/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 9 Systemkontra
152 kB, 800 × 449
198 kB, 928 × 463
56 kB, 620 × 356
28 kB, 250 × 355
What can be a better topic to start than history and of cource other science that we may disscus too?
I really interested in topic of history of China. This is probably one of the most important topics of history that a kinda mistery for me - I don't know much besides basics. Can ernst recommend me literature where to start or maybe goid quality documentary films?
>>
No. 12
What i found very interesting was the "cultural revolution" and the consequences of it, especially for today's china and their understanding of moral. Seems that phase of history has done a lot damage and basically eroded everything china had achieved morally in the centuries before. Might explain today's china of ruthless exploitation, egoism and lack of compassion.

I read this book once which i can semi-recommend, it has some flaws but is still a good read for a very personal view of the time throughout 3 generations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Swans
>>
No. 14
>>12
Okay, this is more late historical period that I interesting in - since I interesting more about most ancient times of china civilisation but this book looks good - I'd add it in my library, thanks.
>>
No. 18
103 kB, 1120 × 630
259 kB, 1200 × 890
279 kB, 600 × 896
82 kB, 220 × 294
I've been doing a couple of topics for my reading lately. One is for a personal project and isn't terribly interesting at this stage since it's all very preliminary. This topic is the New Mexico Campaign and the larger Trans-Mississippi Theatre of the Civil War.

My current hobbyist history reading has been looking more deeply into the Kazakh-Dzungar wars and especially the Reconquest of Eastern Kazakhstan. I knew they were a thing and pretty important but man, reading more about them is ebin. It's basically when the ultra-decentralised, even by steppe standards, Kazakh Khanate was defending itself from the relatively centralised and very modernised Dzungar Khanate. What ended up happening was essentially parties of adventurers banding together into one militia to fight the Dzungars because feudal power was basically nonexistent. So you get all these Batyrs showing up doing ebin stuff and acting larger than life. It got to the point where the faces of the armies were not the Sultans and Khans but the Batyrs.

For example, this is what Bogenbay Batyr's election speech sounded like.

>“Let us have our revenge on our enemies, we will die with our weapons in hand, we will not feebly look on as our houses are plundered and our children are taken captive. Have the warriors of the Kipchak plains every hung back? This beard has not even been touched by a grey hair when I first bathed my hands in the blood of my enemies! How can we tolerate the tyranny of these barbarians? We still have good horses aplenty! Our quivers are still full of sharp arrows”

It's actually pretty metal when you read the translations of the names of some of the battlefields too. Things like 'place of the Kalmyks' death' and things to that effect are not uncommon :-D
>>
No. 28
74 kB, 470 × 650
85 kB, 535 × 796
11 kB, 800 × 242
>ancient china
That feel when no gf with bound feet
>>
No. 34
>>18
I remember that Djungars was backstabbed by thier china allies - series of wars with Qing empire finished them. Or I mistaken?

>a personal project
Are you professional historican?
>>
No. 73
>>34
Pretty much, yeah. The Kazakhs used the opportunity to inflict some raiding back on them when they were focused elsewhere too. They took a bunch of them in when the genociding really started though. I remember when we had this topic come up a while back and the Brick said something like 'that's what they get for being good laowai' :-DDD

Also, I'm not professional since I don't do it for a living but I'm qualified to do so. This is just a part of trying to semi-pro on the side of my current work.
>>
No. 103
>>28
Stuff like that always gives me creeps.

>>73
Well it is interesting topic actualy. I have kinda low historical knowlege of temnats of golden horde and other khan/kaganates on that territory exept probably Kazan and Krimean ones because their major interation with russia.
>>
No. 106
>Russian interested in history of China
>Australian interested in american history
I remember this thread
t. Asked for books about byzantine empire
>>
No. 112
41 kB, 468 × 293
>>106
Yeah, I still seaking for documentary movies about china from ancient times to modern days where smart people will help me, iq89 summorize all knowlege so I can understand china history in progression
Kinda like "История Государства Российского" shorts if you remember those.
>>
No. 115
90 kB, 600 × 592
>>103
Yeah, it's pretty interesting. If you want to read about something really ebin, I highly recommend the 7-9th centuries. It's a super chaotic period that sees all kinds of interesting balkanisation and conquest after the collapse of the Turkic Khanate including alliances against invasion, political discord and intrigue, alliances with places such as the Kievan Rus and so on. There is also a lot of stuff written on the Kazakh Khanate for a few reasons, one is that Kazakhs have a massive boner for it and see themselves as a successor state, and secondly that it was one of the last of the big old Khanates to exist. So if you want to learn about the post-Mongol Kipchak Steppe then you're in luck since that period is relatively well understood compared to earlier ones.

>>106
>Belarus
Oh shid. I remember our discussions about WW1 operational strategy. Just a few more posters and the whole EC2017 crowd is going to be here.

I was going to post something to that effect in Hungary's welcome home thread, but he delet it. Thread was fine tbh. Remember folks, cosiness is key. It's not as though a nice little thread that's just warm feels is going to hurt anybody. Not when we haven't even started having threads fall off the end yet.
>>
No. 118
>>115
> 7-9th centuries.
Stop I may be braindead but is that pre-mongol times?
This is interesting too of cource, like Khazar Kaganate interesting topic also first states of Bulgars and how they then divided into separate states of volga river, azov sea and then that Bulgaria that we know today.
>>
No. 128
>>118
Yes, that's pre-Mongol. The Mongols conquered Central Asia in the 13th century.

If you like the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, then definitely look into the Kipchak-Cuman Confederation which came after the Khazars. They were massively influential on a lot of why those dispersals and even in the eventual fall of the Khazars. That confederation was also why Kipchak mercenaries were a thing in Central Europe during the Mongol invasion, they just kept moving west within friendly territory and said friendly territory reached almost to Hungary where they were given refuge.
>>
No. 167
>>128
Yeah, pre-mongol invasion türk nations are really interesting topic too. I have to admit I have kinda liw knowlege about it, I only yet again touched only those information, that was important for history of Rus'. Like how Khazars blocked some important river ways from south countries that was important for trade and taked taxes from all ship making rus without monies and then conflict arount citadel that will knosn for us as "belaya vezha".
Also I know that not long before mongol invasion knyaz' Vladimir Monimah unuted some knyazes of currently very feudal Rus' and did some sucsessfull as he called them "Crusades" on local nomadic nations that terrorized rus borderlands.
>>
No. 191
51 kB, 300 × 446
Hey can someone recommend me documenraties or literature on 1812 USA-british war? Seems like it is important part of so called "napoleonic era" wars. And looks like end of that war was not so happy for both sides.
>>
No. 200
6,7 MB, 4:51
>>191
If you just want a kind of introduction to it with some easy to digest information, then https://www.battlefields.org/learn/war-1812 is a decent place to start. I shill for this organisation a lot, but they're really doing good work and their resources are great.
>>
No. 206
7,7 MB, 806 pages
54 kB, 500 × 537
I started to read The Wages of destruction, about which I have repeatedly heard good reviews, this is popular book describing the history of the Nazi economy. It seems that "miraculous Nazi economic recovery" is a myth and the real standard of living/consumption of goods in the Third Reich has never caught up with the standars in late Weimar Republic. Also, the book describes why the Third Reich needed to invade the territories in 1936 (Rhineland), 1938, 1939 and 1941 if it didn't want to get political & economic collapse.

I will never understand why the Germans allowed Hitler to gain power. Even given the difficult economic conditions during Great Depression, hyperinflation in the 20s and the growth of revanchism after WW1, the will of tens of millions of Germans to lead a new war and openly discriminate against other ethnic groups still seems to me quite irrational. Germany wasn't poor and this growth of radicalism in a developed industrialized society amazes me.
I'm incredibly disappointed that the Germans, with their idiotic actions, not only stopped their own economic development for more than a decade, but also caused irreparable damage to their neighbors.
>>
No. 210
>>206
bertrand russell says that hitler was a demagogue, held his speeches at night when people were at their most vulnerable. he said that hitler intuitively knew human nature and how to manipulate it. combine this with the prussian school of indoctrination that eradicates any free thinking and makes people busy-bodies that don't question authority.
>>
No. 211
>>210
>intuitively

He knew it because he was taught about it.
>>
No. 212
>>211
What?
>>
No. 214
54 kB, 1200 × 1265
>>212
Hitler was made what he became by other people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_von_Sebottendorf
>>
No. 218
>>206
>and this growth of radicalism in a developed industrialized society amazes me.
I think it basically comes down to the Zeitgeist of the 1920s. Hitlers idea weren't new or revolutionary different, he rather picked up what people considered modern and fashionable views at the time. The industrial revolution sparked many hopes and ideas about an entirely new future for humankind, people felt hyped and open for radical changes. Also germans felt humiliated by the treaty of versailles and there was alot of hate for the french, which roots back to decades before. At that point anyone promising revenge and restore of pride would succeed. This all combined with the still global popularity of nationalism, militarism and general disregard for the worth of a human life had to lead to a disaster in one way or another.
>>
No. 277
>>218
Kinda this.
For pre-prison hitler times this applies very much where a lot people - most of them a war veteran talking about that fail at ww1 was total shame and revenge views was pretty popular
What about socialism and other novelty -ism things are was popular among europe - everywhere you had parties, political movments and all crap from gommies to fashists who basicly did same things with minor changes.
>>
No. 478
391 kB, 1920 × 1080
379 kB, 660 × 485
Will bump it a little bit since we have a lot useless one-line new thredas for some reason.

Because this is a science threda too:
Did you following not long ago launched TESS? It will serach for exoplanets in whol sky near solar system, opposite to kepler who had limited angle of ragne. This is not full proper instrument, it just for basic search so other telescopes in future like Webb will know points of interests where to focus
>>
No. 484
>>206
>the real standard of living/consumption of goods in the Third Reich has never caught up with the standars in late Weimar Republic. Also, the book describes why the Third Reich needed to invade the territories in 1936 (Rhineland), 1938, 1939 and 1941 if it didn't want to get political & economic collapse.
germany's average standard of living was certainly higher than elsewhere during the 1920s, however in weimar times germany saw record unemployment, skyrocketing inflation, literally hunger among the working class as well as political turmoil on the brink of civil war. striking workers would literally get shot dead by police or military and there were regular street battles between leftist workers and far-right freikorps/nazis. all this mess was not entirely caused by the treaty of versailles and the dawes plan, however without these highly unjust measures imposed upon DE by the victors of ww1 it would have been much easier to deal with the effects of the world economic crisis and it would have been much less easy for the nazi party to gather support, because versailles was indeed highly unpopular among the population and opposition to versailles and foreign/jewish influence was their entire campaign in all these years (note communists were opposed to versailles and the dawes plan too). that being said, in 1932 the economic situation was already much better than 3 years ago and the nazis had done exactly nothing to help in that direction. so when the nazis got into power the economy had already recuperated to a good degree, however the nazis did not give a fuck about that at all. they "invented" the mefo bills, which were basically national loans with thin air backing it up, and went on a ridiculous spending spree, most of it flowing towards the military-industrial complex, however it also had positive effects on the labour market and average living standard (ignoring for a moment forced labour, lebensborn etc). so the nazi economy was basically a national debt bubble which was about to burst in 1938, but thanks to the admittely clever nature of the mefo it was not obvious on the world market.
tl;dr: yes under the nazis the average living standard increased a lot, but it was not sustainable and basically imploded within 6 years.

>>218
>I think it basically comes down to the Zeitgeist of the 1920s.
nothing to do with "zeitgeist.", because there were al lot of different rivalling zeitgeists in germany at that time.
however the nazi party was financed and pushed by big business, bankers and big media such as hugendubel from the beginning, so it was no surprise that they would eventually get into the government.
>Hitlers idea weren't new or revolutionary different,
indeed, because he had no own ideas at all. did you know that hitler was involved in the leftist munich council republic? however, he changed sides when he was recruited by the far-right military secret service as a snitch. not least thanks to him former political comrades of his got sentenced to death. during that time he received training in rhethorics as well as an introduction to reactionary ideology by the military secret service. he became basically a professional propagandist back then.
>>
No. 485
>>478
Sounds exciting. I read that with current scanning methods we can only discover planets which are at least a little larger than earth, so we might miss out on lots of potentially habitable planets. It would be pretty cool having an even better telescope in place. Maybe someday we might find something worthwile to rejuvenate space exploration, and people will start investing more in innovative engine concepts. Of course, it's still a long shot, but the earlier we start, the greater the chance that mankind can establish a space settlement before wiping itself out.
>>
No. 611
66 kB, 442 × 653
110 kB, 456 × 386
http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his242/Documents/Durnovo.pdf

Very interesting and, dare I say, the prophetic analysis of approaching First World War by Peter Durnovo, former minister of internal affairs (1905-1906) of the Russian Empire. He disputes the Russian alliance with England, discusses the readiness of the Russian Empire for war and describes its possible consequences. The letter also tells about the internal affairs of the German Empire.

The letter to the tsar was sent 5 months before the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Durnovo

My sorrow from studying the history of these lands is simply indescribable. I hate to think about the monstrous errors committed by our retarded rulers, it's painful to read about their incompetence. There's quite a lot of Germanoboos on 4chan who lack understanding of history and think that it's Germany and Germans who fucked up the most with gaining power over Europe, but in reality it's the Russian Empire who had the greatest potential and was screwed up by a series of very unfortunate events and the utterly dumb rulers. Absolutely all the advantages were lost and now the countries of the former USSR will never gain Western quality of life and influence in foreign affairs even if they would unite tomorrow.
Also, I found it's quite ironic that military intervention of Nicholas I saved Austria and young 18 year old Austrian emperor from the Hungarian rebellion in 1848, yet 5 later the young Austrian emperor was the first one to stab the Russian Empire during the Crimean war. Later, united Austro-Hungarian empire under the rule of the same but already 80 year old emperor will intervene in Russian-backed Serbia and start WW1. Isn't it ironic?

I made a picture with the author of the note. I think his predictions turned out to be a much better tragic story than Titanic.

>>484
>yes under the nazis the average living standard increased a lot
The second pic. And The Wages of Destruction claims that the household consumption and wages stagnated despite GDP increasing by 70% since nazies came to power, though the author mentions some obscure German book as a reference. I saw statistics from The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932-1938 by RJ Overy showing that consumption of even basic goods, such as meat, rye, beer, etc has decreased since 1929, but I can't find an online version of the book or the stats in my collection of pictures.
>>
No. 612
>>611
>yet 5 years later
>>
No. 618
>>611
>Also, I found it's quite ironic that military intervention of Nicholas I saved Austria and young 18 year old Austrian emperor from the Hungarian rebellion in 1848, yet 5 later the young Austrian emperor was the first one to stab the Russian Empire during the Crimean war.
Russia sure has rich history of helping and getting backstabbed.
Nothing personal, just business.
I guess, though, every country had that, I didn't study subject much.
>and influence in foreign affairs even if they would unite tomorrow.
Soviets weren't much relevant in 20s. Becoming a superpower after years of devastation can't be fast.
>>
No. 622
>>618
It only recently dawned on me that the real problem with Communism in Russia was because they had just fought an incredibly violent civil war. Which means that in other words, all those executions and gulags can be more easily seen in similar context as Syria with snow. I don't know why I didn't realize this before. Maybe because Russia continued brutality and repressions long afterwards but still, a violent civil war is a pretty good way for people to achieve maximum barbarism. Do you think Russia would have remained shit anyway under Czars? Or would Russia still have industrialized and been a major power? Also my understanding is that Nicholas II was trying to reform but the peasants felt reforms weren't fast enough. Is this true?
>>
No. 636
122 kB, 488 × 407
>>611
>Isn't it ironic?
It really isn't.
The very important thing people tend to forget about that times is that monarchs decided pretty much nothing.
They were de-jure sole heads of states, but de-facto therr were different parties, favorites and lobbies that had significant influence on monarchs' decisions.

Sometimes, monarch was unpredictable and energetic and had strong will, like Wilhelm II, which could led to some turbulence, but Nicholas II and Francis Joseph were really much more family guys and assburgers and relied on their ministers much more than it seems.
Austro-Hungary even up to 1914 used to have Russophile politicians and military leaders, who would have more likely sided with Russia and avenged Germany for war of 1866.
All Austrian critical situations with Russia coincided with having a really staunch Russophobes (or Germanophiles) in main offices.

To any one interested, for Austro-Hungarian military history you can read "The army of Francis Joseph" by Rothenberg, it's really helpful in understanding of the role of ministers and Hofkriegsrat in foreign affairs
>>
No. 637
>>618
Well it's kinda our fault in loosing crimean war
Nikolai Palkin so many screamed about army but it turned out that our army outdated as hell.

>>622
Well, comies get power in already ruined state like some criminal band with a bunch of ultracrazy ideas. I guess from start you can't expect something good from it. Althought Stalin dropped most of this crazy ideas into le trash and just rebuilded empire but with new ideology and more totalitaric goverment.
>>
No. 656
>>611
>claims that the household consumption and wages stagnated despite GDP increasing
i wont bother to look into it right now but this can very well be the truth. workers forced into reichsarbeitsdienst received barely salary enough to not die on the spot. regarding your unsourced unemployment statistic: hitler decreased unemployment by means of shoveling billions rm into state funded job programmes, mostly in the arms industry.
if you're into statistics i recommend "wochenberichte für konjukturforschung", "konjunkturstatistisches handbuch" (1932-1938) and "statitisches handbuch von deutschland". but keep in mind that hjalmar schacht and others who were involved in running the nazi economy deliberately obfuscated economic data not least in order to camouflage the rearmament (which was essentially done in 1936).

>There's quite a lot of Germanoboos on 4chan who lack understanding of history and think that it's Germany and Germans who fucked up the most with gaining power over Europe
my opinion in short: ww1 was the main catastrophe of the 20th century in europe. both the russian tsar and austrians fucked it up/ignited it, playing into the hands of the brits, french, americans and jews. wilhelm ii did nothing wrong, he himself did not want to go to war, even though some influential nobles around pushed for it.
wwii is a different matter. hitler/nazis and german big business are responsible for igniting it, but other powers including brits and poles layed the fuse.
>>
No. 932
1,7 MB, 2000 × 1470
18 kB, 525 × 192
686 kB, 1526 × 1067
What do you think about bolt-action rifles? I love them! I love aay they shoot and way they look. And they was used in most war heavy historical period of human history.

This late XIX centuary-early XX thing is like face of war of that period. I like to read about evolution of Mauser rifles, Mosin Nagant, Arisaka, of cource berthier and lebel rifles too.

Like you imagine tranches of world war 1, how soldies with this rifles go thought smoke of battle field and how thousands of them fire and reliad same time. It much more epin and interesting than semi-automatic or single-shot one.
>>
No. 934
99 kB, 1500 × 368
655 kB, 1000 × 760
>>932
>It much more epin and interesting than semi-automatic or single-shot one.
>single-shot
Das just sacrilege mang. Tbh, one of the more interesting bolt action designs was the Calisher and Terry and even it is not as interesting as a lot of firearms from the same period. I honestly find the design of rifled muskets far more engaging.
t. firearms history ernst
>>
No. 936
44 kB, 1280 × 240
63 kB, 1056 × 294
39 kB, 300 × 346
>>934
What do you think about Daudeteau rifles and carabines? Was they really better then lebel and berthier that was accepted by france military as their primary rifles?

>I honestly find the design of rifled muskets far more engaging.
You know, for me they just too primitive and often simple, while semi automatic is 2complex 4me. As I know most single shot stuff a pretty simple in action and mechanics. And honestely I know much less about them compare to repeaters. Only thing I touched a little bit in that therm is Berdan Rifles.
>>
No. 938
40 kB, 520 × 673
88 kB, 500 × 321
>>936
They were a better design for the soldier. Easier to feed, easier to maintain. The ammunition was also a better round. That said, it doesn't take much to be better than 8mm lebel. And the rifle itself was old school even after the upgrades and was just shitty for use in good conditions, let alone in a cramped trench since the tube magazine just made everything longer.

Berthier was a fine gun in itself. It had problems with magazine size but it caught up with the times and ripped off the Mannlicher magazine which fixed the immediate problem with the Lebel in that it became an actually easy to work with gun instead of the monstrosity that was tube magazine+elevator feeding system. Less moving parts in that respect also made it lighter and more reliable, on top of just ergonomics. It still used 8mm lebel though which is a trash cartridge as I said.

It's kind of understandable though, the French military was geared around the 8mm, and it's what all their factories were making, what was in the ammo dumps and so on, and the undertaking of retooling the entire military for one rifle wasn't going to be a smart decision because it became a matter of refitting everything to work with 6.5mm by modification or redesign or running a less unified wagon train which is just asking for trouble. A famous example I like is that before 1863 in the Civil War, Parrott rifles of the 10 pounder variety were bored sometimes in 2.9 inch and sometimes in 3 inch depending on when they were made. At Gettysburg, they mixed up the ammunition and put a few batteries out of action from the mixup. Now imagine that on a larger scale. Your infantry gets the 8mm that was intended for the cavalry or the artillery and all of a sudden, those boys are running out of bullets and at the same time, their 6.5 is going to an equally useless place where the guns are in 8mm. That's the kind of thing that unifying the cartridge is trying to prevent and in my opinion was probably the biggest factor in their failure to get adopted.

Berdan rifles are ebin. Pretty decent rifles all things considered and have good pedigree in being designed by the commander of the US Sharpshooters coming straight out of the Civil War so had very recent combat experience backing up the design. No bullshit about it, though the Model II was a lot better than the Model I in terms of ergonomics. It's funny though, I've seen it in places it shouldn't be. I made a post a while back on old EC about it being on a statue of Kenesary Khan despite him dying 20 odd years before it was even on paper :-DD
>>
No. 941
59 kB, 475 × 356
99 kB, 600 × 600
133 kB, 1168 × 810
>>938
>Berthier was a fine gun in itself. It had problems with magazine size but it caught up with the times and ripped off the Mannlicher magazine which fixed the immediate problem with the Lebel in that it became an actually easy to work with gun instead of the monstrosity that was tube magazine+elevator feeding system.

As I know initialy Berthier was desighned to be with 8-round catridge but when carabine was accepted they used 3 bullet thing because for that time military thought this be enough, it still was upgrade after single-shot anyway.
Then after start of world war 1 or right before it they converted Berthier to use lebel catridge if I not mistaken for obvious reasons. And then in end of war they upgrade it to 6 round catridge.
Actual catridge of Berthier is really nice thing - how simple it is, that you may use it from every side, how it holding rounds without any additional things etc. Guy who upgraded it to 6 round did good job too - combining 2 standart 3 round catridges into one long and still keeping all advantages of it.

It funny how Berthier started as just carabine, then was modified as rifle for different kinds of colonial barbarians but then was accepted as primary rifle at many things and that it was produced untill 1939 even so it ww2 rifle too.

>Berdan rifles are ebin. Pretty decent rifles all things considered and have good pedigree in being designed by the commander of the US Sharpshooters coming straight out of the Civil War so had very recent combat experience backing up the design. No bullshit about it, though the Model II was a lot better than the Model I in terms of ergonomics.

Yeah - model II was better. Berdan well known here since it was one of primary rifles of Russian Imperial Army, and it get very good reputation there. I think we adopted both model I and II but of cource model II was in much larger scale.

>It still used 8mm lebel though which is a trash cartridge as I said.
It reminded me how germans used in their mp-18 that ugli luger magasine :D
And yeah sad that Daudeteau was not adopted, I find it interesting, but Berthier is indeed awesome too.
>>
No. 996
1,7 MB, 2964 × 840
>>936
>musket simple and primitive
I present le wheel lock.
No wonder is was expensive.
>>
No. 1040
>>932
I like them. I find the conflicts where they are used in the open without much MG support more interesting than the use in trench warfare though. Like the kind of fighting that was done in German east Africa.
>>
No. 1121
2,6 MB, 1024 × 1542
64 kB, 1200 × 606
>>1040
Well in early ww1 there was a lot encounters where soldiers from all sides used tactics of early-mid XIX centuary and died horribly after encoutering massive and fast fire ftom repeating magazine rifles.

But colonial use is kinda fun too, like wars when guys with outdated bolt action rifles tried to fight against guys with modern automatic weapons, like war in Papua New Guinea.

Also how it was used when you already have alternatives - like in ww2 when majority of us army had M1 Garand, as I know marine corps still used a lot springfield 1903 rifles.

>>996
Yeah this is a thing :D. Well yeah there was a lot examples of complex systems, and more early you go in times when first proper cartidges started developing it had a lot wierd things, but by complicate things I meant what we have in semi and automatic rifles, where there a lot more parts and movment in general. However yes, my wirds was probably not fully correct in that case.
>>
No. 1193
>>1121
It depends on the terrain and other factors. Fighting in the open against machine guns did mean that the Germans took losses to the British and failed to advance like they planned. But in Africa where there were few machine guns and much scrub land it was different. They were even frequently using the bayonet.

Even the marines phased bolt actions out, they mainly used them early on in the pacific.
>>
No. 1202
437 kB, 1500 × 888
>>1193
Yeah in late war even marines was replaced by semi auto stuff.

Also there was some wierd semi-auto stuff in ww1 and pre ww1 when to typical bolt action they tried to attack gas pistons and tubes - it often looked like ork-tier tech. And even in ww2 there was fun stuff - like when germans put ridiculous requrements for their semi automatic rifle competition in 1938 or 39 I forgot like it should has no holes in barrel, no moving stuff on top, it should also have ADITTIONAL BOLT ACTION MECHANICS in case semi auto will not work. And mauser did pretty much if - so we have rare example of Mauser's Gewehr 41 where it and semi auto and full bolt action same time
In end this competition won Walter that just said fuck the rules and then taked gas mechanics from SVT what become famous Gewehr 43
>>
No. 1210
69 kB, 552 × 792
Why it was forbidden for Austria to unite with Germany after WWI?
I think I missed something, but what was the argumentation?
Is that because Austro-Hungary sided with Germany in WWI?
>>
No. 1211
>>1210
To stop Germany becoming too powerful. This was part of what caused so much resentment in the interwar period though. An Economic union would benefit both nations and Austria suffered due to a lack of one.
>>
No. 1213
>>1211
This. There was even plans to divide germany even more - in prussia, bavaria etc.
>>
No. 1434
49 kB, 602 × 233
I find it interesting that austria was divided same like germany after WWII, however after some time all sides leaved country and austria said that be neutral after. Austria still not in NATO.
>>
No. 1436
>>1434
Austria was regarded from Moscow Conference III on as a victim of the war and that following VE Day the allies would restore it's territorial sovereignty. This meant that until the mid-50s the allied administration of the country was much more coherent than in Germany and generally Stalin was willing to compromise with the West.

