|
|
Post by arnewise12 on Oct 29, 2008 23:49:30 GMT 3
Is ukraine a part of central asia, I mean since 1000 bc there has been different steppe people living there from the cimmerians to the last steppe people the khazars,
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Oct 30, 2008 0:03:05 GMT 3
Ukraine is a part of Europe.
There are Oirat Mongols leaving near Chechnia now, yet it doesn't make the region of North Caucasus as "Mongolia."
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Oct 30, 2008 0:08:02 GMT 3
only south & east ukraine are Steppe
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Oct 30, 2008 15:26:42 GMT 3
According to Denis Sinor, it's a part of Inner Eurasia.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharshuvuu on Dec 21, 2008 6:06:49 GMT 3
The border between Europe and Asia is really a rather silly convention. The Urals are no serious barrier; the steppe runs from the Black Sea almost to the Pacific. The Hungarian Puszta is a sort of far-western outlyer of the steppe, come to that. Still, we can't claim Ukraine as part of Asia; the convention about continents is too well established. We need better terminology. The Ukrainians are well aware of their steppe history. They resent to this day the Russian destruction of the Zaporozhian Host and its Sich. They are, many of them, aware that their Cossacks looked on Tatar culture as the high culture (although Tolstoy wrote of it, most Russians are shocked to hear it.)
Sharshuvuu
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Dec 23, 2008 21:04:08 GMT 3
Hmmm...
Ukrainians are aware of the destruction of the Sich, of course, and Ukrainian nationalism is on the rise. But, honestly speaking, traditional Ukrainian nationalism doesn't like the steppe. The main point of it is too emphasize that Urkainians are real descendants of the Kievan Rus which was destroyed by steppe Mongolo-Tatars and that Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a kind of"quasi-Ukrainian" state thus it was always very European and connected to the West.
Steppe culture is regarded as an alien, hostile culture and Moscals i.e. Russians are always described as Tatar lovers and descendants of Mongolian Empire - at least this is the ideal view of Urkainian history by extreme Ukrainian nationalists.
As about Zaporozhian Cossacks they are regarded as the protectors against fearful Steppan threat. About the attitude of Zaporozhian Cossacks to Tatars you just need to take a look at numerous Ukrainian "Cossack themed" songs and folktales, Turks and Tatars always described there as the worst enemies of Ukraine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Dec 25, 2008 1:10:28 GMT 3
well it would not surprizing for me to learn that Ukrainians are anti-Tatar because of the Crimea which is now part of Ukraine and they want it back.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharshuvuu on Feb 24, 2009 20:04:57 GMT 3
Well, yes and no. The Cossacks, when they moved to the steppe to escape serfdom, had to adopt the ways of the nomadic Tatars, as it was impossible to farm the steppe, and they did so successfully. Some assimilated entirely by conversion to Islam and were simply absorbed into the Tatar population. Others remained Orthodox Christians and continued refused to submit to Turkey, to which the Tatars were tributary. The Cossacks retained there own language, but also spoke Tatar and regarded it as the language of high culture. When Muscovy attained sovereignty over the Cossacks, the latter looked down on the Russian officials because they did not know Tatar. To the extent that Ukrainians accept the Cossacks as heroes of their history, they have a positive view of the steppe; on the other hand, the negative view held by urban and agrarian populations of steppe nomads (regardless of nationality, and matched by a negative view toward them on the part of the nomads) certainly offsets the Cossack image to some extent. One mustn't expect consistency in such things.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Feb 24, 2009 22:19:46 GMT 3
Well, yes and no. The Cossacks, when they moved to the steppe to escape serfdom, had to adopt the ways of the nomadic Tatars, as it was impossible to farm the steppe, and they did so successfully. Well. They adobted the ways of Tatars only to a limited extent. What Zaporozhian Cossacks were really famous for are naval pirate expeditions in the Black Sea. The things that Tatars never did. Zapozhian cavalry was inferior to Tatar unlike their infantry. Tatars on the other hand didn't have any infantry and usually hired Zapozhian musketeers when they had conflicts with Ottomans. Some assimilated entirely by conversion to Islam and were simply absorbed into the Tatar population. Others remained Orthodox Christians and continued refused to submit