This is why there are no medieval buildings in Russia
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 сер 2020
- Buy 'Russia A History' by Gregory Freeze. Click the link below!
www.amazon.com/gp/product/019...
And yes I do make money from this, BUT I only recommend things that I buy/use myself.
[Patreon]
/ blitzofthereich
[Paypal]
www.paypal.me/blitzofthereich
[Amazon]
www.amazon.com/shop/blitzofth...
[Discord]
/ discord
I decided to take a break from my usual World War 2 related content and decided to venture into the more cultural aspects of Russian history, namely the history of its architecture. I'm by no means qualified to talk about the specific patterns and whatnot, but I did combine this with discussions on feudalism in order to explain why Russia has little Medieval architecture
The video really highlights 4 points as to why the aforementioned is the case. Namely, that Russian history (from Kievan Rus), overall, is much more recent than that of its European neighbors. Feudalism, otherwise known as serfdom, didn't develop in Medieval Russia but at a much later date in Russia, thus prompting the construction of stone edifices in the 17th-19th centuries. Reforms by Peter the Great only solidified this institution. Another more obvious point would be the availability of timber products in the Northern forested zones of Western Eurasia. Finally, the last reason is much more scientific, being that wood is more energy-efficient and serves as a great insulator for the harsh Russian winters. Hence, this is why there are no medieval buildings in Russia.
In all honesty, the main answer lies in Medieval Russia and Serfdom.
Please enjoy.
[Sources]
Russia A History by Gregory Freeze. 3rd Edition
Russia and the Russians by Geoffrey Hosking. 2nd Edition
Medieval Russia by Janet Martin. 2nd Edition
Red Nations by Jeremy Smith
The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
Norman Castles by Brian Hope-Taylor
The Birth of the West by Paul Collins
Byzantium by Judith Herrin
The Housing Market in Russia: Disappointing Results by DIWBerlin
The cost of poor housing in the European Union by BRE et al
COUNTRY PROFILES ON THE HOUSING SECTOR RUSSIAN FEDERATION by the UN
The Kievan Principality in the Century before the Mongol Invasion by David B. Miller
ec.europa.eu/energy/eu-buildi...
www.mmr.cz/getmedia/265d0e64-0...
htt.herefordshire.gov.uk/here...
tradingeconomics.com/russia/t....
tradingeconomics.com/france/t...
www.saint-petersburg.com/palac...
en.peterhofmuseum.ru/objects/...
www.mgomz.ru/izmailovo/ob-izma...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...
www.engineeringtoolbox.com/th...
www.europeanwood.org.cn/en/wh...
Be sure to help the channel out by buying 'Russia A History' by Gregory Freeze. One of my favorite Russian history books! www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199560412/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0199560412&linkCode=as2&tag=danielalmeida-20&linkId=9fda9bfd41a4c2bcb56bc5aab38ea89f
There are tons of prehistoric and Amerindian mounds and stuff in the US. It doesn't defeat the premise of the video.
@@BlitzOfTheReich
Hey, he's a doctor. I mean, he must be; he's on the internet.
Slavs dont appear in history later on, thats German pseudo-historical falsification, Sanskrit which is the language of the Indo-Aryans is directly and closely related to Russian in fact it derives from it which is a language that was spoken 1500-2000 BC, they also share Slavic/Russian genetics of R1a haplogroup and many aspects of their language and culture is exaclty identical to the Russian/Slavic one, if anything its Germans that appear late and borrow everything from their neighbours, the Germans during history were confined to the Jastorf culture and it is defined as being poor, sparsely populated and backwards and shows a heavy influence from the Celts in Halstatt who trace their oldest ancestry to the Scythians who are the ancestors of the modern day Slavs/Russians.
A. M. Petrov makes the perfectly justified remark: “The fact that the Westerners used precious metals in order to pay the Oriental traders testifies to the poverty of the former, and can by no means be regarded as a sign of wealth” ([653], page 65). Westerners were doing everything they could in order to stop the constant flow of their gold and silver to the Orient. They still had to part with whole ships of gold, qv above. However, the loading of such ships implied economy of every penny: “There were bans and restrictions concerning the export of coinage and bullion, a taboo for silk clothing etc.
However, the effects were minimal. One needed goods in order to alter the passive nature of such trade, yet Europe was hardly capable of offering anything - the items made by its craftsmen were coarse, and their quality, very low; there was no demand for them in the Orient, which could satisfy its own needs all by itself” ([653], page 62).
Such unilateral trade might be one of the reasons why the mediaeval West had ended up in a dire economical situation, which prevailed for a long time.
“Lucan [an “ancient” author - apparently, a writer of the XV-XVI century A. D. - Auth.] describes a typical Roman consul of the epoch as follows: ‘He is covered in mud, and barely managed to leave his Etruscan plough’” ([653], pages 65-66).
According to A. M. Petrov, “Western Europe in the early Middle Ages, needed to curb its trade with Asia dramatically due to the pitiful state of its resources, which can only be described as beggarly, if we’re to call a spade a spade . . . V. Zombart emphasises the following circumstance as he describes the underdevelopment of the European society in that epoch: “The enormous empire of the Frankish king [in the XIV-XVI century, as we realise today - Auth.] didn’t have so much as a single city - there was no urban life at all”. I. M. Kulisher, also an authority on the history of the Western Europe in the Middle Ages, gives us the following characteristic: a European’s needs were limited to “simple and rough food and a primitive place of residence, complemented with a few basic garments and utensils resembling . . . those used by the savage nations in their simplicity. Landowners, up to the dukes and the kings, weren’t much better off” ([653], page 66).
A. M. Petrov continues: “The West shall eventually make a tremendous effort in order to eliminate this supremacy via the scientific and industrial revolution, an enormous interconnected system of inventions and the introduction of principally novel industries - but for the meantime, the mediaeval Western European society was hardly capable of finding any products that would be of interest to the Orient at all - rough materials for the most part: some copper, some tin, a few other metals; some Asian goods were procured from the Middle Eastern rulers in exchange for ship timber . . .
The discovery of America and the influx of gold and silver therefrom made it somewhat easier for the Europeans to pay for their Oriental imports” ([653], page 68).
To have leftover old architecture one has to have a few cities that are that old, and things like World War 2 happened, which destroyed pretty much everything west of Moscow. Practically every city touched by The Great Patriotic War had to undergo a complete rebuild and so the Apartment in park 'new age' urban planning model became the Soviet Union. Moscow is the only place with any real history going back that will have the 'older' architecture, Peter the Great built St. Petersburg so it is off the table.
The main reason is just that everything was built of wood, and wooden buildings cannot survive several centuries. That is actually sad because old Russians were very skilled and have built very beautiful houses and churches of wood. Also there is not much stone to find on the vast Russian plains. And serfdom and feudalism have not much to do with it.
With the exception of a few islets, until the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was an extremely backward, terribly poor country. The country's military strength resulted from the specificity of the social model, the critical mass. In part, it is the effect of peripheral location and isolation (Orthodoxy), which translated into the low level of egalitarianism of this population, low flow of goods, low level of migration (slavery), which prevented the development of urban centers. The best example of what Russia is is given by Poland, a country which at the end of the 18th century was divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria-Hungary, the difference in the level of development of these parts of Poland is still visible today, not only in the infrastructural, economic but also mental terms although the process of partitioning only lasted 120 years, the phenomenon is similar to that of West and East Germany or the two Koreas.
@@springsummer816 I wouldn't say that if I were you. Kievan Rus had some of the safest trade routes in Europe during its heyday.
@@neverger8495 I expressed my opinion about Russia, not Kievan Rus. These are two completely different organisms, time intervals, geophysical and geopolitical conditions. In addition, in the case of Kievan Rus, at the time of the apogee of this organism's power, we are talking about water routes that are inherently safer than land routes.
@@springsummer816 |'m talking about land routes. What about geopolitics? in every land around Kievan Rus or Russia there are enemies who need its resources. Even inside them.
@@neverger8495 Geopolitics is just one of the factors that I mentioned, very important from the point of view of uniform civilization spaces, indirectly economic and cultural, because the boundaries of such spaces in the Middle Ages were shaped by religions, in this case Orthodoxy. Man, you represent elementary school level, irrational self-centeredness, as if only Russia has enemies in its history, you just don't know the history of Europe, the world. Natural resources in the European part of Russia? Before the era of industrialization, these lands were worthless from this point of view, and the huge spaces and relatively unfavorable hydrographic conditions prevented the development of the economy, at least at a level similar to the rest of Europe, therefore this area until the invention of the railway was an economic province, poverty in the architectural and economic sense and civilization. In the Middle Ages, land routes were only a supplement to water routes, for objective reasons (technology) You know why, for example, the Old Town of Gdańsk looks great because the city lies on a medieval highway, at the mouth of the Vistula River to the Baltic Sea, this river in the Middle Ages transported grain that fed half of Europe.
In the Middle Ages in Russia саthedrals, temples and fortresses in larger cities were made of stone, and a lot of them exist today (Look at the incredible Kremlin in Pskov, Nizhny Novgorod, Rostov Veliky, and others) . Also, in almost all cities of the western part of the country and some cities of Siberia there are beautiful centers with imperial architecture (18-19 centuries)
In my hometown, the oldest building, the Golden Gate, was built back in the 12th century.
I think Russia has many old buildings but they're mostly churches and monasteries, assuming they weren't destroyed by the communists or the Nazis.
Honestly most of them do not exceed 100-150 years.
Blitz Of The Reich What about a bunch of 12th century churches in Vladimir, Suzdal and Rostov? They' re Unesco heritage actually. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Monuments_of_Vladimir_and_Suzdal?wprov=sfti1. Also some Novgorodian border fortresses like Oreshek, Staraya Ladoga, Pskov kremlin.
@@sxbcdbfxs7069 ^ Again these are anomalies. In the video I do mention stone churches existing, but the point is that the proportion is way way lower.
Blitz Of The Reich it was more about their unique architecture, which can’t be spotted anywhere else. Great work by the way, it’s cool that in addition to military tactics you’re interested in other subjects
@@sxbcdbfxs7069 thank you. but yes, this title shouldn't be taken so literally although it is statistically true.
I have seen a couple of churches very old, a guard house in Gomel that was made of stone about 900 yrs old for example but older places are mainly simply stone foundations outlining what used to be a wooden structure. Wood was what they used back then as stone was hard to get. Wood decays quickly so today there is little left.
bingo ^
With such a huge landmasses and such a tiny population that Russia had up until 18th century you dont need a castle anywhere especially when there is no villages and towns around.
yes, but this is more in the context of European Russia.
Russia's population was expanding rapidly. If it wasn't for the world wars and the famines in between, Russia's population today would be incomprehendibly massive.
You broke this down so well; thank you!
That's all right.
But there is another important factor that the author missed.
Most of the historical buildings in Russia existed in its western part between Moscow, Novgorod, Kiev and Odessa. In addition to wooden buildings, there were also many stone buildings. But all this does not matter, since during the Second World War, almost all of it was destroyed. Very little remains of the same Kiev. Many small but old cities from the Moscow region and so on were wiped off the face of the earth. In fact, in the war, the Soviet Union lost almost all residential and industrial real estate in its western part. Hence the fact that most of the housing was built in the last 40 years. Despite the fact that the construction of new housing went at an accelerated pace since the 50s, it was only by the 80s that the issue of housing began to be less acute.
I get what you are saying, but It doesn't explain everything. The Soviet Union mainly targeted churches. That would not skew the proportion of old buildings by much.