When Khrushchev rose to power a formal peace was organised with the Soviet Union that paved the way for withdrawal from all sides as part of his thaw in international relations. Some similar situation may have prevailed in Germany had things gone another way but shit happens.
>>
No. 1440
>>1436
Stalin already agreed with a reunified neutral Germany in early 50s. It was the west and the West German leaders who opposed that idea completely.
>>
No. 1600
Is there any good documentaries or other sources about germany communist movments after world war I?
>>
No. 1697
Is it true that German Ordnung is a recent invention and it appeared in 20th century when some guys were shot for riding a tram without a ticket?
>>
No. 1712
30 kB, 275 × 342
>>1697
No. Ordnung just means the state of being well arranged. Like in English something being "in order". And the word is based on some Latin root of unknown origin, standing for to begin, literally "beginning to weave" might even be some old-european thing.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ordior#Latin
>>
No. 1715 Kontra
>>1712
I was not speaking about origin of word.
>>
No. 1723
>>1715
So what are you speaking about? You asked if the concept is originating in 20th century and I showed that it isn't.
>>
No. 1751
>>1697
To a degree Ordung is an aspect of Prussianism. So to a degree it existed previously.
>>
No. 1760
>>1697
Well I only know that words "Ordnung muss sein" is ffrom much more early times of Prussia, but concept in which you most probably asking for is most probably more new thing.
>>
No. 1858
>>1440
Can I get more info on that? Why west rejected it?
>>
No. 1863
>>1858

Because they (western powers and pro western block politicians in the BRD) preferred the BRD as part of the western alliance over an united Germany of unsure political affiliation.

>The FRG’s priorities were different from those of the GDR. Chancellor Adenauer’s main priority was the integration of the FRG into the West, and he saw reunification as a rather abstract goal. Specifically, his administration wanted to focus on the re-establishment of Germany into a capitalist Europe, and felt that reunification was not possible until West Germany was securely established in Western Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Note

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Note#West_German_reaction
>>
No. 1924
>>1863
It makes sense that even if they wanted a neutral Germany their goal would be to get in bed with the Western Allies. The DDR was in bed with the Reds and if they unified with them as a wishy-washy BRD that had no hardline stance then they'd just get overtaken by hardline DDR politicians and the neutrality vanishes because one side of the senate has near bottomless funding and support while the other stands alone.
>>
No. 1933
>>1440
I was going to avoid getting into this as it is a topic riven with potential for pseudohistory but I guess I will have to stick my oar in.

>Stalin already agreed with a reunified neutral Germany in early 50s

No, Stalin sent a diplomatic proposition. There was and is ample reason to doubt his sincerity about the future neutrality of Germany, what her role in the international order would be or whether the USSR would consent to western demands of free elections. Western shares of influence had a nasty habit of flying through windows after all.

But what I was specifically referring to were relations with the west during the era of Khrushchev that centered on a formal peace treaty being made involving the two Germanies (haram!). Two Germanies being a markedly different development to Austria which maintained a unified government before even the end of the Second World War.

>>1697
'German Ordnung' is a meme that arose thanks to the highly specific language and Prussian traditions that arose by necessity.

From experience the Jerry is not an especially orderly animal (just look at the ghastly federal system!) and the description is instead a pejorative one principally spread by those who deal with Germanic philosophical traditions. You wouldn't call an Eskimo orderly just because he has many words for snow would you?
>>
No. 1989 Kontra
>>1933
The partition was forced by the western powers from 1945 as a means to get rid of Prussia once and for all. That's why Adenauer, who had plotted against Prussia after WW1, became leader in the WBZ. The WBZ had to abandon the Reichsmark in 1948 unilaterally and introduce a new currency, next the BRD was founded as an independent state with capital and government etc. in May 1949 unilaterally by avoiding a referendum because the partition would've been dismissed by the German people in the WBZ. After that NATO was founded (6 years BEFORE the Warszaw pact) and the newly created West-Germany joined in 1954.
Here's a nice article on TP in German, use DeepL or Google for translation.
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Weshalb-direkte-Demokratie-nicht-im-Grundgesetz-steht-4080019.html
>>
No. 2015
>>1989
And you support this grand conspiracy on the work of a 9/11 truther who is quite obviously construing the evidence to support a narrative of imposition rather than, quite logical, acknowledgement of the danger posed by the East extending a hand.

His further discussion is on the Basic Law itself which admittedly is/was not a de jure constitution but was quite clearly expansionist in framework up until unification. Even going as far as to officially reject the Oder–Neisse line. That's not "there will be no unification" but instead that unification will be done within a free and open democratic system.

>Adenauer

Not mentioned in your article but it is silly to attribute to him a lifelong conspiracy for his political position as a Catholic and member of Zentrum opposed to Prussianism which quite clearly was incompatible with a free and democratic Germany. His post-war founding of a political party open to Catholic and Protestants working together should show proof enough that his bone of contention was not with Prussians per se. but with a militarist and authoritarian culture that led to Nazism.
>>
No. 2045
I must add interesting fact: ruined germany on soviet side have suffered most misfortunes of war. It was ruined but after defeat, instead of actual proper help it was requred to pay a lot reparations to ussr. If I remember correctly, after stalin death in DDR started protests. And after it, maybe fearing uprisings in time where no one is on rule of soviet block, they cancelled reparations and instead started send help and monies to DDR.
>>
No. 2201
29 kB, 600 × 400
Perhaps not what OP was talking about but
http://www.404pagefound.com/category/1993/
http://mentalfloss.com/article/53792/17-ancient-abandoned-websites-still-work
I am trying to find the oldest most ancient websites. It has always greatly disturbed me that man has decided to start burning all his paper manuscripts and committing things to digital, which more likely than not isn't even going to be readable by anyone in a matter of decades, and certainly no one in the future will ever know unless it is transcribed. We are literally living right in the middle of a dark ages.

Also, I realized this must mean the very end of the wild west of the web has been reached. There is no further feeling of outer boundaries to explore. This leaves only a few things left: space, the middle of Antarctica, and the deep ocean. Unless I can find a way to go to these places I'm going to start a religion revealing our holy mission to go there and colonize these places.
>>
No. 2242
>>2045
>after stalin death in DDR started protests.

There were also lots of internal reasons for the 1953 uprising. In fact it was the German communist leadership who wanted the East German economy to focus on heavy industries while completely neglecting the supply of the population with food and basic consumer goods.
>>
No. 2815
5,2 MB, 2577 × 3436
I discovered that Neron is actually called "Nero" on english and in actual original latin language. But then after short research I discovered that Nerone - is Nero on Greek is Νέρων (Néron) so this is another latin name and word that we get thought Byzantine Empire on actual Greek language, same as for example when translating words from latin we drop -us ending.
>>
No. 2818
>>2815
Why would you think they called the program Nero Burning ROM?
>>
No. 2827
>>2815
Nero means genius in Finnish so Keisari Nero is literally Caesar Genius in Finnish. It's hard to ignore that when you're reading about this "Caesar Genius" burning down Rome and naming his horse as senator etc. Though I personally think it's all anti-Nero propaganda made by butthurt patricians but that's another story.
>>
No. 2859
9,3 MB, 960 × 540, 1:15
>>2827
>when you're reading about this "Caesar Genius" burning down Rome and naming his horse as senator etc
Come to think, that does sound pretty Finnish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FldD5hCrIWY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gALhUohAjfQ
>>
No. 3021
8,4 MB, 3328 × 5120
>>2827
>Though I personally think it's all anti-Nero propaganda made by butthurt patricians but that's another story.

A lot of shit that we hear about some emperors often comes from different rich people, senate and other who was butthurt from emperor

But is still give me laught when reading about such guys as Elagabalus

>>2818
I using Daemon tools
>>
No. 3122
Good podcast about the mexican-united stadian war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hok2MCwHMQ8

Too bad they rush over so many things since it's only one hour long. Also, I don't like the idea of this thread, having a general history thread would already be bad enough since there is too much to discuss and any particular issue can be come a 200+ posts thread full of walltexts, but "science and history" thread is even worse, it doesn't even make sense.

>>191
found this doc but didn't watch it yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8KpqCFX_w
>>
No. 3202
>>3122
>doc
Thanx I will watch it
>>
No. 3444
473 kB, 1280 × 960
2,4 MB, 4032 × 3024
59 kB, 720 × 460
2,6 MB, 420 × 236, 0:07
Let us discuss Biosphere 2 and biospheres in general
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
How come we don't actually do this more? For instance why hasn't NASA or ESA or Roscosmos or something constructed a biosphere in Antarctica yet? In consideration of the fact most of our intrastellar targets are just going to be cold af why haven't we yet actually funded self contained and self sustaining biospheres in the middle of antarctica? How hard can the possibly be?

>Biosphere 2 is an American Earth system science research facility located in Oracle, Arizona. It has been owned by the University of Arizona since 2011. Its mission is to serve as a center for research, outreach, teaching, and lifelong learning about Earth, its living systems, and its place in the universe. It is a 3.14-acre (1.27-hectare)[1] structure originally built to be an artificial, materially closed ecological system, or vivarium. It remains the largest closed system ever created.[2]

>Biosphere 2 was originally meant to demonstrate the viability of closed ecological systems to support and maintain human life in outer space.[3] It was designed to explore the web of interactions within life systems in a structure with different areas based on various biological biomes. In addition to the several biomes and living quarters for people, there was an agricultural area and work space to study the interactions between humans, farming, technology and the rest of nature as a new kind of laboratory for the study of the global ecology. Its mission was a two-year closure experiment with a crew of eight humans ("biospherians").[4] Long-term it was seen as a precursor to gain knowledge about the use of closed biospheres in space colonization. As an experimental ecological facility it allowed the study and manipulation of a mini biospheric system without harming Earth's biosphere. Its seven biome areas were a 1,900-square-meter (20,000 sq ft) rainforest, an 850-square-meter (9,100 sq ft) ocean with a coral reef, a 450-square-meter (4,800 sq ft) mangrove wetlands, a 1,300-square-metre (14,000 sq ft) savannah grassland, a 1,400-square-meter (15,000 sq ft) fog desert, and two anthropogenic biomes: a 2,500-square-meter (27,000 sq ft) agricultural system and a human habitat with living spaces, laboratories and workshops. Below ground was an extensive part of the technical infrastructure. Heating and cooling water circulated through independent piping systems and passive solar input through the glass space frame panels covering most of the facility, and electrical power was supplied into Biosphere 2 from an onsite natural gas energy center.[5]

>Biosphere 2 was only used twice for its original intended purposes as a closed-system experiment: once from 1991 to 1993, and the second time from March to September 1994. Both attempts, though heavily publicized, ran into problems including low amounts of food and oxygen, die-offs of many animals and plants included in the experiment (though this was anticipated since the project used a strategy of deliberately "species-packing" anticipating losses as the biomes developed), group dynamic tensions among the resident crew, outside politics and a power struggle over management and direction of the project. Nevertheless, the closure experiments set world records in closed ecological systems, agricultural production, health improvements with the high nutrient/low caloric diet the crew followed, and insights into the self-organization of complex biomic systems and atmospheric dynamics.[6] The second closure experiment achieved total food sufficiency and did not require injection of oxygen.[7]

And Russia so big, it also has
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS-3
>BIOS-3 is a closed ecosystem at the Institute of Biophysics in Krasnoyarsk, Russia.

>Its construction began in 1965, and was completed in 1972. BIOS-3 consists of a 315 m3 underground steel structure[1] suitable for up to three persons, and was initially used for developing closed ecosystems capable of supporting humans. It was divided into 4 compartments — one of which is a crew area.[2] The crew area consists of 3 single-cabins, a galley, lavatory and control room.[3] Initially one other compartment was an algal cultivator, and the other two 'phytrons' for growing wheat or vegetables. The plants growing in the two 'phytrons' contributed approximately 25% of the air filtering in the compound.[4] Later the algal cultivator was converted into a third phytron. A level of light comparable to sunlight was supplied in each of the 4 compartments by 20 kW xenon lamps, cooled by water jackets. The facility used 400 kW of electricity, supplied by a nearby hydroelectric power station.

>Chlorella algae were used to recycle air breathed by humans, absorbing carbon dioxide and replenishing it with oxygen through photosynthesis. The algae were cultivated in stacked tanks under artificial light. To achieve a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide, one human needed 8 m2 of exposed Chlorella. Air was purified of more complex organic compounds by heating to 600 °C in the presence of a catalyst. Water and nutrients were stored in advance and were also recycled. By 1968, system efficiency had reached 85% by recycling water.[4] Dried meat was imported into the facility, and urine and feces were generally dried and stored, rather than being recycled.
>>
No. 3466
>>3444
All of them failed because of psychological reasons. Biosphere ended in horrible confrontation and in bios they aborted experiments every time they got confrontation.
Even ISS has low autonomy. They deliver everything, recycling is limited or experimental. No piss water anymore. I guess nuclear submarines are the most autonomous things right now.
>>
No. 3468
>>3466
Not only this but building in the Antarctica is expensive af I could imagine and considering that all of these biospheres "failed" people think more than twice about it.
>>
No. 3475
53 kB, 439 × 640
118 kB, 960 × 720
34 kB, 300 × 400
>>3468
Why not just invest into it though? I mean sure it's expensive but so is sending a satellite into outer space towards Neptune which is also complicated. I have no idea why this hasn't been tried more or why it hasn't yet been made to work.
>>
No. 3476
>>3475
>Why not just invest into it though?
No reasons, except for probably stealing.
>I mean sure it's expensive but so is sending a satellite into outer space towards Neptune which is also complicated.
You know, you can send 4 neptune missions for a price of one mall in Miami, according to the news thread.
>I have no idea why this hasn't been tried more or why it hasn't yet been made to work.
Chinese are currently doing that, as far as I heard. Russians think they already experienced enough with it, so they are more concerned about radiation. Also it's still cheaper to deliver everything, unless you have a nuclear reactor. And scientists are too pussies nowadays, nobody will lock people for several years
>>
No. 3477
>>3475
Make those things in a light bulb, add little water and seal it tightly.
Its ebin.

t. Maker of light bulb worlds
>>
No. 3510
7,3 MB, 3192 × 2395
>>3477
The first one actually wouldn't work. Those are carp, aka goldfish. I have one. He's fuckhuge now. Those little feeder goldfish you see in stores are literally just babies. See pic related. That guy is actually bigger than that now. So in a year those goldfish in butilka will be so big their whole body won't even fit.
>>
No. 3845
62 kB, 620 × 338
>When hedge-fund magnate David Tepper announced he was moving from New Jersey to Florida, the state estimated that it could face millions of dollars in lost taxes, putting New Jersey’s revenue base and budget at risk.

>“Persistent millionaires”—those who earn $1 million or more year after year—have the lowest overall migration rates (1.9 percent); substantially less than one-time millionaires (3.2 percent), according to the study. Thus, residents with a consistent flow of wealth are less likely to migrate outside of their own state. “These results help explain how elite income embeds people in their local regions,”

>The study dubs this influx of millionaires “the Florida effect.” After removing Florida from the equation, they find little evidence of millionaire migration—even to low- or no-tax states such as Texas, Tennessee, or New Hampshire.

>Ultimately, the study finds that, while some millionaires do move to lower-tax destinations, the overall rate of millionaire migration is extremely low. When all is said and done, the super-rich tend to migrate less then the rest of us. The reason for this is simple—most people depend on the places they live for their incomes, since their businesses are based there.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/06/do-taxes-really-cause-the-rich-to-move/487835/

Old study but very revealing. Ever since the invention of investor visas, there is this big critique that rich people make money out of a country and then flee it, China being the biggest recent example. But at least inside the USA, this not only is not true, it is actually the opposite and for obvious reasons: if you made it big in a place, you'll stay there, making even more money
>>
No. 3851
>>3845
Not to mention you can actually afford it. Also not to mention these rich people usually move to some place and stay there. For example there's plenty of fantastically rich people living in California and New York and they have extremely high taxes. Meanwhile almost none of them live in low tax places like Mississippi or Alabama because those places are complete shitholes. This "tax us and we'll leave!" is basically just their bitching about taxes on where they live now which they're not going to leave anyway. I mean if you made it big somewhere and had a house and ended up with high taxes, you're not really going to ultimately give a shit because it's like the cost of doing business and it doesn't even put a big enough dent in your income stream to matter.
>>
No. 3854
53 kB, 330 × 330
Russian Fort in Port Arthur (1905)

The Russo-Japanese war was such a pizdets of logistics and organization that I struggle to understand it.
>>
No. 3857
>>3854
Are you a proxyhohol?
>>
No. 3885
>>3851
I never bought the "tax us and we will leave thing", because it only takes a quick look on maps and charts to realize that rich people live in the most expensive and high tax places of their countries, because that's where they can make money. But It was a revelation to me that rich people actually move less than the poor.
>>
No. 3887
>>3885
It's easier to move when you have nothing what can keep you there.
>>
No. 3891
>>3854
Russians thought that they can just " throw hats"(Russian phrase for outnumber an enemy). In reality they were outnumbered by the better equipped enemy. Ships were sent into the claws of better fleet. And the only railway was quickly blocked.
Russian army, as always, instead of dealing with troubles properly thought that they are stronger anyway. So you can read about horse attacks with sabres, fist-fights against catana attacks and ships sunk with their crew
>>
No. 3893
172 kB, 520 × 853
It is funny how on Ernstchan Belorussians and Ukrainians tell more about Russians to foreigns than actual russians
>>
No. 3894
>>3857
I am a purebred Lusitan.
>>
No. 3895
645 kB, 2020 × 1328
218 kB, 1000 × 689
323 kB, 1267 × 650
101 kB, 462 × 450
>>3891
The Russians were often outnumbered, and really held up well.
It was more a problem of not maintaining the Baltic Fleet and rallying into battle without being in fighting conditions, as well as the death of their admirals that did the Russians in on the naval department. Alexandr Fok being in charge of Fort Arthur after the death of the General Kodratenko was also a horrible accident since Fok immediately surrender the fort to the, surprised, Japanese.
The Russians also did nothing to gain the support of the Chinese population, believing they were helping the Japanese because they're all "cunteyes".

Reading about the Baltic Fleet's rally into the Yellow Sea sounds unreal.
Also, Japanese spies funded Georgy Gapon, the priest who led the mob towards the Tsar's palace in 1905.
>>
No. 3896 Kontra
>>3895
Note: The idea of "why worry, these Japs are basically Nenets on an island, it'll be a really easy war" really seems to have dominated Russian military planning.
>>
No. 3897
>>3895
>second pic
What's this, benis-bearded Uncle Sam?
>>
No. 3898
>>3897
America huimerica
>>
No. 3899
>>3898
huyerika rhymes better
>>
No. 3900
>>3896
Therm of "Small Victorious War" are about this war. When inside Russia started problems, goverment decided that we may "start small war and wind and everyone forget about political and economical problems".
You see that still today this philosophy alive in minda of our glorious leaders, even thought in 1905 it was catastrophic fali.
>The Russians also did nothing to gain the support of the Chinese population, believing they were helping the Japanese because they're all "cunteyes".
Such nationalism was just because averege russian back then know like nothing about asia, some thought it was some variation of jews or africans, some never seen one in thir lives lol. After looking at their faces without knowing history and background averege russian will did logical thought that they are "all the same shit".

Did you readed about Crimean war?
>>
No. 3901
>>3893
Because there are two or three Russians in overall, two more Belarusians, one more Ukrainian.
There is not much people to talk about Russian history who can read from Russian sources in the language on native level.
>>
No. 3902
>>3900
Yes, Crimean War is pretty interesting. While Nicky II gets a lot of shit, I think Nicholas I might have been Russia's worst Tsar. His desire to micromanage the Crimean War was one of the many factors that led to it being a catastrophe for Russia. Similarly for Russia as with the Russo-Japanese war, the peace terms weren't really bad for Russia, but internal instability after Holy Rodina getting defeated was more of a problem that the war itself.
t. Russophile assburger who likes Russian Imperial history
>>
No. 3903
>>3901
>There is not much people to talk about Russian history who can read from Russian sources in the language on native level.

Soon I will join these ranks. (Three years from now or so). I actually wanted to read more about Russian incursions into Central Asia and the Russian side of the Great Game, but there aren't that many sources in English.
>>
No. 3904
>>3901
There actually two urainians, one just post much more rare but he was first poster on this board ha ha

>>3902
>Russia's worst Tsar.
Oooh, for this rank there are very active competition, Every second guy who ruled this country even for a day can be secrabed as this lol.
>His desire to micromanage the Crimean War was one of the many factors that led to it being a catastrophe for Russia
Actually there also thing that Brits and other guys helped Ottomans, but well, he wass very meh as manager, it is obvious. He died immideatly after he understanded that he was bad ruler thought :---DDD
>>
No. 3905
>>3904
Nicholas I's foreign policy towards the Ottoman Empire was an absolute jogge, he decided to prop up the Ottoman Empire and defend it in the 1830s, while the Ottoman Empire was militarily isolated. He even assisted the Ottoman Empire in the Eastern Crisis out of fear that Muhammad Ali would reinvigorate the Ottoman Empire.
He believed that by creating "good will" with Austria and Britain on the Ottoman question, Europe's powers would have eventually just let Russia take over the Ottoman Empire without much resistance.
>>
No. 3908
>>3893
Implying you have to be russian to know russian history. I learned history from soviet and russian books, no wonder I know your history. And if you get this newly pride: "we're not the same at all", we are still very similar. Also we all grown up on the same internet and on the same TV channels.
>>3895
>Also, Japanese spies funded Georgy Gapon, the priest who led the mob towards the Tsar's palace in 1905
Doubt it. Gapon seems to be just another commie revolutionary.
>The Russians were often outnumbered, and really held up well.
Russian army always think they outnumber any enemy, even when in reality they are outnumbered 1 to 10. It's their the most frequent mistake. Same was in Crimean war, in 1812, in 1941 and chechnya. Still soldiers held up well even in such situations, but highest command mostly shows incapability to deal with it
>>3905
Nicholas 1 foreign policy towards the ottomans is led purely by the russian romanticised view on patriotisms and what is right. Probably to get it you have to read russian propaganda from that time. Back then russians thought that they are super power and don't need any western appreciation to act.
>>
No. 3909
>>3908
>Nicholas 1 foreign policy towards the ottomans is led purely by the russian romanticised view on patriotisms and what is right. Probably to get it you have to read russian propaganda from that time. Back then russians thought that they are super power and don't need any western appreciation to act.
I will explain it more detailed, because I think people always miss a psychology and tied only to logic when they are dealing with history.
Russian imperial thought in 18-19 century had the idea of honour, so they could invade only savages in their eyes or conquer what is rightfully theirs. From the other side they should support other royal families, to remain in honour. So if some country doesn't have a legit king-they are savages. If someone is a heretic in any religion-he is a savage. If some area have slavs, or orthodox slavs, or historical brothers-rightfully russian. If some area got history with orthodox church or Byzantium-Russians should protect it. If there is a legit king and none of the previous statements are true-don't touch it and only politely help.
Russians always thought that the balkans and caucasus should be under their rule and anatolia should be under the greek rule. Because russian tsars were always portrayed as byzantine heirs
>>
No. 3911
678 kB, 640 × 876
269 kB, 1486 × 731
76 kB, 760 × 1002
50 kB, 575 × 817
>>3908
Yeah, the Russian imperial mindset plays heavily into it. How they were willing to invest heavily into things that don't seem to have a real pragmatic reasoning. Not supporting Muhammad Ali in the Eastern Question, falling for the French plans to bait Russia into a war via getting the ottomans to revoke the russian mandate to protect eastern Christianity. There was however a pragmatic reasoning behind Russia's attempted show of force, which was to control the bosphorus, but Russian rethoric seemed to be exclusively one of protecting religious minorities and Russia's mandate over them, this would push Britain into backing France in this conflict.

Gapon wasn't really a commie, he tried helping the industrial working class of Russia but he seems very non-commie. His plan was to even petition the Tsar personally, and hoped the Tsar would accept since "Tsar good, Boyar bad".