to Turkey, to which the Tatars were tributary. I don't agree with that statement at all. First Zaporozhian Cossacks in fact viewed Ottoman as prey and didn't have any desire to submit to them at all. Cossack pirate attacks on Ottoman was a usual reason for Turkish-Polish wars and Polish kings were all the time concerned with the pacification of Cossacks in order to avoid another costly conflict with the Ottoman empire. Later Zaporozhian Hetmans (only a part of them i.e. Right bank Sich Hetmans) did temporary submit to Ottoman rule but that was a clearly political move never popular among Zaporozhian commoners. The Cossacks retained there own language, but also spoke Tatar and regarded it as the language of high culture. I don't know any historical instances were Zaporozhian Cossacks regarded Tatar culture as "high." The Cossack mass wasn't concerned about highness of any particular culture at all. While the Zaporozhian Cossack elite was in fact fascinated with the szlachta of the Polish-Lituanian Commonwealth. especially with the royal court in Warsaw. When Muscovy attained sovereignty over the Cossacks, the latter looked down on the Russian officials because they did not know Tatar. This is very strange because Ukraine was in the jurisdiction of Posolsky Prikaz (that was a kind of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Muscovy at that time) and most of the officials that worked there spoke fluent Tatar. Tatar together with Turkish, Polish, Swedish and German was the most important and required language for the Muscovite officials in the field of the foreign affairs at that time. To the extent that Ukrainians accept the Cossacks as heroes of their history, they have a positive view of the steppe; on the other hand, the negative view held by urban and agrarian populations of steppe nomads (regardless of nationality, and matched by a negative view toward them on the part of the nomads) certainly offsets the Cossack image to some extent. One mustn't expect consistency in such things. Cossacks of course viewed as heros by Ukrainians, but the latter definitely doesn't relate to Tatars. |
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 24, 2009 23:36:58 GMT 3
While the Zaporozhian Cossack elite was in fact fascinated with the szlachta of the Polish-Lituanian Commonwealth. especially with the royal court in Warsaw. well i don't think so at all. |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Feb 25, 2009 0:08:12 GMT 3
Why? Don't you know that the Cossack elite including Khmelnitsky were fond of "noble culture" of PLC. In fact Khmelnitsky was called "Polonophile" by some historians, in terms of his cultural preferences.
I want to stress, however, that this "Polonophilia" relates only to customs, clothes, music etc. and other onward manifistations of PLC colorful nobility's culture. I don't mean there that Cossack were fond of Polish political rule or Catholic faith.
It has to be said, however, that Zaporozhians at some times had very cordial relations with Polish kings.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Feb 25, 2009 1:47:54 GMT 3
The Cossacks, when they moved to the steppe to escape serfdom, had to adopt the ways of the nomadic Tatars, as it was impossible to farm the steppe, and they did so successfully. On the contrary, unlike the Eastern Steppe in Mongolia, Ukraine is a very suitable place for farming, as the Scythians practiced farming on a great extent in the region. |
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 25, 2009 23:42:00 GMT 3
Why? Don't you know that the Cossack elite including Khmelnitsky were fond of "noble culture" of PLC. In fact Khmelnitsky was called "Polonophile" by some historians, in terms of his cultural preferences. I want to stress, however, that this "Polonophilia" relates only to customs, clothes, music etc. and other onward manifistations of PLC colorful nobility's culture. I don't mean there that Cossack were fond of Polish political rule or Catholic faith. It has to be said, however, that Zaporozhians at some times had very cordial relations with Polish kings. yeah but who is Khmelnitsky? i mean he is a Pole himself, and minor noble, how is it surprising that he likes his fellows. i don't say he is not a Cossack because he was their leader, but he certainly is not an archetypical Cossack... |
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Feb 26, 2009 0:17:39 GMT 3
Well. Khmelnitsky wasn't a Pole, he originated from a clan of Ruthenian nobles. But yes, he really liked Europe and travelled a lot in the West.
But I didn't mean that the general Cossack mass admired Polish culture so much. Most of the Cossacks, as I said didn't care at all about which culture is more advanced and which is not, while the Cossack elite had some liking for Polish szlachta culture.
|
|