The actually historic buildings from novgorod were not visible before the second world war either. I think what the video wants to talk about is why there are no Medieval buildings in Russia and not why there are no pre world war 2 or pre soviet buildings in Russia because there are plenty of them especially in Siberia.
You've forgot to mention the stygmea of the old - SSSR was very keen on modernising country, so they wanted to get rid of the old stuff and replace it by new, modern. There was a strong incentive for old buildings to be replaced.
yes, but that doesn't go far enough.
@@BlitzOfTheReich what do you mean?
@@jankopransky2551 like china, even after their cultural devolution, the elites still protect/maintain it, because the traditional building have strong sentimental value to them
Were a lot of these old buildings damaged or destroyed during the Russian Civil War or after the Bolsheviks took power? What about during WW2? As always, a great video!
some were, but it doesn't explain the whole picture.
@@BlitzOfTheReich I didn' t think it would, I was just curious if the Civil War and WW2 had any effects on them. Still a very interesting question I hadn't even considered!
I hope to get the book you recommened this week to learn more about Russia.
@@RomanianJ96 Thanks man. Take your time. I always considered this since Russia isn't really associated with the picturesque beauty of Western European villages. I feel this stark contrast already by just living in the Czech Republic even though it is less pronounced.
I think there might be some wrong conclusions out of the facts.
Almost 70% of Russian architecture both wooden and stone was deliberately DESTROYED by the Communists after the revolution. There were "war against palaces" and noble estates in 1920s, two waves of taking down religious monuments in 1930s and 1960s and so called "war against architectural excessivness" (e.g. against all non-modernist buildings) in 1950s.
Although I agree that medieval Russians had a great focus on wooden architecture and many castles and churches were wooden. But even considering this there are at least 50 medieval stone castles (Kremlins) and hundreds of stone churches and residences (palaty) built in 11-17 centuries in Central Russia (and I don't count the lands that were conquered from Sweden or Germany). What concerns 18-19 century - this era is overrepresented in Western European cities too, it is natural that you have 1 medieval building for 50 18th-century buildings,
What the Westerners usually don't understand is the level of huge tragedy that happened to the Russian cities and villages after 1917. Most of them arrogantly think that all Russians were always communists or slaves and had no beautiful stone buildings. In reality Soviet Union was anti-Russian regime that was keen on breaking Russian nation, Russian culture and Russian mentality. Actually there were more palaces in Russian Empire than in France (60k against 40k). But today if you look at the official lists of cultural sites in different regions of Russia you'll see that biggest part of them are in ruined or fragmented condition, or even just dissapeared without a trace (for example in Smolensk region - one of the craddles of East Slavic states - there are only 3 restored noble manors, 20 or 30 of them are in ruined state and more than 50 had vanished out of existence). Still, some part remains, especially in small ancient towns of former Vladimir-Suzdal, Ryazan and Smolensk duchies and Novgorod Republic. There are also programs of restoration of monuments but it will take hundred years to redo the damage caused by Bolsheviks in few years.
P.S. Also serfdom is a typical trait of feudal system and many countries of Europe cancelled it same time as Russia so there is no big deal with it really. And slavery never existed in Russia, Russian peasants and German peasants in the Middle Ages or Modern Time were both partly serfs partly free and lived mostly in wooden huts. Pre-Industrial age stone architecture is nobility and burgeoise thing both in Western Europe and Russia. The difference is that French or Weimar revolution didn't destroyed all habitats in inhumane struggle for "total annihilation of the old world to build a new one", but the Communist revolution did.
P.P.S. Speaking of weather, average yearly temperature says nothing as it includes Far North and Far North East with literally no population. But Siberia and Far North were literally colonies, like Greenland - but you don't judge Danish climate by Greenland extreme temperatures, aren't you? The climate of East European plain part of Russia where 80% of population live is similar of Europe - from Swedish-like climate of St.Petersburg to Italy-like climate of Sochi.
Please provide sources to the 70% figure about the Communists. It's insane to think people would purposefully destroy infrastructure even for ideology's sake.
Most of the Kremlins you refer to were built starting the 15th century. Very few if any actually exist from the Kievan Rus period. The one's that do were actually Teutonic or from other countries. I actually provided data on housing stock.
I don't understand why you think I, as a Westerner, am arrogant or oblivious to your country. I can be just as versed in it as you.
Your definition of serfdom is also highly simplified and just wrong. Slavery did exist in Russia.
I knew someone would take my average temperature argument and warp it even though I gave a disclaimer in the video. Yes, Russia is in fact much colder than Europe (even the European portion of Russia).
i.redd.it/me8d2mqs0fy11.png
@@BlitzOfTheReich I refer specifically to pre-Mongol stone Kremlins in Russian old lands, not Teutonic or Swedish. For example:
- Old Ladoga (10 or 12 century according to different data) - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staraya_Ladoga
- Koporie Fortress (12th century) - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koporye
- Bogolyubovo Palace-Castle (12th century) - ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Палаты_Андрея_Боголюбского (sorry for the most part of links there are Russian language articles)
- Vladimir kremlin (12th century, partilally stone - ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Владимирский_кремль
There were also findings of probably parts of stone wall in Pskov dating to 11th century but anyway today's walls were rebuilt later and the oldest are 13th century (Dovmont's Fort) - ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Довмонтов_город
Same as Pskov, firts Izborsk Kremlin on Truvor settlement (not to be mistaken with modern sight of 2nd Izborsk fort) was at least partially built from stone (www.museum-izborsk.ru/ru/page/truvorovo_gorodizhe ) in 11th century but this place was abandoned later and modern castle was built in 14th century.
Apart of castles, there are pre-Mongol stone churches like in this list (with photos) - frosya-hod.livejournal.com/71539.html
Yes, of course wodden castles dominated in the architecture of Russia till 17th or 18th century, but it was at least 14th century (Novgorod and Pskov) that was the start of "mass-building" of stone architecture there.
@@BlitzOfTheReich yes, about climate, you can see in this map that main area of "Old Russia" (Moscow-Vladimir-Smolensk-Novgorod) has same climate with Poland, Sweden, East Germany and Sochi is like North Italy or France.
@@BlitzOfTheReich what concerns architecture, there is nothing unbelievable in this for anybody born in the USSR or a post-Soviet country. It is difficult to find comprehensive English sources because this topic is a very specific to Russia so mostly sources are Russian-language only, sorry for this in advance.
As I have said, there were campaigns
- for re-structuring of cities (aka blowing up churches and old manors in the narrow streets to make classical Soviet panorama of wide prospects). Moscow alone lost big part of its architecture (and many smaller towns lost it all)
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_утраченных_памятников_архитектуры_Москвы
arheologija.ru/problema-pamyatnikov-kulturyi-v-sssr-i-russkie-arheologi/
- the war with architectural excess (aka re-building or replacing old architecture with concrete blocks in the name of progress)
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Об_устранении_излишеств_в_проектировании_и_строительстве
www.rbth.com/arts/332068-moscow-historical-buildings
- at least four anti-religious campaigns (aka blowing up churches again)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-religious_campaign_during_the_Russian_Civil_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1921%E2%80%931928)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1958%E2%80%931964)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1970s%E2%80%931987)
They even managed to destroy graveyards - ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ликвидация_кладбищ_в_СССР
- so called war with palaces (aka burning down all estates of nobility, merchants and even farmers (kulaks)
cyberleninka.ru/article/n/razgrom-dvoryanskih-usadeb-1917-1919-ofitsialnye-dokumenty-i-krestyanskie-praktiki/viewer (Rus lang)
Russia had from 40,000 to 60,000 manors and estates before revolutuion - www.booksite.ru/fulltext/suda/kov/4_09.htm
And now there are only 2528 left now according to the official data (this includes manors that didn't completely disappear, most of them are ruined though or only old parks had survived because parks are more versatile to destruction than buildings) - www.vedomosti.ru/realty/articles/2020/04/08/827511-istoricheskie-usadbi-mogu-posluzhit-ekonomike
Russian government, local authorities or private companies had restored 70 estates in the 21th century but as you see this is a tiny fraction from what is lost
This is actually the worst part because in Russia estates are a very big cultural element (www.socionauki.ru/journal/articles/156264/) and its destruction is like erasing nation's mentality (later in Soviet times this evolved into "dacha culture" but it is nothing more than low-key imitation)
Finally, you can just look at what the Soviets did to Konigsberg castle. Its ruins were in better condition than post-war Dresden buildings and stood there for 20 years after the war waiting for possible renovation. But instead the Communist authorities blowed everything up despite having opposition among their own Soviet scienties, historians and architects. Nothing was built there later except for the long-term construction of the brutalist administration building that has never been finished.
failedarchitecture.com/the-rebuilding-of-a-hornets-nest/
svguidinglight.com/konigsberg-castle/
"the Horde" - good historical movie with eng. subtitles, see on youtube - "The Horde (Russian movie with English subtitles)"
I have not seen it yet.
@@BlitzOfTheReich well, you could watch ua-cam.com/video/7q8C34jD-x8/v-deo.html
@Resistance Front you are writing a nonsense :>
@Resistance Front that still makes for good entertainment in my eyes.
Great video!
dekuju
A lot of old buildings were destroyed during the WWII. For example, Stalingrad (now Volgograd) was destroyed almost to the ground.
yes, but many of those older buildings were not medieval.
This channel is underrated.
I appreciate this a lot. Help me out and share and upvote on social media.
Slavs dont appear in history later on, thats German pseudo-historical falsification, Sanskrit which is the language of the Indo-Aryans is directly and closely related to Russian in fact it derives from it which is a language that was spoken 1500-2000 BC, they also share Slavic/Russian genetics of R1a haplogroup and many aspects of their language and culture is exaclty identical to the Russian/Slavic one, if anything its Germans that appear late and borrow everything from their neighbours, the Germans during history were confined to the Jastorf culture and it is defined as being poor, sparsely populated and backwards and shows a heavy influence from the Celts in Halstatt who trace their oldest ancestry to the Scythians who are the ancestors of the modern day Slavs/Russians.
This video misses perhaps the most important historical reason. Territories that were ruled by or subject to the Golden Horde were generally forbidden to have fortifications.
I mean yes, that’s a good point, but not all territories were under Golden Horde rule. Even then, forts like the Moscow Kremlin were still built.
Moscow not only paid tribute to the Golden Horde, but was the tax collector for them. Areas further west were also subject to the stricture against fortifications so that Moscow, as agents of the Horde, could more easily control them. After the collapse of the Golden Horde, Moscow continued the practice of not allowing provincial fortification to ease their ability to enforce central control.
Strategically, Moscow preferred for the outlying regions to be vulnerable to incursions from, for instance, Turkey or Sweden. This made those areas both easy to force to pay taxes, but also dependent for defense.
To a large extent the Russian mindset/ethos/psychosis for a tendency to prefer centrist authoritarian rule has its genesis in this historic crucible. Socially, culturally, and politically; Russia would be substantially more in tune with western democratic values if Novgorod had prevailed over Moscow. Instead the Muscovite model of subjugation and dominance of "All of the Russias" continues in the Kremlin to this day.
@@halnywiatr This whole idea of limiting fortifications in the Golden Horde period is actually new to me, so I appreciate you bringing it up. My main issue though is that it does not necessarily defeat the idea that Stone buildings were simply not popular in Kievan Rus. Also, Novgorod was free from the Horde too. I find it interesting how the Baltic coast is really the only part of Russia with sufficient stone dwellings.