>In the period of growing tensions before the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, Akashi had a discretionary budget of 1 million yen (an incredible sum of money in contemporary terms) to gather information on Russian troop movements, naval developments, and to support Russian extremists, in particular Litvinoff, Orlovsky, and Lenin.[1] While based at Saint Petersburg, he reportedly recruited the famous spy Sidney Reilly and sent him to Port Arthur, to gather information on the Russian stronghold's defenses.[2] After the start of the war, he used his contacts and network to seek out and to provide monetary and weaponry support to extremist forces attempting to overthrow the Romanov dynasty (see Grafton Affair).
The Wikipedia article doesn't mention Gapon, but I'm infa 75% I read it somewhere previously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashi_Motojiro
>>
No. 3918
>>3911
Even bosphorus was more of a new restored Byzantium dream. They couldn't get anywhere from there back then. In some ways this worked out well for them, cause the region still destabilises everytime Russia is in some troubles.
>Gapon wasn't really a commie, he tried helping the industrial working class of Russia but he seems very non-commie. His plan was to even petition the Tsar personally, and hoped the Tsar would accept since "Tsar good, Boyar bad".
Gapon is another thing where you need to understand people more than logic. He wasn't a commie in a literal way. Orthodox church always had strange relationships with government. From one side they were under the direct control, from another they were in control of simple people minds. In orthodoxy there is a huge gap between theology and real actions. A priest can tell you that people are equal according to god and then tells you that you should listen to aristocrats according to tsar.
End of 19 century and beginning of 20 century were noticeable by growing popularity of orthodox church and theology among intellectuals. And orthodox theology is not so far from the socialistic ideology, just not so specific. No wonder many people like Gapon appeared during that time
>His plan was to even petition the Tsar personally, and hoped the Tsar would accept since "Tsar good, Boyar bad".
I'll translate it to you.
>I am offended and powerless in my situation. Please take care of my complaints and don't beat me, please, I know you can.
Letters to "Almighty Brightness among the people" are still popular in here.
>>
No. 3919
>>3908
It was ironic joke, chill out man. All know that belorussians and ukrainians are basicly russians
>>
No. 3921
>>3918
>Even bosphorus was more of a new restored Byzantium dream. They couldn't get anywhere from there back then.
This I disagree with, it was necessary for Russia to be able to have access to the Bosphorus since it was a major trading route, and being unable to send warships through there would mean Russia was able to be blockaded very easily. It's obvious that Russia was fueled by the dream of Tsargrad, but control of the straits had strategic importance.
>>
No. 3924
>>3921
>It's obvious that Russia was fueled by the dream of Tsargrad
And honestely we had chances to do it, we like won all 9000 wars against Ottomans exept that Crimean one that all remember nowdays.

>>3918
>Orthodox church always had strange relationships with government.
Ortodox chruch is conitinious traitor. It serves to every goverment that control russia and not care about things like "honor". They served to mongols and forced other people to serve mongoles too, because golden horde allowed to temple and to preists not pay taxes for khan. They served to nazis in occupaed lands. They served stalin when temples was reformed under control of NKVD and many priests make a denunciations on thier parishioners.

This why during revolution and early commie rule so many temples was destroyed and preists killed. People hated them. And now with Gundyaev and other trash who serve to Putin oligarhs and steal monies too - people who have brain hate our ortoox temples. Many belivers not associete themselfs with moscow patriarchy.

>>3909
Kinda like that, Nicolas I was known as "Tsar-vigilante" who will support monarchy everywhere, same style as USA nowday support "democracy".

>If some area have slavs, or orthodox slavs, or historical brothers-rightfully russian. If some area got history with orthodox church or Byzantium-Russians should protect it.

And it is shame that we failed and nowdays country without actual principes. Was times where a lot slavs count on us.
>>
No. 3927
327 kB, 1500 × 934
507 kB, 1023 × 682
427 kB, 1104 × 1465
109 kB, 1344 × 851
>>3924
>And honestely we had chances to do it, we like won all 9000 wars against Ottomans exept that Crimean one that all remember nowdays.
Perhaps, but Russia was never able to achieve a complete victory over the Ottomans. In the period from the 1768–1774 war and the 1828-1829 war there were 4 wars (including the above listed), Russia was victorious in all of these.
Prior to these conflicts, the two conflicts of the early 18th century were Ottoman Victories.
What followed after these conflict was the Crimean after 25 years of peace.

It is possible that Russia could have worked its way into pushing forward into Ottoman territory, it is certainly something I believe and why I have some disdain for Nicholas I. It was in these 25 years of peace that Russia should have pushed forward against the Ottomans. Nicholas I's official reasoning as to why war should be avoided does stand to some scrutiny, the Russians had their Circassian ulcer, the move east was costing resources and there was a clear problem of alienating Austria with a move south into the Balkans.
The problem the way I see it, is that Nicholas I's belief that it would be better to strengthen the Ottoman Empire and control it as a regional puppet was a mistake.
The Crimean war fiasco speaks as to why it was such a grave mistake that essentially sent Russia into a death spiral.
Perhaps a more reasonable Russia would not have had its Tsars crowned in Tsargrad, but the Crimean War was avoidable.

Note: I see the problem of judging historical actions while having the full power of historical hindsight, even so I maintain Nicholas I policy towards the Ottoman Empire was absurd.
>>
No. 3930
>>3927
Russians had all chances to destroy ottomans in one war since the middle of 18century. They were more afraid of destabilisation and had troubles with locals. For example russians were blocked in caucasus for almost 60 years. They had to eliminate almost 80-90 % of chechen population before they could proceed. Same thing they had with tatars in modern southern Ukraine.
Those buffer zones between russians and ottomans left scars on russian society. I can't recall any classic literature about russo-Turkish wars or crimean war, but easily can recall several russian poems and books about chechen war from that period.
>>
No. 3933
>>3930
>They had to eliminate almost 80-90 % of chechen
Not chechen actually, but I forgot how that nation caucasian was called that was destroyed almost compleatly, who lived in like modern Stavropol krai... cherkesy?..
Honestely world be much better if we destroyed all north caucasian "nations".

>Same thing they had with tatars in modern southern Ukraine.
Another Tatar state that remain after fall of golden horde. All others like Astrahan' and Kazan' was assimilated long ago, with Crimean state we had long story of wars and relationship since this assholes sold their asses to had protection from ottomans and it was elliminated in process.

>but easily can recall several russian poems and books about chechen war from that period.
Nah it was just shitty inthernal war and on it was send differend "liberal intelligence" who maded poems about how dumb tsar and also suported decabrists etc.
>>
No. 3935
30 kB, 300 × 391
259 kB, 1134 × 838
848 kB, 1072 × 917
508 kB, 1280 × 1173
>>3930
>Chechen genocide
The Circassians aren't Chechens, they are a different breed of mountain jihadi.
I'm certain that direct Russian occupation of Turkish land would have led to a similar state of the affairs, prolonged military conflicts, genocide, massacres and temporary cease fires ad eternum. Especially given that the option of mass deporting the Turks wouldn't exist.
What Russia should have done however is not directly occupy Balkan land or land in the Armenian highlands, but to instead create tributary and client states that would serve as a buffer and points of tension against the Ottoman Empire. Supporting Muhammad Ali would be necessary, France was even eager to back him too, together with Russia. They were actually surprised at Russia's sudden change in their middle east foreign policy. By supporting Muhammad Ali's independency ambitions they would cripple the Ottoman Empire, drive a wedge between France and Britain and create a new Russo-French bloc in the middle East.
>>
No. 3936
>>3933
>Not chechen actually, but I forgot how that nation caucasian was called that was destroyed almost compleatly, who lived in like modern Stavropol krai... cherkesy?..Honestely world be much better if we destroyed all north caucasian "nations".
Parfenov in his show about russian empire said that only 5000 of cherkes and 50000 of chechens left. Doubt this numbers, but still describes the level of massacre. Chechens and Dags lost far more people in absolute numbers, since they had the first immamat.
>Nah it was just shitty inthernal war and on it was send differend "liberal intelligence" who maded poems about how dumb tsar and also suported decabrists etc.
Then why didn't they wrote poems about the Crimean war? Even imperial uniform resembled caucasus. And the only peoples memory about the crimean war is "to throw hats".
>>
No. 3937
>>3935
>The Circassians aren't Chechens, they are a different breed of mountain jihadi.
Books often describe both chechen and cherkes massacres.
>>3935
>What Russia should have done however is not directly occupy Balkan land or land in the Armenian highlands, but to instead create tributary and client states that would serve as a buffer and points of tension against the Ottoman Empire
None of this would work. Caucasus is a very diverse place. Some people are complete savages and people who live several kilometres from them might be the best people in the whole world. Client states would be in constant war between each other and there would be several Isis level states existing only because of slavery. Also endless genocide of all by all would followed pretty quick.
>>
No. 3938
>>3936
>Then why didn't they wrote poems about the Crimean war? Even imperial uniform resembled caucasus. And the only peoples memory about the crimean war is "to throw hats".
Again, on caucasus in early-mid XIX centuary was throwed a lot people who known nowdays as "наше всё". All that Puskins and Lermontovs. Not a surprise they wrote a lot things about caucasus.

>Parfenov in his show about russian empire said that only 5000 of cherkes and 50000 of chechens left. Doubt this numbers, but still describes the level of massacre. Chechens and Dags lost far more people in absolute numbers, since they had the first immamat.
I don't think chechenians was damaged that much, compare to some other nations nearby. And compare to real chechenian removing in stalin era when like almost all chechenians was removed to kazahstan deserts

>>3937
>None of this would work. Caucasus is a very diverse place. Some people are complete savages and people who live several kilometres from them might be the best people in the whole world. Client states would be in constant war between each other and there would be several Isis level states existing only because of slavery. Also endless genocide of all by all would followed pretty quick.
Well there was possibility to push further inside ottoman empire, we still not conquered some lands where majority of people was armenians.
>>
No. 3943
>>3937
The damage to Chechens was incomparable to that of the Circassians, whilst Chechens did revolt against Russian rule on two separate occasions, the level of constant warfare was incomparable to that of the Circassian region. Even more, the Russian state managed to pacify Chechnya, something they never really did with Circassia. For all intents and purposes, it was a zone of constant warfare until the Circassian genocide. This isn't to say Russians didn't commit massacres against the Chechens, but they were never actively genocided.

>None of this would work. Caucasus is a very diverse place. Some people are complete savages and people who live several kilometres from them might be the best people in the whole world. Client states would be in constant war between each other and there would be several Isis level states existing only because of slavery. Also endless genocide of all by all would followed pretty quick.

I disagree, the Persians managed to control the area before the Russian conquest in such a manner, and Persian military power was far lesser than Russian. This isn't to say that conflicts wouldn't emerge, but it would surely avoid things like the Circassian genocide, which was as far as I know the largest genocide of the 18th century.

>>3938
>Well there was possibility to push further inside ottoman empire, we still not conquered some lands where majority of people was armenians.

This. Additionally, there were all sorts of ethnic groups looking forward to free themselves of Ottoman rule. One example are the Kurdish revolts of mid 19th century.
I'm certain that if Russia had followed policies of weakening the Ottoman Empire from the 1830s to the 1850s as opposed to strenghtening it, the Crimean War wouldn't have happened.
>>
No. 3944 Kontra
>>3938
Also what is "nash vsyo"?
>>
No. 3948 Kontra
61 kB, 602 × 452
24 kB, 470 × 251
124 kB, 800 × 526
344 kB, 1080 × 1264
Postings related to Caucasus War/Circassian Genocide:

>The Russian military tried to impose authority by building a series of forts, but these forts in turn became the new targets of raids and indeed a number of times the highlanders actually captured and held the forts.[27] By 1816, Russian engagement with the Circassians made military commanders like General Aleksey Yermolov conclude that "terror" would be effective toward frontier protection instead of fortress construction as "moderation in the eyes of the Asiatics is a sign of weakness".[2] Under Yermolov, the Russian military began using a strategy of disproportionate retribution for raids. With the goal of imposing stability and authority over the whole Caucasus, Russian troops retaliated by destroying villages where resistance fighters were thought to hide, as well as employing assassinations, kidnappings and the execution of whole families.[28] Because the resistance was relying on sympathetic villages for food, the Russian military also systematically destroyed crops and livestock and killed Circassian civilians.[29][2]

>Kochubei said to Americans visiting the region that "these Circassians are just like your American Indians – as untamable and uncivilized... and, owning to their natural energy of character, extermination only would keep them quiet."[2]
>>
No. 3949
>>3944
"Pushkin - our everything"
At first it was said primary after Pushkin's death in respond that all what he did was very russian and contains everything that we are - soul, traadtition, high quality memes etc.
With current forcing of that guy by comies and after them he become like an idol, like most famous and most general russian whrighter in like whole history and is like "our Shakespeare" and overrated as hell, I used this words ironicly to describe all that early XIX young poem whrighters.

>>3948
It was normal for that time to fight different tribes nd non-developed nations. Only real sad part is that Caucasians still exist and they are basicly same shit as they was before.

Also if you interesting in wars with Crimean state, better read whole thing from start, or at least start from fall of golden horde. I think Ottoman empire in our eyes viewed not as state, but another barbaric kanh-shit that conquered russia and bysantium empire during mongol invasion. And all that wars was continuation of wars for independance from golden horde, like Spanish reconquista
>>
No. 3954
>>3949
>Also if you interesting in wars with Crimean state, better read whole thing from start, or at least start from fall of golden horde

I did.
t. Assburger Russophile

I still need to read on Pre-Rurik Rus and Modern Russian (after CCCP).
>>
No. 3956
>>3954
About pre-rus I may only recommend russian language sources
Like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHH3b5ZYwSE interesting podcast with historian about unknow parts of history between slavs and finno-ugric tribes in northen lands of future rus' in VII - IX centuaries
Post-USSR russia is more politics than history at the moment honestely
>>
No. 3962
>>3956
>About pre-rus I may only recommend russian language sources
Pizdets.
Oh well, more motivation to continue my studies of slavspeak.
>>
No. 3995
>>3954
>I still need to read on Pre-Rurik Rus
Only speculative theories, metaphorical legends, linguistics and archaeology. Only if you want to create another speculative theory of your own.
>>
No. 4020
>>3995
Yes. I will write the greatest book on proto-Ukrainians and their otherworldly origins.
>>
No. 4355
I'd like to ask for stuff about recent history of chinese agriculture. I know that at some point they were starving and then they fixed it and are now some of the biggest producers of food in the world. I want to learn more about this change, preferably docs because I think this is the kind of stuff which is better with images.

Just a short video for starters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uApFDXsat18
>>
No. 4357
>>4355
Chinese communists introduced retarded collectivized farming that was a giant failure in the USSR. In the Soviet union the agriculture received the largest investments and showed only half of the yields per hectare in comparison with the USA and Western European countries, this problem was observed under Stalin, Khrushchev was bitching about the problem in his memories, Brezhnev & Co pumped the sector with huge investments and the problem of low efficiency wasn't fixed even at the time of the collapse of the USSR. Add to this Mao's retardation with the Four Pests Campaign. Chinese are lucky that their elites and comrade Deng were wise enough not to hold onto idiotic laws.
>>
No. 4358
>>4020
>proto-Ukrainians
Ukrainians star separating from russians in times of like Adrew Bogolubsky. And his actions was a one of reasons why such thing happened
>>
No. 4593
>>4200
Interesting read. Also interesting when they said that the brits were more inclined to follow local ethnical divisions when making the partition of their colonial empire for administrative purposes. I noticed that former french colonies tend to be among the poorest states in the world, and this is usually followed also by having weak states and internal strife. Poorest BR states are former french colonies, poorest murkan states are also former french colonies, poorest american country is also a former french colony, poorest african countries are also former french colonies, and former french colonies in Asia are also among the poorest countries. I always wondered why such pattern, and maybe it has to do with this kind of bad division. Up to this day France babysits its former african colonies, so they can enjoy strong international support while being a complete wreck on the inside. Is this (former french colonies being poor and unstable) a real pattern with some explainable cause or just coincidence?

I replied in the original thread but didn't notice that it was systemkontraed by mods, so I'm continuing the conversation here
>>
No. 4594
>>4593
It's genuinely French perfidy and incompetence, although our shithole states really had nothing to do with France for being shitty.

Reminder that Haiti was also a French colony and is widely regarded one of the worst countries in earth. Of course Haiti was also the only successful slave revolt and the filthy French punished the shit out of them for it economically. You can also thank France and USA and Britain for the nightmare that is Libya.
>>
No. 4601
>>4593
I don't think it's so much up to their colonial mode as it is to what they colonized. In general, Caribbean island colonies are very similar in their genesis and similar results followed. There's the specific case of Haiti, although that falls more into the Haiti Revolution whose reasons for occuring were something that could have happened in any other country. If anything the only particular event would be the French Revolution, but I don't see that falling under any specific French colonial system.
In practice Brazil looks like gigantic Caribbean state in its early colonization process, with the added twist of gold mining being a very lucrative primary industry of colonial Brazil.
Places that let themselves into labor heavy cash crop forming ended up forming a very similar social and economical structure. This structure is mostly seen in the social structure, a small landed elite, a large slave population and a varying amount of poor European immigrants.
The Southern US states fall into the paradigm, although the social structure is abated by a large amount of these landless white immigrants.
This isn't to say that the national policy of countries colonizing the area didn't play into it. Brazil is a good example for this, as Portugal's early near monopoly of the slave trade ingrained it with a particularly aspect of a slave economy, additionally the Portuguese lack of manpower in colonizing such a far flung empire led to a social order involving various degrees of racemixing, that was built into the de facto management of the colony, with "mulatos", often slaves themselves, forming the managerial class in the colony. Similar to French caribbean colonies.
For example, the case of the US is similar to the Anglo colonization of Canadda, in which its original economical value was one based on harvesting local resources and/or trading, what separates it from Canada is the fact that Canada was originally colonized by the English Trade Company method.
On French Louisianna, it was originally to serve no other purpose other than supplying Haiti.

Tl;dr The geographical aspects of the areas to be colonized are more of a factor than any specific national colonial policy.
>>
No. 4606
26 kB, 400 × 430
31 kB, 334 × 499
>>4593
I wouldn't call it a direct cause of poverty, Gabon for example isn't too bad and like >>4601 points out a lot of the shape of government is due to geography. Gabon is petroleum rich while much of the rest of francophone Africa is rubbish-heaps along the sahara just as comparatively successful former British colonies have diamonds etc. But don't go too far, Costa Rica has nothing but serve as an example of good government overcoming geography

Instead the popular finding is made when comparing the results of French colonial policy that she did a worse job building states but excelled at building nations. This means that the risk of ethnic conflict is much reduced in her former colonies at a cost of viable state institutions outside of those mother France provides like the CFA franc. For the opposite see the problems and successes of Kenya/Nigeria.

The conclusion I'd make is that French civilization has been a continual march towards centralisation around Paris and ‘Frenchness’. This has been at work from the Albigensian Crusade to colonial and post-colonial policy in Africa to the absolute monarchy of Louis XIV. This is by no means a no thesis (https://www.nytimes.com/1864/02/14/archives/centralization-in-france.html) but it explains much of the divides in Africa that follow language.

Would you like to know more? I recommend picking up the books Citizen and Subject or Nationalism and New States in Africa
>>
No. 4607
>>4606
Noice, I'll try to find the first one.
>>
No. 4638
>>4606
>Instead the popular finding is made when comparing the results of French colonial policy that she did a worse job building states but excelled at building nations. This means that the risk of ethnic conflict is much reduced in her former colonies at a cost of viable state institutions outside of those mother France provides like the CFA franc. For the opposite see the problems and successes of Kenya/Nigeria.

>The conclusion I'd make is that French civilization has been a continual march towards centralisation around Paris and ‘Frenchness’. This has been at work from the Albigensian Crusade to colonial and post-colonial policy in Africa to the absolute monarchy of Louis XIV. This is by no means a no thesis (https://www.nytimes.com/1864/02/14/archives/centralization-in-france.html) but it explains much of the divides in Africa that follow language.

I'm wary of talks of authoritarianism and centralization because such concepts are kinda vacuous these days (or maybe they always were). They are mostly used as accusations and I haven't seen any serious non-politically charged analytical definition and application of them. The first paper that you posted is interesting because it analyzes the african situation according to the theory that is most accepted today about the failure or success of nations to modernize themselves, or at least the theory that I consider the most successful in explaining it, which is this weberian/post-weberian concept of the bureaucratic state, the heir of the nation state.
>>
No. 4719
I guess this one counts as science:

Old but still orgasmic: Metronomes sinchronize themselves with other metronomes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v5eBf2KwF8

https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/synchronization-metronomes
>>
No. 4722
>>4638
Generally centralism is measured by the amount of authority invested in a single seat of power. This can range depending on the scale of the system being considered, global, regional, national or subnational etc. Compare a modern bureaucrat state which is very centralised around a national government to a pre-constitution United States which was federalised pretty much only on paper with all the power being dispersed among the states, with some states concentrating their own executive power more than others.

That's why it's hard to make a concrete definition. It depends on the scale you're looking at, the system of government and how that system compares to its contemporaries though the last one may or may not be relevant depending on what you're specifically considering, relative or general centralisation.

Authoritarianism is actually a very lively discussion in history with several models of trying to determine what it is. Especially in the history of Fascism because one of the biggest and still open questions of that field is 'what's Fascism?' believe it or not. Authoritarianism is often considered part of it, but then scholars have been arguing over the definition of authoritarianism since the 40s. There is a lot of analytical looks at that topic in particular if you look at the study of Fascism in historical works. It's pretty closely tied to the field of Genocide Studies which is a crossover of sorts between Political Science and History because it fits cleanly in neither. It has a lot to do with fascism because it is a field that rose to being a thing after the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials, especially the former, and the early works focused heavily on the Holocaust which necessitated studying Fascism and/or National Socialism to understand where it originated. It was actually one of my favourite topics that I did back at university. It also caused massive butthurt from the Chinese students when the Dzungar Genocide came up :-D
>>
No. 4752
361 kB, 400 × 528
I became super angry reading this:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-purest-of-them-all/

The story is enjoyable, it could even be true. Then I went straight to my Type1++ ultra pure water system with several reverse osmosis filters, µm filters, UV treatment and what not (18MΩcm, C<5ppb(!)) and had a sip right out of my pre-rinsed latex glove. Guess what?! Just tastes like water with nothing.

Why are they lying? Truly the scientific american.
>>
No. 4829
>>4752
I honestly have no idea what you're upset about, except that I also have just barely enough self awareness to be conscious of the fact that you are simply entering territory where it is impossible for me to be objective and foolhardy to debate, like gun rights or something. Never, ever debate an American about water. I'm sorry but that's just how it is.

>The story is enjoyable, it could even be true. Then I went straight to my Type1++ ultra pure water system with several reverse osmosis filters, µm filters, UV treatment and what not (18MΩcm, C<5ppb(!)) and had a sip right out of my pre-rinsed latex glove. Guess what?! Just tastes like water with nothing.
I still cannot tell what you take issue with. Is this a sarcasm? Are you responding to maybe some adblock was not enabled, so you got a water filter advertising?
>tastes like nothing
This is untrue. And I refuse municipal water without at least one more filter. I have a fish tank and it makes me nervous too, although oddly I am more nervous for killing the fish. In fact, I am suspicious of any and all water that does not either come directly from a private well (and it is delicious) or perhaps from some mountain spring. I have had stream water before too, which tastes oddly clean and delightful despite the risk of contracting beaver feaver.
>>
No. 4863
98 kB, 1200 × 1200
81 kB, 579 × 464
>>4752
>Water should taste like nothing.
I'm drinking water with a slightly bitter taste right now. It has almost 1500mg of sulfate per liter.
I don't see how that may be bad for me.
>>
No. 5107
181 kB, 750 × 700
330 kB, 1654 × 1110
63 kB, 542 × 382
77 kB, 700 × 473
Time to kick Ernstchan's best thread back to the top.

I started doing more studyings of the early Rus period, and how Russians dealt with mongol yoke.
I found it very interesting that plenty of ambitious Russian princes would attempt to get the local Khan to appoint them as ruler of "Rus" in order to secure their powerbase and press claims to the throne. The Rus ran a strange inheritance system, called the "Rota system".

>The rota system, from the Old Church Slavic word for "family"; or the lestva system, from the Old Church Slavic word for "ladder" or "staircase", was a system of collateral succession practiced (though imperfectly) in Kievan Rus' and later Appanage and early Muscovite Russia, in which the throne passed not linearly from father to son, but laterally from brother to brother (usually to the fourth brother) and then to the eldest son of the eldest brother who had held the throne. The system was rationalised by Yaroslav the Wise, who assigned each of his sons a principality based on seniority, though it predates his reign and was also used among the Norse of the British Isles.[1]

It seems that the period of Russian history during this mongol yoke was riddled with petty feuds over sucessions crisis, to which some blame can be attribute to this complicated system of inheritance.

Muscovy would actually consolidate its power in region by acting as a relatively loyal enforcer of the mongol yoke status quo, until they turned on the mongols (The Golden Horde, I'm using Mongol loosely here, given that most of these people subjugating slavs weren't ethnic mongols).

I also find it interesting that there is a considerable lack of Russian sources on the mongol invasion and a lack of depth in said sources. Apparently the case is similar to other civilized areas the mongols overrun, it seems to me that some of this is related to the shame these people felt over becoming serfs to these unwashed, barbaric invaders. Russians seems to have blamed their people's lack of religious fervor for this mongol apocalypse, how the mongols were sent by God to punish them and so on.

On an additional note: It's interesting how Pollacks and Lithuanians would interfere often in the Muscovite/Russian civil wars by abusing their broken inheritance system, and that Russia would eventually kickstart the partition of Poland centuries later, by abusing their broken political system too.
>>
No. 5109
Not exactly a documentary but still indaresting movie

https://youtu.be/qKttEgcGZsM
>>
No. 5113
>>5107
>these unwashed, barbaric invaders
Among the worst menes in history tbh. There was nothing more 'barbaric' about the Central and Inner Asian civilisations than any other. They were very different to sedentary societies but they weren't barbarians. They were in many ways equal or superior to their 'civilised' neighbours. The Turkic peoples had been using chain armour and even similar forms of mirror plate to their neighbours for a while and the Mongols likewise had quite advanced material technology for a nomadic society, and the tumen's inner composition and the way it fit into a campaign was actually far more regimented and modern than many 'civilised' countries. The Mongol Empire also saw the unification of many tax systems which increased efficiency in that regard and made travel on the Silk Road much safer than it had been for a long time. Not to mention taking on board the good things that they came across and spreading them like standardised weights for trading, and the marking of roads to smooth the flow of trade.

