| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Crimean Rus'????
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Crimean Rus'????

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
theManwhocouldntcry View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Loveland
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote theManwhocouldntcry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Crimean Rus'????
    Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 02:16
What if the Crimeans were able to defeat and annex muscovy after the russo-crimean war (1571)?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 06:27
Poland would be cheering?
Russia and the Ottoman Empire would've fought less, and Russia would not have had a European looking upper class.
 
Unless of course, the Crimeans were over thrown in a rebellion in 1572 and history restored itself.
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 22:50
...moved to Historical delirium.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 17:48
Nothing would have happened. Crimean Tatars would not be able to control Russia, for the same reason, that Poles weren't able to control it in 1612.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 17:50
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Poland would be cheering?
Russia and the Ottoman Empire would've fought less, and Russia would not have had a European looking upper class.
 
Russia did not have European looking upper class until the 18th century.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Location: Livonia
Status: Offline
Points: 1176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 17:53
I don't think that Crimean goal was to control or annex Moscow. More likely in the case of all out Crimean success in respective war would be the challenge of Moscow's rule over Astrahan and Kazan.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 18:00
The khan was a bit too much overconfident and, actually, even distributed Russian cities between his sons and favorites (who rules where) in advance.
 
He just didn't realize that the success of his prior raid on Rus, was more luck than calculated military victory.
 
He was preparing to "recreate the Golden Horde" and name himself a new Batu-khan...
 
 
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 434
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 12:59
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
 
Russia did not have European looking upper class until the 18th century.
 
 
 
Yeah,that's what I thought.It all happened during the reign of Catherine II The Great.
 
Mongols were the only people could ever conquered Russia,both power-hungry world empire builders Napolean & Hitler failed miserably.
Back to Top
theManwhocouldntcry View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Loveland
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote theManwhocouldntcry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 16:28
they only went about it wrong.
 
In order to conquer russia, you must move slowly, fight a war of attrition. beseige cities, then take them, and make sure your troops are well clothed and have enough food to survive for years. A succesful invasion of Russia that would fully pacify its people would take a long time.
 
however, hitler only lost because he waited too long. He should have attacked in June while he had the warm summer months (and the fields of the Ukraine) on his side.
 
The mongols were in a completely different situation. Russia (Kievan Rus') was a weak collection of petty kingdoms. And the mongols had so much brute force anyway, that the Russias didnt stand a chance.
 
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 17:13
Originally posted by theManwhocouldntcry theManwhocouldntcry wrote:

they only went about it wrong.
 
In order to conquer russia, you must move slowly, fight a war of attrition. beseige cities, then take them, and make sure your troops are well clothed and have enough food to survive for years. A succesful invasion of Russia that would fully pacify its people would take a long time.
 
Nonsense. The longer the war with Russia is the smaller are chances for success. Also, it depends on a purpose of such war. It's pretty plausible, that Russia can be defeated in local scale conflict and lose power and influence. But, historical experience shows that so far it hasn't been conquered in "total war." A good example is Napoleonic or Russo-Polish wars.
 
Originally posted by theManwhocouldntcry theManwhocouldntcry wrote:

however, hitler only lost because he waited too long. He should have attacked in June while he had the warm summer months (and the fields of the Ukraine) on his side.
 
Hitler lost because USSR was much stronger in terms of military economical and industrial potential. If he attacked earlier not much would have changed. Perhaps he would be able to take Moscow, but that wouldn't change the final picture.
 
He had a chance if he would pose himself as a liberator from the Stalinist yoke, than the Germans would have got a large public support.
 
But Hitler's policies were anti-Russian and anti-Slavic and it became obvious for the most of the Soviet people that Stalin was a "lesser evil" under such circumstances.
 
Originally posted by theManwhocouldntcry theManwhocouldntcry wrote:

The mongols were in a completely different situation. Russia (Kievan Rus') was a weak collection of petty kingdoms. And the mongols had so much brute force anyway, that the Russias didnt stand a chance.
 
There is a big dispute regarding how exactly "much"  amount of the Mongal "brute force" was there. And Russian principalities had, in fact, chances if the political climate in Rus at that time was different.
 
Also, it's oversimplification to say that Mongols "conquered Russia" they did raided through major Russian principalities and achieved impressive military victories. But there was no such complete conquest as it was in case of Jin China, Kwarezm or even a neighboring Volga Bulgar kingdom. Rather there was an impressive military blow that forced the remaining Russian principalities to accept Mongol suzerainty. Mongol troops and garrisons, however, were never permanently stationed in the Russian territory proper.
 
Russian princes themsevles collected and brought tribute to Mongols, but Mongols never exercised direct control over the Russian territories.
 
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 00:05
Sarmat, my impression was that Mongols chose to leave the Russians alone and to let the Princes collect revenues for them, not because they could not do it themselves, if they really wanted to. They preferred to live in the steppe grazing lands with their sheep and horses, rather than move into the Russian living space, where those kind of grazing lands were not plentiful. Their goal was to collect as much revenue as possible without making as little fuss as possible and the princes doing it for them served their purpose perfectly. But the nomadic "garrison", which is simply their folk people living their normal life in Yurt's raising sheep and horses, were powerful enough to counter any Russian uprising, when the Russian forces became more powerful, it tipped the balance of power in favor of the Russians. Please correct me if my above impression is wrong.