Classical Russia, which is to say Kievan Rus was not very different from other north central European countries. It was said of Casimir III, The Great that he “found Poland made of wood but left it built of stone”. He ruled as king from 1333 to 1370.
The differentiating factor for Kiev and Novgorod was what they had to the east; the Golden Horde and then its agent then successor Moscow.
It was the centralized “plunder” ethos of those two (Horde/Moscow) that skewed everything from architecture to socio-political structures across the original lands of Rus. The decimation of Novgorod by Moscow is a definitive “Hinge Point” of history.
I hesitate to cite Wikipedia, but this article is not bad: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Kievan_Rus%27
" Territories that were ruled by or subject to the Golden Horde" - never, just this Golden Horde really was not a state or an "empire", but just plundering genocidal raids by nomads with 200 years of experience and nothing else;
But well - they destroyed cities and fortress in that raids, yee :>
let’s not forget the mud flood that destroyed Great Russian Tataria. Russian history started earlier unfortunately most of the sources have been destroyed by the evil power of this world. I can speak Russian and German and i don’t know why but there is actually many sources from Germany that lie about certain aspects of Russian history and identity.
This theory is strange but its worth looking at as there is no other really usable explanation for why out of all places russia has this lack of historic structures the churches must have been rebuilt or kept intact on purpose but what we are not seeing is historic city centers which have definitely existed before the 19th century, with irregular streets and densely built areas full of wooden buildings as can be seen on historic drawings and paintings, everything that can be seen on 19th and 20th century photography shows just that, 19th century historicist architecture. inspired by western european architecture.
They were all destroyed during WW1, russian civil war and especially in World War 2. These wars destroyed half of Russia and killed half of Russians.
After WW2 the communists weren’t interested in fixing up castles and didn’t believe in medieval architecture.
They believed castles were capitalist and and the greatest representation of oppression and a symbol of the aristocracy they got rid. During this time they purged most members of the Russian royal family and aristocracy.
Post war Russia needed buildings that could hold more people. So they supported apartment buildings over rebuilding medieval housing.
This is too simplistic as it was still the case in the pre WW1 period. The Church of the Tithe was already destroyed. Using the whole war argument is simplistic because equally as destructive wars have happened all over Europe.
@@BlitzOfTheReich actually these are different situations. Some old buildings were destructed in the war in Europe and after they were rebuilt because people and government wanted to. But in the Soviet Union old buildings were destroyed deliberately in peaceful time. And those buildings that were destroyed in the war were not rebuilt because Soviets did not want to. You can see this in Eastern Prussia. Polish side of Old Prussia has plenty of castles but Russian side has only few. Is it because there were not many castles in the northern part? No. They weren't rebuilt after the war and many of them were blowed up, like Konigsberg Castle. The reason is not the war itself, the reason is anti-Russian political system that is known as USSR.
I thought they rebuild Kaliningrad. And. Saint petersburg. They even repaired one of the oldest churches. During the cccp
In Photos of 1890 Moscow or even Russia or the popular Prokudin Gorski color photos you see nothing but 19th century architecture that you can still find nowadays. Where are the old log houses with the pointy roofs with the tiny windows? Where are the stone houses with the massive muscovite style windows that you can now only find in monasteries and churches? All you can see are more or less italianate or russian revival looking buildings both wooden brick and stone, but 19th century clearly.
Nice video. Is there something specific that made you so interested in Russian history?
This I shall answer in detail in the q&a
the Russia have a medieval buildings
Pskov ua-cam.com/video/L4tzo5ipcHM/v-deo.html
Novgorod ua-cam.com/video/PEk3uIqUEA8/v-deo.html
etc etc
@@Pilum1000 these are exceptions and also Pskov is from the late medieval period.
@@BlitzOfTheReich this isn't an exception. You could see other Russian (and MaloRussian like Kiev etc :>) old cities :>
@@BlitzOfTheReich the stone kremlin of Pskov was built in the XIV century, and earlier there were wooden buildings
What's the name of the music at 3:52?
It's a really short but good lesson on Russian and European history.
Liked and subscribed.
Thank you.
Unless I've missed it (bad short term memory, sorry), you should look at two other points: the frequent wars that devastated constantly the region and the terrain's acidity.
Wars occurred everywhere in Europe too though. The terrains acidity is also a good point.
@Pedro Kantor yes but again, the rest of Europe suffered similar catastrophes. The 30 years war, World War 1, etc. Many village houses in Russia during ww2 were still wooded. A famous example is Vitebsk which didn't even have basements for the Germans to hide in 1944.
Here is a compelling portrait of the Russian people's psychology. "The Slave Soul of Russia: Moral Masochism and the Cult of Suffering", by Daniel Rancour-Laferriere, American historian. This book explores a little-remarked-upon but essential part of the Russian character and historical depth. It is among the most interesting and illuminating books available on Russia and Russians. I would recommend this book for anyone studying Russian history, politics, psychology or literature. Anyone dealing with Russians in practical matters (e.g. business or other negotiations) will also benefit from it. This book is a must-read for all, especially for Western politicians.
@Pedro Kantor I can respect this point more, but the only issue is that many Russian towns still had a lot of wooden buildings even in WW2. I would agree though that places like Smolensk were just devasted. The Church of the Tithe (2nd build) for example was destroyed by the Soviets in the 1920s. Are you baltic?
@@tadasblindavicius8889 It sounds a bit like 'Practicing Stalinism' by J Arch Getty. Thanks for the recommendation!
Incredibly well-structured and produced video, well done! Liked and subscribed
Welcome to the channel! I really appreciate your comment though.
Amazing video
Thank you!
This was an awesome video. I always wondered that.
Thank you for viewing it! I am glad it cleared things up.
"no medieval buildings"? What?
Novgorod has some renaissance buildings and the underground tombs in Kiev date back to the C11!ive been to both
They are very very few and far between. A lot of the buildings are also unknowingly reconstructions to the viewers.
First of all Novgorod was conquered by Moscow and killed all local citizens in 15 th century, it means current Russia cannot consider history those lands as Russian
@@bmf_2898 how du u imagine killing all the population of one of the biggest trade centers in Medieval? Nonsense. There was no huge massacre: a small bunch of the boyars were killed, others were evicted to Moscow in the following years. And those lands ARE a big and meaning part of russian history. Novgorodians had minimal differences in culture with Moscow people. They all were russian people by this time
@@Yhorm228 it was conquered, wasn’t it ?
@bmf_2898 by that logic then Northumberian history isn't English history then?
You must remember that a good part of Russian building where blown up by carpet booming , scourged earth tactics and artillery shelling.
Even before World War 2 and 1 and the great Russians civil wars, Russians burned Moscow to the ground as part of scourged earth tactics used against Napoleon. And of course Moscow is not the only place this happened.
There are many things you are forgetting in this video but for a westerner it would be enough if you consider the above.
yes, but as I stated. That doesn't go far enough. Many other places suffered war yet still have older housing stock.
@@BlitzOfTheReich No country in human history has seen more death and destruction then Russia in 20 century, that is just a fact no one can argue with, 30 million lost in WW2, the casualties sustain by other countries do not even come close. Learn more.
@@Petreski447 you tell me to learn more but you just attributed all of those deaths to Russia. You know there were 15 Soviet Socialist Republics right? Or do they not matter as much?
Thank you for video sir
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼💐💐💐
Actually, of course, earlier and more. If the Staro-Ladoga castle dates back to the 9th century, and Bogolyubsky’s castle to the 12th (and they have been preserved), and in general on Western Russian lands (Izborsk, Porkhov, Koporie, Pskov Krom, Malorussians, Belorussians and Ruthenians fortresses, kremlins and castles, - and some on the territory of present-day Poland and the Baltic states, for example, the Lublin Castle built by Daniil Galitsky) there are quite a few castles, and in central Russia there are hundreds of kremlins and monastic fortresses (which had military significance), and even in Siberia there are kremlins built back in the 17th century (Verkhoturie, Tobolsk), they can be seen today, and they, of course, are made of stone and brick.
So, generally speaking, in the West, as usual, they are procrastinating something like a collection of misconceptions about Russia, as if it’s hard to google now (even though OGAS was torpedoed).
Although, of course, there was a lot of wooden architecture (by the way, for example, as in Norway).
Stone chambers (i.e. small chateaus) were literally the fashion of the 16th and 17th centuries; and in the 18th and 19th centuries - stone estates, incl. castles began to appear just like an avalanche, and many of them (hundreds; I counted about 1000 according even to the list of "Estates of Russia", but it is incomplete: these are actually only country castles and palaces) are still there. Alas, many are in need of restoration: greatly suffered during the Yeltsin rule in the 1990s from the general ruin that befell us then. Much, of course, perished and being destroyed by the Nazis in the course of 1941-44. Unfortunately, there were also Bolshevik demolitions of churches (however, there were also restorations).
By the way, but the western castles disappointed me - you read: "Castle of the 11th century", you read carefully: "Completely destroyed in the 14-15th centuries; restored in a new style in the 18th, 19th and even 20th centuries." And how old and authentic can this be considered?
Something I've never thought of , thinking that the churches were much older ,much like here in the UK where they can be around 1000 years old , even the domestic buildings that still stand come in around well over 500 years old from The Tudor period, I've got to admire the Roman empire with their structures still standing to this day . Are there no structures equivalent to Stonehenge in Russia ?
there are, but the point of this video is that they are disproportionally fewer compared to Western Europe.
Very well done video, you’ve really done some great search. Thanks for sharing
“Kievan-Rus”
*proceeds to show Novgorod*
I mean. It was part of it at one point.
It was part of it. You can see that on the map.
Epic video
thank you!
If Ukrain is to take credit for Keivan Rus ancestry, then Poland and Belarus are worth of mention. Rus started in Novgorod in Russia, not in Ukrain.
I think you misunderstood the video. I am giving credit to both Ukraine and Russia. Back then, both nationalities didn't exist so I am really trying to portray a sort of common kinship. Poland already had its kingdom at the time, but many Polish princesses married into the Riurikid.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Today Kiev was built mostly by architects and builders from Moscow and St. Petersburg in 18th 19th and mostly 20th century.
It's city centre Kreschatik square was built in Stalinist baroque.
Ukrainians did not even lived in Kiev prior 20th century.
You can see medieval castles especially in the Novgorod or Pskov region.
Good video, but I would be weary of using Adam Smith as a quote about Feudalism, as he wrote it in a book advocating for his ideas. It's fine in this context imho but it's the same as using Marx as a historian (it's a slippery slope) and I think there are better contemporary writers you could have quoted
yes, that is true, but Adam Smith wasn't as much an ideologue as Marx. I find his work to have more gravitas and besides, I don't think their definitions of feudalism would really be that different.
Great video!
I just wanted to recommend to everyone that's interested in Russian history the documentaries called "The Rurik dynasty" and "The Romanov dynasty" they are really good and are available on youtube.
thank you so much for the recommendations!
@@BlitzOfTheReich You are welcome!
Time to play some KCD again.
go forth and enjoy
Just have to say there are some medieval stone/brick castles but they all are in ruins 🤔
Most of these are located on former Teutonic or Livonian territory though.
@@BlitzOfTheReich true
@@larrywave hence Feudalism
when i clicked on the video i thought you were going to say the communist and the nazi invasion but i was surprised to by your answer, great video.
thank you!
@PiousCoding How is it wrong and how is it lazy? I literally have entire books on the Kievan Rus period.
