Chaikovskij, a real romantic genius, the structure of his music is amazing, he chooses the most adequate places to reminisce on past themes! (1812 ouverture, right? 2:30 or so) simply great music! I'm never ever disappointed by his work!
Georges Saliba Do you know where the theme that starts at about 1:40 originated? It's also used in Rimsky-Korsakov's "Slava" ("Glory") chorus in The Tsar's Bride - I had assumed that he had written the melody
Impresionant el registre sonor. Els trombons i trompetes, tenen una gran actuació. Evoca en alguns moments a " la gran Pascua Rusa" i a l,obertura 1812 .
@@임금산-x4v Or one who calls a spade a spade. The wrong side burned Baturyn to the ground and murdered all the inhabitants including women and children. The wrong side also intervened in the internal affairs of the Cossack Hetmanate and even altered it's governmental structure . The wrong side also undermined the economic development of Ukraine in favor of Russia through use of the state.
@@101Restoration Oh, I wouldn't call you a spade. A delusional moron, perhaps, but certainly not something as useful as that humble tool. The Battle of Poltava was fought between Russia and Sweden, not Russia and the Cossacks, who fought largely on the Russian side and had a marginal role in any case. Seeing as how Sweden - not Russia - was the aggressor and invader, morality dictates that it was the one that deserved to lose. As for "Ukraine", there was no such entity until the 20th century, when it was created, any more than there were "Ukrainians". I will, therefore, speak exclusively of the Hetmanate and the Cossacks. As is well know to all, the Hetmanate was subject to the Russian emperor since 1654, and thus, the Cossacks were the emperor's subjects and owed him their loyalty. Ivan Mazepa had no issue with that, and was perfectly happy to put up with Russian interference in the "internal affairs" of the Hetmanate in 1687, when such "interference" helped make him a Hetman. However, once his own position came into question, he proceeded to turn his back on his ruler and sided with the enemy. Some of his fellow Cossacks went down the same treasonous path with him. Most did not. As for "economic development", it's unclear which specific period you are referring to, but it's no secret to those honest enough to look at things objectively that the USSR's per capita investment in the various smaller republics - Ukraine included - was far greater than in Russia. Moscow, Saint Petersburg and other major cities within the Russian SFSR received significant investment, but other parts of Russia lagged far behind those of other constituent republics.
@@임금산-x4v I never called myself a spade but I called a spade a spade. Perhaps a Muscovite or a Little Russian janissary troll such as yourself needs to re read the commentary I posted earlier. Hetman Ivan Mazepa acted in the best interests of the Kozak Hetmanate and saw the policies of Peter the not so great as being oppressive and not only infringed on the institutions and functions of the Hetmanate government but also threatened to completely abolish all kozak institutions of self government. True ever since 1654 the kozak Hetmanate was under the jurisdiction of the Muscovite (not Russian) tsar but the nature of the relationship was a contractual mutually beneficial one and not a paternalistic submissive one sided relationship. May I remind you that with the election of every kozak Hetman there were articles formed that defined and guided the nature of the tsar/Hetmanate relationship i.e. Kolomak articles and Konotop articles not to mention the March 1654 articles following the agreement of Pereiaslav. May I also remind you that not all kozaks were pro-Muscovite:many right bank kozaks opposed the tsar and Hetman Vyhovsky defeated the Muscovite army at Konotop in 1659. And Muscovy that was the aggressor, not Sweden when attempting to expand to the Baltic Sea which had nothing to do with Ukrainian kozak interests to begin with. Muscovy was the aggressor and utilized Ukrainian kozak resources to achieve that goal even if it meant violating all agreements and articles that defined the kozak-Muscovite political relationship. As for Russia such a political aggregate and "nation" did not exist until Peter the not so great at his own autocratic whim and without historical precedent created Russia out of Muscovy and the other lands it enslaved. Before that time the land was officially called Muscovy and the people Muscovites; descendants and successors to the Mongol empire of Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde. The Ukrainian Kozak/Muscovite political relationship represents the fault line between the European and Asian political cultures and systems of government. Mazepa witnessed the "Asianization" of Kozak Ukraine through repeated Muscovite violations of kozak rights, liberties and institutions. The complete massacre of all the inhabitants of Baturyn serves as a prime example of this. One can even compare the massacre at Baturyn by the Muscovites to the sack of Kyiv by the Mongols in 1240. Also may I remind you that the Zporozhian kozak host under Constantine Hordienko sided with Mazepa at Poltava. Morality does not always dictate that the invader deserves to lose and historical events have time and again proven that.
@@101Restoration Hetman Ivan Mazepa acted in his own selfish interests, and was perfectly happy to lie, cheat and commit treason in the process of ensuring he got his way. He first betrayed his hetman, and proceeded to take his position, and then he betrayed his emperor when said position came into question. That says much about him, as well as the Ukrainians who view him as some sort of a "national hero" - never mind the fact that said traitor died long before there was any "Ukrainian nation". I have no interest in continuing a conversation wish someone whose Russophobia is so hysterical that he couldn't even keep politics out of the comments section of a video like this, which has nothing to do with politics, and someone who so clearly operates in the realm of fantasy and "alternative facts". Farewell.
tchaikovskys music is magnificent he's my favorite composer in the world! your a wonderful man or ladie miss or mister wickednorth
Was sent here by a comment in the latest Extra Credits History episode. Was not disappointed :D
same
I am feeling fairly emberrassed of the fact.
Was it Walpole?
Chaikovskij, a real romantic genius, the structure of his music is amazing, he chooses the most adequate places to reminisce on past themes! (1812 ouverture, right? 2:30 or so) simply great music! I'm never ever disappointed by his work!
