich was destroyed in the 18th century. So there are no any Zaporozhians left right now.
|
|
|
Post by sharshuvuu on Jul 1, 2008 13:14:09 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 1, 2008 18:03:03 GMT 3
[ Did I say they are related when you put it like this, it's almost like I said that they are blood brothers or something. I just make a comparison to of the similar phenomena don't make up what I didn't say. they are not a similar phenomoenon as i already described, they were a miltiary gentry like prussian Junkers, Cossacks were never a gentry, under the Czars the Cossacks got their own aristocraty and all common Cossacks fought as common soldiers. initially there was no Cossack nobility at all only free men and their elected leaders. in addition, i'd like to mention that the term Cossacks also included female folk, who did not serve in the military at all. therefore, by all purposes, they cannot be comapred as there was never aynthing like a Samurai woman, not even those married to Samurais. the Kazatchka was in stark contrast to the Russian Baba. but it was not created by Russia. the original Cossack voiskos were created by themselves independent of all foreign control, notably that of Muscovy. Russia just took over what has already existed. again you just randomly switch periods to 'save' your point of view. if we talk about the early Cossacks, they were only created because those people ran away from Russia, they wanted to be free of the hardships of the Czars rule. if we talk about about the 19th century, the Cossacks were loyal supporters of the Czar and protected the broders of Russia, this is one of the biggest ironies in history... again, this is not comparable at all. none of the formations you described had their own completely distinctly administrated border regions, culture & language. none of them had at one point self-rule or set up their own independent governments or rebelled nearly as often as Cossacks did. they were more like bandits or simple broder patrol which still existed despite Cossacks, i mean those green uniformed elite troops that fought in the Russo-Japanese war and were feared by the Japanese. you are now comparing apples and oranges, or even apples and chocolate... BTW, if you really think akritas, or most of the byzantine army for that matter, were greeks, i can't help you anymore anyways... well, at first its a military class, now its a social class, you should finally stick with one variant or the other! besides, it totally disqualifies as a social class: first, if we talk about early free-booting history, there were only Cossacks and Armenian & Jewish merchants, no one else. so fi there are no others (except merchants) they can't be a class. second, if we talk about late Imperial Cossacks, they do not qualify as a social group either, because they had their own aristocracy and free peasantry, parallel to the Russian society. very obviously, since Cossacks are already divided into social classes, they can't be a social class on their own!
|
|