@PiousCoding
You're the armchair historian.
wtf are you talking about? there are medieval buildings all over Russia. Just a few examples: Novgorod Kremlin - XV century ("Detinets" was built even earlier, in the XIV century), Pskov Kremlin - XI-XII century, Spaso-Andronnikov Monastery - XV century, Juditten church - XIII century, Elabuga Sanctuary tower - X century, Koporje fortress - XIV century, Vyborg castle - XIII century, Andrey Bogolyubsky's chambers - XII century, Palace of Facets in Novgorod - XV century, English yard in Moscow - XV century, Korela fortress - XIII century, Old Ladoga fortress - IX century, Oreshek fortress - XIV century... and that's just what I could recall in a short time
The Pskov Kremlin is not from the 11th and 12th century. A lot of those places were never Russian or were built in the 15th century.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Pskov Kremlin is mentioned along with Troitsk cathedral dated to late XI century. What do you mean by "were never Russian"? Also, what's wrong with 15th century? It's a part of medieval period.
Because Russia draws heavily on byzantine and Greek while Germans draws more on Roman.
Besides St,Petersburg...originally Petropole.one of 5he most beautiful cities in Europe.
It emerged just as medieval times were drawing to a end.
I love all your videos and analysis on Russia, new subscriber
Welcome and thank you for the compliment. It means a lot!
Are there, at least, theories about pagan Slavs building reconstruction? Castles? Homes?
What exactly do you mean?
@@BlitzOfTheReich how possible house/home looked like in Kievan Rus.
"why there are no medieval buildings in Russia" - Russia have got a lot of medieval buidings... wtf :>
No, it doesn't.
@@BlitzOfTheReich the nonsense :)
Pskov ua-cam.com/video/L4tzo5ipcHM/v-deo.html
Novgorod ua-cam.com/video/PEk3uIqUEA8/v-deo.html
etc etc
@@Pilum1000 The Pskov Kremlin is an exception and was built in the late 15th century. Same with Novgorod. So many places in Europe are older.
@@BlitzOfTheReich, "Pskov Kremlin 15th" the nonsense. First fortifications of this stone kremlin were built in the XIII c.
So many places in Europe are older." - well, what the stupid phrase is here? :> in Italy or Greese are many buildings which really older than any buildings in Germany or smth. important (not, no St-n-h-g.) in Britain, and what? :>
This is the medieval building. Of course, not only this
@@Pilum1000 Don't call my phrase stupid unless you want me to stop responding. I proved my thesis with data.
Budenka and armor lol in the end of the video.
Umm there are about 20+ Kremlins (castles) in Russia.
and virtually all of these do not come from the medieval period. Also, these are still a very very small proportion of Russian housing stock.
@@BlitzOfTheReich youre wrong they are all medieval. Except for maybe the Tobolsk Kremlin in Siberia, but its like 17th century still. Im not saying youre not wrong about woodung buildings part, but youre wrong when you say Russia doesnt have castles.
I mean im not saying youre wrong*
@@geodude205 Give me a list and I will offer a rebuttal one by one.
@@BlitzOfTheReich "and virtually all of these do not come from the medieval period" - the nonsense... what are you personally name as "medieval period" ? :> the Medieval is before 1500 for minimum.
Russia has enough medieval buildings. Maybe - not as much as in Western Europe - especially among small private houses, which were very often built of wood, but there are enough medieval buildings and absolute cannot say "There are no medieval buildings in Russia", as you said:>
Slavs were sneaky as fuck, why fight cavalry when you can dip in the forest.
Fantastic ... I read lots of Russian Lit... currently reading bio of Chekhov.. I have this deep interest of the Russian character and soul (meaning I see Russians as highly spiritual as well as highly not spiritual at same time). I have this interest in why Russians gladly chopped up the aristocracy in tiny pieces long into soviet times. I am fascinated by the serfdom that was uniquely Russian. I explore this as a casual reader of Russian literature. I read some Gorky. Now on Chekhov. Chekhov’s character and writings reflects hostility towards all pretensions, the pull of loyalty to his serf roots and his agonizing atheism.
Your video helps fill in missing pieces... I do not know Russian history or Russian orthodox religion.
This is a very big compliment to me. I always try to be analytical in approaching such an enigma.
What is the difference between Russian serfdom and the one in the Commonwealth and the serfdom that was once in Western europe too, before dying out?
Davros Darlek - the big difference is Russian serfdom lasted until freed in 1861, while serfdom in Europe died out in early Middle Ages.. this meant Russia did not undergo a period of enlightenment, renaissance, etc. 90% of Russia was slavery, then just freed. The “freed” serfs just sat on their freedom just to stew in their juices with zero change in society , culture. There was no effort to educate the serf slaves. The freed serf class continued this way until revolutions with deep animosity started in 20th. Also, the serfs had there own version of Russian language ( lots of SSS’s as if snake like) that they were required to speak with demeaning posture. As you recall, Tolstoy (who was a very rich Count) tried educate his own serf children. The Tsar took away his rights as a member of the nobility and confined him to his estate... naturally , serfs , like slaves had only 1 name. Could not marry without permission. There were many instances where the lords barred marriage ... too much trouble. Also, landed and Household serfs hated landed aristocracy, for the most part (no upstairs, downstairs loyalty). The serfs were dangerous, menacing, thieves. Were lots of cases were female estate owners were viciously sadist.. beating and killing children servants right in household.. hanging children. .. was very rare that slave owners were charged with murder... you understand... this into mid 19th century!!!
@@davrosdarlek7058 I haven't studied the Commonwealth or Medieval Serfdom enough in order to properly answer that.
@@richardbenitez7803 Yep I do get the impression that late Russian serfdom was more a form of chattel slavery than medieval Serfdom.
It's actully because lots of russian were tribal in middle ages
kieven rus was a time period when the russian capital was in kiev. the term was only coinned in the 19 century. The Rurik dynasty that started russia started in ladiga, then novgorod, then Igor settled in Kiev. THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS UKRAINE you read a whole bgook on this and you keep saying kieven rus , and ukraine you have no clue what you are talking about. Go read about the Rurik dynasty
Russian (ruthanian) culture draws heavily from Greece and Byzantine not rom
In fact Greeks played a helped create modern Russia…..whose they called HYPERBOREA,,.but they themselves called themselves ruthanians
If you look at my Kievan Rus video, you'll see that I've already talked about this.
Россия пошла со Старой Ладоги и Великого Новгорода, потом князь Новгородский завоевал Киев и сделал его главным городом Руси, потом был Владимир и Москва, причём тут Украина ? О ней даже никто не знал и не слышал, а вся правящая и церковная верхушка была в Москве
I don't think any of that you mentioned in the beginning about Russia lol. I think Russian medieval architecture 😁
Russian cities overview from quadrocopters (where are a lot of medieval buildings too :>) :
Peterburg ua-cam.com/video/4EoUz39nPMM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/xx0Os4sOquc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/1DwggMpeIT4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/qGUI55LFBS8/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/eMEH6LG9_iQ/v-deo.html
Moscov
ua-cam.com/video/S_dfq9rFWAE/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Hv3fH5_u0qU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/AfWP8jDx-Ik/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/B8Iee1Ckidc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/PnN0Io-4qok/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/HLXpIs17Fjk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/mhmJYDr_HcQ/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/QJPR7xbkgBU/v-deo.html
Pskov
ua-cam.com/video/L4tzo5ipcHM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/6DzuKE2YwUM/v-deo.html
Novgorod
ua-cam.com/video/PEk3uIqUEA8/v-deo.html
Ivanovo
ua-cam.com/video/nuATHsv0US0/v-deo.html
Tula
ua-cam.com/video/NB_5RQXOtNw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/rrKWdkttEz0/v-deo.html
Petrozavodsk
ua-cam.com/video/m1haPk3FyZg/v-deo.html
Krasnodar
ua-cam.com/video/1FnSAz3e6E0/v-deo.html
Kursk
ua-cam.com/video/l8dfpYCvbtc/v-deo.html
Ryazan
ua-cam.com/video/JgTQdopvxoM/v-deo.html
Tver
ua-cam.com/video/-iy0cmxtFHc/v-deo.html
Vladimir
ua-cam.com/video/TEov7X-vnkM/v-deo.html
Kazan
ua-cam.com/video/G8lK5g_AMe4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Owrqqlc-avI/v-deo.html
Volgograd (Stalingrad)
ua-cam.com/video/CtfA1blloks/v-deo.html
Kolomna
ua-cam.com/video/QuKiUg1w8xc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/spaW9cyFn24/v-deo.html
Ioshkar-Ola
ua-cam.com/video/4tpzu7vs_WQ/v-deo.html
Ekaterinburg
ua-cam.com/video/1OFp1NO-FW4/v-deo.html
Rostov-na-Donu
ua-cam.com/video/M0apxj0oRYM/v-deo.html
Orel
ua-cam.com/video/QeYX0K0QxEY/v-deo.html
Krasnoyarsk
ua-cam.com/video/US1jpbWwU1A/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/cdrGROvCT9M/v-deo.html
Yaroslavl
ua-cam.com/video/W5czGfY4D8U/v-deo.html
Saransk
ua-cam.com/video/jAG2T8swmvs/v-deo.html
Novosibirsk
ua-cam.com/video/m8zk_evi-W8/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/RQzguhmcB_A/v-deo.html
Omsk
ua-cam.com/video/bACyIWKcQug/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/oZAFGPExiA0/v-deo.html
Suzdal
ua-cam.com/video/9AdJ_JpK8r0/v-deo.html
Grozny
ua-cam.com/video/vdE1REzrRpc/v-deo.html
Tolyatti
ua-cam.com/video/3CZzFM3s3t4/v-deo.html
Piatygorsk
ua-cam.com/video/mCbpA5IlTHA/v-deo.html
Nizhny-Novgorod
ua-cam.com/video/llbLjduXutg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Dbe3iO27tkA/v-deo.html
Habarovsk
ua-cam.com/video/x-QQxoFrqUk/v-deo.html
Irkutsk
ua-cam.com/video/jhUpgQi4Yjw/v-deo.html
Orenburg
ua-cam.com/video/y_mTooO0Kco/v-deo.html
Cheliabinsk
ua-cam.com/video/6nVyXceKi0E/v-deo.html
Kaliningrad
ua-cam.com/video/n5khzHb9-O4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/IpslA3Cf6CM/v-deo.html
Murmansk
ua-cam.com/video/YolsD3_PiQA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/tn4K-9guNYI/v-deo.html
Zelenogradsk
ua-cam.com/video/pAp63diHzbo/v-deo.html
Sochi
ua-cam.com/video/u2mn3-x0Bec/v-deo.html
Sevastopol
ua-cam.com/video/Vn5FsKDxA4Y/v-deo.html
Yalta
ua-cam.com/video/ime3ZofmqYU/v-deo.html
Anapa
ua-cam.com/video/qB6nM-QbuKo/v-deo.html
Archangelsk
ua-cam.com/video/sX1To0fFrpQ/v-deo.html
Vladivostok
ua-cam.com/video/xK23RHXXlJ4/v-deo.html
Thank you for sharing this, but most of these cities look quite new.
@@BlitzOfTheReich and what ? I won't differentiate for you - where there is a modern, and where the medieval.
You will do this yourself. But there is a lot of medieval buildings.
@@Pilum1000 Statistically, there aren't many. Honestly.
@@BlitzOfTheReich it's means nothing in this subject :>
You only see churches and Castles. what is about the houses?