As for unwashed, they were no less bathed than anybody else in that period. They weren't a bunch of cavemen with stone spears and covered in twigs and mud. Ibn Battuta was kind of a massive cunt and isn't averse to showing it, but his work is a great source from the period. Him getting kind of butthurt at Turkics for not being turbo-Islamic is kind of funny too :-DDD
>>
No. 5116
1,3 MB, 1600 × 900
327 kB, 1600 × 1200
390 kB, 1925 × 1181
106 kB, 736 × 1171
>>5113
>Among the worst menes in history tbh. There was nothing more 'barbaric' about the Central and Inner Asian civilisations than any other. They were very different to sedentary societies but they weren't barbarians. They were in many ways equal or superior to their 'civilised' neighbours. The Turkic peoples had been using chain armour and even similar forms of mirror plate to their neighbours for a while and the Mongols likewise had quite advanced material technology for a nomadic society, and the tumen's inner composition and the way it fit into a campaign was actually far more regimented and modern than many 'civilised' countries. The Mongol Empire also saw the unification of many tax systems which increased efficiency in that regard and made travel on the Silk Road much safer than it had been for a long time. Not to mention taking on board the good things that they came across and spreading them like standardised weights for trading, and the marking of roads to smooth the flow of trade.

I didn't mean that the mongols were unwashed barbarians, merely that they were seen as such by other sedentary societies. However I must disagree with your assesment of how civilized the mongols, and their fellow nomadic buddies were. In terms of warfare, they were very advanced, there's no doubt. They had a high proportion of armoured troops that really had state of the art weaponry. Their organisation skills were very impressive too, similar to modern armies as you say. However I don't think you can quite place the advancement of trade and the uniformity of tax codes as a mongol accomplishment, as any empire that would control the silk route would have ended up with the same result, the difficulties in trade and the lack of uniformity were due to the lack of a single commanding body have control over the silk route. This seems like a perk of having a large single power in the area, than any specific mongolian trait or knowledge.

>As for unwashed, they were no less bathed than anybody else in that period. They weren't a bunch of cavemen with stone spears and covered in twigs and mud. Ibn Battuta was kind of a massive cunt and isn't averse to showing it, but his work is a great source from the period. Him getting kind of butthurt at Turkics for not being turbo-Islamic is kind of funny too :-DDD

The mongols do get painted with a broader stroke of barbarism than they really deserve, but they were certainly unwashed. The Mongols specifically didn't wash themselves or their clothes due to religious belief. This combined with how mobile they were, would certainly mean that the mongols might have quite possibly been the most unwashed people that ever lived.

With this, one can add the cultural traits of the mongols, and of other steppe people and how they clashed with how sedentary people behaved. Due to their steppe nomadic ways, the mongols subsisted mostly on mare's milk, their own alcoholic beverage was kumis, or drinking blood from their animals. In terms of food, they'd really eat about anything they could. Nomadic tribes often lived near starvation levels.

It's quite easy to understand how an urban Chinese during the 12th century would consider these people to be some bizarre cartoonish primitives.
The Mongols are more advanced than a lot of people give them credit for, especially warfare. And a lot of their bizarre cultural norms are due to living on the steppe. But, they certainly weren't some highly advanced group of people.
Oh, also the compound bow. I should mention that.
>>
No. 5117
>>5116
I'd disagree with the near starvation part.

When you have so many horses that you can travel through eurasia by swapping a tired horse for a new one, when your main method of transport is also your food, I don't think huger is a problem.

99$ of a central asian's diet was meat and dairy, simply because there wasn't anything else I guess. Fruit were a delicacy that the perfidious persoids from the south bring in for trade.
>>
No. 5120
>>5117
The Mongols surprisingly didn't subsist often on horse meat, the eating of horse meat was a ceremonial thing as opposed to a staple of their diet. I'd assume that they would resort to eating their horses if starvation was near, but it seems to be something that was avoided. There aren't really contemporary accounts of the privations mongols had, but up to very recently, droughts and harsh winters would put nomadic tribes under serious risk of starvation.
I suppose this is one of the reasons as to why mongols only slaughtered domesticated animals during the winter, but this is just conjecture in my part, it could very well be a cultural thing.
>>
No. 5122
211 kB, 2193 × 2686
516 kB, 559 × 760
192 kB, 1170 × 800
123 kB, 1024 × 764
>>5107
>It seems that the period of Russian history during this mongol yoke was riddled with petty feuds over sucessions crisis, to which some blame can be attribute to this complicated system of inheritance.

We had double system from different reasons and culture of actual inheritance and it started to be a problem way before mongol invasion. First big civil war after establishing actual state was in times of sons of Sviatoslav I Igorevich, when Rus' was divided between brothers and was re-united again in 978 when in-famouls Vladimir the Greit killed his older brother Yaropolk I who before started war and accidentally killed mid-brother.

Since the times of Yaroslav the Wise, rus' become full-feudal - his laws known as "Truth of Yaroslav" make heritage laws somehow even more problematic even when idea was in opposite. This period is known as "udelnaya rus'" from word "udel" - part of country that ruled by one of feudal-like knyaz' . This period of time may be considered as most bloody on differen civil wars every year, it is impossible to track all rulers of all lands, all sons and brothers and how borders changed. Most of maps that you posted and I posted are from school books that show thing only on basic level, because in school we learning inly main rulers, events and principaties

Thought it may be seen as bad thing, feudal rus' before mongol invasion was probably as most advanced period of our history overall. Different principatis formed as different states, Novgorod and Pscov become some sort of republics, some things as Galicia Volhynia principatis in result even evolved in european Kingdom. Culture, traiding, crafts, other art of on very high level. History don't know word "if", but it possible future that without mongol-invasion rus' will not exist, but it be a dozen of typical modern european states.

From this times you need to pay attention on figures of Andrey Bogolyubsky, a knyaz of Vladimir-Suzdal principaty that in future will form actual modern Russia as it exist now (his father was who founded Moscow city, thought for long time Moscow will be shit-tier small town), from him and his decidions when he conquered a lot on north not conquering south principaties started differentiation between russian and ukrainians in future. Vladimir II Monomakh - who in times of most blodiest wars between knyaz'es was voice of reason and tried to united rus' not as united state, but some sort of union where all principaties and knyazes lived in peace and friendship between each other. Not absoluetly sucsessfull, he viewed often as very positive person in history, He even managed to make some as they was called "crusades" of united rus' army against agrresive and annoying barbaric tribes across rus borders and they was pretty sucsesfull - in that times was looked like that nomad tribes will never be a problem for rus' again...
>>
No. 5123
>>5116
The Iran leg was largely under some form of empire for much of its history and under Islam was pretty complex to navigate taxation wise because of Iqta'. Every region had its own taxation system that was entirely at the whim of the one holding it. They might not own the land like in feudalism, but they had absolute authority over the wealth of that land. Even assuming that any old empire could have done it, then the fact that the Mongol Empire did it anyway says that they valued these other pursuits as highly as these other hypothetical empires would. They weren't a society dominated by war and martial pursuits. In fact under Mongol and Turkic laws, there are quite a few ways to get yourself beheaded for being too warlike. They understood that they needed the people to at the very least not give a fuck that they were in charge, and if giving them more authority meant that they liked you being in charge, it wasn't something that was off the table. Especially if that part of the empire was a pain for the army to patrol the trade routes in.

>>5120
>the Mongols surprisingly didn't subsist often on horse meat
The Turkics did. They're quite famous for their eating horses sometimes getting so fattened they were flat out moving. A lot of Kazakh staples to the present day include horse meat even, and the army that was hitting the Russians had a shitload of Turkics in it, specifically Cumans and Kipchaks. The Kazakh Khanate even arose from a Kipchak uprising against the Golden Horde and Uzbek Khanates.
>>
No. 5125
122 kB, 700 × 450
89 kB, 640 × 437
70 kB, 450 × 440
564 kB, 1024 × 512
>>5122
>Rota system
fun fact that nowdays "rota" means "company" in army.

>I also find it interesting that there is a considerable lack of Russian sources on the mongol invasion and a lack of depth in said sources

There a lot of them actually and this was a one of the main themes we study in schools. It is very complicated and hard to understand period without knowing rus' in previous period that I metioned in previous post. It all may be started from Battle of the Kalka River, it was like preamble to actual campain of mongols against rus', when forces of Jebei and Subutai absoluetly destroyed rus-сumans army. It was clearly shown, how poorly organised was most of such "unired knyaz' armies", how they was poor commanded and fact that in first most of the principaties not considered tataric-mongol horde as thread and it was critical mistake.

Fall of rus' as independed region was marked during famous invasion of Batu Khan 9that you showed on map in your post). Relationships of principaties and golden horde, people and religion and golden horde, knyazes themselfs and golden horde are very complicated question. But yes, civil wars are continued, and many knyazes as it was known "go to Horde" - trying to take support of great khan by giving him "presents" so khan giving to knyaz "yarlik" - document that allowed him to rule or be great knyaz.

Thought mongols at that time was not super-barbaric, as already Australia metioned, it still done devastating results in our culture, society, crafts. Many things was destroyed, beyond even cities that was burned down though invasions. Civil wars stop become inside things, because mongoles often invaded again to "gain order" and some knyazes asked mongol armies to support them inside rus', which result in regular absolute destruction of anything. But more than cuture and material losses was losses in actual mentality - many of worst mentality parts modern Russians are known today are direct result of mongolian rule. Famous hostorican Karamzin noted it in his "History of Russian State". Even more truth is that mongolian rule actually never ended as it is, since it is golden horde started feudally-fragmenting in parts, and Moscow principaty in many ways become one of this remnats.

But overall this period requred much more than just my short post on EC to describe it objectivly.
>>
No. 5126
>>5123
>The Iran leg was largely under some form of empire for much of its history and under Islam was pretty complex to navigate taxation wise because of Iqta'. Every region had its own taxation system that was entirely at the whim of the one holding it. They might not own the land like in feudalism, but they had absolute authority over the wealth of that land. Even assuming that any old empire could have done it, then the fact that the Mongol Empire did it anyway says that they valued these other pursuits as highly as these other hypothetical empires would. They weren't a society dominated by war and martial pursuits.

Naturally, as a new empire takes over they are able to create a new taxation system. The situation you describe is similar to that of taxation during the Ancién Regime followed by the French Revolution. The French King did want to reform the overcomplicated taxation system, but was unable to due to the power of lodged regional elites within the French state. As the Revolution comes along, they are able to completely reform the system. The French King did have de jure absolute authority over the land, but matters aren't so simple.
It isn't really a matter of understanding the necessity of a single tax code as much it is a matter of being able to enforce it.
Of course the mongols understood the necessity of taxing trade routes and their benefits. This doesn't entirely make them in any way unique or particularly civilized.
I'd definitely say that they

>The Turkics did. They're quite famous for their eating horses sometimes getting so fattened they were flat out moving. A lot of Kazakh staples to the present day include horse meat even, and the army that was hitting the Russians had a shitload of Turkics in it, specifically Cumans and Kipchaks. The Kazakh Khanate even arose from a Kipchak uprising against the Golden Horde and Uzbek Khanates.
Yes, even Yakuts eat horses as a staple of their food. The Mongols however, don't. I suppose a cultural reason.
>>
No. 5127
51 kB, 415 × 332
>>5125
>But more than cuture and material losses was losses in actual mentality - many of worst mentality parts modern Russians are known today are direct result of mongolian rule. Famous hostorican Karamzin noted it in his "History of Russian State". Even more truth is that mongolian rule actually never ended as it is, since it is golden horde started feudally-fragmenting in parts, and Moscow principaty in many ways become one of this remnats.

This is a very interesting topic for me as a Russophile because of this. The mongol invasion really would directly or indirectly create the Mysterious Russian Soul(tm). The death of the Knyaz feudal system and its replacement with a more Autocratic system under Ivan the Terrible.
How with the collapse of Bizantium, Russia would get its own autocephalous Orthodox Patriarchy. This is in my opinion one of the main reasons as to why Russian history in the period is so distinct when compared to other European nations. The symbiotic marriage between Tsar and Church would be the defining attribute of the Russian state for the centuries to come. It would shape Russian society very deeply and push it into a more different route than the rest of Christian Europe.
>>
No. 5130
>>5126
I'm not saying that they're any particularly civilised in the sense of being more so than anybody else. The only claim I've made is that they are no less civilised than anybody else, and that the idea of them being savages whose only claim to fame is conquest is misguided.
>However I must disagree with your assesment of how civilized the mongols, and their fellow nomadic buddies were.

So how is it that doing what other 'civilised' empires would supposedly do somehow making them less civilised? What is it that makes it not all that important that they implemented these systems? If they had a lesser grasp on civilisation than other empires, then surely they wouldn't have bothered with all that hard stuff like maintaining trade routes, straightening out taxation, setting up courier systems etc. Their culture is very different to sedentary culture yes, but it is not in any way lesser to sedentary culture because of that difference.
>>
No. 5136
>>5130
>The only claim I've made is that they are no less civilised than anybody else, and that the idea of them being savages whose only claim to fame is conquest is misguided.

I don't disagree that their only claim to fame isn't merely conquest, I do however see them as far less civilized than any of their counterparts.
These nomadic tribes, merely decades prior to Genghis Khan going on a conquering spree had to resort to raiding their southern neighbours for all sorts of items they were unable to produce. Things from clothing to jewelry, came entirely from raiding or extracting tribute.
There is absolutely no doubt that the Mongols were far less civilized than the Chinese, the Persians or the Russians. Particularly these first two. These were nations with a solid administrative system, a scientific advancement far beyond what the mongols had in essentially every single field besides warfare. Far more urbanized, richer societies that had an incredible cultural output. The mongols were an impressive very well organized military force with superior military technology, but that is really about all they had.
Even the mongol's political system was horribly unstable, as tribal societies often were.
Even in far flung corners of Rus, the mongol yoke would destroy the growing cultural production that was emerging, and they wouldn't recover for centuries.
As I'm sure you know, the mongols were even limited in some aspects of warfare, particularly sieging techniques. They'd have to kidnap Chinese and Iranian siege engineers so they'd be able to create efficient sieging weapons.
If a tribalistic nomad society with far inferior technological, cultural and social structures doesn't count as less civilized, I don't know what will.
I'm with you that the Mongols weren't simply braindead barbarians, and to paint them as such is an oversimplification. But to claim they were as civilized as the neighbours that they raided for fancy clothes, is absurd.
>>
No. 5153
77 kB, 736 × 584
>>5136
>I don't disagree that their only claim to fame isn't merely conquest
>a scientific advancement far beyond what the mongols had in essentially every single field besides warfare
>The mongols were an impressive very well organized military force with superior military technology, but that is really about all they had.

Yeah, right. And you're wrong that all their riches came from stealing too. Not to mention that the Altai and Alatau regions are both well known for their silverwork, Turkic and Mongol embroidery of various kinds is also a well known, complex and beautiful craft that requires great skill and is done in everything from rugs to boots to fancy clothes, they didn't have to steal those either.

Let's also consider the Greater Almaty trading area which was a semi-nomadic region in Zhetysu which under the Mongol Empire especially but also before, managed to flourish enough to actually have a route of the Silk Road diverted to it despite being a bit out of the way, by which I mean on the other side of the Alatau from the main northern route. I doubt that traders would go out of their way to deal with people who could only raid and steal from them.

>Even in far flung corners of Rus, the mongol yoke would destroy the growing cultural production that was emerging, and they wouldn't recover for centuries.
And I'm sure you feel the same pain for all the Siberian peoples who have been almost culturally destroyed over the centuries by the Russians too. Or the various peoples all around the world who got shat on when conquered by any empire?
>>
No. 5159
431 kB, 2305 × 1100
>>5153

>Yeah, right. And you're wrong that all their riches came from stealing too. Not to mention that the Altai and Alatau regions are both well known for their silverwork, Turkic and Mongol embroidery of various kinds is also a well known, complex and beautiful craft that requires great skill and is done in everything from rugs to boots to fancy clothes, they didn't have to steal those either.

Impressive, there was silvercraft in a Kazakh silk road trading point and the mongols did a "beautiful craft" of embroidery. Clearly the mongols weren't less civilized than the Chinese, the Persians or the Russians. I'll refrain from even posting about scientific and cultural progress in these civilizations because I don't think a post about such beautiful embroidery warants it. Makes one wonder why the Chinese would essentially bribe the Mongols with silk clothing if they had such a beautiful embroidery.
I am really impressed at your level of mongolbooism if you think knitting rags compares to the Chinese golden age, get a grip..

>And I'm sure you feel the same pain for all the Siberian peoples who have been almost culturally destroyed over the centuries by the Russians too. Or the various peoples all around the world who got shat on when conquered by any empire?

What pain? I certainly don't feel pain out of the destruction of Rus. The point is that in general a more advanced empire will bring in scientific advancement while a backwards conqueror will destroy progress.
Then again, I'm sure that in your churkaboo head, binning Siberian tribes whose greatest acomplishment was cousinfucking also counts as destroying such a beautiful civilized culture.
>>
No. 5192
82 kB, 445 × 747
Can anyone recommend a good intro text on the partition of India? Since I am not South Asian nor a historian I have little perspective/background on the matter but it sounds interesting.

Also, by the way, the situation of nonwhite national minorities in postcolonial Africa is kind of interesting, or so it seems from scanning the wiki entry on the zanzibar revolution:

Throughout Stone Town, shops and homes owned by Arabs and South Asians had been looted while numerous Arab and South Asian women were gang-raped.[29]

Not knowing that Okello had given orders to kill no whites, the Americans living in Stone Town fled to the English Club, where the point for evacuation was.[31] Those travelling in the car convoy to the English Club were shocked to see the battered bodies of Arab men lying out on the streets of Stone Town with their severed penises and testicles shoved into their mouths.[32] As part of Okello's carefully laid out plans, all over the island, gangs of Africans armed with knives, spears and pangas (machetes) went about systemically killing all the Arabs they could find.[33]

During the revolution, there was an orgy of violence committed against the South Asian and Arab communities with thousands of women being raped by the Okello's followers, much looting and massacres of Arabs all over the island.[29] The American diplomat Don Petterson described the killings of Arabs by the African majority as an act of genocide.[39] Petterson wrote "Genocide was not a term that in the vogue then, as it came to be later, but it is fair to say that in parts of Zanzibar, the killing of Arabs was genocide, pure and simple".[39] Okello, an eccentric, power-crazed man with a taste for cruelty frequently went on the radio to urge his followers in thunderous Old Testament language to kill as many Arabs as possible, with the maximum of brutality.[40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanzibar_Revolution#Revolution
>>
No. 5204
60 kB, 700 × 458
137 kB, 1280 × 720
I have spent the last week thinking about the impact that the attempted coup of 1825 had on our country. It is interesting how a group of nobles thought it could overthrow Nicholas or at least make him accept a constitutional monarchy. However, their indecisiveness and inabilty to come out with a programme of political development of RUssia that every single one of them would approve of led to their defeat.

What's even more interesting is the fact that had both consequences that were terrible for this country - the death/GULAGing of the best minds of the nation and the adoption of a very reactionary style of governing by Nicholas I, as well as some great consequences - such as the establishment of an intelligentsia in Siberia and the Far East of Russia.
>>
No. 5212
>>5204
Decembrist Revolt really was pretty interesting. They really blew it by revolting against Nicky I, they would tarnish the possibility of liberalizing Russia and forced him to adopt a more hardline reactionary modus operandi.
The Northern Decembrists seem like a real patriotic liberal intelligentsya class that did want to advance Russia, but alas they got Sibir'd.
>>
No. 5218
>>5212
Decembrists were dreamers without any real political agenda or popular support.
Some of them were really cruel and ready to achieve power at any cost.
No doubt, Nicholas I was a brutal jerk, but Decembrist leaders weren't angels
>>
No. 5223
>>5192
I've only really studied the P53's deployment in India, so wrong era. Looking through the sources on the wikipedia page though shows a surprisingly well-done list that contains some relevant works that aren't half a decade or more old like so many pages are plagued by. I'd mostly focus on post 1990 things and preferably post 2000 from their sources but relying only on my knowledge of how a source list should look, it seems like it'd be a fine place to start looking through.
t. qualified historian
>>
No. 5225 Kontra
>>5223
Though just a heads up, it's not a perfect list. Plenty of older stuff that will lack insights from modern research is also there, so what I'd do personally is look into some of the more recent ones and follow their footnotes. That's a pretty decent way to start research in general btw, find a recent referenced work and follow the breadcrumbs outwards.
>>
No. 5233
>>5225
Duly noted. I will search in the reference list of the Wikipedia article for recent works treating the subject. Thank you.
>>
No. 5237
>>5233
No problem m8. A sort of related topic that's really interesting now that I think about it is the air conflicts in the Indian-Pakistani wars in the 60s and 70s. Lots of cool airframes and weird alliances going on there, like the Soviet Union backing a member of the Commonwealth even though that was basically an alliance with a prominent member of NATO. If you like Indian history, it's pretty cool.
>>
No. 5251
>>5204
The more you look on situation, more you see how hoplss it was. And as already said, it was very fragmented society with many different views and not united force. And some of their ideas was meh. Nicolas I was shit thought, it is pretty obvious, but funny that some acrtual procent of his reactionism caused by actual decabrists themselfs.
>>
No. 5465
39 kB, 500 × 380
I am not entirely sure where to put this but this is one of the most EC tier things I've ever read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis

It is also a perfect example of why so many intelligent people become a little unhinged or more like hermits eventually.
>>
No. 5531
7,9 MB, 4000 × 1415
160 kB, 620 × 475
72 kB, 728 × 546
I'm going to post some self-translated excerpts from Gregory L. Freeze's History of Russia that I found pretty interesting.

>In the 16th century [Russia's self portrait of its origins] became more universalist and less rigorous. The geneological histories of the Great-Princes of Moscow began to extend the Kiev family origins to ancient Rome, in a typically renaissance search of classical history.

>The compilation of the Metropolitan Macarius of the mid 16th century, [...] presented Muscovy as a holy kingdom, part of universal Christianity, connected by Kievan Rus to Bizantine Christianity, and ultimately to the creation of the world by God.

>[...]

>We have to be very clear about what this Muscovian ideology did not say about itself. For example, Muscovy did not present itself as "Third Rome", heir of Rome and Bizantium and natural ruler of the world. The text "Muscow, third Rome" was a minor theme only found in a few eclesiastic documents; it was originally used to appeal the Tsars to be just and humble, not to justify an arrogant power.

>[...]

>16th century Muscovy did not see itself as a pluralistic or secular realm. There are no remains of any of the intense debates on the form of nation that existed during the time period in England, France and Poland. Russia was outside of this discussion; it defined itself in religious, not secular, terms. As a family and a community, not as a State.

I found this pretty interesting as it sheds some light on the formative ideas behind Russia. This idea combined with the symbiotic relation of the state and church would shape Russia's political system until 1917.
>>
No. 5532 Kontra
>>5531
Oh the Icon on the first picture is Blessed Be the Host of the Heavenly Tsar.

From wikipedia:
>Blessed Be the Host of the Heavenly Tsar (Благословенно воинство Небесного Царя), also known as the Ecclesia militans ("The Church Militant"), is a grand Russian Orthodox icon commemorating the conquest of Kazan by Ivan IV of Russia (1552).

>The icon shows Ivan the Terrible as he follows the Archangel Michael in leading the triumphant Russian troops away from the conquered city in flames (symbolising both Kazan' and Sodom). In the top left corner of the icon the Mother of God with the infant Jesus is shown seated outside the heavenly gate of Jerusalem (symbolising the city of Moscow) and distributing crowns to messenger angels who proceed to reward the martyrs of Ivan's army.
>>
No. 5536
>>5531
In many ways, you can follow changes of russia as in many wars result of mongolian invasion. Another key is evolution of Vladimir-Suzdal' principaty. Before mongolian invasion it was Vladimir-Suzdal' who in many ways formed of the most powerfull principaties, that start separate itself from southstern principaties and Nobgorod-Pskov republic, and by politics, and then by culture. Thought mongol occupation it was in the end Vladimir (and then Moscow when it become major city inside principaty) Knyazes who was most sucsessfull with relationships with mongols and actually won right to rule all other lesser principaties across, such as Tver who lost this race.AS very close ones to mongols, grand knyaz'yas of moscow was ones who keeped a lot interesting traditions and styles of building goverment and rule country. They also was one of first onews who get opportunity to broke mongol rule, because their power, knowlege and relationships with mongols. It kinda you know, how kingdom of Franks separated from roman empire, at least for me it looks like.
When mongoles started evolve from more privitive condition and managed to achive feudalism, in Moscow already with help of natural evolution and actual mongols started forming true Monarchy that managed to create solid state.
And even thought moscow was in many ways sucsessor of actual golden horde, like all other states that pop out after it's fragmenting, main ideology was to propogand themselfs as heir of Byzantium.
Not worst choise, at this point moscow becoming true monarchy and monolitic state which can be claimed as some sort of "empire", absolute majority of people was ortodoxy, one of the rare examples of christian ortodox state, was keept also aquilla eagle of byzantium, which was also used by mongols as I know but still. Also a lot of ortodox temple guys who left byzantium after it was conquered by turks, ended up in moscow. Making personal ortodox temple leader in moscow maded this city is center of most major part of ortodoxy in the world, since constantinopel was destroyed.

Than, moscow managed to conquer almost all northen and central principaties, including independed and at this point absoluetly different novgorod, also managed to conquer a lot of smaller nerby tataric-mongolic states-remnats of golden horde, and managed to build strong goverment system with strong leader. It was blessing and suffer at same time.

>>5532
>Ivan the Terrible
tbh I hope you know that "Грозный" is not "Terrible"
>>
No. 5541
276 kB, 640 × 850
1,0 MB, 1536 × 2048
>>5536
>AS very close ones to mongols, grand knyaz'yas of moscow was ones who keeped a lot interesting traditions and styles of building goverment and rule country. They also was one of first onews who get opportunity to broke mongol rule, because their power, knowlege and relationships with mongols. It kinda you know, how kingdom of Franks separated from roman empire, at least for me it looks like.

I see it going deeper than that, although that is a good summary. The Muscovity grand princes were the first to challenge Tatar authority and not be destroyed. See: Battle of Kulikovo.