And what did the Russian upper class look like before 18th century, did they look more Eurasian? Did Yusupov's look Eurasian?

I also heard someplace that 50% of ethnic Russians carry some Mongol gene, is this true?

Did this intermixing under Mongol yoke create a split identity among Russians which is subconsciously part Asian, although by appearance most ethnic Russians look European? Also how does the possession of Asian Siberian landmass affect Russian psyche, affect its world view and future strategies?
Back to Top
theManwhocouldntcry View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Loveland
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote theManwhocouldntcry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 00:14

true, russia has always had a schizophrenic identity. part asian and part european. pre-peter, post-peter.

secondly, russia's posession of siberia mattered not. imo, siberia was russia's "colonial empire", part of russia, but not really. Only in the late-czarist/soviet days did it really "russianize".
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 02:27
The frontiers alongside Russia were susceptible to lightening raids from the Steppe. Russia learned a few things by living in such close proximity to the nomads: build a strong centralized government or become governed. The problem with nomads of the 16th-19th centuries was that they themselves tended to decentralize and offered their services to the highest bidder. Along this same frontier large scale battles may be averted but raids continued. After the downfall of the Golden Horde Moscow united the Russian lands under the grand prince. However the transition was not smooth nor favorable. Moscow continued to submit to an array of tributes, payments and taxes to the Crimea, Kazan and Nogays. The early Russian state lost thousands of men to trade and slavery. Alongside which cost them revenue and stunted growth. Yet push on she did.

Moscow had a few key traditions in its early years: Byzantine style Orthodox Christianity and the secular political governance of the Golden Horde (at least until the Romanov dynasty was established). In due time the nomads were outgunned by modern forces of muskets, artillery and Cossaks. Nomads often pitted their allegiance against each other as they were vying for affinity between Istanbul and Moscow. They were puppets without strings. Establishing and perfecting supply lines, fortresses, European methodologies and techniques of war eventually brought the steppe under Moscow's sway.

Once consolidated by military means the Russians utilized economical means and settled her new territorial acquisitions. This was accomplished by incorporating the conquered into the empire's military, political, economic and administrative systems. Command and conquer. Divide and rule. Emigrate and assimilate. Unlike the Ottomans who rarely brought in settlers other than Jannisaries to the Azov, the Russians brought  their own into the frontier en mass. For Russia there was no middle ground. Conquering was an all encompassing affair. Once you have your enemies down you keep them down was the motto. This was a large scale government enterprise. Not one of silk traders or wandering parties. Colonization would be an all out affair consisting of substantial emigration.

As per the question of this thread, the Crimeans were successful in 1571. They burnt Moscow and took around 150000 Russians. Problem was, 1572 happened! That year's battles made the Crimean Tatars cease any imperial ambitions.






Edited by Seko - 07 Apr 2010 at 02:29
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 19:55
Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:

Sarmat, my impression was that Mongols chose to leave the Russians alone and to let the Princes collect revenues for them, not because they could not do it themselves, if they really wanted to. They preferred to live in the steppe grazing lands with their sheep and horses, rather than move into the Russian living space, where those kind of grazing lands were not plentiful. Their goal was to collect as much revenue as possible without making as little fuss as possible and the princes doing it for them served their purpose perfectly. But the nomadic "garrison", which is simply their folk people living their normal life in Yurt's raising sheep and horses, were powerful enough to counter any Russian uprising, when the Russian forces became more powerful, it tipped the balance of power in favor of the Russians. Please correct me if my above impression is wrong.
 
Well. Mongols did settle in Central Asia, Iran and China, they established their own ruling dynasties their and each more or less important city had a Mongol military garrison. During the subsequent anti-Mongol uprisings like in China and Iran those Mongol garrisons were cut down and Mongol colonists were chased down
Nothing like that happened in Russia...

Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:

And what did the Russian upper class look like before 18th century, did they look more Eurasian? Did Yusupov's look Eurasian?
 
Yes, they looked more Eurasian, Tatar like dress and habits combined with Byzantine Orthodoxy and some new European influences...
 
Well, Yusupov's family originated from a Tatar prince. So, of course, he looked much different before the 18th century.

Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:

I also heard someplace that 50% of ethnic Russians carry some Mongol gene, is this true?

I wouldn't say so, cause in fact, there was only a minipal percentage of real Mongols in the army that invaded Rus. Most of the army consisted of Central Asian Turkic Kipchak tribes. And yes, many Russians do have Turkic ancestry.

Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:

Did this intermixing under Mongol yoke create a split identity among Russians which is subconsciously part Asian, although by appearance most ethnic Russians look European? Also how does the possession of Asian Siberian landmass affect Russian psyche, affect its world view and future strategies?
 
I would say Russians view themselves as a separate entity different from both West and East, but more close to Europe for obvious reasons (religion, common roots with many Europeans, being part of European cultural civilization in the 18th, 19th and 20th century etc.).
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4932
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Mar 2014 at 01:32
Had the Crimeans held Russia, I can't see it lasting very long.
 
The Russians outnumbering the Crimeans, would have done precisely what they're doing right now, taking what the want for themselves. And back in those days, there would have been no one with the political will or the military might to have stopped them.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.