We have been inundated on what a castle really is. There are more (and many have been destroyed intentionally) castles in North America. They are all claimed to be built in1800's and 1900's, but is that even viable considering materials and logistical feats? America as far as antiquity is ignored because it does not fit the narrative. So much of our ancient buildings have been destroyed intentionally. Just look at what Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, and NY used to look at. That is not even the tip of the iceberg as the amount of towns and cities is astronomical! How is it that the same amount of towns and cities (America also has the largest cathedral in the world) as Europe? if America is new? Perhaps Russia does not have old buildings simply because it does not have as ancient of a history as Europe or America. And for all those who say America is not ancient, please provide me an explanation for all logistical feats required to build 48 capital buildings and all cathedrals in the entire continent, plus the largest railroad network on earth in a matter of a few short decades, while simultaneously being plagued by war after war after war? What we now call capital buildings, almost always made of solid marble and granite stone, are actually castles. The NY state capital contains a staircase right out of the pages of harry potter. And we have not even gotten to the tens of thousands of buildings controlled by universities. The library at Michigan state in mind boggling! The library once in Cincinatti where my family lived prior to be forced to leave during extreme low Deutsch hatred in the early 1910's, was INCREDIBLE! Most are not aware that Army Corp of Engineers is older than the constitution and responsible for all kinds of abhorrent demolitions to simply hide Americas true history. Many golf courses in America (like Jackson park in Chicago) were once home to the most incredibly intrigue architectural marvels the world has ever seen. North America was once home to innumerable crystal palaces. All demolished or destroyed under mysterious circumstances. We truly live in the rubble and scrap of the old world. BTW can anyone provide me with a more strategic location for a city, than Chicago? Surrounded by more resources? Anyone? That city is ancient. Very ancient.
Great video but not accurate. Feudal system did exist but was differently structured and evolved around seniority and Great Knyazj title rotating withing Ruricid dynasty (arguably this brought about the downfall). Kiev did have many stone buildings and churches most of which were destroyed by Mongols and many that have remained were blown up by communists, nevertheless some 10 century cathedrals still stand. Finally, most of the principalities that are located in Ukraine do have few dozen castles that survived until our days and so did Kremlins and monastery fortresses in Russia. Constant warfare should also not be discounted - look up how many times Mongols sacked and burned Moscow for example.
"were blown up by communists, Mongols sacked and burned Moscow for example." - not just a Mongols only, and of course not a communists - but also Napoleon, Hitler and germans nazy in WWII, etc etc :>
Most peasants in the Kievan period were free peasants. Feudalism was extremely weak in that period. Europe also suffered form constant warfare.
@@BlitzOfTheReich the nonsense. Whoever was nominally as "free" there and where for some time, they still fulfilled the feudal laws and edicts, paid tribute, etc. - paid for the feudal lords - who ruled everywhere. It was feudalism from beginning to end - with the entire feudal ladder of rulers.
Middle Ages = feudalism.
@@BlitzOfTheReich "Europe also suffered form constant warfare." - Are a wars and the WARS.
@@Pilum1000 you obviously don't know what feudalism actually is if you simplify it like that. Many Russian peasants weren't tenants.
A. M. Petrov makes the perfectly justified remark: “The fact that the Westerners used precious metals in order to pay the Oriental traders testifies to the poverty of the former, and can by no means be regarded as a sign of wealth” ([653], page 65). Westerners were doing everything they could in order to stop the constant flow of their gold and silver to the Orient. They still had to part with whole ships of gold, qv above. However, the loading of such ships implied economy of every penny: “There were bans and restrictions concerning the export of coinage and bullion, a taboo for silk clothing etc.
However, the effects were minimal. One needed goods in order to alter the passive nature of such trade, yet Europe was hardly capable of offering anything - the items made by its craftsmen were coarse, and their quality, very low; there was no demand for them in the Orient, which could satisfy its own needs all by itself” ([653], page 62).
Such unilateral trade might be one of the reasons why the mediaeval West had ended up in a dire economical situation, which prevailed for a long time.
“Lucan [an “ancient” author - apparently, a writer of the XV-XVI century A. D. - Auth.] describes a typical Roman consul of the epoch as follows: ‘He is covered in mud, and barely managed to leave his Etruscan plough’” ([653], pages 65-66).
According to A. M. Petrov, “Western Europe in the early Middle Ages, needed to curb its trade with Asia dramatically due to the pitiful state of its resources, which can only be described as beggarly, if we’re to call a spade a spade . . . V. Zombart emphasises the following circumstance as he describes the underdevelopment of the European society in that epoch: “The enormous empire of the Frankish king [in the XIV-XVI century, as we realise today - Auth.] didn’t have so much as a single city - there was no urban life at all”. I. M. Kulisher, also an authority on the history of the Western Europe in the Middle Ages, gives us the following characteristic: a European’s needs were limited to “simple and rough food and a primitive place of residence, complemented with a few basic garments and utensils resembling . . . those used by the savage nations in their simplicity. Landowners, up to the dukes and the kings, weren’t much better off” ([653], page 66).
A. M. Petrov continues: “The West shall eventually make a tremendous effort in order to eliminate this supremacy via the scientific and industrial revolution, an enormous interconnected system of inventions and the introduction of principally novel industries - but for the meantime, the mediaeval Western European society was hardly capable of finding any products that would be of interest to the Orient at all - rough materials for the most part: some copper, some tin, a few other metals; some Asian goods were procured from the Middle Eastern rulers in exchange for ship timber . . .
The discovery of America and the influx of gold and silver therefrom made it somewhat easier for the Europeans to pay for their Oriental imports” ([653], page 68).
The claim that European craftsmanship was poor is just total nonsense, with zero citations or concrete examples.
@@triplehmafia6556 Is that why you proceed to offer no evidence of your own? Its just logical that in a small, poor, sparsely populated land with no real unity and devoid of natural ressources where these very fragmented feudal states were often fighting against each other with an ill educated population and very little urban life that they would not be able to produce anything valuable this was the situation in Western Europe until the beginning of the industrial revolution albeit with slight improvements. Archeologically speaking the first examples of metal smelting especially copper, bronze and Iron, horse riding, pottery and many other objects were all found in Eastern Europe/Russia more specifically in the Vinca culture, Corded ware culture, Mikhaylovka culture among others.
@@scythian-rus5421 The burden of proof lays on you if you're going to make these ultra contrarian takes, honestly. Citing a source who himself makes a bullshit claim without citing evidence.
Why should I have to do the legwork to prove something that's already common knowledge? It's not my job to do your research for you, and even the most rudimentary study would prove you wrong. Show me an example of Chinese armour that even compares to European fully articulated plate armour sets in terms of mobility and protection (I don't know what Hollywood bullshit you've been consuming, but Knights could sprint, jump, mount horses with ease.) Show me a Chinese firearm not derived from a European-make that even compares to what we ultimately developed from their technology.
Easterners were lining up to purchase our firearms, our breastplates, when they were avaliable, there are examples of samurai armour sets utilising Spanish breastplates, they can be found with a simple Google search. More firearms were being used in Japan during the Sengoku Jidai than anywhere else in the world at the time, firearms revolutionised Eastern warfare, see: Japan's invasion of Korea, where Korean contemporary sources outright say that firearms gave the Japanese a significant edge. Most styles of Chinese dao were slowly replaced with thick, heavy, falchion-like dadaos and oxtail designs once our guns made their armour totally obsolete.
A roman consul being covered in dirt shouldn't even be dignified with a response, honestly. Romans bathed, they had bath houses.
Do I need to cite some academic source to prove they knew how to bathe? Even animals understand the value of cleanliness and hygiene, humans, no matter how backwards always have, any claim to the contrary is propaganda.
Oh, wow, of course, at no point were Russia, China, Japan, or Korea, in a state of fuedalism or infighting. Sure. I can tell you're not a serious person.
@@triplehmafia6556 You didnt originally have firearms, plate armor or advanced metalworks or the capabilities to produce them you imported them from the Mongolian empire a.k.a Russia, Ottoman empire and the territories they conquered in Asia the manufacturing of advanced firearms was well known and reputated in all parts of the empire especially Russia, India, Turkey, furthermore I never said you had plate armor or anything like that you coudnt manufacture them because you lacked the ressources, education and capability to do it and had to import it, your official history version which was written by the Vatican, Germans, and West exclusevily and they largely distorted the history of the world against to suit themselves thus the quote from the Roman consul which was pushed back to a point of history so that people would not suspect that it actually applied to medeival Europe, the Japanese received firearms from the Mongolian empire before you Westerners even discovered them and I didnt say that the Russians, Turks and Easterners didnt have infighting I just said you had it at a much much much higher level then they did given how small, poor and backward your feudal states were getting into wars and killing each other for the stupidest reasons.
@@triplehmafia6556 Also its common knowledge that Westerners rarely bathed even Peter the Great a pro-Western monarch testified to this when he visited the French king and the reason is that Westerners did not have enough wood to burn to heat up water it was a luxury, so if you did not have enough wood then you coudnt generate enough energy which obviously means you did not have advanced metalworks to manufacture weapons, armor and guns of significant quantity, quality and effciciency since it was an energy intensive process.
Well actually Russia does have a lot old building the churches ⛪️ and mosques 🕌 are thousand of years old the kremlin and red square were built in the 1500s most houses and buildings are old.
it's all relative. Compared to Western Europe, it doesn't. I provided proof with the housing stock.
By simply watching the thumbnail everybody knows
Old kievenrus had no western influence until Petergreat Russia lived as a seperate culture having their own customs,beleif,dress code,taboos and norms and were under the kingship like in Europe they were controlled by boyars like Duke's in Europe
And Russia is blessed with immense forest wealth easy to construct and also easy to burn out when invasion struck their land
^ yes this is essentially my conclusion. Feudalism was very much a Western/Central European institution that encouraged stone masonry. Russia also had a lot of forests, but it is also much colder, so wood makes more sense.
This Video perhaps explained why there are no Castles in Russia although there are the Kremlins to mention as a more or less substitute of a Castle or Fortification. But it does certainly not explain why there are no historic buildings in Russia. Them being built out of wood doesn't mean anything quite frankly because most buildings in central europe that are old are built out of Wood. Russia had many more large cities in the past than moscow and saint petersburg with dense city centers built entirely as you correctly stated, out of wood. Yet nothing of that is intact anymore unlike the historic city centers in Europe with their timber frame buildings or the wooden cities in other parts of the world such as Japan, China, Tibet and so on.
European cities are a mix of wood and stone.
Slavs dont appear in history later on, thats German pseudo-historical falsification, Sanskrit which is the language of the Indo-Aryans is directly and closely related to Russian in fact it derives from it which is a language that was spoken 1500-2000 BC, they also share Slavic/Russian genetics of R1a haplogroup and many aspects of their language and culture is exaclty identical to the Russian/Slavic one, if anything its Germans that appear late and borrow everything from their neighbours, the Germans during history were confined to the Jastorf culture and it is defined as being poor, sparsely populated and backwards and shows a heavy influence from the Celts in Halstatt who trace their oldest ancestry to the Scythians who are the ancestors of the modern day Slavs/Russians.
Slavic languages are much more closely related to each other than Germanic or Latin languages. This kind of demonstrates my point.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Well technically Slavic/Russian languages are most closely related to Sanskrit out of all IE languages, Sanskrit is actually a derivative of old Russian which implies that all IE languages can be traced back to Russian.
Good and interesting question, maestro. Mb because there was:
-no 'Russia' during the medieval (476-1453 a.d.) time but just Kievan Rus and later on various principalities?