The Golden Horde would raid and liberate Moscow a couple of years later, but it's clear that since the late 14th century that Moscow was set to become the regional power. They had even manage to whip the other Russian principalities and the Novgorod Republic into accepting Muscovite rule as a principle, even though they were somewhat independent, particularly Novgorod.

Moscow's own rise is also due to a streak of great rulers that Russians had. I think the policies of Ivan III were clearly an aftermath of the Muscovy civil war, he realized had to centralize power and the autocephaly of the Moscow Orthodox Church, with its own Metropolitan would mark this new era. Ivan III did operate the state apparatus with great efficiency, it was surprising how well he did the job of centralizing power and how well he managed his rule.Especially for a Russian leader :DDD

I don't see Moscow so much as the sucessor as the Golden Horde, even though there is some element of that (even more so with Russia's march east, all the way to Manchuria. I think Moscow/Russia's relations with the steppe nomads simply flipped in the 15th century. The mongos/tatars had Russia paying tribute and supplying some men in the form of military tribute, and then Russia would do the same to them. However, Russia's own form of state organization would end up "deleting" these tributary states Moscow even had tributary Khanates :DDD[{spoiler] and applying the Russian form of government on them once they had enough power.
>>
No. 5542 Kontra
>>5541
Also yeah I know Groznyi isn't "Terrible". It was a weird thing to find out an years back since I assumed it was related to oprichnina. Similar to figuring out that the T*rks call Suleyman the Magnificent as Suleyman the Magnificent.
>>
No. 5547
277 kB, 1000 × 1288
67 kB, 376 × 536
48 kB, 267 × 355
>>5541
>See: Battle of Kulikovo.
Well, it is one of the most forced historical events there. There also even a joke about fake veterans, or opposite, about very old people: "veteran of kulikovo field" X--DDD

>I don't see Moscow so much as the sucessor as the Golden Horde,
Well, they not 100% of cource, this is another recently forced memes of politics. It isobvious that moscow is pure continuation of Vladimir-Suzdal and that core that Andrey Bogolybsky managed to chainve prior to mongoles. However, it was major part of mongolian influence that turned strong, but still equal to other principaties into that monster that become empire in future.

>They had even manage to whip the other Russian principalities and the Novgorod Republic into accepting Muscovite rule as a principle

Assimilation of Novgorod is actually kinda sad thing for me. It was advanced state, and unlike some Tver', it was really different from Moscow and other central principaties. In many ways it one of the least mongolised principaties exept some that who was even more deep in west. It was also most democratic, one of the most richest and one of ones that managed to keep a lot of older crafts and culture things that other principaties lost during invasion. And in the end, each of moscow knyaz (from this moment where Novgorod become under moscow influence formaly) managed to destroy novgorod independence a little bit. Each knyaz thought that it is his goal to cut novgorod rights a bit. After series of wars and uprisings, to times of Ivan IV all independence of novgorod - and mental and political was ended.

One of most notable events of this is how Novgorod's people's council meeting bell was moved to moscow, that formally and litteraly putted end on "republic"

>Moscow's own rise is also due to a streak of great rulers that Russians had.
Well, maybe not that great, but sucsessfull almost from start to almost finish. We all remember guys like Ivan Kalita who was greedy as fuck, cheated mongoles, and cheated it's own people to make as much monies as possible from both of them and maded Moscow even more rich.
>>
No. 5877
860 kB, 1280 × 1725
930 kB, 1509 × 2000
3,2 MB, 2917 × 1493
366 kB, 1404 × 900
The Time of Troubles (Смутное время) was an interregnum between the Rurik dynasty and Romanovs. This period was marked by social upheavel, wars (civil wars and foreign invasions) and a plethora of people claiming to be the lawful heir, a lost Rurikovich.
It is important to remember that Russia was a society deeply ingrained in tradition. The idea that the first dynasty of Rus would collapse in this manner and leave no descendants was something that didn't go down easy with your average Russian. This is why so many of them would flip to support these "False Dmitris", note the plural - there were three of them.

In the end the times of troubles were solved by the accession to the throne by Mikhail I, the first Romanov, and a nephew of the last Tsar of the Rurik dynasty. The road into putting a lid on the chaotic situation in Russia and a restoration of the Tsar's autocratic powers was not a simple one, but by the time Alexei I, the son of Mikhail I took the throne, it was well on its way.

Alexei would appoint one Nikon (Nikita Minin) to the seat of Patriarch, Nikon was an abbot loyal to Alexei that Alexei saw as a very ambitious and capable man.

Patriarch Nikon would attempt to reform the church and bring it back to its central place in Russian society. The church's influence had been steadily decreasing as Russia had begun a relatively intense period of westernization, primarily in the military.

Patriarch Nikon desired to gain some independency for the church and lessen the Tsarist control over it, by putting into law the idea that the Tsar and the Patriarch were colleagues in running the Russian nation.

Through his process of codifying the Orthodox Religion which seems to me to have been motivated by an urge to centralize it to make it more powerful, Nikon would create the Raskol, the schism between the Orthodox Church and "Old Believers".

The spark that lit this powderkeg would be Nikon's attempts to codify Russian lithurgy, particularly taking inspiration from Greek sources. Notably, changes in the lithurgy, the pronounciation of Jesus and the sign of the cross.

The Old Believers formed several sects who, essentially, believed that Nikon was an unlawful patriarch breaking the holy tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church. A considerable number of groups would even call him the Anti-Christ.

The degree of fanaticism of the Old Believers vary wildly from group to group, and it's complicated to keep track of all of these splinter groups that aren't all that well organized.

The resistance was originally led by one Avvakum, a Russian cleric who was fervently opposed to the changes in lithurgy, but would eventually be burnt alive. This marks the start of the splintering of the Old Believers, not that they were necessarily a single power block.

Alexis I would eventually get Nikon to be removed as Patriarch (by summoning the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem and organizing a council), but the changes would be kept.

The Old Believers would suffer varying degrees of oppression throughout Russian history, from toleration to downright attempts at destroying the group. The later is primarily due to the (fairly justified) belief that these groups were a threat to the legitimacy of the Russian Orthodox Church, and therefore to that the authority of the Tsar.
>>
No. 5895
255 kB, 800 × 1051
36 kB, 306 × 414
97 kB, 1000 × 596
524 kB, 720 × 494
>>5877
>note the plural - there were three of them.
Four of Five actually. Maybe more, back than everyone claimed to be Dimitry X--D

>The Time of Troubles
This therm have funny translation. However it not beated "terrible Ivan"

>In the end the times of troubles were solved by the accession to the throne by Mikhail I, the first Romanov, and a nephew of the last Tsar of the Rurik dynasty.
It is funny how was almost accepted son of polish kind, who wil later be known as Władysław IV Vasa, but was two uprisings against it. One of supporters of uprisings was otrtodox church who was feared that with ruler from chatolic country they will not be priveleged as they was before (yes, ortodox temples accepted rule of golden horde because golden horde accepted them to live without taxes, this guys cares about themselfs much more than about actual people). As you know, second of this uprisings by Minin and Pozharsky was sucsessful. It was quite easy to bring people against poland prince and boyars after smuta where a lot boyars showed who they are. With support of Ortodox priests even more easy. Is it coincedence that when on meeting after uprising they decided who would rule after, they choosed son of Patriarch of Ortodox Church? Hmm, what a coincidences!
Monuments to Minin and Pojarsky one of the most famous memorials in russia, I bet you seen them. Also, I reccomend you to read much more about that period. About Boris Godunov and memes of poor year of 1601-1603 (I hope I get date right), where was very bad weather and was no harvest at all, and it was very hungry year. In this times, also unstable after last years of Rurik Dynasty and it's end, that caused more local insstability, hell lot of dead people, high crime rate. People blamed that god now hate russia because there no Ruricovich on throne, it not gived any points to Boris Godunov obviously. Actual cause of such poor weather was some south american volcano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaynaputina, but who cares.

Also it is notable to point, that from this times role of Boyars will be more and more less, and other socium estate - Dvoryane, will take their roles. Of cource Smuta and it's results don't played in favor of Boyars as you may see, by Godunov reputation, also by Vasili Shuisky, by actual agreements with Wladislav... smuta was pure time of memes. Don't forget son of Godunov who was on throne for like 5 minutes, lol. Poor guy, he was just little kid who liked grammar and maps, if only EC existed back than!

First romanovs and westernisation?... eeh, after Smuta russia was poor country without any progress, that was far behind other progressive world and for many years even if we evolved, it was as slow as possible. Lost of territories, reparations to many ccountries, like sweden, changing roles of many social instinutes, but same times - by culture, by any other things there was almost no progress. Of cource it's all changed radically, very radically with Peter I, who was firs romanov who worthed something, althought is very controversial historical figure. Maybe not like stalin of cource, but still.

Reformation of Ortodox stuff was a funny story by itslef. It was not like a reformation, but actual research of origins of religion. It is figuret out, that A LOT OF THINGS WAS POORLY TRANSLATED ON RUSSIAN BACK THAN and that WHOLE TIME WE PRAIZED GOD WRONG! But a lot people was of cource for tradition, they exist still today, some of them lives in SOUTH AMERICA (sad that not near that metioned volcano, it'd be MAXIMUM LEVEL OF IRONY THAT CAN BE POSSIBLY ACHIVED.

The other things that was happened during early Romanovs is of cource, Uprisings. Whole this centuary was known as "centuary of uprisings). After smuta russia was piss poor (well like something unusual but still) and many attempts of economical reforms by new tasrs goverments (will metion again that early romanovs by itslef as people was mostly potato-level) was very and very meh. It caused Bread riots in Pskov and Novgorod, famous 1648 Salt uprisings where taxes on Salt - one of the most important products in medival was rised to crazy levels, or Copper riots, when during war with poland in 1650-1660s (another interesting thing on which I want attract your attention: all this story in times when ukraine already kinda become ukraine, and when it was part of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Getman of left side from Dnepr river Bogdan Hmelnitsky asked russia to accept them with cities and towns and kinda after this war smolensk and huge chunk of ukraine come part of russia. Smolensk is also meme city who often was between two fires in infinity wars with poland. More wars than with poland russia had only with turkey most probably.) when economics went to shit and goverment decided to star making hell lot of Copper coins instead silver ones. Of cource it for many obvious reasons start hyperinflation zimbabwe-tier and caused rioys.

But one of the uprisings that I want to metion separatly - one of the most famous Uprisings in russian history, Uprising of cossac Stepan Razin who become a leader for many not heppy pesants. You know, this was times, when whole medival society system start changing. as I metioned - Dvoryanstvo in many ways start replacing Boyarstvo, and same time for same reasons that connected to each other Pesants start becoming SLAVES. And this uprisings was one of the first ones of pesants that was not agree with new laws against their rights and also how with new system goverment start actually becoming modern goverment, that affect all sides of political, social and economical life of every man inside country. I point it there so hare because it's changes is most important points that changed society of russians from medival to more modern times and also one of the most important answers on questions, why and how russia ftom Moscow Principaty of late ruricoviches become Russian Empire of Romanovs, and how society and culture of Empire was formed.

Also, I see you skiped Ivan IV and all his period for the most part.
>>
No. 5899
>>5877
Since you are a Russian Empire/Tsardom of Russia pro could you do a post on the history of judaizing sects in these polities? just a suggestion
>>
No. 5971
512 kB, 650 × 827
68 kB, 391 × 559
265 kB, 1024 × 803
1,0 MB, 2000 × 1383
>>5895
>With support of Ortodox priests even more easy. Is it coincedence that when on meeting after uprising they decided who would rule after, they choosed son of Patriarch of Ortodox Church? Hmm, what a coincidences!

They didn't really choose the son of the Patriarch, it was more the opposite. Mikhail put his father as a Patriarch Or probably the other way around since his father seems to have essentially controlled him, even making Russia into a state with basically two leaders. His father, Filaret was currently imprisioned by the Psheks as Mikhail took the throne. He had been named by one of the False Dmitrys, but the de facto patriarch of the time was Patrairch Germogen. One that was named by Vasili IV, the last Russian Tsar during the Times of Troubles before Wladyslav of Poland being proclaimed Tsar of Rus.

>Monuments to Minin and Pojarsky one of the most famous memorials in russia, I bet you seen them.

Neat, I actually didn't know it was to them, very cool. Chair when never been to Russia, but I will one day.

>First romanovs and westernisation?... eeh, after Smuta russia was poor country without any progress, that was far behind other progressive world and for many years even if we evolved, it was as slow as possible.

It did modernize pretty well in military terms, the taxes you mention later on were in part to fund the new form of military structures that the Romanovs decided were necessary.

>and same time for same reasons that connected to each other Pesants start becoming SLAVES

Yeah, the begginings of Russia's serfdom. It's also interesting and macabre how during the later Rurik years-early romanov years, plenty of peasants suffered with such high taxes that they practically volunteered to become slaves.

>I point it there so hare because it's changes is most important points that changed society of russians from medival to more modern times and also one of the most important answers on questions, why and how russia ftom Moscow Principaty of late ruricoviches become Russian Empire of Romanovs, and how society and culture of Empire was formed.

Interesting, I'll look deeper into it.

>Also, I see you skiped Ivan IV and all his period for the most part.

It's because I haven't managed to fully understand the ramifications of opritchnina, it's not only a pretty chaotic thing but the book I'm reading and sources I looked up online paint a different picture. There seems to be some serious debate to how important it was, and how long its consequences lasted. Prior to studying this I just knew about the opritchinki, and assumed they were just some sort of proto-Okhrana, but it goes deeper than that. I didn't know about Ivan the Very-Evil's land seizures and appoitment of trustees to run it. I also don't know the degree of ramification it had, and I see that there is discussions on it.
I'm enjoying this book, but I'm sad that only half the book is pre-1917 and it seems a lot of events are pushed fairly quickly, presumably to leave more room for Sovok stuff. Which is sad because I already read a couple of books on the CCCP, so that period doesn't really interest me as much as early Rushka
>>
No. 5974
236 kB, 558 × 475
184 kB, 758 × 510
95 kB, 736 × 595
114 kB, 497 × 600
>>5899
I actually don't know much about them, I only know about some 19th century Russian cults since that was the period that I've gone more in depth in studying, notably the "Spiritual Christians". There a bunch of these sects, many of which I'm certain that are lost to time. Let alone how many were just written down as "Orthodox" even though all sorts semi-paganistic ideas lived in the Christian practices of far-flung corners of the Russian Empire.

Even Orthodoxy itself has some strange customs and practices.
My favourite, a Russian icon for healing algoholism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inexhaustible_Chalice
>>
No. 6044
817 kB, 1870 × 1168
320 kB, 452 × 571
>>5971
>It did modernize pretty well in military terms, the taxes you mention later on were in part to fund the new form of military structures that the Romanovs decided were necessary.
They modernised it not very well, or Peter I not needed to rebuild army from scrach by european standarts with europen specialists, same time getting rid of Strelcy and other outdated units.

>Yeah, the begginings of Russia's serfdom. It's also interesting and macabre how during the later Rurik years-early romanov years, plenty of peasants suffered with such high taxes that they practically volunteered to become slaves.
Even before it, a lot people changed they life into dependent pesants, because there was days and weeks whe you can go free if you want and conditions was different. Only real trash tier was to be "Holop". (read: Truth of yaroslav, also Truth of Yaroslaviches in general)

>It's because I haven't managed to fully understand the ramifications of opritchnina, it's not only a pretty chaotic thing but the book I'm reading and sources I looked up online paint a different picture. There seems to be some serious debate to how important it was, and how long its consequences lasted. Prior to studying this I just knew about the opritchinki, and assumed they were just some sort of proto-Okhrana, but it goes deeper than that. I didn't know about Ivan the Very-Evil's land seizures and appoitment of trustees to run it. I also don't know the degree of ramification it had, and I see that there is discussions on it.

Oprichnia was one of the most important and memetic events is russian history. And whole life, from birth and to death is truly funny thing and it's hard to describe how his fate, his ideas and actions affected history of russia, direct and undirect way. It is hard to describe all in short, I recommend you to read about Ivan IV somewhere separetly, or if you really want I may may try make small overview in next post.

>I'm enjoying this book, but I'm sad that only half the book is pre-1917 and it seems a lot of events are pushed fairly quickly, presumably to leave more room for Sovok stuff. Which is sad because I already read a couple of books on the CCCP, so that period doesn't really interest me as much as early Rushka
What book you actually reading? i recommend better drop it, and read for example Karamzin, "История государства российского". It may be outdated in some things, but for begginers it must-read in my opinion.
>>
No. 6096
65 kB, 468 × 600
>>6044
>They modernised it not very well, or Peter I not needed to rebuild army from scrach by european standarts with europen specialists, same time getting rid of Strelcy and other outdated units.

Peter I deserves his fame as a modernizer, but at least in terms of military, the administrative structures were placed there before him. Russia did graduate from something that looked like the some 12th century European feudal army. Even the extinction of the boyars by Peter I had began a generation before.

>Only real trash tier was to be "Holop". (read: Truth of yaroslav, also Truth of Yaroslaviches in general)
Will research on it.

>Oprichnia was one of the most important and memetic events is russian history. And whole life, from birth and to death is truly funny thing and it's hard to describe how his fate, his ideas and actions affected history of russia, direct and undirect way. It is hard to describe all in short, I recommend you to read about Ivan IV somewhere separetly, or if you really want I may may try make small overview in next post.
I would appreciate it, yes.
t. Russophile

>What book you actually reading? i recommend better drop it, and read for example Karamzin, "История государства российского". It may be outdated in some things, but for begginers it must-read in my opinion.
History of Russia by Gregory L. Freeze. It seems to take a very general view on events, and lacks detail in early Russian history.
>>
No. 6101
29 kB, 267 × 356
571 kB, 700 × 617
>>6096
>History of Russia by Gregory L. Freeze. It seems to take a very general view on events, and lacks detail in early Russian history.
Seems like nice guy, not random but really someone in historical science community. I see he have nice list of monographies and other specific work on theme. Thought at first I prefer not reading much about authors that write about different country and culture, if this country still exists. Of cource ther no choise if you want read about Shumer and ancient Egypt or Hetts, there you need choose who researched the most, but if country still exist - I prefer read USA history from USA authors, Germany history from herman authors etc. It may be politizied a little bit or in thone in favor of author's country, but I guess if author compitent, it can share more information with you because he write about country and culture that he belongs to. Second, I not against short overwiev of history, but one or two books that desribes ALL HISTORY of more than a thousand years is a bit too short. "История государства Российского" is consist of 13 volumes (12 main and one where he showed sources) and describe history from creation of Rus' as state untill 1611 (he wanted untill 1613, but died before managed to end). This is just exeacly right scale, not too long and still overview, but not too short like one you reading, where only very briefly described sometimes most epin and most important events. Well, at least this is mine opinion on this.
Here PDF of First Karamzin's history volume on modern russian orthography by the way http://elibrary.bsu.az/books_aysel/N_170.pdf

Btw there was television shorts in 2000s based on Karamzin and other authors. Visuals and graphics... well, not that you need to look at, but if you listen narrator, they pick up most important facts from this books and describe them what they mean, also showing most important historical events. there a series of videos on youtube, but you may just listen narrator. (I think text readed Yuri Shevchuk but this is another meme)
https://youtu.be/a6s4jXvzlI8 - here a fist part

>Will research on it.
Правда Ярослава Мудрого or Русская Правда is basicly first drawed codex of all laws in Rus' state. This is one of the most important documents you stufy in russian school. After it sons of Yaroslav edited it, add something on change. Based on this document, you can see how changed social groups roles and how changed poitions of different pesants
>>
No. 6103
73 kB, 591 × 604
150 kB, 640 × 427
>>6101
Yeah, the book I'm currently reading does briefly mention the various Russian Pravda and how they changed. Thanks for the .pdf, but my Russia is too horrible to read it, for now, I'll finish this book while I'm at it, go through some stuff I got on my reading list and grab more stuff on Rushka. I'm gonna have to start ordering some stuff online for books + studying materials, since there's a serious lack of it. Hundreds of CCCP related stuff, but no early Russian history whatsoever. Then again, my recent decision to learn Russian was because of a lack of English material on the Russian side of the Great Game.
>>
No. 6104 Kontra
>>6101
Also, can you recommend me some historical Russian movies?
>>
No. 6105
294 kB, 800 × 922
49 kB, 740 × 500
138 kB, 532 × 671
134 kB, 1598 × 1259
>>6101
>I would appreciate it, yes.
Life if Ivan IV was a one big story that changing thone every decade basicly. All his life is actualy not only one, but several periods of russian history in one place. His rule of more than 50 years marked maximums and minimums what achived moscow Rurikovichi and even thought he was not last Rurikovich on throne technically, he was what marked end of classic Moscow principaty and end of remnats of classic Rus'. But I start from before a little bit, same time try to answer boyars/dvoryans question.

As you know, his grandfather and father did a lot to bring a lot elements of centralisation in concquered (restored) lands of Rus', and in system of rule itself. Politics of Vasily III was about elemination of independency of different principaties, espessialy finishing Pskov republic same way his father did with Novgorod, fully conquering Ryazan', which was already depend in moscow and some other less principaties like Novgorod-Seversk and Starodubsk. All this meme about moscow conquering other lands in period from Ivan Kalita to Ivan IV called "собирание русских земель". In his internal politics, Vasily III, same as Ivan III and Vasily II tryed to make as much power for themselfs as they can. Institution of Boyars, that was so important in pre-mongol rusian history, espessialy in Novgorod and Pscov where they, not knyaz' was actual main power in state, like some sort of parlament, for new moscow knyazes was as burden. In most early times of Rurik, Igor, before Olga, in times where was no actual state, early boyars was also an actual most high ranked people in Druzhina. Whole "state" was Knyaz' - basicly warlord, and his "Druzina". Knyaz' was first among almost like brothers. To make decidion he talked with his Druzinniks, his friends, companions. Drug/Druz'ya - still means friend/friends on russian. And this army every year moved from capital city and harwest taxes from all previously conquered lands. Sometimes it requred to re-conquer them again. In this proto-state Boyars was important.

But in times way after it, in post-mongol Moscow Principaty that growed from Vladimir-Suzdal' system where knyaz' was more important person than boyar's, and after they experienced mongol system where great chan is like a GOD, and mamging to become most powrfull russian state, all things politicly go to absolute monarchy. And this still existing Boyar system, where grandgrandgrand kids of people who 500 years ago was military leutenants of knyaz'-warlord now was institute that modern Knyazes really didn't want. They wanted to rule country more directly, they didn't want Boyarskaya Duma have so many rights, even thought they had not a lot in times of Vasily III, but still was something that blocked his personal power a little bit.
Ivan III and Vasily III destroyed a lot lesser knyazes that was depended on them one way or another, to rule all lands directly. Destroyed as they can any Boyar opposition and placed their rule at first place. And one of instruments they count on was Dvoryane. People, which was at ther times lower nobility. They was not noble like Boyars because they had some family name, they concquered their rank by serving their Knyaz'. they not by default share their rank and money to their sons, Dvoryanin need to achive his duty. And such people - who was on fully depended on Knyaz', who also was a good servants and was noble and sometimes rich, but had less rights and was not opposition as boyars, was people who will be most important part of building Moscow post-feudal monarchy, and it all sloverly started from this most sucsessfull Moscow knyazes.

>>6103
Sorry, but your map is crap, with modern borders. This is modern boarder russia+central asia soviet republics border, with most WW1 mongolia and modern ukraine and south caucasus countries etc.

>>6104
You mean fictional ones or historical?
>>
No. 6106
141 kB, 1160 × 516
>>6105
Yes, it isn't a good map, but it serves the purpose of marking the sphere of influence lines in Central Asia during the Great Game.

Thank you for your explanation, although I just makes me more confused and with more questions. This is a good sign, I'll go try to find some sources on it and bring back more specific questions.

Fiction or historical works.

Also thank you for dealing with my autistic Russophillia
>>
No. 6108
89 kB, 800 × 568
111 kB, 800 × 565
95 kB, 369 × 512
27 kB, 291 × 320
>>6105
>most WW1 mongolia
*post WW1 mongolia - fix.

Birth of Ivan Grozny was marked with lightnings and storms, which was count as a good omen. One of important parts of his early life is that his father, Vasily III died when Ivan's age was only 3. And his youth and childhood as you can imagine was not the best thing that form a person, lol. It hard to describe everything in short post, but Vasily III gived guardianship over his young son to seven Boyars before his death untill Ivan will turn 15 and can rule by himself. He thought thet choosed right prsons and all rule will be palanced, but everything went to shit. All what happened is hard to describe but you may guess - some just leave, some start killing each other in trying to conquer more power, his mother was killed, there was a lot blood and dishonor among ruling circles, also there was great fire in moscow that destroyed a lot parts of city, some of "guardianships" gived young ivan really shitty lessons and advises, there also was minor uprisings and executionsб basicly all maximum bad things that can happen with your mental health when you was young. Ivan growed as kinda savage person, who tortured animals, was often angry, in many ways was cynic guy. And you also can assume what impression of how Boyars do things gived on Ivan.