Georges Saliba Do you know where the theme that starts at about 1:40 originated? It's also used in Rimsky-Korsakov's "Slava" ("Glory") chorus in The Tsar's Bride - I had assumed that he had written the melody
I should have added the "Slava" chorus is singing glory to Ivan the "Terrible"
Georges Saliba Never mind; I just found out that it's from Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov
Also in Rimsky Korsakov`s Overture on Russian Themes, Op.28
MUCHAS GRACIAS ES UNA MUSICA MUY BELLA
Dont know anything about history but this sounds great
Yarı Türküm ve Yarı Gürcüyüm bundan gurur duyuyorum selam Gürcü kardeşlerim 🇹🇷🇬🇪🙋
*Sweden has left the chat*
ooooooh that hurts // a swede
))
Bravo super
Great
Impresionant el registre sonor. Els trombons i trompetes, tenen una gran actuació. Evoca en alguns moments a " la gran Pascua Rusa" i a l,obertura 1812
.
Uraaa!
2:57
The tragedy about the battle of Poltava is that the wrong side won :(
You don't say. A Swede, a Ukrainian, or just a mindless Russophobe?
@@임금산-x4v Or one who calls a spade a spade. The wrong side burned Baturyn to the ground and murdered all the inhabitants including women and children. The wrong side also intervened in the internal affairs of the Cossack Hetmanate and even altered it's governmental structure . The wrong side also undermined the economic development of Ukraine in favor of Russia through use of the state.
@@101Restoration Oh, I wouldn't call you a spade. A delusional moron, perhaps, but certainly not something as useful as that humble tool. The Battle of Poltava was fought between Russia and Sweden, not Russia and the Cossacks, who fought largely on the Russian side and had a marginal role in any case. Seeing as how Sweden - not Russia - was the aggressor and invader, morality dictates that it was the one that deserved to lose. As for "Ukraine", there was no such entity until the 20th century, when it was created, any more than there were "Ukrainians". I will, therefore, speak exclusively of the Hetmanate and the Cossacks. As is well know to all, the Hetmanate was subject to the Russian emperor since 1654, and thus, the Cossacks were the emperor's subjects and owed him their loyalty. Ivan Mazepa had no issue with that, and was perfectly happy to put up with Russian interference in the "internal affairs" of the Hetmanate in 1687, when such "interference" helped make him a Hetman. However, once his own position came into question, he proceeded to turn his back on his ruler and sided with the enemy. Some of his fellow Cossacks went down the same treasonous path with him. Most did not. As for "economic development", it's unclear which specific period you are referring to, but it's no secret to those honest enough to look at things objectively that the USSR's per capita investment in the various smaller republics - Ukraine included - was far greater than in Russia. Moscow, Saint Petersburg and other major cities within the Russian SFSR received significant investment, but other parts of Russia lagged far behind those of other constituent republics.
@@임금산-x4v I never called myself a spade but I called a spade a spade. Perhaps a Muscovite or a Little Russian janissary troll such as yourself needs to re read the commentary I posted earlier. Hetman Ivan Mazepa acted in the best interests of the Kozak Hetmanate and saw the policies of Peter the not so great as being oppressive and not only infringed on the institutions and functions of the Hetmanate government but also threatened to completely abolish all kozak institutions of self government. True ever since 1654 the kozak Hetmanate was under the jurisdiction of the Muscovite (not Russian) tsar but the nature of the relationship was a contractual mutually beneficial one and not a paternalistic submissive one sided relationship. May I remind you that with the election of every kozak Hetman there were articles formed that defined and guided the nature of the tsar/Hetmanate relationship i.e. Kolomak articles and Konotop articles not to mention the March 1654 articles following the agreement of Pereiaslav. May I also remind you that not all kozaks were pro-Muscovite:many right bank kozaks opposed the tsar and Hetman Vyhovsky defeated the Muscovite army at Konotop in 1659. And Muscovy that was the aggressor, not Sweden when attempting to expand to the Baltic Sea which had nothing to do with Ukrainian kozak interests to begin with. Muscovy was the aggressor and utilized Ukrainian kozak resources to achieve that goal even if it meant violating all agreements and articles that defined the kozak-Muscovite political relationship. As for Russia such a political aggregate and "nation" did not exist until Peter the not so great at his own autocratic whim and without historical precedent created Russia out of Muscovy and the other lands it enslaved. Before that time the land was officially called Muscovy and the people Muscovites; descendants and successors to the Mongol empire of Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde. The Ukrainian Kozak/Muscovite political relationship represents the fault line between the European and Asian political cultures and systems of government. Mazepa witnessed the "Asianization" of Kozak Ukraine through repeated Muscovite violations of kozak rights, liberties and institutions. The complete massacre of all the inhabitants of Baturyn serves as a prime example of this. One can even compare the massacre at Baturyn by the Muscovites to the sack of Kyiv by the Mongols in 1240. Also may I remind you that the Zporozhian kozak host under Constantine Hordienko sided with Mazepa at Poltava. Morality does not always dictate that the invader deserves to lose and historical events have time and again proven that.
@@101Restoration Hetman Ivan Mazepa acted in his own selfish interests, and was perfectly happy to lie, cheat and commit treason in the process of ensuring he got his way. He first betrayed his hetman, and proceeded to take his position, and then he betrayed his emperor when said position came into question. That says much about him, as well as the Ukrainians who view him as some sort of a "national hero" - never mind the fact that said traitor died long before there was any "Ukrainian nation". I have no interest in continuing a conversation wish someone whose Russophobia is so hysterical that he couldn't even keep politics out of the comments section of a video like this, which has nothing to do with politics, and someone who so clearly operates in the realm of fantasy and "alternative facts". Farewell.