-Kievan Rus had plenty of fortresses but the most important one were turned into dust by the Mongols/Golden Horde.Only the monasteries were saved by them since Mongols cared about any religion. Therefore the stony Kremlins(Church+castle) were flourishing during that time until now.
-are you kidding about 'energy saving timber' and etc? Those places were just poor after the shifting of power center from Kyiv to Sarai Batu(Astrakhan-the Khans simply did not need any fortresses there) plus each prince supposed to pay a tribute to their Golden Horde rulers.
But keep going, you have a nice videos!
When I say Russia, I mean 'why aren't there many old buildings within the boundaries of Russia'. It's never good to be pedantic.
Most of Kievan Rus's fortresses were wooden.Where is your proof that the Mongols decided to only spare the monasteries and nothing else?
No, I am not kidding about energy saving timber. The French when they first went to Quebec in the 16th century, they had the same problems. They tried building with stone and a ton of settlers died. It's blisteringly obvious that timber helps conserve heat.
Kievan Rus is a term coined in the 19th century by the Russian scientist Mikhail Maksimovich
Само название этого видео у меня, как у человека русского, живущего в России, вызывает определенные вопросы.
Например: "а какие именно даты автор видео считает входящими в Средневековье?"
@@BlitzOfTheReich
Не понял. Это значит до шестнадцатого века или после?
я тормоз, я знаю. У меня есть оправдание - я болею.
так вот, я просто кину список домонгольской русской архитектуры:
ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_древнерусских_архитектурных_сооружений_домонгольского_периода
на русском, потому что английская версия статьи неполная.
Список домонгольский, потому он не включает в себя произведения каменного зодчества более позднего периода.
Вот здесь - ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Русская_архитектура - список более полный. На русском языке, потому что опять же - английская версия статьи неполная и неточная.
Плюс есть ещё и статья, вновь же на русском языке, потому что английская версия неполная и неточная, о русской деревянной архитектуре, которая тоже временами выживает аж со времён раннего средневековья: ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Русское_деревянное_зодчество
@@Chibwannabe Sorry for just seeing this now. Yes, I mean before the 16th century. In my video I did mention the construction of stone churches in Kievan Rus but they are so few and far in between. The lists you have shown confirm this as western Europe has so many of these kinds of buildings, that 'lists' would be next to impossible. Germany has 25,000 castle ruins just by itself. The point (albeit hyperbolically) is not to say 'Russia has no history' (far from it), but rather to say why there are so few medieval buildings in Russia.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Ну сказал тоже - "в Германии 25 тысяч замков". При всем уважении, в Германии не было проблем с доступом к камню, Германия практически целиком является одной сплошной горной долиной со всех сторон окружённой горами. Тоже самое можно сказать про любое государство западной и восточной Европы.
А в России что? Откройте географический атлас, найдите на нем территории на которой располагались русские земли, найдите ближайшие к ним горы и рассчитайте расстояние от этих гор до, скажем, Смоленска, Новгорода или Владимиро-Суздальского княжества. Совершенно очевидно будет, что каменное зодчество на Руси будет распространено только на югах и в городах оооочень богатых. А дерево, несмотря на все свои совершенно великолепные свойства как строительного материала, не может похвастаться особой долговечностью, в отличие от камня. Потому и сохраняются на Руси храмы, да золотые ворота, и не сохраняются при этом замки и стены городов, ибо дерево очень редко когда может пережить хотя бы пару сотен лет.
Under the Tsars most folk lived in flimsy poor quality homes.
Hovels.
Khrushchev tower block power
Not much changed after the Tsars... they still live in poor quality boxy apartments.
What if mongol never invade kievan rus
the Ancient Rus' included central native part of Russia and Ukraine and Belorussia.
Actually roughly all older town and cities in Russia have fortresses and churches still intact and there is a world known as "Golden Ring". Oldest usually come from 13-th century. Even basically surfing European parts of Russia with Google maps with satilite filter will imidiately reveal big ammont of medieval buildings.
I am sorry but it is just not true. I gave statistics to prove my point. Those examples are exceptions. It's like saying the US is littered with native American buildings from the pre-Colombian period just because people can cite some monuments in Arizona. A ton of these monuments were either restored in later periods or are replicas. I am not saying Russia doesn't have old buildings, but it doesn't have medieval buildings (only very few). Come to France and you'll realize what I am talking about.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Lavra_of_St._Sergius
This is a good example of what I am talking about. The walls were replaced in the 16th century.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Then again I don't think most of the European buildings weren't ever reconstructed or had no later add-ons, especially the fortresses
@@user-bn1zd3us5l I get that, but I will give you an example of my town in France. The old Church was built in 1609 (it is largely intact). The other church is also from the 17th century. My own house is at least 200 years old (with minimal external changes). I live near several churches that are from the 14th century (largely intact) plus a castle called Larresingle that is largely intact from the 13th century. This video isn't trying to downgrade Russia, rather it is a sad explanation how so much Russian history is unnoticed precisely because it doesn't have many old buildings.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Not saying that you're downgrading Russia, still as I sayd, there are a lot of medieval buildings from XIII century plus all over European part of Russia. There are 17 fortresses and fortified monasteries in and outside Moscow only, or 8 in and outside Yaroslavl, 10 in and outside St. Petersburg, 6 in and around Pskov and so on. Many cities still have centers with whole blocks of living quorters from medieval era. Oldest come from late 1200-ts. The Golden Ring tour I've mentioned includes 26 towns and it's a pretty brief one.
Soviet housing blocks aren't depressing if you traded a hut for them
A box is better than the cold hard concrete
@@BlitzOfTheReich Concrete is love, reinforcement bars are life
@@BabyGreen162 freeeeedom
I see the soviet comrades are here today. Welcome to our empire.
...I am reading Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak... And in 1905, just before the UPRISING, the year starts with STRIKES by the Railway Workers... And in Moscow there are numerous FIRES for months... Why so many fires!... The buildings were made of WOOD!...
bingo, we got a winner! I want to read Doctor Zhivago so much.
The buildings were 19th century wooden buildings. Historic photos of moscow show no medieval substance at all.
kieven rus is all rus countries (belarus, russia, novorossiya and malorossiya) (novorossiya and malorossiya being ukraine)
yes bingo.
The reasons why Russia lost so much of their old architecture is because the Soviets destroyed most of them especially their best ones including their Churches.
it doesn't explain it all.
uh... Kremlin is the biggest intact medieval castle in Europe bruh
Kremlin is a rennaisance era building
The reason is much simpler, the rus, on its territory, did not have large quarries, did not have a climate for the production of food in the same quantity and quality as at least northern France (which means that the medieval economy was weak and the population in the same area as Europe was several times smaller), there were big problems with the metal, since there were no deposits, a significant part was low-quality swamp metal. That is, the territory simply did not allow massive stone construction.
I have already dispelled the myth that Russia doesn't have stone. It is, to my knowledge, one of the largest exporters of marble and stone in the world. Kievan Rus was way too big a territory to generalize its landscape. The central zone around Moscow did provide quite fertile land.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Are you seriously comparing the fertility of the Moscow region with the warmer climate of Western Europe? I think it's enough to ask any agronomist(By the way, this is me, we studied the history of agriculture in Russian and Rus) to compare this, I do not argue that the medieval climatic optimum greatly helped the Slavs to populate Rus, but at that time the level of soil cultivation technologies was extremely low. The fact that Russia now and the former Soviet republics that were part of Russia have their own quarries is the result of investments in this industry and the seizure of territories in the past that had the opportunity to develop cost-effective stone quarries, in the early period of Russia there were no prerequisites for the development of this, since there was much less money than in Europe for the same area. Because of this, stone construction also its specialists appeared only with the development of Christianity from Byzantium. you did not destroy the myth that there is no stone in Russia, this myth did not exist. You do not understand the real reasons for the lack of mass stone construction.
@@DVXDemetrivs I'm sorry to say but Western Europe was not much richer than Russia at the time. Both regions had comparable GDPs per capita. I was just pointing out that the coniferous forest belt around Moscow was quite fertile. Not as fertile as Western Europe, but it was still fertile enough. Also, Ukraine was very fertile with rich black soil. I was a farmer and have an aunt that is an agronomist (phd) so I can ask her, but I doubt that I will receive such a different answer. And yes Russia did not develop those quarriers until later, but that doesn't necessarily correlate to a lack of technology. The technological gap in the period was not so stark, especially since Kievan Rus maintained such close economic ties to Byzantium (I mean, Kieva was even bigger than London at the time). Stating that the lack of stone dwellings was because of a lack of resources rather than an oversupply of wood is a bit of a stretch.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Well, this is the main reason why all professional historians in Russia think so, since, unlike other European countries, Russia depended on the climate extremely strongly until the middle of the 20th century, as its food economy, especially in the Middle Ages, when monetary exchange was very rare. Also, forests were not a very common place of settlement before the Mongol invasion. The population of Rus at that time was largely concentrated near the rivers, since it allowed them to be used as roads in winter (at this time, taxes were collected in peacetime through rivers). Moscow was able to become an important center only because at the time after the invasion of the Mongols it was very conveniently located, which made it possible to concentrate trade routes as it defeated other principalities that chose a very inconvenient time for an uprising against the golden horde or confrontation with Lithuania
@@DVXDemetrivs I take issue with this as most of the power was centered on Kiev and Western Russia which had climates akin to that part of Europe. You are absolutely right in saying that the economy was based on trade and the navigable rivers, but to say that they avoided forests is just not true. Forests were frequently utilized especially as nomadic attacks became more prominent. Moscow also became the center because, again, it was situated in an unusually fertile area in the north that was also well protected. Also please back that statement up saying that all professional historians in Russia think so.
It is just a mess of facts with wrong conclusions.
Pravover how?
@@BlitzOfTheReich "How" what?
@@Pravover how is this a mess of facts with wrong conclusions?
@@BlitzOfTheReich A lot of... For example - a lumber was a main construction material in Russia, coz lot of wood... But how you did add feudalism and serfdom to it??? It is just no sense.
@@Pravover because feudalism is tied to the construction of stone fortifications like Castles.
Backwardness 80% of the population were land based serfs or peasants right upto the revolution. Although Russia is a beautiful country with many historical buildings. The golden horde Teutonic Knights and of course the German forces in both world wars wrecked everything. Ben rich when he went to Minsk Belarus. The whole city had to be recreated after the war because it was completely demolished by the Germans and most of the indigenous population either murdered or deported as slave labour.
But between these destructions layed 100s of years of reconstruction. Where is that gone? Where is the muscovite era architecture? Where is everything from the 18th and esp. 17th century? All we can see is 19th century and i do not mean churches and kremlins i mean regular residential buildings like the centuries old wooden buildings and city centers in other parts of the world.
What happened to the empire of tartaria
...you didn't mention a key word when talking about PEASANTS... KRESTIANE (?)... That is the word for PEASANTS in Russian... It comes from the fact that they were the SALVES that worked in the LATIFUNDIA owned by the Russian Orthodox Church...
I recently read And Gentle Flows the Don by Mikhail Sholokhov... and you could see that everybody puts down the PEASANTS... Including by those that were PEASANTS... Like the Cossacks!...
Te gusta esos vídeos de "Rusas opinan de (chicos) latinos" y eso??? ¿cúal es tu opinión?
¿De qué videos estás hablando? Nunca los he visto, pero tal vez sea porque veo la mayoría de los videos en UA-cam en inglés.
@@BlitzOfTheReich buscas "Ukrainian marry a latino" Aqui y encontrarás videos sobre Ucranianas y Latinos. Pero en Español hay MUCHOS vídeos sobre lo que te digo.