But well, with help of Mithropolit Makari, Invan found his first wife, also in 16 years asked his right to become full-power Tsar. In this times often described that he is calmed down in temper, maybe because how his wife and mithropolit affected him. It was important times for speding up the changes that was slowely started before. At first there are Ivan who don't like Boyars because he seen them in action when was kid and also know politics of his father and grandfather about them. At second, fall of Tsargrad and Byzantine empire - country, that by religious and spiritual therms was felt like some sort of older parent for Russia, and now it's gone and Russia with it's ortodox religion became depended only on itself (unlice most of other europe with their depend on Rome by religion and their breaking of connections with it was different way) and many people viewed importance of Russia to become heir of this traditions and right of Moscow to become Third Rome. All this combine with main goal of Moscow Tsars to become full-monarch power. It was in times of Ivan when was created therm "Самодержавие". However, in first times of rule of Ivan IV, as I already metion a little bit calm in his mood, all this things happened in speed, but not RADICAL way.
In his early times, he formed Zemskoy sobor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zemsky_Sobor . interested in ideas that said Dvoryanin Peresvetov, Tsar said that he will start creating a onarchy, based on Dvoryanstvo, already metioned самодержавие, which already by logic wil decreace rights of Boyarstvo.
>Thank you for your explanation, although I just makes me more confused and with more questions. This is a good sign, I'll go try to find some sources on it and bring back more specific questions.
I try to most simple way show overall connection between tsar, boyar decrease, Dvoryan increace and condition of pesants: Tsar want to remove Boyar from power to become more powerfull monarch. For this goal, he using Dvoryans - lower nobility that concquer their rank by serving and instead of boyar fully depend on will of Tsar - to make more Dvoryans from regual servants and to make them rich, Tsar need offer them resourses - land and goods. To give money, there need be pesants who will work on this land. So with every new laws, pesant rights decreaced to slaves so they can be offered to dvoryans as their servants. So instead of system beofre where was "Knyaz' -> Feudal Boyars with a lot rights and political power -> a lot pesants who servedboyars but kinda hd rights too and boyars need to manage their lands so pesants will work for them" and now it become "Tsar -> Dvoryans, Tsar's absolute servants who can not be opposite him -> pesants, slaves of the Dvoryans." In years after peter the great Dvoryan rights was on maximum. There was times where basicly Dvoryans ruled country, they had most power than even and post-peter russia to end Ekaterina II was age absolute despoty.
But in this period, more than inside things still young-midage Ivan was more interesting in wars and conquerings.
>>
No. 6109
>>6106
>Fiction or historical works.
whel, that TV shots that I posted in pervious post. From history movies that you can to watch.. well,
War and Peace, based on famous book with same name, 1960s 2-movie series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4EcRSoOG_w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D30HmBRQH1s
(for it's time had some awesome battle scenes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWiZsArGSvM - it was in guiness book of records about how many people was involved in mass battle scenes in that movie.)

Liberation series
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcekvQeHS6o&list=PL4dWJMOQ_a1S4rx_eBO4kjNehEg1Jjuee - there full playlist of all movies. From Kursk battle, to battle in berlin. It show war from perspective of soldiers and same time from perspective of command. It have some bits of propogand, as obvious it is for 1960s movies, but same timehave a lot real historical facts and bit battle scenes. Only shame that they had not enough german WWII tanks and on more background used modern for it's time military technics, but well, where you will get 300 Tiger tanks?
There some video compilations show some battle scenes in first movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQgjTfEc4A8&t=71s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qtnjTjoy8E
60s ealry electronic music mixed with orchestra is nice too.

Alexander Nevsky - 1938 classics, one of the most known russian movies among cinematogrpahy experts. Maybe not that accurate historicly (considering that this battle may even be just very smal clash that but this is different question you may ask me if you want know more). A lot people still thought that phrase "Whoever comes with a sword to us, will perish by the sword!" (not accurate translation sorry XD) is real history one, but this one is just meme from this movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHKmIvGXuvE

Admiral - okay movie about Admiral Kolchak with Khabensky in role of Kolchak. Not most great and by far not most accurate, but watchable movie. I like Khabensky as actor, it not his fault that for most times our modern cinematography is crap.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1101026/

Wings of Russia - series of documentary movies about all history of aviation in Russia/USSR. Thought it is was shown on Ministery of Defence owned channel and contain some amout of propoganda, espessialy when they breafly talks at end of almost every episode of modern pootine times, it is crealy very awesome series that gives very detail overview on topic, including very awesome and rare things like Ecranoplanes - which I consider as one of the most awesome technical achivments of mankind that absoluetly not used since death of soviet union because nobody want inven monies in this epin things. There not all, and they also maded series about artilery, tanks and even fleet if I not mistaken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4yjZjkdHCQ&list=PL-Bs1O63aSx4eL2zyGPMcXSFrFkUHi3x3

Hieroglyph of friendship - 4 series documentary about USSR/Russia-China relationships. Was not released on federal television because pootine now "friends" with china and this movies crealy shows what china "friendship" means in reality, Top coments are putin bots, which is funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clBUc-7QaQs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovmETauM9OY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkJsEah3XBg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIof6C2JfSY

This is something from top of my head, if remember more, will post it.

>Also thank you for dealing with my autistic Russophillia
I dunno if someone reads all thisexept you, but well, not problem at all. X-----DDDDDD I like russia history, mostly Rurikovich not just because I russian or something, just like it - culture, style, overall events.
>>
No. 6224
237 kB, 1078 × 439
>>6108
>I dunno if someone reads all thisexept you, but well, not problem at all. X-----DDDDDD I like russia history, mostly Rurikovich not just because I russian or something, just like it - culture, style, overall events.

Well, I read and I appreciate your postings. I'll put the movies you listed on my kino list and will make ratings when times come. Thanks for taking the time to explain Ivan the Very Terrible.

Even got my cyrillic stickers for my keyboard so I can continue the march of Russophillia.

I really want to make a longer post but I have nothing worth saying besides thanking you.
>>
No. 6229
>>6227
Yeah, but I needed stickers for my setup. Cost me 3,00€ but at least I invested in Poland.
>>
No. 6231
1,4 MB, 2963 × 1000
83 kB, 564 × 552
58 kB, 499 × 358
>>6108
Well, as I said before, most of politics of early Ivan was turned into outside than inside. It is his really glorious times and things on which he remembered positivly. If his predecessors mostly attach other central-north russian principaties to moscow dependancy, it is actually Ivan IV who start formed russia beyond his historical borders, russia that you know nowdays with giant massive of lands.
Tbh btw I can recommend you this article, "formation of russian territory" up to Peter I https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0

His first famous achivment is conquering of Kazan' khanstvo. Funny thing that Kazan' is tataric state that was builded by golden horde on old Bulgarina state. When Golden horde fragmented, they, like Rus' become kinda independed. Since 1430s Rus' and Kazan' had complicated relationships. I belive there was hell lot of small wars between Kazan' and border principaties lile Ryazan'. From this conflics there are important therms like "Ryazan' Cossacs" and "Horde Cossacs". They kinda has no connection to famous Ukrainian or Kuban' cossacs, but was more like mercenaries that was used in constant border clashes. Of cource when Moscow principaty fully annexed Ryazan' and other principaties on that border, problem with Kazan' become problem of Moscow. It's long story too also, they tried to make agreements, there was multiple tryings to take Kazan' by force, they also tried to bring to power in Kazan' khans, who was firendly to Moscow, but in the end, everything failed. Ivan IV made three major military campaigns against Kazan'. First two was failed/canneled on half by different reasons, thought during them was builded important forpost, from which was launched attacks on third campain. In 1552 was famous capture of Kazan' - it was not just some war where they need to pay reporations, Kazan' was assimilated. Was appointed viceroy - Knyaz' Gorbaty-Shuisky, was appointed local ortodox leader and started building temples. There was order to turn locals into ortodoxy only if they want, but in reality it often was made by force. A lot old cities was destroyed, a lot Tatars was removed from Kazan' and was replaced by russian colonists, was builded local Kremlin and all things like that. In coming years there was some minor uprisings, but since this time Kazan and all it's region become full part of Moscow tsardom and still it's part of Russian federation.
Khan Ediger of Siberian khanstvo after assimilation of Kazan' become depended of moscow, however when Ediger was killed, new ruler of this state in West siberia cut connections with moscow, only for not long time, thought, but this is different story that I will tell later.

Next his important achivment is conquering of other remnat of golden Horde - Astrakhan' Khanstvo. This khanstvo was depended from Crimean Khanstvo who for many years be one of "eternal asshole" for russia, same like Poland and than be Turkey. At first campain advance detachments of Astrakhan' was compleatly destroyed and Astrakhan' itself was conquered without resistance. However, it was not annexed - they just placed on rule friendly to Moscow khan. But than new Astrakhan' khan turned against Moscow and become friend with Crimean khanstvo, so on second campain in 1556 was maded same thing Moscow already did with Kazan'. Was also destroyed city of Sarai Batu - old capital of Golden Horde. In this times it was not that important city, but it was major psyhological things to destroy Sarai.

There was also war with Sweden in 1554—1557, but Sweden don't had allies and all this war ended with nothing basicly, there not much to tell about. But then start next important period of Ivan IV - Livonian war and all other memes most famous about his internal rule
>>
No. 6245
1,6 MB, 1998 × 1791
71 kB, 650 × 944
140 kB, 609 × 733
340 kB, 800 × 1474
>>6231
Oh shid where do start about next stage of his rule :--DDDD

After all this coll achivments, slow but ongoing reforms of ruling system, with cool wife and kids - Dimitry and Feudor, Ivan thought that all things go cool. In tihs times, when Ivan turned mid-age it was look like that all bad things happened with him when he was kid are gone, same as his bad temper when he was teenager, but life will strike back soon.

In 1558 Ivan started war with Livonian orden. Actual Livonian state is meme by itself, and all this very long story to tell in this post, however it connected with Alexander Nevsky and war of Novgorod against sweden and german knights in this times. In short, baltic lands was depended of novgorod ooga-booga-tier tribes. Novgorod had a lot of such depended tribes and not very cared about them - only novogorod do is take some taxes from then. Then, Sweden and some crusaders thought they can CIVILIZE this lands. In multiplae wars against Novogorod, novgorod defended itself and it's iternal lands, but lost northen baltics in favor of german knights, who unlike novgorod started building shit on this lands - cities and temples to civilize ooga-boogas. Since then Livonian confederacy of orden, priests and cities become independed state on border of russia.

There are two views on why Ivan started this war in 1558. one viewed Ivan as political tactic - he understand importance of having acces to sea and have ports in baltic regions is best opportunity to have sea acces to europe, passing giant butthurt belts of great principaty of Litva and Pooland (Arkhangels and Kola and north seas was not an option in that times for obvious reasons, because in this years this creepy empty cold lands was some sort of different dimension with mystical creatures-tier, and Vologda/Beloozero was some sort of border of Civilized World™. Second opinion is that with minor political conflicts Moscow had with Livonia, Ivan who was on rise of victories wanted to use it as opportunity to start not big war to show his POWER to the west. In any case, this war will be longest war of russia in this centuary and may be considered as Epic Fail in all fronts.

War started okay - Moscow armies conquered some cities and some regions. It was obvious that in power Livonian orden at this times was inferior to Moscow Tsardom wh spread it's power from northen caucasus to almost uralian moutians. Breaking any resistance, Moscow armies reached Riga and other central cities, made it's almost to prussian borders. In early 1559 there where a short peace agreement. But there started shit to happen.
At first, all Le Western World was against it. There was a lot rumors that "Moscow's tyrant going to build giant batlefleet and concquer the world!!!". Ironicly, when Rus' conquered a lot really big tataric states on west - nobody cares. But when russia start actions in europe, with war against not that big shitty state all start screaming. Yeah, a lot feared that "russian barbarians" start war against europe, but mostly in this territory was interested many countries who wand expend their territories on baltics - poland, litva, sweden, denmark - they for a long time wanted control this cities and coast ports for many reasons, and same time not give to russia such economical opportunities, and defeated Livonia seached for opportunities to make separate peace agreement with one of previously metioned countries. This peace agrement in first place was maded because there was disagreement inside moscow how to continue war, some wanted to move directions of conflict to Crimean khanstvo.
At second, Crimean khans same time as Russian armies moved in Livonia, made some offenses, and some Tatric armies reached even Tula. In previously metioned peace agreement, one of argements for this agreement from some people in ruling circle so that we can deal with our south problems. There was not big campain against crimean khanstvo, that was kinda victory - we destroyed something and retrive some captured people back but not too much to say, because there was no time for full scale war with south.
At third, in 1560, his wife, woman that in first place maded him happy since his teenage and calmed his temper, died. Ivan himself, even thought she had bad health, thought that she was killed in yet again in boyar quarrels and funny, but modern researches confirmed Ivan's theory about poisoning, so this thought was not just a meme tier paranoia.

In 1961, fragmented and destroyed Livonia become part of Great Principaty of Litva. A lot europen kings start boycotting traiding russian-owned city-port Narva. Now it become not just war with some small state, but against Litva with european support. Also it was dvoryans and boyars who asked for this small peace with Livonia and it was them who killed his wife he lowed. All shit that was inside Ivan from his childhood came out and he started to become CRAZY DARK IVAN a lot people know.

>>6224
also look like you have not full complect, on ~ button there are Ёё letter and after Ю button is for "." but also with shift ","
>>
No. 6258
>>6245
>1961
1561
Fuck I so get used to XX centuary it can't leave me alone :-----DDDDD
>>
No. 6265
317 kB, 1888 × 1400
>>6231
>>6245
This really helps me make more sense of the creation of the Russian state. The Livonian war is mentioned in brief in the book.
Thanks for your long exposition. Do you think the story of Ivan murdering his son his legit? I read about some people questioning it since apparently the only account is that of a catholic missionary.
Got the stickers in the keyboard, they look like shit, but I can do this now - Боже Царя храни!)))))))

>>6258
>Fuck I so get used to XX centuary it can't leave me alone :-----DDDDD
Just like Россйя)))))
>>
No. 6279
>>6265
>The Livonian war is mentioned in brief in the book.
One of the most important wars of centuary that led to creation of union of Rechpospolita and Litva that last for like 25 years was only "mentioned in brief"?
Well, anyway, this is only start of story, like preamble to all Ivan memes, where I try to explain Oprichnina and his wifes and son.

>)))))))
Never use, it is pure cancer.))0))0))00))0)

>Россйя
и, not й :D
>>
No. 6284
>>6279
I use it in online gaming)

rate
>>
No. 6298
>>6284
If you learn to type in translit, tuna etoro, uJIu Bot tak, you can mimic like a Russian.
>>
No. 6328
>>6298
First example is some sort of overkill
>>
No. 6388
63 kB, 447 × 600
599 kB, 1450 × 919
3,4 MB, 1300 × 1813
609 kB, 2264 × 1607
>>6279
I now understand why it was so briefly mentioned. This book has a gigantic chapter entirely dedicated to praising Peter I the Great AKA Pidor I the Liberast, the first bolshevik. Pretty nice stuff, I just finished the part on the Great Northern War. Fun stuff so far, finally seeing Russia being ebin and victorious as opposed to nonstop sufferings.
Although I felt sad when reading about him getting rid of Streltsi. Because I liked them in AoE III :DDD
>>
No. 6417
148 kB, 800 × 483
85 kB, 680 × 599
304 kB, 1200 × 1034
66 kB, 675 × 534
>>6245
Okay, I'll continue, maybe more in short.

Since 1561 it is now war against actual Litva. However, it still goes not bad. For example in 1563 was conquered Polotsk - very famous battle. And famous meme about removing all local jews but this is different story. It not last long thought - in 1564 main russian army in Livonia was destroyed. Kurbsky threated Ivan and run to Litva.

When all this crap happen, you may guess that Ivan will become turbo frustrated and go very wild in his ideas. It was all dvoryans and all dvoryans who traitored him - since childhood only things they managed to do in eyes of Ivan is spread chaos and corruption, make conspiracies against each other and maybe even against tsar himself. His mother, his favorite wife, even small victorius war turned into catastrophe after victory, when Russia already forced to go war against Litva and it is possible to guess that soon whole europe may start crusades against Moscow, and it is fault of his "chosen rada", his favorites and all that boyars. He decided - fuck slow reforms, fuck dvoryanstvo too, fuck everything. He followed rule of Gaius Julius Caesar: "It is better to be the first in the village than the second in the city" and also what Adolf Hitler said after assassination attempt in 1944 (or it was in bunker in 1945.. I don't remember sorry lol) : "I had to shoot down all my generals like it did Stalin!".
At first, people like Repin and Kashin who was heroes of Polotsk was executed for fail of 1564. Then, very close to Tsar people like Adashev and Silvestr was dismissed (mostly for their truce of 1559 idea and moving forces to crime that caused current sitution). Boyar rights was also lowered by some laws, even more pushing then to be equal to dvoryans. Final nail in coffin was creation of Oprichnina in 1565.
Map on second picture shows how country was divided on Oprichnina and Zemshina, and how with years Oprichnina zone growed. While country still had a lot feudal times elements, and one of them is fact that boyars owned hell lot of land and had from that many money and ruled their lands, Ivan created giant zoe where HE IS ABSOLUTE FEUDAL. He tired of be "knyaz of feudals", and he tired of reforms that go slow - he just cuted half of country, mostly in places where was not much boyar lands, and clamed them as 100% his owned lands where every soul and every dust is owned by him absoluetly and all moneis from this lands go directly to him. Also was created Oprichnoe voisko. Well, they was not called Oprichniks back in that time, they was called as "People of Tsar" or "Goverment people", it hard to translate "Государевы люди" to show 100% what it means. Anyway, this guys was absoluetly directly same as world war II SS in many ways, lol. They was kinda personal Tsar army, and his bodyguards. Most of the Oprichniks was young and early middle age people - sons of boyars, dvoryans, special formations of streltsy and others. They weared black robes and their symbols was head of dog and broom. With this instruments, Tsar started politics of terror, capital punishment and absolute rule. Many and many famous and high ranked Boyars was eleminated. oprichniks also had rights to racketeering lands of buildings of boyars, which they often did - this way new dvoryane-oprichniks get their land and power. Mitropolith Phillip who not supported oprichnina was dissmised too. All meme about this terrorism, torturing, capital punishments, that Ivan himself combined with his "big fate in god". His view on world is combination of strong belive in god and follow rithuals, savage and paranoia, strong leadership resulted in something that almost Warhammer40k tier. Oprichniks was for Ivan more like a Monk order, torture and executions orders was often gived same time as he pray god in temple. It is impossible to count how many high and medium ranked people was killed during this period by Ivan - and it aslo hard to say how realistic his paranoia was, since there in reality was a lot Boyars who did conspiracies, bad things, spied for other goverements like Litva etc. In 1569-1570 was one of the most epin things happened - actual MILITARY CAMPAIN INSIDE COUNTRY. Ivan thought that Novgorod and Pskov made treason against him, and he with army of Oprichnics start capain against it. You may see this campain on map2 also. There no dedicated numbers of how many people in novgorod was killed for a "treason", but numbers are from 2000 to 6000. Epin level of executions, right? After he returned from Pscov there started new levels was executions in Moscow and nearby lands. In 1570‒1571 was executed hell lot of people and often most brutal way. Famous people from Zmshina and even leaders of Oprichnik army themselfs. As you can imagine, it hard to describe atmosphere that was in this years in Moscow just by words in post in EC, better find information and read detailed descriptions :--DDDD.

Ended Oprichnina when in 1571 Crimean khan burned Moscow. Yes, capital was burned just because there was almost anarchy in Oprichnina! Oprichniks even not managed to go to war - this was just packs of bandits at this point who raided people and not cared anut actual servese. After fail of Gopnik army, Tsar said that end Oprichnina, made some another mass executions, also forbidden even this "word" oprichnina. However Oprichnina territory remained until hid death as "Tsarsky dvor", but there was not Oprichniks anymore.

Same time outside of country many things happened. For example - Poland and Litva formed a confederation state, very big and powerfull. Mistakes of politics of Ivan formed one of the most big enemy for russia for more than next 100 years. same time, russia itslef was in terrible conditions - country feel itslef like it passed thought civil war.
>>
No. 6418
381 kB, 1035 × 799
102 kB, 720 × 960
116 kB, 750 × 527
1,6 MB, 2000 × 1252
>>6417
End of war in 1577-1580 as you know was not in favor of Russia. First we lost Poland-Litva and basicly boardr after so many years of war switched back to how it was before war, making this war useless. More than then then we immideatly lost sweden and loosed even more cities on border, deep inside our teritory. All of that shit will fix only Peter I, as you see it in your maps of Northen war. Funny that this territory known nowdays as "Karelian isthmus" always thought histroy switched from russia to enemies, and absoluetly finnaly was established as russian territory at this moment only after Winter war and WWII.

However in this times famous conquerer Ermak conquered Siberian khanstvo, and started long era of russian expansion beyond Ural moutians. Ermak very famous person and count as famous hero in russia nowdays and what he did and how may sometimes remind you of actions of spanish conquistodors. But actually, Ivan himself had very little connection to sucsesses of cossacs and in letter to stroganovs said that Stroganovs supported this "volga attamsn, cossacs thives". However Ivan died but Coassacs ahchived ultimate sucsess by conquering capital of siberian khanstvo so nobody cares. Funny thing with "siberia" that nowdays nobody have actual direct borders of it besides "between ural moutians and far east". Where ends and start siberia concreticly - nobody will say to you. Modern siberian federal district in form of dick on map obviously not include whole siberia. Siberia meme is reminda me Africa - back in roman empire "africa" was called only small province that nodays Tunis, but after years whole continent start called africa. Same kinda with siberia.

On 2nd map, more simple one, you may see changes of borders in Invan IV times. Even thought some red zones in end was lost, overall it was in Ivan times where actual state border was formed and already look more familiar. It was not longer just Moscow principaty, Ivan IV finished conquering and fully control all other independed principaties (not in Litva or other states), also start conqurings beyond that, in his times was occupied and annexed biggest and clothest remnats of the golden horde, creating much more big state than it was before. Thought Oprichnina and many things was negative and mostly failed, it was obvious that tendency to end of Boyarstvo and absolute monarchy will cotinue. However actions of Ivan led to giant dynasty crisis and economical-political-social crisis in country. Country was in deep shit and prepeared to go in even more deeper shit, thanks to our Vanya.

You asked me, can he kill his son? Well, there absoluetly no surprise in that. After 1560 he beome more and more mad and crazy. All his psyhological problems, all his bad childhood, paranoia, savage, culture of kill, everything go wild and nuts. He combined his view on faith with mass murders, executions and just inadequate actions. At that point, when he had like every day new wife and then killed removed previous wife, when he mass murdered so many people, he had really deep psyhological problems in all fronts. If I lived back in that times, I'd say he was possesed with demons. Not one - many demons, basicly army of them. Alte Ivan - is grin dark age of tyranny, mass terror and despoty. Despoty and Tyranny will return in "civilised" way with peter and rulers after him untill Pavel I, but this is another story.

In conclusion, you may see that rule of Ivan IV was many different historical decades. His rules started with rule of Boyars and their conspirasies, continued with his Peter I-tier military achivments in youth, moved to bad things and then very crazy things, with ultra paranoia where he become some sort of Stalin that loosed his mind and created SS and same time Lenin who started revolution inside his country in same person, then moved to absoluetly nuts person who died in his 54 and country after him was combination of russia after civil war and fall of soviet union. This person - is huge meme by itslef. For many people known for one things, and less known for different things. But I may still recomend to lurk into his rule further - in this posts I miss hell lot of interesting facts and events just because they be too long. Many people learn specificly this period of history only, just because how big and how important was years of his rule. Oprichnina is most famous events in russian history and if you learn history - you clearly should lurk much more about it, just because how crazy and epin this by itself.
>>
No. 6420
126 kB, 490 × 567
>>6388
>AKA Pidor I the Liberast, the first bolshevik
This is first joke about russia from non russian poster I laughed very hard. Levle of Irony there is maximum, you are getting to understand us >:----DDDDDD

Peter I the Greit is more controvertial figure in Russian history than Ivan Grozny, and beated only by Stalin in this therm. I may see why wester historican so prize him, because all his actions was to make russia "as european as possible", and during his rule russia changed from outdated country in almost total cultural stagnation into modern european state. In actual empire, that at one time period was second power in the world after British empire.

However they often forget or ignore that his actions create absolute monarchy in it's worst form, in absolute despoty, slavery and absolute rule of dvoryanstvo. After his rule was centuary of hell lot of coup d'etats, favoritism and absolute selfdom. Wars he did was not that sucsessfull - south territories that he conquered first was lost again during northen war, in northen war was lost hell lot ofresouses, people, money time and even when we "victorious", if I remember correctly we payed reparations for Sweden after war by conditions of "peace".

His "modernisation" was neccecery, but in general was absolute carbon copy of western europe with total destruction of our culture - not improvment of russia, but replacing everything "outdated" with foreign one. And I may double negativity about it since I don't like fashion of europe in that times, it was ultra-pidor. Same time Peter was ugly by himself (had not best proportions in body).

I may aslo agree that I too sad that many things that was removed by him. It hard to say what did I on his place, but I always liked style of russia and slavs of ancient rus' and style of late Moscow principaty, our cultural memes and overall stylistic and it is defenetly a thing that I'd wanted to keep. I think sometimes, how we look of was reforms and improvments, but was keept culture and fashion? Like Vostroyan firstborn from Warhammer 40000?

It is also not a surprise Stalin like Peter I and Ivan Grozny. You may actually watch movies of that period, exept metioned previously Alexander Nevsky
Peter the First 1937 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGHWOgI-4yc
Ivan Grozny 1944-45 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igq6Is867Rw and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5g-Ss9BDR4

(Stalin didn't liked 2nd part of Ivan Grozny where Ivan was showed as it was in second half :---DDDD)


However, about Peter I is much, much more to talk about than this simple short remarks, to describe him even at short be twise more posits that I did on Ivan IV, however kinda lazy to do it so better just disscus specific topics. And if your book tell a lot about him, there not reason for me to add much
>>
No. 6467
767 kB, 1300 × 867
>>6417
Very, very interesting. It was like Ivan was running a one man civil war. Must have been ebin to ride the lands of Russia with your band of holy warrior types murdering boyars and the like.

>You asked me, can he kill his son? Well, there absoluetly no surprise in that. After 1560 he beome more and more mad and crazy. All his psyhological problems, all his bad childhood, paranoia, savage, culture of kill, everything go wild and nuts.

Feels bad, it could have prevented Rushka from having so much hardship if the Tsar didn't go completely loopy. Although I guess he must have been some level of sane in order not to have been a victim of a palacial coup, right? Makes me ponder.