@@diegoragot655 ah ok lo buscare luego.
Ya sure is that why the poor Scandinavians called Russia GARDARIKI which means KINGDOM OF CASTLE CITIES, up until the 16th century everyone in Western Europe were talking abou the wealth of the Russian kingdom and archeology proves that it had 150-200 cities larger and more developed then in Western Europe, Western Europe at the time only had 7 cities that could match the size of the largest Russian cities and they were smaller, worse managed and more subject to disease.
Yes, but the point is most of their structures were wooden.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Well wood as a building material was used to an extent in most structures of the time, most structures had at least 50% wood (especially in Northern Europe and Western Europe during medeival era imported most of its wood from Russia), since wood had a high insulation effect and since it was abundant in the forested regions of Eastern Europe and Russia then it was a preferred building material especially because of the cold winter months in the North (the people and cossacks in the south used wattle and daub more often because it was warmer region), in Western Europe they did not build their structures out of stone it was mostly reserved for the rich and the nobility. In fact Western Europeans during most of the medeival period used wattle and daub and a much inferior version of it made out of mud, dirt and dung to compensate for their lack of wood and in the lower medeival ages the situation was even worse and they built their homes out of even simpler materials like straw, further their cities were more unhiegienic, smaller and built closer together which actually caused fires to be more frequent in their respectve cities which were not many as compared to the Russian kingdom (Mongolian empire as it was refered to by foreigners), the use of stone was also more frequent in Russia then Western Europe, the castles (kremlin) , the fortresses, important buildings, churches and certain housing complexes were built with the use of stone. The situation started improving when Western Europe started extracting heavy wealth from its colonies so 17th-19th centuries to be precise.
@@scythian-rus5421 Yet the confusing thing is: Western european cities are still intact with their wooden buildings from the 15th century and upwards, while Russian cities have 0 none buildings before 19th century that are not churches or kremlins or any such, and especially no wooden buildings from before the 19th century that are not churches.
@@rabbijacoobbenjaminisraelb7095 Most of their wooden buildings have been destroyed and during the medeival era their buildings were not made out of wood all of them that is because there was simply not enough of the ressource available on their land, alot of their houses were made out of straw and an inferior version of wattle and daub, in Russia there are still wooden buildings in many Russian villages and structures that have remained intact but most of the low quality housing in Western Europe since before the 16th century is not there anymore the wattle and daub that populates certain regions of their cities today was not necessarily made with the same material as in the modern period and was probably the housing of noble or feudal lords, plus alot of cities that were built in Western Europe especially Germanic countries was due to the Slavonic tribes in the region such cities as Berlin, Rostock, Lubeck, Hedeby, Birka, Stockholm (due to migration of Slavic peoples because of Teutonic crusades), Vannes etc...
Bruh this mf has to be a russian bot aint no way 🤣🤣
Stop with ur russian propaganda, western europe smokes eastern europe since 1000 AD
The west smoked the biggest eastern city in 1204 with such ease imagine what if they were interested in the backward eastern european land like rus who couldnt even make stone castles and had their capital defended by wood walls 😂😂No wonder why the mongols stopped and poland and hungary why rus was smoked once again.
Russia does have medieval buildings they have castles
look at my previous comments.
You kinda wrong, in general:
1. Mediaval Russia, while being more town-centric land (state early, but then begin fragmentaition) was still feudal, at least partially. But! Thic forest and whide swamp not only good protection, but also shitty road. So stone is hard to obtain material, this is most of small castles are wooden. After all - if forest all around you, its wise to build from wood. And wooden architecture is very developed in Russia in every time period.
2. While smaller fortifications are wooden, many cities have good stone walls. And pre-mongolic Russia have alot of towns. Its called Gardariki - "the realm of towns" for a reason.
3. Its called pre-MONGOLIC for a reason. Yes, many towns of this time was destroyed by mongols, and architecture skills was declined for a time.
4. But Russia still have many castles and stone structures. Its just western people doesnt know much about them. For example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_castles_in_Russia
5. Its still few compared to Western Europe, even if we include Ukraine and Beluris. But again, here the reason - after mongol invasion, feudal system in Russia was in decline. Simply cuz Russian states, being in constant treat of internal or external agression become more and more centralised (small castles are weak defence vs constant raids), and even mongols want them to be more centralise - feudal society is very hard to tax efficiently and mongols wanted russian moneys and goods. With centralised states they have ruler responsible for collecting tributes and taxes. Its much easier to leave tax collection for him, instead of coming by themself to every of thousand castles to collect the pay.
P.S. Pardon for poor English.
Several issues with your response.
1. Medieval Russia was not feudal at all. Most of its economy was based on markets and tribute given the early history of the Varangians. Most peasants were free peasants and there weren't hierarchical contracts like in Western Europe. I've already shown that Russia has a pretty good supply of stone through another post, so this point is moot. Also, then why did Russian towns that were not wooden develop so late?
2. Mentioning Gardariki doesn't mean anything. Most cities had lots of wooden fortifications. I cited direct evidence of this when I mentioned the proliferation of wooden Churches in Kyiv.
3. Sure, but other European countries have been subjected to war and still have older buildings from the time. Also, places like Novgorod escaped Mongol destruction.
4. I know that list. Most of those fortifications are located on former Teutonic and Livonian territories, which were countries that were more Feudal and Western. Most of the Castles in that list are in Pskov, Kaliningrad, or in Leningrad oblast. These areas had more proximity to powers like Sweden, Livonia, Polish-Lithuania, or the Teutons.
5. Again look at the contracts and you will see Kievan Rus was barely feudal to begin with.
@@BlitzOfTheReich 1. "given the early history of the Varangians" You mean 11-16 century that im talking about? Or you think that varangians exist in 13 century then mongols came?
And google Russkaya Pravda (where among over things indicated what "free" peasants must do on the land of feudal and how you can by some "free" people) for the god sake, you have no clue about russian history. Seems that words like Smerd, Zakup and Holop ring no bells for you.
2. Most major cities and many castles have stone walls. Google Novgorod Kreml, Izbor castle, Porohovskaya castle, etc. They all made from stone.
3. "subjected to war"? Did you even understand how severe was mongol invasions? In Russia 40% of major cities was completely destroyed, in russian history exist "coinless period" where russian states stop making money. Right after mongol invasion, yeah. Google how severe was mongol invasion in Rus, Khwarazmian Empire and China. Google death toll. So yeah, it was not just simple war.
4. They still stay cuz they was not destroyed by mongols. Unlike eastern and southern cities like Mstislavl - completely destroyed city with stone walls. One of many in Vladimir-Suzdalian knyazhestvo cities and castles that was completely destroyed by mongols.
5. Again, look at actual sources like Russkaya Pravda (its obvious that you didnt read it).
Its actually always amuse me how people try to analyse russian history without even open single work of russian historian.
@@Chikanuk
1. I am stating the pre 11th century. Varangians set up the tributary and market-based system which their successors incorporated. Furthermore, the area was riddled with nomadic tribes that influenced the Rus to a degree. And I get it, you think just because you are Russian that you know more than me when you stated something that was historically incorrect. Even Ukrainian historical pages disagree with your assessment. Your logic is literally 'it's European so it's feudalistic'. The smerd were partially free and the ruling class were the Druzhina who weren't landowners like lords and barons of Western Europe. You can act arrogant and rude and throw out names acting like I don't understand them but facts are facts. www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CF%5CE%5CFeudalism.htm#:~:text=The%20Kyivan%20Rus'%20state%20was,%2C%20military%20loot%2C%20and%20tribute.
2. The places you have mentioned are all post-Kievan buildings.
3. Again you are purposefully ignoring Novgorod just to confirm your bias. The 30 years war killed 30% of Poland and Germany, yet they still have castles. You are not exceptional.
4. Provide sources? Again, In the video I mention that stone edifices existed, BUT the point was that they were very few compared to the West.
5. that still doesn't mean Rus was feudal especially if this wasn't the case for the majority.
"Nevertheless, in spite of many similarities, there were also significant structural differences between Rus’-Ukraine of the appanage period and feudal Western Europe. In Rus’ there were no formal contractual ties between prince and boyar. The landed estates of the boyars were not conditional fiefs, but allodial property (votchyny). Neither was there a hierarchy of noble titles. "
Think McFly before trying to be a smartass.
@@Chikanuk Like you act like you know so much but ignore all the local assemblies that towns had that completely did not exist in Western Europe. We might as well call the Mayans feudal.
"While the sociopolitical structure of pre-Mongol Rus’-Ukraine can be called ‘feudal’ only with reservations, a full-fledged feudalism is to be found in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (often referred to as the Lithuanian-Ruthenian state by historians), to which the majority of Ukrainian lands belonged from the middle of the 14th century to 1569."
@@BlitzOfTheReich So you still operate with google as you main surce of knowelege? No wonder why you made so many mistakes. Yes, full-fledged feudalism form in Russia later, than in Western Europe. But not so much later, its already exist in 14 century - 1327, Ivan Kalita`s duhovnaya gramota. Another example with google translate: -"By the end of the XIV century, 2 forms of private land ownership had developed in appanage Russia: 1. Patrimony (European analogue-allod): when the land was in the unconditional ownership of the owner. Its source was: capture, awards from the prince, purchase and exchange. The owners were appanage princes and boyars. 2. The estate (European analogue-benifitsy): the land was transferred by a higher-ranking feudal lord to conditional possession for service without the right of alienation" Baklanov.
Earilier, while not 100% feudalism - it was still feudal system. Most major difference - it Russia it was not peasants, but slaves. Yes slaves, you was completely wrong about "free people" and stuff.
And yes, russian feudalism was more "eastern" with powerful cental autority. But this not change the point - feudalism is still feudalism.
tl;dr - Early Russian feudalims was different cuz it have slaves instead of peasants and later it was slightly different cuz state was more centrilised.
8:20 That's a bit of a misleading figure if it takes into account all of Russia. Like no one lives in siberia so who cares what the temperature there is.
That it is, but Western Russia is still a hell of a lot colder than most of Europe. the temperature differentials are still too great. Also, most of Siberia was occupied by Russia by the 17th century, so that's still a long time ago.
There are medieval buildings in Russia but only churches, and Fortifications, and the rest builds was made of wood. There are medieval buildings in Pskov, in Suzdal, in Vladimir, in Nizhny and Veliky Novgorod, Smolensk and ect.
Of course there are medieval buildings, but they are so few.
Seems like your knowledge about Russia is based on the very book you are promoting. Don't have a clue about the content of the book, but guessing after watching the video, the book is severelty misleading.
First of all, there were stone buildings and strongholds in Russia dating back to 9-10 century. But due to harsh climate conditions and lack of material, the stone used was aging faster requiring a lot more effort to keep it reliable then using wood. Keep in mind, that Rurik and his dynasty didn't form the country, they came by the invitation to already established country known to scandinavians as "Garðaríki", country of cities, some of which were bigger then European ones as you mention yourself. Russia was typical European country of that time with just a bit more wood and less stone. A typical European country with it's royalty deeply mixed with European one to the level of Anne de Russie (Anna Yaroslavovna) being Queen of France in 11th century.
But then came the Golden Horde. Basically, Russia stopped their conquest of Europe being some kind of an always biting slave, which was frequently punished for it's actions by total destruction from 13th to 15th century. Unlike European internal conflicts that were decided mostly in field army on army battles, Russia had enemies from the East that were attacking population enslaving it and burning cities to the ground.