>>6420
> This is first joke about russia from non russian poster I laughed very hard. Levle of Irony there is maximum, you are getting to understand us >:----DDDDDD
I'm working hard in the process of self-russification :DDD

Thanks again for your posts, very nice and well written.
>>
No. 6494
304 kB, 931 × 1134
126 kB, 799 × 503
146 kB, 1000 × 783
>>6467
>Must have been ebin to ride the lands of Russia with your band of holy warrior types murdering boyars and the like.
They was just packs of bandits and a lot of them was executed too, lol.

>Feels bad, it could have prevented Rushka from having so much hardship if the Tsar didn't go completely loopy. Although I guess he must have been some level of sane in order not to have been a victim of a palacial coup, right? Makes me ponder.

As I said, Ivan IV is one big part of historical science by itself. If you want, you may read about specific personalities and memes of his time more. About how Knyaz' Kurbsky after he betrayed him and escaped to Lithuania they written letters to each other, or about how twise (before and after oprichnina) Ivan claimed that he will go off from his duty and people can find another Tsar. Or about story of people like Malyuta Skuratov - one of leaders of Oprichnina, meme person by itself. Or about all wifes of Ivan IV, there still arguing how much there been of them and more about personal life of ivan after death of his first wife.

Honestely, I very higly recommend you watch right now comedy move by famous Gaidai based on old Bulgakov novel when scientist man make a hole into time of Ivan Grozny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a50qT9bW2Qo
This movie is pure classic for russians lol. Like almost everything from Gaidai. This is not realistic at all and in general meme, but actual entertaining and positive movie. On youtube there are english subtitles - you will get both fun and some russian stuff that most probably not much people know outside of former SU lol.

>I'm working hard in the process of self-russification :DDD
Tbh, I may say that it can give you real profession - knowlege of history and language, maybe you can become some professor in history institute on Russian History Academic department :---DDDD
>>
No. 6525
124 kB, 1592 × 1162
142 kB, 1589 × 1160
>>6494
>This movie is pure classic for russians lol. Like almost everything from Gaidai. This is not realistic at all and in general meme, but actual entertaining and positive movie. On youtube there are english subtitles - you will get both fun and some russian stuff that most probably not much people know outside of former SU lol.

Ebin movie so far. I'll finish watching it today.

>Tbh, I may say that it can give you real profession - knowlege of history and language, maybe you can become some professor in history institute on Russian History Academic department :---DDDD
Would be nice, although I think the only real purpose it will serve in my life will be talking to hohol immigrants.
>>
No. 6537 Kontra
How do I hide threads on Ernst?
>>
No. 6544
104 kB, 960 × 720
The Huns and Goths (Roman era)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hun-people
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Goth

>Huns

"The earliest systematic description of the Huns is that given by the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, writing c. 395. They were apparently primitive pastoralists who knew nothing of agriculture. They had no settled homes and no kings; each group was led by primates, as Ammianus called them. Whether or not they had a single overall leader in the 4th century is still a matter of dispute.

As warriors the Huns inspired almost unparalleled fear throughout Europe. They were amazingly accurate mounted archers, and their complete command of horsemanship, their ferocious charges and unpredictable retreats, and the speed of their strategical movements brought them overwhelming victories."

When the 7th-century Chinese monk Xuanzang arrived in northwestern India, he found “millions of monasteries” reduced to ruins by the Huns, a nomadic Central Asian people

>Goths

"According to their own legend, reported by the mid-6th-century Gothic historian Jordanes, the Goths originated in southern Scandinavia and crossed in three ships under their king Berig to the southern shore of the Baltic Sea, where they settled after defeating the Vandals and other Germanic peoples in that area. Tacitus states that the Goths at this time were distinguished by their round shields, their short swords, and their obedience toward their kings."

Any more interesting info about these peoples? I was never taught anything about them.
>>
No. 6551
>>6537
Install Ukrainian botnet.
>>
No. 6553
801 kB, 719 × 528
3,0 MB, 1764 × 1116
68 kB, 460 × 639
>>6525
>Would be nice, although I think the only real purpose it will serve in my life will be talking to hohol immigrants.
I'am shure you have institutes and small science academic departments about russia/slavs. Since there not that much people and you have acces to EC, you can really become a high ranked scientist or something.

>Ebin movie so far. I'll finish watching it today.
Yeah, lol, a lot memes from there and quotes still popular today. However sometimes it contain soviet-specifi hided humor that may be not fully understandable to outsiders

>hohol immigrants
Don't call ukrainians hohls, it's kinda rude lol, you not call me Muscovit for example.

>>6544
>Any more interesting info about these peoples? I was never taught anything about them.
This both guys are one of the most memetic tribes. I huess about Huns you most probably need start from learning Atilla and his invades in europe. His wars with East and west Roman empire. He builded mini-golden horde in europe, controlling many and many barbaric tribes. However, with his death, all his "empire" immideatly fragmented. All this story and with Goths too is part of The Migration Period
Here more articles on topic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila
>>
No. 6559
207 kB, 1680 × 1220
402 kB, 1024 × 714
489 kB, 678 × 1630
491 kB, 2560 × 1887
>>6553
Finished, I liked it. Good stuff, soon to watch more of your previous recommendation list.

> Don't call ukrainians hohls, it's kinda rude lol, you not call me Muscovit for example.
I know it's kind of rude but you don't expect me to type out Малая Русский every time. I actually like Ukrainians, there are some living in my area and I'd always impress them with slav exclusive knowledge. I once convinced one that Lviv was pronounced Lwów (Lvuv) in Portuguese :DDDDD

>>6544
There is a lot to be said about the Germanic conquests of the Western Roman Empire, the most important facet of which is the class system they would create.
In the Visigoth (founded by West Goths) kingdom (essentially the Roman province of Hispannia, or Iberia and a large portion of south france during their largest extension), they would be the ones who would start feudalism and set themselves on top of the social structure as the noble class. They were also Arianists, so you'd have this Germanic Arianist social strata that controlled all matters of war and administration, whilst everyone else was doomed to non-noble status. Somewhat of an oversimplification, it wasn't that strict, but it was de jure
This is in part why the Visigoth Kingdom would immediately collapse during the onset of the Arabian invasion after a singled battle destroyed practically the entire Visigoth strata. The average Iberian wasn't allowed weaponry or horses as they were reserved for the nobility, this is also why the population would originally not revolt much during the Moorish onslaught since it was essentially a swap at the top of the pyramid. The remains of the Visigoths would form the Kingdom of Asturias, who would be the last Christian holdout in the peninsula. One that would then start the reconquista. During the early stages of the reconquista, it's clear that the Visigoths were getting assimilated by the Iberian population, as their names begin changing into latin names and catholicism is adopted
>>
No. 6581
52 kB, 410 × 533
156 kB, 302 × 400
533 kB, 1920 × 1008
I spent a day studying the odyssey of the Drozdovsky regiment.
It wasa military formation created and commanded by Mikhail Drozdovsky, a colonel of the Imperial army, with the sole purpose of beating the reds. It is amazing how a 1000 or so men, the majority being officers, went from the Romanian front all the way to Rostov, which they took away from a 15-20k strong bolshevik garrison. This just shows how effective a small, but highly professional army can be.

What I find the most ebin is how Drozdovsky threatened to shell the romanian king's palace when the romanians refused to let the regiment onto the Ukraine in fear of angering the Central Powers.
>>
No. 6604
>>6581
Whole civil war was so huge meme. In this short perod every small but possible fragmented and become autonomous or fall into anarchy lol. It is like watching some sort of science fiction. So yeah, guys like this or Ungren become actual reality.

By the way, love this uniform. It already more or less modern, but still withot stars and red strips.
>>
No. 6605
219 kB, 635 × 741
>>6604
He was actually executed and buried somewhere in my city. Nobody knows where though.
>>
No. 6606
>>6604
Were there any moderates in the Russian Civil War? It seems like a war of retarded extremes between diehard monarchists who supported a system of serfdom in the 20th century and diehard commies who managed to cause multiple famines within the next 20 years, and then random weirdos LARPing as Genghis Khan.
>>
No. 6607
477 kB, 1920 × 1080
>>6606
Excluding local breakaway movements of course. I assume that Alash wasn't the only one of those that was based on an enlightenment and national rebirth rather than trying to go full-retard, but I also only really know about Alash.
>>
No. 6609
396 kB, 900 × 675
159 kB, 600 × 340
>>6606
>diehard monarchists
Actually, there were very few monarchists. Notable examples include the aforementioned Drozdovsky and also Ungern. The vast majority of the whites had no interest in restoring the monarchy.
>Were there any moderates
Depends on your definition of a moderate. A lot of farmers here in Siberia supported the February revolution and the freedoms it brought - freedom of speech, freedom of press, political freedoms, etc. However, they were not to happy with the October revolution and the things it brought - the seizure of private property and the nationalisation of all land and businesses, which they rightfully viewed as the end of their way of life.

You see, SIberia and the Far East never had serfdom and the people didn't view someone taking the fruit of their labour away as normal. So when Kolchak was beaten and the bolshevik rule was installed in 1920 the population was outraged by the extreme grain hoarding policies of the soviet authorities and only a year later a major uprising with around 100k people begun(picture 2). It was brutally crushed, but it still showed that some people in Russia were simply looking to live in peace and not to fight for some ideology.
>>
No. 6610
>>6609
Is that the same Siberian movement as the Constituent Assembly, UFA Directory and Provisional All-Russian Government? Or was this later after the Reds had won?
>>
No. 6611
>>6610
>was this later after the Reds had won?

Yes, the uprising I mentioned had no connection with the "governments" you mentioned. It was started by WWI and Civil war veterans who returned to their homes to live and farm in peace only to find out that some lunatics from Moscow demand their grain.
>>
No. 6612 Kontra
>>6610
Poorly worded. I meant like was it a continuation of Kolchak's movement or did that dissipate and then the Siberian movement kicked back off again?
>>
No. 6613
>>6611
I see, never mind my below post then :-D

How did the gommies even manage to round up all that grain anyway? There isn't all that much infrastructure out there that would allow for moving lots of goods back west. Breddy impressive tbh.
>>
No. 6614
>>6613
Russian empire had railroads across all country.

From newly builded murmansk to vladivostok :--DDD

>>6610
Tbh it often happen that in every city/shitty village there was some sort of local goverment not connected to others. Some of them even printed money lol.

>>6605
Lol, as I remember before shooting this le great khan of mongolia eated his cross. Or it is myth?
>>
No. 6615
63 kB, 480 × 398
54 kB, 700 × 506
>>6613
>How did the gommies even manage to round up all that grain anyway?
It worked like this:
1.Local political workers get the amount of grain that they need to collect from the government. Sometimes, the families of said workers are taken hostage to ensure that the men have a reason to be as thorough as possible when they collect grain.
2.Political workers, accompanied by armed red army troops, go to villages. There they do whatever they have to in order to get the amount that was requested
3.Grain, meat and other edible products are taken to transport nodes, mostly on sleighs like pic 2.
4. From transport nodes, they are sent to Moscow where the government deicdes how much of it is sent to each region.

>>6614
>le great khan of mongolia eated his cross
That's true
>>
No. 6617
>>6615
This called Podrazvyorstka tbh. Some times after civil war and end of "military communism" it was replaced with Prodnalog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrazvyorstka
>>
No. 6619
>>6614
In terms of railroad density, Russia was not all that impressive, especially once you got east of the Urals. There is a lot of the country that simply isn't reasonably accessible by rail directly.

>>6615
That is so inefficient it hurts. Did they at least rectify it eventually and do a more decentralised collection where things aren't backtracking across the country multiple times? Would make sense for the stuff to be stored and catalogued in maybe a few large depots on the rail lines in Siberia and then the numbers sent to Moscow and then orders could be sent back out to those depots as to where to send the goods and how much. Would save a lot of rail space anyway.
>>
No. 6620
>>6619
>That is so inefficient it hurts
The USSR's economy in a nutshell
Yes, decentralization of grain storage/distribution would have been a great idea but that may have resulted in the Kremlin not having complete control over everything in the country and therefore couldn't be allowed.
>>
No. 6621
>>6620
I knew it was bad, but god damn. How the fug did they manage to become a superpower like that :-D
>>
No. 6623
>>6621
>How the fug did they manage to become a superpower
sound of whips cracking in the distance
Probably the best thing about the political power in the USSR being so centralized was the fact that the leadership had complete control over the front and the factories in the rear therefore WWI era-tier retardation where Petrograd had no clue what was happening at the frontlines didn't happen.
>>
No. 6624
>>6621
Stalin managed to create superpower... thought hell lot of mistakes like collectivisation that lead to death of many people. Just this territory had great potential for manufacturing, mining and had infinitie people resourses
Well, afte 2 world wars, revolution and civil war, stalin and then 90s, this country now don't have it's potential X--DDDDD

>>6620
Tbh at the end of life lenin tried to fixed that, all attepts to create НЭП and some other things to back track to more traditional economy. Already in late civil war commies understanded that it impossible for that time remove money for example, and fail at pooland showed that world revolution will be most not possible.
>>
No. 6629
>>6624
Speaking of resources, I highly recommend reading about acquisition of Soviet resources in the Cold War because for certain kinds of titanium used in spy plane construction, they were the only real source, so you got things like the CIA buying rare metals from the Soviets through 99 proxies and then building spy planes out of them to fly over the Soviet Union :-D It's kind of an ebin subject.
>>
No. 6640
8 kB, 1200 × 800
41 kB, 800 × 572
>>6606
The two factions compromised moderates too. Bolsheviks had plenty of plenty who had supported moderate socialists such as Chernov.
The white army had a lot of liberal monarchists and christian republicans.

There was also the green armies, who were essentially unaligned armed groups trying to keep their lands safe from White/Red Terror.

>The Green armies, Green Army (Russian: Зелёная Армия), or Greens (Russian: Зелёные) were armed peasant groups which fought against all governments in the Russian Civil War of 1917–22. They fought to protect their communities from requisitions or reprisals carried out by third parties. At times associated with the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (by far the largest grouping of the Russian Constituent Assembly elected in 1917), the Green Armies had at least tacit support throughout much of Russia. However, the Green Armies' primary base, the peasantry, were largely reluctant to wage an active campaign during the Russian Civil War. Its strength during the civil war has been measured at 40,000 men.[not verified in body]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_armies
>>
No. 6642
304 kB, 1200 × 1472
>>6624
>Tbh at the end of life lenin tried to fixed that, all attepts to create НЭП and some other things to back track to more traditional economy.

Lenin himself knew that the NEP was meant to be a temporary measure, it was just meant to be a holdout of capitalism during this transitional period. It wasn't a policy of reversal, but one of relutant acceptance of the realities in their establishment of a macabre totalitarian economic regime. Or Worker's Utopia, really depends on who you ask.
>>
No. 6644
9 kB, 186 × 356
>>6640
That feel when no gun-toting, freedum-loving Russia with minuteman tradition.

Truly the worst timeline.
>>
No. 6647
99 kB, 600 × 600
>>6644
Russia that went from the most reactionary state in the world to the most progressive state in the world overnight is my favourite timeline.
>>
No. 6654
>>6647
That flag made me feel dumber just looking at it. Is there some kind of weird slavic joge to it, or is it an unironic kind of stoopid.
>>
No. 6656
115 kB, 245 × 233
76 kB, 895 × 504
26 kB, 280 × 356
207 kB, 600 × 450
>>6644
Green "armies" was most times just random villagers Max Max-tier. Exept most big white armies (tbh you need to remember that this therm - WHITE ARMY was used only way way after civil war by soviet historicans) and Commies others was absoluetly fragmented and unorgonised gropus that fought for independence on their shitty village/region or just bandits from forest :DD

Sometimes I think whot would be if february Goverment managed to control situation and rise economy and social stuff enough to survive till end of WW1. If Russia not failed in 1917, most probably WW1 ended more early tbh.

>>6642
>Lenin himself knew that the NEP was meant to be a temporary measure, it was just meant to be a holdout of capitalism during this transitional period. It wasn't a policy of reversal, but one of relutant acceptance of the realities in their establishment of a macabre totalitarian economic regime

As we say in russia, "there nothnig more constant than temporary". I bet if USSR continued this politics and not ended in Tyranny with victory of Stalin, it most probably continued this politics and be like modern belorussia or modern china in economical therms.

>>6654
This is common meme of modern Russian politics, and this flag fully show what in head of majority of politically active people here and it was in original picture of vatnik meme. Because propoganda and social politics of last decades, sicne Stalin to modern days, all this shit is really mixed. Since times when in Stalin stalin they reverse a lot Imperial memes, all that crap combined in head of majority bydlo. And modern pootine politics of jerking off to all groups of people - and PATRIOTS and NATIONALISTS and COMMIES (not commies but more like Sovoks) same time created such abomination as wiew on POWERFULL RUSSIA and nobody cares what is it and how it look and under which flag. Most of such fashion very increaces in pootine times - in more happy 00s with rise of nationalic identity and love for country after poor end of XX centuary, and peaked at Crimea meme. Nowdays it in decline and with every day there is less and less shit like it, and putin popularity droppin equaly.
>>
No. 6657
>>6654
The man pictured is a pro-Russian separatist in Eastern Ukraine. It'd have to be one very elaborate method acting experiment.
I guess I understand why some Russians would feel patriotic towards both the USSR and the Russian Empire, but yeah it's a bydlocore.
>>
No. 6658
75 kB, 350 × 540
74 kB, 602 × 310
12 kB, 220 × 327
>>6656
>As we say in russia, "there nothnig more constant than temporary". I bet if USSR continued this politics and not ended in Tyranny with victory of Stalin, it most probably continued this politics and be like modern belorussia or modern china in economical therms.

I'm sorry but this is completely wrong. Lenin was deeply commited against the NEP and made it absolutely clear to the party that it had to be erradicated.
The political split between Stalin/Trotsky actually came from what to do with the NEP. Stalin was the one that wanted to keep it, whilst Trotsky wanted it abolished immediately. I don't believe Trotsky would have flipflopped on his position as Stalin would, since Trotsky was a true believer.

Additionally, one needs to understand that in 1929, Stalin needed to end the NEP in order to maintain power. The famines needed a scapegoat, and further liberalization of the economy would have gotten him lynched by the party.

There is no way that either of these men take power and the NEP isn't abolished. I'd even go so far as to stay that the NEP gets abolished no matter what Bolshevik takes power.
>>
No. 6659
1,0 MB, 2304 × 3456
53 kB, 550 × 413
>>6656
>Green "armies" was most times just random villagers Max Max-tier.
That's what minutemen were and it's part of what makes them so ebin. Man, imagine the insane power block of the USA + Libertarian Federal Russia. Not out of the question either since Russia and the US had close ties in the (American) Civil War era.
>>
No. 6660 Kontra
>>6658
>Additionally, one needs to understand that in 1929
It was actually abolished in 1928. Apologies.
t. posting from memory
>>
No. 6663
87 kB, 687 × 418
1,3 MB, 3012 × 2309
41 kB, 400 × 519
67 kB, 595 × 500
>>6659
>USA + Libertarian Federal Russia.
Pro-republican forces asked Entente (how Allies was called in WW1, at least in europe) to make Intervention, and tbh, they did it, they gived some support and there was some little intervention on some port cities, but it was basicly 2 soldiers with a flag that go back to their countries after a minute. Reasons for that because "white" movment was fragmented too and basicly world had still WW1 and nobody cared about russia.

>>6658
>The political split between Stalin/Trotsky actually came from what to do with the NEP. Stalin was the one that wanted to keep it, whilst Trotsky wanted it abolished immediately. I don't believe Trotsky would have flipflopped on his position as Stalin would, since Trotsky was a true believer.

Trotsky was a Dreamer, idealist. He belived in world revolution and belived that all communist memes will work and very fast, he not belived in much transitions periods. Stalin had an opposite view instead of world revolution, his ideology was to a build "socialism in dedicated state", and while we don't know what Trotsky done if he become ruler of Sovdepia, we clearly seen what did stalin, lol. He ended "transition" peroid with establishing Totalitaric Empire with some socialistic elements and with new falg.

Commies in early years was all more or less like Trotsky, and they hopes was even more. They even didn't think about printing new money since they thought that soon monies will be no needed. However, every year goes - more it was clear that BRIGHT FUTURE will be not immideatly. Of cource Lenin not liked this ideas, same as building actual strong state and all this crap from "old world", but after all sufferings and economical collapses it become more and more clear for him at end of his life, that communism will not be so soon and that XIX centuries ideas about that russian pesant communas can "skip" capitalist state of society in reality become wrong. Even Trotsky, dreamer, motivating his world revolution said, that "undeveloped russia will not achive communism without modern europe, where alredy formed capitalist economy that can transfer into socialism and communism much more easy. If we solate russia in current state, it will end in proto-socialism with totalitaric goverment" - or something like this. THIS was one of their main arguing with stalin. After years we now see that about that Trotsky was 100% right.
>>
No. 6665
20 kB, 460 × 268
TFW history and science thread ended as "Russian History, Culture and Politics threda"
>>
No. 6666
201 kB, 1262 × 1035
>>6663
In terms of hypothetical scenarios though, I think that a bunch of green militias banding together and winning would have been ebin. That's how the American Revolution worked, minutemen and militias were a defensive mechanism that banded into the Continental Army and even then only received actual military training once they got Gen. von Steuben drilling them at Valley Forge. Now imagine local green forces banding into an actual green army determined to sweep away the old, reformed or not and the oppressive new in the reds. I think a Russia with a founding myth not dissimilar to Lexington and Concord would be ebin. It's not the same if it's just the Entente not halfarseing the interventions.

If we assume Hitler still does his thing, it turns into an ebin struggle with Russian and American troops in the trenches together in '41 and the Cold War never destroys the spirit of liberty. Best timeline tbh.

t. appreciator of revolutionary war era ideas
>>
No. 6668
738 kB, 2505 × 1963
49 kB, 490 × 274
>>6666
>6666 post
This is the prophecy we all waited!

However considering how it was, it not possible, only possible WIN scenario for so called "green" movments is if all other sides become weak enough so they failed to controll territory. There was no actual union in "greens" and some far parts of empire was de-centralised, so such scenario will just leed to eternal balcanisation of all epire territory into a lot unstable proto-states like modern abominations on russia-ukraine border, happy or sadly.

Tbh I don't know if this map correct, civil war "one-day-states" is more hard to follow that times of pre-mongol feudal fragmentation.
>>
No. 6670
104 kB, 1024 × 576
>>6668
Ah no, map is shit, at least because it shows modern borders - like postWW2 Finland border and modern poland-litva-bellorusia etc.
It is same tier as this map from wolfenstein new order game that made my assburgers suffer
>>
No. 6672
285 kB, 1184 × 1600
>>6668
I'm not under any impression that it's realistic. The forces are too disjoint and while similar-ish to the minutemen, there wasn't the same sense of plurality like where you saw men from all the different parts of the area rush to the aid of neighbouring areas.

The Green Mountain Boys were basically the closest thing to the Greens in the American Revolution and even they helped out the Continental Army with Fort Ticonderoga. They ended up forming the Vermont Republic though instead of joining the US. Really interesting unit that I recommend reading the article about. Not going to lie, Vermont is one of the coolest of the Eastern States in my books in no small part because of these guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Mountain_Boys

>This is the prophecy we all waited!
The only things you have to lose are your chains.
>>
No. 6673
91 kB, 640 × 479
244 kB, 351 × 504
298 kB, 885 × 1200
>>6663
Trotsky was certainly a far more orthodox Marxist than Stalin, Trotsky was even a more Orthodox Marxist than Lenin. Although none of them were Orthodox Marxists in any way

Trotsky did make the claims that Stalin would "betray the revolution", turn it into a totalitarian bureaucratic state and fail to overthrow communism. And he was right, the problem here is that I don't think Trotsky would have been a better leader than Stalin in any way. I do believe that he would have caused the USSR to collapse within his rule and descend into chaos again, but while I cheer on the death of the USSR, I suppose that's not the measure of a good leader

Trotsky was, as you said, a complete idealist. His belief in a worldwide revolution was part of what pushed the Soviet Union into war with Poland, he genuinely believed that the USSR needed to push west and that the proletariat of the western states would rise up and join arms with the free brothers of the CCCP.

This idea is certainly closer to Marx's original idea of what the socialist revolution would look like, especially the idea that a global system can only be overthrown by a global revolution, although if we begin to truly examine the orthodox of Marxism-Leninism in regards to Marx's theories, it fails horribly. The idea that a revolution would starts from backwards Russia is completely the opposite of what Marx believed. Unlike what the Bolsheviks pushed, the peasants had no room to be a "revolutionary class" in the original theory. This global capitalist revolution would come as capitalism collapses in the most technologically and economically advanced industrialized nations.

The problem with Trotsky is that he was an absolute believer with no room for pragmatism. He would keep swearing that the USSR needed to keep pushing westwards in his deathbed, that the USSR could have won the war if only "X", "Y" or "Z" and then capitalism would have collapsed.

Stalin's theory of socialism in one nation is only what Lenin what de facto been doing since the invasion of Poland had gone awfully wrong. Lenin believed during his peace talks that world revolution would come soon so there's no real worry with giving the Germans a favourable peace treaty. Note even this clashes with the most left wing beliefs of the Bolshevik party that believed that they'd want to continue the war, as Europe was on the brink of socialist revolution

Trotsky not only kept lobbying Lenin to continue the war, when NEP rolled around in 1921, he was adamantly against it. Lenin was forced to do it as armed riots broke out in urban centers, as urban workers fled to the countryside and as Kronstadt rebellion breaks out. Lenin saw that the Soviet Union would have immediatelly collapsed were it for the NEP, whilst Trotsky would end up saying, while in exile, that the NEP following the Kronstadt rebellion was the death of the revolution.