When Horde was defeated, Russia started to recover. Mostly, oldest remaining buildings come from that time. Italian brick technology was used to build castles, churches and other buildings most famous being Moscow Kremlin, St. Basel Cathedral and so on. Russia once again looked like typical European country of that time, but with more wood and less pantyhouse, keeping traditional clothing. But then, soon after Ivan the Terrible's death came the "Sutnoye Vremia" and invasion of Poles with the Pope itself approval. Basically, everything that was achieved during a century without a Horde's yoke was destroyed during that war (about 2/3 of population, villages, cities).
But then came the Romanovs. Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Alexander, Nikolai and so on. During the Romanovs rule Russia basically became one of the superpowers of the world. Saying that there was feudalism in a form of clild slavery is deeply ignorant, since Russia adopted European form of social relations typical to that time and in a lot softer form. Basically, since the very beginning there was no slavery in Russia. Russia was fighting Ottomans, Horde, Crimean states and others who were literally capturing and sellling Russians as slaves. Russian Empire came to the start of 20th century as typical European country with big cities, which happenned to have more greenery and wider roads, since they didn't have to rely on small footprint of citadel walls aka typical old city since during the rule of Catherine most of city centers were reconstructed. Also, Russia was the biggest exporter of grain with about 2/3 of horses of the world being owned by villagers, so they [villages] looked more like american farms with a lot more free space, instead of condensed housing. So saying that everyone poorly lived in the woods is absolute bs.
But then came the 20th century and communits. They literally hated everything about Russia. Just after they came to power they started to destroy monuments, robbing churches and even houses of ordinary middle class population. For example, Napoleons attempt to destroy Moscow Kremlin made 3 times less harm then communists. They literally demolished like 70% of it's buildings and they didn't end there. They invited crazy European architects like le corbusier who proposed complete demolishion of ALL historical city centers in order to build perfect (in his mind) cities. His ideas were partly implemented in communist city planning. As if it was not enough, communists destroyed the very way of country life by implementing "colhoz" aka collective farming. Villagers didn't even get passports almost till 80s.
But then came Second World War. Germans bombed cities so hard that some were to be rebuilt from a scratch. By the way, most of Polish and Baltic cities had a privelege of restoring their historic city centers. Most of Russian cities were left with empty squares.
As if war was not enough, communits implemented "the program of unperspective villages" which resulted in destrucion of 300+ thousand small cities and villages.
And then came the 90s, during which Russia had severe economic disasters as a result of "effective" communist rule during which it was ok to sell a 300+ year old building in a city center in order to build some "modern" office building. So if comminists somehow saved a tiny percentage of historical architecture, there were no money and will to do something to preserve it in 90s and most of 2000s.
So there we have it. From prospering Empire with likes of Siemens family working and living here thtough 100 years of torture to 2% of Moscow building are 40+ years old. Thank Carl Marx for this atrocity.
Stone buildings did exist in Russia (I stated this), but they were few and far between. Many of the Russian towns that were destroyed by the Germans were wooden, which is why they had issues hiding from Russian artillery since the houses had no basements. This video uses more sources than just 1 book.
@@BlitzOfTheReich
"Stone buildings did exist in Russia (I stated this), but they were few and far between" - what's the difinition of many to given period of time and location?
"Russian towns that were destroyed by the Germans were wooden, which is why they had issues hiding from Russian artillery since the houses had no basements." - this is as far from the truth as you could get.
"This video uses more sources than just 1 book." - but never feels like it.
Why is Russia still tied to the Kyiv Rus? Kyivan Rus and Russia are different.
I'm just fed up with the speculation about the similarity of the letters in the name of russia and Kyivan Rus. With this approach to Kyivan Rus, you can count the BoRUSsia Dortmund of German football club for example))
The fact that some cities of Kyivan Rus are now located on the territory of russia does not make russia tangential to Kyivan Rus.
For example, almost all the cities of Byzantium and even its capital Constantinople (now Istanbul) are located on the territory of modern Turkey, but Turkey does not become Byzantium because of this. Turks respect themselves and cherish their history and do not need to appropriate someone else's, unlike some...
Ukraine has been under russian occupation for the past two centuries. And the scientists of the world looked at Ukraine and its history through the prism / optic of russia, because they studied the Russian language, read Russian books, communicated with Russian scientists, etc. All this must be revised, because history is seriously distorted.
So, if russia had no relation to Kyivan Rus and developed much later on the basis of local tribes, then this is one of the answers - why they do not have fortresses.
This is the most ridiculous premise I have ever heard. I am sure it is because of the war. In the middle ages there was no Ukraine, no Russia, no Belarus. There was no sense of Russian identity and even then Kievan Rus had a pretty weak ethnic identity. That being said, to say that there is no link between Russia and Kievan Rus is almost as bad as saying that Ukraine isn't a real country. It is false. The alleged descendants of the Riurikid still ruled from Moscow.
@@BlitzOfTheReich I did not write anything about identity - this is your concept that you brought here and tried to cure me of what I did not write about, thank you)))
the way you write the name - Kievan Rus (this is a Russian transliteration) very well corresponds to what kind of researcher you are and whose optics you have.
As for the Rurik family, the real descendants went to the west of Ukraine. This is logical in the process of fighting the Mongols, who were moving from the east. In particular, this is Danylo Halytskyi, who was the great-grandson (three times) of Volodymyr Monomakh - he founded Lviv in honor of his son...
And to the east went a branch that could not even claim the throne of Kyiv, because there were mixed marriages with representatives of tribes hostile to Kyiv, and in the end they became vassals of the Mongols. These were not the Ruriks, they were not considered representatives of the dynasty at that time. The contemporary representatives of the dynasty did not consider them to be such.
@@krasche As I stated, I said the Muscovites were the alleged descendants as the Rurikid dynasty didn't really exist. If you are going to accuse me of being a Russian propagandist then please venture to a different channel. I use different spellings interchangeably.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Another piece of information to ponder. Did you know that Muscovites exterminated Novgorodians in the 13th century? Because there were still descendants of dynasties there, and of course they did not recognize Moscow at all.
and, for example, Danyla Halytskyi's father - Roman Mstislavovych, defended Novgorod with his troops from the encroachments of the Muscovites (the Volodymyr-Suzdal principality at that time).
And even in the 15th century. The people of Novgorod did not recognize the Muscovites, as a result of which Ivan the Terrible captured Novgorod and destroyed almost the entire local population
@@BlitzOfTheReich I think we should not have a dispute if we stand for the truth and we are interested in the real history.
thank you for your work
Another thing to point out is Russia industrialized much later compared to Europe. So Russia didn’t have that many big cities as most of it’s population was rural, so of course there are not as man historical buildings. That being said most Russian cities do have a historical district in the center of the city, but again because they were relatively small back in the day, these districts aren’t as extensive as in Western Europe.
You'd really be surprised as to the amount of historical rural buildings in France.
@@BlitzOfTheReich true, but as you said most older buildings in Russia are wooden which don’t last as long as stone. Also before the 1860s half the population were serfs so most Russians lived in very underwhelming housing that most people didn’t care about preserving so they all got razed down during Soviet times in the name of modernization and progress. That being said historical towns and villages still exist. www.google.com/amp/s/www.rbth.com/travel/331079-russian-beautiful-villages/amp
the nonsense. See above
@@greasher926, Of course, some historical towns exist, but overall, the proportion of older buildings in Russia is much much lower. I do not get the deal with people. I proved this with statistics presented in the video.
@@BlitzOfTheReich I think you misunderstood my original comment, I agree with your premise, I was just offering my 2cents on possible other reasons for the lack of historical buildings in Russia when compared to Western Europe.
You could talk about Russian kremlins and monasteries
of which there are very few.
The difference between Russia and Ukraine is essentially the difference between Boston and Virginia. That was told to me by a Russian.
I would make a joke about this, but I'll look away..
Russia has some of the world's most beautiful architecture! Much more beautiful than the bleak architectural landscape of Western Europe!
I am literally staring at a church from the 17th century from my kitchen.
Jon levi utube for true information
The kingdom of russia
The first Rus state was a Turkic khaganate: probably uncivilized Vikings took over this khaganate . Also you can look up Turkic Khazar khaganate, with Kyiv as one of its major cities …
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus'_Khaganate
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
C’mon man, what are you talking about? In Kyiv advanced people was making history for peasants far away abroad? Read some books first and get smarter
Clearly, you haven't actually listened to the video.
@@BlitzOfTheReich I bet, almost the whole video I looked at Ukrainian and Belarus lands but somehow you was trying talk about Russian history
@@bmf_2898 Please do not invoke nationalism into this video. I have already clarified my points to people. I even mention in the video how the old Rus had no ethnic identity, meaning they were not tied to any one group.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Im sorry, but there’s no nationalism in my words at all.
@@bmf_2898f it’s not nationalism, then it’s at least a falsehood.
Your claiming that Kevin’s rus’s history is unrelated to Russia, despite that not being true.
Maps of Kevin’s rus show it covering territory taken by modern Russia, yet you claim that it shows only the lands of Ukraine and Belarus. The one in the video even had Novgorod, which is beyond a shadow of a doubt Russian.
The actual reason. Last 100 years we (Russians) just don’t love our country and history 😢. Current and soviet government especially hate it. Soviet government doesn’t care about old buildings at all because they said that they will build better city and better buildings and also destroyed everything that they could. My the most loved case when Richard Nixon visited Russia. Current government just demolished entire block of old buildings right in front of Kremlin. The reason the said that buildings were to ugly and we couldn’t show it to president of USA…….And now we destroy so many old buildings per year. Don’t remember exact number something like a thousands pre war buildings. So that the main reason why we don’t have old buildings…. We just hate our country and don’t respect this amazing culture and history at all.
"No *medieval* building in Russia"? Really? This is not intended to be joke??
How about Moscow Kremlin, for example? If it is not a "castle" -- what is it??
Or, if the Moscow Kremlin is too easy -- how about other kremlins?
Novgorod, Pskov, Volokolamsk, Rostov, Astrakhan ... just to name a few. They are all "castles", BTW. )))
And this is really laughable!
@7:00 -- "... and so many Russian historical building come from this period..."
(Showing: Winter Palace, *Izmaylovo Kremlin*, Peterhof).
ROTFL! "Historic" Izmaylovo Kremlin -- was built is 1998-2005, just as attraction for foreign tourists.
The Moscow and Novgorod Kremlins were built in the 15th century. The Nizhny Novgorod Kremlin was built in the 16th century. The Astrakhan Kremlin was built in the late 16th century. Even then, these examples are so few. I implore you to visit a country like France, and you will understand why I made this video. My village has buildings that are already way older than those examples (the last example is of my village. That house is partially dated from the 14th century. Think about that. www.chateauxpourtous.fr/france-1-medieval-homes-houses-with-dungeon-for-sale-in-France-medieval-castles-ruins-for-sale.php
www.avendrealouer.fr/vente/astaffort-47/b-maison/3-pieces/loc-101-21291/fd-30847185.html
This whole thing is bs
please provide proof or move on? I provided sources and facts.
@@BlitzOfTheReich your sources are provided by people that are in war with Russia today, it was enough for me to hear slavic migration theory to know that the whole vid is bs. Try finding me one ancient source that is proving that slavic migration ever took place...
@@HagiaSophia916 Literally a 10th century treaty with Byzantium where many of the envoys from Rus were of Scandinavian origin? Or the Primary chronicles????
At least it has saint basils cathedral
What means "at least"?