Trotsky would accelerated the USSR into its death. He was adamant in his views and refused to do any sort of pragmatic thinking or adjusting his theories to reality. I believe this is why Lenin ended up picking Stalin for higher and higher roles and grooming him to be his successor.

I am aware of Lenin's Will saying that Stalin needs to be removed and that he will soon seize all power. It's important to remember however, that this flip in Lenin's beliefs came after a stroke, as Lenin laid in bed and out of "rude comments" Stalin told Lenin's wife. With Lenin out of the picture, Stalin simply stopped pretending he was a loyal follower.
>>
No. 6674
>>6670
>That Yugoslavia region
Oh wow.
That just makes no fucking sense on multiple levels. Like how the Independent State of Croatia doesn't have Bosnia (Nor is it independent), Serbia isn't part of Germany, even though it was under direct military occupation, and that parts of the Vajsaság are free, even though Hungary invaded it when Germany declared war on the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
That map is truly shit.
>>
No. 6675
>>6674
Also what's up with Italy? Never played the game so I don't know if it's explained but why don't they at least control Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica? Those are strategically vital to the control of the Mediterranean sealanes. The latter two to a lesser extent but Sicily for sure. Not to mention Albania being annexed by Italy too, plus annexing Turkey while ignoring the strategic aim of the African theatre of the Middle-Eastern oilfields. Fuggen weird map man.
>>
No. 6678
300 kB, 930 × 600
126 kB, 640 × 456
>>6674
This maps have ALL MODERN XXI CENTUARY borders and even if you ingone that, have absoluetly no any logic at all. And game is "meme". Old wolfenstein games far more logical that this, lol. Same goes with such things as "Man in high castle", same tier low effort "alternative history"
If someone interested - there are 1939 USSR map for example
>>6672
>The only things you have to lose are your chains.
And my computa with EC. Well, I'll probably will go on 9 september protests by Navalny, this time it be more big considering how low pootine raiting has become. At least I hope so, lol

>>6673
>Trotsky was certainly a far more orthodox Marxist than Stalin, Trotsky was even a more Orthodox Marxist than Lenin. Although none of them were Orthodox Marxists in any way

Even MARX HIMSELF, who at first established that there will not be communism thought revolution and without technology, and then claimed EVERYONE DO REVOLUTION IT'S COOL!

>Trotsky did make the claims that Stalin would "betray the revolution", turn it into a totalitarian bureaucratic state and fail to overthrow communism. And he was right, the problem here is that I don't think Trotsky would have been a better leader than Stalin in any way. I do believe that he would have caused the USSR to collapse within his rule and descend into chaos again, but while I cheer on the death of the USSR, I suppose that's not the measure of a good leader

Tbh I never claimed that Trotsky would be better leader. However, considering chaos and economical sinuation in continental europe after WW1, he actually had small, but chances. Thought this is one of people who are LEADER OF MOVMENT, but not leader of people and state. I guess he had no clear ideas what to do after he conquered world.

>This global capitalist revolution would come as capitalism collapses in the most technologically and economically advanced industrialized nations.
This. Actually what Marx said in his theory - WITH FULL AUTOMATION OF MANUFACTURING. So basicly what said marx was "world would no need monies and be super happy when we will live in Star Trek", not "Let's kill rich people and then start guriella war across all planet!"

>Trotsky would accelerated the USSR into its death
Honestely, sovdepia was dead from begining. After their done "revolution" (that was not called revolution untill 30s tbh) they don't know what to do, and all "happy" ideas like Trtsky ones was absoluetly unrelistic. So what did stalin is just re-established absolute monarchy with burocracy and rudiment socialistic elements. This why sometimes USSR called for meme purpose "Soviet empire". And even this words is kinda divide by /0, but they true about what post Lenin USSR was.

>I am aware of Lenin's Will saying that Stalin needs to be removed and that he will soon seize all power. It's important to remember however, that this flip in Lenin's beliefs came after a stroke, as Lenin laid in bed and out of "rude comments" Stalin told Lenin's wife. With Lenin out of the picture, Stalin simply stopped pretending he was a loyal follower.
Most late Lenin was very ill person who had real brain problems tbh. However there a conspiracy that he was killed, but meh, it much less belivable than conspiracy about Stalin death.
>>
No. 6679
>>6678
>map
And here we are 80 years later and the Qaraqalpaqstan border gore is still staring me in the eye causing autismal aneurysms. It makes no sense for the Kipchak-Nogai speaking Qaraqalpaqs to be in the Oghuz-speaking Uzbek republic, even in the very interesting way that they are. Read about it if you're even remotely curious, it's a really interesting situation.
>>
No. 6680
68 kB, 768 × 512
68 kB, 599 × 446
>>6678
>And my computa with EC. Well, I'll probably will go on 9 september protests by Navalny, this time it be more big considering how low pootine raiting has become. At least I hope so, lol

Tell me братишка, why do you hate your country? Do you want to see Russia as a puppet of NATO? Your self-hate and либерашка tendencies are a sign of a sick mental illness. Putin is trying his best to defend Russia.
Bet you actually thought I was a Putin drone for a second :DDDD

>This. Actually what Marx said in his theory - WITH FULL AUTOMATION OF MANUFACTURING. So basicly what said marx was "world would no need monies and be super happy when we will live in Star Trek", not "Let's kill rich people and then start guriella war across all planet!"
I disagree, Marx never talked about a full automation of labour, but a society in which labour had been greatly mechanized, the working class almost entireoly turned into urban workers and this would according to him lead to the a situation in which the worker's productive capacity would increasingly less reflect their wages. And as the "rate of profit" of capitalistic ventures plummet after they had conquered all possible existing markets, capitalist would enter a death spiral. Workers would rise up, yada yada yada...

>This why sometimes USSR called for meme purpose "Soviet empire". And even this words is kinda divide by /0, but they true about what post Lenin USSR was.
Well, there's the Marxist meme that only capitalist nations are imperalist, as imperialist is a product of capitalism. Usually even accusations of being a "social-imperialist" are levied at Khruschev. However, if the behaviour of Lenin himself wouldn't be classified as "imperialistic", I don't know what will.
>>
No. 6688
30 kB, 333 × 250
>>6679
>And here we are 80 years later and the Qaraqalpaqstan border gore is still staring me in the eye causing autismal aneurysms. It makes no sense for the Kipchak-Nogai speaking Qaraqalpaqs to be in the Oghuz-speaking Uzbek republic, even in the very interesting way that they are. Read about it if you're even remotely curious, it's a really interesting situation.
Stalin intentionaly changed borders of USSR like that. He was against lenin plan to divide USSR into Republics in first place, and he made everything to make borders in some regions wery vierd. In many was a lot conflics - in ukraine, in georgia, between armenia and azerbaijan is result of Stalin's memes.
Technically Qaraqalpaqstan is autonomous republic inside Uzbekistan, but current political system in Uzbekistan I can not describe as "democratic" so I assume there is not good things happen, thought I know about it much. Tbh shit in moutians between Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgistan is much more wierd than this.
Same as that wierd part of tajikistan that once was just border zone between British and Russian empires.

>>6680
>Bet you actually thought I was a Putin drone for a second :DDDD
No, sorry, we are not in 2014 and savushkins as they now called, on board post more "smart" posts and most of imageboard-drones are sosachers so I can immideatly spot who are bot and who are not lol. On KC was hell lot of bots without jokes and irony. And thought it kinda funny to see how PUTIN BOTS DESTROY USA ELECTINS, their work Inside country since 2014 are not joke. Russian youtube under their control, a lot dislike and spambots absoluetly allowed because russian google cooperate with kremlin and this is not surprising news.

>I disagree, Marx never talked about a full automation of labour, but a society in which labour had been greatly mechanized,
I can swear I read about it like that. Maybe you talk about 1st moves? About death of modern-like capitalism of things or how it was called. I readed marx and lenin stuff long long ago, I know only basics of theory honestely and not that much care. I actually support his utopian ideas, I just don't belive they will happen soon.

>Well, there's the Marxist meme that only capitalist nations are imperalist, as imperialist is a product of capitalism.
It well known fact that social constructions directly 100% attached to economics in Marx theory. And while it have logic in it, it not always work. Thought in USSR all learned history thought this.
>>
No. 6691
>>6688
I don't think that they're particularly oppressed or anything, they've got pretty powerful veto rights and the constitutionally guaranteed right to secession so the government can't really do anything if they decide to leave either if only because the UN will drop r2p on them hard for going against their agreement. It just triggers my autism to have people not even speaking the same branch of Turkic language mashed together and forcing a weird constitutional merger to take place. Would just be easier to keep things nice and delineated along at least linguistic lines.

That's what's happening in that region you posted. It's the Ferghana Valley, you might have heard of it. Very important trade route historically. The Kyrgyz part is the outer hills where they're an ethnic and linguistic majority, the Tajik part is theirs for the same reason. It's got a specific name for the region though and they've been there a long time, the longest of the three in fact discounting Turkic Sarts who had been there alongside Iranics for ages too because having your village on the Silk Road was pretty appealing to all parties. The Uzbek part is the main floor of the valley though where they've been for about as long as they've been in that part of Central Asia (coming originally from north of the Syr Darya after Timur cleared his way through there). It's pretty elegant if you know what it is you're looking at because there are very few parts where significant populations are caught outside their country, but if it's not something you already know, it can look pretty gory I suppose :-D
>>
No. 6694 Kontra
89 kB, 1127 × 685
>>6691
Also, I said Oghuz when I meant Karluk. Feels embarrassing man.
>>
No. 6729
124 kB, 750 × 567
>>6688
>No, sorry, we are not in 2014 and savushkins as they now called, on board post more "smart" posts and most of imageboard-drones are sosachers so I can immideatly spot who are bot and who are not lol. On KC was hell lot of bots without jokes and irony. And thought it kinda funny to see how PUTIN BOTS DESTROY USA ELECTINS, their work Inside country since 2014 are not joke. Russian youtube under their control, a lot dislike and spambots absoluetly allowed because russian google cooperate with kremlin and this is not surprising news.

You would be surprised how many Russiaboos who are learning Russian are Putin drones.

>>6691
I really wish I was a 19th century ambassador drawing up borders how I saw them fit.
>>
No. 6735
>>6729
To fix the problems that iq89 politicians made originally? That'd be pretty ebin tbh. Would solve a lot of problems down the line. Especially in Africa and the Middle East where it's not just triggering autists but actually caused genocides and civil wars too, see: Rwanda, Iraq.
>>
No. 6738
598 kB, 1120 × 1600
>>6729
Why were early 19th century caricatures so terrible? Your image honestly looks really poorly drawn and it took me a while to understand who the hell these people are. Compare your image to mine, which was created only 50 years later, and the difference is stunning.
>>
No. 6739
136 kB, 771 × 798
>>6735
No, to keep populations divided, set the seeds of war in independent territories and prepare for a new world order of soft power. Also states that one would have learned from classic history that have no real purpose in reality
>>
No. 6741
>>6738
The rise of cheaper printing and newspapers that would be printed in the millions in the 1830-1860s, thanks to steam-powered printing. Previously, everything had to be manually printed. I think this is what led to the change you describe.
Инфа 50%, don't know much about art history
>>
No. 6742
567 kB, 1405 × 1000
>>6741
Those two are different processes. The former is lithography while the latter is just a regular print job. Here's a lithograph of a similar period to the one the Russian posted for comparison. It's not the best one of the period, but it's an example of an average level of quality.
>>
No. 6983
>>18
ach I remember you, you are the aussia takng kazakh lessons.

you should check about osman batur (usman batyr) he is a kazakh that fought for his peoples independence during commies taking power in china.
>>
No. 7005
>>6983
I have. He's pretty ebin, he also fought against the Soviets. Are the Kazakhs that made it to Turkey still a real thing or are they largely assimilated and not really distinguishable from really Turkic-looking Turks?
>>
No. 7020
>>7005
We have that looks here as well and they still remember their heritage as nobody demand their assimilation since their heritage is valued good enough.
>>
No. 7041
>>611

>household consumption and wages stagnated despite GDP increasing by 70% since nazies came to power

Generally, consumption did not reach the levels of 1928 when the Weimar economy was reached its climax, but it was significantly better than during the Great Depression;

e.g. meat consumption:

1928: 51.7 kg per capita
1930: 43.5 kg
1938: 48.6 kg

So people obiously noticed that the regime managed to overcome the crisis and things were getting much better but also that the supply of food and other consumer goods wasn't that great.
>>
No. 7057
59 kB, 519 × 514
The Romanophillia of the Russians hit bizarre levels at times. Check out this coin of Nicolai I as a Roman soldier.
I appreciate this level of assburgerism, but Nicolai I was still one of the worst Tsars of all time.
>>
No. 7059
>>7057
>I appreciate this level of assburgerism, but Nicolai I was still one of the worst Tsars of all time.
We had so many averege and bad ones that It's debatable. Every 2nd romanov was kind of crap.
>>
No. 7060
84 kB, 800 × 1067
>>7059
>We had so many averege and bad ones that It's debatable. Every 2nd romanov was kind of crap.
I shall run through all the Russian Tsars list once I'm done with this book and present my final extrapolation as to why Nicky the First is the worst Tsar. But I hate him for the same reason I hate Russians They ruined Russia
>>
No. 7074
>>7057
they didn't seem more romanboo than europeans to me.
>>
No. 7076
>>7057
"Moscow is the third Rome" is a well known citation.
>>
No. 7077
>>7060
the ones who got assassinated by jews and had a church built in its place are automatically good

not counting the final one of course
>>
No. 7083
>>7076
I've heard a theory recently that some monks thought that Rome and Byzantium fell because they had a lot of gays, so god punished them. And that's "Moscow is the third rome" is just a trolling from them.
>>
No. 7084
>>7083
>recently
Proxyhohols everywhere.
>>
No. 7085
102 kB, 939 × 530
>>7083
Well, religious scholars in general end up blaming horrible events on the sinning of the people. Even the mongol invasions were blamed on the sinning of the Russian people. Arabs did the same thing when the mongols liberated them. If anything, the third Rome title means that Moscow earned it because unlike the other cities who were "destroyed" by God, Moscow remained pure and worthy of this title.

If one looks at the amount of suffering that Russians had to endure throughout history, they must have really been some hardcore sinners.
>>
No. 7088
>>7083
having lots of gay orgies and degeneracy encouraged the plebs turn their face into christianity and caused lots of terrible events which is one of the reasons that lead rome to downfall. so yes sinners indirectly make christianity popular and it ruined it for sure. the religion that adopted in roman empire and the abrahamic religions are just incomparable, latter is vastly reactionary, backwards, iconclast and inferior.
>>
No. 7089
>>7088
also check out the Porphyry's criticism about christianity.
>>
No. 7092
24 kB, 306 × 423
>>7088
"Degeneracy" did not cause the fall of Rome. Christian writers after the fall of Rome worked very hard to pinpoint their lack of morals to their downfall, by using exagerated accounts of what happened within the Roman Empire.

A complex series of economical changes, migratory shifts, administrative changes and climate change doomed the Roman Empire. To mark a single factor as the cause of it is idiotic, and to attribute it to "degeneracy" is even worse.
>>
No. 7096
>>7060
>They ruined Russia
West helped too, but I personally did nothing X---DDDD

>as to why Nicky the First is the worst Tsar
Almost all rulers after Peter I to like Pavel I was different kinds of meh and total shit, seriously. Espesially "Emperatresses".
>>
No. 7101
47 kB, 443 × 640
273 kB, 1446 × 979
66 kB, 627 × 915
145 kB, 552 × 750
>>7096

>West helped too, but I personally did nothing X---DDDD
Portugal did nothing wrong, and Russia still hurt the Portugal.

At least you get funny results like this:
https://youtu.be/1wc23zt0Iy4
>>
No. 7109
>>7092
>to mark into single factor
nope. read it again, just stated it's one of the causes. also you say according to christians, neither of our opinion is relevant, what those people (christians) think was relevant.
>>
No. 7113
>>7101
>Portugal did nothing wrong, and Russia still hurt the Portugal.
Sorry you was in NATO from 1949 what did you expect? X--DDD It was not Russia, it was world war between Authoritarian socialists and Democratic (authoritarian) capitalists where everyone exept some rare countries like Austria and Switzerland that was neutral should take one side or other side. Of cource because Yeltsin and other dumbfucks called Russia heir of Soviet union now all world force us to APOLOGIZE for every even micro-small impact of gommies on them like that """invasions""" of Warshaw pact countris in Hungary and Chezoslovakia
Ask your NATO friends who way back was in Triple Entente why they not helped russia to remove commies properly.
>>
No. 7125
53 kB, 1213 × 864
61 kB, 1208 × 943
57 kB, 1208 × 947
55 kB, 1199 × 853
>>6109
I watched Alexander Nevsky and it was pretty bad.
The battle looked bad and unrealistic to high hell, there is no attempt at least being minimally subtle on the Nazi Germany VS USSR symbolism and there are some obvious sprinkles of Soviet propaganda into this historical movie.
>>
No. 7126
>>7125
>The battle looked bad and unrealistic to high hell
Welp, they didn't have supercomputers yet.
>>
No. 7127
>>7126
I dont mean the special effects or anything of the like, just how it was choreographed.
It starts with a German cavalry charge that consists of them marching up to the Russians and then fighting eachother. The Russians do the same after a while. Then the Germans retreat and form a Roman like turtle formation, and then the Russians break through and kill them. It was just very goofy.
>>
No. 7128
>>7125
Well, I warned you that this is Stalin-times movie about events that most probably was never exist (thins fight in lake was small clash that only briefly metioned in other than russian sources and overall novgorod failed this war, and existance of baltic states is best proof of that)
This movie much more interesting historicly what this is, than historical events that this movie represent.

You may be more interested from 40s-50s in tales-cartoons. They are for kids obviously, but have much more serious tone and aesthetics than many wester ones, often have fantasy style of mixed medival russia, nice animation and based or on classic wrighters tales or on folklore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhvycdfXpXY - Frog-Tsarevna (based on russian folk version of common Frog-princess tale)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tclZLLEeW8U - Scarlet flower (another based on one of variants of classic european Monster and Beuty that was common in russia)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D07xru9L7Jk - Tale of Fisherman and Fish (Based on Pushkin tale)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbOz97mPW_4 - Tale about Dead Tsarevna and Seven Bogatyrs (another Pushkin tale, based on classic varian of plot, some of which known around europe, like Snow White)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS2WX1PiZuQ&t=40s - Konyok-Gorbunok (based on ershov, restored and edited in 1975)

This for shure don't give any historical correction obviously, but will be entertaining and have awesome russian "atmosphere" that you are looking for. thought, I guess there no subtitles on youtube ):
>>
No. 7129
23 kB, 720 × 544
>>7128
I'll give them a look. I watched Kanikuly Bonifatsiya and it was pretty enjoyable.
At this point I feel the need to apologize to helping turn this thread into a Russia general, history of Soviet cinema and animation is the closest category this could fit :DDDDD
>>
No. 7130
>>7129
>At this point I feel the need to apologize to helping turn this thread into a Russia general,
well, this board is slow. If someone want ot talk about other things, why not?
>>
No. 7132
>>7088
>>7089
Nah, christianity was only like reactionary movement at the time. Trump of Rome if you want. By the period it became popular army was already broken, citizens of Rome were becoming poorer and poorer. And lack of any morale played a big part in it.
It would be probably destructive for republican Rome or Empire in period before the 3 century crisis. But not in 4 century or later, Rome was already broken at many levels. And christinity did its job at the time.
And for Christian monks only the lack of morale was visible, so they saved it as the memory. Doubt that even scientists had terms like "inflation" and "overurbanisation" to describe problems the right way. For example, Rome for sure had huge troubles with debts of small farmers and lack of slaves, because europe had feudal system as the result of that. But none of historians describe it, only hints left.
>>
No. 7190
where can I read about succesion laws about britain (after norman conquest) karolingians, france and russia?
>>
No. 7207
>>7132

Nobody back in the late Roman days was able to understand the situtation, describing it accurately was even more impossible. They believed it's only a matter of time when Rome will regain its old stregth etc., a future with the Roman Empie not existing anymore was simply unimaginable to them.
>>
No. 7393
348 kB, 1452 × 1448
Is this a real quote or is it unsourced right-wing internet crap?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO_yicDoTYw&feature=youtu.be&t=206
>>
No. 7395
>>7393
It's fake. Trotsky thought that the more people suffered, the more they got energy for revolution. So he had higher opinion of russians and blacks, because he knew they would gladly follow him in his revolution.
In reality he was fanatical social justice warrior, it's impossible for him to say such things. It's like hearing that god doesn't exist coming from crusader.
>>
No. 7397
>>7393
This quote doesn't have real source and this is a fake. You should have started to be skeptical about this phrase after the words about Zionism, because Trotsky was well aware of Russian antisemitism and he refused to accept leadership in the RSFSR because of fear that people would start saying that the Jew rules the country. What's the point of threatening the Russians if you don't want to spark ethnic tensions?

Stop posting your stupid youtube videos, that bulshit isn't even related to Trotsky, communism, Jews or history.
>>
No. 7398
199 kB, 600 × 828
>>7397
>>7395
What these friendly east slavs said.
>>
No. 7400
47 kB, 590 × 429
1,3 MB, 2425 × 3492
14 kB, 266 × 320
>>7397
Are you angry that Volgograd is better than Kiev? And has a bigger statue
>>
No. 7401
>>7400
second one is really ugly and depressing though. modern statues are dwarfed by antique ones despite their size. and it looks so soulless, it's sad.
>>
No. 7402
>>7400
I always found the first statue to be quite symbolic of USSR.
The warmonger-mother who sends her children to slaughter.
>>
No. 7405
>>7402
>>7400
If I not mistaken, this lady stay on position where in WW2 german position was, so he call to arms of wermacht soldiers to attack stalin city X----DDDD
>>
No. 7407
>>7405
Left-bank Kiev barely could be called a "city" back then.
>>
No. 7408
>>7407
This was about volgograd one
>>
No. 7411
>>7407
true, in fact left bankers called no kievan by many.
>>
No. 7430
92 kB, 400 × 613
Gregory L. Freeze's History of Russia just wants to skip the Imperial period to focus heavily on the USSR so I purchased a new book. The Romanovs Volume 1 (1613-1825)
>>
No. 7434
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhanism
still not sure what to think about them, should I hate because they messed with shamanists or like them because they tried to semi reform the altaic beliefs?
>>
No. 7438
>>7434
I honestly can't say anything because I know nothing about it, but it honestly sounds more like LARPing to me

Why suppress Shamanism?
>>
No. 7445
>>7438
Shamanism clashes with one of the main goals of the movement, uniting the beliefs of the Siberian Turks so they can resist erosion of their traditions by creating a common front. Shamanism is deeply personal in most systems and in Turkic Shamanism they had a lot of ancestor worship. When everybody's shaman is working with their specific set of spirits, then there is none of the unity that Burkhanism is trying to create.
>>
No. 7450
15,2 MB, 8439 × 5943
>>7445
>Shamanism clashes with one of the main goals of the movement, uniting the beliefs of the Siberian Turks so they can resist erosion of their traditions by creating a common front. Shamanism is deeply personal in most systems and in Turkic Shamanism they had a lot of ancestor worship. When everybody's shaman is working with their specific set of spirits, then there is none of the unity that Burkhanism is trying to create.

Excellent.
>>
No. 7451
>>7450
It's no more 'excellent' than any other culture finding itself in a position to be eroded. Would you say the same if it was Portuguese tradition that had to be reformed to stop from being totally replaced by say Spanish or French ones, but regional interests prevented it from happening? People jacking off over colonialism got old a while ago tbh.
>>
No. 7452
>>7451
>Would you say the same if it was Portuguese tradition that had to be reformed to stop from being totally replaced by say Spanish or French ones, but regional interests prevented it from happening? People jacking off over colonialism got old a while ago tbh.

The Portuguese nation's continued existence has been a historical error and the result of repeated incredile feats and bizarre happenings. Thus, I have no other explanation but to conclude that my nation's very existence is protected by God.
>>
No. 7453
>>7452
The post number will suffice if you're addressing the entire post. You don't need to orangetext it as well.

Put aside your belief of divine protection (ignoring that other powers have an interest in keeping Portugal on Iberia, and backed it up sometimes with paperwork like the ongoing Anglo-Portuguese Treaty signed in 1373). Do you think that it'd be 'excellent' for the traditions of the Portuguese people to be eroded away?
>>
No. 7454
>>7453
Another equally valid question to have is what connection do I feel to all the lost celto-iberian traditions that were wiped away by Roman conquest?
My only regret is that there is very little of them written down, although a civilization which is incapable of writing down any of its beliefs and customs is most likely not worth preserving.
The survival of cultures is simply a Darwinistic process, and thus I have no more heartache for a Nenets culture that gets wiped off the map than I do for some rare exotic slug that dies out. Worth mentioning to avoid misinterpretation that I do not believe cultures should actively be destroyed, even less so the physical liquidation of small cultural groups.
The traditions of Portugal have eroded away, and they have shifted tremendously in the last centuries, and have been replaced by others. It's only natural that within a globalized world cultures get closer and closer to one another.
And if in order for your culture to survive you would need to entirely restructure it, that just speaks of how little it is worth preserving.
>>
No. 7455
>>7454
Those are fair points and to an extent I agree. Fair enough points that they should have been made instead of a lone-word response to the effect of 'how wonderful that this largely oral (and thus irrecoverable for later study) tradition was in a weak position at risk of being eradicated.'
>>
No. 7456
>>7455
My original post was just an attempt at humour at how the imperial powers relished in these tribal differences that for outsiders seemed trivial but for those within the same cultural group created an abyss of differences.
A good part of my Russophilia comes from the plethora of distinct ethnic groups that live under the banner of the Russian Federation.
>>
No. 7501
>>7456
>attempt at humour
Oh. I'm going to blame text and 'tism again. I mean, yeah..I totally got that one straight away :-DDD [/spoiler]nod really :-D[/spoiler]
>>
No. 7556 Kontra